You don't define "clearly inappropriate and 'disturbing' for toddlers to see". Rather you use it as a substitution for "videos I think may be inappropriate or upsetting for me to see toddler watch". Example from elsewhere in this discussion is sharpening knives.
I have zero day to sell that allows local unlocking of any smartphone still in possession of original owner. This very powerful vulnerability can be yours for just 1MILLION! dogecoins. The exploit vector involves a rubber house. Ideal for government use.
More likely a number of people @Twitter are invested into cryptocurrency, as seeing how their Twitter options are worthless, decided to act to protect the nest egg.
you're trying to defend them and the corporation which does too little to prevent it.
No you are misrepresenting what I am trying to do. This argument isn't about keeping gore out of YouTube Kids, it is about sanitizing it to the extreme and absurd level. To the point that Looney Tunes won't pass the filters.
If you want to bubble wrap your kids to this extreme, it is your prerogative as a parent. However, don't expect the rest of us to do it for you and our own kids. You are not entitled to your parenting views being forced on everyone else.
So you're taking your kids to morgues and showing them Faces of Death? Most kids can cope just fine, but young ones especially don't need any extra violence or gore in their lives. There's nothing wrong with limiting everyone's exposure to violence.
You are confusing your emotions with reason, and acting on them. First, you mischaracterize and misstate what I suggested in attempt to smear. Second, you rationalize your helicoptering by understating magnitude of your actions.
The question here is about attempting to eliminate any hint of something that could be potentially seen as violence. The kind of busybody nonsense that keep trying to ban toy guns because they mistakenly believe pretend gun play leads to violence.
I have seen Coyote dismembered, burned, mutilated, mangled, and blown up dozens of times. How come I, and my fellow generation, did not grow up murdering sociopaths or psychotic wrecks?
I think the dismissive comments come from people who either don't have kids or don't pay enough attention to them to see when they get upset or disturbed by something they see.
You forget to consider third alternative - responsible parents that want kids to develop coping mechanisms early in life so they don't end up emotionally stunted wrecks and permanent members of the self-identified victimhood class/race/orientation.
You should know better than try to claim causation based on statistically weak correlational findings. This is exactly how we arrived to satanic panic.
While WoW is old, it isn't the first MMO. UO, for example, had many classic private servers. For decades EA cared and went after these. They all were shut down only to have new ones spin up.
Worse, when everyone ragged on MS for IE dominance, MS was just an OS and Doc Editor company. Today, when Chrome is dominant, Google is data gathering and aggregation company. It boggles my mind that everyone willingly leaks so much private information to Google by using their browser. Gmail + Chrome = they know everything about you.
This would be true circa 1995, modern linux is about as user friendly as you could imagine.
I don't have to imagine. Few years back, after getting tired of cleaning out crap from my mother's computer I tried to move her to Ubuntu. She just couldn't work with it, despite me spending couple hours training her how to do simple tasks like browsing, watching DVDs, joining wireless network. When Win10 came out she with minimal pains migrated to it (touchscreen helped).
There is a reason why the year of Linux desktop never arrives. This reason is that no matter what distro you use, it always been by techies for techies. Simple users need not apply.
If you want a toy that has bright shiny lights, makes little soothing noises, go windows
You want a professional machine? Use linux.
This is oversimplification. I like car analogies, so here is one:
Windows is a self-driving car that is powered by your blood. It will save you from yourself, even if you insist on driving off the cliff. It runs on its own, but can easily suck you dry. Linux is a nuclear-powered steam machine. Powerful, but requires you to know what manual levers to pull and push to maintain steam. Hard to get going too, as you need to build up steam. If you don't know what you are doing, boiler explodes and takes you with it.
In other news, Jesus H. Christ has been rescinded the son of god and lord savior awards to insufficiently progressive views toward women during 15 to 22 in the year of our lord.
Couldn't you just take two photos from a fixed camera position, one of a screen with x.51 and one of a screen with 5.xx? If the images are really close together couldn't you just double expose?
Probability of disaster is inversely proportional to scale. The last time something like this happened was billions of years ago when the moon was created. Why would we worry about the most unlikely events.
We have an infinitely valuable asset, our civilization, and no good way to assess risk. We don't know enough to estimate probability of extinction-level events. However, we do know that ice age nearly wiped humanity. We have seen massive epidemics. We also know that Earth went through multiple mass extinction events.
Short-term thinking is not the right tool when you are dealing with humanity's history. Costs of creating self-sustaining base on Mars are dwarfed by the opportunity our civilization would spread through the galaxies and last billion of years. From that point of view, with unimaginable resources that will become available, present-time cost of ensuring we could get there by expanding resources to safeguard our civilization are negligible.
In any scenario why would we divert resources to attempt to go to Mars instead of finding a way to 'back up' on earth which will always be more viable than mars? It doesn't make any sense.
This is good question. Multiple reasons.
Reason 1: Disaster Scale. Catastrophes that can wipe life on multiple planets are a lot more massive in scale that catastrophes that can wipe a single planet.
Reason 2: Isolation. If the nature of such disaster is contagion of some kind, then 6+ month trip offers perfect and on-going quarantine.
Reason 3: Crabs in a bucket & distance. If disaster doesn't quite wipe humanity, it can still destroy our technological society. As our society collapses, any resource will be fought over. This includes any sanctuaries or 'local backups'. It takes a lot of resources to go to Mars, this what makes it safe in such scenarios.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't define "clearly inappropriate and 'disturbing' for toddlers to see". Rather you use it as a substitution for "videos I think may be inappropriate or upsetting for me to see toddler watch". Example from elsewhere in this discussion is sharpening knives.
I have zero day to sell that allows local unlocking of any smartphone still in possession of original owner. This very powerful vulnerability can be yours for just 1MILLION! dogecoins. The exploit vector involves a rubber house. Ideal for government use.
More likely a number of people @Twitter are invested into cryptocurrency, as seeing how their Twitter options are worthless, decided to act to protect the nest egg.
He was an Anti Net Neutrality Anti Hillary
Is this sufficient reason to ban someone? Can you point in Twitter's TOS the list of disallowed opinions that he violated?
you're trying to defend them and the corporation which does too little to prevent it.
No you are misrepresenting what I am trying to do. This argument isn't about keeping gore out of YouTube Kids, it is about sanitizing it to the extreme and absurd level. To the point that Looney Tunes won't pass the filters.
If you want to bubble wrap your kids to this extreme, it is your prerogative as a parent. However, don't expect the rest of us to do it for you and our own kids. You are not entitled to your parenting views being forced on everyone else.
So you're taking your kids to morgues and showing them Faces of Death? Most kids can cope just fine, but young ones especially don't need any extra violence or gore in their lives. There's nothing wrong with limiting everyone's exposure to violence.
You are confusing your emotions with reason, and acting on them. First, you mischaracterize and misstate what I suggested in attempt to smear. Second, you rationalize your helicoptering by understating magnitude of your actions.
The question here is about attempting to eliminate any hint of something that could be potentially seen as violence. The kind of busybody nonsense that keep trying to ban toy guns because they mistakenly believe pretend gun play leads to violence.
I have seen Coyote dismembered, burned, mutilated, mangled, and blown up dozens of times. How come I, and my fellow generation, did not grow up murdering sociopaths or psychotic wrecks?
I think the dismissive comments come from people who either don't have kids or don't pay enough attention to them to see when they get upset or disturbed by something they see.
You forget to consider third alternative - responsible parents that want kids to develop coping mechanisms early in life so they don't end up emotionally stunted wrecks and permanent members of the self-identified victimhood class/race/orientation.
Forget the children! I like bubble wrap too!
Pop! Pop! Pop!
I blame your parents for letting you watch videos of people popping bubble wrap as a child.
Exactly. One day popping bubble wrap, the next day popping a suicide vest in a crowded place.
Wait, what just happened?
You should know better than try to claim causation based on statistically weak correlational findings. This is exactly how we arrived to satanic panic.
You are joking, I hope, but where I live there are actually attempts to ban clowns and clown costumes because some children are afraid of clowns.
Never underestimate illogical stupidity of soccer moms high on protect the cub instincts.
More bubble wrap! Won't somebody please think of the children?!
While WoW is old, it isn't the first MMO. UO, for example, had many classic private servers. For decades EA cared and went after these. They all were shut down only to have new ones spin up.
Worse, when everyone ragged on MS for IE dominance, MS was just an OS and Doc Editor company. Today, when Chrome is dominant, Google is data gathering and aggregation company. It boggles my mind that everyone willingly leaks so much private information to Google by using their browser. Gmail + Chrome = they know everything about you.
This would be true circa 1995, modern linux is about as user friendly as you could imagine.
I don't have to imagine. Few years back, after getting tired of cleaning out crap from my mother's computer I tried to move her to Ubuntu. She just couldn't work with it, despite me spending couple hours training her how to do simple tasks like browsing, watching DVDs, joining wireless network. When Win10 came out she with minimal pains migrated to it (touchscreen helped).
There is a reason why the year of Linux desktop never arrives. This reason is that no matter what distro you use, it always been by techies for techies. Simple users need not apply.
If you want a toy that has bright shiny lights, makes little soothing noises, go windows
You want a professional machine? Use linux.
This is oversimplification. I like car analogies, so here is one:
Windows is a self-driving car that is powered by your blood. It will save you from yourself, even if you insist on driving off the cliff. It runs on its own, but can easily suck you dry.
Linux is a nuclear-powered steam machine. Powerful, but requires you to know what manual levers to pull and push to maintain steam. Hard to get going too, as you need to build up steam. If you don't know what you are doing, boiler explodes and takes you with it.
Win10 is the most popular OS in the same way as flogging is the most popular corporal punishment.
Who is going to pay?
Obviously, Mexico. Right after they finished paying for the wall.
In other news, Jesus H. Christ has been rescinded the son of god and lord savior awards to insufficiently progressive views toward women during 15 to 22 in the year of our lord.
I am never going to purchase a flight I don't earn miles on... determining when the cheapest qualifying flights are.
This pretty much explains why modern economy flying is so awful.
AOL-like CDs in the mail are the next logical step in escalating this.
Couldn't you just take two photos from a fixed camera position, one of a screen with x.51 and one of a screen with 5.xx? If the images are really close together couldn't you just double expose?
Do you want Kessler? Because that's how you get Kessler!
Probability of disaster is inversely proportional to scale. The last time something like this happened was billions of years ago when the moon was created. Why would we worry about the most unlikely events.
We have an infinitely valuable asset, our civilization, and no good way to assess risk. We don't know enough to estimate probability of extinction-level events. However, we do know that ice age nearly wiped humanity. We have seen massive epidemics. We also know that Earth went through multiple mass extinction events.
Short-term thinking is not the right tool when you are dealing with humanity's history. Costs of creating self-sustaining base on Mars are dwarfed by the opportunity our civilization would spread through the galaxies and last billion of years. From that point of view, with unimaginable resources that will become available, present-time cost of ensuring we could get there by expanding resources to safeguard our civilization are negligible.
In any scenario why would we divert resources to attempt to go to Mars instead of finding a way to 'back up' on earth which will always be more viable than mars? It doesn't make any sense.
This is good question. Multiple reasons.
Reason 1: Disaster Scale. Catastrophes that can wipe life on multiple planets are a lot more massive in scale that catastrophes that can wipe a single planet.
Reason 2: Isolation. If the nature of such disaster is contagion of some kind, then 6+ month trip offers perfect and on-going quarantine.
Reason 3: Crabs in a bucket & distance. If disaster doesn't quite wipe humanity, it can still destroy our technological society. As our society collapses, any resource will be fought over. This includes any sanctuaries or 'local backups'. It takes a lot of resources to go to Mars, this what makes it safe in such scenarios.