Sure. But what's easier? To colonize Mars or to use some sense and stop dumping PCBs into the very rivers that you drink out of? If you want counter measures, there they are, plain and simple: stop screwing stuff up.
I had my suspicions when reading your comment. Then, one look at your comment history tells me you are just a troll. Ergo, your post deserves no real reply.
The point I was trying to make is that even if global warming were discredited (and I don't think this study will do it), there are other issues to deal with. If GW was totally discredited, it's not like we could carry on doing what we are doing. For example, the extinction of species -- life in an interdependent web. When you start wiping out species, you put one more nail in your own coffin.
As for the political bit, it is unfortunate that people use something as important as preserving the earth for political currency. That's exactly why we are in trouble. Face it, we are not going to colonize space or anything like that. We have to learn to work with our planet or die.
Well.. If its not true than it deserves to be discredited.
Agreed.
Or are you saying this particular study does not actually discredit man-made global warming?
Heck, don't ask me. It seems to, but then again I am no expert in the field. My personal feeling? Man's activities are at the very least somewhat responsible for climate change. What I do know is that this is one study flying in the face of others which support global warming. Figures lie and liars figure. Anybody can make up a study and have it prove whatever point they want.
What does that have to do with (human or non-human) global warming?
The things I mentioned are related to global warming in that they purportedly have the same root cause. Even if you were to discredit global warming, you still have other issues to deal with. Point I was trying to make is that we need to be more responsible, global warming or not.
You know that the many US lawmakers who are in bed with special interests are ready to jump all over this study. One more chance to "discredit" global warming.
As for your comment, I think you are right on point. I mean, even if there are uncontrollable external factors that are at least partly responsible for global warming, that does not absolve us of the responsibility to manage our planet properly.
Even if it were to be found that global warming is a complete unreality or is entirely out of our control and due to the sun or some other factor, we still face the same issues. What about the fact that we are facing extinction of staggering number of species, due to our mismanagement of the earth? What about the fact that 20% of the world population doesn't have access to clean water?
As pressing as global warming is, arguing that man must change his habits solely on the platform of global warming is a one-legged argument. We have many, compelling reasons to make changes. Of course, we won't think about it until it's too late.
I don't necessarily agree with you when it comes to copying music, but at least I now understand your perspective, so thanks for making your points more clear to me.
You car analogy is a good one, and makes your point well. I would care if it were my business to manufacture cars, though. When you make a copy of the car, that's one less car I can sell. You could reasonably equate that with theft, since you took the car I made and used a copy of it as a means to effectively put me out of business.
I think musicians should be compensated or their work. As a musician (non-professional) I can appreciate how much work can go into getting a band sounding good, writing songs, and recording them (which is a LOT of work). I still say that if you want to listen to my music, I should get some kind of monetary reward if I ask for it. Me, as an amateur, I play for fun and just want people to enjoy my music. I occasionally make some money, and that's nice, but not the point. I guess you are saying (or at least thinking) that the whole music business is a corruption of what music was originally -- made for artistic expression and enjoyment and not for money. You make a good point. Things always tend to go from informal (street musicians performing for free) to formal (multibillion dollar music industry), and that can (and does) suck the soul right out of the art. (as an aside, I tend to think that way about modern jazz...it has become as formal and rigid as classical music was, which is funny considering it was never meant to be this way) Anyway, this relatively modern invention of the "music industry" is exactly why so much music is now so vapid and unoriginal. If you feel the same, I wholeheartedly agree. On the other hand, if someone has decided to make music professionally, touring doesn't fully satisfy the demand. Right now I am listening to music on my iPod as I sit at work typing this. As much as I hate the music industry, I do enjoy the privelige of being able to listen to music despite the fact I am not at a concert. If you want to enjoy that privelige, you should have to pay for it. It's not the same as freedom of information, it's entertainment. It's a luxury, and luxuries by definition do not come free. Plus, I don't get to many concerts (at least anymore). I enjoy the music, though, so why shouldn't the musicians profit from the work that went into the recording?
Then again, and to your point, really: recorded music is recorded just once, and then copied. So after a certain amount of copies sold, the cost of recording has been totally recouped. So the music industry can make an endless amount of money from a relatively small upfront investment. I think, personally, music is waaaaay overpriced. mp3's could sell for a nickel or a dime per track and still make a lot of money. The fact they are so expensive just shows how greedy the RIAA is; they are by definition a cartel. Just because you can charge what the market will bear doesn't mean you should and that doing so builds goodwill toward you. And this is why I wish we did go back to indie musicians and no music industry. They could charge reasonable amounts and do well. But greed would enter the picture eventually, and someone would charge 11 cents instead of ten, so everyone else would start charging 11. And so on. There is no real solution, I know.
Anyhow, it has been good chatting with you. I wish you the best on your thesis. Sounds like a lot of work;)
I'm confining it to the right definition according to dictionaries and common use. You can always create a new word defining what you mean.
Um...Yeah. Meanwhile, look at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal, particularly definition 2. My goodness. It's sad when you have to break out a flippin' dictionary when talking to a supposed PhD student.
So the bottom line is that you don't want people from stealing from you but you gladly steal from others. What a hypocrite.
First, I should point out that you are flirting with Godwin just for the fact that you equated calling piracy what it is to using a racial slur to degrade another human being. Anyway...
Copying doesn't take away anything.
Wrong. If I make a copy of the mp3 file and give it to my friend, then why should he go buy it? I have taken away a would-be sale. This might not always be a bad thing, see below. Generally speaking, though, if you limit the definition of the word theft to "taking, without permission, the physical property which belongs to someone else", then that means nothing intangible can be stolen. In making that statement you are confining the word "stealing" to a definition that is quite limited, and that shows a disregard for modern technology. That's a bit as ludicrous as the RIAA's failure to adapt their business model with modern technology. Just as technology has introduced new ways to distribute music, it also introduces new ways to steal things.
the poster I replied to clearly made the case for artists thriving without copyright
Yes he did. But suppose a musician is not in a position to tour relentlessly? What if he has a family? What if his health is bad? What if he just doesn't want to? If there is a demand for his music, why should he not be paid for it? So me might not have the right to expect that he make as much as someone who tours and plays 20 shows a month. So what? If his music is in demand, why should he not be paid for it?
That said, I also thing that the OP makes a good point about free music generating interest in a band because I have seen it firsthand. I made a copy of an independent artist's CD that I had purchased from eMusic and gave it to my brother. When the band came to town, he was there, bought a t-shirt, etc. But there is a big difference between making a copy or two and thus getting your friends hip to your latest musical discovery and, on the other hand, freely distributing somone else's music to the anonymous masses (via the internet).
The fact that we think artists just want money to make art is a cultural twist of the latest 150 years, not an obvious fact. Please stop that "thinkoftheartists" whining, it just doesn't make sense anymore.
Well, if you have some skill that is in demand, why should you not be paid for it? Times are different. In the past, people were enslaved and forced to work without compensation. So does that mean that people who pick cotton for a living shouldn't be paid for it just because in the past people did it for free? Gimme a break!
Because it is not theft. Theft is when you take something from someone and that someone has no more that thing. Copying doesn't take away anything.
Maybe not to you. I saw your profile where it said you are a PhD student. Suppose I got my hands on an electronic copy of your dissertation, published it, and made lots of money from the sales. According to your definition, I stole nothing, I just copied. Without some kind of protection on your ideas, I can do this legally and you have no recourse except for to grumble about it. Me, I write software for a living. If someone were to take my software, make a copy, and rebrand it as their own and make tons of money from it and in the process ensure that I will never sell my software (because the market is saturated), I'd want a legal recourse.
Again, your whole argument has nothing to do with DRM. It has to do with ethics. If you cannot see the inherent ethical issues with taking someone's work and copying|stealing|whatev you want to call it, then I don't know what else to say. I guess this should suffice: if you belive that *all* information should be free, then give me your credit card number, name, and ssn. Are you cheating on your wife|girlfriend? That should be free information, too. If you want to paint with broad brushes, let's do it.
I hope one day "piracy" will be a word reminescent of a primitive, embarrassing past
Yes, we all know DRM sucks and hurts everyone. But it sounds like you are arguing, not against DRM, but for piracy. That's a big distinction.
What if, by some miracle, the RIAA were history and the artists were actually making all of the money off the distribution of their music? Would it still be OK to pirate the music? Say no, and you contradict your above argument that piracy is A-OK (unless you mean it's ok to steal from the RIAA but not the artists, which I can see in sort of an idealistic, Robin Hood sort of way). Say yes, and you don't care about the artists; you just want free music. Unless I am missing something here.
I don't the above scenario is far fetched. There are plenty of independent artists who make money from selling their music (DRM free) on their websites. Why should they not be protected from theft?
As another poster said above, and let me paraphrase...confusing DRM and copyright protection are two different things. DRM = bad, copyright protection* = good. Getting rid of both is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
* not the draconian IP enforcement as found in the US, either. I mean the principle of protecting your ideas from being plagarized. The USPO is another matter entirely.
heck yeah, I'll go with that. As long as they serve a purpose, I guess they're ok, but gratuitous flash is so last decade.
Had a co-worker once who loved flash; he once made a feedback form for our site with flash. It was a simple form, three fields and that's it. How lame. He was ridiculed for that one, let me tell you.
Let's have Firefox and two of the most important applications for the web developer do the work for us: Firebug and the Tidy Validator (both firefox add-ons).
Hillary's looks nice, and the code tries to be semantic. Firebug found 2 javascript errors. Tidy found 8 markup validation warnings.
Edwards, nice site but a bit cluttered, code is just OK, 7 javascript errors, 7 markup validation warnings.
Obama: Nice site, one of my faves, but ugly code. 8 errors, 43 markup validation warnings
Guiliani: div and table tag bouillabaisse, 5 javascript errors, but almost validates against it's DTD (just 2 markup validation warnings).
McCain: U.G.L.Y., you ain't got no alibi! Horrid! 9 javascript errors, but as I mouse around it keeps tallying up. 77 markup validation warnings. I just didn't look at the code. I was too scared. I mean, he even made the flag black and white. I don't know, but I am sure there are some uber-patriots somewhere who are offended by that.
Romney: my fave site, ugly code. div soup. 22 errors, 9 validation warnings.
There you go, your candidates from a geek perspective. Let your browser decide!
That someone would have beef over an IM status....*shakes head*
I guess/. should wait for a C&D from ole Fuzzy for my post. That wife-beating jerk. I'll get you yet, Fuzzy. You haven't heard the last (*&#(^[NO CARRIER]
Yeah, but, like a Briney Spears (and I like that typo so much I will leave it...hehe, Briney) fan site, it's user-generated content. Regardless of how important it claims to be, it's still user-generated.
This is an interesting quandary, though. Wikipedia is not really considered citeable in academic circles, and yet it's taken seriously enough for someone who posts there to be sued. Obviously different contexts, but still. I'd think that one could use Wikipedia's lack of academic credentials as a protection here. Not wikipedia bashing; I like wikipedia. But you've gotta play the cards you're dealt, and that seems like a hand I'd try to play. The "You can't sue me, wikipedia isn't taken seriously enough to a valid reference" defense.
I don't think the discussion is centering around sex education so much. It's about whether porn is harmful to children. I hope you aren't implying that porn and sex education are the same thing.
I would even posit that it is possible for a teenager watching porn to have less of a chance of having sex
Nice try, but I doubt that. I'll do it here, only because it's actually appropriate -- I'll trundle out a tired comparison...wait for it...it's like being hungry, looking at a restaurant menu, and then not ordering. Not gonna happen, right? You'll order the food and eat.
While you could very justifiably argue that sex education will lower things like like teen pregnancy rates (and I don't that would be much of an argument, because who could reasonably disagree?) I don't think you can really make same claim for porn. That's quite a leap.
It's too bad you choose to look down on women who pose in sexual imagery. We all have our personal failings, but projecting them onto other people will not persuade anyone to your position
Hahahaha, did you respond to the wrong post or did you just not read mine?
I liked your post, though. Spoken like a guy. Ask your mother|sister|wife|girlfriend if she agrees. I'll bet you believe all those girls working in the strip clubs are working their way through law school, too.
Just like the article author imagined, you couldn't come up with a reason that amounts to more than "Lots of people think so."
I never said nor implied that. If you read that into my post, then there's no sense debating anything with you.
What you need to do is not shield/blind your kid's from it (as did my parents) because they are going to get curious about the VHS in the back of the closet or the movie coming after that recorded tape that was 'not for kids' and find out anyway.
You are right, indeed. Parents should not be hypocrites.
And I'm not advocating a "bury your head" approach. Parents must educate their children, and this involves having very frank discussions about sex. However, having frank discussions and allowing your children to have access to porn are two different things. The former is an absolute necessity. The latter is innapropriate (again, my opinion). That seems to be a very balanced approach, as far as I'm concerned.
Children might get ahold of porn, yes. They will most certainly be exposed to it at some point. That's why you train them -- so that when they are they can make a good decision. Even after all of that, though, using this rationale for letting your children look at porn is a little like saying "At some point, my children will be at a party where there will be underage drinking. I might as well have the party at my house and buy the liquor and invite all the neighborhood children!" Accepting that your children will be tempted with something and encouraging and condoning it are two different things. Hopefully you see the obvious difference there.
Nah, I didn't quite say that. Besides, that's not circular logic, that's more of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
What I meant is that if you expose your children to porn that's a bad decision, IMHO. That's my opinion, someone else has the opposite opinion. So what? I don't have to agree and neither do you. Otherwise,/. would be a very boring web site.
Yeah. But Genesis also indicates that they were created with no clothes. Their covering up had more to do with their fall into sin than anything else.
The Abrahamic texts don't really leave much wiggle room on the issue
Not sure what you are specifically talking about, but many of the laws were to prevent the Israelites from adopting the religious practices of their neighbors, which involved sex-worship.
Janet Jackson nipple-gate, etc
That was a bit ridiculous. You can debate the appropriateness, etc, but cmon. A boob for three seconds isn't going to hurt anyone. I think there were a lot of factors involved there, and not all had to do with nudity. Kids can see more than that at their local art museum or a national geographic magazine. Big deal.
Re:If you do not have rule by majority....
on
From Bess to Worse
·
· Score: 1
This was modded flamebait? How is that? What, because OP mentioned that the Republican party abolished slavery and people here don't like republicans? Fine, but know the history. First, the republican party was the party that supported abolition. The republicans and democrats basically switched social idealogies a while after the civil war. If you are a democrat now, well, likely you'd have been a republican 150 years ago. The republicans reluctantly supported abolition, though, since they were a new party at the time and needed some hot button issue to latch onto.
And the OP is right. Democracy is all about the majority. You can say you do not agree with the majority, but when you start talking about imposing your ideas on the masses who disagree, you start to scare people. You cannot let your idealism blind you to the rights of others to disagree with your views. If you do I guess you are in good company though -- I mean, Lenin and Trotsky were good company, right?
(Obligatory interstitial advertisement for common sense: I still don't see what the big deal is about porn anyway. Ask yourself: Why is it harmful to see a picture of a naked person, or even a picture of people having sex? And try to find an answer to that question that doesn't involve, "Lots of other people think so."
Ok, here's a reason: Much of it objectifies women and degrades them. I don't want my son thinking of women as sex objects, and I don't want my daughter thinking it's ok to be one.
Want another? Ever watch those dateline shows where they catch the would-be child molesters? If yes, did you notice that many of these men send the victim porn? Ever wonder why? Well, to desensitize them to sex and thus make them easier prey. Porn creates the mentality that casual sex is A-OK. Moral obligations aside, that's risky behaviour.
As a parent, it's my job to protect my children from things I deem harmful. Sex has a time and a place. But, much like other responsibilities my children will take on as they become adults, it's not something they need to be exposed to via porn. They need to be taught about sex, yes, but not exposed to the intimate details. I know that some of you will disagree with me. At the risk of sounding banal, if you aren't a parent then you really don't know anything about the subject. And if you are a parentand you allow your child to be exposed to porn, well, I am sorry for your children. I hope our children don't go to school together.
That is why I don't want my children seeing porn. Nudity (art, etc) is a bit different. The body is natural. A few years back, in my midwestern city, the most popular alternative newspaper in town had a cover with several nude female protesters on it. It was amazing how many people were offended and wrote letters expressing this. Not that we should bombard children with nudity, but if they see someone nude in a nonsexual way, I don't mind. People who do mind are sendng the wrong message to their children, that our bodies are shameful and dirty. That's going too far in the other direction and conveys wrong attitudes toward sex (hmm...just like porn).
Don't get me wrong, blocking software sucks. I hate the idea and I am not saying that it's not way too heavy handed. I wouldn't use it home even if I reasonably could. Instead I have to make sure my children know what is appropriate. But at the library, at school, etc, I don't want them to be able to get to it. Some parents don't share my view, and their children could show it to my children. Or, worse yet, an adult at the school or library could have his own reasons (see above) to show it to them. So it's with good reason they use it at institutions like this. If it means people can't get to boing boing at school, then so be it.
Man. Five mods so far, and only one person got the joke (thanks for the interesting mods all the same, though). I guess I'll keep my day job as a Windows Server admin after all.
Gotta love replying to the moderators, though. It's a bit like replying to AC, only more futile.
Slashdot Mirror
I had my suspicions when reading your comment. Then, one look at your comment history tells me you are just a troll. Ergo, your post deserves no real reply.
The point I was trying to make is that even if global warming were discredited (and I don't think this study will do it), there are other issues to deal with. If GW was totally discredited, it's not like we could carry on doing what we are doing. For example, the extinction of species -- life in an interdependent web. When you start wiping out species, you put one more nail in your own coffin.
As for the political bit, it is unfortunate that people use something as important as preserving the earth for political currency. That's exactly why we are in trouble. Face it, we are not going to colonize space or anything like that. We have to learn to work with our planet or die.
You know that the many US lawmakers who are in bed with special interests are ready to jump all over this study. One more chance to "discredit" global warming.
As for your comment, I think you are right on point. I mean, even if there are uncontrollable external factors that are at least partly responsible for global warming, that does not absolve us of the responsibility to manage our planet properly.
Even if it were to be found that global warming is a complete unreality or is entirely out of our control and due to the sun or some other factor, we still face the same issues. What about the fact that we are facing extinction of staggering number of species, due to our mismanagement of the earth? What about the fact that 20% of the world population doesn't have access to clean water?
As pressing as global warming is, arguing that man must change his habits solely on the platform of global warming is a one-legged argument. We have many, compelling reasons to make changes. Of course, we won't think about it until it's too late.
I don't necessarily agree with you when it comes to copying music, but at least I now understand your perspective, so thanks for making your points more clear to me.
;)
You car analogy is a good one, and makes your point well. I would care if it were my business to manufacture cars, though. When you make a copy of the car, that's one less car I can sell. You could reasonably equate that with theft, since you took the car I made and used a copy of it as a means to effectively put me out of business.
I think musicians should be compensated or their work. As a musician (non-professional) I can appreciate how much work can go into getting a band sounding good, writing songs, and recording them (which is a LOT of work). I still say that if you want to listen to my music, I should get some kind of monetary reward if I ask for it. Me, as an amateur, I play for fun and just want people to enjoy my music. I occasionally make some money, and that's nice, but not the point. I guess you are saying (or at least thinking) that the whole music business is a corruption of what music was originally -- made for artistic expression and enjoyment and not for money. You make a good point. Things always tend to go from informal (street musicians performing for free) to formal (multibillion dollar music industry), and that can (and does) suck the soul right out of the art. (as an aside, I tend to think that way about modern jazz...it has become as formal and rigid as classical music was, which is funny considering it was never meant to be this way) Anyway, this relatively modern invention of the "music industry" is exactly why so much music is now so vapid and unoriginal. If you feel the same, I wholeheartedly agree. On the other hand, if someone has decided to make music professionally, touring doesn't fully satisfy the demand. Right now I am listening to music on my iPod as I sit at work typing this. As much as I hate the music industry, I do enjoy the privelige of being able to listen to music despite the fact I am not at a concert. If you want to enjoy that privelige, you should have to pay for it. It's not the same as freedom of information, it's entertainment. It's a luxury, and luxuries by definition do not come free. Plus, I don't get to many concerts (at least anymore). I enjoy the music, though, so why shouldn't the musicians profit from the work that went into the recording?
Then again, and to your point, really: recorded music is recorded just once, and then copied. So after a certain amount of copies sold, the cost of recording has been totally recouped. So the music industry can make an endless amount of money from a relatively small upfront investment. I think, personally, music is waaaaay overpriced. mp3's could sell for a nickel or a dime per track and still make a lot of money. The fact they are so expensive just shows how greedy the RIAA is; they are by definition a cartel. Just because you can charge what the market will bear doesn't mean you should and that doing so builds goodwill toward you. And this is why I wish we did go back to indie musicians and no music industry. They could charge reasonable amounts and do well. But greed would enter the picture eventually, and someone would charge 11 cents instead of ten, so everyone else would start charging 11. And so on. There is no real solution, I know.
Anyhow, it has been good chatting with you. I wish you the best on your thesis. Sounds like a lot of work
So the bottom line is that you don't want people from stealing from you but you gladly steal from others. What a hypocrite.
Yes he did. But suppose a musician is not in a position to tour relentlessly? What if he has a family? What if his health is bad? What if he just doesn't want to? If there is a demand for his music, why should he not be paid for it? So me might not have the right to expect that he make as much as someone who tours and plays 20 shows a month. So what? If his music is in demand, why should he not be paid for it?
That said, I also thing that the OP makes a good point about free music generating interest in a band because I have seen it firsthand. I made a copy of an independent artist's CD that I had purchased from eMusic and gave it to my brother. When the band came to town, he was there, bought a t-shirt, etc. But there is a big difference between making a copy or two and thus getting your friends hip to your latest musical discovery and, on the other hand, freely distributing somone else's music to the anonymous masses (via the internet). Well, if you have some skill that is in demand, why should you not be paid for it? Times are different. In the past, people were enslaved and forced to work without compensation. So does that mean that people who pick cotton for a living shouldn't be paid for it just because in the past people did it for free? Gimme a break! Maybe not to you. I saw your profile where it said you are a PhD student. Suppose I got my hands on an electronic copy of your dissertation, published it, and made lots of money from the sales. According to your definition, I stole nothing, I just copied. Without some kind of protection on your ideas, I can do this legally and you have no recourse except for to grumble about it. Me, I write software for a living. If someone were to take my software, make a copy, and rebrand it as their own and make tons of money from it and in the process ensure that I will never sell my software (because the market is saturated), I'd want a legal recourse.
Again, your whole argument has nothing to do with DRM. It has to do with ethics. If you cannot see the inherent ethical issues with taking someone's work and copying|stealing|whatev you want to call it, then I don't know what else to say. I guess this should suffice: if you belive that *all* information should be free, then give me your credit card number, name, and ssn. Are you cheating on your wife|girlfriend? That should be free information, too. If you want to paint with broad brushes, let's do it.
What if, by some miracle, the RIAA were history and the artists were actually making all of the money off the distribution of their music? Would it still be OK to pirate the music? Say no, and you contradict your above argument that piracy is A-OK (unless you mean it's ok to steal from the RIAA but not the artists, which I can see in sort of an idealistic, Robin Hood sort of way). Say yes, and you don't care about the artists; you just want free music. Unless I am missing something here.
I don't the above scenario is far fetched. There are plenty of independent artists who make money from selling their music (DRM free) on their websites. Why should they not be protected from theft?
As another poster said above, and let me paraphrase...confusing DRM and copyright protection are two different things. DRM = bad, copyright protection* = good. Getting rid of both is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
* not the draconian IP enforcement as found in the US, either. I mean the principle of protecting your ideas from being plagarized. The USPO is another matter entirely.
...a screen door for a submarine!
Hot cha cha cha cha!!
heck yeah, I'll go with that. As long as they serve a purpose, I guess they're ok, but gratuitous flash is so last decade.
Had a co-worker once who loved flash; he once made a feedback form for our site with flash. It was a simple form, three fields and that's it. How lame. He was ridiculed for that one, let me tell you.
Let's have Firefox and two of the most important applications for the web developer do the work for us: Firebug and the Tidy Validator (both firefox add-ons).
Hillary's looks nice, and the code tries to be semantic. Firebug found 2 javascript errors. Tidy found 8 markup validation warnings.
Edwards, nice site but a bit cluttered, code is just OK, 7 javascript errors, 7 markup validation warnings.
Obama: Nice site, one of my faves, but ugly code. 8 errors, 43 markup validation warnings
Guiliani: div and table tag bouillabaisse, 5 javascript errors, but almost validates against it's DTD (just 2 markup validation warnings).
McCain: U.G.L.Y., you ain't got no alibi! Horrid! 9 javascript errors, but as I mouse around it keeps tallying up. 77 markup validation warnings. I just didn't look at the code. I was too scared. I mean, he even made the flag black and white. I don't know, but I am sure there are some uber-patriots somewhere who are offended by that.
Romney: my fave site, ugly code. div soup. 22 errors, 9 validation warnings.
There you go, your candidates from a geek perspective. Let your browser decide!
That someone would have beef over an IM status....*shakes head*
/. should wait for a C&D from ole Fuzzy for my post. That wife-beating jerk. I'll get you yet, Fuzzy. You haven't heard the last (*&#(^[NO CARRIER]
I guess
If you have as much money as the RIAA, heck yes you can.
Yeah, but, like a Briney Spears (and I like that typo so much I will leave it...hehe, Briney) fan site, it's user-generated content. Regardless of how important it claims to be, it's still user-generated.
This is an interesting quandary, though. Wikipedia is not really considered citeable in academic circles, and yet it's taken seriously enough for someone who posts there to be sued. Obviously different contexts, but still. I'd think that one could use Wikipedia's lack of academic credentials as a protection here. Not wikipedia bashing; I like wikipedia. But you've gotta play the cards you're dealt, and that seems like a hand I'd try to play. The "You can't sue me, wikipedia isn't taken seriously enough to a valid reference" defense.
mu!
Naw, who are we kidding? He beats the HELL out of her!
Sue me now, Fuzzy!
1) explain what a beowulf cluster is
2) make soviet russia joke
3) make netcraft reference
4) ?????
5) profit!!!
One too many? You decide!
Nice try, but I doubt that. I'll do it here, only because it's actually appropriate -- I'll trundle out a tired comparison...wait for it...it's like being hungry, looking at a restaurant menu, and then not ordering. Not gonna happen, right? You'll order the food and eat.
While you could very justifiably argue that sex education will lower things like like teen pregnancy rates (and I don't that would be much of an argument, because who could reasonably disagree?) I don't think you can really make same claim for porn. That's quite a leap.
I liked your post, though. Spoken like a guy. Ask your mother|sister|wife|girlfriend if she agrees. I'll bet you believe all those girls working in the strip clubs are working their way through law school, too. I never said nor implied that. If you read that into my post, then there's no sense debating anything with you.
And I'm not advocating a "bury your head" approach. Parents must educate their children, and this involves having very frank discussions about sex. However, having frank discussions and allowing your children to have access to porn are two different things. The former is an absolute necessity. The latter is innapropriate (again, my opinion). That seems to be a very balanced approach, as far as I'm concerned.
Children might get ahold of porn, yes. They will most certainly be exposed to it at some point. That's why you train them -- so that when they are they can make a good decision. Even after all of that, though, using this rationale for letting your children look at porn is a little like saying "At some point, my children will be at a party where there will be underage drinking. I might as well have the party at my house and buy the liquor and invite all the neighborhood children!" Accepting that your children will be tempted with something and encouraging and condoning it are two different things. Hopefully you see the obvious difference there.
What I meant is that if you expose your children to porn that's a bad decision, IMHO. That's my opinion, someone else has the opposite opinion. So what? I don't have to agree and neither do you. Otherwise,
Not sure what you are specifically talking about, but many of the laws were to prevent the Israelites from adopting the religious practices of their neighbors, which involved sex-worship.
That was a bit ridiculous. You can debate the appropriateness, etc, but cmon. A boob for three seconds isn't going to hurt anyone. I think there were a lot of factors involved there, and not all had to do with nudity. Kids can see more than that at their local art museum or a national geographic magazine. Big deal.
This was modded flamebait? How is that? What, because OP mentioned that the Republican party abolished slavery and people here don't like republicans? Fine, but know the history. First, the republican party was the party that supported abolition. The republicans and democrats basically switched social idealogies a while after the civil war. If you are a democrat now, well, likely you'd have been a republican 150 years ago. The republicans reluctantly supported abolition, though, since they were a new party at the time and needed some hot button issue to latch onto.
And the OP is right. Democracy is all about the majority. You can say you do not agree with the majority, but when you start talking about imposing your ideas on the masses who disagree, you start to scare people. You cannot let your idealism blind you to the rights of others to disagree with your views. If you do I guess you are in good company though -- I mean, Lenin and Trotsky were good company, right?
Want another? Ever watch those dateline shows where they catch the would-be child molesters? If yes, did you notice that many of these men send the victim porn? Ever wonder why? Well, to desensitize them to sex and thus make them easier prey. Porn creates the mentality that casual sex is A-OK. Moral obligations aside, that's risky behaviour.
As a parent, it's my job to protect my children from things I deem harmful. Sex has a time and a place. But, much like other responsibilities my children will take on as they become adults, it's not something they need to be exposed to via porn. They need to be taught about sex, yes, but not exposed to the intimate details. I know that some of you will disagree with me. At the risk of sounding banal, if you aren't a parent then you really don't know anything about the subject. And if you are a parentand you allow your child to be exposed to porn, well, I am sorry for your children. I hope our children don't go to school together.
That is why I don't want my children seeing porn. Nudity (art, etc) is a bit different. The body is natural. A few years back, in my midwestern city, the most popular alternative newspaper in town had a cover with several nude female protesters on it. It was amazing how many people were offended and wrote letters expressing this. Not that we should bombard children with nudity, but if they see someone nude in a nonsexual way, I don't mind. People who do mind are sendng the wrong message to their children, that our bodies are shameful and dirty. That's going too far in the other direction and conveys wrong attitudes toward sex (hmm...just like porn).
Don't get me wrong, blocking software sucks. I hate the idea and I am not saying that it's not way too heavy handed. I wouldn't use it home even if I reasonably could. Instead I have to make sure my children know what is appropriate. But at the library, at school, etc, I don't want them to be able to get to it. Some parents don't share my view, and their children could show it to my children. Or, worse yet, an adult at the school or library could have his own reasons (see above) to show it to them. So it's with good reason they use it at institutions like this. If it means people can't get to boing boing at school, then so be it.
Gotta love replying to the moderators, though. It's a bit like replying to AC, only more futile.