Slashdot Mirror

Here are three links to the text form of the brief:

On One of My Boxes

On Reference Blog

On Pastebin

Fun! This 6502-assembler-in-LISP looks similar to Henry G. Baker's "COMFY" 6502 compiler (described in "The COMFY 6502 compiler", SIGPLAN Notices, 1997). You can check out the COMFY-6502 implementation that uses Common Lisp (sadly this appears to be entrapped in the ACM non-commercial-use-only license, though for 6502 code that isn't very limiting). One cool thing about the approach of using LISP as an "assembler" in general is that unlike many traditional macro assemblers, this approach can easily do stuff like choose the optimal instruction set for branches because it can determine if it's in range for a short branch and use them when available. You can do it other ways, of course, but it's pretty elegant in LISP. Those interested in this sort of thing might like my page on 6502 Language Implementation Approaches or my page on making LISP-based languages more readable (especially sweet-expressions).

http://joegratzdotnet.nfshost.com/?p=499

"If you ignore this and then come crying to us later, we're just gong to point you back to this agreement -- which you didn't read in the first place. How do I know that? Because nobody ever reads these things. I'm actually writing this for myself. I'm the only one that will ever read this. And the sad thing is that I'll spell-check it anyway."

Oops.

At least some people have a sense of humor when writing them.

"Does anyone have statistics on what percentage of the population are pedophiles? I'm willing to bet that it's a pretty low number."

It's not a low number at all, although the occurrence of "paedophilia" of course depends on how you define "paedophilia". I've posted these figures before, but since you asked the question, I'll take the risk of sounding repetitive:

From Hall, et al -

Consistent with previous data (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Briere & Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund & Watson, 1991), 20 % of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25 % exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.

[..]

Eighty subjects completed the study. [..] Twenty-six subjects [approximately 33%] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.

[..] ....a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &R, 1989, H,G & C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&L, 1989, F & W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey & Laws, 1990).

From the British Journal of Social Work -

A self-administer questionnaire was given to a sample of 92 female and 91 male public sector child care workers. Results showed a significantly higher percentage of males (15 per cent) than females (4 per cent) expressed a sexual interest in children.

From Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder? -

In a sample of nearly 200 university males, 21% reported some sexual attraction to small children, 9% described sexual fantasies involving children, 5% admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children, and 7% indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught (Briere & Runtz, 1989). Briere and Runtz remarked that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, we may hypothesize that the actual rates were even higher" (p. 71). In another sample with 100 male and 180 female undergraduate students, 22% of males and 3% of females reported sexual attraction to a child (Smiljanich & Briere, 1996).

Laboratory researchers have validated physiologically the self-report studies of nonclinical, nonpedophile identified volunteers. In a sample of 80 "normal" volunteers, over 25% self-reported some pedophilic interest or in the plethysmographic phase exhibited penile arousal to a child that equaled or exceeded arousal to an adult (Hall, Hirschman, & Oliver, 1995). In another study, "normal" men's erections to pictures of pubescent and younger girls averaged 70 and 50%, respectively, of their responses to adult females (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergersen, & Holmes, 1975). In a control group of 66 males recruited from hospital staff and the community, 17% showed a penile response that was pedophilic (Fedora et al., 1992). Freund and Watson (1991), studying community male volunteers in a plethysmography classification study, found that19%were misclassified as having an erotic preference for minors. Freund and Costell (1970) studied 48 young Czech soldiers who were shown slides of children between 4 and 10, both male and female, as well as adolescents and adults, male and female. Penile responsivity to female children, ages 4-10, was intermediate to adolescent and adult females and males in o

The way laws in the UK are going, soon it will be a crime to have an internet-capable device. (We can't have those prisoners using it as a shank!)

Fortunately, it's not a crime if slashdot links to cnet who claims cbnsews has the scoop, where we find that CNN is the source.

Otherwise, where would we get "news for nerds, hyperlink puzzles that matter"?

* For the lazy, here's the solution: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~jdevor/links/n_nfshost_com-solution.htm

I agree with your concerns about children's liberty being restricted in the name of "protecting" them. I also agree with your belief that there are some serious issues which are often ignored by the majority; the hysteria over paedophilia allows significant risks to children to remain undetected or trivialised.

"the effect of 0.00001% of the population having a predilection for children is frankly irrelevant compared to dangers such as traffic accidents, non-sexual abuse, violence and murder"

Actually, the percentage of people who are attracted to children is much higher than that, even if the men who like sexually mature 15 year old girls are not included in the statistics. Despite the widespread occurrence of paedophilia within the general population, most paedophiles refrain from abusing children for several reasons:

• Most paedophiles have a conscience.
• Most paedophiles don't want to be arrested and ostracised by their community (although frankly, many of us feel marginalised even though we haven't offended).
• Most paedophiles have suffered bad childhoods and don't wish to create problems for other children.

I'm not just making assumptions based on the fact that I live responsibly with a paedophilic orientation. I know many other paedophiles who are also responsible people.

I have posted this information previously, but it remains relevant:

From Hall, et al -

"Consistent with previous data (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Briere & Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund & Watson, 1991), 20 % of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25 % exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.

[..]

Eighty subjects completed the study. [..] Twenty-six subjects [approximately 33%] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.

[..] ....a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &R, 1989, H,G & C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&L, 1989, F & W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey & Laws, 1990)."

From the British Journal of Social Work -

"A self-administer questionnaire was given to a sample of 92 female and 91 male public sector child care workers. Results showed a significantly higher percentage of males (15 per cent) than females (4 per cent) expressed a sexual interest in children."

From Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder? -

"In a sample of nearly 200 university males, 21% reported some sexual attraction to small children, 9% described sexual fantasies involving children, 5% admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children, and 7% indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught (Briere & Runtz, 1989). Briere and Runtz remarked that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, we may hypothesize that the actual rates were even higher" (p. 71). In another sample with 100 male and 180 female undergraduate students, 22% of males and 3% of females reported sexual attraction to a child (Smiljanich & Briere, 1996).

Laboratory researchers have validated physiologically the self-report studies of nonclinical, nonpedophile identified volun

The scary part of this entire thing, is the willingness of the left, usually closer to civil libertarianism than anything else, to report citizens tot he government. I've never done anything like this but I created a little submit it type button: http://disinformation.nfshost.com/eye.html Add it to your website, and people can report you to Obama. I mean, this is where we are. I understand the DNC vs RNC going at it, but the _executive branch_? I'm not a programmer so I may have mucked the entire thing, but I was really that incensed about the disinformation fixing campaign.

http://396.nfshost.com/

"So, continuing your analogy, "pedophile" = "person who will probably have sex with one or more children during the course of his lifetime"."

Adult-attracted people should understand that the way in which they act upon their sexual orientation does not necessarily correlate with the way in which "minority sexualities" act. This is because the behaviours of sexual minorities are not governed simply by human sexual desire, they are governed by a myriad of deep-rooted ethical, social and legal issues which undeniably affect one's actions.

Most paedophiles refrain from having sex with children for the same reasons that you refrain from raping women. That should not be difficult to comprehend.

"And of course our brave AC "doesn't kidnap, rape or molest children". After all, children have sex with adults perfectly voluntarily. NAMBLA says so, so it must be true."

NAMBLA is an extreme organisation. They do not represent the majority of paedophiles.

"God damnit, this makes me sick to my stomach. I know too many victims of scumbags like this personally."

What makes you think that most child molesters are paedophiles? A friend has collected a list of relevant studies, most of which suggest that non-paedophilic men comprise the vast majority of child molesters.

Your stereotyping of the AC paedophile is disgraceful; you have no right to judge an individual based on the behaviour of others, and you have no right to judge a whole demographic based on the behaviour of its worst members.

"in some legislations it's legal to have computer generated images."

"That creates the incentive to hide real images as what might appear to have been generated."

"People can't just say prove that it happens for it to be logically and reasonably assumed that any event doesn't ever happen. That's like saying "Prove that banks are robbed with empty guns or we shouldn't make THAT illegal.""

(a) An excessive focus on a child's genitalia; or

(b) A person of any age performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with a child; or

(c) An act of masturbation by, of or involving a child; or

(d) Penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of a child with a part of the person's body or with anything else; or

(e) Bestiality involving a child

"The fact that you're an admitted pedophile and you continually refuse to accept that children are being exploited and victimized even when they're NOT performing a sex act in an erotic picture proves that your brand of critical thinking is criminally retarded, delusional and self-serving."

"You want to attack the legislatures motives?"

"Has anyone who has replied actually read TFA?"

"The reason they want to ban it is because it's made by converting REAL CHILD PORN into computer generated images."

"So demand for this sort of thing drives up demand for child porn and therefore child abuse."

The criminalisation of "non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse" was first proposed by "children's charities" - who are forever desperate to encourage donations by exploiting people's emotions - in 2006. In 2007, the campaign was backed by low-importance MPs who wished to elevate their profile, but who were most likely uninterested in the issue in question.

The campaign became irrelevant when, earlier this month, any image derived from an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child became illegal under Section 69 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. It is also illegal to distribute any obscene publication under the Obscene Publications Act, and despite the contrary claims of the Ministry of Justice, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show or possess a pseudo-photograph, which means that all efforts to a implement this new law will have only one effect: the possession of material which is not derived from photographs of 'abuse' and which is clearly not photographic will be criminalised.

Unfortunately, the UK economy is heading for recession and the criminal justice system is under attack due to a lack of space in prisons (the latter is ironically due to silly, politically-motivated legislation). The Labour government recently suffered a horrendous defeat in the recent by-elections, due to their drastic inability to deal with these issues. They have no choice but to use distraction techniques to divert attention from their incompetency.

Paedophiles are being used as pawns for political and economic reasons, simply because they are currently the weakest minority who nobody will speak out for.

The pathetic irony of this situation is that someone who is convicted of possessing a cartoon derived from a photograph of a child masturbating will get the same sentence as someone who is convicted of making a photograph of an adult molesting a child, because the person in the former case would be charged under the recently amended Protection of Children Act and the new law (Protection of Proper Thoughts Act?).

33%.. was the link someone gave about a week ago on this same topic. It's funny though how it says "sexual predators" and everyone jumped to pedo... have we been brainwashed by media this bad already?

"You've already confessed to traveling, probably overseas, to violate your local laws by attempting to view rape material. That sounds like you're acting recklessly on your urges."

"I don't think it's best attempting to fix a pathological desire by fueling it."

"There is still the demand because people like you desire it."

• no passwords were requested;
  
• no comments were posted;
  
• no payment was made; therefore,
  

"I think most of the supply is created by people who desire to supply such material. Period."

"Why choose that market? It's because they're into it, and from what I hear, they usually participate."

"Actually, now that I've thought about it, I think you're equivocating somewhere, perhaps with the business definition of 'demand', as you claim that if the industry were to collapse, then there wouldn't be any industry. But you claimed it would just be free."

"How many pedophiles [..] are there in the USA?"

"Not saying child porn is not insidiously evil."

How do you define "child pornography"? The law doesn't just cover people who produce images of children being raped. A significant number of prosecutions are based solely upon images which don't depict any sexual activity at all.

• Audio interview with Dmitri.
  
• Dmitri's profile on drupal.org
  

"I am, technically, a pedophile, because I have fantasies with little girls. However, it's underage characters from fiction works, and not real girls. I mean, I am not willing to touch a little girl or see photos of real girls being raped."

"However, I fear to be treated as someone that deals with real photos or actually abuses kids."

"I know many of you are already condemning me to crucifixion or worse."

"I fear to be prosecuted while really dangerous pedophiles are out there doing trips to sex paradises or having videos of a (real) little girl being raped."

"I know this might not be a really interesting post, but I needed to take that out, even as AC."

"Oh, I am posting from a cibercafé and behind a proxy, so don't bother to track me down"

"To put it in a simple question: Is it as bad to fantasize with underage girls (without breaking laws or harming girls) than consuming real material (raped girls) or abusing them?"

Consistent with previous data (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Briere & Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund & Watson, 1991), 20 % of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25 % exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.

[..]

Eighty subjects completed the study. [..] Twenty-six subjects [approximately 33%] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.

[..] ....a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &R, 1989, H,G & C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&L, 1989, F & W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey & Laws, 1990).

A self-administer questionnaire was given to a sample of 92 female and 91 male public sector child care workers. Results showed a significantly higher percentage of males (15 per cent) than females (4 per cent) expressed a sexual interest in children.

In a sample of nearly 200 university males, 21% reported some sexual attraction to small children, 9% described sexual fantasies involving children, 5% admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children, and 7% indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught (Briere & Runtz, 1989). Briere and Runtz remarked that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, we may hypothesize that the actual rates were even higher" (p. 71). In another sample with 100 male and 180 female undergraduate students, 22% of males and 3% of females reported sexual attraction to a child (Smiljanich & Briere, 1996).

Laboratory researchers have validated physiologically the self-report studies of nonclinical, nonpedophile identified volunteers. In a sample of 80 "normal" volunteers, over 25% self-reported some pedophilic interest or in the plethysmographic phase exhibited penile arousal to a child that equaled or exceeded arousal to an adult (Hall, Hirschman, & Oliver, 1995). In another study, "normal" men's erections to pictures of pubescent and younger girls averaged 70 and 50%, respectively, of their responses to adult females (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergersen, & Holmes, 1975). In a control group of 66 males recruited from hospital staff and the community, 17% showed a penile response that was pedophilic (Fedora et al., 1992). Freund and Watson (1991), studying community male volunteers in a plethysmography classification study, found that19%were misclassified as having an erotic preference for minors. Freund and Costell (1970) studied 48 young Czech soldiers who were shown slides of children between 4 and 10, both male and female, as well as adolescents and adults, male and female. Penile responsivity to female children, ages 4-10, was intermediate to adolescent and adult females and males in one scoring system. In the other scoring system, all 48 soldiers showed penile response to adult females, as did 40 of 48 to adolescent females, and notably, 28 of 48 showed penile response to the female children age 4-10.

• To draw attention to the fact that "expert" commentators are usually not experts
  
• To alert Slashdotters to yet another ridiculous attack against the internet
  
• To show that many "experts'" assertions about paedophilia are incorrect
  
• To start an interesting discussion
  

"What's the definition of pedophilia, then? If it involves viewing media of children being sexually abused, then pedophilia is clearly a crime. Anything that creates a market for the sexual abuse of children must be considered a crime-- even if the market's currency is "internet karma.""

The definition of paedophilia has already been explained, however I feel that it's important to address the issue of child pornography too.

Firstly, in countries such as the UK, it is illegal to view any photograph (or "pseudo-photograph") which "offends the recognised standards of propriety". This means that an image may be judged as illegal even if it does not involve sexual abuse; it simply must offend the "standards" of a jury.

Secondly, the people who create a market for child pornography are those who purchase images, not those who simply view it. On the other hand, I agree that trading, purchasing, producing, requesting, or distributing abusive child pornography is unacceptable.

The child pornography issue is extremely complex. I discussed it in detail here, although the article is based around an analysis of UK law.

I would like to take this opportunity to shill for my shared hosting provider, as a satisfied customer (I have not other relation with them). I was going to say that these guys offer $1 per G bandwidth, and $1 per Meg per month disk space, strictly on a pay-as-you-go basis. What was my hosting fees over the last year? I don't know, probably around $10 -> that's $7 for the domain name, and $3 for MySql, leaving a few cents for storage & bandwidth. I'm a very light user, and well, I'm working on getting more traffic/revenue etc, but it's a while yet. Ok, now I also have "unlimited account" email forwarding at $0.02 per day ie anything, ***@mysite.com gets forwarded.

So, at my most wasteful "always upsize setting", that's a whopping average spending per customer, I'm probably a big spender!). Can anyone beat that? That was before. Just now, I check their news pages, and found that the bandwidth costs have just been decreased (and check this out for those rational-minded ones out there) on a log scale!

I quote

I discussed UK laws against indecent images here.

Although your post is relatively insightful, I'd like to ask you about your claims that "child porn is clearly a very bad thing" and that "children must have been abused to create it".

As I discussed in the article which I have linked above, a jury will usually decide that naturist images are "indecent" and therefore pornographic in a statutory sense. Do you not feel that it is somewhat absurd to claim that naturist images of children are a "very bad thing" and that "children have been abused" to create such images? Convictions involving naturist images are not rare; they constitute a significant proportion of convictions under the Protection of Children Act.

"Wake me up when you or one of your screeching hippie buddies gets executed or imprisoned for 20 years for saying something bad about Bush or the US government okay?"

I'm not a sex offender (nor am I a terrorist), and I'm blatantly opposed to child molestation, so I don't see how the URL you posted is relevant to me.

Paedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children; only a small number actually act on their fantasies.

I briefly discussed my views here.

"Many of you might remember the previous story about LiveJournal erroneously deleting hundreds of users as suspected paedophiles, spurred on by pressure from the group, Warriors for innocence. Since then, they've been taking action against users hosting material on their servers that they believe to be illegal."

"Frankly, in the privacy of your own home, as long as it's not child porn or photos of someone literally being murdered or tortured, I can see NO sound objection to restricting what people can legally observe."

First of all, see this post.

Child pornography in the UK can refer to mere naturist nudity.... and there are many people who are arrested for such offences. I wrote an article about it here.

It's somewhat hypocritical to say that people should be allowed to view whatever they wish to view in their own home, but then give examples of things they shouldn't be able to view based on your lack of approval.

"Tell me, are you quite young yourself or just stupid because I'm detecting a severe case of stubborn ass syndrome."

My mini bio is here (BLueRibbon)

"The scientific facts however indicate that the very presence of a sexually attracted paedophile has an impact on the development of children."

WHICH "scientific facts??"

You say that the attacks on paedophiles are designed to hurt - don't you think that those paedophiles who don't have morals may start abusing children if they feel they have nothing live for? Society's actions against paedophiles are dangerous.

"Please at least consider the possibility that you might just be wrong and might just want to seek therapy."

Paedophilia is an inbuilt sexual attraction. You can't "cure" anyone of being attracted to someone - that was proven years ago.

I will not take the risk of being ostracized and treated like a child molester for no reason, by mentioning my attraction to a therapist. That is not a case of being stubborn, it is the realization of the fact that you can't change who you're attracted to.

Hi, Try http://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/. They are extremely cheap. From their site: Data Transfers (Bandwidth): $1.00 per gigabyte Disk Space (Storage): $0.01 per megabyte-month And if you don't use it, they don't charge. I have a small blog (http://dkell.nfshost.com/drupal/) that costs me something like 3 cents / month to keep up. It's great for me, because I don't expect to receive a huge amount of traffic, so I don't need to pay for any super great plan. Of course, you don't have to have a blog. They don't care. It's whatever you like. Anyway. Check it out. I'm happy with it.

I bet they are switching IP's everytime Google gets wise and blocks them.

The script is configured to have the search term (XXX) in the URL as in "http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=XXX" and you can add it to your Firefox search toobar.

If you are concerned that they may be keeping logs in spite of their claims (probably unverifiable short of access to their servers) you are probably better off with TOR or Torpark which (as others have mentioned elsewhere) probably provide the best anonymization. The slowness factor is a concern, so for selective browsing turn TOR on and off with Torbutton or SwitchProxy FF add-ons.

On second thought, for your purpose, TOR is probably over-kill. If you are only concerned about Google keeping search results, just running your search through a proxy and disabling cookies should keep G from having any identifiable information on you...

Many users take advantage of Tor and other anonymous web browsing tools, but is the amount of hassle worth the effort it takes to remain anonymous?

Want real privacy? Use the free open-source browser Torpark. Based on Firefox, comes with NoScript and Adblock, default config stores no history or cookies, your traffic runs through the Tor network, and best of all it can run from a removeable flash drive. Encrypt your flashdrive with TrueCrypt if you want.

There is an existing client that solves both your problems and is designed to run off flashdrive: Torpark. It's a portable version of Firefox that doesn't write to your hard drive. And it uses the Tor network to bounce your signal through an onion network so the remote site will never know who/where you are. Of course that means it is slow, but pretty strong privacy. It's no VPN but it's free...

Torpark ( http://torpark.nfshost.com/ ) runs portably, clears all cached data (which is minimal in the first place) on close, and unlike the browser from TFA, it sets up a Tor circuit, giving you at least some chance of keeping the browsing you'd like to be private out of anyone's IP logs (and request/response logs if they're really anal).

Also, when Torpark is running, you can use the virtual proxy it sets up via Socks - e.g., you can set IE to use Torpark as its proxy server, as long as there's a gateway straight out of your LAN.

Torpark leaves your FF and IE history intact; the only inconvenience is that since Torpark *is* built on top of portable Firefox, you'll have to close your other FF instance when firing it up.

More info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpark.

People should take a look at Torpark. It's a copy of Portable Firefox that automatically doesn't cache or save your history and uses the Tor network to create a true untraceable browser. It's preconfigured and works right out of the box and includes some other popular plugins such as NoScript. It can also be installed onto a USB key and carried with you so you always have it at your disposal.

What I want to know is (a) what traffic info is logged in the first place, given that "For Swedish authorities to force RELAKKS to hand over `traffic data including your RELAKKS IP at a specific point in time, they will have to prove a case with the minimum sentence of two years imprisonment," and (b) how are the details of your payment method related to "what you entered yourself when signing up for the RELAKKS Safe Surf service"?

I guess this just goes to show that you should be using something like Torpark even when merely conducting an online search. It's a shame but if you value your privacy, I guess it's necessary.

Keep those IPs changing so they can't track and accumulate your searches I guess. I don't want a dossier of my searches available to the public.

http://www.upcdatabase.org/

Right? And it's got almost a million UPC's last time I checked.

BTW I made a Grocery list app. based off the information there. (http://grocist.nfshost.com/ if you're curious)

I did the exact same thing... The Iranians got to it and used it for porn. I'm now on many NSA Lists. It's free speech, so as long as you're not browsing porn at school, I see no problem -legal or moral- with running a proxy. Then again... my school had a nazi-style filter. Have Fun. Have you heard of TorPark

-jX

P.S. They blocked things on George Orwell's Animal farm for "Communism/Racism" and Drudgereport.com for "Lies/Blasphamy"

marketing

http://mavens.nfshost.com/Jireh/script/jireh_cgi.p l/marketing/market

And here are some GNOME mockups for those who prefer it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gamehack/sets/1506658 /
http://desplesdadotcom.nfshost.com/?p=75

What a good excuse
for the communications
breakdown. Censorship?

Except that security measures necessarily are a human factor. Human nature cannot become the bottleneck in a system designed to work with / thwart human nature. You might as well say that all passwords should be 1MB of random binary culled from decaying atoms, or a 1GB flash disk welded to the spine of the user.
Ok... I'll nibble... We're designing just such a security tool... (the 1MB of random binary culled from a true-random source, that is..) We're Krypticon, and we're designing the most bulletproof security you can carry on a usb drive.
We're posting (or have posted) a challenge on our website, open to everyone... Break our encryption... we dare you... Private, industry and government experts haven't been able to yet...
Krypticon