Not really. I kind of doubt that a highly nuanced, always-technically-correct vocabulary is directly related to cognitive capacities.
They might be correlated... hell, cussing and low intelligence may even be correlated. But cussing and intelligence aren't mutually exclusive.
I wonder if there's a study on this...
if there's not, I'm doing one. Go-go gadget psychology major!
You could bust them if their vests said "POLICE" instead of "RIAA" -- as it is, I don't think a citizen's arrest is a crime, even if you're wearing a bunch of expensive body armor.
Also, how are RIAA's goons regarded legally? Are they security personnel? What kind of legal latitude does that give them?
Obviously, IANAL.
because the choices here are to either protect your child to a reasonable level, or to simply pull the plug and declare that my children cannot use the internet because the risks are to prevalent.
Actually, the third option is to shelter them less, and just make sure you're there to explain things that are new to them when they come across them -- violence, sex, the dangers of internet predators, trojan horse viruses, credit card phishing schemes, etc., etc.
I'll admit that 7 is pretty young, but by 12 or 13 that kid ought not to have any more mysteries about how the world works.
The idea that users of curse words are somehow inherently "dumb and inarticulate" is just a prejudice.
I, for example, am a college student, and it wouldn't be unusual for me to say something like "our foreign policy is a fucking pony circus" in conversation.
To sweeten the pot, any legislator who was ousted would lose the right to run for office or vote for awhile, and have a large 'U' branded/tattooed on their forehead.
I think you get bonus irony points for suggesting that we inflict "cruel and unusual punishment" on constitution violators.
A can of soda four times a day is going to rot my teeth
I wouldn't blow this out of proportion. While ingredients in some sodas can eat at the enamel of your teeth, most people don't soak their teeth in soda -- in fact, if you drink it with a straw, it probably never touches your teeth at all.
It isn't as simple as "four sodas a day will rot out your teeth," and I feel bad for any children you may have that you preach this inanity to -- just use a straw!
Of course, on an unrelated note, soda does have a high sugar content and is a contributing factor to many people's obesity. It also dehydrates you and gives you headaches from constantly fluctuating levels of caffeine in your system (if you drink a lot).
So the bottom line is, you should restrict your soda intake for reasons regarding your overall health (try to drink water instead!); but please don't blindly buy into the "soda rots your teeth" craze and try to suggest or enforce arbitrary "ideal soda limits" without considering the various contributing factors to tooth loss (such as how much time individual consumers allow the soda to contact their teeth, how often they brush their teeth, how much they salivate, how often they drink water, and so on and so forth).
This may all look great on paper, but in fact it's absurd and totalitarian.
Is this a realistic penalty in real life? "Offensive Language/Behaviour - You are locked in prison for X number of hours. 2nd Offense, its X *days*. Plus you get fined say 20% of your current bank account."
It's basically imprisoning and fining someone for saying something that is subjectively deemed to be "offensive" -- in short, it's censorship, and you propose to maintain it with force.
While I don't have any objections to this sort of disciplinary action for people who are legitimately harassing other players or exploiting the game (I actually think this would be a great system to penalize player killing in an MMO which allowed it, the "cops & robbers" roleplaying that would develop would be pretty entertaining); but I also feel that people in a public forum do not have the "right to be unoffended" and that a policy that penalized players for uttering 'fuck' or 'nigger' in chat, regardless of context, would stifle people's expression and make them feel uncomfortable in the game (which would of course have the side effect of reducing the subscription base, which is why we never have to worry about this sort of thing happening).
One of the first issues to note is that you may not see an actual one terabyte capacity on your system. First, the formatted capacity is always less than the raw space available on the drive.
I think the only people who don't know this by now are elderly british judges.
but I do worry about the possible increased use of war once a poor village could be suppressed entirely with mobile automated turrets with a few controllers hidden in a safe zone.
FTFA: The government is also fighting hard in court on behalf of the phone companies, filing repeated briefs which claim that "state secrets" trump even the legality of the alleged security programs.
Soviet Russia? Who let you in here?
Seriously, the U.S.A. is starting to look more and more like a totalitarian shithole.
If we keep going the way we've been going, I'm moving to Canada as soon as I graduate from college and renouncing my US citizenship. This country doesn't deserve my contribution to it's economy.
That's going to be a difficult argument to make, given that Kazaa's default settings give users no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Not everyone uses Kazaa, though. I'm sure there's plenty of geeks out there who use torrents, unpopular p2p clients, etc., who possibly encrypt their harddrives, protect them with passwords, etc.
While the majority of people sued by the RIAA may not adequately protect their material, all we would need would be a few incidences of the RIAA snooping on protected computers to bring RICO against them (IANAL).
The likely problem is that the RIAA just preys on easy targets; their whole objective is to successfully sue a number of people to scare the rest of the populace into compliance. They couldn't possibly litigate against everyone; it would be too expensive.
What we need to do, is set up some computers that are technically "protected," but are accessible through some well-known vulnerability/exploit used to bypass the user's password, and fill them to the brim with pirate data. Then with any luck the RIAA will slip and sue the holders of said computers, who should in turn contact the ACLU.
I read in another/. post somewhere that you only need two incidences of the crime in question to bring RICO charges against the corporation.
so, yes, i'm saying 30 million isn't a lot of money (especially considering bad consequences that this measure could cost), because the government spends less than that on roads, which are considered a huge priority by brazilians and even the government.
But if roads are such a huge priority and they spent less than 30 million on it, wouldn't it follow that they don't have a bunch of spare money lying around?
What would they have to cut to shell out the 30 mil for the drugs?
Of course I agree that public health (esp. in regards to a plague) is priceless, but every time you say "this is a huge priority for the brazilians, and they didn't even spend 30 million on it," you make them sound poorer and poorer and the drugs sound more and more expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
are paid security forces considered civvies?
Not really. I kind of doubt that a highly nuanced, always-technically-correct vocabulary is directly related to cognitive capacities. They might be correlated ... hell, cussing and low intelligence may even be correlated. But cussing and intelligence aren't mutually exclusive.
I wonder if there's a study on this ...
if there's not, I'm doing one. Go-go gadget psychology major!
hahahahaha.
You could bust them if their vests said "POLICE" instead of "RIAA" -- as it is, I don't think a citizen's arrest is a crime, even if you're wearing a bunch of expensive body armor. Also, how are RIAA's goons regarded legally? Are they security personnel? What kind of legal latitude does that give them? Obviously, IANAL.
because the choices here are to either protect your child to a reasonable level, or to simply pull the plug and declare that my children cannot use the internet because the risks are to prevalent.
Actually, the third option is to shelter them less, and just make sure you're there to explain things that are new to them when they come across them -- violence, sex, the dangers of internet predators, trojan horse viruses, credit card phishing schemes, etc., etc.
I'll admit that 7 is pretty young, but by 12 or 13 that kid ought not to have any more mysteries about how the world works.
The idea that users of curse words are somehow inherently "dumb and inarticulate" is just a prejudice.
I, for example, am a college student, and it wouldn't be unusual for me to say something like "our foreign policy is a fucking pony circus" in conversation.
The central powers have become too centrally powerful.
To sweeten the pot, any legislator who was ousted would lose the right to run for office or vote for awhile, and have a large 'U' branded/tattooed on their forehead.
I think you get bonus irony points for suggesting that we inflict "cruel and unusual punishment" on constitution violators.
A can of soda four times a day is going to rot my teeth
I wouldn't blow this out of proportion. While ingredients in some sodas can eat at the enamel of your teeth, most people don't soak their teeth in soda -- in fact, if you drink it with a straw, it probably never touches your teeth at all.
It isn't as simple as "four sodas a day will rot out your teeth," and I feel bad for any children you may have that you preach this inanity to -- just use a straw!
Of course, on an unrelated note, soda does have a high sugar content and is a contributing factor to many people's obesity. It also dehydrates you and gives you headaches from constantly fluctuating levels of caffeine in your system (if you drink a lot).
So the bottom line is, you should restrict your soda intake for reasons regarding your overall health (try to drink water instead!); but please don't blindly buy into the "soda rots your teeth" craze and try to suggest or enforce arbitrary "ideal soda limits" without considering the various contributing factors to tooth loss (such as how much time individual consumers allow the soda to contact their teeth, how often they brush their teeth, how much they salivate, how often they drink water, and so on and so forth).
How does "and everywhere else you mutate pepsi" actually make any sense?
Nothing personal, but this is epic fail.
and obviously people feel bad about it
Don't assume that because you do, we do.
mod parent up. I have had personal experiences of this nature working at a convenience store.
Selfish bastard deserves prison
Does he really? Would that benefit society more than fining him and hoping he learns a lesson? At least outside of prison he can still be productive.
This may all look great on paper, but in fact it's absurd and totalitarian.
Is this a realistic penalty in real life? "Offensive Language/Behaviour - You are locked in prison for X number of hours. 2nd Offense, its X *days*. Plus you get fined say 20% of your current bank account."
It's basically imprisoning and fining someone for saying something that is subjectively deemed to be "offensive" -- in short, it's censorship, and you propose to maintain it with force.
While I don't have any objections to this sort of disciplinary action for people who are legitimately harassing other players or exploiting the game (I actually think this would be a great system to penalize player killing in an MMO which allowed it, the "cops & robbers" roleplaying that would develop would be pretty entertaining); but I also feel that people in a public forum do not have the "right to be unoffended" and that a policy that penalized players for uttering 'fuck' or 'nigger' in chat, regardless of context, would stifle people's expression and make them feel uncomfortable in the game (which would of course have the side effect of reducing the subscription base, which is why we never have to worry about this sort of thing happening).
One of the first issues to note is that you may not see an actual one terabyte capacity on your system. First, the formatted capacity is always less than the raw space available on the drive.
I think the only people who don't know this by now are elderly british judges.
You can still be a totally productive member of society without a computer.
Depending on what your job was.
Nike tried it once before.
but I do worry about the possible increased use of war once a poor village could be suppressed entirely with mobile automated turrets with a few controllers hidden in a safe zone.
I'm not worried. Think of the profits!
FTFA: The government is also fighting hard in court on behalf of the phone companies, filing repeated briefs which claim that "state secrets" trump even the legality of the alleged security programs.
Soviet Russia? Who let you in here?
Seriously, the U.S.A. is starting to look more and more like a totalitarian shithole.
If we keep going the way we've been going, I'm moving to Canada as soon as I graduate from college and renouncing my US citizenship. This country doesn't deserve my contribution to it's economy.
I understand the law
Yet you haven't even considered the possibility that there might be something illegal concerning their tactics?
I appluad organizations trying to uphold the law - even when I don't agree with the law.
You should think for yourself.
That's going to be a difficult argument to make, given that Kazaa's default settings give users no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Not everyone uses Kazaa, though. I'm sure there's plenty of geeks out there who use torrents, unpopular p2p clients, etc., who possibly encrypt their harddrives, protect them with passwords, etc.
While the majority of people sued by the RIAA may not adequately protect their material, all we would need would be a few incidences of the RIAA snooping on protected computers to bring RICO against them (IANAL).
The likely problem is that the RIAA just preys on easy targets; their whole objective is to successfully sue a number of people to scare the rest of the populace into compliance. They couldn't possibly litigate against everyone; it would be too expensive.
What we need to do, is set up some computers that are technically "protected," but are accessible through some well-known vulnerability/exploit used to bypass the user's password, and fill them to the brim with pirate data. Then with any luck the RIAA will slip and sue the holders of said computers, who should in turn contact the ACLU.
I read in another /. post somewhere that you only need two incidences of the crime in question to bring RICO charges against the corporation.
so, yes, i'm saying 30 million isn't a lot of money (especially considering bad consequences that this measure could cost), because the government spends less than that on roads, which are considered a huge priority by brazilians and even the government.
But if roads are such a huge priority and they spent less than 30 million on it, wouldn't it follow that they don't have a bunch of spare money lying around?
What would they have to cut to shell out the 30 mil for the drugs?
Of course I agree that public health (esp. in regards to a plague) is priceless, but every time you say "this is a huge priority for the brazilians, and they didn't even spend 30 million on it," you make them sound poorer and poorer and the drugs sound more and more expensive.
we can get rid of all criminal activities if we abolish every law!
Well, technically speaking, you are correct ...
The TSA probably doesn't run as tight of a ship as our intelligence agencies do.
In soviet U.S., service signs up for you!