No, really?/sarcasm. I realized that when I wrote it. That's why I didn't create an analogy. I created a hypothetical scenario and asked your opinion of it. You inferred analogy.
I never said google produced popups. I said they produced garbage search results with porn in them (when you're obviously not looking for porn). So before you go calling me a dumbass, learn to fucking read. And just FYI, I do use firefox and have all popups blocked. But as I've said in another post, the porn sites/industry have been a huge nuisance in the past and have abused the general public. I have nothing but scorn for them now. I think they should be punished far beyond forced to do a domain change for the crap they've done.
Of course/. is harmful to minors. I'd have to put its IP in my local hosts file. But the children have to be protected from the far left views of this site somehow.
I just used google for an example, when I should have said search engine. I really don't see how making a.xxx domain available is forming a ghetto. Porn sites are a nuisance. That's why I don't care for them in the least. They've paid people to harass others for years by sending spam. If the only solution to not receiving crap from them is their nonexistance, then good riddance. They've brought this upon themselves by their own actions. I see this as their punishment. If Ford sent everyone in the world 20 e-mails a day for a year peddling their products/promotions, and the government said the company could no longer use the internet at all in any form, who would you support? I suspect you would never buy [another] Ford product [again].
This isn't a form of government censorship. It would be a form of personal censorship.
Your argument would be like saying you don't have the right not to have a Ku Klux Klan or Black Panther rally on your front lawn. I'm willing to bet that you're opposed to at least one of those organizations. Not only would it be a physical annoyance for them to be on your lawn, but you wouldn't want to even look at it either. They're both immature, ignorant, and intolerant, but so would coming and pissing on your pet or flashing your wife/child and stating it's "wrong" or "illegal" because they "didn't have to look". That argument just doesn't hold up.
But let's take your "didn't/don't have to look" argument. Let's say I'm asked to a child's birthday party as a clown to make balloon animals or whatever they do, but somewhere on my site's fine print hidden deep in a site map is the clause that I perform nude. Then I go and expose myself to a group of 20-30 children on the defense that they didn't have to look at me, but that they were supposed to be looking at the balloons. Ok, now your my lawyer and you have to respond to a child that said "I didn't want to look, but he held the balloon over his special place and then moved it away quickly forcing me to see it." Your defense would be that any circumvention of them "not wanting to look" on my part is irrelevant, circumstantial and insignificant.
But likely, when the parents at the party tried to kick me out, I'd just sue them for breach of contract since this is America. So I'll just wait for the porn companies to try and sue the geeks that make the personal choice to block their porn site from invading their screen by blocking their methods of circumvention.
One shouldn't have to be a hermit to protect themselves or their children from the immorals of society. Decency laws exist for that reason. There are certain ways to act in public, as there should be on the internet. Contrary to what forty "hojillion"/.ers think, the internet is a public place that should have some decency. And what's "decent" and/or "moral" shouldn't have to be taught to adults.
The problem with.kid or.cn is that the content leaves a huge gap (where teenagers land). I think it's best being real and honest with children and teenagers, but think about what isn't allowed to shown in public either.
Finally after 30 minutes of looking for a description of it. Here's a Congresscritter's words on "Harmful to Minors". As defined by him/his committee/his intern in 2003.
"Harmful to minors" is defined as content that:
appeals to minors' morbid interest in violent or sex
is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, and
lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
That would be the next entry into my local DNS hosts file. They say filtering is a less intrusive means to this, so then make that filtering easier for the average person to do I say. I really don't see how adding context restricts free speech. There's a place and time for any speech, but what about a person's right not to have to listen to such speech (ie, porn pop ups/general porn advertisements, crappy results from google)?
to a bridge to no where in some other state than yours
Whoa whoa whoa. Back up there. It wasn't to "no where". That $250M bridge was going to connect a village of 50 people to their nearest road. Which is obviously the viable option since we can't have the government just giving those 50 people H2's and snowmobiles./sarcasm
Or maybe we should just leave Alaska (and its oil) to the polar bears and karibu?
I bet when it comes to laundry, someone taught you how to wash your shirts once, and you've never experimented with different combinations of hanging the clothes to dry or running the dryer, have you?
Um, yeah. Is throwing it all in together and drying every bit of it because it was taking up too much time from drinking^Wstudying an experiment? And guess what, they always came out fine. Experience is the best way to learn anything. Especially with using computers. I'd rather my parents tell me "If I wanted to just play around with this is there anything I can break that you can't fix?" than "Can you show me..." Not only will it utilize less of my time, but they'd retain much more as well.
If he is right in his programs, why can't we know anything about them, why can't the courts?
Under the situation and circumstances that our knowledge and quest for full "transparency" of every little freaking detail (that are typically irrelevant to us, but not to those attempting to circumvent the procedure) be made public. When the media and people go too far into things that really aren't their concern undermine the success of any program. It has gotten to the point they're having to say "we can't talk about this at all" because in the past it gets leaked then investigated in a committee. At that point someone seeking political gains wants an irrelevant full disclosure or things that were found legal during the investigation. Basically just wasting time in pointless debates over legal things instead of trying to tackle actual problems. That is more of an issue internal to the Congress where they don't trust the competence of their own collegues that they voted to assign to a specific committee.
This law is bad because at best it makes things that are already illegal, illegal, and at worst it makes things that are legal illegal. When you look at laws you can't say "likely it will be used right" or "it probably will be used right" you have to look at in what worst way can it be used for the wrong ends, and thats what that law can do.
Well, you can blame power hungry or corrupt police, unethical lawyers, activist judges that let those lawyers get away with their insane interpretations, and finally the legislators that can't speak in freaking http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ If they'd all do their jobs better, this wouldn't be an issue.
I don't think those two quotes have to be contradictory.
And my interpretation from what little we were given is they are. At least we were in agreement TFA wasn't 100% clear. I saw it as an attempt to stop talking about legal incidents, and the 2nd quote said it would stop talking about illegal incidents (obviously a horrible thing).
I read about a page of comments all basically saying the same thing "I hate this" "Bush's fault" "It won't get past the courts, move along" etc etc. Too bad there weren't any "why I hate this" comments backing up their opinions.
I wish the Washington Post had included a link to the original wording of this proposed bill. But they didn't so all we had was this:
The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.
Meaning, the law would make it illegal to disclose information that might harm ongoing legal investigations. How is that a bad thing? It would still be legal to report surveillance that is being preformed illegally. The key words are "conducted under a 1978 surveillance law". If this is the actual case the other quote they gave us:
"The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact," said Martin, a civil liberties advocate.
is contradictory and incorrect. One of them is wrong. The important question is which? Likely this law wouldn't affect law abiding citizens at all. The media has brought this crap upon themselves though. By reporting anything whether accurate or not in the name of revenue and ratings.
You not hearing about legal wiretapping will not affect your life. You not hearing about illegal wiretapping is a different story. In the haste of the Washington Post to produce a story, they have reported contradictory opinions without facts to show which is true.
Cost to rent a DVD: $5
Price of a case of beer: $15
4 bags of microwavable popcorn: $4
Not having to listen to ignorant comments made by strangers and not missing anything by being able to pause when you gotta piss: priceless.
Total cost: $24 for the movie and drinking games. Yeah, you're not getting ripped off.
Oh wait, my costs are USD, so I'd be paying about 50x what you would in Toronto. Can I ask, why do y'all call it pop?
He's just wrong there. If I'm buying a Picasso, I can buy it and only keep a torn off corner. It's the CD that I can't just break into pieces and keep what I want, and give/trade the tracks I don't like to friends. I agree the analogy doesn't fit, just saying it's also incorrect as sure you can buy part of a painting (You're just going to pay for it all, just like an album).
You think everyone in the world could or would give up fossil fuels or even green electricity overnight? Not a chance. Most would die within a few weeks of that from starvation. The rest would die within a year from starvation. Large farms would be shut down completely without industrialised equipment. Those with gardens of their own at home would be targets of pillaging. It just really isn't feasible. Rhetorical question: Would your job still exist without electricity?
Right, but those with a value less than 1 aren't greenhouse gasses. Thank you. I couldn't remember, but yes, SF6, Sulfur Hexaflouride is what I was thinking about. It's about the nastiest thing we've ever created in the discussion of global warming.
At what time in the past have there been humans and CO2 levels higher than they are now? I really need/want to do some reading and see at what levels (pH) the plankton would stop to function. And from there calculate how much CO2 it would take to acheive that pH. It may be a lot less than the average person would assume. 1 lb of CO2 will lower the pH of thousands of gallons of saltwater enough to dissolve CaCO3 based rock.
I suspect we need it more to do that breating thing we're so used to. CO2 does more than cause global warming. Actually, CO2 is the least of worries when it comes to global warming. It's the base for the units they created just to measure how bad a greenhouse gas is. Meaning every other compound they've found to be contributing to global warming is higher (much higher in some cases) than CO2. I can't remember the compound that's molecule for molecule 21,000 times worse of a greenhouse gas than CO2. But anyway, that's a beaten into the ground issue.
My biggest concern, as of recent, with rising CO2 levels is their absoption into the ocean lowering the pH of the water by creation of carbonic acid. If the plankton and algae levels can't reproduce to keep up with the CO2 level rise the pH will continue to drop to the point where the acidic water will dissolve said plantlife. That plantlife that is the source of 90% of the world's oxygen generation (ie, 90% of the CO2 uptake as well). I'm sure you can already see the problem this will cause. The CO2 uptake levels will drop considerably quite quickly lowering the pH values even more. This trend would continue to kill off more and more life in the oceans. The decaying matter would also contribute to O2 uptake and CO2 production, but the most important is the significant reduction in CO2 uptake. I can deal with my weather being wetter and warmer 10 degrees. Hell, I'd likely prefer that. But none of us can stop breathing. I don't know the pH level at which plankton starts to dissolve, but as soon as we hit it I'd say the world is fucked within a month. Just like a computer getting sluggish, then BSOD, and a reboot that would take a billion years (give or take an eon) of re-evolution.
Oh, most definately. I'm just saying if you (not you, some hippies, or oil tycoons one... odd they agree occasionally, ie. when it's illogical and irrational) have a problem with "battery pollution" don't throw them in a landfill but take them to a recycling plant. It's not a difficult concept that the majority of complainers about hybrids and technology just don't understand. The old batteries get made into better ones. Oh well, I still have optimism that we're on our way.
Enthusiastic and well funded my ass. We spend 10 times as much on "clean" coal research (most on natural gas) per year than nuclear research. Check the budgets, I can provide numbers and links if you'd like.
Slashdot Mirror
No, really? /sarcasm. I realized that when I wrote it. That's why I didn't create an analogy. I created a hypothetical scenario and asked your opinion of it. You inferred analogy.
I never said google produced popups. I said they produced garbage search results with porn in them (when you're obviously not looking for porn). So before you go calling me a dumbass, learn to fucking read. And just FYI, I do use firefox and have all popups blocked. But as I've said in another post, the porn sites/industry have been a huge nuisance in the past and have abused the general public. I have nothing but scorn for them now. I think they should be punished far beyond forced to do a domain change for the crap they've done.
Of course /. is harmful to minors. I'd have to put its IP in my local hosts file. But the children have to be protected from the far left views of this site somehow.
I just used google for an example, when I should have said search engine. I really don't see how making a .xxx domain available is forming a ghetto. Porn sites are a nuisance. That's why I don't care for them in the least. They've paid people to harass others for years by sending spam. If the only solution to not receiving crap from them is their nonexistance, then good riddance. They've brought this upon themselves by their own actions. I see this as their punishment. If Ford sent everyone in the world 20 e-mails a day for a year peddling their products/promotions, and the government said the company could no longer use the internet at all in any form, who would you support? I suspect you would never buy [another] Ford product [again].
This isn't a form of government censorship. It would be a form of personal censorship.
Your argument would be like saying you don't have the right not to have a Ku Klux Klan or Black Panther rally on your front lawn. I'm willing to bet that you're opposed to at least one of those organizations. Not only would it be a physical annoyance for them to be on your lawn, but you wouldn't want to even look at it either. They're both immature, ignorant, and intolerant, but so would coming and pissing on your pet or flashing your wife/child and stating it's "wrong" or "illegal" because they "didn't have to look". That argument just doesn't hold up.
But let's take your "didn't/don't have to look" argument. Let's say I'm asked to a child's birthday party as a clown to make balloon animals or whatever they do, but somewhere on my site's fine print hidden deep in a site map is the clause that I perform nude. Then I go and expose myself to a group of 20-30 children on the defense that they didn't have to look at me, but that they were supposed to be looking at the balloons. Ok, now your my lawyer and you have to respond to a child that said "I didn't want to look, but he held the balloon over his special place and then moved it away quickly forcing me to see it." Your defense would be that any circumvention of them "not wanting to look" on my part is irrelevant, circumstantial and insignificant.
But likely, when the parents at the party tried to kick me out, I'd just sue them for breach of contract since this is America. So I'll just wait for the porn companies to try and sue the geeks that make the personal choice to block their porn site from invading their screen by blocking their methods of circumvention.
One shouldn't have to be a hermit to protect themselves or their children from the immorals of society. Decency laws exist for that reason. There are certain ways to act in public, as there should be on the internet. Contrary to what forty "hojillion" /.ers think, the internet is a public place that should have some decency. And what's "decent" and/or "moral" shouldn't have to be taught to adults.
The problem with .kid or .cn is that the content leaves a huge gap (where teenagers land). I think it's best being real and honest with children and teenagers, but think about what isn't allowed to shown in public either.
I wouldn't have either til I checked the definition.
http://www.tfd.com/morbid
1.b. Psychologically unhealthy or unwholesome
2. Characterized by preoccupation with unwholesome thoughts or feelings
But now, yeah, I'd say the typical teenager/minor is preoccupied with sex. So I think those 2 definitions apply here.
Finally after 30 minutes of looking for a description of it. Here's a Congresscritter's words on "Harmful to Minors". As defined by him/his committee/his intern in 2003.
Fact Sheet on H.R. 669: Protect Children From Video Game Sex & Violence Act of 2003e t.htm
http://www.house.gov/baca/hotissues/video_factshe
That would be the next entry into my local DNS hosts file. They say filtering is a less intrusive means to this, so then make that filtering easier for the average person to do I say. I really don't see how adding context restricts free speech. There's a place and time for any speech, but what about a person's right not to have to listen to such speech (ie, porn pop ups/general porn advertisements, crappy results from google)?
to a bridge to no where in some other state than yours
/sarcasm
Whoa whoa whoa. Back up there. It wasn't to "no where". That $250M bridge was going to connect a village of 50 people to their nearest road. Which is obviously the viable option since we can't have the government just giving those 50 people H2's and snowmobiles.
Or maybe we should just leave Alaska (and its oil) to the polar bears and karibu?
Computers don't emit Carbon. They're our Silicon based lifeform friends.
It's that damn 3M company and their transparent tape at it again!
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/01/021 8209
:) I actually thought you might have been being sarcastic, but I just had to.
I bet when it comes to laundry, someone taught you how to wash your shirts once, and you've never experimented with different combinations of hanging the clothes to dry or running the dryer, have you?
..." Not only will it utilize less of my time, but they'd retain much more as well.
Um, yeah. Is throwing it all in together and drying every bit of it because it was taking up too much time from drinking^Wstudying an experiment? And guess what, they always came out fine. Experience is the best way to learn anything. Especially with using computers. I'd rather my parents tell me "If I wanted to just play around with this is there anything I can break that you can't fix?" than "Can you show me
Nope, and neither has sarcastic humor. You're way more than 5 days behind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client
Hmm, nope. No mention of mb, ram, or mhz anywhere in that definition/description.
Under the situation and circumstances that our knowledge and quest for full "transparency" of every little freaking detail (that are typically irrelevant to us, but not to those attempting to circumvent the procedure) be made public. When the media and people go too far into things that really aren't their concern undermine the success of any program. It has gotten to the point they're having to say "we can't talk about this at all" because in the past it gets leaked then investigated in a committee. At that point someone seeking political gains wants an irrelevant full disclosure or things that were found legal during the investigation. Basically just wasting time in pointless debates over legal things instead of trying to tackle actual problems. That is more of an issue internal to the Congress where they don't trust the competence of their own collegues that they voted to assign to a specific committee.
This law is bad because at best it makes things that are already illegal, illegal, and at worst it makes things that are legal illegal. When you look at laws you can't say "likely it will be used right" or "it probably will be used right" you have to look at in what worst way can it be used for the wrong ends, and thats what that law can do.Well, you can blame power hungry or corrupt police, unethical lawyers, activist judges that let those lawyers get away with their insane interpretations, and finally the legislators that can't speak in freaking http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ If they'd all do their jobs better, this wouldn't be an issue.
I don't think those two quotes have to be contradictory.And my interpretation from what little we were given is they are. At least we were in agreement TFA wasn't 100% clear. I saw it as an attempt to stop talking about legal incidents, and the 2nd quote said it would stop talking about illegal incidents (obviously a horrible thing).
I read about a page of comments all basically saying the same thing "I hate this" "Bush's fault" "It won't get past the courts, move along" etc etc. Too bad there weren't any "why I hate this" comments backing up their opinions.
I wish the Washington Post had included a link to the original wording of this proposed bill. But they didn't so all we had was this:
Meaning, the law would make it illegal to disclose information that might harm ongoing legal investigations. How is that a bad thing? It would still be legal to report surveillance that is being preformed illegally. The key words are "conducted under a 1978 surveillance law". If this is the actual case the other quote they gave us:
is contradictory and incorrect. One of them is wrong. The important question is which? Likely this law wouldn't affect law abiding citizens at all. The media has brought this crap upon themselves though. By reporting anything whether accurate or not in the name of revenue and ratings.You not hearing about legal wiretapping will not affect your life. You not hearing about illegal wiretapping is a different story. In the haste of the Washington Post to produce a story, they have reported contradictory opinions without facts to show which is true.
Cost to rent a DVD: $5
Price of a case of beer: $15
4 bags of microwavable popcorn: $4
Not having to listen to ignorant comments made by strangers and not missing anything by being able to pause when you gotta piss: priceless.
Total cost: $24 for the movie and drinking games. Yeah, you're not getting ripped off. Oh wait, my costs are USD, so I'd be paying about 50x what you would in Toronto. Can I ask, why do y'all call it pop?
He's just wrong there. If I'm buying a Picasso, I can buy it and only keep a torn off corner. It's the CD that I can't just break into pieces and keep what I want, and give/trade the tracks I don't like to friends. I agree the analogy doesn't fit, just saying it's also incorrect as sure you can buy part of a painting (You're just going to pay for it all, just like an album).
You think everyone in the world could or would give up fossil fuels or even green electricity overnight? Not a chance. Most would die within a few weeks of that from starvation. The rest would die within a year from starvation. Large farms would be shut down completely without industrialised equipment. Those with gardens of their own at home would be targets of pillaging. It just really isn't feasible. Rhetorical question: Would your job still exist without electricity?
Right, but those with a value less than 1 aren't greenhouse gasses. Thank you. I couldn't remember, but yes, SF6, Sulfur Hexaflouride is what I was thinking about. It's about the nastiest thing we've ever created in the discussion of global warming.
At what time in the past have there been humans and CO2 levels higher than they are now? I really need/want to do some reading and see at what levels (pH) the plankton would stop to function. And from there calculate how much CO2 it would take to acheive that pH. It may be a lot less than the average person would assume. 1 lb of CO2 will lower the pH of thousands of gallons of saltwater enough to dissolve CaCO3 based rock.
I suspect we need it more to do that breating thing we're so used to. CO2 does more than cause global warming. Actually, CO2 is the least of worries when it comes to global warming. It's the base for the units they created just to measure how bad a greenhouse gas is. Meaning every other compound they've found to be contributing to global warming is higher (much higher in some cases) than CO2. I can't remember the compound that's molecule for molecule 21,000 times worse of a greenhouse gas than CO2. But anyway, that's a beaten into the ground issue.
My biggest concern, as of recent, with rising CO2 levels is their absoption into the ocean lowering the pH of the water by creation of carbonic acid. If the plankton and algae levels can't reproduce to keep up with the CO2 level rise the pH will continue to drop to the point where the acidic water will dissolve said plantlife. That plantlife that is the source of 90% of the world's oxygen generation (ie, 90% of the CO2 uptake as well). I'm sure you can already see the problem this will cause. The CO2 uptake levels will drop considerably quite quickly lowering the pH values even more. This trend would continue to kill off more and more life in the oceans. The decaying matter would also contribute to O2 uptake and CO2 production, but the most important is the significant reduction in CO2 uptake. I can deal with my weather being wetter and warmer 10 degrees. Hell, I'd likely prefer that. But none of us can stop breathing. I don't know the pH level at which plankton starts to dissolve, but as soon as we hit it I'd say the world is fucked within a month. Just like a computer getting sluggish, then BSOD, and a reboot that would take a billion years (give or take an eon) of re-evolution.
Likely, if it'd been funded 10 times as much as coal research since hmmm, 1980 or so... I say yeah, we'd likely have working fusion power right now.
Oh, most definately. I'm just saying if you (not you, some hippies, or oil tycoons one... odd they agree occasionally, ie. when it's illogical and irrational) have a problem with "battery pollution" don't throw them in a landfill but take them to a recycling plant. It's not a difficult concept that the majority of complainers about hybrids and technology just don't understand. The old batteries get made into better ones. Oh well, I still have optimism that we're on our way.
Enthusiastic and well funded my ass. We spend 10 times as much on "clean" coal research (most on natural gas) per year than nuclear research. Check the budgets, I can provide numbers and links if you'd like.