Slashdot Mirror

Sure, you can copy-and-paste anything you want into your URL bar, and hit enter. This takes time, and thought, and you have to look at the string in two different places, so it's reasonably secure based on that.

The only security problems that could arise would be if there were links that you could click on, or bookmark them. Try it here (slashdot won't let you write chrome:// URLs unfortunately). It doesn't work.

There are tons of security measures related to XPI/XUL, the Firefox team has IMHO taken an OVERLY aggressive approach to XUL/XPI issues. You know why there are several extra steps required in Firefox to install an XPI plugin? Because there were some theoretical exploits where someone might ask a user to click on a place on the screen over and over (eg. hit the monkey), and then display the XPI dialog there, and the user might end up clicking "yes, please install" before they realized that they were running potentially suspicious code. So now users have to wait a few seconds before being able to click.

Users CAN actually configure their browser to let remote sites do just about anything, include read/write files, change the clipboard, etc., because this is sometimes something that's useful that users might want from a few special sites. But it's a pain in the butt to get the several security configuration settings set properly, and again, as a developer, I think they might have overdone it.

Uh, they said I could listen to the radio from nine to eleven at a reasonable volume...

Specifically, if your WinXP advanced DNS settings look like this, then just uncheck that box.

Also, there's the tactic of submitting a really extreme bill, which gets rejected, and then submitting a bill that's only moderately extreme, so senators are swayed by thinking "this one isn't so bad".

This will be back. Mark my words.

He admitted that cracking websites to spread his message was illegal, he didn't admit that bomb info was illegal.

As for the question of: When does is it become illegal to advocate breaking the law? As far as I can tell, the case law goes something like obscenity case law. It has a long history with major decisions contradicting each other. It has various tests (Brandenburg test , Clear and Present Danger) being proposed. And it's essentially a gray area with no obvious place to draw the line, but a line must be drawn because one extreme is clearly legal and the other extreme is almost certainly illegal.

Last christmas I got my little brother a GameShark for his N64. I ended up monopolizing it the entire christmas break to hack on Mario Kart 64. While I only came up with 3 codes, and have many programming challenges at my job, it was the most enjoyable hacking experience I've had in a long time. There's just something about trying to get inside the heads of the game programmers, finding clues to indicate how they coded a particular feature, persevering by spending a couple hours looking over numbers, and finally finding a result that impresses even your non-geek friends.

microsoft's list of XP reviews

my list of XP reviews

The First Amendment doesn't always trump conflicting laws

• wonderland child porn
• skinhead porn
• seattle post-intelligencer january 12, 2001 crossword puzzle
• why parents exploit children for pornography
• any telephone number of anyone in Ohio<U>S>A>

And there are undoubtedly many state laws in which the 1st ammendment wasn't the highest priority.
--

Re: Loudoun County case... CIPA is a financial incentive, not an absolute mandate like in Loudoun County. CIPA doesn't block much of adult access. Also, "It must also be noted that the Loudoun court did hold that minimizing access to illegal pornography and avoidance of creation of a sexually hostile environment are compelling interests. The court went on to hold that, although the challenged policy was over inclusive because it restricted adult Internet access, it would be possible to create a policy which would protect children. Id. at 567." (Testimony, Jay Sekulow Esq., The American Center for Law and Justice (yuck))
--

• It's not actually an official law until President Clinton signs it.
• The very same day that the president signed COPA into law, the ACLU filed a suit against it (and they've been winning so far).
• CIPA is different from COPA and CDA though, in many ways. One of the main differences is that COPA and CDA were criminal statutes, bound by stricter due-process considerations. CIPA is just an incentive-based "suggestion", similar to the 55mph thing, and so it's not bound by constitutional considerations as much.
• This law has been introduced 9 times over the past two years, all by Republicans.
• The American Library Association strongly opposes such a law.

• A general perception exists that Internet filtering is seriously flawed and in many situations unusable. It is also perceived that schools and libraries don't want filtering. These notions are naive and based largely on problems associated with earlier versions of client-based software that are admittedly crude and ineffective. Though some poor filtering products still exist, filtering has gone through an extensive evolution and is not only good at protecting children but also well-received and in high demand.

• The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the compelling interest of the government in protecting children from exposure to sexually explicit material. As stated by the Court: "It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that the State's interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling."

• ... a court is also likely to look to related, non-Internet situations that have arisen in the past. These precedents include decisions regarding the selection or removal of books in schools or libraries, and the selection of content for publication in school-sponsored student newspapers. The Supreme Court has ruled that schools are non-public forums that are outside the general marketplace of expression. Accordingly, school boards have significant discretion to restrict content and expression within that environment. Under this doctrine, school officials only violate the First Amendment when they limit access to materials "for the purpose of restricting access to the political ideas or social perspectives discussed in them, when that action is motivated simply by the official's disapproval of the ideas involved."

  In situations where a school has restricted access to certain material, courts tend to consider whether the school's decision bore a reasonable relationship to a legitimate pedagogical concern. For example, a school district's decision that students exposed to violence, nudity, or "hard" language is a view-point neutral "legitimate pedagogical concern."

An argument similar to this was used to get the mandatory-porn-filters-in-schools-n-libraries amendment included in the House Appropriations bill that has a good possibility of being passed in the next week or two:

• Mr. McCain: Internet filtering system work[s], and they need not be blunt instruments that unduly constrain the availability of legitimately instructional material. Today they are adaptable, capable of being fine-tuned to accommodate changes in websites as well as the evolving needs of individual schools and even individual lesson-plans. ...

  As we have seen through an increasing flurry of shocking media reports, the Internet has become the tool of choice for pedophiles who utilize the Internet to lure and seduce children into illegal and abusive sexual activity. ...As we wire America's children to the Internet, we are inviting these lowlifes to prey upon our children in every classroom and library in America.

But the bill might be passed before the candidates get to weigh in on the issue. (during lame-duck session in congress, starting Nov 14)
--

And then they got this idea that they could make the rebates conditional on use of porn filters (bill currently pending in the house). Apparently, if the government takes your money and then gives it back to you, that gives them permission to control the way you use the money. (okay, that's a big simplification, but it's somewhat true. The struggle is really between federal and local control, and their blind insistence that filters work)
--

In Roth v. United States (1957), the Justice said:

• In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing
  of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.
  The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure
  unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political
  and social changes desired by the people.

Perhaps the same sort of idea could be applied to anonymous speech. It's guaranteed as long as it's at all possible to use it for political or social change. The ability to lie about an entity that has a lot at stake in its reputation doesn't seem like it could ever be used for legitimate political or social change (unless that change is towards anarchy).
--

Also, fadetoblack's awesome NOW page is mirrored here too. (vote for Molly, maybe she can catch up)

Also, fadetoblack's awesome NOW page is mirrored here too. (vote for Molly, maybe she can catch up)

Also mirrored here.

The site is being mirrored here. It may take a few minutes to complete it.