Why are you trying to shelter your kids from spam? How old are they? People keep saying "5 year old kids shouldn't have such and such", but there's no age given.
If your child is old enough (which is some age less than 15 but more than 10):
Kids are eventually going to see spam and you need to teach them how to handle it. I have the same argument about trying to filter your kid's internet access. They're going to find it anyway, either get around the filter, or to go a friend's house, or whatever.
The solution to children seeing porn online is to teach them about sex. The key is that they know the difference between sex in real life and porn. That sex is something you should have when you're ready, and that porn is something done for completley different reasons than sex. It's stupid to expect that children will never see porn, and to believe that your children will never be exposed to it is ignorant, you need to teach them how to handle it properly.
Likewise, teach them that spam is all garbage. It's stupid and ignorant to believe that kids are never going to see spam. Honestly, it's not that big of a problem though, it's just like junk mail, it's not some horrible moral dilemma.
However if you're kids are too young to see "increase penis size" in emails then they're too young to see the viagra commercials on TV, and they're too young to allow to use the internet.
Were you recording the officer at the time? Because this entire discussion is about excessive force resulting from the police officer being recorded. If you weren't recording the officer, the story isn't relevant.
There isn't faith involved in using hidden cameras to record the actions of potentially abusive police officers. In fact doing that is based in distrust and lack of faith.
As cameras continue to get smaller and therefore easier to conceal, it's going to get easier to catch abusive police officers on tape and send the video to the media.
I wasn't aware that there was any other unfriendly nation with any type of offensive or defensive laser. Seems like more military spending on something that we'll never use because some jackass in the government got freaked about about "terrorists with lasers".
Yes of course, there's no evidence that we have more lasers so the obvious conclusion is that we have a lot more useful lasers that the government is hiding from us because they're classified.
You know, we also have no evidence that the military has gundam warriors... they must obviously have a huge fleet of them... they're just classified, that's why you haven't seen them.
What about employees marking which password is theirs? Not to mention that someone only has to try 15 passwords, seems like a bad idea. Even if the system locks them out after 5 bad passwords, that's a one in three chance that someone can guess their way into the system.
I've never heard of a morals and ethics course at high schools, but I think that the sex ed. you mentioned actually serves a legitimate purpose in high schools.
Sex ed. used to be something of an anatomy/biology lesson. Explaining exactly how the entire reproductive system worked, which isn't something the average person would know without being taught. Without any education on the subject, the most I'd expect someone to know is "The penis goes in the vagina and 9 months later a baby comes out".
However, sex. ed. has become something worthless consisting of "Don't have sex until you're married or you will die from having a million STDs". Lo and behold, the most any high schooler knows about the subject is "The penis goes in the vagina and 9 months later a baby comes out".
This lesson on "Internet safety" sounds like a load of shit now, but I think it's similar to the sex ed. situation. It serves a useful purpose, should be part of the existing "health" class, but needs to be made better. Once improved, it could help a lot of people.
Of course, the problem with both of these is that because they've devolved into this shit, it's unlikely they'll change back until the problem gets so bad that we literally have a national health crisis. Only then will someone in the government manage to pull their head out of their ass and figure out that we need to keep the "morals" (read "Christian ideals") out of schools and actually teach facts.
I wonder how long it will be until the college tells the professor that he can either allow his students to take notes, or find somewhere else to work and fund his research.
I can't imagine that the students are happy with a "no notes" rule, and I'm sure the college will be receiving complaints left, right, and center about this.
God forbid you actually read the article. It says right there that it gets to 6000K.
Just because it's hot doesn't mean that it's going to cook anything around it. There's science involved here that I don't understand, but common sense (and a video of this guy standing right next to the damn thing) tells me that we aren't in danger of being fried by this streetlight.
And when it's cloudy, or the moon isn't full? "During the vast majority of our evolution we didn't have artificial light, but we did just fine" During the vast majority of our evolution, we didn't drive cars. The culture was also completely different so we may or may not have had any reason to walk outside at night. We may have had better night vision "back then" because no one grew up with artificial lights.
The next time you're going to make a "We didn't have XYZ, but we did fine!" argument, think about it for 10 seconds. Chances are, you'll see that it's fatally flawed.
The reason we light up the street is because it prevents accidents. Yes, we could save power by turning off the streetlights, but that defeats the purpose of the streetlights, and results in more accidents.
Yes, of course. We should make light bulbs more *inefficient* and waste more power. Because obviously, the efficiency of lights and the problem of light pollution are completely related and there's no way to solve both problems.
"Controlled with eye movement" Doesn't automatically mean that the robot is going to actually do anything to the place where the surgeon is looking. As the summary mentions, the eye-triggered commands could be as simple as switching a camera view, something that obviously isn't going to cut open the patient.
I don't know why everyone on here seems to think that they're the first person to figure out that a robot shouldn't slice open a patient because the doctor blinked.
The solution to preventing yourself from being raided by the FBI is not to disable things that make your life more convenient. The solution is to get the EFF and ACLU to help prevent the FBI from abusing their power like this. Clicking on a link doesn't mean that you wanted to see child porn. If the link said "google.com", but really took you to a child porn site, that isn't reason to break your door down.
Won't it be a little obvious that it's fake when people read "So yesterday I was listening to my Ipod, don't buy a zune or anything else, buy an ipod because they're so much better, and I saw a cute girl" "and then today I was driving in my DODGE CHARGER, buy a dodge charger, don't buy ford made products".
Also, why are professors debating the ethics of the course? Was the course created knowing that some company was going to pay the students to make a fake blog? Seems to me this issue should have been dealt with long ago.
So.... quite useless then? I don't know much about this so correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that port scans are worthless for actually doing anything. They can tell you if a vulnerable process is running, but if one isn't then you aren't getting in. A wardialer would have to find the phone number to dial which is presumably easily, but then they would actually have to get past whatever security measures the system has.
Since when the hell is taxation a violent measure? Also, last time I checked there wasn't anything in the bible that says "Thou shalt bill the crap out of anyone you help".
It doesn't drive costs down. The market system works with things like TVs, radios, cars, and stuff that people can actually afford to buy. Health care costs so unbelievably much that you must have health insurance and/or be a billionaire to afford it. (Literally a billionaire, some operations can easily cost several million dollars. So even the cliche "millionaire" doesn't work here.) If everyone was a billionaire and could afford to choose which doctors they see, the market system would work. But not everyone is a billionaire. Thus, insurance companies force people into using certain doctors, which specific ones depend on the insurance company. This necessarily means that a large number of people cannot see a doctor that they need to see because their insurance won't cover it. (eye care, dental care care are the common ones).
Free market health care does not spark innovation, I seriously have no idea where the hell you got that idea from.
Universal health care provides free health care to everyone. So even if the free market system drives costs down, this one eliminates them entirely. There is the issue of taxes, but quite frankly it's worth it. Most of the people who vote against this have never been in the position of having to see a loved one, or themselves, die because of their inability to pay for a surgery. Should they actually be placed into that position, they'd be complaining that health care is too expensive and that insurance companies are evil and that we should have universal health care.
Considering the fact that there was no such thing as a "home network" to monitor until sometime in the last 20 years, not having the skills to do so actually seems quite reasonable.
But I don't know why you think that kids don't have a right to privacy. If you seriously expect your kids to share everything with you, then you're a moron of the highest degree. If you try to invade what privacy kids attempt to make for themselves (I.E. "tell me what Janie said or you're grounded") then you're setting yourself up for one hell of a rebellion later in their life. It will not be pretty, to think it might turn out all right is naive.
I can understand not wanting your kids to not talk to strangers, but that's better handled by teaching your children not to talk to strangers than attempting to monitor their communication. You can either punish a kid every time they talk to strangers, or you can teach them that bad things can happen because there are bad people out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you trying to shelter your kids from spam? How old are they? People keep saying "5 year old kids shouldn't have such and such", but there's no age given.
If your child is old enough (which is some age less than 15 but more than 10):
Kids are eventually going to see spam and you need to teach them how to handle it. I have the same argument about trying to filter your kid's internet access. They're going to find it anyway, either get around the filter, or to go a friend's house, or whatever.
The solution to children seeing porn online is to teach them about sex. The key is that they know the difference between sex in real life and porn. That sex is something you should have when you're ready, and that porn is something done for completley different reasons than sex. It's stupid to expect that children will never see porn, and to believe that your children will never be exposed to it is ignorant, you need to teach them how to handle it properly.
Likewise, teach them that spam is all garbage. It's stupid and ignorant to believe that kids are never going to see spam. Honestly, it's not that big of a problem though, it's just like junk mail, it's not some horrible moral dilemma.
However if you're kids are too young to see "increase penis size" in emails then they're too young to see the viagra commercials on TV, and they're too young to allow to use the internet.
Anyone know the coordinates for this? The town is pretty big and it's kind of a pain to search the entire town for one smiley face on google maps.
Last time I checked, corrupt cops didn't go advertising their corruptness to everyone else in the station.
Were you recording the officer at the time? Because this entire discussion is about excessive force resulting from the police officer being recorded. If you weren't recording the officer, the story isn't relevant.
There isn't faith involved in using hidden cameras to record the actions of potentially abusive police officers. In fact doing that is based in distrust and lack of faith.
As cameras continue to get smaller and therefore easier to conceal, it's going to get easier to catch abusive police officers on tape and send the video to the media.
I wasn't aware that there was any other unfriendly nation with any type of offensive or defensive laser. Seems like more military spending on something that we'll never use because some jackass in the government got freaked about about "terrorists with lasers".
Yes of course, there's no evidence that we have more lasers so the obvious conclusion is that we have a lot more useful lasers that the government is hiding from us because they're classified.
You know, we also have no evidence that the military has gundam warriors... they must obviously have a huge fleet of them... they're just classified, that's why you haven't seen them.
Yes, because finding a new job and home is such an easy thing to do.
Where do you live that you can bike to work without nearly getting run over on a constant basis?
NO SOUP FOR YOU!!
That's right, I'm the... well, you get it.
What about employees marking which password is theirs? Not to mention that someone only has to try 15 passwords, seems like a bad idea. Even if the system locks them out after 5 bad passwords, that's a one in three chance that someone can guess their way into the system.
I've never heard of a morals and ethics course at high schools, but I think that the sex ed. you mentioned actually serves a legitimate purpose in high schools.
Sex ed. used to be something of an anatomy/biology lesson. Explaining exactly how the entire reproductive system worked, which isn't something the average person would know without being taught. Without any education on the subject, the most I'd expect someone to know is "The penis goes in the vagina and 9 months later a baby comes out".
However, sex. ed. has become something worthless consisting of "Don't have sex until you're married or you will die from having a million STDs". Lo and behold, the most any high schooler knows about the subject is "The penis goes in the vagina and 9 months later a baby comes out".
This lesson on "Internet safety" sounds like a load of shit now, but I think it's similar to the sex ed. situation. It serves a useful purpose, should be part of the existing "health" class, but needs to be made better. Once improved, it could help a lot of people.
Of course, the problem with both of these is that because they've devolved into this shit, it's unlikely they'll change back until the problem gets so bad that we literally have a national health crisis. Only then will someone in the government manage to pull their head out of their ass and figure out that we need to keep the "morals" (read "Christian ideals") out of schools and actually teach facts.
I wonder how long it will be until the college tells the professor that he can either allow his students to take notes, or find somewhere else to work and fund his research.
I can't imagine that the students are happy with a "no notes" rule, and I'm sure the college will be receiving complaints left, right, and center about this.
Why is this modded informative? The video in the article said that the bulb does, in fact, reach 6000K.
God forbid you actually read the article. It says right there that it gets to 6000K.
Just because it's hot doesn't mean that it's going to cook anything around it. There's science involved here that I don't understand, but common sense (and a video of this guy standing right next to the damn thing) tells me that we aren't in danger of being fried by this streetlight.
And when it's cloudy, or the moon isn't full?
"During the vast majority of our evolution we didn't have artificial light, but we did just fine" During the vast majority of our evolution, we didn't drive cars. The culture was also completely different so we may or may not have had any reason to walk outside at night. We may have had better night vision "back then" because no one grew up with artificial lights.
The next time you're going to make a "We didn't have XYZ, but we did fine!" argument, think about it for 10 seconds. Chances are, you'll see that it's fatally flawed.
The reason we light up the street is because it prevents accidents. Yes, we could save power by turning off the streetlights, but that defeats the purpose of the streetlights, and results in more accidents.
Yes, of course. We should make light bulbs more *inefficient* and waste more power. Because obviously, the efficiency of lights and the problem of light pollution are completely related and there's no way to solve both problems.
"Controlled with eye movement" Doesn't automatically mean that the robot is going to actually do anything to the place where the surgeon is looking. As the summary mentions, the eye-triggered commands could be as simple as switching a camera view, something that obviously isn't going to cut open the patient.
I don't know why everyone on here seems to think that they're the first person to figure out that a robot shouldn't slice open a patient because the doctor blinked.
The solution to preventing yourself from being raided by the FBI is not to disable things that make your life more convenient. The solution is to get the EFF and ACLU to help prevent the FBI from abusing their power like this. Clicking on a link doesn't mean that you wanted to see child porn. If the link said "google.com", but really took you to a child porn site, that isn't reason to break your door down.
Won't it be a little obvious that it's fake when people read "So yesterday I was listening to my Ipod, don't buy a zune or anything else, buy an ipod because they're so much better, and I saw a cute girl" "and then today I was driving in my DODGE CHARGER, buy a dodge charger, don't buy ford made products".
Also, why are professors debating the ethics of the course? Was the course created knowing that some company was going to pay the students to make a fake blog? Seems to me this issue should have been dealt with long ago.
So.... quite useless then? I don't know much about this so correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that port scans are worthless for actually doing anything. They can tell you if a vulnerable process is running, but if one isn't then you aren't getting in. A wardialer would have to find the phone number to dial which is presumably easily, but then they would actually have to get past whatever security measures the system has.
Since when the hell is taxation a violent measure? Also, last time I checked there wasn't anything in the bible that says "Thou shalt bill the crap out of anyone you help".
It doesn't drive costs down. The market system works with things like TVs, radios, cars, and stuff that people can actually afford to buy. Health care costs so unbelievably much that you must have health insurance and/or be a billionaire to afford it. (Literally a billionaire, some operations can easily cost several million dollars. So even the cliche "millionaire" doesn't work here.) If everyone was a billionaire and could afford to choose which doctors they see, the market system would work. But not everyone is a billionaire. Thus, insurance companies force people into using certain doctors, which specific ones depend on the insurance company. This necessarily means that a large number of people cannot see a doctor that they need to see because their insurance won't cover it. (eye care, dental care care are the common ones).
Free market health care does not spark innovation, I seriously have no idea where the hell you got that idea from.
Universal health care provides free health care to everyone. So even if the free market system drives costs down, this one eliminates them entirely. There is the issue of taxes, but quite frankly it's worth it. Most of the people who vote against this have never been in the position of having to see a loved one, or themselves, die because of their inability to pay for a surgery. Should they actually be placed into that position, they'd be complaining that health care is too expensive and that insurance companies are evil and that we should have universal health care.
Considering the fact that there was no such thing as a "home network" to monitor until sometime in the last 20 years, not having the skills to do so actually seems quite reasonable.
But I don't know why you think that kids don't have a right to privacy. If you seriously expect your kids to share everything with you, then you're a moron of the highest degree. If you try to invade what privacy kids attempt to make for themselves (I.E. "tell me what Janie said or you're grounded") then you're setting yourself up for one hell of a rebellion later in their life. It will not be pretty, to think it might turn out all right is naive.
I can understand not wanting your kids to not talk to strangers, but that's better handled by teaching your children not to talk to strangers than attempting to monitor their communication. You can either punish a kid every time they talk to strangers, or you can teach them that bad things can happen because there are bad people out there.