This 'kiddie porn' thing is really worrying you, isn't it? You know, I'm willing to bet most kiddie porn images on the net are actual violations of copyright, and were, at one time, in a for-profit magazine. And that's the real reason kiddie porn is illegal...because the production is illegal. Managing some insanely complicated AI system to keep kiddie porn off gnutella doesn't really help if the images were already producted and everything, just not put online, does it?
Now, yes, I'm sure there are a few amatures who abuse kid to produce porn for free, but, I think the abusing the kids would probably happen without the porn, anyway.
So the only places it can come from is a) for prohit place (Which need to be shutdown when sold instead of chasing after the images they produce that end up on the net.), or b) Amatures, who'd abuse the frigging kids anyway (I'm not saying that is, in anyway, acceptable, just that I don't think taking pictures while people abuse kids makes it better or worse.) The actual 'trading kiddie porn images' isn't the problem.
Um, how the hell can the rules of the game rule out child porn?
And, yes, we're straining to filter these ads and not child porn, for quite a few reasons. a) Sharing child porn is exactly what the system is designed for....or any files at all, and b) the child porn on the net isn't hurting most of us at all. The lying search results are.
-David T. C.
Re:Thank you for your response; please read mine
on
Gnutella Vs. SPAM
·
· Score: 1
There are actually two bad things here. The first is, yes, people putting blank books on the shelf that look like other books, but merely have ads in them. That, in itself, isn't the really bad part.
The 'ads in searches' is. The best analogies is that someone randomly inserted 'ad cards' into the card catalog (pretending we still had those), where, everytime you tried to look up a book, you got a couple of ads.
-David T. C.
Re:Wonder if this could be dangerous?
on
Gnutella Vs. SPAM
·
· Score: 1
No, morons are starting to look even stupider.:) Let them walk into traffic, clears out the gene pool.
And the reason Coca-Cola doesn't patent the Coke formula, is, even if you ignore the fact the patent would end in 20 year, when Coke fully expects to be selling Coke still, they run into the fact you can't patent recipes.:)
And why the hell am I posting in such an old discussion?
The Supreme Court recently ruled that searching cars is legal, so I've heard. Granted, i don't have a link, but it should have been in the last year or so. (Wasn't legal when I got stopped in 97, but I let them search it anyway cause I figured, hey, one less cop to pull people over.)
Actually, the GPL is not restrictive. It doesn't take away any rights. If I were to type up a piece of code, and hand it to you, with no license, you'd have no right to give it away at all. With the GPL, you have some ways you can give it away.
Not, granted, with BSD, you have even more rights, but the point is, the GPL gives you rights, not removes them.
You'd have even more rights with Public Domain code. But, again, you have to license it as public domain code. All the licenses I just mentioned add rights to your normal copyright rights, not remove them.
Yes, there are licenses that try to take away default rights that owners of copyright materials possess, like the right of first sale and the right to make backups. GPL and BSD are not them. That is why you never have to click 'I Agree'. With the GPL and BSD, you have, again, more rights then default.
I didn't prove you anything. In fact, I do not have to prove you anything, you have to prove that you know what you're talking about. A quick flip though the bill of right shows the only mention of god or religion at all is in the first amendment, where it implictly recognizes that religion exists. So, show some links or other documentation, otherwise, the status quo stands and you are wrong.
'To me, his getting arrested was a shameful moment in American history.... and...but I have a hard time believing that the police did Dr. King a favour by throwing him in jail.
Can you say...DUUUUH? Dragging someone off to jail for protesting is the entire point of civil disobedience! In fact, according to things I've read, you should notify the police beforehand (and the media) so they can have everything ready to arrest you when you decide to break the law.
The thing I'm upset about is the use of pepper spray. Passive resistence to arrest (hanging on to other people) does not warrent spraying them in the face with pepper spray.
Sadly, they are trying to censor the net, by installing filters in libraries.
And Peacefire, BTW, will never agree with you. Peacefire is a bunch of children (I don't mean immature, I mean, people under 18) who completely disagree that parents should have the right to control what they see and hear and say. I have to agree with them, due to a promise I made myself when I was their age. I mean, either they have no idea what porn is, in which case it's hard to argue they shouldn't see it (They won't look for it, and I fail to see how a picture will harm them if they don't even know what the point of it is), or they are old enough to know what it is, in which case, why not let them see it? It's the safest sex there is.
As a matter for fact, I sometimes get the idea that some people think porn is somehow inheritly bad. Well, I see no proof of this whatsoever. If little kids want to look at it, go right ahead.
On the other hand, I completely agree with you about being tricked to go places, and think that should be written into AUPs, so we can get these morons kicked off the net. I feel the same way about keyword spamming on search engines. It's like walking into a library, and finding, mixed in with 2000 books, 5000 things that look like books, but are merely blank pages except for a few porn images at the front and a place to write to for more. I think it should be a violation of AUPs to 'misrepresent content' in any form.
Hawkings' prize in the bet was a few years of Private Investigator magazine. And he made the bet hoping to lose, as it was the opposite of what he claimed. At least, this way, if he was wrong about his theory, he got a magazine subscription.
P.S. As Hawkings is married, IIRC, he theoretically doesn't need Penthouse.:)
6) GPL Restrictions: Sun doesn't get to include GNOME, Apache, or even pine w/ Solaris. The GPL forbids them from "selling" these programs as a part of their OS...
That's the DOD, and they don't qualify any OS as 'secure', they qualify a certain system configuration as secure. Good thing you didn't post that. In that case 'secure' meant: 1) No network, 2) No floppy, and 3) Locked box (duh on that last one.)
Let's check what 'lack of journalistic integrity and editorial independence' you're talking about. First of all, here is all that someone on the slashdot team posted:
I avoided posting this because it really is pretty lame, but its getting submitted a lot. Basically Fred Moody says Linux Sucks on ABC. He calls it the worst operating system ever based on the fact that bug traq lists more bugs for it then any other operating system. Stories like this just make me roll my eyes.
Let's see...Taco call it 'lame', and it makes him 'roll his eyes', and that's pretty much it. Well, the second one is obviously his opinion of this article, but, as for calling it 'lame'...
As it has been pointed out before, this article double counts Red Hat bugs when adding up Linux bugs, and it bases its conclusions on the very dubious idea that 'the less reported bugs==the best operating system'. Now, I'm not a security expert, but even I know that makes no sense at all, not to mention the fact the charts clearly show the Windows NT has the more reported bugs, which Moody dismisses with a handwave.
In short, I think it is perfectly valid to call this article 'lame', even pretending 'lame' has any legal meaning. I think you could definately call it 'shoddy', 'poorly-done', and 'propaganda' and many other things. I, and almost anyone, will agree this article is, in fact, 'lame', and it makes them roll their eyes.
Now, the only other way this article could show bias is the fact it was posted at all. Well, apparently, many many people submitted it, for one thing, which means it is a topic that the readerships wants to heard about. For another thing, while many people here do not use Linux, many people do. This article is apparently attempting to sway people away from Linux by presenting untrue 'facts' and unjustifiable 'conclusions', while many people on this site are attempting to convert people to Linux. The lies in this article, if accepted, could affect many people on this site's mission in life. You, and many other people here, think said mission is stupid, but, like it or not, that is the mission of many people here. And we get articles helping people to do that.
Um, you don't understand. If they're on your network, and spoofing your address, then they're insanely easier to track down. If they're off your network, and spoofing your addresses, then you need to block them as they come in, because not only is that a DoS attack, but it's likely to interfere with the legit owner of that IP address.
Your right to free speech is not being infringed, you're being prohibited from spreading information about a criminal activity.
Hehehe. First of all, change 'freedom of speech' (and freedom of press) into 'freedom to spread information' (as that's what it's for), then reread that sentence.
Yes, heaven forbid that some students, picked by the administrators, can't lead everyone, even people who complain about it, in prayer. I mean, everyone should be forced to pray!
People like this, that just don't get it, piss me off. It's prayer. It's offically supported by the school. It's during an offical school football game. The fact that a student leads it doesn't matter. If a student wants to lead a prayer, unsupported by the school, before a game, go ahead. But if it's in the locker room, at the offical prayer time, and the person is picked by the coach, make it school, and thus, government sponsered. What part of this do you not understand?
Here, in GA, the Baptists do something call 'Fifth Quarter'. It's after the game, nearby. It's just fine. Do you honestly not see how this would be different if the school provided facilties and made it part of the football game?
People who want students praying at school really, really piss me off. No one's stopping them from praying. However, it's 100% not the place of the school to support them, and definately not to encourage them!
Slashdot Mirror
Who the heck is Gnutella? You mean Nullsoft? Nullsoft is no long 'offically' producing clients.
-David T. C.
Now, yes, I'm sure there are a few amatures who abuse kid to produce porn for free, but, I think the abusing the kids would probably happen without the porn, anyway.
So the only places it can come from is a) for prohit place (Which need to be shutdown when sold instead of chasing after the images they produce that end up on the net.), or b) Amatures, who'd abuse the frigging kids anyway (I'm not saying that is, in anyway, acceptable, just that I don't think taking pictures while people abuse kids makes it better or worse.) The actual 'trading kiddie porn images' isn't the problem.
-David T. C.
And, yes, we're straining to filter these ads and not child porn, for quite a few reasons. a) Sharing child porn is exactly what the system is designed for....or any files at all, and b) the child porn on the net isn't hurting most of us at all. The lying search results are.
-David T. C.
The 'ads in searches' is. The best analogies is that someone randomly inserted 'ad cards' into the card catalog (pretending we still had those), where, everytime you tried to look up a book, you got a couple of ads.
-David T. C.
No, morons are starting to look even stupider. :) Let them walk into traffic, clears out the gene pool.
-David T. C.
If it's 'printed' on a t-shirt, maybe it's 'freedom of the press', not 'freedom of speech'.
-David T. C.
And the reason Coca-Cola doesn't patent the Coke formula, is, even if you ignore the fact the patent would end in 20 year, when Coke fully expects to be selling Coke still, they run into the fact you can't patent recipes. :)
And why the hell am I posting in such an old discussion?
-David T. C.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that searching cars is legal, so I've heard. Granted, i don't have a link, but it should have been in the last year or so. (Wasn't legal when I got stopped in 97, but I let them search it anyway cause I figured, hey, one less cop to pull people over.)
-David T. C.
Not, granted, with BSD, you have even more rights, but the point is, the GPL gives you rights, not removes them.
You'd have even more rights with Public Domain code. But, again, you have to license it as public domain code. All the licenses I just mentioned add rights to your normal copyright rights, not remove them.
Yes, there are licenses that try to take away default rights that owners of copyright materials possess, like the right of first sale and the right to make backups. GPL and BSD are not them. That is why you never have to click 'I Agree'. With the GPL and BSD, you have, again, more rights then default.
-David T. C.
I didn't prove you anything. In fact, I do not have to prove you anything, you have to prove that you know what you're talking about. A quick flip though the bill of right shows the only mention of god or religion at all is in the first amendment, where it implictly recognizes that religion exists. So, show some links or other documentation, otherwise, the status quo stands and you are wrong.
-David T. C.
I love how this is posted like it's some sort of rebutal, instead of just facts the first poster left out.
-David T. C.
(Why did the lameness filter trip on that?)
-David T. C.
I agree with whoever suggested it, I think we do need a (-1: Dumbass) moderation!
-David T. C.
Can you say...DUUUUH? Dragging someone off to jail for protesting is the entire point of civil disobedience! In fact, according to things I've read, you should notify the police beforehand (and the media) so they can have everything ready to arrest you when you decide to break the law.
The thing I'm upset about is the use of pepper spray. Passive resistence to arrest (hanging on to other people) does not warrent spraying them in the face with pepper spray.
-David T. C.
Um, wouldn't that make him wrong about being wrong?
-David T. C.
And Peacefire, BTW, will never agree with you. Peacefire is a bunch of children (I don't mean immature, I mean, people under 18) who completely disagree that parents should have the right to control what they see and hear and say. I have to agree with them, due to a promise I made myself when I was their age. I mean, either they have no idea what porn is, in which case it's hard to argue they shouldn't see it (They won't look for it, and I fail to see how a picture will harm them if they don't even know what the point of it is), or they are old enough to know what it is, in which case, why not let them see it? It's the safest sex there is.
As a matter for fact, I sometimes get the idea that some people think porn is somehow inheritly bad. Well, I see no proof of this whatsoever. If little kids want to look at it, go right ahead.
On the other hand, I completely agree with you about being tricked to go places, and think that should be written into AUPs, so we can get these morons kicked off the net. I feel the same way about keyword spamming on search engines. It's like walking into a library, and finding, mixed in with 2000 books, 5000 things that look like books, but are merely blank pages except for a few porn images at the front and a place to write to for more. I think it should be a violation of AUPs to 'misrepresent content' in any form.
-David T. C.
P.S. As Hawkings is married, IIRC, he theoretically doesn't need Penthouse. :)
-David T. C.
And what makes him think that French and Russian people aren't white? Methinks he's a little confused.
-David T. C.
And who hasn't seen a Bug Bunny cartoon anytime in their life?
-David T. C.
What? Huh? How?
-David T. C.
That's the DOD, and they don't qualify any OS as 'secure', they qualify a certain system configuration as secure. Good thing you didn't post that. In that case 'secure' meant: 1) No network, 2) No floppy, and 3) Locked box (duh on that last one.)
-David T. C.
I avoided posting this because it really is pretty lame, but its getting submitted a lot. Basically Fred Moody says Linux Sucks on ABC. He calls it the worst operating system ever based on the fact that bug traq lists more bugs for it then any other operating system. Stories like this just make me roll my eyes.
Let's see...Taco call it 'lame', and it makes him 'roll his eyes', and that's pretty much it. Well, the second one is obviously his opinion of this article, but, as for calling it 'lame'...
As it has been pointed out before, this article double counts Red Hat bugs when adding up Linux bugs, and it bases its conclusions on the very dubious idea that 'the less reported bugs==the best operating system'. Now, I'm not a security expert, but even I know that makes no sense at all, not to mention the fact the charts clearly show the Windows NT has the more reported bugs, which Moody dismisses with a handwave.
In short, I think it is perfectly valid to call this article 'lame', even pretending 'lame' has any legal meaning. I think you could definately call it 'shoddy', 'poorly-done', and 'propaganda' and many other things. I, and almost anyone, will agree this article is, in fact, 'lame', and it makes them roll their eyes.
Now, the only other way this article could show bias is the fact it was posted at all. Well, apparently, many many people submitted it, for one thing, which means it is a topic that the readerships wants to heard about. For another thing, while many people here do not use Linux, many people do. This article is apparently attempting to sway people away from Linux by presenting untrue 'facts' and unjustifiable 'conclusions', while many people on this site are attempting to convert people to Linux. The lies in this article, if accepted, could affect many people on this site's mission in life. You, and many other people here, think said mission is stupid, but, like it or not, that is the mission of many people here. And we get articles helping people to do that.
-David T. C.
Um, you don't understand. If they're on your network, and spoofing your address, then they're insanely easier to track down. If they're off your network, and spoofing your addresses, then you need to block them as they come in, because not only is that a DoS attack, but it's likely to interfere with the legit owner of that IP address.
-David T. C.
Hehehe. First of all, change 'freedom of speech' (and freedom of press) into 'freedom to spread information' (as that's what it's for), then reread that sentence.
-David T. C.
People like this, that just don't get it, piss me off. It's prayer. It's offically supported by the school. It's during an offical school football game. The fact that a student leads it doesn't matter. If a student wants to lead a prayer, unsupported by the school, before a game, go ahead. But if it's in the locker room, at the offical prayer time, and the person is picked by the coach, make it school, and thus, government sponsered. What part of this do you not understand?
Here, in GA, the Baptists do something call 'Fifth Quarter'. It's after the game, nearby. It's just fine. Do you honestly not see how this would be different if the school provided facilties and made it part of the football game?
People who want students praying at school really, really piss me off. No one's stopping them from praying. However, it's 100% not the place of the school to support them, and definately not to encourage them!
-David T. C.