Great Firewall of UK Blocks Game Patch Because of Substring Matches

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Great Firewall of UK Blocks Game Patch Because of Substring Matches

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday January 22, 2014 @09:06AM from the that'sextremely-stupid dept.

Sockatume writes "Remember the fun of spurious substring matches, AKA the Scunthorpe problem? The UK's advanced 'intelligent' internet filters do. Supposedly the country's great new filtering regime has been blocking a patch for League of Legends because some of the filenames within it include the substring 'sex.' Add one to the list of embarrassing failures for the nation's new mosaic of opt-out censorship systems, which have proven themselves incapable of distinguishing between abusive sites and sites for abuse victims, or sites for pornography versus sites for sexual and gender minorities."

174 of 270 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-01-22 09:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

I do not understand. I just can not understand.
China is a communist country, a country in which the regime is NOT elected.
They have their "Great Firewall" in place in order to protect their totalitarian regime.
Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 09:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Same shit, different team.
2. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by MightyMartian · 2014-01-22 09:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because apparently if children see breasts, vaginas and penises, the whole fabric of British society will collapse.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Goose+In+Orbit · 2014-01-22 09:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Where the US leads, the UK inevitably follows...
4. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by mlgunner · 2014-01-22 09:17 · Score: 2
  
  1. Elected by who exactly?
  2. Democratic just means the lowest common denominator, the tyranny of the majority, and you can convince 50.1% of the people of almost anything long enough to get elected.
5. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 09:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Say the word "nipple" to the average yank in games chat, gets usually a warning by yanky moderators... Even tho "ingame content is unrated".
  Apparently Yanks don't have nipples.
  One thing for sure, they sure don't have balls.. Other wise they would stand up and defend their constitution, but no they so far take it laying down for the past decade yet spout on forums about "one more straw and we will huff and puff... and eat more fries"
6. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by SuperTechnoNerd · 2014-01-22 09:22 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You know your post will never make it through to the Brits, right?
7. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by frisket · 2014-01-22 09:23 · Score: 2
  
  Don't even get me started about trying to email a customer about their MSEXCHANGE domain...
  --
  How do we persuade new users that spreading fonts across the page like peanut butter across hot toast is not necessarily the route to typographic excellence?
8. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I checked the monarch doesn't propose nor enact legislation.
9. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-01-22 09:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It is unfair to paint all the "yanks" as ball-less.
  Some of them still have their intact.
  For example: Edward Snowden. That guy did what he had to do in order to dislodge enough information from the secretive (and apparently illegal) activities within the American government, and then revealed the information to the world.
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
10. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-22 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  The US has a national censorship firewall? Since when?
11. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-01-22 09:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  What US has is not a "firewall" per se, but the effect would, at the end of the day, be similar.
  By tapping into everybody's phone, email and whatnot, the US government is sending out a message to all (including the hundreds of millions of the American citizens) that they better be careful of what they wrote/talk (or even think), or they will be subject to very very close scrutiny.
  Thus, what available in the USA is akin to "censorship via intimidation".
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
12. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Xaedalus · 2014-01-22 09:35 · Score: 2
  
  In China, it's done in name of protecting the national harmony. In the UK, it's done in name of protecting the children. Either way, you've got millions of people who absolutely believe and support in this. They are the majority (and always will be).
  
  --
  Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
13. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-22 09:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??
  Why the "supposedly"? Do you have evidence that the UK's election results were not legitimate?
  The British government is enacting this censorship policy with the full support of millions and millions of people who don't post on Slashdot.
  I certainly don't support the filtering, but the fact that it's opt-out makes it VERY different from China's firewall.
14. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-22 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  You think those things are the same? Really?
15. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by ackthpt · 2014-01-22 09:41 · Score: 2
  
  Wait until the Great Firewall of The United States, as carried out by business interests now that Net Neutrality is all but dead.
  This site has been blocked by your content provider. If you feel this is in error, it is you who are terribly, terribly wrong.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
16. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Cryacin · 2014-01-22 09:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In a word, control. It doesn't matter what flavour of politics you have, there are groups that want to control you, for your own good, of course. Some seek it to gain control as a dictator, but by far the most dangerous, are the ones that actually believe that their beliefs imposed upon society are for the betterment of society. Those are the ones who are stupid enough get their ambitions and capabilities mixed up.
  
  The world will be destroyed with the best intentions at heart.
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
17. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Cryacin · 2014-01-22 09:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And to such a great personal cost. Muchas Gracias indeed.
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
18. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Cryacin · 2014-01-22 09:44 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  So the brits won't be able to access expertsexchange.com and pay to copy and paste code anymore?
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
19. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by 91degrees · 2014-01-22 09:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Well, part of the problem is that most of what you read about the "UK porn filter" is bollocks.
  
  Firstly, it's not a government filter. The only government involvement was the Prime Minister pressuring the ISPs to offer it.
  
  Secondly it's entirely voluntary. It's not even "opt-out". You have to make an actual choice whether to enable it or not during setup.
  
  China, on the other hand, has a mandatory government imposed filter.
  
  I'm sure you can see the difference.
20. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 09:45 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  In the UK the Internet is being censored on a massive scale, they have to ask the government for permission to look at porn, and you can be arrested for insulting Islam or saying something racist. Don't pretend that the US even remotely close to the same.
21. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  In a word, control.
  
  The UK is a democracy. The problem is that the population elected the government themselves. You get what you elect.
22. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by wisnoskij · 2014-01-22 09:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They have elections in China.....
  They just do not have official political parties, like many other democracies.
  China is also mostly Capitalistic...
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
23. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by interkin3tic · 2014-01-22 09:53 · Score: 2
  
  I'm guessing it's one of those things where someone is getting a big fat government contract that they bribed the government into giving them. It's just insult to injury that not only are they taking tax dollars, but they're harming citizens to do so. If it were just wasteful spending, that would be bad enough, but wasteful spending taking away nudity is just rude.
  
  This is my major beef with the Iraq war. Military industrial complex, next time just have the president and congress write you a big check and shake hands and then spend it. No need to actually start a war with real people dying. Plus then it would be all profit. Safer and more efficient, it's a win-win.
24. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by c0lo · 2014-01-22 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??
  Careful with that word: your message may be blocked by UK 'inteligent' filters.
  Not because of the critique implied by your message, it happened before.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
25. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Immerman · 2014-01-22 09:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Democracy is orthogonal to communism. One is a type of government, while the other a type of economy. You can have a democratic communist country, just as you can have a totalitarian capitalist economy. The fact that we have had so many totalitarian "communist" countries is simply because waving a "communist" flag is a great way to attract the downtrodden masses to support your overthrow of the current regime.
  In no sane sense can China actually be considered communist, even ignoring the capitalistic reforms they've been experimenting with. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, right? That's not particularly compatible with a group of elites that are radically wealthier than the general populace. From wikipedia
  
  Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production
  Ergo, if you have a ruling class it's not communism.
  In fact arguably the single core tenant of communism is communal ownership of the means of production - and the only way government ownership is compatible with that ideal is if the people own the government. And so far democracy is the only model that even attempts that, for all that it usually fails badly in its efforts. Therefore, a strong democracy is a necessary precursor for communism.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
26. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by 91degrees · 2014-01-22 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing it's one of those things where someone is getting a big fat government contract that they bribed the government into giving them.
  
  Since the ISPs are implementing this without any government funding, your guess is wildly wrong.
27. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by GumphMaster · 2014-01-22 10:11 · Score: 2
  
  The British government is enacting this censorship policy with the full support of millions and millions of people who don't post on Slashdot.
  Quite possibly (almost certainly the bit about Slashdot), but they do not necessarily provide a majority with "full support" for the policy. The UK has voluntary voting. Only 65.1% of eligible voters voted in the 2010 election. Outright you can say the 44.9% non-voters are indifferent to the policy. If only 5.1% of the voters voted against this policy, or voted for it only because of other issues, then the majority of voters do not provide "full support" for it. There is no way to know for sure. Anyway, that's the electoral process they have, and the Government of the day sets the policy regardless of promises or actual majorities.
  
  --
  Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
28. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 10:16 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Your comment is now cencored in the UK due to the word 'erect'.
29. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by msclrhd · 2014-01-22 10:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually, the last election result was such that no party had enough votes to secure power. It was a hung parliament as a result (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010). The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a Coalition, gaining the required combined majority to form a government.
  Conservatives: 36.1%
  Labour: 29%
  Liberal Democrats: 23%
30. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by pavon · 2014-01-22 10:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Secondly it's entirely voluntary. It's not even "opt-out". You have to make an actual choice whether to enable it or not during setup.
  Not for long: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...
31. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by nitehawk214 · 2014-01-22 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Same reason. Since the UK politicians can be voted out of office, they have even more reason to defend themselves.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
32. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by monkeyhybrid · 2014-01-22 10:39 · Score: 2
  
  When you only get to vote for a government once every 4 years, a lot of shit can happen in the 4 years preceding the next opportunity to get them out of power. Most (all?) democracies really aren't very democratic at all when it comes down to it.
33. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by 91degrees · 2014-01-22 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Still going to be active choice. That article is based on what the government asked for, not what the ISPs actually agreed to.
34. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by mrbester · 2014-01-22 10:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The real problem is that the government has *not* done this. Instead, they have threatened the ISPs that they *will* if it isn't done voluntarily. And all thanks to one shrill unelected bitch on a committee who got some reason has a direct line to Cameron. The "support of millions" is from the hypocritical mouth breathers at the Daily Fail and the cretins who read it.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
35. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by tlhIngan · 2014-01-22 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  I do not understand. I just can not understand.
  China is a communist country, a country in which the regime is NOT elected.
  They have their "Great Firewall" in place in order to protect their totalitarian regime.
  Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??
  A LOT of countries have "great firewalls". The only one that everyone seems to know about is China, but there are many, many, many more. And many of them are "elected" and "democratic" as well.
  A lot of times it's to keep stuff like pornography and such out of the country - they often have film censor boards and such as well.
  Of course, many are developing world, but many are just quiet on the whole thing and don't make a big fuss about it (e.g., Singapore).
  The political system in play and firewall/censorship of the internet are independent of each other.
36. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-01-22 11:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In the UK the Internet is being censored on a massive scale, they have to ask the government for permission to look at porn, and you can be arrested for insulting Islam or saying something racist. Don't pretend that the US even remotely close to the same.
  
  It's all over the Western society, including what is happening right here, in /.
  
  Don't believe me ?
  Try posting a comment which is anti-Liberal and/or anti-Islamic and watch for yourself how your comment would end up be modded into the oblivion.
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
37. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by monkeyhybrid · 2014-01-22 11:11 · Score: 2
  
  Secondly it's entirely voluntary. It's not even "opt-out". You have to make an actual choice whether to enable it or not during setup.
  That depends on the ISP. New BT customers, for example, have blocking in place by default and have to opt-out if they wish to do so.
38. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by jimshatt · 2014-01-22 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  100 - 65.1 = 34.9
39. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by lgw · 2014-01-22 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't say Net Neutrality is dead, only the attempt by the FCC to enforce it without the congress's say-so. Net Neutrality by law instead of arbitrary regulation is still an open door. Of course, that will involve democracy, and thus it would have to be popular (ie.e, actually matter to most people). Right now, most people don't care, but if the problem ever because actual, not theoretical, they would.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
40. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by rtb61 · 2014-01-22 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the shit needs to happen just before the election. For example the Great Fire Wall of the UK goes 'er' nuts and blocks all protest and political opposition websites for some strange reason. Now if it does that, it does exactly what in reality it has been designed to do, protect those gullible grown children from reality so they continue to vote for the fantasy where conservative politics serves them and not just the richest 1%.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
41. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by 0123456 · 2014-01-22 11:33 · Score: 2
  
  Why the "supposedly"? Do you have evidence that the UK's election results were not legitimate?
  They're a minority government elected by around 20% of the British people. In the last election, the British people resoundingly said that they didn't want any of the three main parties on offer.
  Any civilized country would be embarrassed by putting in place a government that about 80% of the people didn't vote for.
  
  The British government is enacting this censorship policy with the full support of millions and millions of people who don't post on Slashdot.
  None of my British relatives and friends have ever demanded the government 'protect' them from pr0n. Most Britons who do are idiots like the batty old Mary Whitehouse.
42. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by radarskiy · 2014-01-22 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Because the people ask for it. But only to be used against the bad guys. The fact that it gets used against everyone is just more evidence that the government can't do anything right.
43. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by ackthpt · 2014-01-22 11:43 · Score: 2
  
  I wouldn't say Net Neutrality is dead, only the attempt by the FCC to enforce it without the congress's say-so. Net Neutrality by law instead of arbitrary regulation is still an open door. Of course, that will involve democracy, and thus it would have to be popular (ie.e, actually matter to most people). Right now, most people don't care, but if the problem ever because actual, not theoretical, they would.
  Most people don't understand. And even if you were to dedicate a half hour show on prime time television explaining it and why it's important to preserve liberties, people's eyes would glaze over and they still wouldn't understand. Though if some demagogue on radio or TV told them how they should feel about it, tens of thousands would queue right up behind whatever the position is.
  It's like a return to the 1920s.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
44. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by aix+tom · 2014-01-22 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  In the UK (And basically EU/USA/etc...) there is a much more intelligent system of power in place.
  In China the corrupt people hungry for power and money are still doing the public ruling themselves, making themselves targets.
  In the "Western World" the corrupt people hungry for power and money keep pet "politicians" in power by buying them votes, so that these scapegoats can be replaced easily to pacify the masses without really jeopardising the power structure behind them.
45. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Immerman · 2014-01-22 11:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  By that logic every government that collects taxes is totalitarian, and you've rendered all further discussion pointless. And you don't need invasive knowledge to get a good first-approximation of communism - very few people have needs outside the norm, excepting medical care. Socialize medicine, education, transportation,etc., and divide the remainder of the Net Domestic Product equally among everyone. Hell, want to quickly impose psuedo-communism a little capitalistic motivation? Just tax everyone 90%, and then distribute the tax revenue equally. On average nothing would change, but most people would be far better off.
  Nobody said anything about taking money from anyone - in fact in an ideal communist economy there would be no money to take. Need food, go get some. Need health care, go get some. Don't want to work to support the system, expect to be in some way excised from society.
  It's that last one that gets me, and why I think socialism is more promising as it allows for more personal freedom in a self-regulating manner. I happen to think society is infected by hideously wasteful memes and choose to work far less than the norm, because I don't actually need all the extra cruft to be happy, and working to earn it detracts dramatically from the time in which I can enjoy my life without providing any consummate benefits. That becomes problematic in economic systems where everything is shared equally.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
46. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-22 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  So you're assuming that everyone who didn't vote agrees with you? That's reasonable.
47. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by lgw · 2014-01-22 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but that's how democracy works: a terrible system, but better than anything else that's been tried. But if (the lack of) Net Neutralityactually stats affecting people, not just geeks working about the future but real problems really happening, then the average voter will care. And most of politics operates on the basis of preventing the average voter from ever caring, so it's possible that some sort of Net Neutrality law will happen if content-based throttling starts reaching the threshold of screwing users, before the internet shatters into provider networks.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
48. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Bogtha · 2014-01-22 12:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Wait until the Great Firewall of The United States, as carried out by business interests
  
  The USA doesn't need a Great Firewall. Anything it doesn't like, it takes down for everybody instead of blocking it.
  When Slashdot commenters posted things the Church of Scientology didn't appreciate, the USA didn't block Slashdot for USA visitors, they forced Slashdot to remove the content for everybody.
  When 2600 linked to DeCSS, the USA didn't block 2600 for USA visitors, they forced 2600 to remove the links.
  When people set up gambling sites that USA citizens were using, they didn't block USA citizens from using them, they seized the gambling sites' domain names so nobody could visit them.
  When Dmitry Skylarov wrote an ebook reader that circumvented copy protection so blind people could use it, the USA didn't block people from visiting his employers' website. They arrested him.
  These are far from isolated examples. The USA censors all the time without having to bother with a Great Firewall. Why bother blocking something when you can take down the source and send a message to anybody else who might be thinking of doing something similar?
  
  --
  Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
49. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Luckyo · 2014-01-22 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Who do you think developed the software and hardware?
  What did you think they would do with it once it's done?
  Or are you one of these people that like to pretend that modern West is about freedom of people, rather than freedom of money?
50. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Actually you left out the controlling vote of the election which was for UKIP.
  While the direct UKIP vote was small, without it the Conservatives would have won their most marginal 30 or so constituencies and there would not have been a hung parliament.
51. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by FatLittleMonkey · 2014-01-22 12:35 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  She appoints ministers to her government. In essence, she is still the executive. Therefore the government is not actually elected. Members of the House of Commons are elected, beyond that it's practical necessity that Her Maj chooses a Prime Minister who "has the confidence of the House" and tradition that she chooses only from amongst party leaders.
  
  nor enact legislation
  Actually, she is the only one with the power to "enact" legislation. Parliament cannot create laws without her consent. She can therefore refuse to sign any legislation she objects to, and she has on occasion done so (typically tax laws that affect her personal wealth. Yeah.) She can similarly unilaterally strike down legislation that she has already signed into law.
  As for proposing legislation, she actually instructs parliament on their whole legislative agenda for the new term. In modern times, this is just the winning party's agenda in a speech they've written for her, but the symbolism is still there: It is her government.
  
  --
  Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
52. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by GumphMaster · 2014-01-22 12:43 · Score: 2
  
  No. Nothing to do with my opinion. There are three broad positions on the policy, not two; support, indifference, opposition. Only one of those positions could be said to offer "full support." The people that did not vote do not care about the policy enough to vote either for or against it, they are indifferent. It is as unreasonable to say non-voters offer "full support" for the policy as to say they fully oppose it. It follows that counting the indifferent in the "full support of millions" would be incorrect. If the claim was "some support" then you would have a point.
  
  --
  Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
53. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by FatLittleMonkey · 2014-01-22 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Worse than that, there's a minority conservative government. So they didn't even win 50% of the votes either.
  If around 65% of eligible voters actually voted, and of those 36% voted Tory. Then less than 24% of eligible voters supported the Tories. Hell of a mandate.
  
  --
  Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
54. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by FatdogHaiku · 2014-01-22 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  No, same team too, just different BS...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
55. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Immerman · 2014-01-22 13:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Um, the Soviet union probably isn't he best example for anything related to communism - it's practically the poster child for someone cynically waving the communist flag in order to seize power.
  As for the rest, I don't see that it necessarily follows. Nothing about communism says it has to be the government doing things, it could as easily be people pursuing their own projects with the proceeds being shared around. Coming from a capitalistic model you could effectively tax all personal income at 100% and then distribute it equally. Obviously we'd need to come up with something a bit less corruptible than modern corporate charters for less-than-government-level collaboration, but I think that's probably doable. It wouldn't quite be "real" communism, but it would be a lot closer than anything yet attempted.
  Still, I suspect socialism is a better system in most regards, at least until such time as automation largely eliminates the need for human labor.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
56. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-01-22 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  And even if you were to dedicate a half hour show on prime time television explaining it and why it's important to preserve liberties
  The problem being that the people who want to "preserve liberties" tend to be...selective...about which liberties need preserving.
  Note that many First Amendment fanatics tend to be utterly opposed to the Second Amendment. And vice versa, of course.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
57. Re: Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by ketomax · 2014-01-22 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  Take a cue from India and start an OMP (Ordinary Man Party). Although, verdict is still out on whether or not it is better.
58. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by burnttoy · 2014-01-22 16:14 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  A good friend of mine got into a "conversation" about the Janet Jackson nip-slip incident.
  It went roughly like this:
  Antagonist: "But what if my children saw it"
  My Friend: "But nipples are for children..."
  Touche.
  
  --
  Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
59. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by mjwx · 2014-01-22 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that we have had so many totalitarian "communist" countries is simply because
  Labeling something you dont like as communist has been incredibly popular over the last 60 odd years.
  Very few of the so called communist countries are actually communist. Even China is only really communist by name. "Communism" has become little more than a dark specter used in propaganda and most people these days couldn't identify real communism of their lives depended on it.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
60. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by davester666 · 2014-01-22 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, everyone you elected got together and decided you were too stupid to think for yourselves.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
61. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-01-22 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  And even if you were to dedicate a half hour show on prime time television explaining it and why it's important to preserve liberties
  The problem being that the people who want to "preserve liberties" tend to be...selective...about which liberties need preserving.
  Note that many First Amendment fanatics tend to be utterly opposed to the Second Amendment. And vice versa, of course.
  
  You sir, are one of the many millions of victims of the mass media, as they have programmed into your brain (and millions of brains of other people) that people who want to preserve liberties tend to be "selective".
  I am a member of the NRA - and damn proud to be so.
  I am also a member of ACLU - and surprise, surprise, I am also damn proud to be so.
  When we fight for liberty, cherry picking exercise is definitely not one of our routines.
  No Sir.
  *** ALL *** our liberties are at stake, and we can no longer afford to trade in one liberty to preserve another.
  The big brother has, for the past few decades, degraded the liberties of the citizens of the United States of America, and if we do not stop our silly "left vs right" infighting, we will end up one day having *NO* liberty left.
  Please trust me, I came from a country (at least at the time when I left it) which the citizens could enjoy *NO* liberty.
  Liberty to me is everything.
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
62. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Scarletdown · 2014-01-22 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  Because apparently if children see vaginas, penises, and female breasts, the whole fabric of British society will collapse.
  FTFY.
  Male breasts are usually considered OK.
  Tweaked a bit more to ward off any overly anal types pointing out that there are no male vaginas or female penises.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
63. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Immerman · 2014-01-22 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  Not that you're wrong about the abuse of the word, but I believe quite a few places identify *themselves* as communist. It's hard to pin that on Allied anti-communist propaganda. Pro-communist propaganda perhaps. Certainly there's little enough evidence to justify the label in either case.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
64. Re: Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by AxeTheMax · 2014-01-22 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. The Ordinary Man Party in Delhi just came to power and promptly tried to do what the ordinary man in a mob does. In this case try to get the police to carry out an illegal raid based on Ordinary Man prejudices (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-25855490 )
65. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by IAN · 2014-01-22 20:02 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, she [Queen E.] is the only one with the power to "enact" legislation. Parliament cannot create laws without her consent. She can therefore refuse to sign any legislation she objects to, and she has on occasion done so (typically tax laws that affect her personal wealth. Yeah.)
  Citation badly needed. The procedure you've described is called Royal Assent, and has been a formality for ages; the last time it was withheld was... wait for it... in 1708. Yes, in theory Her Maj could veto a law, but that would be the end of her political meddling, if not the monarchy itself.
66. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by serviscope_minor · 2014-01-22 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  Outright you can say the 44.9% non-voters are indifferent to the policy
  No, that's what politicians use to justify their rediculous policies.
  Not voting does not mean indifference.
  It also means that all 3 parties are equally crap.
  Sure there's the pointless protest vote, but everyone knows that has no real function anyway.
  the Government of the day sets the policy regardless of promises or actual majorities.
  fuck knows where they get half of the ideas from.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
67. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by RoboJ1M · 2014-01-22 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, well, when all of the parties are basically the same and voter apathy is almost total what do you expect?
  People in power want to stay in power.
  Our system evolves people engineered to keep it.
68. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by 91degrees · 2014-01-22 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  A "followup law" would suggest there was a law in the first place.
  
  Why would the government legislate something that would result in a Commons defeat (Lib Dems will not support it and the Conservatives have no majority) when they've managed to achieve their stated aim and won the votes?
69. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by 91degrees · 2014-01-22 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  New BT customers are given a screen during setup that asks them whether they want to use the filters or not. It looks like this.
  
  So stop believing what you read in the Guardian or some of the more hysterical tech sites.
70. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by 91degrees · 2014-01-22 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  BT has a monopoly on the telephone network. There's no way that the government would be able to take them away. Sky and TalkTalk use the BT infrastructure so that threat would be meaningless to them because the government has no say in who BT leases their infrastructure to.
71. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Xest · 2014-01-22 23:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The British populace voted to allow minorities to dictate policy when they rejected AV.
  AV wasn't the be all and end all, it didn't create proportional representation, but it did at least force MPs to have to cater to at least half of their constituents wish to some degree.
  That's far better than the status quo our country voted to retain, whereby as little as what, 20% of the population for a constituency, i.e. the Daily Mail readers can be enough in some constituencies to dictate the voice of the entire constituency.
  Oh and really, the coalition is the most representative government in decades anyway, a compromise government with 49% of the popular vote is still a far higher proportion than the proportion of combined support of any other ruling party in decades by a margin of as much as about 15%. Contrary to popular belief, the Lib Dems have neutered Tory policy (i.e. blocking the Interception Modernisation Programme, bringing tuition fees from the Â£12,000 the Tories wanted to Â£9,000, blocking removal of the highest tax rate) etc.
  So yes, our populace has got exactly what it voted for. We still got exactly what we elected through a horribly broken system of un-representation that our populace agree to continue.
72. Re: Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by apc512599 · 2014-01-22 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  Thought the Lib Dems wanted to abolish tuition fees? Paying Â£9,000 ain't exactly that!
73. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by stealth_finger · 2014-01-23 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  You have never played with Americans on PSN or Xbox Live. CoD?
  There seems to be an age cutoff with americans on line. Below all they do is scream about fucking your mum, sucking cock, calling everyone niggers and fags and all kinds of filty insults. Then they become ultra reserved and refuse to acknowledge the mere existence of a nipple. *speaking broadly, does not apply to all yadda yadda yadda
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
74. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by AmiMoJo · 2014-01-23 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Contrary to popular belief, the Lib Dems have neutered Tory policy (i.e. blocking the Interception Modernisation Programme, bringing tuition fees from the ÃÂ£12,000 the Tories wanted to ÃÂ£9,000, blocking removal of the highest tax rate) etc.
  I'm not saying that had no effect, but you can't overlook the fact that the only reason the Tory party has power is thanks to them. They could have formed a coalition with Labour, a party that is ideologically much closer to the Lib Dems. They had a choice and they decided to prop up the nasty party, and must accept responsibility for what the Tories have now done.
  It's also interesting that you cite tuition fees as an example of how they moderated Tory behaviour. Considering they signed a pledge not to raise them, then only tripled them rather than quadrupled them doesn't excuse the fact that they set out a promise but then abandoned it the moment they got a sniff of power.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
75. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by AmiMoJo · 2014-01-23 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Actually they fixed it at five years in the UK. Apparently the government can just make constitutional changes like that whenever it feels like it, for its own benefit, without any consultation.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
76. Re: Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Xest · 2014-01-23 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Right, but how exactly would you propose that they could've done that given that most people didn't vote for the Lib Dems? Are you suggesting they should've defied democracy when the largest voting block voted for the people that wanted Â£12,000 tuition fees?
  The Lib Dems have just shy of 100 seats in parliament, the Tories have about 300. Given this, the Lib Dems got a proportional reduction from what the Tories wanted relative to the electoral power our populace had granted them them in a democracy. The Â£9,000 they got relative to the Â£12,000 the Tories wanted is the best reduction they could expect given the 3:1 ratio of Tories to Lib Dems in parliament.
  It's nonsense to expect that they should have been able to achieve something that the electorate didn't vote for. That's undemocratic, that's not what people expressed they wanted with their vote. The people got from the Lib Dems the compromise they voted for, if people wanted the Lib Dem policy of no tuition fees they should've voted for a Lib Dem majority, but they didn't, more people voted for the party calling for Â£12,000 fees than the party calling for no fees.
77. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by gnasher719 · 2014-01-23 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  The real problem is that the government has *not* done this. Instead, they have threatened the ISPs that they *will* if it isn't done voluntarily. And all thanks to one shrill unelected bitch on a committee who got some reason has a direct line to Cameron. The "support of millions" is from the hypocritical mouth breathers at the Daily Fail and the cretins who read it.
  Just saying: If you have BT as your ISP, every time you connect a new computer to the router you will be asked whether you want censorship mode turned on or not, you click on "no", and that's it. It happens only once per computer. (Might happen again if your WiFi card in a computer breaks and you buy a new one).
78. Re: Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by RaceProUK · 2014-01-23 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  One step at a time.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
79. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by RaceProUK · 2014-01-23 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  The previous Labour government was also for 5 years, and they won the '05 election outright.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
80. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Xest · 2014-01-23 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  "I'm not saying that had no effect, but you can't overlook the fact that the only reason the Tory party has power is thanks to them. They could have formed a coalition with Labour, a party that is ideologically much closer to the Lib Dems. They had a choice and they decided to prop up the nasty party, and must accept responsibility for what the Tories have now done."
  So you're saying they should've subverted democracy by helping push a party into power that only got 29% of the vote rather than one that got 36% of the vote? You may not like the Tories but they got the support they needed to be the party that got first dibs on government. Saying they must accept responsibility for what the Tories have done is nonsense, it's the electorate that must do that, because they're the ones who primarily voted Tory.
  It's like the people that bitch and moan about Thatcher - she won three fucking elections, the people wanted her, the people voted for her. Pretending she was universally hated is nonsense, she had a massive amount of support. You can't shift blame onto the party or PM when it's the will of the people. You could do that if we were working under an electoral system that people didn't want and had no option to change but given that the populace has now overwhelmingly backed the status quo each time the issue of electoral reform has come up there's simply no argument, the populace is wholly responsible for the clusterfuck of governance we end up with in this country - they voted for it.
  "It's also interesting that you cite tuition fees as an example of how they moderated Tory behaviour. Considering they signed a pledge not to raise them, then only tripled them rather than quadrupled them doesn't excuse the fact that they set out a promise but then abandoned it the moment they got a sniff of power."
  This is stupid, see my post to the other guy. Your whole line of argument is effectively that the Lib Dems should've subverted democracy - that's not something you get to call for only when it suits, unless you also think it's okay for dictators to subvert democracy when it suits them. Labour wanted a rise to Â£6k (but may have gone higher if they actually retained power), the Tories wanted Â£12k, and the Lib Dems wanted none. What we end up with is a compromise figure that roughly represents what the electorate opted for with their votes, the largest block of votes was for the Tories, so the end result has to tend towards the will of that block unless you do not believe in democracy. How could the Lib Dems fulfil a pledge that the electorate had overwhelmingly voted against? If the electorate wanted that sort of thing we'd have a Lib Dem majority, but we do not.
  Taking Labour + Tory votes the electorate voted 59% to 23% for an increase in fees, and guess what? we got one.
81. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by stealth_finger · 2014-01-23 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Try posting a comment which is anti-Liberal and/or anti-Islamic and watch for yourself how your comment would end up be modded into the oblivion.
  Liberals I couldn't give a shit about but fuck Islam, most religions are bad but Islam is the worst. Seriously fuck Islam, fuck it more than Christianity.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
82. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by jalopezp · 2014-01-23 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need a simple majority when you're anointed by God.
83. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by AmiMoJo · 2014-01-23 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying they should've subverted democracy by helping push a party into power that only got 29% of the vote rather than one that got 36% of the vote?
  More people voted for broadly central or slightly left leaning policies than the very right wing policies of the Tory party. In terms of giving people the policies they wanted a coalition with Labour would have been the democratic thing to do.
  
  It's like the people that bitch and moan about Thatcher - she won three fucking elections, the people wanted her, the people voted for her.
  One of those she won on the back of a somewhat dubious war. One was mostly because of how bad the Labour party was at the time. The other was the usual mix of lies about not raising taxes and bribes by selling off public utilities for a fraction of their real value.
  If we had some kind of proportional representation she wouldn't have been able to take the extreme actions she did. She was extremely polarizing, some people got rich and others lost everything. At best you could argue it was the tyranny of the majority.
  
  How could the Lib Dems fulfil a pledge that the electorate had overwhelmingly voted against?
  How could the Tory party implement a policy that the overwhelming majority didn't vote for? The whole point is that they needed Lib Dem support to do it, otherwise they could not have. Since the Lib Dems had ruled it out they should not have supported it. Compromise is one thing, but there are some issues on which principal has to stand, especially if it was a major component of your electoral campaign.
  Look at it another way, those people who voted for the Lib Dems expressed their support for not raising the fees. The Lib Dems did not represent their views when they enabled bringing about the opposite.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
84. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by stealth_finger · 2014-01-23 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Because there's a queen they all expect to look over them.
  No one expects the Queen to do more than sit there and wave, she also gives a little speech on Christmas day. That's it. The Royal Family have been nothing more than a figure head and visitor attraction for quite some time now.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
85. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by 91degrees · 2014-01-23 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ofcom is non governmental though and would have no interest in breaking up BT just because they didn't play ball with political demands.
86. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by MrMickS · 2014-01-23 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  but that would be the end of her political meddling, if not the monarchy itself.
  The sheeple don't care about politics as it stands, what makes you think they would care that the Queen suddenly is vetoing laws, especially unpopular ones?
  I think you're being a wee bit too optimistic there.
  It wouldn't be the people that removed her but the government, probably with the support of the opposition. The power of the Queen in law making is grossly over-estimated. You can have a hereditary ruler overruling the wishes of a democratically elected government.
  
  --
  You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
87. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by MrMickS · 2014-01-23 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly, it's not a government filter. The only government involvement was the Prime Minister pressuring the ISPs to offer it.
  Really? Given that Scotland Yard have been taking an active interest what is available on the Internet for a long time, including sending letters to ISPs in 1996 asking them to remove certain groups from their Usenet feeds, I think that you're being a little naive. I would like to bet that there is some department, either of government or the police, that are supplying lists of sites that should be added to the ISPs filters.
  The Usenet filtering comes from personal knowledge. I was working for an ISP in 1996 and we were in the position of providing 64Kb leased-lines to various customers. We also provided a Usenet service. During this period the bandwidth for a full Usenet feed went from below the 64Kb/s to around 70Kb/s as such customer's feeds were backing up. We contacted one such customer and asked them what they wanted trimming from the feed. The reply was,"Just send us the alt.sex and alt.binaries.pictures hierarchies".
  We thought this was a bit of a laugh at the time. Someone was pulling porn down their company's leased line. A few months later the legal time got a letter from Scotland Yard demanding the removal of 30+ groups containing material that they had determined was illegal in the UK. My ISP followed the instructions. Not all UK ISPs did the same, Demon in particular ignored it.
  
  --
  You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
88. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by nmr_andrew · 2014-01-23 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  ...protect those gullible grown children from reality so they continue to vote for the fantasy where conservative politics serves them and not just the richest 1%.
  Wait,I though we were talking about the UK. I don't see how the Great UK Firewall applies to those who vote Republican on this side of the pond.
  disclaimer: yes, I realize that a "conservative" party is sort of, kind of in power in the UK.
89. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by nmr_andrew · 2014-01-23 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Most people don't understand. And even if you were to dedicate a half hour show on prime time television explaining it...
  And this here is the big problem. The average American doesn't have a 30 minute attention span for anything that doesn't involve a Kardashian or Honey BooBoo. So you'll need to point out, in under a minute, in language a 10 year old can probably understand, how losing Net Neutrality will make it harder or more expensive for them to find the episode they missed on YouTube.
90. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by eionmac · 2014-01-23 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  As in any stained glass windows in old churches or great art in museums and school books.
  
  --
  Regards Eion MacDonald
91. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by DanielOom · 2014-01-23 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  What do you not understand? In 1933 the german people democratically elected a totalitarian regime. From 1949 to 1989 the German Democroatic Republic elected a totalitarian regime, mostly because all the legal parties supported Soviet Communism.
  But we should pity the poor counties of Essex, Wessex, Sussex, and Middlesex.
92. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by david_thornley · 2014-01-23 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily. In the UK, like the US, people don't get to vote on individual issues. In the general elections, they get to vote on candidates, and in most cases only a small number have any hope of winning. (In the US, it's typically one or two.) More involved people can have influence on who becomes candidates, but that's also limited. (Last election cycle, I attended my precinct caucuses, and was a delegate at a lower-level district convention, and there was one real endorsement contest, but for the half of the district I wasn't in.) It takes a great deal of effort to have any sort of serious say over who is a reasonable choice at a party convention.
  Suppose I participate to a moderate extent and have three candidates to push for who have a reasonable chance of being elected. None of the three is going to reflect my views on all of the issues, and I might well decide that a person I agree with less would be more effective in getting my pet issues going the way I want.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
93. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by david_thornley · 2014-01-23 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  People don't understand because "Net Neutrality" is a crappy name for something. Make it something like "common carrier", which people will understand. I keep seeing people who think "Net Neutrality" means you, as a consumer, can't pay more for better service, or that the ISP can't route game packets with less latency than torrent packets.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
94. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by wolja · 2014-01-23 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I do not understand. I just can not understand.
  China is a communist country, a country in which the regime is NOT elected.
  They have their "Great Firewall" in place in order to protect their totalitarian regime.
  Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??
  Well if you read Animal Farm you'd realise that it's a commentary on the fact that Polar opposites are pretty much the same as each other.
  The conservative proletariat have long stolen from the communists in their drive to make the world bland.
  
  --
  Wolja Future Tombstone: Shit happened then I died
95. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-01-23 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  I see fringe libertarian blabber get modded to +5 all the time around Slashdot.
96. Re: Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Half-pint+HAL · 2014-01-23 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but it's not "democratic" for MPs to vote in direct contravention to the wishes of the people who elected them in order to represent the people who didn't. There are policies that can be horse-traded against each other, but there are some that have to be a line in the sand. Tuition fees were a key manifesto promise for the Libdems, and bowing on that one destroyed their credibility with the electorate. They couldn't have imposed their policy on the Tories, but they could have opposed Tory policy completely.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
97. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Half-pint+HAL · 2014-01-23 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying they should've subverted democracy by helping push a party into power that only got 29% of the vote rather than one that got 36% of the vote? You may not like the Tories but they got the support they needed to be the party that got first dibs on government.
  "Subverted democracy"? How so? You are represented by your MP. I am represented by my MP. Our MPs form collectives called parties, and are free to change party as their conscience demands during their elected term.
  Now would you suggest it is "subverting democracy" when Labour vote against Tory policies, because they are voting "against the will of the majority"? Surely it is more a "subversion" of democracy when an MP votes in direct contravention of their manifesto promises...?
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
98. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Xest · 2014-01-23 21:01 · Score: 1
  
  "More people voted for broadly central or slightly left leaning policies than the very right wing policies of the Tory party. In terms of giving people the policies they wanted a coalition with Labour would have been the democratic thing to do."
  Most people were voting against Labour because they were utterly sick of it, so no, giving power back to Labour was absolutely not the right thing to do. The 2010 election was above all else a referendum on 13 years of Labour and the staggering levels of incompetence things had come to once Brown took the helm. If there's one thing people wanted less than the Tory right gaining any power it was Labour getting another term.
  Besides, I'm not even convinced by your argument given that Labour had swung further to the right and authoritarianism under Brown than even the Tories. I'd say the populace was after more liberal leadership and like it or not, the Tories had that on offer even more so than Labour did because they were at least offering to scrap the ID card database, reign in illegal DNA retention, curb intrusive abuse of RIPA by councils and so forth - all of which Labour was vowing to continue. Coupled with the economic problem where people were demanding a halt to rising debt and frankly I don't think there's a leg to stand on in suggesting people wanted more of Labour.
  It's easy to look at Labour with rose tinted glasses now, but back then they had very little benefit over the Tories unless your overriding concern was say Europe and nothing else.
  "One of those she won on the back of a somewhat dubious war. One was mostly because of how bad the Labour party was at the time. The other was the usual mix of lies about not raising taxes and bribes by selling off public utilities for a fraction of their real value."
  That changes what exactly? the people were still happy to vote based on that. They still got what they wanted.
  "If we had some kind of proportional representation she wouldn't have been able to take the extreme actions she did."
  If we had some kind of proportional representation we wouldn't have the high levels of retardation from either the right or the left. No Thatcher, no Brown. Unfortunately we don't, and unfortunately the populace voted to maintain that status quo.
  "How could the Tory party implement a policy that the overwhelming majority didn't vote for?"
  But they did vote for it - 36% voted for Tories (Â£12k fees), 29% voted for Labour (Â£6k - Â£9k fees), and only 23% voted for Lib Dems (no fees). That means 65% of the populace voted for at least Â£6k fees, 36% voted for 12k fees, whilst only 23% voted for no fees. You could argue that maybe Â£8k was a more representative compromise and that's true, but it doesn't change the fundamental point that the vote was such that it tended more towards Â£9k, than it did to Â£6k, or even nothing.
  "Since the Lib Dems had ruled it out they should not have supported it."
  At the core of Lib Dem belief is the idea of proportional representation, a fair, progressive democracy. How could they rationally argue on one hand for PR whilst on the other try and sabotage policy backed by the will of the majority? It'd just be outright hypocrisy. Keep in mind the context that they were still fighting for a vote on PR at the time and not just AV. How could they say with a straight face "Yeah we want a democracy that represents the will of the majority, but we're just going to be hypocrits and ignore the will of the majority for the tuition fee vote".
  "Look at it another way, those people who voted for the Lib Dems expressed their support for not raising the fees. The Lib Dems did not represent their views when they enabled bringing about the opposite."
  Right, but Lib Dem voters also voted against the idea of the Westminster parliamentary system and voted for proportional representation as it was a flagship policy, so it'd be hypocritical to demand they pursue the Westminster syste
99. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Xest · 2014-01-23 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  But that's not what the Lib Dems stand for, they don't stand for defence of the Westminster system, they stand for progressive democracy with proportional representation, and that means listening to the democratic will of the populace.
  Also I'm not represented by my MP and never will be anyway, because the populace also voted against AV, so I'm stuck with an MP that represents only about 35% of my fellow constituents and can just ignore the other 65% of us.
100. Re: Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Xest · 2014-01-23 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  "Sorry, but it's not "democratic" for MPs to vote in direct contravention to the wishes of the people who elected them in order to represent the people who didn't."
  There's only a handful of the 650 MPs in parliament that are elected by a majority of their constituents. Most get in with as little as 20 - 30% support from their electorate. Listening to the majority of the population is massively more representative than lying on a fundamentally flawed individual constituent FPTP vote because it almost never results in representation of anything other than an absolute minority of views for that constituency.
101. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Half-pint+HAL · 2014-01-24 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  The democratic will of the populace? Proportional representation? The Libdems got 22% of the seats with 23% of the votes, so they have every right to vote the way they were elected to vote.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
102. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Xest · 2014-01-26 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  Um, I think you need to check your maths. The Lib Dems got 23% of the votes but only 8.8% of seats.
Along with anyone who lives in Essex by Neil_Brown · 2014-01-22 09:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Or Sussex, or who is researching Wessex.
1. Re:Along with anyone who lives in Essex by TangoMargarine · 2014-01-22 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Just goes to show that most of the time when management types start talking about "smart" software, it's just as bloody-minded and primitive as ever. Software is software is software, at least until someone invents strong AI.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
2. Re:Along with anyone who lives in Essex by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Or perhaps they have friends overseas with kids who play for the Butte County High School Butte Pirates.
3. Re:Along with anyone who lives in Essex by Livius · 2014-01-22 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  And medical schools and all sorts of vital public health information...
4. Re:Along with anyone who lives in Essex by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  Or Sussex, or who is researching Wessex.
  To get around that they're going to rename the regions Essux, Sussux and Wussux.
5. Re:Along with anyone who lives in Essex by Cley+Faye · 2014-01-22 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  I have hope that a strong enough AI will not allow this kind of censoring :)
6. Re:Along with anyone who lives in Essex by Dabido · 2014-01-23 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  David Essex will be furious when they block his website!
  
  --
  Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
Is it really that sensitive? by CastrTroy · 2014-01-22 09:09 · Score: 2

How sensitive is this filter really? How does it affect the residents of Sussex

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
1. Re:Is it really that sensitive? by dkf · 2014-01-22 09:27 · Score: 2
  
  How sensitive is this filter really? How does it affect the residents of Sussex
  
  What about Scunthorpe and Penistone, hmmm?
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
2. Re:Is it really that sensitive? by mrbester · 2014-01-22 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Arsenal had a problem getting past the filter as well leaving a lot of gooners confused...
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
3. Re:Is it really that sensitive? by monkeyhybrid · 2014-01-22 11:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  How sensitive is this filter really? How does it affect the residents of
  
  I think you forgot to complete the end of your sentence.
Uh oh by Antipater · 2014-01-22 09:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Across the UK, kids are running to their parents crying "the porn filter won't let me play my video game!" This might actually increase support for the firewall...

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
1. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 09:24 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Worse, this is for LoL. If the little MOBA tykes get worked up over things like this and step outside for the first time in their lives, we might have hordes of twitching kids shouting obscenities at anyone who doesn't twitch at the exact same frequency as they do, and also they'll smell bad.
Reminds me of... by rock_climbing_guy · 2014-01-22 09:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

This reminds me of the story I read in a /. comment about an overzealous filter that wouldn't let people at his office visit any URL with "sex" in it. There was a problem because they were using expertsexchange.com

--
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
1. Re:Reminds me of... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Why would anyone be going to ExpertSexChange.com at work?
2. Re:Reminds me of... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'd pretty much forgotten about experts exchange... they must hate stackoverflow.
3. Re:Reminds me of... by SleazyRidr · 2014-01-22 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  From my experience, blocking expertsexchange is a good thing from any perspective.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
4. Re:Reminds me of... by coolsnowmen · 2014-01-23 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps your "Extra Stength" Coffee was a bit overkil this morning?
Wrong name? by GameMaster · 2014-01-22 09:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Really, "Great Firewall of UK" is clumsy and doesn't doesn't make much sense in context. Perhaps we should call it "Hadrian's Firewall"?

--

Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
1. Re:Wrong name? by bruce_the_loon · 2014-01-22 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, no Roman would ever condone blocking sex in any form. It was their national past-time.
  
  --
  Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
2. Re:Wrong name? by PhxBlue · 2014-01-22 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  You're not kidding. "Orgy planner" was a valid career option in the days of Rome.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
hardware.jpg by Ken+D · 2014-01-22 09:24 · Score: 1

Ah, reminds me when the slashdot had a "bolt" icon for the hardware posts and were blocked by a filter... because any internet image with "hard" in it was obviously porn.
Experts Exchange by BenJeremy · 2014-01-22 09:24 · Score: 1

Reminds me of a time when I went to access expertsexchange.com on the job, to get a quick solution to a coding issue I was having, back around 2000... the web filter classified it as "sexually oriented" and it took me a minute to realize how the name had parsed out.
You can now get to the site via experts-exchange.com, though it is far less useful these days.
Censorship is tyranny by definition. by mlgunner · 2014-01-22 09:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

When ever you have people making decisions for the "greater good", they end up making those decisions for their own greater good. So it doesn't matter in the long run what they are censoring, the act of Law in doing so is the objective. The fact that it is not doing what was intended doesn't matter, it just means the censorship must be "refined", and the filters need to be "fixed".
Liberty would mean removal of the filters and government intervention from an act of free will, i.e. looking at sexual content on line for example, and an act of responsibility from people, i.e. monitoring their children's internet access. This will never do for Big Government tyrants, because this would imply that people actually have their own freedoms that are not "given" to them by the government, and their free will and responsibility is more important than the governments ability to intervene.
Blocked Summary by CanHasDIY · 2014-01-22 09:32 · Score: 2

from the that'sextremely-stupid dept.

Sorry, but we found the word 'sex' on this webpage, so we're going to have to block it.
Again, dreadfully sorry about all that.
Sincerely.
Her Majesty's Nanny-State

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Censorship is easy by hawguy · 2014-01-22 09:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's a good thing that there's no way to advertise a porn site with obvious keywords like Porn or Sex. In Britain, users should only be able to see safe sites featuring things like tasty Cream Pies and beautiful Pearl Necklaces and innocent Rimming sites to teach kids how to enjoy decorative rims. It's easy to filter out the bad stuff by looking for the obvious bad words.
Hysteria from the Guardian by 91degrees · 2014-01-22 09:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's really no evidence that this is the case. Just speculation. PC Pro actually did some journalism and found that the actual ISPs had received no complaints

So the Guardian is doing the Daily Mail thing of nabbing articles from reddit, and accepting them at face value without any actual research. No wonder traditional newspapers are dying.
1. Re:Hysteria from the Guardian by Bite+The+Pillow · 2014-01-22 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  No official complaints means about the same as a random poster complaining. I'd say we know as much as we did before anyone posted anything. Jack and shite.
2. Re:Hysteria from the Guardian by Sockatume · 2014-01-22 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just going to give up submitting stories that aren't in peer-reviewed journals at this point. :(
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
and Fox news by goldcd · 2014-01-22 09:52 · Score: 2

wants to lynch him.
Maybe slightly off-topic, but the bit I could never quite understand in the States (and I accept you're a lovely bunch of people with differing views), was how the demographic allegiances are flipped related to pretty much the rest of the world.
Usual (for the rest of us) seems to be that the more affluent you become, the more right-wing your views - "I want to keep my money, not redistribute it to the proles"
The coasts of your country contribute the majority of tax-base to the country, and in return get the centre hoovering up the money whilst whining about 'big government'
Still, I can see the appeal of subsidized living and playing with an assault rifle in your 10-acre back-yard.
1. Re:and Fox news by lgw · 2014-01-22 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  On can be against redistribution in principle, yet still take free money when offered. There's a lot of that here.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
2. Re:and Fox news by vux984 · 2014-01-22 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  Usual (for the rest of us) seems to be that the more affluent you become, the more right-wing your views - "I want to keep my money, not redistribute it to the proles"
  The coasts of your country contribute the majority of tax-base to the country, and in return get the centre hoovering up the money whilst whining about 'big government
  Mass delusions.
  The highly affluent who want to "keep my money and not redistribute it" have managed to convince the bible belt that the sinners and gays on the coasts are the recipients of their tax dollars. The reality is quite the opposite, so I attribute it to mass delusions.
  Another ongoing delusion amongst the less affluent republican base is that they are in fact much richer then they are (or will be any minute now), and they literally vote against their own best interests to safeguard the wealth they imagine they have or will soon have.
  I say this all tongue in cheek. Mostly.
3. Re:and Fox news by sjames · 2014-01-22 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  There's also a lot of "The damn government better keep its grimy hands offa mah medicare!"
4. Re:and Fox news by L4t3r4lu5 · 2014-01-23 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  The very definition of doublethink.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
5. Re:and Fox news by MoonBuggy · 2014-01-23 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily. Is it not reasonable to say "I think taxes should be lower overall, and I don't think funds should be distributed to X, Y, or Z. However, since I'm forced to pay those taxes, I may as well avail myself of services X and Z. I'd be happier not to pay and not to use them, but since I've already paid, I may as well make the best of it"?
6. Re:and Fox news by lgw · 2014-01-23 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  No, not really. The current thinking is "I spent 20 years doing everything I could to end this horrible system, and you know what? I lost. Fuckit, it's inevitably doomed now, might as well get my share as I'm not making things worse, merely knocking over the deck chairs on the Titanic." I'm very sympathetic to that view.
  Personally, I think we've already sailed off the cliff. We'll be fine until the next economic downturn, but then like the Coyote will finally notice the cliff is waaay back that way and it's a looong way down. Oh well, if the local governments get their act together in the meantime, it shouldn't get that bad if the federal government collapses for a few years - but I am setting aside money to take care of my parents should the federal checks end.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:The most egregious example of this problem... by wisnoskij · 2014-01-22 09:56 · Score: 1

I don't get it, how is Froslass profanity?

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
gender minority? by slashmydots · 2014-01-22 09:57 · Score: 1

Gender minority? Since there's 2 genders and the minority is very slightly men (49/51-ish) that would be minority not minorities. Also nobody considers it one.
Anyway, do they have an inline word-destroying filter like some awful 90's filter instead of a point system with an all or nothing blocker? What cheap ass software suite are they even running?
Although, uncompressed and unencrypted plain text in patch file that contain vulgar words is a bit dumb on the developers' part. They shouldn't have allowed something like that to go out because it damn sure wasn't on accident.
1. Re:gender minority? by 91degrees · 2014-01-22 10:18 · Score: 2
  
  Gender minority? Since there's 2 genders and the minority is very slightly men (49/51-ish) that would be minority not minorities.
  They mean transgender people.
  
  Anyway, do they have an inline word-destroying filter like some awful 90's filter instead of a point system with an all or nothing blocker?
  No. The article is reporting informal speculation and wild guesswork by some LoL fans as verified truth. The ISPs have reported no complaints, and say their filters don't work that way, so it's probably a completely different issue, maybe even from software installed locally.
2. Re:gender minority? by slashmydots · 2014-01-22 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  Not with spaces it won't. Sextants don't get censored for example.
Googlebomb Cameron by sir_eccles · 2014-01-22 09:59 · Score: 3, Funny

Associate it with something "naughty" (ala Santorum) and demand it be added to the filter for the sake of the children and voila slowly but surely Cameron will be filtered out of UK life.
1. Re:Googlebomb Cameron by AmiMoJo · 2014-01-23 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  I hear that Cameron likes to give Osborn a good Cameron every once in a while.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Simple by nobuddy · 2014-01-22 10:10 · Score: 2

Anyone who is not male or female.
Re:The most egregious example of this problem... by c0lo · 2014-01-22 10:12 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't get it, how is Froslbutt profanity?
FTFY... Also fixed in the past: President Abraham Lincoln was buttbuttinated by an armed buttailant after a life devoted to the reform of the US consbreastution

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
The 20th century called by davidwr · 2014-01-22 10:13 · Score: 1

They want their mushrooms back.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This is a clbuttic mistake by Minwee · 2014-01-22 10:17 · Score: 5, Funny

It happens when you buttume that doing a mbutt replacement of strings consbreastutes a good plan, when it's really just a reRichardulous buttbuttination of words.
It's somewhere between buttstounding and buttinine.
Not just Verizon by davidwr · 2014-01-22 10:19 · Score: 1

Pity the poor guy named A. D. Mindell who wants to use his real name on a Dell-oriented forum, but they don't allow spaces or punctuation.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What about the gender-indeterminate?? by davidwr · 2014-01-22 10:24 · Score: 1

At probably less than 1% of the population, people with chromosomes other than XY or XX are the real gender minorities.
Them and people whose reproductive biology is neither clearly male nor clearly female and people whose biology is clearly one gender but their chromosomes are the other gender.
These are the real gender minorities.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
1. Re:What about the gender-indeterminate?? by davidwr · 2014-01-22 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  I guess the terms is so new that its definition is evolving. From what I've been exposed to, "gender" and "sex" (as a biological state, not the thing you do in the bedroom) are the same thing. Sexual orientation is who you prefer to have sexual or romantic relations with. Gender identity or sexual identity is your "mental sex." Those are three different concepts.
  Absent qualifying words or context, "sexual minority" and "gender minority" have their obvious meaning - someone who is of a biological sex that is neither a majority nor, if there is no majority, a plurality. Technically speaking, either males or females are probably a majority or plurality, leaving everyone else a minority. Practically speaking (and absent high levels of gender-specific childhood deaths e.g. female infanticide) males and females are approximately equal in numbers, so calling either one a "gender minority" is kind of silly. That leaves those who are neither unambiguously male nor unambiguously female.
  You can legitimately argue that those whose gender identity doesn't match their body are also gender minorities if you take the view that the brain (vs. the mind) has a "gender." One day this will be "settled science" but I don't think it's quite there yet.
  However, I don't think you can make the same argument about a person who is male or female: A gay man is almost always a man in his genes, in his reproductive organs, and in his head. A lesbian woman is almost always a woman in her genes, her reproductive organs, and in her head.
  Another distinct concept is the group of people who are disenfranchised or dis-empowered merely because of their gender, gender identity, and/or sexual orientation. You don't have to be a minority to fall into this category: In many parts of the world females are technically a majority but hold relatively little political power.
  
  --
  Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
And Nothing of Value Was Lost by TangoMargarine · 2014-01-22 10:27 · Score: 1

ExpertSexChange requires a paid membership anyway.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
1. Re:And Nothing of Value Was Lost by TangoMargarine · 2014-01-22 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Redundant comment is redundant (Sorry.)
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
The lure of the passive voice by Jeremy+Erwin · 2014-01-22 10:34 · Score: 1

“Sadly there is no silver bullet when it comes to internet safety and we have always been clear that no solution can ever be 100 per cent. It requires all of us to play our part,” said TalkTalk spokesperson to PinkNews.
Mistakes were made.... but not by us. It's your fault we had to censor you!
High time for naming reforms by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 10:37 · Score: 1

I always considered names like Essex, Sussex, Middlesex (really!) ridiculous. It's great that this kind of nonsense will get wiped off the Internet. And it's entirely satisfactory that Analysis will revert to be counted among the forbidden arts.
Re:Great Tits Like Coconuts by mrbester · 2014-01-22 10:54 · Score: 1

There's been lots of tits on show well before the watershed. All this week BBC 2 has been showing not only pictures but video as well!

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
They don't care.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 10:58 · Score: 1

Every time there is some kind of false positive in a censorship system which happens to be in a so-called 'Western democracy', news stories start flying around as if this is the turning point at which our unaccountable overlords decide this totalitarianism thing is just too much hassle to be worth it. What actually happens (as has happened countless times now) is that 'they' shrug their shoulders, add an exception (maybe) and get back to the heroic task of building tomorrow's glorious dystopia.
Re:opt-out censorship by monkeyhybrid · 2014-01-22 11:37 · Score: 1

From what I understand, the censoring (whether it is porn or file sharing sites) is all done by the ISP using their own choice of censoring system. With file sharing sites there were court orders listing specific sites, The Pirate Bay for example, handed down to the ISPs (the big ones at least) but the blocking mechanism is put in place by the ISP. I think for porn, the government / courts have nothing to do with which specific sites get blocked, it's just down to the crappy algorithms / blacklists put in place by the ISP.
Substring this by mephox · 2014-01-22 11:51 · Score: 1

Must be really hard to do anything in SUSSEX, ENGLAND.
whew by ihtoit · 2014-01-22 13:18 · Score: 1

well thank *** I've not go** ***wing carrots in the S****horpe ***tant factory!

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
I just can't believe what I have read !! by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-01-22 14:00 · Score: 1

The highly affluent ...blah blah... the bible belt ...blah blah mass delusions.
Another ongoing delusion ...blah blah... republican base ...blah blah ...

After the NSA saga, after all the information Edward Snowden has shared with us, you still want to play this asinine partisanship game ??
When will you wake up to the fact that you, an "enlightened liberal" (since you used the word "delusion" to describe your opponents), is as much a victim of the so-called, in your own words, "mass delusion" as those "deluded nemesis" of yours, the "Bible belt Republicans" ?

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:I just can't believe what I have read !! by vux984 · 2014-01-22 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  you still want to play this asinine partisanship game
  Its nothing to do with partisanship.
  When will you wake up to the fact that you, an "enlightened liberal" (since you used the word "delusion" to describe your opponents), is as much a victim of the so-called, in your own words, "mass delusion" as those "deluded nemesis" of yours, the "Bible belt Republicans" ?
  Meh, the far left is just as deluded. The rest of the left is a spectrum of what the rest of the world would call "right" and "left".
2. Re:I just can't believe what I have read !! by sjames · 2014-01-22 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  The Rs want big brother and to funnel all the money to the 0.1%. The Ds want big brother and to spread the money around.
  I'm better off with the Ds if I have to pick one even though they're resembling the Rs more and more these days. I would be better off still with a left-libertarian that wants no big brother and an equal playing field, but that doesn't seem to be on offer at this time. The odds of it ever being on offer go up with more Ds and less Rs though.
3. Re:I just can't believe what I have read !! by Urza9814 · 2014-01-23 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  The Rs want big brother and to funnel all the money to the 0.1%. The Ds want big brother and to spread the money around.
  Sure must be nice to live in a universe where one major party actually wants a fair wealth distribution...how do I get there from my parallel world where we have on Republicrat party that just wants power for itself?
  D or R, all politicians *are* the 1%. I heard a congressman the other day refer to himself as "lower middle class" -- when he's in the top fraction of 1%! So even if they *want* to help lower income Americans (which I haven't seen much evidence of), how the hell can they actually do that when they consider 4x the median salary to be "low income"?
4. Re:I just can't believe what I have read !! by sjames · 2014-01-23 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but the Ds do tend to spread it around more. Look at which party is out to decimate food stamps and unemployment benefits, pray the gay away, teach the kids that evolution i a lie, and on an on.
5. Re:I just can't believe what I have read !! by sjames · 2014-01-23 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Food tamp, welfare, etc. Look at which party propoed extending unemployment and which party blocked it.
  I didn't claim the Ds want to spread it around evenly, but they are at least willing to let some scrap fall from the table.
6. Re:I just can't believe what I have read !! by Urza9814 · 2014-01-23 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  The only issues they disagree on are issues which don't affect their power. Both parties agree on anything that will increase the power of the federal government and "ruling class" in general, which is why such issues are rarely debated or questioned. Instead they debate things like gay marriage. Which, sure, is very important to a lot of people, but do you *really* think someone like Rick Santorum gives a shit? Will his millions, I don't think it really matters. It's not about *what* they disagree on, it's about *why*. A conspiracy theorist would say they're trying to distract you; a more skeptical person might call it the 'inertia of power' -- each administration increasing their power above the previous, because they sure as hell aren't going to decrease it...but either way the end result is the same. While we're arguing about Adam and Steve getting married, they start monitoring nearly all global communications and launch military action in over a *seventy* sovereign nations...
  Oh, and if the Dems really cared about food stamps and unemployment benefits, they could have put up a much bigger fight. For every dollar they fork over to their top 0.1%, they give a penny to these programs that serve hundreds of millions of Americans. And even that fractional percentage of a fractional percentage is apparently more than the number of shits they give about the average American.
Re:Call it mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 14:15 · Score: 1

No more so than the rest of the world wants the idiotic USA morals and ideas infecting their societies.
Banks are just as bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-22 17:19 · Score: 1

Worked for one of the big four Australian banks and would regularly get complaints from customers who couldn't provide their name in the Sender field on funds transfers due to dodgy substring checking.
Upon looking into the issue further, we found that the word list being filtered for had been taken many years earlier from a crappy email filtering list and also included "warez", "teens" and some bizarre racist terms that I'd never come across in my life.
Despite regularly causing complaints, the high cost associated with any development (along with the fact that the bank ran their Internet Banking as a cost centre at the time) went unfixed for years. When it finally came time to fixing it I got the lucky job of working on the requirements, and got a chuckle from many of the executives that I needed to signoff from.
The more things change... by RoloDMonkey · 2014-01-23 02:16 · Score: 1

I spent days researching a sub-string problem like this six years ago:
http://irolo.net/mambo_and_sex

--
Long live the Speaker Bracelet
Rolo D. Monkey
substring woes by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-23 02:49 · Score: 1

I had a similar situation: I was failing to get emails from one person. It turned out that this person had in their SIG their job title which included the word "specialist". Unfortunately, the Outlook spam filter was seeing "cialis" inside "specialist" and putting the messages into the trash.
Re:Maggiw by Outta_the_way_peck! · 2014-01-23 06:13 · Score: 1

At least we can still watch porn.
Re:Maggiw by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-23 06:37 · Score: 1

Citation for an FBI van showing up to interrogate someone based on their internet searches?