I don't understand why people act like censorware's mere existence is a bad thing. It is a good way for people to police themselves, which is how most enforcement of morality should be. When I have kids, I plan to use it. I also plan to teach them, especially my sons, about the dangers that come with it so that they know that it's worse than they suspect. To be honest, as a Christian, I'd far rather walk in on my kids getting wasted or stoned, and I say that as someone who comes from a line of alcoholics.
What is needed is a comprehensive, open source filtering system that requires you to contribute without any anonymity. Imagine something like the Wikipedia for filtering, but you have to mail a copy of your identifying information, and contribute under your real name to control trolling. That, and a multi-tiered categorization scheme to capture such nuance as "bland, risque, sexy, NSFW--ever!! and Possibly Illegal porn." Oversimplification perhaps, but just a thought. I think a great filtering system could be built if it were done in public, with transparency and room for people to configure it to their moral views.
Note, I didn't say that I was a conservative
on
ICANN Wants Immunity
·
· Score: 1
My Christian faith is tradition/conservative, not a liberal one. However, my political views are libertarian. There is a world of difference between a Christian conservative and a conservative Christian. It's all about what Hayek said about adjectives and nouns...
Youtube, downloading CD images, surfing the web, playing games... 5GB a month is 161MB a day give or take in a 31 day month. That'd not be that hard for someone to eat up, especially if they like the iTMS and Youtube.
Switzerland is the only country out there that I would trust. As a conservative Christian libertarian, I admire a country that has the cajones to actually tell a group like the EU to go f$%^ itself on pressure to change its tax laws. The Swiss also have a more limited government than we do in the US, and even if it is no longer as effective, the Swiss military model speaks to the traditionalist in me a lot better than what we are getting here. Why is that appropriate? Because our government has evolved away from its republican roots in many ways. I no longer trust it on just about anything. Let the Swiss handle it. Hell, they're the only ones who you can see doing the three things the Internet needs:
Run the technical management well.
Jealously guard it from the depredation of the UN.
Not provide any protection or assistance to police states that want to pervert it when people circumvent their efforts. The Swiss aren't perfect, but they don't have a reputation for publically attacking a country and then having that government torture mutual enemies *cough*extraordinary rendition*cough*Syria*cough*
The sales rep from Microsoft now cruises in. Cool, calm, collected, laid back. "Hey, if you want to run a mixed environment, more power to you. We respect that. We'll just do our best to prove to you that Microsoft can handle all of your needs." He says with a wink and a smile. Meanwhile, long-haired Gnuzealots sharpen their stakes and light their pitchforks.
The thing that people who worry about young men and violent video games forget is that much of a nation's martial power can be destroyed from within by pussifying its young male population. America is headed for a dangerous path with the way that we are teaching boys to "talk about their feelings," punishing them like they're psychopaths for scrapping at school and things like that. These won't be young men ready for war, and guess what'll happen when the chickens come home to roost? Violent video games are, IMO, one of the few things that hasn't rendered the young male population certifiably effeminate in this country.
And yes, being effeminate is a bad thing for a man to be. It does make you less of a man, and don't give me that bullshit about being "more sensitive and loving toward your girlfriend." I have never seen an effeminate, case study of modern psychological destruction of young men like that who is quick to defend his woman from serious harassment.
Look, I'm generally very anti-authority as can be proved by sheer volume of criticism I have written that is critical of our government. However a game that glorifies criminality the way that Grand Theft Auto games do is not rebellious in the "good way," it's rebellious in a sociopathic sort of way. You have to be detached from reality to believe that it is healthy catharsis to play a game where you commit wanton crime against your fellow man; it's not the sort of violent catharsis you get in most first person shooters.
If the feds busted 5,000 people under the No Electronic Theft Act, it would send shockwaves through the file sharing userbase in the United States, far more powerfully than 50,000 lawsuits by the RIAA and MPAA. Giving the people who trade in any forum from Limewire to Youtube a choice: pay restitution or go to prison (possibly an upgrade to the NETA) would change many people's tune about this casual infringement really quickly.
The advantage of having law enforcement take over and bring prosecutions is that it would actually help the little artist, writer or movie producer. It'd be far easier for them to refer a case of mass infringement to the FBI for investigation, and then prosecution, than to make them have to sue the hell out of someone.
If those "prominent bloggers" are connected, send them off to the big house for threatening her and harassing her. Do something with the existing laws now to make a case against new laws in the future.
Quite frankly, if I caught up with someone who wrote about my wife like that and threatened her so viciously, I'd have a mind to pistol whip them until they could recite the entire series of Emily Post etiquette materials.
All it takes is for a user to get pissed off at your software and mark it down on the list for the ball to get rolling. Same thing applies to spam. I know people who cannot be bothered to unsubscribe from mailing lists. Instead, they just mark it all as spam, not even caring that they signed up for the stuff in the first place!
Why do you think I explicitly put the qualification, "unnecessary" in there. Please, don't lecture me on this because I can actually appreciate how hard it can be to live on one income because I live in Fairfax County, Virginia, one of the richest and most expensive parts of America. When many Americans in smaller areas were whining about $2 gas, we were contemplating driving down to the small towns to buy our gas there!
What I am talking about are the families that really don't need a second income. There are more of those than you probably realize, and if you cannot afford to live on one income, you might need to move to a new town or city, if for no other reason than it'll increase your own happiness and ability to feel like you can make it.
The problem is that to live on one income, unless the one income is very large, you need to make things like going to Starbucks a once a week luxury, not a daily or several times a day activity. You cannot have a big TV, you cannot have an expensive car; you'll have to go for that Honda Accord instead of the Acura TL or RL or Lexus equivalents. See what I mean?
My fiance and I are following what seems to be more and more the pattern of religious couples we know, which is that she will work hard for 3-5 years when we get married, then have kids. That 3-5 years will give me the chance to build up my career and for us to save some serious money so we have options. I know couples that are living in one bedroom apartments just to save money to compensate for not having a terribly large combined income, but it works for them while they're making their plans on where to move to.
And just how many families are going to give up that unnecessary second income? *crickets chirping* I thought so.
I've seen a lot of people of both sexes talk the talk, but then not even walk at all when it's time to walk the walk.
Parental responsibility includes a recognition that your needs aren't important compared to your family's. You like your job, but don't need it to support your kids? You have a moral obligation to quit if it is getting in the way at all of being a parent.
But we can't say that today because that's "sexist" and "backward." Funny how well "modernity" seems to be working out for families. Divorce rates through the roof, kids screwed up right and left, but hey, let's ignore all of that and focus on abstract ideas that make us feel good, right?
If you commit fraud, you deserve to be punished. Why we need a new law to cover fraudulent behavior is another issue. However, if you hide sexual content in the game, then make it accessible (yes, I know Hot Coffee didn't do this SO DONT KEEP BRINGING IT UP!) easily through a cheat code or something, you should get at least a slap on the wrist. However, if you really want to change the behavior, make the people who conspired to put the content in there surreptitiously bear the legal costs, not the company. All collective punishments against companies do is get good workers fired.
I want to know how you intend to get developers to leverage the storage space that Bluray provides. A lot of games today really suck up the space on a single DVD. For example, Gears of War is beautiful, but short because of that. Will Sony work toward getting developers to create games that really take advantage of all of that storage space to create say, a game as long as Final Fantasy 7, but that is as beautiful as Gears of War?
Do you want to have atheism tainted by what atheist Communist regimes did to religious believers? How about the Christians who were massacred by Communist regimes because their views were called "counter-revolutionary?" And before we forget, how about that French Revolution where secularists did unto the Roman Catholic faithful as they believed had been done unto them, except it was done in fa, far worse numbers?
Get over yourself. You don't live in a theocracy or a country that is becoming theocratic. If you actually think that, then it shows you don't know a bloody thing about the Bible. The only "theocracy" in Judao-Christian history was pre-kings Israel, the only time where religion directly ruled the population. Ever since then, there were spheres of authority that caused the religious bodies and state to interact, often reinforcing one another. That, however, is not "rule by God," but rather rule by religion and a state.
If you want to argue that America is becoming a religion-inspired Fascist state, we could toss back a beer in agreement. An actual theocracy, well, I leave it to you to read the Mosaic Law and tell me that our legal system and government looks anywhere near what is spelled out in the Torah.
He used the analogy that they were like bubbles in the water. Ok, where did the water come from?
This sounds a lot like... *drumroll* blind faith to me.
This is the same sort of blind faith that most atheists pompously deride the religious for. In fact, based on this summary, it would be called something to the effect of a "load of religious bullshit" if it came from a preacher. Oooh, theoretical physicist says it, so we'll hear him out!
Please, you're acting like a bunch of laymen waiting for the latest ruling or revelation from the priest.
*Sigh* Go ahead, mod me down because I actually pointed out the obvious.
Police investigators need much more than the theory, they need indepth coverage of the practices. Prosecutors and judges need more of the theory, the pros and cons, etc. A prosecutor doesn't need to know how to hunt down a trojan horse, but should be able to look at a police report and for the most part completely grok the methods the police used as a knowledgeable reader. Same with the judge.
It's your property, but "public concerns" basically take away a lot of the power that you enjoy over it. The worst embodiment of this rape of property rights is the "property tax." Not only does it make you a renter of your own car and house to the government, but it totally screws you over if you lose your job. But then in the new Amerika, the individual must be crushed for the greater freedom of the group. Let's ignore the irony that the group is nothing more than a conglomeration of individuals, so there is a direct correllation between attacking individual freedom and group freedom.
You own the box as far as the police are concerned when it comes to armed robbery. You don't really own it when it comes to the principle function of the thing.
Six months ago, I said this was bound to happen to Google. Youtube's business model is simply too much like an ad-supported file sharing network. They don't do enough to censor and punish copyright infringers, and now a studio with the resources to sue Google is taking them on in court.
Every pirated license is someone who is not seriously using a competitor's operating system. If it were really, really hard to pirate Windows, Apple's customer base would explode and the number of people who would demand serious usability on par with OSX and Windows out of desktop Linux would expand tremendously. Microsoft knows. This. It's just a form of total war. Microsoft would rather burn the fields down than allow their enemies to use them, if you need an analogy.
I have always said that extreme examples provide some of the clearest examples, so here's one for you. Let's say that President Bush got away with raping and murdering a teenage girl in the oval office. Then President Hillary Clinton in 2008 did the same thing with a teenage male staffer. Should we not still try to prosecute President Clinton out of the principle that "a crime, is a crime, and all violent crime should be prosecuted?" By your standards, no we shouldn't. In fact by your standards all crime should go unprosecuted, all victims left to suffer, all because some jackass on the top of the totem pole got away with shenanigans. Dear God, do you realize what you are advocating by saying that you would automatically vote to acquit? You would allow a serial child molester go to make a statement against Bush. That is, pardon my French, fucking sick.
You either have the rule of law, or you have "national security." They are mutually exclusive. Anything too secret to be brought before the law is too secret to be judged by it. Therefore it is outside the law, making the government a law unto itself, unaccountable to the public.
Funny how that works. It's pretty much always the case that, paraphrasing parts of the Bible here, when men give up obedience to law and order, good rules and the ethic of accountability, that moral decline in the population begins. What? Bush's supporters didn't realize that the rule of law is just about the keystone of public morality?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why people act like censorware's mere existence is a bad thing. It is a good way for people to police themselves, which is how most enforcement of morality should be. When I have kids, I plan to use it. I also plan to teach them, especially my sons, about the dangers that come with it so that they know that it's worse than they suspect. To be honest, as a Christian, I'd far rather walk in on my kids getting wasted or stoned, and I say that as someone who comes from a line of alcoholics.
What is needed is a comprehensive, open source filtering system that requires you to contribute without any anonymity. Imagine something like the Wikipedia for filtering, but you have to mail a copy of your identifying information, and contribute under your real name to control trolling. That, and a multi-tiered categorization scheme to capture such nuance as "bland, risque, sexy, NSFW--ever!! and Possibly Illegal porn." Oversimplification perhaps, but just a thought. I think a great filtering system could be built if it were done in public, with transparency and room for people to configure it to their moral views.
My Christian faith is tradition/conservative, not a liberal one. However, my political views are libertarian. There is a world of difference between a Christian conservative and a conservative Christian. It's all about what Hayek said about adjectives and nouns...
Youtube, downloading CD images, surfing the web, playing games... 5GB a month is 161MB a day give or take in a 31 day month. That'd not be that hard for someone to eat up, especially if they like the iTMS and Youtube.
The sales rep from Microsoft now cruises in. Cool, calm, collected, laid back. "Hey, if you want to run a mixed environment, more power to you. We respect that. We'll just do our best to prove to you that Microsoft can handle all of your needs." He says with a wink and a smile. Meanwhile, long-haired Gnuzealots sharpen their stakes and light their pitchforks.
If you are a suit, who are you going to trust?
The thing that people who worry about young men and violent video games forget is that much of a nation's martial power can be destroyed from within by pussifying its young male population. America is headed for a dangerous path with the way that we are teaching boys to "talk about their feelings," punishing them like they're psychopaths for scrapping at school and things like that. These won't be young men ready for war, and guess what'll happen when the chickens come home to roost? Violent video games are, IMO, one of the few things that hasn't rendered the young male population certifiably effeminate in this country.
And yes, being effeminate is a bad thing for a man to be. It does make you less of a man, and don't give me that bullshit about being "more sensitive and loving toward your girlfriend." I have never seen an effeminate, case study of modern psychological destruction of young men like that who is quick to defend his woman from serious harassment.
Look, I'm generally very anti-authority as can be proved by sheer volume of criticism I have written that is critical of our government. However a game that glorifies criminality the way that Grand Theft Auto games do is not rebellious in the "good way," it's rebellious in a sociopathic sort of way. You have to be detached from reality to believe that it is healthy catharsis to play a game where you commit wanton crime against your fellow man; it's not the sort of violent catharsis you get in most first person shooters.
If the feds busted 5,000 people under the No Electronic Theft Act, it would send shockwaves through the file sharing userbase in the United States, far more powerfully than 50,000 lawsuits by the RIAA and MPAA. Giving the people who trade in any forum from Limewire to Youtube a choice: pay restitution or go to prison (possibly an upgrade to the NETA) would change many people's tune about this casual infringement really quickly.
The advantage of having law enforcement take over and bring prosecutions is that it would actually help the little artist, writer or movie producer. It'd be far easier for them to refer a case of mass infringement to the FBI for investigation, and then prosecution, than to make them have to sue the hell out of someone.
If those "prominent bloggers" are connected, send them off to the big house for threatening her and harassing her. Do something with the existing laws now to make a case against new laws in the future.
Quite frankly, if I caught up with someone who wrote about my wife like that and threatened her so viciously, I'd have a mind to pistol whip them until they could recite the entire series of Emily Post etiquette materials.
All it takes is for a user to get pissed off at your software and mark it down on the list for the ball to get rolling. Same thing applies to spam. I know people who cannot be bothered to unsubscribe from mailing lists. Instead, they just mark it all as spam, not even caring that they signed up for the stuff in the first place!
Why do you think I explicitly put the qualification, "unnecessary" in there. Please, don't lecture me on this because I can actually appreciate how hard it can be to live on one income because I live in Fairfax County, Virginia, one of the richest and most expensive parts of America. When many Americans in smaller areas were whining about $2 gas, we were contemplating driving down to the small towns to buy our gas there!
What I am talking about are the families that really don't need a second income. There are more of those than you probably realize, and if you cannot afford to live on one income, you might need to move to a new town or city, if for no other reason than it'll increase your own happiness and ability to feel like you can make it.
The problem is that to live on one income, unless the one income is very large, you need to make things like going to Starbucks a once a week luxury, not a daily or several times a day activity. You cannot have a big TV, you cannot have an expensive car; you'll have to go for that Honda Accord instead of the Acura TL or RL or Lexus equivalents. See what I mean?
My fiance and I are following what seems to be more and more the pattern of religious couples we know, which is that she will work hard for 3-5 years when we get married, then have kids. That 3-5 years will give me the chance to build up my career and for us to save some serious money so we have options. I know couples that are living in one bedroom apartments just to save money to compensate for not having a terribly large combined income, but it works for them while they're making their plans on where to move to.
And just how many families are going to give up that unnecessary second income? *crickets chirping* I thought so.
I've seen a lot of people of both sexes talk the talk, but then not even walk at all when it's time to walk the walk.
Parental responsibility includes a recognition that your needs aren't important compared to your family's. You like your job, but don't need it to support your kids? You have a moral obligation to quit if it is getting in the way at all of being a parent.
But we can't say that today because that's "sexist" and "backward." Funny how well "modernity" seems to be working out for families. Divorce rates through the roof, kids screwed up right and left, but hey, let's ignore all of that and focus on abstract ideas that make us feel good, right?
If you commit fraud, you deserve to be punished. Why we need a new law to cover fraudulent behavior is another issue. However, if you hide sexual content in the game, then make it accessible (yes, I know Hot Coffee didn't do this SO DONT KEEP BRINGING IT UP!) easily through a cheat code or something, you should get at least a slap on the wrist. However, if you really want to change the behavior, make the people who conspired to put the content in there surreptitiously bear the legal costs, not the company. All collective punishments against companies do is get good workers fired.
Our own government prosecutes pornographers while overseeing the sale and rental of porn. Consistency was never a virtue of any standing government in modern times.
I want to know how you intend to get developers to leverage the storage space that Bluray provides. A lot of games today really suck up the space on a single DVD. For example, Gears of War is beautiful, but short because of that. Will Sony work toward getting developers to create games that really take advantage of all of that storage space to create say, a game as long as Final Fantasy 7, but that is as beautiful as Gears of War?
Let's start casting lots for when the next media hysteria about Nintendo DS-wielding pedophiles will commence. I give it two weeks if the game sells well.
Getting yourself off and jail are not mutually exclusive. It happens all the time in prison. Usually some guy named bubba is even there to help you!
Do you want to have atheism tainted by what atheist Communist regimes did to religious believers? How about the Christians who were massacred by Communist regimes because their views were called "counter-revolutionary?" And before we forget, how about that French Revolution where secularists did unto the Roman Catholic faithful as they believed had been done unto them, except it was done in fa, far worse numbers?
Get over yourself. You don't live in a theocracy or a country that is becoming theocratic. If you actually think that, then it shows you don't know a bloody thing about the Bible. The only "theocracy" in Judao-Christian history was pre-kings Israel, the only time where religion directly ruled the population. Ever since then, there were spheres of authority that caused the religious bodies and state to interact, often reinforcing one another. That, however, is not "rule by God," but rather rule by religion and a state.
If you want to argue that America is becoming a religion-inspired Fascist state, we could toss back a beer in agreement. An actual theocracy, well, I leave it to you to read the Mosaic Law and tell me that our legal system and government looks anywhere near what is spelled out in the Torah.
He used the analogy that they were like bubbles in the water. Ok, where did the water come from?
This sounds a lot like... *drumroll* blind faith to me.
This is the same sort of blind faith that most atheists pompously deride the religious for. In fact, based on this summary, it would be called something to the effect of a "load of religious bullshit" if it came from a preacher. Oooh, theoretical physicist says it, so we'll hear him out!
Please, you're acting like a bunch of laymen waiting for the latest ruling or revelation from the priest.
*Sigh* Go ahead, mod me down because I actually pointed out the obvious.
Police investigators need much more than the theory, they need indepth coverage of the practices. Prosecutors and judges need more of the theory, the pros and cons, etc. A prosecutor doesn't need to know how to hunt down a trojan horse, but should be able to look at a police report and for the most part completely grok the methods the police used as a knowledgeable reader. Same with the judge.
It's your property, but "public concerns" basically take away a lot of the power that you enjoy over it. The worst embodiment of this rape of property rights is the "property tax." Not only does it make you a renter of your own car and house to the government, but it totally screws you over if you lose your job. But then in the new Amerika, the individual must be crushed for the greater freedom of the group. Let's ignore the irony that the group is nothing more than a conglomeration of individuals, so there is a direct correllation between attacking individual freedom and group freedom.
You own the box as far as the police are concerned when it comes to armed robbery. You don't really own it when it comes to the principle function of the thing.
Six months ago, I said this was bound to happen to Google. Youtube's business model is simply too much like an ad-supported file sharing network. They don't do enough to censor and punish copyright infringers, and now a studio with the resources to sue Google is taking them on in court.
Every pirated license is someone who is not seriously using a competitor's operating system. If it were really, really hard to pirate Windows, Apple's customer base would explode and the number of people who would demand serious usability on par with OSX and Windows out of desktop Linux would expand tremendously. Microsoft knows. This. It's just a form of total war. Microsoft would rather burn the fields down than allow their enemies to use them, if you need an analogy.
I have always said that extreme examples provide some of the clearest examples, so here's one for you. Let's say that President Bush got away with raping and murdering a teenage girl in the oval office. Then President Hillary Clinton in 2008 did the same thing with a teenage male staffer. Should we not still try to prosecute President Clinton out of the principle that "a crime, is a crime, and all violent crime should be prosecuted?" By your standards, no we shouldn't. In fact by your standards all crime should go unprosecuted, all victims left to suffer, all because some jackass on the top of the totem pole got away with shenanigans. Dear God, do you realize what you are advocating by saying that you would automatically vote to acquit? You would allow a serial child molester go to make a statement against Bush. That is, pardon my French, fucking sick.
You either have the rule of law, or you have "national security." They are mutually exclusive. Anything too secret to be brought before the law is too secret to be judged by it. Therefore it is outside the law, making the government a law unto itself, unaccountable to the public.
Funny how that works. It's pretty much always the case that, paraphrasing parts of the Bible here, when men give up obedience to law and order, good rules and the ethic of accountability, that moral decline in the population begins. What? Bush's supporters didn't realize that the rule of law is just about the keystone of public morality?