On a forum like Wikipedia I would propose that it would be (next to) impossible not to have admins that are not anti-censorship (all things being equal), because working on an encyclopedia demonstrates in interest and love of knowledge, whose antithesis is censorship. That's why Librarians are often advocates for free speech. It's not very surprising.
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx [goatse.cx], TubGirl [tubgirl.com] and other shock sites?
It would be much worse off. Having censorship (like this) would be equivalent to not having an Internet. When governments, ISPs or special interest groups can determine what is normal and decent to look at and what is not normal and decent to look at then most of the advantages of having an Internet are extinguished to nothing more than a heavily regulated, private Bulletin Board System (akin to the early 1990s, but far less free).
If people don't like what's on the Internet then they shouldn't use it. Otherwise leave the rest of us alone. Throughout history governments and organizations have been censoring to the detriment of society. Throughout history these tyrants have said they are doing it for the good of society. People don't seem to be able to learn from history. We need the Internet to be more decentralized and immune from censorship as possible so that people aren't victim to censorship and the myriad excuses used to justify it.
You let me have some goatse.cx, and maybe the Chinese might let people have some Falun Gong, and maybe I will let America have some Scientology sites, or maybe even some of the perversions of Rush Limbaugh. Sometimes all or nothing is the most sensible way to go.
I think you're a truly sick individual and want nothing to do with you.
Flaimbait and insults. I'm disappointed but not surprised. There are a lot of people who have hate in them, hate enough to defend hurting their own children and calling people who are honest and peace-loving like myself "sick". It's not surprising, it's disgusting. But unfortunately that is the way people are. We have to live with each other. Although I'm sure you would rather have me be killed or put into a concentration camp, because that's the kind of hate I perceive coming out of you. Illogical, unrestrained, and willing to fight for the religious abuse that you were indoctrinated with.
To claim that the only people against sexual abuse of children are religious nuts
Again you lie. I have neverstated that people against sexual abuse are religious nuts. This should be obvious seeing as how my comment is easily referenced. I was talking about child pornography and child sex, and not about child abuse. You are twisting things for obvious reasons.
Try again, with your conversational parameters set a little more toward 'real life' than "batshit insane" please.
When people cannot have an intelligent conversation they use Ad hominems. Goebbels did this, and so too it is a favorite propaganda technique used by the religious right wing. You merely rant and accuse my honest perceptions of the bizarre world we live in to be a rant. That's quite a twist.
i think that everyone must understand why we consider child porn to be so highly illegal. because it means exploitation of a minor.
Bullshit. I hope you don't believe your own words. Child porn is illegal because of religious (neo)-conservatism. Child exploitation is generally either legal or condoned (when it does not involve sex). Believe me the same nut-jobs who don't want children having sex are the same ones who want them physically abused through corporal punishment, childhood death sentences, and making cheap running shoes in India and China, etc. There is a lot of dishonesty and hypocrisy in the think-of-the-children crowd. If I ever see a concerted effort by the think-of-the-children crusaders in banning all child acting, and not just pornography, then I would take them more seriously then their vary obvious religious lifestyle and mentality would demonstrate.
Yeah, and the lying example is sad. Most people lie as naturally as they breathe or urinate. It's just another hobby.
You're on Slashdot. It's nothing to be ashamed of. You are the only person here who (I can recall) has ever admitted being stupid. I wish other people here would fess up as well. It makes me feel so much more superior.
the IWF is not an official government organization, does not appear to have legal permission to view child pornography, and quite possibly is breaking the law by doing so."
If the black list of "child pornography" is anything like the Danish list published on Wikileaks, then the IWF doesn't need to worry about breaking any laws (unless of course Hentai or naked teenagers is defined as the vicious child rape that the crusaders are supposed to be protecting children from).
... or perhaps the reason they saw declining figures starting at the age of 27, is that older people who are more intelligent, tend to not have the time, choose not to waste the effort, and do not need the $100, to participate in these kinds of studies.
"... or perhaps" you are over the age of 27, so are less likely to accept the fact that your brain has already started to die.
It would be too coincidental if Randall Patrick Munroe was the same Randall Patrick Munroe as that of Web comic xkcd fame. The likelihood of two people being the same person is statistically low with a high confidence. That being said, Randall Patrick Munroe comes from Easton, Pennsylvania, whereas Randall Patrick Munroe does his banking in Newport News.
Beat the Burglar might only have targeted volunteers, but the more recent The Real Hustle didn't.
Some other example scams I've found out about:
* A deposit is taken on a car multiple times from different people who turn up to buy it.
* A computer keyboard is replaced with one containing a key logger and bank details are obtained
* A skimmer device is placed on a cashpoint with a pinhole camera inside it, recording the information on the user's cards magnetic strip along with their PIN; the data is then put on the magnetic strip of an e-top up card which is used to withdraw money from the victim's account
* The Black money scam at a market stall
* A fake hollow cash point is installed on a busy street, in which one of the hustlers hides and records the information on the user's cards magnetic strip along with their PIN number obtained from the user typing on the keypad.
(Ref. Wikipedia)
It figures that in Britain such things are not prosecuted under the law, but are taken as entertainment. If what you and the Wikipedia article state (or imply) as true (that people are unwilling and unwitting victims of unlawful acts by the British Broadcasting Corporation), then it would appear that Britains have been completely brainwashed into believing that having no rights or privacy and that being victimized by a non-government agency that is government funded is OK and par for the course. Scary!
Your quote diametrically refutes your posit! It is funded by the public and given a mandate of political neutrality and autonomy by that charter.
Perhaps. But you sound like a civil servant (trying to explain that you are not a servant). I'm not convinced. If it looks like a British government institution, sounds like a British government institution, then it might just be a British government institution. The House of Lords should bring this matter up for debate.
Isn't the BBC "owned" by the government of Britain ("a quasi-autonomous statutory corporation as a public service broadcaster and is run by the BBC Trust; it is, per its charter, supposed to "be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners", Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc)? If so it would appear that they are immune from the law because, as contemporary history demonstrates, "intent", when the government is involved is never criminal in nature, but rather for the good of mankind.
Exactly. Unfortunately people like you and me are in the minority in realizing that most of the journalism and "science" that is published on these issues is politically motivated.
At least they're not blaming cigarettes. Clichés grow old fast. Too bad these anti- organizations don't base their propaganda on honesty, science or logic.
Yet something else for the Internet Watch Foundation to keep an eye on. There needs to be a repository where people can freely read the ebooks (or at least search for keywords) so that indecent or potentially illegal material can be found and blocked before these materials can be purchased or downloaded. Deep packet inspection may be necessary in the transmission of these materials across boarders.
Slashdot Mirror
pro-free-speech admins = you're screwed
On a forum like Wikipedia I would propose that it would be (next to) impossible not to have admins that are not anti-censorship (all things being equal), because working on an encyclopedia demonstrates in interest and love of knowledge, whose antithesis is censorship. That's why Librarians are often advocates for free speech. It's not very surprising.
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx [goatse.cx], TubGirl [tubgirl.com] and other shock sites?
It would be much worse off. Having censorship (like this) would be equivalent to not having an Internet. When governments, ISPs or special interest groups can determine what is normal and decent to look at and what is not normal and decent to look at then most of the advantages of having an Internet are extinguished to nothing more than a heavily regulated, private Bulletin Board System (akin to the early 1990s, but far less free).
If people don't like what's on the Internet then they shouldn't use it. Otherwise leave the rest of us alone. Throughout history governments and organizations have been censoring to the detriment of society. Throughout history these tyrants have said they are doing it for the good of society. People don't seem to be able to learn from history. We need the Internet to be more decentralized and immune from censorship as possible so that people aren't victim to censorship and the myriad excuses used to justify it.
You let me have some goatse.cx, and maybe the Chinese might let people have some Falun Gong, and maybe I will let America have some Scientology sites, or maybe even some of the perversions of Rush Limbaugh. Sometimes all or nothing is the most sensible way to go.
Petty drama, on MY Wikipedia?
Why don't you get an account and then log in and say that, Jimmy Wales?
I think you're a truly sick individual and want nothing to do with you.
Flaimbait and insults. I'm disappointed but not surprised. There are a lot of people who have hate in them, hate enough to defend hurting their own children and calling people who are honest and peace-loving like myself "sick". It's not surprising, it's disgusting. But unfortunately that is the way people are. We have to live with each other. Although I'm sure you would rather have me be killed or put into a concentration camp, because that's the kind of hate I perceive coming out of you. Illogical, unrestrained, and willing to fight for the religious abuse that you were indoctrinated with.
First, you admit to being a child abuser:
I spank my children at times
Then you rant about me being "disingenuous",
To claim that the only people against sexual abuse of children are religious nuts
Again you lie. I have never stated that people against sexual abuse are religious nuts. This should be obvious seeing as how my comment is easily referenced. I was talking about child pornography and child sex, and not about child abuse. You are twisting things for obvious reasons.
Try again, with your conversational parameters set a little more toward 'real life' than "batshit insane" please.
When people cannot have an intelligent conversation they use Ad hominems. Goebbels did this, and so too it is a favorite propaganda technique used by the religious right wing. You merely rant and accuse my honest perceptions of the bizarre world we live in to be a rant. That's quite a twist.
i think that everyone must understand why we consider child porn to be so highly illegal. because it means exploitation of a minor.
Bullshit. I hope you don't believe your own words. Child porn is illegal because of religious (neo)-conservatism. Child exploitation is generally either legal or condoned (when it does not involve sex). Believe me the same nut-jobs who don't want children having sex are the same ones who want them physically abused through corporal punishment, childhood death sentences, and making cheap running shoes in India and China, etc. There is a lot of dishonesty and hypocrisy in the think-of-the-children crowd. If I ever see a concerted effort by the think-of-the-children crusaders in banning all child acting, and not just pornography, then I would take them more seriously then their vary obvious religious lifestyle and mentality would demonstrate.
Yeah, and the lying example is sad. Most people lie as naturally as they breathe or urinate. It's just another hobby.
Because I am stupid. Apologies to all.
You're on Slashdot. It's nothing to be ashamed of. You are the only person here who (I can recall) has ever admitted being stupid. I wish other people here would fess up as well. It makes me feel so much more superior.
How do you report a crime without self-incriminating yourself since viewing said crime is a crime?
Use doublethink, which is a very British thing to do.
the IWF is not an official government organization, does not appear to have legal permission to view child pornography, and quite possibly is breaking the law by doing so."
If the black list of "child pornography" is anything like the Danish list published on Wikileaks, then the IWF doesn't need to worry about breaking any laws (unless of course Hentai or naked teenagers is defined as the vicious child rape that the crusaders are supposed to be protecting children from).
... or perhaps the reason they saw declining figures starting at the age of 27, is that older people who are more intelligent, tend to not have the time, choose not to waste the effort, and do not need the $100, to participate in these kinds of studies.
"... or perhaps" you are over the age of 27, so are less likely to accept the fact that your brain has already started to die.
Most bosses don't need tranquilizers, they need gags.
It would be too coincidental if Randall Patrick Munroe was the same Randall Patrick Munroe as that of Web comic xkcd fame. The likelihood of two people being the same person is statistically low with a high confidence. That being said, Randall Patrick Munroe comes from Easton, Pennsylvania, whereas Randall Patrick Munroe does his banking in Newport News.
Didn't Jack Thompson die?
I'd be more curious to know if the Pope faith healed him back to health.
If a girl is going to wear a bikini, then I prefer to see the pubic hair hanging out.
I've gotten into troubling quite a few times for doodling.
Yeah, especially with "indecency" laws what they are. One persons balloons is another persons perversion.
Beat the Burglar might only have targeted volunteers, but the more recent The Real Hustle didn't.
Some other example scams I've found out about:
(Ref. Wikipedia)
It figures that in Britain such things are not prosecuted under the law, but are taken as entertainment. If what you and the Wikipedia article state (or imply) as true (that people are unwilling and unwitting victims of unlawful acts by the British Broadcasting Corporation), then it would appear that Britains have been completely brainwashed into believing that having no rights or privacy and that being victimized by a non-government agency that is government funded is OK and par for the course. Scary!
Your quote diametrically refutes your posit! It is funded by the public and given a mandate of political neutrality and autonomy by that charter.
Perhaps. But you sound like a civil servant (trying to explain that you are not a servant). I'm not convinced. If it looks like a British government institution, sounds like a British government institution, then it might just be a British government institution. The House of Lords should bring this matter up for debate.
Regardless of intent it is illegal.
Isn't the BBC "owned" by the government of Britain ("a quasi-autonomous statutory corporation as a public service broadcaster and is run by the BBC Trust; it is, per its charter, supposed to "be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners", Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc)? If so it would appear that they are immune from the law because, as contemporary history demonstrates, "intent", when the government is involved is never criminal in nature, but rather for the good of mankind.
I guess that my idea of a flash "take a dump on the sidewalk" mob isn't going to please these clean freaks in San Francisco either.
As long as everybody obides by the local poop-and-scoop laws then I don't see a problem. There should be no extra expense to the city.
Exactly. Unfortunately people like you and me are in the minority in realizing that most of the journalism and "science" that is published on these issues is politically motivated.
That seems to be hardcoded though, it already fails at "how old is Steve Jobs".
Any intelligent system that relies on knowledge of the world requires at least some "hard coding".
Google already does this. Type a question like "What is one plus one?" and you will get an answer. It's artificial intelligence.
At least they're not blaming cigarettes. Clichés grow old fast. Too bad these anti- organizations don't base their propaganda on honesty, science or logic.
Yet something else for the Internet Watch Foundation to keep an eye on. There needs to be a repository where people can freely read the ebooks (or at least search for keywords) so that indecent or potentially illegal material can be found and blocked before these materials can be purchased or downloaded. Deep packet inspection may be necessary in the transmission of these materials across boarders.