> it is actually illegal to send UCE in many jurisdictions
But not all. If (as has been claimed and disclaimed time & again) most spam comes from other countries without those laws, what then? You can't prosecute a Thai citizen (random example) from inside the U.S. because he sent you spam.
That's not entirely honest of you... If you DON'T pay the money, you just have to wait 7 days. and regardless of whether you pay or not, if spam is found from your site again, you get added again. Sure, you can pay again, but it'll get expensive real quick.
And I'll point this out before you tell me that spam is illegal...
So is theft. Is it vigilante if a company sells a mail sorter that automatically removes junk mail from your mailbox? Only if it depends on the physical address it came from? Another businesss could move into that address... Or is it only vigilante if it makes a mistake once in a while?
> If you decide to take legal actions in your own hands, then you are, by definition, a vigilante
What law enforcement activities do the blacklists take into their own hands?
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
> You'd use uranium because of the fission that it could undergo, thus creating heat
That's what I thought he meant. Wouldn't its mass be reduced by using it as a fissionable material, thus causing stresses/weaknesses? He said to use it as a pipe, and if the pipe starts to "disappear," it would eventually leak. That would be bad, considering it would probably be under pressure. Or is it just that the pipe would be replaced often enough?
> All the engines we could ever want are already on the drawing boards.
Be careful when using the word (for)ever. Of course, I don't know much about any propulsion technology, but are there any faster-than-light technologies "on the drawing board" (assuming it's even possible)? I want that, but don't know that it exists.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
> You could pump gas through a pipe made of uranium
Please excuse my ignorance, but why would you want to make the pipe out of uranium? Would it transfer energy faster than some other metal? I would hope you aren't planning on using the pipe as the fuel source... You'd spring a leak pretty easily.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
> Otherwise you have to launch your spacecraft components from Earth, propulsively land them on the moon, and then launch them from the Moon.
One big difference, though, is that from Earth, they can include just enough fuel to get to the moon (as opposed to enough to go to Mars, an asteroid, etc), reducing weight by a WHOLE LOT, thus reducing costs considerably. Of course, if we have to ship the fuel to the Moon to begin with, that argument loses all support. It depends on being able to find a plentiful (and usable, of course) fuel source outside of Earth.
> > there is no way in hell that 10% are honest, try 2-5%, and less as you go up the chain > I suppose 0 at the very top, hey?
Man, haven't you ever taken Calculus? It approaches zero, but never actually gets there. It's just damned close. Unless you take the number over to Statistics class, when it magically becomes zero for some unknown reason. That always bugged the hell out of me that in statistics: instead of saying "almost zero," very small numbers are assumed to be zero. If there's a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % chance of something happening, it's still not frigging 0, but a statistician will say it is, with all certainty.
Someone who mants to be prepared if the government decides to move to a police state. As unlikely as it seems, it is possible, and gun ownership would be necessary to defend yourself in such conditions. If it doesn't happen in our lifetimes, great, give it to your kids when they are responsible enough.
However, foaming at the mouth and relying on emotions to dispute constitutional law is not good form. "Fucking psychos," as you say, are not allowed to own guns currently (in most states, AFAIK). The problems are IDing FP's, making sure they can't get them, but more importantly, defining what a fucking psycho is. If the republicans in congress had their way, people who were found with a gram of marijuana would probably be thrown in that group -- see how I use emotion more subtly than you do? I mask it behind politics, like a reasonable person.;)
> Bullshitting people is their business, and it looks like they made a sale.
Absolutely. In fact, it's easier to lie to an individual than a group. You tell the person what they want to hear, and they go run & tell everyone how great you are, and you might pick up a few votes. Most likely, they'll never bother checking to see if you actually followed through on anything. And if you didn't? Who cares, it's one person you'll probably never see again.
Haha, yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about, I've only been doing it for 10 years, while you've been whacking your meat over writing software to filter content (assuming that was true, which I don't really doubt). The gateway is set on the fucking user's machine, dipshit. And yes, you can move it different places, depending on the user, but then they can just use an off-site proxy, which is almost trivial. Obviously, you haven't got a fucking clue.
> If you aren't a porn fiend then what the hell do you care?
Because unlike you, I am not trying to force my narrow vision on everyone else. I don't fuck men in the ass, but I still think gays should be allowed to marry, moron. Not everyone is like you. Some people can support something without taking part in it.
> They may have the right, but they may lack the ability.
No, unless their hands have been chopped off, they have the ability. They may not be willing to learn new things (god forbid they ASK a professional for help!), but that is not the ISP's fault. Joe can't drive a car, but it's not GM's fault that he smashed into a schoolbus and killed twenty kids. GM has no obligation to protect the public from Joe's lack of driving knowledge, the ISP should have no requirements forcing them to censor websites on behalf of The State of Utah.
> NOBODY IS LOSING THEIR RIGHTS HERE
The ISPs are losing the right to run a simple, no-frills operation. The ones who run things like that are usually owned by one or two individuals. I wonder if this regulation would also cover a not-for-profit ISP (yes, they exist)...
> I will tell you, as someone who is very familiar with content filtering software as a developer, that it would be no work at all.
If they did the network proxy filter, EVERYONE gets filtered. Otherwise, it's hideously easy to bypass. The other solution (software) is usually somewhat easy to bypass.
> I told you
You didn't tell me shit, I posted one message in the same thread as you.
> The ACLU was set up to defend the rights of individuals, and in this case they are defending the rights of businesses.
Amazingly, individuals and businesses sometimes have similar interests *GASP*
> It's funny how I site the positive Christian influences in American History [and/.ers scream their heads off]
Because that is completely off-topic on this one. However, there is an unfortunate backlash against anything Christian. I mean come on, at least they should be consistent and insult all religions, philosophies, etc.:)
BTW, I don't really look at porn, as it doesn't interest me much. I won't deny, though, that I am in an extreme minority on that.
I wasn't actually saying that you are irresponsible or that it is irresponsible of you to have an unfiltered connection. Your message had the tone that the Utah government would be lax in its duties if it were to not make this law -- or that it's irresponsible to allow children to surf the net unfiltered so therefore, the government must do something about it.
My point was that you can do something about it NOW. So if the government is irresponsible for not having done something to protect your children, you would be FAR more irresponsible for not having done the same thing already, since this technology has been around for a decade. That's where the "hypocrite" statement came in: "The government must protect my children because I am unwilling to do it myself."
> If you don't think porn is "bad", from your relative perspective then are you asserting that it is just fine to allow your child to look at porn without filtration?
> do you assert that if a child grows up looking at porn, there won't be any negative side affects?
If presented in a realistic, healthy way, and the child has a real understanding of life and sexuality, no, I don't believe that there will be adverse consequences from merely looking at it. However, most parents are uncomfortable talking about sex with their kids -- probably because their parents were uncomfortable with it -- and it's easier to just say "that's bad, stay away."
> what ISP would write custom software rather than implement IP filtering?
I'm with you, except this one little thing. Who said the ISP couldn't just get some cheap "Cyber-Sitter"-like program and hand that out to the requesting customers? Heck, they could just give them a copy of JunkBuster and point them to the AG's site list. The only issue with that is the horribly subjective nature of the phrase "commercially reasonable manner." What does that even mean?
> I would find it difficult to believe that porn would help one build a stable, functional, happy relationship with one's spouse.
It is not a legal mandate to have a "stable, functional, happy relationship" or even have a spouse.
And what about us single people? Of course, single people should either suffer or get married like a good Xtian would do -- otherwise, they must be one of those evil gays, or just hate families.
So, your first point has absolutely nothing to do with this law, you are creating a strawman.
> I don't think the "majority" of Americans like Britney Spears
We agree there:)
> Iraq did have WMD's, because they used them against the Kurds
Which was long before Bush Jr. started waving that flag.
> I also think that the 2004 election was more a choice of which Yale C-average student do we dislike least.
In a sense, I agree (I think Kerry would not have done much better), but at the time we didn't know Kerry's grades, so you are rewriting history.
> I happen to believe pornography is a bad thing.
I happen to disagree. Luckily for us both, we can both be content with our beliefs the way the current law is. Not adding a new one does not limit your ability to block porn, it forces you to be responsible. But if you were as good a parent as you claim everyone must be, you should already have blocked it, and are in no need for this law.
If your children DO surf the net and you have no blocking, you have already acted irresponsibly and have proven yourself a hypocrite.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't read my followup post, which is understandable, because I just posted it, so you probably loaded the page between posts...
Here
> it is actually illegal to send UCE in many jurisdictions
But not all. If (as has been claimed and disclaimed time & again) most spam comes from other countries without those laws, what then? You can't prosecute a Thai citizen (random example) from inside the U.S. because he sent you spam.
That's not entirely honest of you... If you DON'T pay the money, you just have to wait 7 days. and regardless of whether you pay or not, if spam is found from your site again, you get added again. Sure, you can pay again, but it'll get expensive real quick.
And I'll point this out before you tell me that spam is illegal...
So is theft. Is it vigilante if a company sells a mail sorter that automatically removes junk mail from your mailbox? Only if it depends on the physical address it came from? Another businesss could move into that address... Or is it only vigilante if it makes a mistake once in a while?
> If you decide to take legal actions in your own hands, then you are, by definition, a vigilante
What law enforcement activities do the blacklists take into their own hands?
> You'd use uranium because of the fission that it could undergo, thus creating heat
That's what I thought he meant. Wouldn't its mass be reduced by using it as a fissionable material, thus causing stresses/weaknesses? He said to use it as a pipe, and if the pipe starts to "disappear," it would eventually leak. That would be bad, considering it would probably be under pressure. Or is it just that the pipe would be replaced often enough?
You aren't the only one... And I thought I was gonna be so original, until I searched the page for it :)
> follow what the constitution says and insist that gun ownership be "well regulated".
Nooooo, according to the constitution, the militia is supposed to be "well-regulated," not the guns.
> you and I both know that it will have the patriotic support of at least half the people, who will gladly sacrifice their rights for the State.
Yes, and the rest will be forced to defend themselves from the majority.
> All the engines we could ever want are already on the drawing boards.
Be careful when using the word (for)ever. Of course, I don't know much about any propulsion technology, but are there any faster-than-light technologies "on the drawing board" (assuming it's even possible)? I want that, but don't know that it exists.
> You could pump gas through a pipe made of uranium
Please excuse my ignorance, but why would you want to make the pipe out of uranium? Would it transfer energy faster than some other metal? I would hope you aren't planning on using the pipe as the fuel source... You'd spring a leak pretty easily.
> Otherwise you have to launch your spacecraft components from Earth, propulsively land them on the moon, and then launch them from the Moon.
One big difference, though, is that from Earth, they can include just enough fuel to get to the moon (as opposed to enough to go to Mars, an asteroid, etc), reducing weight by a WHOLE LOT, thus reducing costs considerably. Of course, if we have to ship the fuel to the Moon to begin with, that argument loses all support. It depends on being able to find a plentiful (and usable, of course) fuel source outside of Earth.
> Transexual Scouts Of California ...Of America. Never heard of the TSA? They're in all the airports, sticking their fingers in peoples' assholes.
> > there is no way in hell that 10% are honest, try 2-5%, and less as you go up the chain
1 % chance of something happening, it's still not frigging 0, but a statistician will say it is, with all certainty.
> I suppose 0 at the very top, hey?
Man, haven't you ever taken Calculus? It approaches zero, but never actually gets there. It's just damned close. Unless you take the number over to Statistics class, when it magically becomes zero for some unknown reason.
That always bugged the hell out of me that in statistics: instead of saying "almost zero," very small numbers are assumed to be zero.
If there's a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
> Who the hell needs an AK-47
;)
Someone who mants to be prepared if the government decides to move to a police state. As unlikely as it seems, it is possible, and gun ownership would be necessary to defend yourself in such conditions. If it doesn't happen in our lifetimes, great, give it to your kids when they are responsible enough.
However, foaming at the mouth and relying on emotions to dispute constitutional law is not good form. "Fucking psychos," as you say, are not allowed to own guns currently (in most states, AFAIK). The problems are IDing FP's, making sure they can't get them, but more importantly, defining what a fucking psycho is. If the republicans in congress had their way, people who were found with a gram of marijuana would probably be thrown in that group -- see how I use emotion more subtly than you do? I mask it behind politics, like a reasonable person.
> Bullshitting people is their business, and it looks like they made a sale.
Absolutely. In fact, it's easier to lie to an individual than a group. You tell the person what they want to hear, and they go run & tell everyone how great you are, and you might pick up a few votes. Most likely, they'll never bother checking to see if you actually followed through on anything. And if you didn't? Who cares, it's one person you'll probably never see again.
Read carefully:
> Two minutes penalty for correct use of "it's"!
*SLAP* Duh, I'm a moron.
Haha, yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about, I've only been doing it for 10 years, while you've been whacking your meat over writing software to filter content (assuming that was true, which I don't really doubt). The gateway is set on the fucking user's machine, dipshit. And yes, you can move it different places, depending on the user, but then they can just use an off-site proxy, which is almost trivial. Obviously, you haven't got a fucking clue.
> If you aren't a porn fiend then what the hell do you care?
Because unlike you, I am not trying to force my narrow vision on everyone else. I don't fuck men in the ass, but I still think gays should be allowed to marry, moron. Not everyone is like you. Some people can support something without taking part in it.
> With the complexity of most fortune 5000 companies
No offense to the OP, but for some reason I don't think www.phydeauxpets.com is a Fortune 5000 company.
> They may have the right, but they may lack the ability.
/.ers scream their heads off]
:)
No, unless their hands have been chopped off, they have the ability. They may not be willing to learn new things (god forbid they ASK a professional for help!), but that is not the ISP's fault. Joe can't drive a car, but it's not GM's fault that he smashed into a schoolbus and killed twenty kids. GM has no obligation to protect the public from Joe's lack of driving knowledge, the ISP should have no requirements forcing them to censor websites on behalf of The State of Utah.
> NOBODY IS LOSING THEIR RIGHTS HERE
The ISPs are losing the right to run a simple, no-frills operation. The ones who run things like that are usually owned by one or two individuals. I wonder if this regulation would also cover a not-for-profit ISP (yes, they exist)...
> I will tell you, as someone who is very familiar with content filtering software as a developer, that it would be no work at all.
If they did the network proxy filter, EVERYONE gets filtered. Otherwise, it's hideously easy to bypass. The other solution (software) is usually somewhat easy to bypass.
> I told you
You didn't tell me shit, I posted one message in the same thread as you.
> The ACLU was set up to defend the rights of individuals, and in this case they are defending the rights of businesses.
Amazingly, individuals and businesses sometimes have similar interests *GASP*
> It's funny how I site the positive Christian influences in American History [and
Because that is completely off-topic on this one. However, there is an unfortunate backlash against anything Christian. I mean come on, at least they should be consistent and insult all religions, philosophies, etc.
BTW, I don't really look at porn, as it doesn't interest me much. I won't deny, though, that I am in an extreme minority on that.
I wasn't actually saying that you are irresponsible or that it is irresponsible of you to have an unfiltered connection. Your message had the tone that the Utah government would be lax in its duties if it were to not make this law -- or that it's irresponsible to allow children to surf the net unfiltered so therefore, the government must do something about it.
My point was that you can do something about it NOW. So if the government is irresponsible for not having done something to protect your children, you would be FAR more irresponsible for not having done the same thing already, since this technology has been around for a decade. That's where the "hypocrite" statement came in: "The government must protect my children because I am unwilling to do it myself."
> If you don't think porn is "bad", from your relative perspective then are you asserting that it is just fine to allow your child to look at porn without filtration?
> do you assert that if a child grows up looking at porn, there won't be any negative side affects?
If presented in a realistic, healthy way, and the child has a real understanding of life and sexuality, no, I don't believe that there will be adverse consequences from merely looking at it. However, most parents are uncomfortable talking about sex with their kids -- probably because their parents were uncomfortable with it -- and it's easier to just say "that's bad, stay away."
> what ISP would write custom software rather than implement IP filtering?
I'm with you, except this one little thing. Who said the ISP couldn't just get some cheap "Cyber-Sitter"-like program and hand that out to the requesting customers? Heck, they could just give them a copy of JunkBuster and point them to the AG's site list. The only issue with that is the horribly subjective nature of the phrase "commercially reasonable manner." What does that even mean?
> Be personally responsible for *yourself* and *your* kids... grife is that too much to fuckin' ask anymore?
Come on, man, this guy can't put two thoughts together logically, you think he gives half-a-shit about personal responsibility??
geez, you didn't even have to post. Just say "look at my nick" and we would have understood it to mean "I'm a fucking moron." HAND.
> I would find it difficult to believe that porn would help one build a stable, functional, happy relationship with one's spouse.
:)
It is not a legal mandate to have a "stable, functional, happy relationship" or even have a spouse.
And what about us single people? Of course, single people should either suffer or get married like a good Xtian would do -- otherwise, they must be one of those evil gays, or just hate families.
So, your first point has absolutely nothing to do with this law, you are creating a strawman.
> I don't think the "majority" of Americans like Britney Spears
We agree there
> Iraq did have WMD's, because they used them against the Kurds
Which was long before Bush Jr. started waving that flag.
> I also think that the 2004 election was more a choice of which Yale C-average student do we dislike least.
In a sense, I agree (I think Kerry would not have done much better), but at the time we didn't know Kerry's grades, so you are rewriting history.
> I happen to believe pornography is a bad thing.
I happen to disagree. Luckily for us both, we can both be content with our beliefs the way the current law is. Not adding a new one does not limit your ability to block porn, it forces you to be responsible. But if you were as good a parent as you claim everyone must be, you should already have blocked it, and are in no need for this law.
If your children DO surf the net and you have no blocking, you have already acted irresponsibly and have proven yourself a hypocrite.
> The same Christian activists are at work here, protecting people's right to censor their own internet connection.
Can you understand logic at all, or are you just more interested in calling yourself right(eous)?
THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT RIGHT, you fucking moron! The ONLY THING the bill you are supporting does is add a shitload of unnecessary work for ISPs.
(Fine, mark it flamebait, it's only addressed to this one idiot anyway)