Could you maybe elaborate on how the Bible is offensive?
I find it offensive. Me, myself, and I.
I just think that maybe filters, when packaged and sold, might need definitions of offensive.
Bingo. What's offensive to me, might not be so to you. I once saw a news article and accompanying photo about vandalism done to a school auditorium. Part of what had been done was to push a grand piano off of the stage and smash it to bits. I was physically sickened by it, in part due to my affinity for music and musical instruments. Others, on the other hand, might not see that picture as anything other than a simple news photo.
And how would filtering software figure that out? As far as I know, there is no technology even remotely capable of accurately determining what is or is not offensive to an individual save for his or her own native intelligence.
That is, I know what offends me/pisses me off/sickens me/pleasures me/etc, but it is unlikely that anyone else can truly, accurately guess at it, let alone some simplistic piece of software.
And so, we must allow each person to decide for themselves what they do or do not want to be exposed to.
The bible is a pretty important part of American History.
Not sure I agree with "important", but it certainly did affect the development of our nation, just like things like slavery, the KKK, chinese/latino/etc. "workers", and so on. Heck, the '89 earthquake had a significant effect on San Francisco, but I wouldn't necessarily say it was a Good Thing.
The statement "In God We Trust" is on many pieces of our currency.
Sure enough. This was added in the late '60-'70s (1860-1870's) after the Civil War (IIRC!). Doesn't mean it's right, appropriate, or even constitutional. By placing that phrase on our coinage, we are alienating a significant portion of our citizenry. In any case, the idea behind the concept of separation of church and state is that you may not like the religion-of-the-month coming out of washington, so better to let everyone pick their own.
Besides, do you really want those morons in DC telling you what you should believe? 8^)
It's inevitable, but it may not be what you're thinking. Just as many people who thought they'd never want a portable computer are finding their palm pilots indispensable, so too, may those who think they'll never want a wearable computer find they are wearing one sometime soon.
As computers get smaller, seems obvious that they will reach a point where current systems don't need to be any bigger than a pager, if you don't need exhaustive expansion capabilities (and not including i/o devices.) Imagine a pager-size system, with one of those CIA earpieces (for output) and a tiny mike (perhaps combined with a 3d, wireless mouse). Make it the size of an older celphone or walkman, and you can add pager/celphone circuitry directly to the unit.
If other companies (like Corel/WP, etc.) are porting their software to Linux, but MS is not, it would seem to me that MS is showing their monopolistic tendencies. Because it's not an MS OS, the Apps division won't develop for it.
Someone says they'll ship their computers with it turned off. So what? You install IE6 and it turns it on. Or you load MS Office, and it turns it on. But so what?
No one will be worrying about it. ECommerce? Say a web site requires your ID to process a transaction. Okay, a (possibly) legitimate use. (Bear with me a moment.) Like a cookie, the vendor knows who you are by your PIII ID.
Now, pretend I'm not using Netscape or IE, but a browser I wrote myself. And this browser, instead of checking my CPU to read the ID, sends whatever ID I told it to use. And, just so the vendor will think I'm legit, my browser claims to be Netscape as well.
Don't want your software to know who you are? hack the OS so that it gets the ID from a file or something instead of reading the chip.
If it's not verifiable, it's of no use. No one's figured out how to change fingerprints yet, so they are considered hard evidence. Changing your appearance is not simple, so most people accept a picture ID (driver's license) as valid proof of identity. But no one would do business with someone based on something like a business card -- might be real, might be OfficeMax.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you maybe elaborate on how the Bible is offensive?
I find it offensive. Me, myself, and I.
I just think that maybe filters, when packaged and sold, might need definitions of offensive.
Bingo. What's offensive to me, might not be so to you. I once saw a news article and accompanying photo about vandalism done to a school auditorium. Part of what had been done was to push a grand piano off of the stage and smash it to bits. I was physically sickened by it, in part due to my affinity for music and musical instruments. Others, on the other hand, might not see that picture as anything other than a simple news photo.
And how would filtering software figure that out? As far as I know, there is no technology even remotely capable of accurately determining what is or is not offensive to an individual save for his or her own native intelligence.
That is, I know what offends me/pisses me off/sickens me/pleasures me/etc, but it is unlikely that anyone else can truly, accurately guess at it, let alone some simplistic piece of software.
And so, we must allow each person to decide for themselves what they do or do not want to be exposed to.
The bible is a pretty important part of American History.
Not sure I agree with "important", but it certainly did affect the development of our nation, just like things like slavery, the KKK, chinese/latino/etc. "workers", and so on. Heck, the '89 earthquake had a significant effect on San Francisco, but I wouldn't necessarily say it was a Good Thing.
The statement "In God We Trust" is on many pieces of our currency.
Sure enough. This was added in the late '60-'70s (1860-1870's) after the Civil War (IIRC!). Doesn't mean it's right, appropriate, or even constitutional. By placing that phrase on our coinage, we are alienating a significant portion of our citizenry. In any case, the idea behind the concept of separation of church and state is that you may not like the religion-of-the-month coming out of washington, so better to let everyone pick their own.
Besides, do you really want those morons in DC telling you what you should believe? 8^)
Perhaps this explains why politicians have been ignoring the constitution so much lately?
As computers get smaller, seems obvious that they will reach a point where current systems don't need to be any bigger than a pager, if you don't need exhaustive expansion capabilities (and not including i/o devices.) Imagine a pager-size system, with one of those CIA earpieces (for output) and a tiny mike (perhaps combined with a 3d, wireless mouse). Make it the size of an older celphone or walkman, and you can add pager/celphone circuitry directly to the unit.
I'd buy one...
If other companies (like Corel/WP, etc.) are porting their software to Linux, but MS is not, it would seem to me that MS is showing their monopolistic tendencies. Because it's not an MS OS, the Apps division won't develop for it.
Someone says they'll ship their computers with it turned off. So what? You install IE6 and it turns it on. Or you load MS Office, and it turns it on. But so what?
No one will be worrying about it. ECommerce? Say a web site requires your ID to process a transaction. Okay, a (possibly) legitimate use. (Bear with me a moment.) Like a cookie, the vendor knows who you are by your PIII ID.
Now, pretend I'm not using Netscape or IE, but a browser I wrote myself. And this browser, instead of checking my CPU to read the ID, sends whatever ID I told it to use. And, just so the vendor will think I'm legit, my browser claims to be Netscape as well.
Don't want your software to know who you are? hack the OS so that it gets the ID from a file or something instead of reading the chip.
If it's not verifiable, it's of no use. No one's figured out how to change fingerprints yet, so they are considered hard evidence. Changing your appearance is not simple, so most people accept a picture ID (driver's license) as valid proof of identity. But no one would do business with someone based on something like a business card -- might be real, might be OfficeMax.
Setting up your excuses in advance.