This girl was also 14 years old (according to the article.)
14 year old girls are not known to be masters of logic.
That's a large part of the reason why it's illegal to have sex with them.
If teens must use myspace, teenspace, yourspace, funkyspace, pinkspace, lacyspace, or whatever, make the retention of their conversations a requirement.
The prohibition of sex with minors, of voting for minors, of access to alcohol and porn to minors, are well founded. Minors are not known for adult reasoning skills. Adult parents are still in their lives for a very good reason: Adults (should be) more knowledgeable and responsible, and should be educating their kids. They should also be monitoring their kids.
Give the parent the tools to monitor the chat and messaging behaviour of their kids. Fuck their privacy, or realize it's your fault as parent when they get fucked.
Even with Google's recent show of contrition over their actions with the Chinese Government, I'm not sure I'm willing to trust them to know which sites I think are worth visiting repeatedly.
Granted, they have many details on me already - I have a gmail account and it's not a secret to them which IP I use when I search for, um, educational material, but I'm not ready to put my personal documents in Google's hands, and I consider my list of favorite sites very personal (for educationl reasons, of course).
Ability to create content and distribute it , exclusively, for profit, for a period of time.
Supposing I write a significantly different story, using existing concepts in only a vague way, and develop (or discover) a market for that story, I should be able to tap into that market, exclusively, for a given period of time. The idea is "mine" (humanly speaking), and supposing the content isn't prurient (e.g. child porn), or a damn lie (e.g. telling you that the Olsen Twins are morbidly obese) or some other nasty damnable shite ("I murdered Bob's wife! Here's how & all the details"), I have every right to profit from it.
Ability to resell content previously purchased and "used" but not "consumed".
If Joseph E. Schmoe buys my book & decides to resell it before, or after, he reads it, that's fine. I'd like to have a profit off of it, but I do not, and I should not. Joe sells it to Bookz By The Tunn, and they resell it. Perhaps I'll get some name recognition, but that at the most.
Ability to maintain the integrity of content.
Joe's brother, Ed, cannot copy my book, change all of the "I have"'s to "I have not"'s or change the meaning in some other way and republish it under my name.
Parody
Joe's brother can, however, quote some of the book and parody it. I may not like the parody, I may take it in stride, but I probably can't prosecute him.
Mixing / excerpting
Joe can copy small excerpts of my book when writing a review, or larger portions with my permission.
Were this music, he would be legally more restricted in rebroadcasting because of the medium. Print has its own restrictions, because it's a physical medium.
1) Ability to create content and distribute it , exclusively, for profit, for a period of time.
Supposing I write a significantly different story, using existing concepts in only a vague way, and develop (or discover) a market for that story, I should be able to tap into that market, exclusively, for a given period of time. The idea is "mine" (humanly speaking), and supposing the content isn't prurient (e.g. child porn), or a damn lie (e.g. telling you that the Olsen Twins are morbidly obese) or some other nasty damnable shite ("I murdered Bob's wife! Here's how & all the details"), I have every right to profit from it.
2) Ability to resell content previously purchased and "used" but not "consumed".
If Joseph E. Schmoe buys my book & decides to resell it before, or after, he reads it, that's fine. I'd like to have a profit off of it, but I do not, and I should not. Joe sells it to Bookz By The Tunn, and they resell it. Perhaps I'll get some name recognition, but that at the most.
3) Ability to maintain the integrity of content.
Joe's brother, Ed, cannot copy my book, change all of the "I have"'s to "I have not"'s or change the meaning in some other way and republish it under my name.
4) Parody
Joe's brother can, however, quote some of the book and parody it. I may not like the parody, I may take it in stride, but I probably can't prosecute him.
Mc Donalds Jack in the Box Auntie Annie's any other retail coffee / soda / taco / burger shop / multimall kiosk operation some cash-yer-paycheck express storefront
An operation / franchise having 10,000 branches, each with 20-30 employees, 90% of whom are fry chefs and janitors may not be one that maintains an IT staff at every outlet.
You might look at Second Life. It has many of the features you mentioned as desirable. It's not the only MMORPG microcosm, but it is one of them. There is lots of room for content development (design your own house, creature, script your own game, et al.) and there is a great deal of variety in exchanges. One or more colleges use it as a teaching tool. There are live tutorials on content creation. Both SL and RL politics, religion, and family values are debated.
One large problem with allowing for user - created content is accepting some user - created content. You'll see as much pixellated pornography there as you want. There are cyber - rides, sider slides, cyber - bikes and cyber sluts. You will find people who are paid to have cyber sex with you, if you want. Not everything will be unrepulsive to you. Sex - related events are heavily represented on the event board.
"HDTV is a solution looking for a problem. TV was fine the way it is." Yes and no. HDTV provides better bandwidth usage, and clearer picture. The clearer picture is a benefit to the end user (however small.) The better bandwidth usage will be better for broadcasters / canle companies, etc.
HDTV is a luxury, but not worthless. It does lack the value for which I'd shell out my money, but that has as much to do with my personal values / finances as it does with the quality of HDTV.
The problem for most consumers is the impending phase - out of "plain-old" television. A required upgrade is problematic, especially for paycheck - to - paycheck consumers. Once HDTV becomes a condition without which no news views / no Matlock, many will complain. But they will also have relatives supply a new set, will find a supercheap version, or will find the HDTV / NTSC dumb-down device that someone will develop sooner or later.
Correction: I see the possibility of directing one incoming atom in 4 possible directions. should read: I see the possibility of directing one incoming electron in 4 possible directions.
If programmers ignore the standard and thereby cripple functionality, it is not the standard's fault.
If phone OS / firmware developers ignore the standard and thereby cripple functionality, it is not the standard's fault.
If, on the one hand, developers are required to uphold standards as a part of a developer/license agreement, much of this lack of interoperability crap would be avoided. The flip side of that is that a certain number of developers will whine about code oppression or simply find shortcuts that are non-standard but operational. The former can be handled somewhat by enforcing standards, by code, within the interpreter. The latter chiefly by meeting their technical / emotion arguments on each point, or ignoring / mocking / fudding their efforts.
This reminds me of an old He-MAN cartoon episode. In the episode, He - Man finally has trapped one of the evil warriors, and the evil warrior is hanging on to the edge of a cliff for dear life. He Man takes pity on him and helps him up, and the evil warrior laughs when rescued, mocks He Man and bsically calls him stupid for not finishing him off.
It also reminds me of the Jean Valjean - Javert exchange once Javert is caught, and the exchange between the Good Bishop and Jean Valjean. (les Miserables)
The Jesus - Judas exchange comes to mind as well.
It's fairly common to see the theme of the Good / righteous having a moment of great power over his enemy, then showing mercy at the time the enemy would most likely have killed the hero (had roles been reversed.)
The enemy claims strength in the power to destroy. The Good shows power in mercy. The enemy claims power in displays of false mercy in exchange for some evil deed ("life will be easy if you promise to like my dream") The Good always recognizes and rejects this lie, either immediately or eventually.
One obvious application: computing. Design the controlling apparatus (or just the connection to the controlling apparatus) to an appropriate size and you have a transistor replacement.
From one of the artists' interpretation pictures (Not always 100% acccurate, I know) I see the possibility of directing one incoming atom in 4 possible directions. Why could this not be made a more efficient replacement than a single transistor, with a single 1/0 possibility?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, put the PC in the living room. Sit on the couch 6' away, and monitor what your teen is reading and typing, in 10pt font.
This girl was also 14 years old (according to the article.) 14 year old girls are not known to be masters of logic. That's a large part of the reason why it's illegal to have sex with them.
If teens must use myspace, teenspace, yourspace, funkyspace, pinkspace, lacyspace, or whatever, make the retention of their conversations a requirement. The prohibition of sex with minors, of voting for minors, of access to alcohol and porn to minors, are well founded. Minors are not known for adult reasoning skills. Adult parents are still in their lives for a very good reason: Adults (should be) more knowledgeable and responsible, and should be educating their kids. They should also be monitoring their kids. Give the parent the tools to monitor the chat and messaging behaviour of their kids. Fuck their privacy, or realize it's your fault as parent when they get fucked.
They could require a credit card.
Even with Google's recent show of contrition over their actions with the Chinese Government, I'm not sure I'm willing to trust them to know which sites I think are worth visiting repeatedly. Granted, they have many details on me already - I have a gmail account and it's not a secret to them which IP I use when I search for, um, educational material, but I'm not ready to put my personal documents in Google's hands, and I consider my list of favorite sites very personal (for educationl reasons, of course).
Supposing I write a significantly different story, using existing concepts in only a vague way, and develop (or discover) a market for that story, I should be able to tap into that market, exclusively, for a given period of time. The idea is "mine" (humanly speaking), and supposing the content isn't prurient (e.g. child porn), or a damn lie (e.g. telling you that the Olsen Twins are morbidly obese) or some other nasty damnable shite ("I murdered Bob's wife! Here's how & all the details"), I have every right to profit from it.
If Joseph E. Schmoe buys my book & decides to resell it before, or after, he reads it, that's fine. I'd like to have a profit off of it, but I do not, and I should not. Joe sells it to Bookz By The Tunn, and they resell it. Perhaps I'll get some name recognition, but that at the most.
Joe's brother, Ed, cannot copy my book, change all of the "I have"'s to "I have not"'s or change the meaning in some other way and republish it under my name.
Joe's brother can, however, quote some of the book and parody it. I may not like the parody, I may take it in stride, but I probably can't prosecute him.
- 1) Ability to create content and distribute it , exclusively, for profit, for a period of time.
Supposing I write a significantly different story, using existing concepts in only a vague way, and develop (or discover) a market for that story, I should be able to tap into that market, exclusively, for a given period of time. The idea is "mine" (humanly speaking), and supposing the content isn't prurient (e.g. child porn), or a damn lie (e.g. telling you that the Olsen Twins are morbidly obese) or some other nasty damnable shite ("I murdered Bob's wife! Here's how & all the details"), I have every right to profit from it. 2) Ability to resell content previously purchased and "used" but not "consumed". If Joseph E. Schmoe buys my book & decides to resell it before, or after, he reads it, that's fine. I'd like to have a profit off of it, but I do not, and I should not. Joe sells it to Bookz By The Tunn, and they resell it. Perhaps I'll get some name recognition, but that at the most. 3) Ability to maintain the integrity of content. Joe's brother, Ed, cannot copy my book, change all of the "I have"'s to "I have not"'s or change the meaning in some other way and republish it under my name. 4) Parody Joe's brother can, however, quote some of the book and parody it. I may not like the parody, I may take it in stride, but I probably can't prosecute him.This could be:
Mc Donalds
Jack in the Box
Auntie Annie's
any other retail coffee / soda / taco / burger shop / multimall kiosk operation
some cash-yer-paycheck express storefront
An operation / franchise having 10,000 branches, each with 20-30 employees, 90% of whom are fry chefs and janitors may not be one that maintains an IT staff at every outlet.
Does DRM not protect media player?
You might look at Second Life. It has many of the features you mentioned as desirable. It's not the only MMORPG microcosm, but it is one of them. There is lots of room for content development (design your own house, creature, script your own game, et al.) and there is a great deal of variety in exchanges. One or more colleges use it as a teaching tool. There are live tutorials on content creation. Both SL and RL politics, religion, and family values are debated.
One large problem with allowing for user - created content is accepting some user - created content.
You'll see as much pixellated pornography there as you want. There are cyber - rides, sider slides, cyber - bikes and cyber sluts. You will find people who are paid to have cyber sex with you, if you want. Not everything will be unrepulsive to you. Sex - related events are heavily represented on the event board.
"HDTV is a solution looking for a problem. TV was fine the way it is."
Yes and no. HDTV provides better bandwidth usage, and clearer picture. The clearer picture is a benefit to the end user (however small.) The better bandwidth usage will be better for broadcasters / canle companies, etc.
HDTV is a luxury, but not worthless. It does lack the value for which I'd shell out my money, but that has as much to do with my personal values / finances as it does with the quality of HDTV.
The problem for most consumers is the impending phase - out of "plain-old" television. A required upgrade is problematic, especially for paycheck - to - paycheck consumers. Once HDTV becomes a condition without which no news views / no Matlock, many will complain. But they will also have relatives supply a new set, will find a supercheap version, or will find the HDTV / NTSC dumb-down device that someone will develop sooner or later.
Correction:
I see the possibility of directing one incoming atom in 4 possible directions.
should read:
I see the possibility of directing one incoming electron in 4 possible directions.
Mod parent up.
If programmers ignore the standard and thereby cripple functionality, it is not the standard's fault.
If phone OS / firmware developers ignore the standard and thereby cripple functionality, it is not the standard's fault.
If, on the one hand, developers are required to uphold standards as a part of a developer/license agreement, much of this lack of interoperability crap would be avoided. The flip side of that is that a certain number of developers will whine about code oppression or simply find shortcuts that are non-standard but operational. The former can be handled somewhat by enforcing standards, by code, within the interpreter. The latter chiefly by meeting their technical / emotion arguments on each point, or ignoring / mocking / fudding their efforts.
This reminds me of an old He-MAN cartoon episode. In the episode, He - Man finally has trapped one of the evil warriors, and the evil warrior is hanging on to the edge of a cliff for dear life. He Man takes pity on him and helps him up, and the evil warrior laughs when rescued, mocks He Man and bsically calls him stupid for not finishing him off.
It also reminds me of the Jean Valjean - Javert exchange once Javert is caught, and the exchange between the Good Bishop and Jean Valjean. (les Miserables)
The Jesus - Judas exchange comes to mind as well.
It's fairly common to see the theme of the Good / righteous having a moment of great power over his enemy, then showing mercy at the time the enemy would most likely have killed the hero (had roles been reversed.)
The enemy claims strength in the power to destroy. The Good shows power in mercy. The enemy claims power in displays of false mercy in exchange for some evil deed ("life will be easy if you promise to like my dream") The Good always recognizes and rejects this lie, either immediately or eventually.
One obvious application: computing. Design the controlling apparatus (or just the connection to the controlling apparatus) to an appropriate size and you have a transistor replacement. From one of the artists' interpretation pictures (Not always 100% acccurate, I know) I see the possibility of directing one incoming atom in 4 possible directions. Why could this not be made a more efficient replacement than a single transistor, with a single 1/0 possibility?