In effect you're an anarchist. I reject your entire political philosophy on practical grounds and therefore refuse to accept your argument.
You are entitled to your opinion. I think your opinion is ignorant and reflects an extreme lack of basic common sense and experience. I am entitled to that opinion.
Our discussion is now over because, based on the differing fundamental beliefs, we can never come to a compromise.
This socialist weasel argument is ridiculous and I'm getting sick of it.
How many "important communications" do you think I missed out on because my parents bought me inexpensive clothing and shoes and prevented me from joining the popular cliques in High School? Was it the government's duty to send me the latest Nikes or to give me a welfare check that I could use to get an expensive book bag or hair cut?
NO.
In fact, all you little socialist wingnuts are doing, effectively, is making me doubt that I should, as a taxpayer, support ANY public internet connection for these kids.
You do not have the right to be popular. You do not have the right to interact with anybody you want.
This is preventing minors from using public resources to access material that may be harmful, while not banning them from accessing those same materials in other locations
You have no idea what you're talking about. There is NO statute that hasn't been overturned that allows the government to block "harmful" material from children in private settings. The closest thing to this is the concept of "corruption of a minor" in which an individual can be charged for intentionally exposing a child to "harmful material" for the express purpose of "corrupting" them.
I think that is a valid complaint. Every Web page contains information, whether you deem it educational or not. Maybe it is educating me about the colors preferred by teenagers or about the psychology of groupies. Similarly, every Web page is potentially harmful. Maybe commas look a lot like sperm which will permanently scar a child and destroy their future relationships. We don't have any proof to the contrary so lets think of the children and ban them unless they can come up with an "educational" reason they need to see pages with commas.
This is a ridiculous argument and no competent judge would sit and listen to it. Your extreme for of relativism is widely recognized as having no practical use in law and I dare you to try and use it should you ever come before a judge.
Yes it is. It is making it harder for me to view certain Websites in the library and not others. It is intentionally restricting my and everyone else's access to certain information.
Standing interpretation of the law says that you being forced to ask for a filter to be removed on a public system is not a violation that outweighs the benefit of preventing children from accessing illicit materials.
In other words: the law isn't written with you personally in mind, go cry to someone else about it.
Everywhere you go you will have to request they review their policy on a particular site to allow you to access it from a public terminal.
No, actually, as an adult I can look at anything I want as long as the content itself isn't illegal in that jurisdiction, and if I ask for any filter to be taken off something, they're legally obligated by federal law to comply.
...which so easily take away that which would require time and effort to roll back at each individual turn.
No, it takes away nothing. Ignoring the almost certain fact that it was passed merely as a promotional ploy with the full intent being that it be struck down with the first court challenge, anybody interpreting the educational clause that strictly would be easily overruled by even the most idiotically anti-freedom judge.
No, but I apparently understand the difference between "being alive" and "being popular". You should work on coming to the same understanding of life.
It's very simple: sometimes bad things happen. It's not society job to prevent that, but for the most part most people don't have a problem providing for less fortunate people's NEEDS. I don't mind paying for some kid's connection so he can do research and get a fair chance at college and work. I don't, however, feel any particular obligation to buy him a pair of Nike Shox so he can go the ballgame on Friday night and be one of the cool kids.
From what I understand of the bill, that won't be allowed.
That's because you don't understand the bill.
Regarding the tripe above that, your hypothetical scenario in which poor internal processes prevents you from doing something is also not a violation of rights. What if the power goes out during your slot? Is that a violation of your rights? What if you get sick and can't use it, who's to blame there?
You don't have the right to be permanently free from all adverse effects. If, in the normal course of work, you can't use the computer in the way you want, boo hoo for you. It's called "life" and I'd like to welcome you to it. Some of us don't take kindly to the whiners in it that always want to pretend that if they're desires are not fulfilled by everyone else every second that they're somehow being repressed.
When you can find where the founding fathers or any court found a natural right to popularity, I'll care about the above opinion.
I wasn't popular either. The difference here, apparently, is that I had enough character to get over it and move on with my life rather than whining about it forever and trying to find someone else to blame.
Of course, what your reactionary nonsense keenly disregards is the fact that, predominantly, MySpace is comprised of none of those things, and sites that are comprised predominantly of those things would fall into the "educational" clause that would merit their unblocking.
It's a lot like things like Limewire. Sure, there are probably about 4 people in the world who use it for a legit purpose, but they don't outweight the 4 million people using it to trade pornography, viruses, and illegaly copied content.
By your argument, jails are just a haven for completely wonderful people who have never done anything wrong, since there's undoubtedly a tiny handful of inmates who were put in their wrongly.
Your argument is inane and pointless. If you'd bothered to read the bill (what a novel idea, a person becoming informed before shouting about foul play), you'd know that if a case can be made for the educational value of an otherwise blocked site, the site is to be unblocked.
Slashdot would very likely fall under that category, so unlike what the LIES of the reactionary buffoons say, places like Slashdot would very likely not be blocked.
That is, of course, a strawman. There is already standing precedent for the legality of preventing minors from accessing materials deemed, by law, to be potentially harmful. Your comment really hits the nail on the head: if parents have a problem with this, they can provide their own resources from which the child can find entertainment.
Note, specifcically, that if there can be a case made that there is any educational benefit from accessing a restricted site, the restriction is to be removed.
So, in effect, the entire whiny, misunderstood complaint here is "it's unfair that children are being barred from accessing, via public systems, non-educational sites which could potentially cause them harm".
Naturally, I question how much "harm" is to be had, but I don't question that the educational value of MySpace is pretty much the same as hitting yourself in the face with a brick.
The only reason anybody should be complaining here is that Congress is wasting its time trying to get votes by passing useless laws. This is not a violation of rights by even the most ridiculous stretch of the imagination.
The bill only restricts minors from accessing them in public, not everybody. In effect, the worst thing that's going to happen is minors will have to have an adult's permission before using a public terminal to access a poorly-defined type of site.
Nothing really to see here, move along. There's plenty of prior precedent for this, it will not affect teh rights of any adult, and if a parent wishes for a child to be allowed access, they may request access and transfer it to the child.
It's always been a legitimate debate technique, you just don't know anything about debate. If the opponent merely makes a claim without defending it with evidence, simply asserting it is unproven is sufficient to discredit it until evidence is offered.
Which is irrelevant here anyway since that's not what just happened here.
Now go away. I have no interest in the juvenile "debate" knowledge slashdotters betray in their chest-thumping displays.
ArenaNet keeps claiming they care about gold farmers and item sellers and that they're doing something about them in Guild Wars, but it's not true. Sitting in Droknar's Forge you could just watch endless strings of people going out to farm gold and items to sell because, let's face it, stealing an account from a 10 year old isn't hard, and there's no real incentive for them to stop them since they didn't buy the accounts they're using in the first place.
MMORPGs are being ruined by some of the same money-grubbing crap people play them to escape for a few hours. It saddens me that humanity is so pathetic that even something as simple as this can't escape jackasses who are happy to make everyone else miserable for their own small gains here and there.
If you can find me one person who doesn't understand the concept of telling the truth to the best of their ability well enough to sign an IRS form, but who is still mentally competent enough to be bound to contracts, I'll give you the point.
The rest of the argument above is sort of silly. I don't see how it's anybody's fault that some people can't afford certain services. You may argue that writing contracts in an obfuscated manner, knowing that many people won't or can't bring lawyers, is immoral, but I've never disputed that the cartels are immoral, only that it's not their fault when people shoot themselves in the foot doing business with them.
Also, if you don't hire a trustworthy lawyer that represents your best interest, that's the way things go. Sometimes I buy products that break prematurely. I pay for services that are sometimes inferior. That's the way the world works. People have to, because of human nature and imperfection, occasionally deal with adversity. I may offer condolences to an artist in that situation, but that's just the way things go.
Again, you're getting into unrelated arguments. Not only is what the IRS makes you do completely irrelevant to what you choose to do with the RIAA, when you sign your tax return, you're not entering into a relationship, you're signing an affirmation that you have done the best you can be reasonably expected to do to provide correct and complete information.
If you don't secure a wireless connection that spills onto other people's property, why shouldn't they use it until told otherwise? You could argue that you're not really encroaching, but I guarantee you that's not true. There's another network near us that was too weak to always show in the list of nearby nets, but was just strong enough to cause intermittent signal pollution until one day I happened to move the router to get at something else, and noticed it next time I connected.
If you let your signal spill over onto other people's space, too bad.
In fact, I wouldn't be mad if someone were using my connection without my approval unless they were encroaching on my space to do it. In fact, I only secured it because of bandwidth concerns and the potential for other people to use it for illicit purposes.
That's a whole other problem and a whole other discussion. If entire generations of people are being raised to be ignorant so that they cannot function as anything more than monetary funnels, then it behooves moral people to stand up for them and to help educate them against the harm that immoral people like the cartels inflict. I'm doing that by telling them one of the most basic things you must know about any business you ever conduct with anyone in any situtation:
Your entire argument is a straw man. We're not talking about global poverty and we're not talking about the electrical grid. If you can't stay on topic, don't post.
Oh, and before I forget, if you're having trouble finding a law firm that would be willing to work a good case for a percentage of expected damages, try this magical ceremony: flip over a phone book.
Slashdot Mirror
In effect you're an anarchist. I reject your entire political philosophy on practical grounds and therefore refuse to accept your argument.
You are entitled to your opinion. I think your opinion is ignorant and reflects an extreme lack of basic common sense and experience. I am entitled to that opinion.
Our discussion is now over because, based on the differing fundamental beliefs, we can never come to a compromise.
Good day.
This socialist weasel argument is ridiculous and I'm getting sick of it.
How many "important communications" do you think I missed out on because my parents bought me inexpensive clothing and shoes and prevented me from joining the popular cliques in High School? Was it the government's duty to send me the latest Nikes or to give me a welfare check that I could use to get an expensive book bag or hair cut?
NO.
In fact, all you little socialist wingnuts are doing, effectively, is making me doubt that I should, as a taxpayer, support ANY public internet connection for these kids.
You do not have the right to be popular. You do not have the right to interact with anybody you want.
You have no idea what you're talking about. There is NO statute that hasn't been overturned that allows the government to block "harmful" material from children in private settings. The closest thing to this is the concept of "corruption of a minor" in which an individual can be charged for intentionally exposing a child to "harmful material" for the express purpose of "corrupting" them.
This is a ridiculous argument and no competent judge would sit and listen to it. Your extreme for of relativism is widely recognized as having no practical use in law and I dare you to try and use it should you ever come before a judge.
Standing interpretation of the law says that you being forced to ask for a filter to be removed on a public system is not a violation that outweighs the benefit of preventing children from accessing illicit materials.
In other words: the law isn't written with you personally in mind, go cry to someone else about it.
No, actually, as an adult I can look at anything I want as long as the content itself isn't illegal in that jurisdiction, and if I ask for any filter to be taken off something, they're legally obligated by federal law to comply.
No, it takes away nothing. Ignoring the almost certain fact that it was passed merely as a promotional ploy with the full intent being that it be struck down with the first court challenge, anybody interpreting the educational clause that strictly would be easily overruled by even the most idiotically anti-freedom judge.
That's not what the bill does at all, so your comment is pointless.
No, but I apparently understand the difference between "being alive" and "being popular". You should work on coming to the same understanding of life. It's very simple: sometimes bad things happen. It's not society job to prevent that, but for the most part most people don't have a problem providing for less fortunate people's NEEDS. I don't mind paying for some kid's connection so he can do research and get a fair chance at college and work. I don't, however, feel any particular obligation to buy him a pair of Nike Shox so he can go the ballgame on Friday night and be one of the cool kids.
That's because you don't understand the bill.
Regarding the tripe above that, your hypothetical scenario in which poor internal processes prevents you from doing something is also not a violation of rights. What if the power goes out during your slot? Is that a violation of your rights? What if you get sick and can't use it, who's to blame there?
You don't have the right to be permanently free from all adverse effects. If, in the normal course of work, you can't use the computer in the way you want, boo hoo for you. It's called "life" and I'd like to welcome you to it. Some of us don't take kindly to the whiners in it that always want to pretend that if they're desires are not fulfilled by everyone else every second that they're somehow being repressed.
When you can find where the founding fathers or any court found a natural right to popularity, I'll care about the above opinion.
I wasn't popular either. The difference here, apparently, is that I had enough character to get over it and move on with my life rather than whining about it forever and trying to find someone else to blame.
Of course, what your reactionary nonsense keenly disregards is the fact that, predominantly, MySpace is comprised of none of those things, and sites that are comprised predominantly of those things would fall into the "educational" clause that would merit their unblocking.
It's a lot like things like Limewire. Sure, there are probably about 4 people in the world who use it for a legit purpose, but they don't outweight the 4 million people using it to trade pornography, viruses, and illegaly copied content.
By your argument, jails are just a haven for completely wonderful people who have never done anything wrong, since there's undoubtedly a tiny handful of inmates who were put in their wrongly.
Your argument is inane and pointless. If you'd bothered to read the bill (what a novel idea, a person becoming informed before shouting about foul play), you'd know that if a case can be made for the educational value of an otherwise blocked site, the site is to be unblocked.
Slashdot would very likely fall under that category, so unlike what the LIES of the reactionary buffoons say, places like Slashdot would very likely not be blocked.
That is, of course, a strawman. There is already standing precedent for the legality of preventing minors from accessing materials deemed, by law, to be potentially harmful. Your comment really hits the nail on the head: if parents have a problem with this, they can provide their own resources from which the child can find entertainment.
Note, specifcically, that if there can be a case made that there is any educational benefit from accessing a restricted site, the restriction is to be removed.
So, in effect, the entire whiny, misunderstood complaint here is "it's unfair that children are being barred from accessing, via public systems, non-educational sites which could potentially cause them harm".
Naturally, I question how much "harm" is to be had, but I don't question that the educational value of MySpace is pretty much the same as hitting yourself in the face with a brick.
The only reason anybody should be complaining here is that Congress is wasting its time trying to get votes by passing useless laws. This is not a violation of rights by even the most ridiculous stretch of the imagination.
The bill only restricts minors from accessing them in public, not everybody. In effect, the worst thing that's going to happen is minors will have to have an adult's permission before using a public terminal to access a poorly-defined type of site.
Nothing really to see here, move along. There's plenty of prior precedent for this, it will not affect teh rights of any adult, and if a parent wishes for a child to be allowed access, they may request access and transfer it to the child.
It's always been a legitimate debate technique, you just don't know anything about debate. If the opponent merely makes a claim without defending it with evidence, simply asserting it is unproven is sufficient to discredit it until evidence is offered.
Which is irrelevant here anyway since that's not what just happened here.
Now go away. I have no interest in the juvenile "debate" knowledge slashdotters betray in their chest-thumping displays.
ArenaNet keeps claiming they care about gold farmers and item sellers and that they're doing something about them in Guild Wars, but it's not true. Sitting in Droknar's Forge you could just watch endless strings of people going out to farm gold and items to sell because, let's face it, stealing an account from a 10 year old isn't hard, and there's no real incentive for them to stop them since they didn't buy the accounts they're using in the first place.
MMORPGs are being ruined by some of the same money-grubbing crap people play them to escape for a few hours. It saddens me that humanity is so pathetic that even something as simple as this can't escape jackasses who are happy to make everyone else miserable for their own small gains here and there.
Your analogy, like all analogies on Slashdot, is idiotic, poorly thought out, and completely irrelevant.
The proper analogy using the car example would, of course, be:
"If you left your car running on my front lawn, why shouldn't I use it until you tell me otherwise?"
To which I respond, why shouldn't you indeed go ahead and use it?
If you can find me one person who doesn't understand the concept of telling the truth to the best of their ability well enough to sign an IRS form, but who is still mentally competent enough to be bound to contracts, I'll give you the point.
The rest of the argument above is sort of silly. I don't see how it's anybody's fault that some people can't afford certain services. You may argue that writing contracts in an obfuscated manner, knowing that many people won't or can't bring lawyers, is immoral, but I've never disputed that the cartels are immoral, only that it's not their fault when people shoot themselves in the foot doing business with them.
Also, if you don't hire a trustworthy lawyer that represents your best interest, that's the way things go. Sometimes I buy products that break prematurely. I pay for services that are sometimes inferior. That's the way the world works. People have to, because of human nature and imperfection, occasionally deal with adversity. I may offer condolences to an artist in that situation, but that's just the way things go.
Again, you're getting into unrelated arguments. Not only is what the IRS makes you do completely irrelevant to what you choose to do with the RIAA, when you sign your tax return, you're not entering into a relationship, you're signing an affirmation that you have done the best you can be reasonably expected to do to provide correct and complete information.
That would fall under the "things you don't understand" part of the ceremony.
If you don't understand accounting, don't take accounting information as evidence for a claim.
If you don't secure a wireless connection that spills onto other people's property, why shouldn't they use it until told otherwise? You could argue that you're not really encroaching, but I guarantee you that's not true. There's another network near us that was too weak to always show in the list of nearby nets, but was just strong enough to cause intermittent signal pollution until one day I happened to move the router to get at something else, and noticed it next time I connected.
If you let your signal spill over onto other people's space, too bad.
In fact, I wouldn't be mad if someone were using my connection without my approval unless they were encroaching on my space to do it. In fact, I only secured it because of bandwidth concerns and the potential for other people to use it for illicit purposes.
That's a whole other problem and a whole other discussion. If entire generations of people are being raised to be ignorant so that they cannot function as anything more than monetary funnels, then it behooves moral people to stand up for them and to help educate them against the harm that immoral people like the cartels inflict. I'm doing that by telling them one of the most basic things you must know about any business you ever conduct with anyone in any situtation:
Don't sign anything you don't understand.
No, you didn't, and if you'd have bothered to read the entire thread instead of trying to jump into the middle of it, you'd realize that.
Your entire argument is a straw man. We're not talking about global poverty and we're not talking about the electrical grid. If you can't stay on topic, don't post.
Oh, and before I forget, if you're having trouble finding a law firm that would be willing to work a good case for a percentage of expected damages, try this magical ceremony: flip over a phone book.
I have a magical series of evocative steps you can perform to create a ward against this scenario:
Step #1: Don't sign contracts you don't understand.
Step #2: (Optional) Raise your middle figure and wave it in a figure eight pattern at the object of scorn.
Is being a PGA instructor pathetic?
No, but unless you're a pro looking to improve your game to make more money, hiring one is.