Trying to get in order for convention - 7 May 2007

[silveradept]

Well, I went out looking for things to get for the convention, and came back empty-handed. I did, however, finally find a pair of shoes that I think I like - although I think that I’m either going to have to learn to walk correctly in these shoes or get used to them/break them in for some way that they may not be comfortable with. But I think I’ll be able to get used to them, and maybe learn a little bit better walking structure.

I think I’ll leave this particular object out front, for people to make of what they like from it - The Modesty Survey took statements and questions from “Christian” girls and posed them to “Christian” boys about the concept of modesty and their dress and actions. The results seem to read pretty normal - things like earrings or ankle-length skirts are considered modest, but most things that would let you see torso skin are not. And apparently, bending that shows any skin, or just bending with your back to a boy is a “stumbling block”. As is stretching, because the natural stretch pose accents a girl’s breasts.

More to the credit of places that would be likely to conduct such a thing as the Modesty Survey, Evangelical Christians are urging their congregants to adopt children. Sounds like they’re taking the idea of being pro-life a bit more seriously. Adoption and support of foster care systems from those who believe in the sanctity of all life, in both conception, gestation, and life after birth. Plus, as the article notes, if Christians are going to complain about people they consider unfit parents adopting, they should consider some adoption themselves.

Social engineering produces the following warning - A Trojan that wants you to activate your already-active copy of Windows. Ingenious, significantly because it takes advantage of how much consumers are afraid of being considered software pirates, even if they legitimately bought their software. A different story of breaking into computer systems is a teen who broke into AOL's computer systems, trying to get his account reactivated. What I would like to know (as would several others, I guess) is: Why would you want to go back to AOL?

Welcome to the People’s Republic of China, where several characters that look remarkably like copyrighted likenesses of Disney and other characters abound, but of course, they are not copyrighted likenesses of Disney and other companies’ characters. At least, that’s the official park line. Sounds like someone in red-and-green glasses wielding a piece of wood needs to inform someone there about the inability of the piece of wood to prevaricate.

Children were exposed to some material for people much older than they were when an accidental switch change broadcast hardcore pornography on the Disney channel in some areas of New Jersey. I note some of the quotes make it appear that those on the receiving end of the error believe that the switch was made in a deliberate manner. Unless there’s a Tyler Durden in the bunch, I think it was an accident. Keeping with the nudity theme, a record eighteen thousand people got naked to be photographed by Spencer Tunick.

Gary Brecher wants to answer the question that was posed by Senator Lindsay Graham after Harry Reid spoke of the war in Iraq being lost. Who won Iraq? has two big answers for Gary - Iran and the far east, like China and India. The losers is a bigger list.

Looking in on the other end of the political spectrum, Linda Chavez in the Washington Times says the Democrats have a role to play in Iraq - but they have to accept that we're there for the long run to be effective, and thus set up good benchmarks for when the troops should leave. Something that’s probably intended to be just as serious, but fails at the task are the fifty greatest conservative rock songs, apparently based on snippets of their lyrical content.

As part of the problems going on with regards to China-imported goods, bradhicks notes that cheap stuff, of the kind that can kill you, is being sent out of China without a second thought to safety. Or, in some cases, what the consequences of deliberately mislabeling something is. This is why the regulations are there. Or at least why regulations about purity and accuracy should be in place.

Trying to keep yourself healthy and well-fed is tougher to do when you have to cook on a budget, but according to Mark Erickson, the VP of continuing education at the Culinary Institute of America, says that having good tools and planning your meals will help you cook both cheaply and in a small amount of time. “Tools” includes water filtration systems, if the taste of bottled water is to your liking, and some good sharp knives. The planning part includes doing things like making enough chicken on Thursday that will then go into the chicken and vegetable soup on Saturday. (And if you like what you’re making, if you can afford to make enough for another meal that can then be reheated later, that’s not a bad idea, either.)

Possibly making a little fun of some pronunciation regarding a free on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit, Wickerpedia offers up several articles about the power of wicker as a building material (and several other things wicker-related). On the actual encyclopedic site, there is an article about a clone of an Invaders game called "Communist Mutants from Space". The things that are in that encyclopedic object are great and strange, indeed. And then, we find out, from the Telegraph, the image of Hitler's mustache we know so well was not his first choice. Because he needed to fit into a gas mask.

More rumors of a possibly cold fusion exercise. This one offers some proof of a replicable process. So we’ll wait to see if it can be replicated, and then to see whether it scales up to any sort of useful purpose in terms of size and power output.

Information Week has a small piece about the Indian government's aim to create laptop copmuters for $10. Nothing there about the specs and capabilities of such a machine, but since it’s being compared with One Laptop Per Child, I assume they’re aiming for a similar capability.

Earlier in the year, the Defense Department warned about possible radio transmission in Canadian coins. As it turns out, it was a poppy coin, perfectly harmless, but unfamiliar to the American contractors carrying them. False alarm. Maybe the settings on our paranoia meter are cranked a bit high?

Wired offers up the smarter emergency kit set, one for the house, one that fits in a backpack in case of the need to vacate the premises in a hurry.

Hitting the home stretch are the random collections, which offer up a lot of varied objects, some of the NSFW variety, so be careful. One of the offerings is metal art of natural objects, just to give you a sampling.

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act passes U.S. House - expected to be passed and signed. Inherited illnesses and genetic predispositions will not be acceptable causes to deny jobs or insurance to citizens.

The last thing for tonight, though, regards the bill that the House passed and the President has threatened to veto regarding adding gender, sexual orientation and gender identity to the hate-crimes law. Pam's House Blend asks "Who is it OK to Hate?", and reads a litany of many recent victims of crimes that would be covered under the new categories. Pam’s notes that even with current hate-crime laws, groups like the Ku Klux Klan are still able to operate, and still able to speak what they want regarding members of other races. Those who object to homosexuality won’t be muzzled or considered thoughtcriminals, but those who murder and do violence to others based on those objections should be prosecuted. Why should it be acceptable to call people faggots and beat them when calling someone a nigger or a Jew and beating them is a prosecutable offense?

Comments

[silveradept]

Basically, yes, it appears any time I use it as a DVD player. And as for M-rated games... nope. No code at all. At least, I'm pretty sure that any M-rated games won't trip the code department. After all, Grand Theft Auto is M-rated, right? And I've seen that played on several PS2 without needing any codes.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

Then I don't get the whole "need a code to pay a DVD" thing. You would think the M rating on a game would require the parent code, too.

[silveradept]

The game does not require the code, because I suspect the game does not have any information on it that would require a check. The DVDs have needed to change the parental control level. I don't think PS2 games do anything like that. They might check to see whether the PS2 is being modded or not, but I don't think they check parental control requirements. They assume that if you have the game, you're old enough to play it. Kind of like the default on the television.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

But then shouldn't it also go that if you're old enough to own the DVD, you can watch it? It just doesn't make much sense at all.

[silveradept]

Parse that statement again. There's an unstated thing that you're missing out on, and it's the same rationale behind why there's a V-chip mandated into the television in the first place. What did you just assume when you said that that doesn't match the reality at all?

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

That the person is old enough to watch the DVD?

[silveradept]

Very good, class. You assumed that the only person who would be watching those shows, playing those games, and using the media would be someone who met the age requirements for it. As the media so tirelessly tells us every time a kid fucks up his schoolmates with guns, or someone catches a teenager looking at porn and gives them whatever they feel is an appropriate response to that, or when situations mix, moving images are involved, or lyrics, and someone ends up dead, fucked, or in a worse place than they were before, it's an almost constant refrain - these kids were too young for this. Won't anyone think of the children? We have to stop the evil peddlers of porn, the sexualized shows, the violent video games. The kids have to be coddled, because otherwise they'll just suck the media down and what to do what those people do.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

Right, but you just said that there is no block on a Mature game, which implies the same thing - that the person putting the game into the player is "old enough", which is why I said that should be the assumption for the DVD, too.

[silveradept]

Think of it this way - retailers are not required to card someone for buying a DVD unless it's 18+. Retailers are increasingly being required to card someone for buying an M-rated game. This is a double-standard, but video games get special treatment because they're interactive, and because some people with legislative power still think video game systems are for children.

What the shows are doing is placing the lock on the DVD (and I wonder whether standalone DVD players now have parental controls that require unlocking, or if it's just a PS2 thing...) and trusting that only the people old enough to view it will have the unlock code. With games, there's no locking code on the disc, but the retailer now performs the check of being old enough.

In both of these cases, and the V-chip, the locks are only as strong as the people who possess the item. A 17-year old can buy an M-rated game, and then let his 10-year old sister play it. If one of the kids can suss out or reset the controls to the TV or DVD player (and an observant kid could probably do so), then any locks on them are useless. In the end, the responsibility falls on the parents/older children as to how effectively they can guard their kids from influences they don't want.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

And there's always a manual reset button,in the event the parent forgets the codes, and I bet the kids know where it is, too.

THey card on X rated movies, but I don't think they card to buy R rated. Then again, I haven't been that young in a while, though I did once get carded *going* to an R-rated movie when I was 22. Yep. Old enough to drink, and getting carded for the movies.

I don't think TVs shoudl have V-chips. Parents need to be more attentive to their children and NOT park them in front of the telly for hours on end. If parents were attentive and watching TV with the kids, they'd know what was being watched and when. It's when the parents stick the kids in the den with the telly while they do other things that the kids wind up watching the "bad shows" and/or when the parent requires the V-chip. My mom always knew what I was watching when I was younger. Then again, the Living room and dining room were connected to each other, and the kitchen was so tiny (and off the dining room) that you mostly did prep work in the dining room and if you sat at the one particular seat, you had a good view of what was on the telly.

But Iknow a lot of parents, in particular a pair I know expecting their 2nd child) who have taught their child at the age of two how to operate the TV remote so that she could watch TV on her own, and even gave her a TV in her room at age 3 with her own DVD player.

[silveradept]

Which is sort of the point - people use the machine as a babysitter, then turn around and expect it to know which shows the kids should and shouldn't watch. Thus, V-chip. They expect the computer to know which sites the kids should and shouldn't be able to access. Thus, filtering software. This is a trend. It will likely continue.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

What ever happened to teaching your kids what's OK to watch/view on the internet and trusting them not to go beyond your rules and/or sitting with them while they do things?

And how does the internet filtering stuff work, anyway? Is there a way the parent can override it so they can do what they want to do? What's to say, again, that the chld won't learn how to override it as well?

[silveradept]

Children are inquisitive people. They will go beyond boundaries just to see what's there. Plus, it might happen by accident, like it did here, and through no fault of the children. Trusting your kids is a good thing to do, certainly, but you can be pretty sure they'll be testing the boundaries you put up.

And filters work in different ways. Some scan the page looking for objectionable keywords like breast (which will block a page on breast cancer) or sex (which will block sex education sites) or pagan (there's almost always a "Occult/Cult/Satanic" category) and if it finds one, the page is blocked. In other cases, there's a list of domains that are considered unacceptable, and any attempt to go to that domain will result in the page being blocked. Most likely, there's a combination of the two at work. (There is also the "whitelist", which is a list of pages and domains that contain the objectionable material, but have been approved by someone with the password as safe - those will render.)

Filters have a master password that parents or librarians or teachers have and aren't supposed to give out. But again, someone can probably circumvent those measures, either through social engineering, paying attention to the people typing, or by knowing how to disable the filter on start-up.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

Would having the V-chip activated really prevent those children from the Pr0n that showed on Disney? The show they were watching was rated for them, and unless as soon as the Pr0n started playing it displayed it's TV MA rating, it might not have gotten caught anyway.

So, if someone is reading a forum or a journal page and winds up on someone's posting that has the word "pagan" in it, they wouldn't be able to see any of the site? That's not such a good filtering system. I think a better filter would be one that blocks images on all sites except for "aproved" sites, because there's also always those pop up pr0n ads that have no actual text because the text is in the graphic itself.

What will you do if you get told at your library you must use filtering software?

[silveradept]

V-chip might, might not have worked. Depends on how often the signal transmits the rating of the program.

And I don't know how sensitive the filters are - they might just block the page, not the whole site, but a site that repeatedly has those words in it will probably be blocked and added to the blacklist of domains.

You can turn off all the images in a web browser. There's probably even an extension to most of the major browsers that will selectively allow you to display or block images, in the same way you can block many pop-up windows and Flash.

Regarding the use of filtering software, see, respectively, CIPA, COPA, COPPA, and other statutes that mandate the use of filtering software on computers designated for children that receive either discounted Internet rate or were bought with certain types of federal assistance monies. It's basically the law in many places that there must be some sort of filtering software installed on computers that could be used by minors.