First of all, how in the world is an idiot like this the head of the Science and Technology Committee? We've already got Ted Stevens (the tubes guy), but this is just pathetic.
Secondly, the government should stop trying to control the internets. Even if there is an incredibly small minority of MySpace users who have had something illegal done to them (as pointed out here), because of their own stupidity, that doesn't mean they can take away someone's right to make a website that allows people to join regardless of age (as long as the website doesn't have illegal content that is put there by those in charge of the website). Thanks to the Internet younger people have been able to freely express themselves, but since they have no say in government and can't vote they will have that taken away from them. Age doesn't determine intelligence or maturity, regardless of the stereotypes people may have of children. For those that do want to censor the Internet "for" their children: good for them, let them buy software that prevents their kids from going on the "bad" sites. That's why that software exists in the first place. The government shouldn't even be able to stop people from creating websites that have perfect legal content just because some parents are too lazy to keep their kids from looking at pr0n or get some software to stop them from doing whatever it is they want to do (censorship's fine if it's for the children!).
I think you're a bit confused. Scientists don't deny creationism validity because of their "sin nature" (??). If you bother to think a little, then you'll realize that your personal religious beliefs have no place in an objective search for knowledge (hence the application of falsifiability, empiricism, naturalism, etc. in Scientific inquiry instead of things like faith and supernaturalism).
Actually if a Christian is someone who does what the Bible says, then very few "Christians" are actually Christian.
Just because there are some passages you can pick out that aren't bigoted and stupid doesn't mean anything. If I say to kill all homosexuals, but I also say to love your neighbor, does that make me a good person? Maybe you should read the Bible instead of just listening to the passages your church tells you and assuming that's all there is. These people didn't just decide, "Oh well, homosexuals are icky, let's be intolerant of their sexual orientation and pretend," the Bible tells you to kill them (Leviticus 20:13).
A progressive Christian is someone who ignores the dogma their religion requires of them, so their hypocritical in a way, but only because rationality demands it from them.
It's like Microsoft is trying to be evil. I hope Massachusetts' ITD doesn't give into Microsoft, but MS it pretty influential. MA has some pretty strong arguments against using MS Office, but all we can do is hope that's enough.
Some Wikipedia administrators have been known to try remove any content that criticizes them at all, just look at Encyclopedia Dramatica (link semi-irrelevant). From what I've seen many Slashdotters seem to think Wikipedia is a great, open website just because a lot of its articles are good and "anyone" can edit it. Sorry to say, but this is far from true.
What you said is misleading. Hurting the fewest number of people as possible isn't necessarily fairness. If ten people are using my ideas that I've patented (assuming the patents aren't "obvious" ones) in their products and I want compensation for this, then it's fair for me to get this compensation even if more than one person gets hurt, right?
The fact that it became a law in the first place is kind of disturbing. Why should a judge even have to bother stopping this? Well, at least everything turned out good in the end, especially since Jack Thompson is probably pissed off that his attempts at stopping people from accessing anything that is at all violent have failed once again.
Apparently some Slashdotters believe that the song Happy Birthday isn't public domain, judging from the many enthusiastic comments explaining that the copyright doesn't expire until 2030.
My point was that wikis aren't inherantly multilingual. I'm not sure if you bothered to read the original post, but here is what it said, "The contribution weight of better/senior/more respected doctors should be higher compared to new graduates. The wide open public should not be allowed to write, but should be allowed to read it." Translators would be needed and they aren't necessarily doctors. I'm not saying access couldn't be given to people who aren't doctors, but that it would have to be given to people who aren't doctors if one expects to create a multilingual wiki.
It's not as easy as saying, "Let's make a wiki with a bunch of languages, you know, just like that Wikipedia site!" Not all doctors are also multilingual, though you may think otherwise.
You're correct, but other things, such as movies, can also clog up your personal Internet. Why, just the other day I sent an Internet ot one of my staff. Because of those damn YouTube videos it took an entire day just for them to get it. There's no such thing as a bad mail server, it's just those freaking YouTube videos! *head explodes*
Do you realize that children can think for themselves (ZOMG!!!)? If a child decides to go kill someone, it may be their parents who screwed them up (and it probably was), but that doesn't mean they should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. It's basically the same as charging an adult murderer's parents with involuntary manslaughter, except the murderer is older. I know that many children are more intelligent and logical than many adults, the adult murderer isn't much more logical than the child murderer in most cases. Besides, simply punishing people doesn't work, you have to educate them.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, how in the world is an idiot like this the head of the Science and Technology Committee? We've already got Ted Stevens (the tubes guy), but this is just pathetic.
Secondly, the government should stop trying to control the internets. Even if there is an incredibly small minority of MySpace users who have had something illegal done to them (as pointed out here), because of their own stupidity, that doesn't mean they can take away someone's right to make a website that allows people to join regardless of age (as long as the website doesn't have illegal content that is put there by those in charge of the website). Thanks to the Internet younger people have been able to freely express themselves, but since they have no say in government and can't vote they will have that taken away from them. Age doesn't determine intelligence or maturity, regardless of the stereotypes people may have of children. For those that do want to censor the Internet "for" their children: good for them, let them buy software that prevents their kids from going on the "bad" sites. That's why that software exists in the first place. The government shouldn't even be able to stop people from creating websites that have perfect legal content just because some parents are too lazy to keep their kids from looking at pr0n or get some software to stop them from doing whatever it is they want to do (censorship's fine if it's for the children!).
What's odd is that the DMCA notice from 2002 tells Google to block "www.xenu.com". Maybe I'm missing something, but produces that website as the first result. There is also a note at the bottom of the search results page that says, "In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org." Did Google forget to remove that notice?
In other news Slashdot is now part of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Why not legislate technology to prevent copying text? After all, text can be copyrighted.
Shh, you don't want to give them any more weird ideas...
If only it said Ted Stevens and not Alexander Mamishev...
I think you're a bit confused. Scientists don't deny creationism validity because of their "sin nature" (??). If you bother to think a little, then you'll realize that your personal religious beliefs have no place in an objective search for knowledge (hence the application of falsifiability, empiricism, naturalism, etc. in Scientific inquiry instead of things like faith and supernaturalism).
Actually if a Christian is someone who does what the Bible says, then very few "Christians" are actually Christian. Just because there are some passages you can pick out that aren't bigoted and stupid doesn't mean anything. If I say to kill all homosexuals, but I also say to love your neighbor, does that make me a good person? Maybe you should read the Bible instead of just listening to the passages your church tells you and assuming that's all there is. These people didn't just decide, "Oh well, homosexuals are icky, let's be intolerant of their sexual orientation and pretend ," the Bible tells you to kill them (Leviticus 20:13).
A progressive Christian is someone who ignores the dogma their religion requires of them, so their hypocritical in a way, but only because rationality demands it from them.
It's like Microsoft is trying to be evil. I hope Massachusetts' ITD doesn't give into Microsoft, but MS it pretty influential. MA has some pretty strong arguments against using MS Office, but all we can do is hope that's enough.
Sadly, this will probably end up happening. Whoever thought up this great idea apparently didn't think about the consequences much.
I was hoping Bill Gates would spend a lot of his money in research for increasing longevity. I guess he's planning on dying at an average age then...
Some Wikipedia administrators have been known to try remove any content that criticizes them at all, just look at Encyclopedia Dramatica (link semi-irrelevant). From what I've seen many Slashdotters seem to think Wikipedia is a great, open website just because a lot of its articles are good and "anyone" can edit it. Sorry to say, but this is far from true.
What you said is misleading. Hurting the fewest number of people as possible isn't necessarily fairness. If ten people are using my ideas that I've patented (assuming the patents aren't "obvious" ones) in their products and I want compensation for this, then it's fair for me to get this compensation even if more than one person gets hurt, right?
The fact that it became a law in the first place is kind of disturbing. Why should a judge even have to bother stopping this? Well, at least everything turned out good in the end, especially since Jack Thompson is probably pissed off that his attempts at stopping people from accessing anything that is at all violent have failed once again.
Does that mean they'd also have a tax for not being deaf?
"You heard music without paying for it! Either pay the tax or we'll bring you to court!"
Never say never.
Apparently some Slashdotters believe that the song Happy Birthday isn't public domain, judging from the many enthusiastic comments explaining that the copyright doesn't expire until 2030.
My point was that wikis aren't inherantly multilingual. I'm not sure if you bothered to read the original post, but here is what it said, "The contribution weight of better/senior/more respected doctors should be higher compared to new graduates. The wide open public should not be allowed to write, but should be allowed to read it." Translators would be needed and they aren't necessarily doctors. I'm not saying access couldn't be given to people who aren't doctors, but that it would have to be given to people who aren't doctors if one expects to create a multilingual wiki.
It's not as easy as saying, "Let's make a wiki with a bunch of languages, you know, just like that Wikipedia site!" Not all doctors are also multilingual, though you may think otherwise.
Personally, I think it tastes like chicken.
Anonymous does not forgive.
You're correct, but other things, such as movies, can also clog up your personal Internet. Why, just the other day I sent an Internet ot one of my staff. Because of those damn YouTube videos it took an entire day just for them to get it. There's no such thing as a bad mail server, it's just those freaking YouTube videos! *head explodes*
I concur.
Do you realize that children can think for themselves (ZOMG!!!)? If a child decides to go kill someone, it may be their parents who screwed them up (and it probably was), but that doesn't mean they should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. It's basically the same as charging an adult murderer's parents with involuntary manslaughter, except the murderer is older. I know that many children are more intelligent and logical than many adults, the adult murderer isn't much more logical than the child murderer in most cases. Besides, simply punishing people doesn't work, you have to educate them.
Rule 37 of the Internets: There are no girls on the Internet.
Toe harles monkez sund pety stuupid? (Wow... that was pretty pointless...)