If he sees a sign saying "candy shop" and enters and asks for candies and they give him pr0n, I think he's got some rights to complain and leave.
Exactly, he should complain and leave. And if he's done business with the candy store, he should get his money back. But in no way should he be able to affect the way that store deals with other customers.
how about my right to do what I want with my voice (and scream at them) or email server (and email flood them) or botnet (and DDOS them)? It's my property, you know?
But by pingflooding or shouting, you are intruding on someone else's property. That's when you start being wrong.
The only thing that's needed here is some sense in both the pr0n distributors and those who dislike pr0n. To the latter: you don't wanna see it, ok, but don't censor it. To the former: they don't want to see it, but you want to make it accessible, ok, but don't go scrubbing it in their face!
Agreed, but regulating niceness is an unfortunately abhorrent concept.
That's a different issue. In your example, McDonalds has done wrong by agreeing to a transaction and then not upholding their end. Fraud is simply theft.
Deception is not a serious wrong in and of itself. Sure, it's not a nice thing to do, but it is the act that the deception allows that is really bad (ex: lying about your aids to sleep with someone).
And you get a few countries that lack the expertise to get their own internet running but do have a sizeable military force. Destroying, at least temporarily, the online businesses and government functions of an entire country. That would escalate beyond "strong condemnations" and "sanctions" very quickly. And then things would get interesting.
The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers... close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. It's all laid out right here. They want to criminalize something because it triggers a certain thought. A thought-crime if you will.
I have young students that occasionally search for school-related things using Google. Some of the sites that come up are questionable at best.
So, you click on (enter) someone else's website (property) and have the nerve to complain about how they run things? Welcome to the concept of individual sovereignity.
for about 4 or 5 seasons of TNG, the Borg seemed like the ultimate, unstoppable and unhuman enemy. This movie exposed them to be just an enemy like any other.
An ultimate, unstoppable enemy doesn't make for a very exciting (or long-lived) series.
But anyway, what you're looking for was already done in the Parallels episode, where the alternate universe enterprises start appearing. One of the Captain Rikers screams "No, we don't go back! The Borg is everywhere!"
I remember hearing about a police department in New Hamshipre that would not take applicants with above a 105 IQ, citing their appall upon discovering the true purpose of police is control and oppression
This sentiment has natural immunity to godwin damage because it so excellently mirrors what the article says:
in order to assuage the public's privacy concerns
That's right, his supposed purpose is only to make people stop worrying about privacy (at least publically). Naturally, this can be accomplished somewhere between two extremes -- a) returning rights to the people, or b) summary executions
Copy protection is not the same thing as DRM. It's a form of it, and there's nothing wrong with a company voluntarily implementing copy protection on its content. We as the consumers can then decide whether or not we want to purchase copy-protected products
Think of it as a preemptive strike. If you're not with the pirates/hackers, then you're a terrorist.
Slashdot Mirror
i've never seen or heard of a study doing this, why not?
My college charged 10 cents a page for printouts, too.
Somebody change the combination on my luggage!
Say what you will, but I always have 5 bars on my banana phone.
Seeing as SA is not a registered relief fund, what guarantee did anyone have that the money would go where it should have?
Like, oh, American Red Cross and United Way, both of which take a cut for themselves?
Maybe if Paypal didn't confiscate its customers' money at will, they wouldn't have this problem.
That's what you think...
for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction
If he sees a sign saying "candy shop" and enters and asks for candies and they give him pr0n, I think he's got some rights to complain and leave.
Exactly, he should complain and leave. And if he's done business with the candy store, he should get his money back. But in no way should he be able to affect the way that store deals with other customers.
how about my right to do what I want with my voice (and scream at them) or email server (and email flood them) or botnet (and DDOS them)? It's my property, you know?
But by pingflooding or shouting, you are intruding on someone else's property. That's when you start being wrong.
The only thing that's needed here is some sense in both the pr0n distributors and those who dislike pr0n. To the latter: you don't wanna see it, ok, but don't censor it. To the former: they don't want to see it, but you want to make it accessible, ok, but don't go scrubbing it in their face!
Agreed, but regulating niceness is an unfortunately abhorrent concept.
That's a different issue. In your example, McDonalds has done wrong by agreeing to a transaction and then not upholding their end. Fraud is simply theft.
Deception is not a serious wrong in and of itself. Sure, it's not a nice thing to do, but it is the act that the deception allows that is really bad (ex: lying about your aids to sleep with someone).
And you get a few countries that lack the expertise to get their own internet running but do have a sizeable military force. Destroying, at least temporarily, the online businesses and government functions of an entire country. That would escalate beyond "strong condemnations" and "sanctions" very quickly. And then things would get interesting.
This from a guy who says that laws prohibiting torture "do not apply to the president" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales)
Why is it that every time we hear about some bored schmuck wanting to regulate the internet, it's always an American ?
Because we were colonized by the Pilgrims, a bunch of people so uptight even the British kicked them out.
Try checking the site cheerlaeder.com (notice the typo in "leader").
That's not a typo, they're just British.
From the article:
The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers... close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. It's all laid out right here. They want to criminalize something because it triggers a certain thought. A thought-crime if you will.
Why, actually, yes. Since they pretty much agree that anyone in the above-mentioned groups should be executed.
I have young students that occasionally search for school-related things using Google. Some of the sites that come up are questionable at best.
So, you click on (enter) someone else's website (property) and have the nerve to complain about how they run things? Welcome to the concept of individual sovereignity.
the sites that still want to expose erotical/sexual content, would just move 1 inch outside the US
Hi, you must be new to American diplomacy.
for about 4 or 5 seasons of TNG, the Borg seemed like the ultimate, unstoppable and unhuman enemy. This movie exposed them to be just an enemy like any other.
An ultimate, unstoppable enemy doesn't make for a very exciting (or long-lived) series.
But anyway, what you're looking for was already done in the Parallels episode, where the alternate universe enterprises start appearing. One of the Captain Rikers screams "No, we don't go back! The Borg is everywhere!"
Story could've been better, but Patrick Stewart's performance was incredible. And whoever played Lily wasn't half-bad either.
everybody will learn the new features, understand why the change is better and will be thankful
Or, Microsoft will refuse to allow your machine the patches which would help prevent it's comprimise.
I remember hearing about a police department in New Hamshipre that would not take applicants with above a 105 IQ, citing their appall upon discovering the true purpose of police is control and oppression
Fixed.
This sentiment has natural immunity to godwin damage because it so excellently mirrors what the article says:
in order to assuage the public's privacy concerns
That's right, his supposed purpose is only to make people stop worrying about privacy (at least publically). Naturally, this can be accomplished somewhere between two extremes -- a) returning rights to the people, or b) summary executions
Just like every other technological leap since the hand axe has made people fre--oh wait...
It's an XBOX Manufacturing station...
- a new video game
- it will be released
- sometime between now and the destruction of the universe
Copy protection is not the same thing as DRM. It's a form of it, and there's nothing wrong with a company voluntarily implementing copy protection on its content. We as the consumers can then decide whether or not we want to purchase copy-protected products
Think of it as a preemptive strike. If you're not with the pirates/hackers, then you're a terrorist.