If they're not doing evil deeds, then my steps for protection are overkill, but won't affect them much.
The classic: If they're not doing anything wrong, why should they care if they're being monitored?
I always have difficulties with that attitude for the simple reason that it is none of your business what two kids talk about--anymore than it is your business what two adults talk about.
I'm always reminded of an old friend of mine who had a problem when people spoke Spanish around him. Not because of some "English first" ideal, but because he was always convinced that they were talking about him. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. But the fact that they might be talking about him bothered him to no end.
Consider your daughter talking to her friend. They might be making plans to ditch authoritarian control this weekend and get in trouble. Or they might be talking about some cute boy. You won't know until you read the conversation. But because they might be making plans to get in trouble, you figure that it's okay for you to listen in.
Y'know, the CIA is hiring. Maybe you should consider a career change that would allow you to indulge your voyeuristic tendencies.
Yes, I have no problem with the concept that you are monitoring who your kids are talking to. But I would draw the line when you feel the need to eavesdrop on what is being said.
First, remember that a conversation involves two people. One of them is your responsibility. One of them is not. There may be information that your child receives which is none of your business.
Consider your child talking to her friend, "Becky." Becky mentions that her Mom has passed out from drinking. A week or so later, your child says that Becky's Mom will give them a ride home from the movies. Knowing that Becky's Mom may have a drinking problem, would you feel comfortable letting Becky's Mom drive your kid home? Becky mentions that she heard that "Martha" had sex with "Kevin." You always thought Martha was a pretty good kid and you've let your child hang out with Martha. Will you suddenly stop letting her do that because Martha might tell your daughter to start having sex? How will you explain to your child that she can't do this stuff anymore?
By the way, how are you going to do the eavesdropping when they start doing voice-chats?
Like I said, there's a fine line between "protecting your child" and voyeurism and monitoring what is being said crosses that line.
If the TV is there, it's a reasonable assumption to make that the rest of it will be too.
Not necessarily. You're thinking 42" big screen TV with surround-sound. I'm thinking, say, 9" screen like the TV my boss has in his office for when he works weekends but still wants to catch the broadcast game.
To watch ESPN, you need a TV, a cable or satellite tuner, a connection to the cable company or satellite company to provide the feed, and a wall outlet to provide power for the TV and cable or satellite tuner.
Now they probably used KDE because they didn't need to pay royalty to any company to show it.
They don't have to pay any company a royalty to show it. A company will usually pay them to show it.
That said, there are usually strings attached to that payment in regards to how much airtime the product gets, how the character uses it, etc. I'm more likely to believe that they couldn't find anybody who would be willing to say, "Yeah, we'll pay you big money to highlight our computers/operating systems as the choice for Internet Porn Purveyors!"
But the belief that Apple or Microsoft could somehow sue them for showing a Windows or Mac OS X desktop and not paying them money? Nope.
Brilliant! After all, there's absolutely no way these weapons would be traced back to the people who developed them! Why, pretty much everybody in the world would marvel at how a group of rebel fighters had somehow managed to refine uranium...
Really. Think about it.
By the way, last I knew, neither Iran nor Syria denies supplying weapons to Hezbollah. Their attitude is basically the same as America's: We can supply weapons to whoever we want to. Remember that America has supplied weapons to all sorts of "freedom fighters" around the world, as has various European nations.
I'll grant you that he hasn't done much recently--mostly voice work. He was Bigweld in Robots. His last movie was in 1995--Dracula: Dead and Loving It.
And all the other UFOs were, of course, flocks of geese and meteorological balloons and whatnot.
I thought it was swamp gas from a weather balloon trapped in a thermal pocket which reflected the light from Venus. Really. This guy in a black suit told me...
I've got to admit, that was one thing that interested me in a subscription service.
A Napster subscription could have been a competitor to an XM or Sirius subscription, had they marketed it that way. "Listen to all the music you like, not the music they like" sort of thing. Do your damndest to get it on portable players and interface them with cars. Do various podcasts for your subscribers, etc., and try to compete with the satellite companies.
That, I think, has some possibilities. But the subscription model as an alternative to buying music is a non-starter.
Kerry supporters were more likely to participate and complete an exit poll
That's amusing. Why could this be?
Bush supporters are ashamed of voting for Bush?
Bush supporters aren't smart enough to fill in the poll information?
Bush supporters don't waste their time filling out information for the liberal mainstream media?
Bush supporters don't carry writing utensils because they're carrying too many handguns?
I think that statement is interesting. "Kerry supporters were more likely to participate and complete an exit poll." Now how did they figure that out? They ask 100 people, "Who did you vote for?" 49 said "Kerry", 25 said "Bush" and, and 26 said "Fuck you" which means they voted for Bush?
[...] the GPL specifically allows redistribution so long as it's done without financial gain.
It does bring up a an interesting question in regards to "financial gain."
Okay, so I sing a copyrighted song in the shower. Nobody cares. I'm recorded in the shower singing this song. This recording is played for my housemates who all have a good laugh. Again, nobody cares.
Said recording is placed up on YouTube. YouTube is now, in theory, making money off of my singing this copyrighted song by placing an advertisement for T-Mobile on the same page. Suddenly, somebody cares. Why? Because someone is now making money from the copyrighted song being performed. And the owners of the copyright aren't making a dime.
So where does this "financial gain" line get drawn?
I remember there was a big deal because certain members of The Doors did not want their music used in commercials and other members did. Don't the copyright holders have a right to say how their music is used?
Look at Apple's last set of iPod updates. Brighter LEDs and new batteries (ie, things Apple doesn't develop). The only thing Apple added to the iPod was a search feature. Oh yeah--and now we get games (from an extra $1.99) from the 1990s (Tetris) instead of the 1970s (Breakout).
Compare that to the ability to wirelessly share music and tell me which one is more innovative?
Sorry. Microsoft just beat out Apple in the innovation department. Whether that will ultimately mean anything (Apple has been beating Microsoft for years but it hasn't made a big difference) is debatable.
This opera singer was performing the famous aria 'Vesti la Giubba.' When he finished, the audience jumped to their feet and yelled "Encore! Encore!" So he sang it again. Again, the audience jumped to their feet yelling, "Encore! Encore!" So he sang it again. And again. And again. In fact, he sang it eight times. Finally, he walked out on stage and spoke to the audience.
"I'm honored," he said, "that you have asked me to sing this aria again. This has to be milestone in operatic history. Not even the great Enrico Caruso was ever asked to sing 'Vesti la Giubba' eight times! So thank you all for this tremendous honor."
"However, my throat is beginning to hurt and we still have the rest of the opera to complete. So I ask--nay, I beg you. Please don't ask me to sing this aria one more time."
An audience member shouts out, "You'll sing it 'til you get it right!"
[...] which is also probably why so many fortune 500 companies are using it or are moving to active directory or migrating from notes/groupwise to exchange.
Well, the idea of this is that I call up the phone company and pretend to be you. Since you gave your employer bunches of confidential information as part of the hiring process, and your employer gave it to me, I'm sure that I can probably respond to any question that the phone company might use.
From what I understand, the phone company also now allows you to have a "password" that they will ask you for over the phone.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure those hostile nations will welcome their new refrigerator flinging overlords.
(I'm so sorry...)
Actually, this reminded me of Saddam Hussein's giant cannon. Great way to get around that whole "missile technology" issue.
:^)
Pretty soon, we'll add magnets to that list of armaments that are illegal to sell to certain places...
I always have difficulties with that attitude for the simple reason that it is none of your business what two kids talk about--anymore than it is your business what two adults talk about.
I'm always reminded of an old friend of mine who had a problem when people spoke Spanish around him. Not because of some "English first" ideal, but because he was always convinced that they were talking about him. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. But the fact that they might be talking about him bothered him to no end.
Consider your daughter talking to her friend. They might be making plans to ditch authoritarian control this weekend and get in trouble. Or they might be talking about some cute boy. You won't know until you read the conversation. But because they might be making plans to get in trouble, you figure that it's okay for you to listen in.
Y'know, the CIA is hiring. Maybe you should consider a career change that would allow you to indulge your voyeuristic tendencies.
Well, there is a fine line.
Yes, I have no problem with the concept that you are monitoring who your kids are talking to. But I would draw the line when you feel the need to eavesdrop on what is being said.
First, remember that a conversation involves two people. One of them is your responsibility. One of them is not. There may be information that your child receives which is none of your business.
Consider your child talking to her friend, "Becky." Becky mentions that her Mom has passed out from drinking. A week or so later, your child says that Becky's Mom will give them a ride home from the movies. Knowing that Becky's Mom may have a drinking problem, would you feel comfortable letting Becky's Mom drive your kid home? Becky mentions that she heard that "Martha" had sex with "Kevin." You always thought Martha was a pretty good kid and you've let your child hang out with Martha. Will you suddenly stop letting her do that because Martha might tell your daughter to start having sex? How will you explain to your child that she can't do this stuff anymore?
By the way, how are you going to do the eavesdropping when they start doing voice-chats?
Like I said, there's a fine line between "protecting your child" and voyeurism and monitoring what is being said crosses that line.
Sure did. How do you think I'm paying for the kid's college education? :^) :^) :^) :^)
(For those of you who are missing it, the above is intended as humor.)
To watch ESPN, you need a TV, a cable or satellite tuner, a connection to the cable company or satellite company to provide the feed, and a wall outlet to provide power for the TV and cable or satellite tuner.
That said, there are usually strings attached to that payment in regards to how much airtime the product gets, how the character uses it, etc. I'm more likely to believe that they couldn't find anybody who would be willing to say, "Yeah, we'll pay you big money to highlight our computers/operating systems as the choice for Internet Porn Purveyors!"
But the belief that Apple or Microsoft could somehow sue them for showing a Windows or Mac OS X desktop and not paying them money? Nope.
Most "product placement" is the same way. Yes, there's nothing stopping you from saying, "All the good guys use Macs, all the bad guys use Windows." But then don't expect Microsoft to give you any money or equipment.
Brilliant! After all, there's absolutely no way these weapons would be traced back to the people who developed them! Why, pretty much everybody in the world would marvel at how a group of rebel fighters had somehow managed to refine uranium...
Really. Think about it.
By the way, last I knew, neither Iran nor Syria denies supplying weapons to Hezbollah. Their attitude is basically the same as America's: We can supply weapons to whoever we want to. Remember that America has supplied weapons to all sorts of "freedom fighters" around the world, as has various European nations.
So your future hovercar can go anywhere an electric cord can go!
I'll grant you that he hasn't done much recently--mostly voice work. He was Bigweld in Robots. His last movie was in 1995--Dracula: Dead and Loving It.
I've got to admit, that was one thing that interested me in a subscription service.
A Napster subscription could have been a competitor to an XM or Sirius subscription, had they marketed it that way. "Listen to all the music you like, not the music they like" sort of thing. Do your damndest to get it on portable players and interface them with cars. Do various podcasts for your subscribers, etc., and try to compete with the satellite companies.
That, I think, has some possibilities. But the subscription model as an alternative to buying music is a non-starter.
- Bush supporters are ashamed of voting for Bush?
- Bush supporters aren't smart enough to fill in the poll information?
- Bush supporters don't waste their time filling out information for the liberal mainstream media?
- Bush supporters don't carry writing utensils because they're carrying too many handguns?
I think that statement is interesting. "Kerry supporters were more likely to participate and complete an exit poll." Now how did they figure that out? They ask 100 people, "Who did you vote for?" 49 said "Kerry", 25 said "Bush" and, and 26 said "Fuck you" which means they voted for Bush?I'm just being silly. Never mind...
Okay, so I sing a copyrighted song in the shower. Nobody cares. I'm recorded in the shower singing this song. This recording is played for my housemates who all have a good laugh. Again, nobody cares.
Said recording is placed up on YouTube. YouTube is now, in theory, making money off of my singing this copyrighted song by placing an advertisement for T-Mobile on the same page. Suddenly, somebody cares. Why? Because someone is now making money from the copyrighted song being performed. And the owners of the copyright aren't making a dime.
So where does this "financial gain" line get drawn?
I remember there was a big deal because certain members of The Doors did not want their music used in commercials and other members did. Don't the copyright holders have a right to say how their music is used?
Look at Apple's last set of iPod updates. Brighter LEDs and new batteries (ie, things Apple doesn't develop). The only thing Apple added to the iPod was a search feature. Oh yeah--and now we get games (from an extra $1.99) from the 1990s (Tetris) instead of the 1970s (Breakout).
Compare that to the ability to wirelessly share music and tell me which one is more innovative?
Sorry. Microsoft just beat out Apple in the innovation department. Whether that will ultimately mean anything (Apple has been beating Microsoft for years but it hasn't made a big difference) is debatable.
Maybe "Vote, Die, Respawn, Vote again?"
Sounds like M-m-m-Max Headroom.
Actually, this reminds me of an old joke:
This opera singer was performing the famous aria 'Vesti la Giubba.' When he finished, the audience jumped to their feet and yelled "Encore! Encore!" So he sang it again. Again, the audience jumped to their feet yelling, "Encore! Encore!" So he sang it again. And again. And again. In fact, he sang it eight times. Finally, he walked out on stage and spoke to the audience.
"I'm honored," he said, "that you have asked me to sing this aria again. This has to be milestone in operatic history. Not even the great Enrico Caruso was ever asked to sing 'Vesti la Giubba' eight times! So thank you all for this tremendous honor."
"However, my throat is beginning to hurt and we still have the rest of the opera to complete. So I ask--nay, I beg you. Please don't ask me to sing this aria one more time."
An audience member shouts out, "You'll sing it 'til you get it right!"
"Michigeners (Michigenites?)"
Meshungina.
Well, the idea of this is that I call up the phone company and pretend to be you. Since you gave your employer bunches of confidential information as part of the hiring process, and your employer gave it to me, I'm sure that I can probably respond to any question that the phone company might use.
From what I understand, the phone company also now allows you to have a "password" that they will ask you for over the phone.
The phone company isn't the villain here.
Damn right. Back in my day, we had to walk to the moon! Uphill! Both ways! :^)
(sorry. couldn't resist.
Actually, forget the blackjack.