There seems to be a consensus that exposure of children to breasts, nay, oral contact with breasts, is healthy and extremely reasonable. We also have plenty of anecdotal evidence that parents who unreasonably shield their children from nudity and sex are likely to induce neuroses.
We also have plenty of anecdotal evidence that unreasonable exposure to nudity can cause sexual disorders. Children exposed to nudity can lead to masturbation. (yes evil masturbation!:P) When a child does something they do not understand it can get ugly. Sexual disorders can derail lives.
...(Note that TV watching is not a right, and that breasts bulge invitingly even through clothing, so those with a phobia of being smothered in ample globes of mammary flesh would be unreasonable in expecting the world to be draped in burkas.)
How is it again that breasts bulging invitingly through clothing, makes it unreasonable that anyone would be expecting the world to be draped in burkas? This does not compute. It seems you would be arguing that burkas are the answer...
... but it isn't as if the very sight of a nipple is going to induce a sex drive in a 7 year old)
I agree to the first part, but disagree with the second. Kinder gardeners have had sex, and what if you are older than 7? I don't want my teenagers (if I had them) to be exposed without proper consent and warning so that a choice can be made.
So you are saying you are all for starving your babies?!?:P
No, I am saying that I do not think it unreasonable at all that children should not be unexpectedly exposed to breasts. But you already knew that.
Sorry, you lost your right to choose what is and is not appropriate when you fought to have that right forcibly removed from the rest of us in this country.
Your statement that I "lost my right to choose" makes no sense. I did not fight to have that right forcibly removed from you, or anyone else, first of all. I haven't fought for anything for that matter. What I did do, was argue that showing titties when the show was not rated for that is inappropriate and "flat out wrong".
It does sound however, that you are fighting (or willing to, that is more than just to argue) to have my right to not be exposed removed, as well as the rest of the country's. I can respect you wanting to see titties, (but with a straight face?:p ) can you respect others rights *not* to?
Lastly, although I disagree with your fallible arguments, (what does your not being able to see the difference in staying up late not equating to seeing nudity have to do with *my* deciding what is appropriate) you don't hear me stating you should have rights removed or *lost*. Even if I was "fighting" to have my beliefs indoctrinated, you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing.
But then again, being as you failed to see the difference in staying up late and nudity, you will likely again fail to see the difference in trying to preserve one's right to not be exposed and someones right to view.
This should be clear, you have *all* rights, as long as they don't tread on mine.
If you put the price of a voice call, in 3 seconds to the (stupidly) expensive $.15 per minute, and compare it to the 3 seconds it would take to send a text message, you will find it negligible:.15/60 = $.0025 per second. $.0025 * 3 seconds / 10kbps for the voice data transfer = $.00075 dollars per kilobyte (aside: $.771 dollars per megabyte).
Now let's say, for the sake of generosity, it takes a 16KB packet total, up and down for ack, all carriers, etc., to send a text message.
It would cost $0.012 by my numbers...
Draw your own conclusions, I am just playing with units.
I agree that would be awesome and something some mainstream company will hopefully do soon. I know several "local" ones have unlimited calls and text for 1 low price. The issue as I see it is that companies spend to much on marketing. Word of mouth is where it used to be at. But I guess they feel they can't compete unless they spend uber millions on marketing as well.
Give me something like All-Tel before Verizon, with handset/application freedom and no charge for text messages, and I will be a customer for life. (provided you don't try to overcharge me.. or crap on me with service) All-Tel was the best and closet in my opinion, but then they went and sold out, literally. Maybe I can start my own company... I just wish I knew more about it than I know now, which I admit is little. But I know enough tio know it could be better, for all parties if the companies would stop shooting themselves in the foot with greed.
Chasing half-second nip-slips is their job as well. The Superbowl is one of the most watched segments every year, and is a tradition in many families. I don't think it unreasonable in the least that young children shouldn't be exposed to breasts at all.
Do you think it okay if a child was watching say, Saturday morning cartoons and they showed a "half-second nipslip" it would be okay? Don't get me wrong, if they made it clear that was the content, then I wouldn't want to tread on your right to view lewd T.V. But they shouldn't tread on a child's right not to view lewd T.V. As far as staying up late, how does that equate to seeing naked body parts? I am trying hard to see why you think you know best when a parent should send a child to bed, but failed to see that inappropriate content was showed when it should not have been according to the rating and is flat out wrong.
>...if a critical mass of newspapers opt out of Google's search engine > simultaneously, they would suddenly gain substantial market power.
It is called "a combination in restraint of trade". Combinations in restraint of trade are illegal in the USA.
That's right, you just be you Google, and while you are just you will prevail, even if the other side just thinks they are getting up a notch. If they would just think of doing things right in the first place and not be greedy and follow their customers, they wouldn't be in the position they are in now as newspapers.
Google isn't really to blame.. and them removing this item can be seen as censorship.
I agree, while I find comparing a first lady to a monkey, or anyone for that matter beyond tasteless, if we don't have free speech then I am scared that I will not be able to say other things that have to be said. What if I called George Bush a monkey? Oh, so it is because Michelle is Black and a monkey is supposed to stand for a racist image against black people. Words only hold the power that you, give them. Some black (and white) people all of the time say, "What's up my nigga?" I realize it is not exactly the same as nigger, but it is close enough that everyone knows this. They have changed the word. If someone calls you a monkey, a whore, cannibal, or a witch, it is all about how you react to it. For example, if Michelle Obama believes in evolution, then she could say something like "Perhaps I do resemble a monkey, just like us all. I am proud of the results of evolution and where it has put this great nation." (I am a Christian and don't necessarily believe in all of the "mainstream" theory of evolution, but this is an example.) I am not saying this is what she should do, just a possibility of turning it around on her haters. Regardless, this is where she will show her true colors. What she says and how she reacts will demonstrate what she truly believes. This isn't directly tied to the President, but she is his wife.
Here, Google is over reacting and getting political. This disturbs me with the power they are now welding and looking to hold in the future. The image may be hurtful, but it must be allowed. I had high hopes for Google, as they appeared to come close to the best solution in China, and perhaps they did. But we can't get emotional in this thing. That is exactly what the people who put out these images want. We must think logically, and dismiss those that are illogical and try to provoke us.
So, suppose that President Obama or another black president, or any future president for that matter, happens to do some war crimes or worse, on the level done in Guantanamo Bay (See Taxi to the Dark Side )? Don't you think for a second if the precedents are set that they will not try to limit our speech. We can not allow exceptions for something clearly protected by the First Amendment.
Look, no matter how much you like the guy, or his wife you shouldn't play into the hatred of others and become like them. You can be proud of your race sure, but we American's are people, and I want someone that will do everything in his power to protect me for being white, as much as protect another for being black. That is racial equality and required for civil peace. In conclusion, the best thing to do would be for Michelle or the President himself to ask Google to return the images. That would make me even more proud to be an American and have considerably more faith in my President about his confidence of his own actions and merits.
Evil insurance company, plain and simple. I am not saying that they all are, but this is beyond grasping at straws. This is healing someone because they are sick, and them kicking them to the curb and throwing them out because they show signs of recovery. She should sue them for making the depression worse. We should get together and figure out how to draw enough attention to put a stop to this, and make an example for other insurance companies.
This is a prime example why I don't think capitalism alone has all of the answers. If A needs B and C to prosper, and C needs A & B, A will rape B dry until C is so bad off that it is also hurting A. How does this make sense?
Perhaps, but you know them now right? I will say that I believe there are better ways, but the greatest minds are not working on that which is most important thing for society. Without education, you can't have health and security.
If you can't sell your product, you're pricing it too high. If someone can make it cheaper, expect to lose business. Welcome to reality.
THIS!
People make choices, and free is a choice. Limiting that is like a gang, just crying for attention because the system is broken. How about work on a real fix, like perhaps divide it into a separate free section, and demonstrate why the pay stuff is better. If you can't do something along those lines or better, then your business model was doomed.
Is this a comment about HTML5 support? The standard isn't even established yet so it seems irresponsible for web designers to use that format for their entire framework, and premature to consider it a must-have for web browsers.....
What about the open document standard proposed by Microsoft? They expect everyone else to use a format for their framework that is on a standard that many testified didn't make technical sense and flat out wouldn't work as written. Yet there was an optional standard already being used in practice but they opposed it since THEY didn't come up with it and wouldn't put them in the advantage.
We are getting to the point in history where technology will be rampant. This is ok, as long as their is respect. We don't have respect for ourselves in general, so we will never be able to first love ourselves, so that be may love our neighbors. Once we start to love our neighbor, we can educate and show them the way. Without knowing the right path, evil will prevail and people will die.
Well, my understanding was that the bacteria could not be controlled at that point to not be spread from individual to individual. Yes there might not be a financial incentive (although I believe they said that it would take an initial high concentration to get the affect), but the biggest obstacle mentioned was that it would be spread across the globe potentially, even if in small amounts per individual.
I just do not think it would be prudent to go messing with such an intricate balance when we don't know what we are doing. Maybe bacteria in the mouth serves an unknown but life-sustaining purpose? So one company makes an (unbeknownst to them) weaponized "decay busting" bacteria that destroys humanity worse than the black plauge.
Sure, I may sound paranoid, but I am trying to be practical here. We have to at least consider it. Read up on what happened to Yellow Stone when we started messing with that ecosystem. Now we want to mess with our body's ecosystem?
Look how people lose their minds over a mutated flu... I worry less about that because we survived the Flu of 1918. Read up on it, and be SHOCKED what you never heard!!! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu ), we have experience fighting Flus in our species, but not some random bio-engineered microbe that we have made super hardy so that it "lasts" to get the job done.
We didn't learn from placing the mines themselves? I always worry when someone starts to use engineered biological organisms and processes that we don't fully understand. True, we can only test so much, but as commented in the Software Maintenance article, it's all about time to market and not getting it right. What ever happened to that miraculous bacteria that would eliminate tooth decay from a few years ago?
Not to mention, I can see this stuff missing unless highly sensitive. It sounds like it, but I did not RTFA. Even still, are some mines sealed? Surely some haven't "leaked' enough to set this off? I am not sure I would walk on the ground and trust it, that's for sure. But I can't fault them for trying. I know that metal detectors don't cut it as there are metal free mines.
We didn't learn from placing the mines themselves? I always worry when someone starts to use engineered biological organisms and processes that we don't fully understand. True, we can only test so much, but as commented in the Software Maintenance article, it's all about time to market and not getting it right. What ever happened to that miraculous bacteria that would eliminate tooth decay from a few years ago?
Not to mention, I can see this stuff missing unless highly sensitive. It sounds like it, but I did not RTFA. Even still, are some mines sealed? Surely some haven't "leaked' enough to set this off? I am not sure I would walk on the ground and trust it, that's for sure. But I can't fault them for trying. I know that metal detectors don't cut it as there are metal free mines.
If we could magically turn prisoners into nice, well-adjusted members of society, we could let them go. However, we can't, so we keep them locked up because nobody has figured out anything better to do with them.
Now, what was your point again?
It doesn't take magic, only the will. Society doesn't want to figure out the solution bad enough, yet.
It's not that we can't, but more that so far, we won't. There is a big difference. So, in the end my point was, lets stop locking people up as it really only makes things worse than figuring out how to help them.
Not knowing the answer is an excuse. We need solutions, not excuses. When people have answers, often people don't listen, but instead repeat excuses.
Perhaps we need to start by looking inside of ourselves. What do you suppose would cause you to want to change your ways? Maybe the answer is not a once size fits all. But just because it isn't, doesn't mean that we shouldn't. Again, expense is just an excuse. If we can go to the moon, we can help criminals want to change... if we want to.
Criminals are our friends, fathers, brothers, mothers. Putting them in a school 24/7 to learn how to act worse is... futile.
See, I believe in everyone's potential. Pardon's are great for those that demonstrate it, but how about looking to demonstrate it to the ones that committed the crimes?
Limited budget arguments don't hold water for me. If we seriously thought about education, we could do more for less, and even have it pay for itself. I do believe in investing in children, and I believe in compassion. Everyone makes mistakes, and people will disagree where to draw the line on who to have compassion for. But regardless, lets give everyone a chance at a second chance. Not just throw them in schools for criminals with three hots and a cot.
If they are truly mentally ill (unable to be capable of understanding the damage done) they should be exculpated. I still say that we should focus on healing them and continue to learn and explore. If they are not mentally ill (capable of understanding the damage done) then educate and help them understand. Until they do, they are a danger to society...
Customers get what they pay for. If they aren't willing to make security a priority and pay more for it, then they won't get it.
Funny, I didn't pay for Ubuntu, but somehow I feel at least an order of magnitude safer than using Windows, even windows 7. While I haven't got a virus in years (Thank you AVG, which is also free!), I know that there are thousands viruses and security holes (even if we haven't discovered them yet) in Windows 7.
I say sure, stereotypically you get what you pay for; but what about Windows NT where the server version cost something like $800 but was exactly the same except for setup and how many http connections it allowed? (http://oreilly.com/news/differences_nt.html) Microsoft lied and said they were different, but the binaries were compared. I read this somewhere else on Friday night, and now I am looking to sell my unopened copy of Windows 7 that I bought from Newegg for $50 months ago. Screw anyone or any company that has to lie to me.
I agree that Microsoft has done much for the industry, friends have pointed this out when I spout my freedom doctrine. But I think the fellow below said it best:
"What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on, I can no longer believe you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Yes, I have a crease in my back, just like the image of me that got bent in the photo album. Images commonly use the "spooky action at a distance" affect to well, affect the image subject. (blink)
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be a consensus that exposure of children to breasts, nay, oral contact with breasts, is healthy and extremely reasonable. We also have plenty of anecdotal evidence that parents who unreasonably shield their children from nudity and sex are likely to induce neuroses.
We also have plenty of anecdotal evidence that unreasonable exposure to nudity can cause sexual disorders. Children exposed to nudity can lead to masturbation. (yes evil masturbation! :P) When a child does something they do not understand it can get ugly. Sexual disorders can derail lives.
...(Note that TV watching is not a right, and that breasts bulge invitingly even through clothing, so those with a phobia of being smothered in ample globes of mammary flesh would be unreasonable in expecting the world to be draped in burkas.)
How is it again that breasts bulging invitingly through clothing, makes it unreasonable that anyone would be expecting the world to be draped in burkas? This does not compute. It seems you would be arguing that burkas are the answer...
Breastfeeding is a beautiful, natural act.
... but it isn't as if the very sight of a nipple is going to induce a sex drive in a 7 year old)
I agree to the first part, but disagree with the second. Kinder gardeners have had sex, and what if you are older than 7? I don't want my teenagers (if I had them) to be exposed without proper consent and warning so that a choice can be made.
So you are saying you are all for starving your babies?!? :P
No, I am saying that I do not think it unreasonable at all that children should not be unexpectedly exposed to breasts. But you already knew that.
Sorry, you lost your right to choose what is and is not appropriate when you fought to have that right forcibly removed from the rest of us in this country.
Your statement that I "lost my right to choose" makes no sense. I did not fight to have that right forcibly removed from you, or anyone else, first of all. I haven't fought for anything for that matter. What I did do, was argue that showing titties when the show was not rated for that is inappropriate and "flat out wrong".
It does sound however, that you are fighting (or willing to, that is more than just to argue) to have my right to not be exposed removed, as well as the rest of the country's. I can respect you wanting to see titties, (but with a straight face? :p ) can you respect others rights *not* to?
Lastly, although I disagree with your fallible arguments, (what does your not being able to see the difference in staying up late not equating to seeing nudity have to do with *my* deciding what is appropriate) you don't hear me stating you should have rights removed or *lost*. Even if I was "fighting" to have my beliefs indoctrinated, you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing.
But then again, being as you failed to see the difference in staying up late and nudity, you will likely again fail to see the difference in trying to preserve one's right to not be exposed and someones right to view.
This should be clear, you have *all* rights, as long as they don't tread on mine.
They should also make text messaging free.
That's right. I wrote free.
If you put the price of a voice call, in 3 seconds to the (stupidly) expensive $.15 per minute, and compare it to the 3 seconds it would take to send a text message, you will find it negligible: .15/60 = $.0025 per second. $.0025 * 3 seconds / 10kbps for the voice data transfer = $.00075 dollars per kilobyte (aside: $.771 dollars per megabyte).
Now let's say, for the sake of generosity, it takes a 16KB packet total, up and down for ack, all carriers, etc., to send a text message.
It would cost $0.012 by my numbers...
Draw your own conclusions, I am just playing with units.
I agree that would be awesome and something some mainstream company will hopefully do soon. I know several "local" ones have unlimited calls and text for 1 low price. The issue as I see it is that companies spend to much on marketing. Word of mouth is where it used to be at. But I guess they feel they can't compete unless they spend uber millions on marketing as well.
Give me something like All-Tel before Verizon, with handset/application freedom and no charge for text messages, and I will be a customer for life. (provided you don't try to overcharge me.. or crap on me with service) All-Tel was the best and closet in my opinion, but then they went and sold out, literally. Maybe I can start my own company... I just wish I knew more about it than I know now, which I admit is little. But I know enough tio know it could be better, for all parties if the companies would stop shooting themselves in the foot with greed.
Chasing half-second nip-slips is their job as well. The Superbowl is one of the most watched segments every year, and is a tradition in many families. I don't think it unreasonable in the least that young children shouldn't be exposed to breasts at all.
Do you think it okay if a child was watching say, Saturday morning cartoons and they showed a "half-second nipslip" it would be okay? Don't get me wrong, if they made it clear that was the content, then I wouldn't want to tread on your right to view lewd T.V. But they shouldn't tread on a child's right not to view lewd T.V. As far as staying up late, how does that equate to seeing naked body parts? I am trying hard to see why you think you know best when a parent should send a child to bed, but failed to see that inappropriate content was showed when it should not have been according to the rating and is flat out wrong.
> ...if a critical mass of newspapers opt out of Google's search engine
> simultaneously, they would suddenly gain substantial market power.
It is called "a combination in restraint of trade". Combinations in restraint of trade are illegal in the USA.
That's right, you just be you Google, and while you are just you will prevail, even if the other side just thinks they are getting up a notch. If they would just think of doing things right in the first place and not be greedy and follow their customers, they wouldn't be in the position they are in now as newspapers.
Google isn't really to blame.. and them removing this item can be seen as censorship.
I agree, while I find comparing a first lady to a monkey, or anyone for that matter beyond tasteless, if we don't have free speech then I am scared that I will not be able to say other things that have to be said. What if I called George Bush a monkey? Oh, so it is because Michelle is Black and a monkey is supposed to stand for a racist image against black people. Words only hold the power that you, give them. Some black (and white) people all of the time say, "What's up my nigga?" I realize it is not exactly the same as nigger, but it is close enough that everyone knows this. They have changed the word. If someone calls you a monkey, a whore, cannibal, or a witch, it is all about how you react to it. For example, if Michelle Obama believes in evolution, then she could say something like "Perhaps I do resemble a monkey, just like us all. I am proud of the results of evolution and where it has put this great nation." (I am a Christian and don't necessarily believe in all of the "mainstream" theory of evolution, but this is an example.) I am not saying this is what she should do, just a possibility of turning it around on her haters. Regardless, this is where she will show her true colors. What she says and how she reacts will demonstrate what she truly believes. This isn't directly tied to the President, but she is his wife.
Here, Google is over reacting and getting political. This disturbs me with the power they are now welding and looking to hold in the future. The image may be hurtful, but it must be allowed. I had high hopes for Google, as they appeared to come close to the best solution in China, and perhaps they did. But we can't get emotional in this thing. That is exactly what the people who put out these images want. We must think logically, and dismiss those that are illogical and try to provoke us.
So, suppose that President Obama or another black president, or any future president for that matter, happens to do some war crimes or worse, on the level done in Guantanamo Bay (See Taxi to the Dark Side )? Don't you think for a second if the precedents are set that they will not try to limit our speech. We can not allow exceptions for something clearly protected by the First Amendment.
Look, no matter how much you like the guy, or his wife you shouldn't play into the hatred of others and become like them. You can be proud of your race sure, but we American's are people, and I want someone that will do everything in his power to protect me for being white, as much as protect another for being black. That is racial equality and required for civil peace. In conclusion, the best thing to do would be for Michelle or the President himself to ask Google to return the images. That would make me even more proud to be an American and have considerably more faith in my President about his confidence of his own actions and merits.
You realize that Microsoft isn't responsible for merchants doing this, and are probably highly against this behavior?
Sure they are against this behavior.... "Why being bad at work pays. How being the villain can actually help you career.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1330596
Evil insurance company, plain and simple. I am not saying that they all are, but this is beyond grasping at straws. This is healing someone because they are sick, and them kicking them to the curb and throwing them out because they show signs of recovery. She should sue them for making the depression worse. We should get together and figure out how to draw enough attention to put a stop to this, and make an example for other insurance companies.
This is a prime example why I don't think capitalism alone has all of the answers. If A needs B and C to prosper, and C needs A & B, A will rape B dry until C is so bad off that it is also hurting A. How does this make sense?
These days it's the new Coke Zero(TM), with Real Coke Taste(TM).
Perhaps, but you know them now right? I will say that I believe there are better ways, but the greatest minds are not working on that which is most important thing for society. Without education, you can't have health and security.
If you can't sell your product, you're pricing it too high. If someone can make it cheaper, expect to lose business. Welcome to reality.
THIS!
People make choices, and free is a choice. Limiting that is like a gang, just crying for attention because the system is broken. How about work on a real fix, like perhaps divide it into a separate free section, and demonstrate why the pay stuff is better. If you can't do something along those lines or better, then your business model was doomed.
Is this a comment about HTML5 support? The standard isn't even established yet so it seems irresponsible for web designers to use that format for their entire framework, and premature to consider it a must-have for web browsers. ....
What about the open document standard proposed by Microsoft? They expect everyone else to use a format for their framework that is on a standard that many testified didn't make technical sense and flat out wouldn't work as written. Yet there was an optional standard already being used in practice but they opposed it since THEY didn't come up with it and wouldn't put them in the advantage.
So, you mean there is a nice man at Microsoft that wants to make something secure other than Microsoft's software! Thanks nice man!
I think his point is that complaining rarely gets you anywhere. I wonder if he is a proponent of open source?
We are getting to the point in history where technology will be rampant. This is ok, as long as their is respect. We don't have respect for ourselves in general, so we will never be able to first love ourselves, so that be may love our neighbors. Once we start to love our neighbor, we can educate and show them the way. Without knowing the right path, evil will prevail and people will die.
Hope?
I hear he is currently President and came from Chicago.
;)
Like John Coffey said in the the Green Mile, "They kill them with their love, Boss, they kill them with their love!"
No, I am saying that corruption is not okay...
Well, my understanding was that the bacteria could not be controlled at that point to not be spread from individual to individual. Yes there might not be a financial incentive (although I believe they said that it would take an initial high concentration to get the affect), but the biggest obstacle mentioned was that it would be spread across the globe potentially, even if in small amounts per individual.
We have only recently discovered that man is an island with unique bacteria per person, amounting to ten times the microbes (in number) than cells in your body. ( http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09%2F01%2F27%2F2241227&from=rss )
I just do not think it would be prudent to go messing with such an intricate balance when we don't know what we are doing. Maybe bacteria in the mouth serves an unknown but life-sustaining purpose? So one company makes an (unbeknownst to them) weaponized "decay busting" bacteria that destroys humanity worse than the black plauge.
Sure, I may sound paranoid, but I am trying to be practical here. We have to at least consider it. Read up on what happened to Yellow Stone when we started messing with that ecosystem. Now we want to mess with our body's ecosystem?
Look how people lose their minds over a mutated flu... I worry less about that because we survived the Flu of 1918. Read up on it, and be SHOCKED what you never heard!!! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu ), we have experience fighting Flus in our species, but not some random bio-engineered microbe that we have made super hardy so that it "lasts" to get the job done.
We didn't learn from placing the mines themselves? I always worry when someone starts to use engineered biological organisms and processes that we don't fully understand. True, we can only test so much, but as commented in the Software Maintenance article, it's all about time to market and not getting it right. What ever happened to that miraculous bacteria that would eliminate tooth decay from a few years ago?
Not to mention, I can see this stuff missing unless highly sensitive. It sounds like it, but I did not RTFA. Even still, are some mines sealed? Surely some haven't "leaked' enough to set this off? I am not sure I would walk on the ground and trust it, that's for sure. But I can't fault them for trying. I know that metal detectors don't cut it as there are metal free mines.
We didn't learn from placing the mines themselves? I always worry when someone starts to use engineered biological organisms and processes that we don't fully understand. True, we can only test so much, but as commented in the Software Maintenance article, it's all about time to market and not getting it right. What ever happened to that miraculous bacteria that would eliminate tooth decay from a few years ago?
Not to mention, I can see this stuff missing unless highly sensitive. It sounds like it, but I did not RTFA. Even still, are some mines sealed? Surely some haven't "leaked' enough to set this off? I am not sure I would walk on the ground and trust it, that's for sure. But I can't fault them for trying. I know that metal detectors don't cut it as there are metal free mines.
If we could magically turn prisoners into nice, well-adjusted members of society, we could let them go. However, we can't, so we keep them locked up because nobody has figured out anything better to do with them.
Now, what was your point again?
It doesn't take magic, only the will. Society doesn't want to figure out the solution bad enough, yet.
It's not that we can't, but more that so far, we won't. There is a big difference. So, in the end my point was, lets stop locking people up as it really only makes things worse than figuring out how to help them.
Not knowing the answer is an excuse. We need solutions, not excuses. When people have answers, often people don't listen, but instead repeat excuses.
Perhaps we need to start by looking inside of ourselves. What do you suppose would cause you to want to change your ways? Maybe the answer is not a once size fits all. But just because it isn't, doesn't mean that we shouldn't. Again, expense is just an excuse. If we can go to the moon, we can help criminals want to change... if we want to.
Criminals are our friends, fathers, brothers, mothers. Putting them in a school 24/7 to learn how to act worse is ... futile.
See, I believe in everyone's potential. Pardon's are great for those that demonstrate it, but how about looking to demonstrate it to the ones that committed the crimes?
Limited budget arguments don't hold water for me. If we seriously thought about education, we could do more for less, and even have it pay for itself. I do believe in investing in children, and I believe in compassion. Everyone makes mistakes, and people will disagree where to draw the line on who to have compassion for. But regardless, lets give everyone a chance at a second chance. Not just throw them in schools for criminals with three hots and a cot.
If they are truly mentally ill (unable to be capable of understanding the damage done) they should be exculpated. I still say that we should focus on healing them and continue to learn and explore. If they are not mentally ill (capable of understanding the damage done) then educate and help them understand. Until they do, they are a danger to society...
Customers get what they pay for. If they aren't willing to make security a priority and pay more for it, then they won't get it.
Funny, I didn't pay for Ubuntu, but somehow I feel at least an order of magnitude safer than using Windows, even windows 7. While I haven't got a virus in years (Thank you AVG, which is also free!), I know that
there are thousands viruses and security holes (even if we haven't discovered them yet) in Windows 7.
I say sure, stereotypically you get what you pay for; but what about Windows NT where the server version cost something like $800 but was exactly the same except for setup and how many http connections it allowed? (http://oreilly.com/news/differences_nt.html) Microsoft lied and said they were different, but the binaries were compared. I read this somewhere else on Friday night, and now I am looking to sell my unopened copy of Windows 7 that I bought from Newegg for $50 months ago. Screw anyone or any company that has to lie to me.
I agree that Microsoft has done much for the industry, friends have pointed this out when I spout my freedom doctrine. But I think the fellow below said it best:
"What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on, I can no longer believe you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Yes, I have a crease in my back, just like the image of me that got bent in the photo album. Images commonly use the "spooky action at a distance" affect to well, affect the image subject. (blink)