*and to emphasize your point: How can your well thought-out comment score a 3 and a post labeled TROLL get a 5?*
Well, for a couple of reasons:
1) moderation is handed out sort of like a watery tart holding a rusty sword out of a lake at passerby.. IE.. not a solid form of government, but less dangerous than outright anarchy.
2) even trolls can moderate, provided the electron god smiles on them that day and they have a login.
3) some people exist to do NOTHING more than bitch about everyone else on the planet, and they do it with fair regularity.. stands to reason some people who can moderate share their feelings, and moderate them up for that.
*shrug*
I try to use MY moderation points well when I get them...
*you think having a gun will solve your problems? all a gun is gonna do is end up causing more trouble. You going to pull a gun on a cop that is giving you a hard time? You gonna pull a gun on someone who is robbing you? This isnt the wild west.*
On a cop, no, on someone robbing me? quite possibly, if htey have a knife.. I would also hope that if someone SAW me being robbed they would have the forethought to intervene, as I would for them. I FIRMLY believe that "an armed society is a polite society" I also believe the statistics that show that a higher weapon carry rate in a locality results in a lower crime rate.. you are not going to mug or attack someone if you think they might have a gun, its as simple as that.
*also, dont you think the bullies are people too? I'm sure they have their share of problems too. Now of course i think its wrong for them to pick on people and get away with it. My school must have been drasticaly different then yours. No matter who you were you got punished for what you did. We had our share of fights... even a stabbing but we never had groups of so called drug/jock kids.. who preyed on "geeks". *
I pretty firmly believe you have about 18 years to learn how to fit into society. I believe if at the end of that 18 years you have not yet figured out that beating up people and stealing things, and abusing people simply because they are different is wrong, you dont belong in society. Telling me that "bullys have rights too" is absolutely barking into the wind.. I dont believe it now, and I didnt believe it then. I firmly believe you have the right to THINK what you want, and to a large extent SAY what you want (yelling fire in a movie theatre is an example of a non-covered event) but your right to free ANYTHING ends at the tip of my nose. Once your "rights" to be a punk interfere with MY rights to go about my life in an orderly manner, you give up those rights.
*But hate just carrys more hate. It is much better to forgive and understand.*
I have not even thought about the *specific* people who did this in years, so its not a "forgive and understand" thing.. but Im not about to forgive the punks who broke my windsheild last week, or stole the stereo out of my car last month.. that is, to me, unforgiveable, if you want something, work for it, as I did, rather than take it away from me. I think until people begin to stand up FIRMLY (and possibly lethally) for their right NOT to be abused, it will continue, and THAT is the root of the problem.
Im not saying guns solve everything.. its much more of a mindset issue.. you are far less likely to get mugged if you look like you are confident and sure of yourself than if you are furtive and touristy, but I really TRULY believe there are people in this world who exist ONLY to cause pain to others, and frankly, the world would be better off without them.
THis is my opinion.. but Im entitled to it, as you are yours.
*The thing is, when i was in high school, i never saw a geek being beaten up. The only time i saw people being pushed into lockers was the Wonder Years. Now i did see the occasional pratical joke or sometimes some teasing. Now i know that hurts, but shooting someone because they called you four-eyes is not justified. Also when you stood up for yourself, people would lay off or accept you.*
Being called four eyes is quite a bit different from having to have your glasses replaced every six weeks because someone broke them for you. Course, the school district simply says "sorry.. at teacher didnt see it, so there is nothing we can do".. that is part of where the bitterness comes in. Plus the fact that the chosen ones in school really ARE the sports players.. and that kind of bites, doesnt it? I mean, you are there to LEARN, right? so why do the ones that LEARN usually get the most crap?
*Most of these kids who bully are really the ones who need help. Either they get beat up at home or feel totally insecure about themselves. If you just sit there and take it, they will keep on doing it. From your posts you prolly got picked on alot and didnt do a thing about it. And now you are really angry at yourself for not standing up for yourself. So you redirect your anger at the bullies, you have so much anger you want to shoot people. I feel sorry for you*
They dont need help, they need to be beat up so they know what it feels like. Im sure your school was different from mine, but in my area there werent enough geeks to get them together to stop the jock/drug boys from causing trouble. If you beat them up, they simply found you in greater numbers and did more damage.. it was almost a no win situation.. however, again, the school district would claim "we didnt see it", "we dont have enough proof" (I guess stitches and bloody noses and teeth thru lips wasnt enough proof) and also "Johnny needs to start at the homecoming game, and if we put him down for disciplinary action, he wont be able too, so you can see the situation this puts us in, right?" That is the basis of my belief. that the people who can GET AWAY with this crap in school go on to get away with it in later life, as cops, principals, coaches, whatever, and the cycle repeats itself. You, as a network admin, really dont have the opportunity to put a hurting on people.. your hands are tied by corporate policy, but there are a number of jobs available to those who want to foist their opinions and physical will on others, and, not surprisingly, those jobs cater to just that kind of mentality. THAT is where the cycle renews itself, and that is what has to be stopped. NO ONE should be calling ANYONE four-eyes in school.. its as plain as that.. and until insulting someone openly, or knocking them down is treated with the same seriousness that threatening to bring in a gun is, things will never change.
(after all.. they are BOTH "only" words right? so how come one of em is considered a terroristic threat and warrants arrest?)
*Maybe you should come to terms with your anger instead of shooting guns and hating jocks. You have lots of problems which you need to resolve*
Oh, I have come to terms with it, and its not anger.. it's just the desire to protect myself from predatory humans who learned that role in school and still use it as adults. I dont *want* to shoot anyone, I dont *hate* jocks.. I DO hate the mentality that "might makes right" (and before you bring it up, self defense is NOT "might") and I am fully prepared to KEEP myself from getting assaulted or beat up or robbed ever again. I went thru that already, and as long as the rights of people to defend themselves are eroded in favor of the rights of someone to beat up/rob/hurt/threaten you, it will keep happening.
*no actually i'm young, jolly and happy with my life. I just think it would be pretty funny.*
Ahh.. so beating people up is FUNNY, (long as its not you, I guess) but defending yourself is a sign of a small penis?
Are you a legislator in the states or a school administrator by chance? Sounds like you fall right along the current lines of "as long as you are only stuffing people in a locker, you dont fall within our punishment area, but if you threaten to defend yourself, you will be arrested"
Sorry bud.. but I WAS the geek that got his arse kicked in school cause I wore glasses, etc.. I didnt appreciate it then, I dont find it funny now, and I totally missed the "humor" in your joke, whereas I was dead serious in what I said.
*My favorite scene is going to be when the geeks get beat up by the jocks, and then the geeks get older and get rich. Then the jocks beat them up again anyway. *
"extrapolation": you are old, bitter, and unhappy with your life, and wish the days of you whupping someone for their lunch money would come back so you could have some value again?
Strangely enough, the jocks that used to do that same thing to me in school have mostly passed from this world into whatever lies after, due to their inability to grasp that the real world is NOT high school, and people OUTSIDE of school are ALLOWED to carry weapons, not prohibited from doing it, for the very reason they get used for. Stopping obnoxious bully's and thiefs for once and for all.
*grin*
Geeks with guns.. we're everywhere, we're everywhere.
It amazes me how a discussion of a post about the option rights bought by a publishing company can become an unmitigated thread of Katzbashing. Regardless of what he says, he DOES have a right to say it, and/. has a right to post it. Im amazed by the fact that people who put silly little snarky comments towards/. always have almost nothing valid to say towards the thread, but yet complain that they are moderated. *sigh*
As for this news, I think it is GOOD news.. I find myself in agreeance with Jon's views in a lot of cases, but the convoluted way he gets to it sometimes leads me to wish he had an editor. However, remember, Einstein could barely write legibly, let alone grammatically correctly. So what? do we ignore everything he had to say because the man wrote badly? No, we hail him as a genius and work around his learning disorders.
I personally WELCOME a geek movie from Jon.. at least he has read enough comments FROM the geek community to get a feel for it, even if he doesnt share that communitys viewpoints in the majority (or the vocal minority, im still not sure which applies here). But, im sure the film will turn (if made) out better than Hackers, or any of the other stupid films that have attempted to paint uber-geeks as gutter punks with antique hardware whose life revolves around boy meets girl and hacking el evil corporation.
I realy hope that this film gets made, and I hope Jon holds some sway over the final outcome. (if he is true to his beliefs, I think he would anyway, or would block the production of it, much as Gibson did with all the characters out of Neuromancer cept Johnny).
Anyway.. Kudos to you Katz, good luck, and have fun!
Think for a second.. if the big three can do this, anyone can.
extrapolated:
Time Warner employees, upset about the merger with AOL, picket the place.. when the news comes out, the signs, that USED to say "Time Warner SUCKS BALLS" now say "AoL RULES.. we are SO glad to be working here"
THAT is what scares me.. I could care less about advertising.. but I do care about what could be changed to alter evidence.
What do you mean you didnt have a gun when you entered the store? our surveillance camera tapes CLEARLY SHOW you holding a gun in your hand!
its not hard to see this technology used to set people up, to change the news to print to fit, rather than fit to print.
THAT is what im scared of.. they already make 7/10 of the population believe things cause His Royal Mouthpiece Clinton said it (a week into office he took credit for the "new" economy.. and people believed him) but what if you cannot TELL what is real and what isnt?
*Whoops! I do take exception to this. One of *the big problems is the filters tend to filter *a lot.
*A kid couldn't, for example, research a paper *on why contraband drugs can be dangerous, or why *the neighbor kid needs to inject insulin . . . *most filters block sites based on the *keyword "drug". Keep in mind this is only one *example, there are many . . .
Ahh.. here is the rupture.. I was talking specifically about blocking PORNOGRAPHIC material.. NOT about blocking medical info, etc. Anything they can find in Grays Anatomy, a Reubens painting, the WOrld Book, etc, should be there.
Better yet.. take the damn computer out alltogether, and MAKE THEM READ A BOOK for a change?
He does not believe that 2 women raising a child as a family unit is a proper environment, nor does he wish his child to be taught such. As a parent that is his right. And you can not flame him for his moral stance. WHere EXACTLY did I say that 2 women raising a child is not a proper environment? I didnt. I merely said that that is part of life that I WANT TO TEACH my child about, not the schools.. I dont think the schools are a healthy place for children to learn social skills, let alone to learn about sex, because, as far as I can tell, they now teach that "doing it is ok" and "as long as you dont get aids or get someone pregnant, sex cant hurt you".. I dont like that. I choose to teach my child morals.. and I dont need that undermined by a few radical groups pushing literature into schools that doesnt belong there.. I would have the same problem with them teaching the Aryan Nation's recruiting policy as an "alternative world view, but just fine, according to the first amendment". see? there is a difference.. and there are things I think parents should still be responsible for teaching.
I dont want my 7 year old being taught "heather has two mommies" in school..
I know this is off topic, but I want to see what you mean about this...
Do you mean that when the kids talk about their parents, that you don't want your kid hearing that Heather has two mommies? Or you don't want your kid hearing that Heather is still ok even though she has two mommies?
Neither of the above my friend.. I want to teach my child at HOME about these things.. I dont have a problem with odd structured family units.. (umm.. at my neighbors wedding, one girl wore the dress in the bridal party, her g/f wore the tux in the grooms party) but I dont think school has ANY place teaching what SOME (Im not saying me mind you) view to be aberrant or deviant behaviour as normal or morally sound.
BEFORE I GET FLAMED: morals are a personal judgement call.. but.. if my child wants to decide hes gay at 16, thats one thing.. if he is bombarded by books at the age of seven, eight, and nine, telling him its "ok to be gay" and not pointing out ANY of the negatives associated with this lifestyle, he may make a decision he lives to regret, before he is old enough to make that decision fully informed and wise. THAT is what I meant.
I have to say, Im concerned about what content my child may be accessing thru the public library, and the ACLU scares me a bit.. (they seem to take an almost rabid view of what should be "okay" by strange veiled references to the Constitution) but now that I know that Don "Wildman" Wildmon (the man who rallied for Mighty Mouse to be banned, because the scene in which MM sniffs a flower was OBVIOUSLY a drug reference and therefore horrible for our children) my view changes somewhat.
Im sure that an issue like this must be decided on a NATIONAL level, not a local level.. someone from Holland, MI, may live under a rock compared to someone living in Times Square NY.. and community standards definately apply.. but there is something scary about Wildmon et.al deciding that "banned books" are ok because they feature certain words.
Dont get me wrong.. I dont want my 7 year old being taught "heather has two mommies" in school.. this is something I will deal with with him at home, on MY level, not at a state mandated school level, but I DO want him reading Catcher in the Rye, Catch 22, and the Scarlet Letter in high school..
I just think common sense should be used.. if you have a childrens section at a library, give me one good reason there SHOULDNT be porn filters on the machines? what are 10 year olds looking for that this would harm?
In an adult section? if the library carries hustler, etc, then yes, anything legal in the US should be legal on the adult computer screens, but in other cases, community standards should apply (my "national level" again.. make it community standards, much as radio and local TV are).
**What defines a "military" person? Active-duty? Retired? Veteran?* Any of the above that still believes that military -style thinking (regimentation, need-to-know, obeying orders blindly) has any place whatsoever outside of the military.**
Umm.. okay.. so a cop, or an elected official doing what you voted him in to do is obeying orders blindly, and has no place outside the military? I realize this is an odd view, because you are from the other side of the pond, and we have VERY different viewpoints on military matters (IE our disorganized military kicked the butt of the greatest military in the world at the time, and are free because of it) but still, I think "force" is very necessary at times, and I dont think 1/3 of the people going "IM a pacificst, so I dont need a military" changes that one whit.
*The last large-scale war fought by our country (UK)was WWII, and as a result many of our older veterans have re-shaped their memory to the tune of "National Service is a good thing", "Bloody Germans will never change (this view is actually proliferated by the brain-dead press)", and perhaps the most arse-achingly dumb, "War did me good" WAR NEVER DID ANYONE ANY GOOD! It kills people! That's all it does!*
Have to disagree on several fronts.. *ONE* national service is a GOOD thing.. I would think twice about invading any country in which the individuals were armed and had had training with weapons.. wait.. you people arent armed.. I forgot that. When was the last time Switzerland was invaded? or the US? or Israel, for that matter?
two: wars do kill people.. yes.. no doubt.. but you have to break eggs to make omelettes bud.. sorry. the crusades were stupid.. period. WWII was a response to a very serious threat.. and if someone (us, you, and a few other countrys) hadnt done something drastic to stop it, well, the world wouldnt be nearly as good a place today. Sorry, but I think if you had been alive in those times, you probably would have felt differently.. its very easy for someone who has never lived through a military conflict of grave proportions to say they dont matter and they are all stupid.. when it is your house that is being bombed or raided by opressor forces, I think you would feel VERY differently. Im just a nutcase I guess, but that is just my view.
*The Library thing with US tax dollars i am sorry about, but not being a US citizen, you can't blame me for getting my wires crossed.*
heh.. figured as much. No problem.
*What scares me is that the remaining superpower, (and the former Soviet Union for that matter) seem to want to elect two aggressive, former military heads of state. I don't like that, but I'm a pacifist, so I wouldn't, I guess.*
Military head of state? I may have misread your post, but McCain is not a military head of state.. he was a POW. He was held during a military action, and held a LONG time. I think it is kind of ridiculous to have someone like Clinton who wouldnt know service if it bit him in his big mac eating butt, to be in charge of the US Military.. I would PREFER that it be someone who KNOWS what it entails to engage in warfare, because I somehow think that someone who suffered torture and pain for years would think a LOT harder about putting someone else in that position than someone who spent said conflict sitting on his butt "not inhaling". see my point?
*I just find that if a kid wants to see something, they will of their own accord. I found out about porn quietly and on my own, but decided I could live without it, at the age of 13. Don't you think that if a kid is brighth enough, they should have at least *some* say?*
13? depends on the child, and that should be up to the parent. Ask a polling of americans if they want the KKK or the Aryan Front to set up in their libraries and hand out recruiting papers to 9 and 15 year olds, who do not yet realize the scope of a fascistic world order.. they would probably say NO! yet these same people balk at being told their child should not watch Veronica Moser or Hustler online at their local library. Im sorry.. if my 7 year old is cruising the web and gets re-routed onto a porn site, I dont want him seeing it. I just dont.. that portrays an image of women, men, and sex, that I dont think he is ready to deal with yet. When he is 17, yeah.. most likely he will have already seen and DONE a lot of that content himself.. but at 7? No.. and I dont want to have to worry that he is seeing it when his school goes to the local public library. If I want him to see it, I will show it to him AT HOME.. not at a library. THe Parents JOB with a child is to TEACH HIM/HER MORALS AND RIGHT AND WRONG! I dont need this undermined by a bunch of ACLU idiots screaming "freedom of speech" at me. NO ONE is telling people they cannot put whatever they want on the web.. they are simply saying that certain places will not display that info. You might as well sue a corporation for not allowing content thru their firewall that could well result in a sexual harrasment suit.. its the same exact thing.
*That what we have here is a country of free speech, as long as the speech is 100% ratified and deemed pure first.* I dont know about that.. you can say anything you want, as long as you dont threaten to blow up high schools, and as long as you can find a medium to express yourself in.. you can SAY it.. whether or not anyone will believe you, or carry your words, is another question.
*I suppose it would be a good idea to block porn in libraries, but where would it stop? It would just move on to internet cafes, and so on, until it started affecting home users. and would the block stop with porn? Sooner or later more subjects would be blocked, some of which genuinely help people with sexuality difficulties. *
#bzzzzzt# wrong.. my "cybercafe" is a privately run business, which I fund myself, and through the money from my patrons. A Library, much like a public terminal in the courthouse, is paid for by the tax money from your area.. which means, you are playing with government money at that point, and it becomes a "public" issue, rather than the above mentioned cafe, which is a private issue.
*I'm a bit wary of McCain, simply because I am wary of all who display a military past with too much pride. "I obeyed orders, and killed people, and I didn't even know why!" seems to be a fine thing to these people. Military people rarely get out of the military way of thinking, and thinking that the public should learn things on a 'need-to-know' basis is insane.*
Now, see, Im looking another way.. he actually SERVED in the military, he actually DID HARD TIME for what he believed in. I guess Im a conservative libertarian, but I have a LOT of respect for this man, a lot more than I do for Clinton who draft dodged, Gore who claimed that he invented everything this side of sliced bread, Ventura, who has proven to be exactly the moron one would expect from an ex-wrestler, and Trump, who is used to buying his way to whatever he wants. At least McCain has an IDEA about what really working is, what serving (important word) a term of something means.. he may think kids dont deserve the "right" to see Veronica Moser at a library..; and I stand behind that 100%.. I dont want my child looking at anything at a library on a school mandated class trip that I wouldnt show him at home. (remember the trips to the library in town? what were the first books kids snuck off to find? hmmm?)
I just feel that *censorship* is getting thrown around a LOT.. but I would rather have the software written by someone who is writing it to PROTECT CHILDREN and not to get filthy rich, or take grants from company A to block sites featuring company B.. see my point?
Maeryk
A couple of sane points:
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 1
1) you scare me, Katz! Really!
2) Darwinism applies to LIVING stuff. Information is not living.
3) The promulgation of stories like Lewinski or Princess Die is due to the idiots in the world that suck it up like so much pablum, not due to the informations desire to further itself as a species.
4) You may as well rail against the proliferation of the metric system.. it is just about as dangerous. Acutally, its *more* dangerous (metrics) as the weight of your toolbox has now doubled, and you stand to have more back strain.
The fact of the matter, (imho) is that if information went away tomorrow, you would have a *lot* of confused little sheeples wandering around wonder what to wear for work, because Willard Scott wasnt there to tell them that morning, and a few, proud, group who know how to think for themselves and look outside at that big blue box once in a while and figure out what is going on.
Remember folks, what happens in France or Chile is only important to us because we *know* about it. One thing the Web an electronic information have done, (dangerously) is allow us instant contact with things we care passionately about. How many people are sending around emails about starving children in the Sudan, but wont stop to give a dollar to a local shelter? If anything, it has made us *more* miopic about daily life.
Take for example the email currently going around about Fox broadcasting and BUffy the Vampire Slayer.. if you havent gotten it yet, you will. how many people stop to REALIZE that BUffy is on WB before signing their name and forwarding it on to another dozen unwitting souls? It is this kind of mindless idiocy that is scary, not the information itself. Information is a tool, nothing more.. you can use it for good, you can use it for bad, and you can hit yourself with it.. its up to *you*
Thanks to the MILLIONS of the Maeryks fans, who wrote him privately and on the bridge here, to tell him he's a moron, and got Voltaire and Sartre confused. *grin* So it was 4:00 am and I was out of dew when I came up with the original. THANKS people.. I took a wild guess.
Wow.. this man is truly impressive. I had never really realized the depth of passion and forethought he has/had in the industry, and in creating what we now take for granted. a hearty THANK YOU! to him, and to/. for teaching me something about someone who is (now) one of my heroes. what a guy. (no sarcasm was used in this post)
>>In a few years, when digital audio players (MP3 or ogg or whatever) are completely ubiquitious and all connected to the network, I don't think many of us will still be buying CDs.
Uhh.. maybe you will. I'm not paying hard earned cash for something that goes bye-bye when my Western Digital decides to go head farming on the platters.
Sorry.. I dont pay for mp3's because they are transient.. if I am paying money, I want hard media.. (tape, CD, record) not bitstream. I realize a tape can go spaghetti on you, but when it does you lose what, 12 songs? When my HDD goes I lose 13 GIG of mp3's.. and at 1.00 a pop, or whatever they will end up marketed at, that is a *LOAD* of cash to lose because someone at a quality control department didnt watch the o-scope.
My other problem with Metallica, the RIAA, the MPAA, and other critters, is the concept that you dont *own* the music.. you own the *MEDIUM* it is on.. and once that MEDIUM is shot, you must REPURCHASE the medium.. not the music. That is basically what the DMCA says.. you may *not* make digital copies of music.. even if you purchased it the first time.. because you only own a liscence for *one* copy.. if you want a backup, shell out the 18.50 to hear James growl in digital all over again, because your copyright and user liscence ends with that medium. I dont like that.. its far too heavy handed, and it's far too idiotic. Which just goes to show you what kind of geniuii we have in power.
Seems to me this has already been decided in a few court cases. There are a bunch of people right now registering every domain name they can think of, then reselling them for (requesting bids at upwards of 1 million) big bucks. No one can or has stopped them. The biggest thing I would face, if I could get "www.rollingstones.com" before they (the band or the mag) got it, would be continued harassment by someone, but all in all, i think it is perfectly legal, because you are not using that name to promote or associate yourself with them.. just to have the name. Otherwise you would be forced to pay a royalty every time you wrote, or spoke those names, wouldnt you? As for Trent.. quit being a weenie.. you already HAVE nothing.nin.com or whatever it is..
Slashdot Mirror
*and to emphasize your point: How can your well thought-out comment score a 3 and a post labeled TROLL get a 5?*
Well, for a couple of reasons:
1) moderation is handed out sort of like a watery tart holding a rusty sword out of a lake at passerby.. IE.. not a solid form of government, but less dangerous than outright anarchy.
2) even trolls can moderate, provided the electron god smiles on them that day and they have a login.
3) some people exist to do NOTHING more than bitch about everyone else on the planet, and they do it with fair regularity.. stands to reason some people who can moderate share their feelings, and moderate them up for that.
*shrug*
I try to use MY moderation points well when I get them...
Maeryk
*you think having a gun will solve your problems? all a gun is gonna do is end up causing more trouble. You going to pull a gun on a cop that is giving you a hard time? You gonna pull a gun on someone who is robbing you? This isnt the wild west.*
On a cop, no, on someone robbing me? quite possibly, if htey have a knife.. I would also hope that if someone SAW me being robbed they would have the forethought to intervene, as I would for them.
I FIRMLY believe that "an armed society is a polite society" I also believe the statistics that show that a higher weapon carry rate in a locality results in a lower crime rate.. you are not going to mug or attack someone if you think they might have a gun, its as simple as that.
*also, dont you think the bullies are people too? I'm sure they have their share of problems too. Now of course i think its wrong for them to pick on people and get away with it. My school must have been drasticaly different then yours. No matter who you were you got punished for what you did. We had our share of fights... even a stabbing but we never had groups of so called drug/jock kids.. who preyed on "geeks". *
I pretty firmly believe you have about 18 years to learn how to fit into society. I believe if at the end of that 18 years you have not yet figured out that beating up people and stealing things, and abusing people simply because they are different is wrong, you dont belong in society. Telling me that "bullys have rights too" is absolutely barking into the wind.. I dont believe it now, and I didnt believe it then. I firmly believe you have the right to THINK what you want, and to a large extent SAY what you want (yelling fire in a movie theatre is an example of a non-covered event) but your right to free ANYTHING ends at the tip of my nose. Once your "rights" to be a punk interfere with MY rights to go about my life in an orderly manner, you give up those rights.
*But hate just carrys more hate. It is much better to forgive and understand.*
I have not even thought about the *specific* people who did this in years, so its not a "forgive and understand" thing.. but Im not about to forgive the punks who broke my windsheild last week, or stole the stereo out of my car last month.. that is, to me, unforgiveable, if you want something, work for it, as I did, rather than take it away from me. I think until people begin to stand up FIRMLY (and possibly lethally) for their right NOT to be abused, it will continue, and THAT is the root of the problem.
Im not saying guns solve everything.. its much more of a mindset issue.. you are far less likely to get mugged if you look like you are confident and sure of yourself than if you are furtive and touristy, but I really TRULY believe there are people in this world who exist ONLY to cause pain to others, and frankly, the world would be better off without them.
THis is my opinion.. but Im entitled to it, as you are yours.
*The thing is, when i was in high school, i never saw a geek being beaten up. The only time i saw people being pushed into lockers was the Wonder Years. Now i did see the occasional pratical joke or sometimes some teasing. Now i know that hurts, but shooting someone because they called you four-eyes is not justified. Also when you stood up for yourself, people would lay off or accept you.*
Being called four eyes is quite a bit different from having to have your glasses replaced every six weeks because someone broke them for you. Course, the school district simply says "sorry.. at teacher didnt see it, so there is nothing we can do".. that is part of where the bitterness comes in. Plus the fact that the chosen ones in school really ARE the sports players.. and that kind of bites, doesnt it? I mean, you are there to LEARN, right? so why do the ones that LEARN usually get the most crap?
*Most of these kids who bully are really the ones who need help. Either they get beat up at home or feel totally insecure about themselves. If you just sit there and take it, they will keep on doing it. From your posts you prolly got picked on alot and didnt do a thing about it. And now you are really angry at yourself for not standing up for yourself. So you redirect your anger at the bullies, you have so much anger you want to shoot people. I feel sorry for you*
They dont need help, they need to be beat up so they know what it feels like. Im sure your school was different from mine, but in my area there werent enough geeks to get them together to stop the jock/drug boys from causing trouble. If you beat them up, they simply found you in greater numbers and did more damage.. it was almost a no win situation.. however, again, the school district would claim "we didnt see it", "we dont have enough proof" (I guess stitches and bloody noses and teeth thru lips wasnt enough proof) and also "Johnny needs to start at the homecoming game, and if we put him down for disciplinary action, he wont be able too, so you can see the situation this puts us in, right?"
That is the basis of my belief. that the people who can GET AWAY with this crap in school go on to get away with it in later life, as cops, principals, coaches, whatever, and the cycle repeats itself. You, as a network admin, really dont have the opportunity to put a hurting on people.. your hands are tied by corporate policy, but there are a number of jobs available to those who want to foist their opinions and physical will on others, and, not surprisingly, those jobs cater to just that kind of mentality. THAT is where the cycle renews itself, and that is what has to be stopped.
NO ONE should be calling ANYONE four-eyes in school.. its as plain as that.. and until insulting someone openly, or knocking them down is treated with the same seriousness that threatening to bring in a gun is, things will never change.
(after all.. they are BOTH "only" words right? so how come one of em is considered a terroristic threat and warrants arrest?)
*Maybe you should come to terms with your anger instead of shooting guns and hating jocks. You have lots of problems which you need to resolve*
Oh, I have come to terms with it, and its not anger.. it's just the desire to protect myself from predatory humans who learned that role in school and still use it as adults. I dont *want* to shoot anyone, I dont *hate* jocks.. I DO hate the mentality that "might makes right" (and before you bring it up, self defense is NOT "might") and I am fully prepared to KEEP myself from getting assaulted or beat up or robbed ever again. I went thru that already, and as long as the rights of people to defend themselves are eroded in favor of the rights of someone to beat up/rob/hurt/threaten you, it will keep happening.
/end rant.
Maeryk
*something has to be wrong with moderation. the poster actually proposes shooting people. This post is worse then its parent. *
Just out of curiousity, tell me why shooting someone in self defense is wrong? the court system kills people every day due to their crimes.
thanks.
*no actually i'm young, jolly and happy with my life. I just think it would be pretty funny.*
Ahh.. so beating people up is FUNNY, (long as its not you, I guess) but defending yourself is a sign of a small penis?
Are you a legislator in the states or a school administrator by chance? Sounds like you fall right along the current lines of "as long as you are only stuffing people in a locker, you dont fall within our punishment area, but if you threaten to defend yourself, you will be arrested"
Sorry bud.. but I WAS the geek that got his arse kicked in school cause I wore glasses, etc.. I didnt appreciate it then, I dont find it funny now, and I totally missed the "humor" in your joke, whereas I was dead serious in what I said.
*My favorite scene is going to be when the geeks get beat up by the jocks, and then the geeks get older and get rich. Then the jocks beat them up again anyway. *
"extrapolation": you are old, bitter, and unhappy with your life, and wish the days of you whupping someone for their lunch money would come back so you could have some value again?
Strangely enough, the jocks that used to do that same thing to me in school have mostly passed from this world into whatever lies after, due to their inability to grasp that the real world is NOT high school, and people OUTSIDE of school are ALLOWED to carry weapons, not prohibited from doing it, for the very reason they get used for. Stopping obnoxious bully's and thiefs for once and for all.
*grin*
Geeks with guns.. we're everywhere, we're everywhere.
Maeryk
It amazes me how a discussion of a post about the option rights bought by a publishing company can become an unmitigated thread of Katzbashing. Regardless of what he says, he DOES have a right to say it, and /. has a right to post it. Im amazed by the fact that people who put silly little snarky comments towards /. always have almost nothing valid to say towards the thread, but yet complain that they are moderated. *sigh*
As for this news, I think it is GOOD news.. I find myself in agreeance with Jon's views in a lot of cases, but the convoluted way he gets to it sometimes leads me to wish he had an editor. However, remember, Einstein could barely write legibly, let alone grammatically correctly. So what? do we ignore everything he had to say because the man wrote badly? No, we hail him as a genius and work around his learning disorders.
I personally WELCOME a geek movie from Jon.. at least he has read enough comments FROM the geek community to get a feel for it, even if he doesnt share that communitys viewpoints in the majority (or the vocal minority, im still not sure which applies here). But, im sure the film will turn (if made) out better than Hackers, or any of the other stupid films that have attempted to paint uber-geeks as gutter punks with antique hardware whose life revolves around boy meets girl and hacking el evil corporation.
I realy hope that this film gets made, and I hope Jon holds some sway over the final outcome. (if he is true to his beliefs, I think he would anyway, or would block the production of it, much as Gibson did with all the characters out of Neuromancer cept Johnny).
Anyway.. Kudos to you Katz, good luck, and have fun!
Think for a second.. if the big three can do this, anyone can.
extrapolated:
Time Warner employees, upset about the merger with AOL, picket the place.. when the news comes out, the signs, that USED to say "Time Warner SUCKS BALLS" now say "AoL RULES.. we are SO glad to be working here"
THAT is what scares me.. I could care less about advertising.. but I do care about what could be changed to alter evidence.
What do you mean you didnt have a gun when you entered the store? our surveillance camera tapes CLEARLY SHOW you holding a gun in your hand!
its not hard to see this technology used to set people up, to change the news to print to fit, rather than fit to print.
THAT is what im scared of.. they already make 7/10 of the population believe things cause His Royal Mouthpiece Clinton said it (a week into office he took credit for the "new" economy.. and people believed him) but what if you cannot TELL what is real and what isnt?
*Whoops! I do take exception to this. One of *the big problems is the filters tend to filter *a lot.
*A kid couldn't, for example, research a paper *on why contraband drugs can be dangerous, or why *the neighbor kid needs to inject insulin . . . *most filters block sites based on the *keyword "drug". Keep in mind this is only one *example, there are many . . .
Ahh.. here is the rupture.. I was talking specifically about blocking PORNOGRAPHIC material.. NOT about blocking medical info, etc. Anything they can find in Grays Anatomy, a Reubens painting, the WOrld Book, etc, should be there.
Better yet.. take the damn computer out alltogether, and MAKE THEM READ A BOOK for a change?
what a concept..
He does not believe that 2 women raising a child as a family unit is a proper environment, nor does he wish his child to be taught such. As a parent that is his right. And you can not flame him for his moral stance. WHere EXACTLY did I say that 2 women raising a child is not a proper environment? I didnt. I merely said that that is part of life that I WANT TO TEACH my child about, not the schools.. I dont think the schools are a healthy place for children to learn social skills, let alone to learn about sex, because, as far as I can tell, they now teach that "doing it is ok" and "as long as you dont get aids or get someone pregnant, sex cant hurt you".. I dont like that. I choose to teach my child morals.. and I dont need that undermined by a few radical groups pushing literature into schools that doesnt belong there.. I would have the same problem with them teaching the Aryan Nation's recruiting policy as an "alternative world view, but just fine, according to the first amendment". see? there is a difference.. and there are things I think parents should still be responsible for teaching.
I dont want my 7 year old being taught "heather has two mommies" in school..
I know this is off topic, but I want to see what you mean about this...
Do you mean that when the kids talk about their parents, that you don't want your kid hearing that Heather has two mommies? Or you don't want your kid hearing that Heather is still ok even though she has two mommies?
Neither of the above my friend.. I want to teach my child at HOME about these things.. I dont have a problem with odd structured family units.. (umm.. at my neighbors wedding, one girl wore the dress in the bridal party, her g/f wore the tux in the grooms party) but I dont think school has ANY place teaching what SOME (Im not saying me mind you) view to be aberrant or deviant behaviour as normal or morally sound.
BEFORE I GET FLAMED: morals are a personal judgement call.. but.. if my child wants to decide hes gay at 16, thats one thing.. if he is bombarded by books at the age of seven, eight, and nine, telling him its "ok to be gay" and not pointing out ANY of the negatives associated with this lifestyle, he may make a decision he lives to regret, before he is old enough to make that decision fully informed and wise.
THAT is what I meant.
I have to say, Im concerned about what content my child may be accessing thru the public library, and the ACLU scares me a bit.. (they seem to take an almost rabid view of what should be "okay" by strange veiled references to the Constitution) but now that I know that Don "Wildman" Wildmon (the man who rallied for Mighty Mouse to be banned, because the scene in which MM sniffs a flower was OBVIOUSLY a drug reference and therefore horrible for our children) my view changes somewhat.
.o2 kroeners.
Im sure that an issue like this must be decided on a NATIONAL level, not a local level.. someone from Holland, MI, may live under a rock compared to someone living in Times Square NY.. and community standards definately apply.. but there is something scary about Wildmon et.al deciding that "banned books" are ok because they feature certain words.
Dont get me wrong.. I dont want my 7 year old being taught "heather has two mommies" in school.. this is something I will deal with with him at home, on MY level, not at a state mandated school level, but I DO want him reading Catcher in the Rye, Catch 22, and the Scarlet Letter in high school..
I just think common sense should be used.. if you have a childrens section at a library, give me one good reason there SHOULDNT be porn filters on the machines? what are 10 year olds looking for that this would harm?
In an adult section? if the library carries hustler, etc, then yes, anything legal in the US should be legal on the adult computer screens, but in other cases, community standards should apply (my "national level" again.. make it community standards, much as radio and local TV are).
well..t hats my
Maeryk
**What defines a "military" person? Active-duty? Retired? Veteran?* Any of the above that still believes that military -style thinking (regimentation, need-to-know, obeying orders blindly) has any place whatsoever outside of the military.**
Umm.. okay.. so a cop, or an elected official doing what you voted him in to do is obeying orders blindly, and has no place outside the military? I realize this is an odd view, because you are from the other side of the pond, and we have VERY different viewpoints on military matters (IE our disorganized military kicked the butt of the greatest military in the world at the time, and are free because of it) but still, I think "force" is very necessary at times, and I dont think 1/3 of the people going "IM a pacificst, so I dont need a military" changes that one whit.
*The last large-scale war fought by our country (UK)was WWII, and as a result many of our older veterans have re-shaped their memory to the tune of "National Service is a good thing", "Bloody Germans will never change (this view is actually proliferated by the brain-dead press)", and perhaps the most arse-achingly dumb, "War did me good" WAR NEVER DID ANYONE ANY GOOD! It kills people! That's all it does!*
Have to disagree on several fronts.. *ONE* national service is a GOOD thing.. I would think twice about invading any country in which the individuals were armed and had had training with weapons.. wait.. you people arent armed.. I forgot that. When was the last time Switzerland was invaded? or the US? or Israel, for that matter?
two: wars do kill people.. yes.. no doubt.. but you have to break eggs to make omelettes bud.. sorry. the crusades were stupid.. period. WWII was a response to a very serious threat.. and if someone (us, you, and a few other countrys) hadnt done something drastic to stop it, well, the world wouldnt be nearly as good a place today. Sorry, but I think if you had been alive in those times, you probably would have felt differently.. its very easy for someone who has never lived through a military conflict of grave proportions to say they dont matter and they are all stupid.. when it is your house that is being bombed or raided by opressor forces, I think you would feel VERY differently. Im just a nutcase I guess, but that is just my view.
*The Library thing with US tax dollars i am sorry about, but not being a US citizen, you can't blame me for getting my wires crossed.*
heh.. figured as much. No problem.
*What scares me is that the remaining superpower, (and the former Soviet Union for that matter) seem to want to elect two aggressive, former military heads of state. I don't like that, but I'm a pacifist, so I wouldn't, I guess.*
Military head of state? I may have misread your post, but McCain is not a military head of state.. he was a POW. He was held during a military action, and held a LONG time. I think it is kind of ridiculous to have someone like Clinton who wouldnt know service if it bit him in his big mac eating butt, to be in charge of the US Military.. I would PREFER that it be someone who KNOWS what it entails to engage in warfare, because I somehow think that someone who suffered torture and pain for years would think a LOT harder about putting someone else in that position than someone who spent said conflict sitting on his butt "not inhaling". see my point?
*I just find that if a kid wants to see something, they will of their own accord. I found out about porn quietly and on my own, but decided I could live without it, at the age of 13. Don't you think that if a kid is brighth enough, they should have at least *some* say?*
13? depends on the child, and that should be up to the parent. Ask a polling of americans if they want the KKK or the Aryan Front to set up in their libraries and hand out recruiting papers to 9 and 15 year olds, who do not yet realize the scope of a fascistic world order.. they would probably say NO! yet these same people balk at being told their child should not watch Veronica Moser or Hustler online at their local library. Im sorry.. if my 7 year old is cruising the web and gets re-routed onto a porn site, I dont want him seeing it. I just dont.. that portrays an image of women, men, and sex, that I dont think he is ready to deal with yet. When he is 17, yeah.. most likely he will have already seen and DONE a lot of that content himself.. but at 7? No.. and I dont want to have to worry that he is seeing it when his school goes to the local public library.
If I want him to see it, I will show it to him AT HOME.. not at a library. THe Parents JOB with a child is to TEACH HIM/HER MORALS AND RIGHT AND WRONG! I dont need this undermined by a bunch of ACLU idiots screaming "freedom of speech" at me. NO ONE is telling people they cannot put whatever they want on the web.. they are simply saying that certain places will not display that info. You might as well sue a corporation for not allowing content thru their firewall that could well result in a sexual harrasment suit.. its the same exact thing.
Maeryk
*That what we have here is a country of free speech, as long as the speech is 100% ratified and deemed pure first.*
I dont know about that.. you can say anything you want, as long as you dont threaten to blow up high schools, and as long as you can find a medium to express yourself in.. you can SAY it.. whether or not anyone will believe you, or carry your words, is another question.
*I suppose it would be a good idea to block porn in libraries, but where would it stop? It would just move on to internet cafes, and so on, until it started affecting home users. and would the block stop with porn? Sooner or later more subjects would be blocked, some of which genuinely help people with sexuality difficulties. *
#bzzzzzt# wrong.. my "cybercafe" is a privately run business, which I fund myself, and through the money from my patrons. A Library, much like a public terminal in the courthouse, is paid for by the tax money from your area.. which means, you are playing with government money at that point, and it becomes a "public" issue, rather than the above mentioned cafe, which is a private issue.
*I'm a bit wary of McCain, simply because I am wary of all who display a military past with too much pride. "I obeyed orders, and killed people, and I didn't even know why!" seems to be a fine thing to these people. Military people rarely get out of the military way of thinking, and thinking that the public should learn things on a 'need-to-know' basis is insane.*
Now, see, Im looking another way.. he actually SERVED in the military, he actually DID HARD TIME for what he believed in. I guess Im a conservative libertarian, but I have a LOT of respect for this man, a lot more than I do for Clinton who draft dodged, Gore who claimed that he invented everything this side of sliced bread, Ventura, who has proven to be exactly the moron one would expect from an ex-wrestler, and Trump, who is used to buying his way to whatever he wants. At least McCain has an IDEA about what really working is, what serving (important word) a term of something means.. he may think kids dont deserve the "right" to see Veronica Moser at a library..; and I stand behind that 100%.. I dont want my child looking at anything at a library on a school mandated class trip that I wouldnt show him at home. (remember the trips to the library in town? what were the first books kids snuck off to find? hmmm?)
I just feel that *censorship* is getting thrown around a LOT.. but I would rather have the software written by someone who is writing it to PROTECT CHILDREN and not to get filthy rich, or take grants from company A to block sites featuring company B.. see my point?
Maeryk
1) you scare me, Katz! Really!
2) Darwinism applies to LIVING stuff. Information is not living.
3) The promulgation of stories like Lewinski or Princess Die is due to the idiots in the world that suck it up like so much pablum, not due to the informations desire to further itself as a species.
4) You may as well rail against the proliferation of the metric system.. it is just about as dangerous. Acutally, its *more* dangerous (metrics) as the weight of your toolbox has now doubled, and you stand to have more back strain.
The fact of the matter, (imho) is that if information went away tomorrow, you would have a *lot* of confused little sheeples wandering around wonder what to wear for work, because Willard Scott wasnt there to tell them that morning, and a few, proud, group who know how to think for themselves and look outside at that big blue box once in a while and figure out what is going on.
Remember folks, what happens in France or Chile is only important to us because we *know* about it. One thing the Web an electronic information have done, (dangerously) is allow us instant contact with things we care passionately about. How many people are sending around emails about starving children in the Sudan, but wont stop to give a dollar to a local shelter? If anything, it has made us *more* miopic about daily life.
Take for example the email currently going around about Fox broadcasting and BUffy the Vampire Slayer.. if you havent gotten it yet, you will. how many people stop to REALIZE that BUffy is on WB before signing their name and forwarding it on to another dozen unwitting souls? It is this kind of mindless idiocy that is scary, not the information itself. Information is a tool, nothing more.. you can use it for good, you can use it for bad, and you can hit yourself with it.. its up to *you*
I had a point, once.
Maeryk
Thanks to the MILLIONS of the Maeryks fans, who wrote him privately and on the bridge here, to tell him he's a moron, and got Voltaire and Sartre confused. *grin* So it was 4:00 am and I was out of dew when I came up with the original. THANKS people.. I took a wild guess.
Wow.. this man is truly impressive. I had never really realized the depth of passion and forethought he has/had in the industry, and in creating what we now take for granted. a hearty THANK YOU! to him, and to /. for teaching me something about someone who is (now) one of my heroes. what a guy. (no sarcasm was used in this post)
>>In a few years, when digital audio players (MP3 or ogg or whatever) are completely ubiquitious and all connected to the network, I don't think many of us will still be buying CDs.
Uhh.. maybe you will. I'm not paying hard earned cash for something that goes bye-bye when my Western Digital decides to go head farming on the platters.
Sorry.. I dont pay for mp3's because they are transient.. if I am paying money, I want hard media.. (tape, CD, record) not bitstream. I realize a tape can go spaghetti on you, but when it does you lose what, 12 songs? When my HDD goes I lose 13 GIG of mp3's.. and at 1.00 a pop, or whatever they will end up marketed at, that is a *LOAD* of cash to lose because someone at a quality control department didnt watch the o-scope.
My other problem with Metallica, the RIAA, the MPAA, and other critters, is the concept that you dont *own* the music.. you own the *MEDIUM* it is on.. and once that MEDIUM is shot, you must REPURCHASE the medium.. not the music. That is basically what the DMCA says.. you may *not* make digital copies of music.. even if you purchased it the first time.. because you only own a liscence for *one* copy.. if you want a backup, shell out the 18.50 to hear James growl in digital all over again, because your copyright and user liscence ends with that medium. I dont like that.. its far too heavy handed, and it's far too idiotic. Which just goes to show you what kind of geniuii we have in power.
Maeryk
Seems to me this has already been decided in a few court cases. There are a bunch of people right now registering every domain name they can think of, then reselling them for (requesting bids at upwards of 1 million) big bucks. No one can or has stopped them. The biggest thing I would face, if I could get "www.rollingstones.com" before they (the band or the mag) got it, would be continued harassment by someone, but all in all, i think it is perfectly legal, because you are not using that name to promote or associate yourself with them.. just to have the name. Otherwise you would be forced to pay a royalty every time you wrote, or spoke those names, wouldnt you? As for Trent.. quit being a weenie.. you already HAVE nothing.nin.com or whatever it is..