Re:Grammar alert!
on
Lair Review
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Oops, forgot to make that anonymous.
Just have a good laugh and mod it funny:-)
Grammar alert!
on
Lair Review
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Holy fucking shit! Why do we have to get reviews from near-illiterate editors?
while the plot itself isn't the most original tale ever told, it's competently weaved. Weaved??? The term is WOVEN, jerkoff.
Oh, I know how this is going to play out: "I was just making a statement about the complexity of English and how it needs to be simplified by eliminating irregular past participles."
Hm, that would be a neat trick, considering Zonk has no problem using the correct irregular verb forms everywhere else:
Julian Eggebrecht was the writer for the game [emphasis added] "Was," Zonk? Why not "beed"?
Jesus fuck, this reminds me of those writers who think they're the hottest shit ever because they spell words phonetically. (Zora Neale Hurston, I'm looking in your general direction.) Each and every one of them manages to leave some words spelled in their regular form and non-phonetically, implicitly justifying why virtually everyone else doesn't follow that "style" (and I use the term loosely).
- people trying to pick the answer they think would be more socially acceptable or would please the person polling them. E.g., if one choice has even vague negative conotations, or is phrased to sound that way, people will try to avoid it.
Not true, not true. For example, if you did a poll of unmarried women and asked them if they would prefer an expensive engagement ring or the same money applied to the couple's first house, and most of them picked the house, obviously, obviously that is exactly what they want and that in no way is an attempt to give a socially desirable answer.
In the future, I suggest you divert efforts away from politeness and into intellectual rigor, at least on/.
Why must you continue to insult, are your arguments that weak?
I didn't "insult" in the sense of making statements about you, regardless of literal validity, designed to make you feel bad. What I did do was express genuine, relevant feelings and observations that I stand by and will defend. I *do* feel dumber by reading your posts; only being able to think of one reason for the superset term *is* more of a sign of lacking intelligence on your part than any flaw in the term; your ultimate justification *was* a mere assertion; and my suspicions that the basis for the GGGP's objections were murky and ill-informed *were* IMHO validated.
You are obviously so angered by my writing that you can't think straight.
No, frustrated.
But please try to remember what other people reading your response to me will think about you, your style of argumentation, and the validity of your thoughts.
That was factored into my decision, thanks.
You aren't winning anyone over.
Why don't we let them be the judge of that?
People here don't buy emotional appeals,
That's a large part of why I didn't use any.
Superset terms should accurately reflect the most important properties of the referenced members of the set.
That's *a* desirable property; another is the ability of others to understand you. I happen to think the terms are accurate, for these reasons:
'Intellectual' isn't an accurate descriptor for the aforementioned items
Yes, it is, because the legal rights protect the expression of something that was the product of the mind. (Another bald assertion on your part here, btw.)
and neither is 'property.'
Yes, it is, because of the analogy between IP and physical property that over 99% of the population inevitably sees: Both IP and "PP" legally restrict your action set over the product of someone else's labor, and is transferable. That is why people typically have no problem thinking of it as "property", *regardless* of distinctions you can come up with.
If 'thought monopoly' doesn't work for you, how about 'expression monopoly?' That is an accurate superset term.
No, it isn't. "Monopoly" doesn't accurately convey the referent because IP legally restricts you from offering the service, while "monopolies" do not necessarily restrict you that way. Even if it were accurate, it wouldn't justify replacing a term people already understand.
If I had to suggest alternate terms along the same lines, I'd pick "expression rights" or "arrangement rights".
A lot of times, I feel like I lose brain cells when responding to you.
Are you saying that trademarks, patents, and copyright aren't different?
No, just a that a term encompassing all is warranted because of the frequency with which they must be simultaneously referenced.
They are all the same in one way: they are government granted monopolies on the expression of ideas.
They are all legally-recognized monopolies on the expression of ideas, which *may* be due to a government law, social support, or (usually) both.
The main issue is, why would you need to refer to them under one superset term?
So that you don't have to call them out individually?
The only real reason I can see is
Because you're not very bright.
as if they really were property which they are not.
Depending on how you're using the term "property", yes they can be.
Why not call them thought monopolies?
Because they have nothing to do with what you *think* in your head.
A pizza and a wife are similar in some ways, they are things that make one feel good, they are also things one can eat, and they both occasionally have sausage in them. Of those three shared definitions, few would argue that 'enjoyable things' would be a category one could lump them both in.
People don't use that term because you rarely need to refer to both together, especially in that context. The problem with that specific term is its incongruence with the role of a wife, *not* with the fact that they belong to the same set.
Lumping trademarks, copyright, and patents under the rubric 'Intellectual Property' denigrates their true purposes (preventing fraud in the first case, encouraging innovation in the latter two) and thus is offensive.
Rank assertion that clarifies nothing. Why does referencing multiple things, with difference purposes, but similar along one dimension, denigrate those purposes? Why is that offensive? Why do the purposes you attribute to them matter more that other purposes offered to justify them?
Does that help you understand why some people find the term 'intellectual property' offensive?
No.
I'm not asking you to agree with the argument, but you seemed confused as to what it was, and I hope this helps.
Oh, it certainly helps to confirm the murky throught processes that I thought were behind such uninformed, imprecise rants.
If nobody can explain it, can you blame me for not understanding it?
The entire argument (and I use that term REALLY loosely here) is, "trademarks, patents, and copyrights are different, so you should never use a term that refers to all three, because it's confusing and FUDish".
Then I explained the concept of a superset (one moron actually put it in quotes like he hadn't heard of it), and how in many instances, people want to refer to all three.
Response: but no, this is like *really* different man, like a pizza and a wife.
So, yeah, maybe the problems on y'all's end. Perhaps call in AKAImBatman of "price point" fame?
Look, regardless of what you think about "Patents, copyrights, and trademarks" (and whether they "mean something"), the term "intellectual property" is useful for the same reason most superset terms are useful. Sometimes, you want to refer to "Patents, copyrights, and trademarks" altogether, and the term "intellectual property" or "IP" saves you the effort. I don't see how it creates FUD any more than the term "significant other" is FUD.
In fact, that's a great example of how your post (and everyone who says the same thing) appears to me. It's like you said:
I agree with RMS on the topic of the term "significant other".
It's a FUD term that relationship advisors and social spiders ( likethe embarrassingly pathetic Miss Manners) use to justify empty threats and pump-and-dump litigation.
Boyfriend, girlfriend, fiance, fiancee, wife, and husband mean something. "Significant other" is the high-ranking psychologist's buzz word of the year. I agree that "intellectual property in ISBN numbers", let alone by a BOOKSTORE, is ridiculous, but I don't understand the objection to the term IP.
(Incidentally, for my part, I wish people would distinguish "intellectual works" -- the writing, or software, or movie -- from "intellectual property" -- the legal rights related to such works, but that's a separate matter.)
It gets better. Credit reporting agencies have been exempted from the laws against defamation.
If I say, "You're going to lend money to llamalad? Hm, he's not a good risk. He's behind on his payments to a grass-laying company" and that's not true, you can sue me and collect damages.
If Experian does that through a credit report, you can maybe get it corrected... eventually... but never hope to collect damages.
Not to mention, that thing seems like a barrel of fun:-) I want one.
It would also go a long way to debunking the claims of the so-called "Jedi Knights", whose powers on closer inspection, always turn out to be parlor tricks. For example, the captain of a small, private interstellar cruiser has been circulating a video where some kids puts on a blast shield helmet -- the kind that makes it so you can't see anything, and he's none the less able to block a few randomly fired shots from a floating probe.
Now, it's not very impressive to begin with (he fails to block the first two shots!), but this device can help explain why he was able to sense the shots even while he was blinded.
First, a minor quibble: I wasn't disappointed with Red Steel. While it didn't do what I feel was promised, the swordfighting was overall pretty cool because of how you could block. It was almost instinctive, so it allowed for better reaction times.
As for what the Wii's capable of: they really have a lot of room to innovate here that unfortunately hasn't been explored:
-It could largely solve the 1-1 motion matching problem by having the Wii detect vertical tilt as it normally does (w/ accelerometer) and horizontal motion with the pointer. If your Wiimote loses sight of the sensor bar, it can just bring your saber back in at the next place it does detect it. There is quite a wide detection angle to begin with.
-When sabers collide, make either the player push himself back (as represented by his onscreen view), or the opponent bounce backward, or some of both, so that your living-room Wiimote position, despite having "gone through" where the opponent's saber should be, is still consistent with what he sees on the screen.
Economists refer to the additional amount you must pay someone to take on unpleasant work, compared to work requiring similar skills, as the "compensating differential". For astronauts, that compensating differential is negative, because people find it thrilling to work as an astronaut and demand less than they ordinarily would.
Of course, that should mean that under US tax law, the amount people would pay to be an astronaut counts as imputed income on top of the 60k salary, and therefore should be taxed, but whatever.
(Btw, I think someone commented a while ago that NASA used to have a warning that said something like, "If you want to be an astronaut for the money, don't bother. If you just want a lot of money, go work for a NASA contractor.")
It's not discrimination because you need to be under a certain height in order to fit through certain passage ways and into certain rooms. Since that requirement is objectively tied to be ability to perform the job, it cannot count as discrimination to place that height maximum as a requirement.
This is just like how it's absolutely impossible to do any kind of engineering-related task whatsoever without a 4-year degree from an accredited engineering program, and therefore employers are 100% justified in making that a requirement for engineering jobs and why it's not discrimination and is legal under the ADA and relevant employment law. [/can't say with straight face]
I've long felt that art is "whatever the old boys club says is art", which is what makes art so disenchanting for me. It's like if, in science, you could determine whether observations would fit your theory *only* after making them, instead of having to put the theory to the test by making the prediction first. Supposedly, you have to have a refined taste to appreciate art, but in my experience, this in practice means, "you have to be told it's good before you notice its good". Also known as the Placebo effect.
Recently, people have been putting the objectivity of art judgments to the test, and art's gatekeepers aren't looking so good:
-When Joshua Bell played anonymously in L'Enfant Plaza, with the world's best violin and supposedly most beautiful music, virtually no one stopped to listen. -When wine critics have to do blind tests, the results look pretty random. -When an author submitted Jane Austen's work to a publisher, the publisher rejected it as no good. (Of course, it should have been rejected, but on grounds of plagiarism.)
I think the whole idea of there being "an" etymology for "cut and paste" is ridiculous. Yes, the original interface designers called it that because people would understand that, and they'd undertand it at that time because they may have cut and paste with typewriters. So? It's not like the term is meaningless if you haven't cut-and-paste while typewriting before. It's not like a designer would pick a different term for it, if he had been born in 1990.
I'm about the age of the typical google employee. I remember one of my first computers, a Mac Plus, and using MacPaint in it, and seeing the "cut/paste" options. Now, I thought it was kind of odd to call those functions cutting and pasting, because when you "cut" from a page, there's a big unusable hole there; and when you paste, you have to deal with the edge effects, but it still made sense to me, a ~6 year old.
(Aside: I have the same complaint about people who claim that "the" origin of the term "costs an arm and a leg" is how, when paying someone to paint your picture, you have to pay more for them to include arms and legs. Even if true, the reason it caught on among the masses, and the reason people understand what you mean today, can't be because of that -- how many people even know that fact. The reason people pass it on is because they intuitively understand, "Hey, arms and legs are valuable to me.")
So, the correct answer to the question of what's "the" reason it's called "cut and paste" is, in my opinion, "that's the most obvious and intuitive metaphor for what you're doing when you use those operations" and you're not "wrong" if you don't tell a tale about typewriters. [/rant]
Oh man, I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to carelessly mix the cranks who think NASA didn't land on the moon, with the legitimate scholars who merely hold that the astronauts in the videos were robots.
I wouldn't get too smug. Half of all real medicine is no good either.
(I know, I know, "That's just Cato, a right-wing nut-case organization." I'm not asking you to believe it because Cato says so. I'm asking you to believe the rigorous studies Hanson references, and note how uncontroversial that claim is among actual medical professionals.)
I shudder at the lack of trust between this young man and his mother though. If it is justified, he will probably end up in jail once he turns 18 and can no longer be legally restrained.
So, let me get this straight: almost every young male who disobeys his mother's command not to look at dirty web sites, will "end up in jail once he turns 18"?
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, forgot to make that anonymous.
:-)
Just have a good laugh and mod it funny
Oh, I know how this is going to play out: "I was just making a statement about the complexity of English and how it needs to be simplified by eliminating irregular past participles."
Hm, that would be a neat trick, considering Zonk has no problem using the correct irregular verb forms everywhere else: Julian Eggebrecht was the writer for the game [emphasis added] "Was," Zonk? Why not "beed"?
Jesus fuck, this reminds me of those writers who think they're the hottest shit ever because they spell words phonetically. (Zora Neale Hurston, I'm looking in your general direction.) Each and every one of them manages to leave some words spelled in their regular form and non-phonetically, implicitly justifying why virtually everyone else doesn't follow that "style" (and I use the term loosely).
You know what would have been REALLY cheap, though?
"Receipt? Oh yeah, here you go. Check ya later."
- people trying to pick the answer they think would be more socially acceptable or would please the person polling them. E.g., if one choice has even vague negative conotations, or is phrased to sound that way, people will try to avoid it.
Not true, not true. For example, if you did a poll of unmarried women and asked them if they would prefer an expensive engagement ring or the same money applied to the couple's first house, and most of them picked the house, obviously, obviously that is exactly what they want and that in no way is an attempt to give a socially desirable answer.
Right, spun?
Yeah, apparently, Seagal refused to do it unless they gave him another chance to deliver his "Nobody beats me in the kitchen" line.
I was trying to be polite.
/.
In the future, I suggest you divert efforts away from politeness and into intellectual rigor, at least on
Why must you continue to insult, are your arguments that weak?
I didn't "insult" in the sense of making statements about you, regardless of literal validity, designed to make you feel bad. What I did do was express genuine, relevant feelings and observations that I stand by and will defend. I *do* feel dumber by reading your posts; only being able to think of one reason for the superset term *is* more of a sign of lacking intelligence on your part than any flaw in the term; your ultimate justification *was* a mere assertion; and my suspicions that the basis for the GGGP's objections were murky and ill-informed *were* IMHO validated.
You are obviously so angered by my writing that you can't think straight.
No, frustrated.
But please try to remember what other people reading your response to me will think about you, your style of argumentation, and the validity of your thoughts.
That was factored into my decision, thanks.
You aren't winning anyone over.
Why don't we let them be the judge of that?
People here don't buy emotional appeals,
That's a large part of why I didn't use any.
Superset terms should accurately reflect the most important properties of the referenced members of the set.
That's *a* desirable property; another is the ability of others to understand you. I happen to think the terms are accurate, for these reasons:
'Intellectual' isn't an accurate descriptor for the aforementioned items
Yes, it is, because the legal rights protect the expression of something that was the product of the mind. (Another bald assertion on your part here, btw.)
and neither is 'property.'
Yes, it is, because of the analogy between IP and physical property that over 99% of the population inevitably sees: Both IP and "PP" legally restrict your action set over the product of someone else's labor, and is transferable. That is why people typically have no problem thinking of it as "property", *regardless* of distinctions you can come up with.
If 'thought monopoly' doesn't work for you, how about 'expression monopoly?' That is an accurate superset term.
No, it isn't. "Monopoly" doesn't accurately convey the referent because IP legally restricts you from offering the service, while "monopolies" do not necessarily restrict you that way. Even if it were accurate, it wouldn't justify replacing a term people already understand.
If I had to suggest alternate terms along the same lines, I'd pick "expression rights" or "arrangement rights".
A lot of times, I feel like I lose brain cells when responding to you.
Are you saying that trademarks, patents, and copyright aren't different?
No, just a that a term encompassing all is warranted because of the frequency with which they must be simultaneously referenced.
They are all the same in one way: they are government granted monopolies on the expression of ideas.
They are all legally-recognized monopolies on the expression of ideas, which *may* be due to a government law, social support, or (usually) both.
The main issue is, why would you need to refer to them under one superset term?
So that you don't have to call them out individually?
The only real reason I can see is
Because you're not very bright.
as if they really were property which they are not.
Depending on how you're using the term "property", yes they can be.
Why not call them thought monopolies?
Because they have nothing to do with what you *think* in your head.
A pizza and a wife are similar in some ways, they are things that make one feel good, they are also things one can eat, and they both occasionally have sausage in them. Of those three shared definitions, few would argue that 'enjoyable things' would be a category one could lump them both in.
People don't use that term because you rarely need to refer to both together, especially in that context. The problem with that specific term is its incongruence with the role of a wife, *not* with the fact that they belong to the same set.
Lumping trademarks, copyright, and patents under the rubric 'Intellectual Property' denigrates their true purposes (preventing fraud in the first case, encouraging innovation in the latter two) and thus is offensive.
Rank assertion that clarifies nothing. Why does referencing multiple things, with difference purposes, but similar along one dimension, denigrate those purposes? Why is that offensive? Why do the purposes you attribute to them matter more that other purposes offered to justify them?
Does that help you understand why some people find the term 'intellectual property' offensive?
No.
I'm not asking you to agree with the argument, but you seemed confused as to what it was, and I hope this helps.
Oh, it certainly helps to confirm the murky throught processes that I thought were behind such uninformed, imprecise rants.
If nobody can explain it, can you blame me for not understanding it?
The entire argument (and I use that term REALLY loosely here) is, "trademarks, patents, and copyrights are different, so you should never use a term that refers to all three, because it's confusing and FUDish".
Then I explained the concept of a superset (one moron actually put it in quotes like he hadn't heard of it), and how in many instances, people want to refer to all three.
Response: but no, this is like *really* different man, like a pizza and a wife.
So, yeah, maybe the problems on y'all's end. Perhaps call in AKAImBatman of "price point" fame?
So, in other words, you're just as confused as the guy I originally responded to.
Look, regardless of what you think about "Patents, copyrights, and trademarks" (and whether they "mean something"), the term "intellectual property" is useful for the same reason most superset terms are useful. Sometimes, you want to refer to "Patents, copyrights, and trademarks" altogether, and the term "intellectual property" or "IP" saves you the effort. I don't see how it creates FUD any more than the term "significant other" is FUD.
In fact, that's a great example of how your post (and everyone who says the same thing) appears to me. It's like you said: I agree with RMS on the topic of the term "significant other".
It's a FUD term that relationship advisors and social spiders ( likethe embarrassingly pathetic Miss Manners) use to justify empty threats and pump-and-dump litigation.
Boyfriend, girlfriend, fiance, fiancee, wife, and husband mean something. "Significant other" is the high-ranking psychologist's buzz word of the year. I agree that "intellectual property in ISBN numbers", let alone by a BOOKSTORE, is ridiculous, but I don't understand the objection to the term IP.
(Incidentally, for my part, I wish people would distinguish "intellectual works" -- the writing, or software, or movie -- from "intellectual property" -- the legal rights related to such works, but that's a separate matter.)
It gets better. Credit reporting agencies have been exempted from the laws against defamation.
... eventually ... but never hope to collect damages.
If I say, "You're going to lend money to llamalad? Hm, he's not a good risk. He's behind on his payments to a grass-laying company" and that's not true, you can sue me and collect damages.
If Experian does that through a credit report, you can maybe get it corrected
Ah, dammit, so *that's* what comes before "Profit!" THANK YOU! It finally makes sense now!
Not to mention, that thing seems like a barrel of fun :-) I want one.
It would also go a long way to debunking the claims of the so-called "Jedi Knights", whose powers on closer inspection, always turn out to be parlor tricks. For example, the captain of a small, private interstellar cruiser has been circulating a video where some kids puts on a blast shield helmet -- the kind that makes it so you can't see anything, and he's none the less able to block a few randomly fired shots from a floating probe.
Now, it's not very impressive to begin with (he fails to block the first two shots!), but this device can help explain why he was able to sense the shots even while he was blinded.
First, a minor quibble: I wasn't disappointed with Red Steel. While it didn't do what I feel was promised, the swordfighting was overall pretty cool because of how you could block. It was almost instinctive, so it allowed for better reaction times.
As for what the Wii's capable of: they really have a lot of room to innovate here that unfortunately hasn't been explored:
-It could largely solve the 1-1 motion matching problem by having the Wii detect vertical tilt as it normally does (w/ accelerometer) and horizontal motion with the pointer. If your Wiimote loses sight of the sensor bar, it can just bring your saber back in at the next place it does detect it. There is quite a wide detection angle to begin with.
-When sabers collide, make either the player push himself back (as represented by his onscreen view), or the opponent bounce backward, or some of both, so that your living-room Wiimote position, despite having "gone through" where the opponent's saber should be, is still consistent with what he sees on the screen.
When a prediction is confirmed over a long enough time and with enough consistency, that makes it a law.
Although at this point, I think it can only be justified as between "hypothesis" and "theory", but I'm no expert.
Economists refer to the additional amount you must pay someone to take on unpleasant work, compared to work requiring similar skills, as the "compensating differential". For astronauts, that compensating differential is negative, because people find it thrilling to work as an astronaut and demand less than they ordinarily would.
Of course, that should mean that under US tax law, the amount people would pay to be an astronaut counts as imputed income on top of the 60k salary, and therefore should be taxed, but whatever.
(Btw, I think someone commented a while ago that NASA used to have a warning that said something like, "If you want to be an astronaut for the money, don't bother. If you just want a lot of money, go work for a NASA contractor.")
It's not discrimination because you need to be under a certain height in order to fit through certain passage ways and into certain rooms. Since that requirement is objectively tied to be ability to perform the job, it cannot count as discrimination to place that height maximum as a requirement.
This is just like how it's absolutely impossible to do any kind of engineering-related task whatsoever without a 4-year degree from an accredited engineering program, and therefore employers are 100% justified in making that a requirement for engineering jobs and why it's not discrimination and is legal under the ADA and relevant employment law. [/can't say with straight face]
As a matter of fact, Plato only used Greek characters.
(And people don't typically capitalize all the letters in his name. Just a heads-up.)
I've long felt that art is "whatever the old boys club says is art", which is what makes art so disenchanting for me. It's like if, in science, you could determine whether observations would fit your theory *only* after making them, instead of having to put the theory to the test by making the prediction first. Supposedly, you have to have a refined taste to appreciate art, but in my experience, this in practice means, "you have to be told it's good before you notice its good". Also known as the Placebo effect.
Recently, people have been putting the objectivity of art judgments to the test, and art's gatekeepers aren't looking so good:
-When Joshua Bell played anonymously in L'Enfant Plaza, with the world's best violin and supposedly most beautiful music, virtually no one stopped to listen.
-When wine critics have to do blind tests, the results look pretty random.
-When an author submitted Jane Austen's work to a publisher, the publisher rejected it as no good. (Of course, it should have been rejected, but on grounds of plagiarism.)
I think the whole idea of there being "an" etymology for "cut and paste" is ridiculous. Yes, the original interface designers called it that because people would understand that, and they'd undertand it at that time because they may have cut and paste with typewriters. So? It's not like the term is meaningless if you haven't cut-and-paste while typewriting before. It's not like a designer would pick a different term for it, if he had been born in 1990.
I'm about the age of the typical google employee. I remember one of my first computers, a Mac Plus, and using MacPaint in it, and seeing the "cut/paste" options. Now, I thought it was kind of odd to call those functions cutting and pasting, because when you "cut" from a page, there's a big unusable hole there; and when you paste, you have to deal with the edge effects, but it still made sense to me, a ~6 year old.
(Aside: I have the same complaint about people who claim that "the" origin of the term "costs an arm and a leg" is how, when paying someone to paint your picture, you have to pay more for them to include arms and legs. Even if true, the reason it caught on among the masses, and the reason people understand what you mean today, can't be because of that -- how many people even know that fact. The reason people pass it on is because they intuitively understand, "Hey, arms and legs are valuable to me.")
So, the correct answer to the question of what's "the" reason it's called "cut and paste" is, in my opinion, "that's the most obvious and intuitive metaphor for what you're doing when you use those operations" and you're not "wrong" if you don't tell a tale about typewriters. [/rant]
Oh man, I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to carelessly mix the cranks who think NASA didn't land on the moon, with the legitimate scholars who merely hold that the astronauts in the videos were robots.
Sure. The non-Cato-affiliated (and uncontroversial) peer-reviewed literature referenced in the Hanson article I linked.
I wouldn't get too smug. Half of all real medicine is no good either.
(I know, I know, "That's just Cato, a right-wing nut-case organization." I'm not asking you to believe it because Cato says so. I'm asking you to believe the rigorous studies Hanson references, and note how uncontroversial that claim is among actual medical professionals.)
"Oh, look honey, it's another childless /. poster who handwaves away difficult parenting situations."
"That's nice, dear."
I shudder at the lack of trust between this young man and his mother though. If it is justified, he will probably end up in jail once he turns 18 and can no longer be legally restrained.
So, let me get this straight: almost every young male who disobeys his mother's command not to look at dirty web sites, will "end up in jail once he turns 18"?