And may I be a personal testament to that.
After hours and hours of hard core porn, I now have fantasies of Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Jeff Guckert, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Lynne Cheney, Mitt Romney, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and even Ari Fleisher.
I think they are all super duper hot!
Pray for me....
My...since we're being honest, after hours upon hours of hardcore porn, I now have fantasies of Barbie and Jenna (Hager) Bush. Life is good.
"Social conservatives" in the US are essentially Christian Taliban. They don't have the power to act with the savagery of Taliban (abortion clinic bombers excepted) but never forget that people who believe in primitive superstitions only function in the modern world by compromising their beliefs.
Hate to break it to you, Eric Rudolph was captured 5 years ago, and he'll be in jail for the rest of his life.
Don't get too cocky. Christians have been under attack for years in this country to the point where many are even scared to talk about it anymore, as if it were embarrassing. So much for being Taliban-like.
And yes, I am a Christian.
When they have power, they revert to type.
Funny. I thought the same thing about liberals. Largely godless, living according to what they can get from others, and forcing their opinions upon everyone. When they have power, they revert to type.
Social conservatives keep demanding laws to regulate everyone because their usual tools of ostracism and shame are only effective within their own communities.
Don't look now, but fiscal liberals keep spending my money. And my future childrens' money, and their childrens' money. And they keep trying to force me to spend, Spend, SPEND my way out of economic crisis! And what I don't spend freely, they'll find a way to take.
I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't part of their population control policy, where they provide me with an incentive not to reproduce, simply for the purpose of fucking the gov't.
Now, I'll admit I'm a social conservative. I'm also ardently Libertarian. The government has no place regulating every little thing. Don't assume that the squeaky wheel represents the views of anything close to a simple majority. Unfortunately, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
As an aside, has anyone seen any as-seen-on-TV type devices designed to keep liberal hands out of my pockets? If so, please let me know.
I wonder why she threw that last bit in there.
It suggests, to me, that her (organization's) larger goal is to neutralize the pornography industry, not just to limit it to adults.
what else is new? The ATF (formerly known as revenuers) has been doing that with the tobacco/smoking industry for years.
Special Note: The ATF is harsher on moonshine and firearms (especially firearms). They're even willing to kill unarmed women and children over them.
You were modded troll, but I think you are correct. I was unaware of the special underwear until someone told me about it. I looked it up and was amazed. They also tell their wives they can't get to heaven without the husband's special password.
It's a total crock and is only slightly less insane than the scientologist whack-jobs.
I am so sick and tired of these religious idiots - of any flavor - trying to legislate my life according to their hangups and fears.
Whatever happened to "land of the free"?
It was free to leave, so it did.
How ironic. I'm sick of liberal idiots telling me how to live my life and fund someone else's according to their hangups and fears.
And there was me thinking it was an attempt at humour.
That's the genius of my evil plan to take over the world. Lull everyone into thinking I'm just a cute, innocent little troll, and then when the time is right! I spring out and take over the world with my rapier-sharp wit!
It's not just politicians that get the royal treatment. Have you paid any attention to the way people treat and think of Hollyweird celebrities? That's a real aristocracy. As sad as it was we would never have heard of Natasha Richardson's accident had she not been a famous actress. Lindsay Lohan would just be another dim-bulb if not for her acting.
I guess if people don't have a real aristocracy they create one.
Lindsay Lohan IS just another dim bulb. And I'd never even heard of Natasha Richardson until she had an accident.
And people say the South lost the war.
It hasn't yet. It's a giant Confederate sleeper cell. But don't tell BHO; he might send some soldiers over in suicide vests to excise the chancre that is the Confederacy. Incidentally, the Confederate States have not been dissolved yet. Technically, it simply doesn't have any member states at the moment (i.e. it's a country on paper, with no land).
OK, I generally agree with you. I'm not sure there was some conspiracy over "government schools" brainwashing students
This probably is actually the truth. However, it's probably a symptom of the general problem, rather than a cause. I suspect that the liberal agendas tend to have a trickle-down effect here. After all, a teacher can't say "x is bad, y is good" in regards to politics unless it's absolutely certain that's an opinion, and even then it's iffy. Of course a teacher can roundaboutly say do this, by teaching and focusing on all sorts of principles that liberals consider a mainstay, to the exclusion of the conservative ones. Ever notice how they really push sharing and collective "ownership" in kindergarten (it's not yours, it's all of ours)? Sure they teach to ask nicely for things, and then when someone doesn't want to give it up, the teacher takes the role of BB and takes it and hands it over. No such thing as telling the other kid to make do and find another toy.
this solidified in other students minds the legitimacy of the parties as ruling bodies. When watching an educationally useless video of Air Force One, everyone was wowed by all the luxuries on it. Only my friend and I were offended that our tax dollars are being used to treat the president, who should be more of a public servant, like a king.
So you're not the only person who is absolutely disgusted by this. Good. I thought I was a terrorist or something because of my crimethink.
I think it's less that there's top-down brainwashing plots and more of simply the stupid-minded and patriotic end up teaching civics classes.
Some of this is apathy on the part of the kids. I had some pretty liberal teachers in high school and college. If a kid is really interested, he'll drive himself to learn and make a change (or try to). Empowerment isn't always the teacher's job.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT, WE CAN HEAR YOU JUST FINE!:(
IN CYBERSPACE, NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU SCREAM.
Who cares about the philosophical question of whether or not "professional" music (whatever that is) is such a life necessity that everyone should be taxed to subsidize it?
The bottom line here is the subsidization is fundamentally untenable because it's too inefficient and fraud prone. As for the three strikes alternative, that's just practically unenforceable.
So we're left with your original conclusion, but with more pragmatic reasoning. The content industry is going to have to stop clamoring "you can't compete with free" and start doing just that.
Not only isn't it practical, but it would be fraudulent. Let's say I
Don't download music with my internet connection
I already pay for a service like iTunes
If I'm already paying for the music I download, this would constitute double dipping.
If all I do is check email and surf/. and porn on the internet (the kind of stuff most grandmas do with a computer), then I'm not getting any increased value for the extra money (the line isn't faster, or more stable).
Why should I have to pay an extra fee to my ISP so they can pay the RIAA for an empty promise not to sue? It's not a covenant not to sue me, so what do I get out of this deal? A big fat lot of nothing.
If anything, this will just encourage people to download more. The mentality among those of my generation will be "Well, I've already paid for the buffet. Might as well eat all I can." And when they can't find any more to download, they will download an entire ten-pound bag of flour.
Seriously. Why do actors and actresses who pretend to be politicans and soldiers for tv and movies get more influence over "real world" politics like the UN than I do? Does the US constitution even have a sovereignty clause that forbids allowing foreign sovereignty (for instance, by the UN), or is that just an interpretation? I can't find one, but I'm at work (and posting on/., yeah I know)
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx, TubGirl and other shock sites?
Sure, you may not want to see that stuff. You not looking doesn't mean I don't want to look (not an endorsement of goatse). So what happens when an arbitrary third party comes and tells us both that we shouldn't see something, because it knows best what is harmful to you? All good and well if you blindly trust this authority. But what if you feel you can handle it, make a better decision, or don't believe the authority? Well, my friend, you are royally fucked.
As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square. Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx, TubGirl and other shock sites?
As much as I am for freedom speech...
You don't have a right to not be offended. If you don't like it, you are free to ignore it (don't feed the troll principle). If you simply can't ignore it, then fell free to express your opposing opinion. If you disagree with their expression, but do concur with their opinion, then express yourself in your own acceptable way alongside them.
This holds for speech that actually tries to convey content. I suppose one could incorporate shock-shit to make a point, which then makes its use in that context protected.
This veers off-topic for a little bit, but gets back on later (I promise)
However, there are those who will argue that this freedom extends to goatse.cx, tubgirl, and child porn. Fair enough. If someone feels that the content of goatse, tubgirl, or child porn has some inherent value, then so be it if they want to go find it. However, this question isn't about the consumers of the information. Is the producer of tubgirl breaking a law? Probably is somewhere. Goatse? Same thing. The child porn? Let's look at that; this is all largely academic, so don't read too much into it.
An obviously sticky problem, really the pornographer is committing the crime when he engages in sexual activity with the kid. If he records it and sells it, that's secondary. Of course, the secondary effect is made illegal, per se in the attempt to remove demand for that which necessitates the forbidden act. So really, what is happening is the freedom of speech is being abridged here, in an attempt to prevent what is required to make this speech. Now, you're going to make the argument that murdering someone because you don't like their policy/politics/business/whatever is also illegal. Let me rebut this. Is regular porn illegal? No (well, it isn't in most places). So, neither the act of sex or the depiction of it is illegal. Is showing a video of a murder illegal? Not that I'm aware of. But murder itself is pretty much uninversally illegal. The act doesn't make the depiction illegal to begin with. But I digress. Child porn is a special case of think of the children. Look on the bright side, both the murderer (who admits it to make a point) and child pornographer to do their thing and leave all sorts of evidence to prosecute the actual illegal acts when they do get caught.
Now, wasn't that a delightfully off-topic section? Back to the topic.
Freedom isn't just about being able to express your opinion. It's really about being able to express your opinion, no matter how unpopular or offensive it is with the rest of the town square. You can do this in pretty much any way you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. The other side of the coin is that they're also free to not deal with you.
I don't get how this does anything other than annoy the Australian censors. What point are they trying to prove? "It you put fetus pictures on a webpage, it'll be blocked?" Isn't that point already proven?
I think they're trying to do 2 things here.
See if the ACMA will blacklist their own article on Wikipedia, because it has a link to a blacklisted site. If they don't, there's a double standard in play.
To demonstrate that the ACMA is overstepping whatever authority it has by extending its censorship beyond the original charter (child abuse/porn/think of the children) and has moved onto graphic material, though not obscene in the normal sense of the word.
For 1, this is straightforward enough.
For 2, this is interesting, as the people publishing the forbidden link are anti-abortion. Now, many people who are anti-abortion (I would guess) are quite rabidly pro-ACMA. They also view abortion as a form of child abuse (remember, they usually consider conception to be when life begins, not when the baby comes out of the breach). So what we end up with is essentially people publishing images of murder victims/abuse victims with the explicit intent of showing the harmful effects of the abortions. The ACMA probably claims to be banning the material because it's graphically revolting, but then again, that would be a personal judgement call. Given the reason for the ACMA (think of the children), this probably oversteps the boundary of what they are there for. One might also make the leap and say that just by blacklisting the site, the ACMA is making conflicting statements ("We condemn child abuse, but you aren't allowed to speak against it unless we approve.")
I would suggest that this is in reality a test for future exercises in internet access denials.
If the people tolerate the abolition of links at the governments will ALL information received is to be consdered suspect.
Wikipedia, I'd like to introduce you to a very lovely friend of mine. Her name is Streisand Effect, and I know you'll get to be really good friends.
Actually, this is a test case, but it's an important one. Not just to see if there's a double-standard (if ACMA doesn't send an order for its own entry, there is), but to see how well Wikipedia stands up to the legal challenges of blacklists. Now, I'm not an Australian, so I don't know if ACMA is a government or private body (like England's is), but I do know that this stuff needs to be done. I understand their wish to "not hurt their friends" (the ISP). It also, as you mentioned, brings the veracity of the articles into question. If wikipedia bends for this, then they may bend for more. They may bend for a non-government-approved version being illegal and remove it.
Wikipedia might not like being a test case, but they're the biggest one of all, like it or not.
so the big question becomes: Is Shell an oil company, or an energy company?
It's a Shell company! [insert rimshot]
While they call themselves an "energy company", they specialize in oil processing. Really, they're a fuel company. They don't create energy (conservation of energy), or oil.
Hey, no problem. Let people have whatever weapons they want -- as long as they were honorably discharged by the military after having been trained in the use of said arms. And no one else.
(Also, this might make those same right wingers straighten right the fuck out on their shameful treatment of our veterans.)
It would also cut out people with shitty hearing (but of sound mind) who were rejected for military service. It would also eliminate any other military reject who was rejected for any other myriad reasons not related to presence of mind.
Right-wing nuts pop up because of something like the dielectric effect. As soon as you put a polarizing issue out there, the right-wingers pull one way, the left-wingers pull the opposite. right-winger nuts are only right-winger nuts if you're left-leaning. The sad fact is that left-wingers are usually the ones advocating more outside control (from the personal perspective), and this is usually opposite what right-wingers believe in.
You're making a stupid argument. The 2nd amendment is there to make sure the soldiers aren't the only ones with the ability to force the issue. If the only people who get to use them are soldiers and former soldiers, then you've just circumvented the spirit of the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with poor treatment of vets.
Quite the roundabout way to agree with me, but yeah, I share your same sentiment. When I first thought of it I wasn't so much thinking of the 2nd amendment (although that's obviously a huge part of it) as I was of thinking of ways to reduce the size and scope of our Government and ways to reduce the ill will that our interventionist policies have generated.
I would advocate for a complete return to our non-interventionist roots. Not isolationism, as we should still trade with the rest of the world, just non-interventionism. Our security would rest on our nuclear deterrent and an armed population. The Swiss have managed to retain their independence with just the latter for hundreds of years so I see no reason why it wouldn't work for us (particularly when combined with the nuclear deterrent). You can also note how nobody is flying airplanes into Swiss buildings or kidnapping Swiss citizens who travel aboard.
Playing devil's advocate here, have the Swiss ever had anything worth flying planes into or any citizens who were loud enough to warrant kidnapping?
It would also allow us to wind down most of the military-industrial complex and return the monies spent on it to our citizenry where it would be put to more productive uses.
Say, that reads like idealism. Mighty dangerous thinking. I agree with what you're saying, but would you really ever trust the government not to find some other way of spending the money it just saved by not funding the military-industrial complex?
Summary says: "...to hunt down uninsured motorists"
I've got no sympathy at all for uninsured motorists.
I'm not sure I want cameras at every corner looking for anything.
Sure, right now they're looking for uninsured drivers. Will you feel the same way in 5 years when they decide to use the same cameras to monitor your face to make sure you're always praising Big Brother?
This is one of those slippery-slope situations and I, for one, don't welcome it.
Slashdot Mirror
And may I be a personal testament to that. After hours and hours of hard core porn, I now have fantasies of Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Jeff Guckert, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Lynne Cheney, Mitt Romney, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and even Ari Fleisher. I think they are all super duper hot! Pray for me....
My...since we're being honest, after hours upon hours of hardcore porn, I now have fantasies of Barbie and Jenna (Hager) Bush. Life is good.
"Social conservatives" in the US are essentially Christian Taliban. They don't have the power to act with the savagery of Taliban (abortion clinic bombers excepted) but never forget that people who believe in primitive superstitions only function in the modern world by compromising their beliefs.
Hate to break it to you, Eric Rudolph was captured 5 years ago, and he'll be in jail for the rest of his life.
Don't get too cocky. Christians have been under attack for years in this country to the point where many are even scared to talk about it anymore, as if it were embarrassing. So much for being Taliban-like.
And yes, I am a Christian.
When they have power, they revert to type.
Funny. I thought the same thing about liberals. Largely godless, living according to what they can get from others, and forcing their opinions upon everyone. When they have power, they revert to type.
Social conservatives keep demanding laws to regulate everyone because their usual tools of ostracism and shame are only effective within their own communities.
Don't look now, but fiscal liberals keep spending my money. And my future childrens' money, and their childrens' money. And they keep trying to force me to spend, Spend, SPEND my way out of economic crisis! And what I don't spend freely, they'll find a way to take.
I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't part of their population control policy, where they provide me with an incentive not to reproduce, simply for the purpose of fucking the gov't.
Now, I'll admit I'm a social conservative. I'm also ardently Libertarian. The government has no place regulating every little thing. Don't assume that the squeaky wheel represents the views of anything close to a simple majority. Unfortunately, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
As an aside, has anyone seen any as-seen-on-TV type devices designed to keep liberal hands out of my pockets? If so, please let me know.
I wonder why she threw that last bit in there. It suggests, to me, that her (organization's) larger goal is to neutralize the pornography industry, not just to limit it to adults.
what else is new? The ATF (formerly known as revenuers) has been doing that with the tobacco/smoking industry for years.
Special Note: The ATF is harsher on moonshine and firearms (especially firearms). They're even willing to kill unarmed women and children over them.
You were modded troll, but I think you are correct. I was unaware of the special underwear until someone told me about it. I looked it up and was amazed. They also tell their wives they can't get to heaven without the husband's special password. It's a total crock and is only slightly less insane than the scientologist whack-jobs. I am so sick and tired of these religious idiots - of any flavor - trying to legislate my life according to their hangups and fears. Whatever happened to "land of the free"?
It was free to leave, so it did. How ironic. I'm sick of liberal idiots telling me how to live my life and fund someone else's according to their hangups and fears.
And there was me thinking it was an attempt at humour.
That's the genius of my evil plan to take over the world. Lull everyone into thinking I'm just a cute, innocent little troll, and then when the time is right! I spring out and take over the world with my rapier-sharp wit!
Most grandmas surf /. and porn?
HAHAHA! Another falls into my troll-trap!
It's not just politicians that get the royal treatment. Have you paid any attention to the way people treat and think of Hollyweird celebrities? That's a real aristocracy. As sad as it was we would never have heard of Natasha Richardson's accident had she not been a famous actress. Lindsay Lohan would just be another dim-bulb if not for her acting.
I guess if people don't have a real aristocracy they create one.
Lindsay Lohan IS just another dim bulb. And I'd never even heard of Natasha Richardson until she had an accident.
And people say the South lost the war.
It hasn't yet. It's a giant Confederate sleeper cell. But don't tell BHO; he might send some soldiers over in suicide vests to excise the chancre that is the Confederacy. Incidentally, the Confederate States have not been dissolved yet. Technically, it simply doesn't have any member states at the moment (i.e. it's a country on paper, with no land).
OK, I generally agree with you. I'm not sure there was some conspiracy over "government schools" brainwashing students
This probably is actually the truth. However, it's probably a symptom of the general problem, rather than a cause. I suspect that the liberal agendas tend to have a trickle-down effect here. After all, a teacher can't say "x is bad, y is good" in regards to politics unless it's absolutely certain that's an opinion, and even then it's iffy. Of course a teacher can roundaboutly say do this, by teaching and focusing on all sorts of principles that liberals consider a mainstay, to the exclusion of the conservative ones. Ever notice how they really push sharing and collective "ownership" in kindergarten (it's not yours, it's all of ours)? Sure they teach to ask nicely for things, and then when someone doesn't want to give it up, the teacher takes the role of BB and takes it and hands it over. No such thing as telling the other kid to make do and find another toy.
this solidified in other students minds the legitimacy of the parties as ruling bodies. When watching an educationally useless video of Air Force One, everyone was wowed by all the luxuries on it. Only my friend and I were offended that our tax dollars are being used to treat the president, who should be more of a public servant, like a king.
So you're not the only person who is absolutely disgusted by this. Good. I thought I was a terrorist or something because of my crimethink.
I think it's less that there's top-down brainwashing plots and more of simply the stupid-minded and patriotic end up teaching civics classes.
Some of this is apathy on the part of the kids. I had some pretty liberal teachers in high school and college. If a kid is really interested, he'll drive himself to learn and make a change (or try to). Empowerment isn't always the teacher's job.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT, WE CAN HEAR YOU JUST FINE! :(
IN CYBERSPACE, NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU SCREAM.
Who cares about the philosophical question of whether or not "professional" music (whatever that is) is such a life necessity that everyone should be taxed to subsidize it?
The bottom line here is the subsidization is fundamentally untenable because it's too inefficient and fraud prone. As for the three strikes alternative, that's just practically unenforceable.
So we're left with your original conclusion, but with more pragmatic reasoning. The content industry is going to have to stop clamoring "you can't compete with free" and start doing just that.
Not only isn't it practical, but it would be fraudulent. Let's say I
If I'm already paying for the music I download, this would constitute double dipping.
If all I do is check email and surf /. and porn on the internet (the kind of stuff most grandmas do with a computer), then I'm not getting any increased value for the extra money (the line isn't faster, or more stable).
Why should I have to pay an extra fee to my ISP so they can pay the RIAA for an empty promise not to sue? It's not a covenant not to sue me, so what do I get out of this deal? A big fat lot of nothing.
If anything, this will just encourage people to download more. The mentality among those of my generation will be "Well, I've already paid for the buffet. Might as well eat all I can." And when they can't find any more to download, they will download an entire ten-pound bag of flour.
Just please tell us where all this money is going. Be accountable for your actions. Be HONEST! The days of hiding shit are over.
Oh where, oh where art thou? How may I join thee in thy fantasy world?
I think your sarcasm detector needs some repairs.
Uncle DrLang21, this /. Unit has a bad motivator!
Seriously. Why do actors and actresses who pretend to be politicans and soldiers for tv and movies get more influence over "real world" politics like the UN than I do? Does the US constitution even have a sovereignty clause that forbids allowing foreign sovereignty (for instance, by the UN), or is that just an interpretation? I can't find one, but I'm at work (and posting on /., yeah I know)
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx, TubGirl and other shock sites?
Sure, you may not want to see that stuff. You not looking doesn't mean I don't want to look (not an endorsement of goatse). So what happens when an arbitrary third party comes and tells us both that we shouldn't see something, because it knows best what is harmful to you? All good and well if you blindly trust this authority. But what if you feel you can handle it, make a better decision, or don't believe the authority? Well, my friend, you are royally fucked.
I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Nazi sympathizers and other hate mongers?
How much worse off would we be if we didn't have any groups I didn't like?
How much worse off would we be if we didn't have any groups you didn't like?
How much worse off would we be if we didn't have any groups I didn't like, but you did?
How much worse off would we be if we didn't have any groups you didn't like, but I did?
Now, that's the power of freedom of speech and self-determination.
As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square. Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx, TubGirl and other shock sites?
As much as I am for freedom speech...
You don't have a right to not be offended. If you don't like it, you are free to ignore it (don't feed the troll principle). If you simply can't ignore it, then fell free to express your opposing opinion. If you disagree with their expression, but do concur with their opinion, then express yourself in your own acceptable way alongside them.
This holds for speech that actually tries to convey content. I suppose one could incorporate shock-shit to make a point, which then makes its use in that context protected.
This veers off-topic for a little bit, but gets back on later (I promise)
However, there are those who will argue that this freedom extends to goatse.cx, tubgirl, and child porn. Fair enough. If someone feels that the content of goatse, tubgirl, or child porn has some inherent value, then so be it if they want to go find it. However, this question isn't about the consumers of the information. Is the producer of tubgirl breaking a law? Probably is somewhere. Goatse? Same thing. The child porn? Let's look at that; this is all largely academic, so don't read too much into it.
An obviously sticky problem, really the pornographer is committing the crime when he engages in sexual activity with the kid. If he records it and sells it, that's secondary. Of course, the secondary effect is made illegal, per se in the attempt to remove demand for that which necessitates the forbidden act. So really, what is happening is the freedom of speech is being abridged here, in an attempt to prevent what is required to make this speech. Now, you're going to make the argument that murdering someone because you don't like their policy/politics/business/whatever is also illegal. Let me rebut this. Is regular porn illegal? No (well, it isn't in most places). So, neither the act of sex or the depiction of it is illegal. Is showing a video of a murder illegal? Not that I'm aware of. But murder itself is pretty much uninversally illegal. The act doesn't make the depiction illegal to begin with. But I digress. Child porn is a special case of think of the children. Look on the bright side, both the murderer (who admits it to make a point) and child pornographer to do their thing and leave all sorts of evidence to prosecute the actual illegal acts when they do get caught.
Now, wasn't that a delightfully off-topic section? Back to the topic.
Freedom isn't just about being able to express your opinion. It's really about being able to express your opinion, no matter how unpopular or offensive it is with the rest of the town square. You can do this in pretty much any way you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. The other side of the coin is that they're also free to not deal with you.
I don't get how this does anything other than annoy the Australian censors. What point are they trying to prove? "It you put fetus pictures on a webpage, it'll be blocked?" Isn't that point already proven?
I think they're trying to do 2 things here.
For 1, this is straightforward enough.
For 2, this is interesting, as the people publishing the forbidden link are anti-abortion. Now, many people who are anti-abortion (I would guess) are quite rabidly pro-ACMA. They also view abortion as a form of child abuse (remember, they usually consider conception to be when life begins, not when the baby comes out of the breach). So what we end up with is essentially people publishing images of murder victims/abuse victims with the explicit intent of showing the harmful effects of the abortions. The ACMA probably claims to be banning the material because it's graphically revolting, but then again, that would be a personal judgement call. Given the reason for the ACMA (think of the children), this probably oversteps the boundary of what they are there for. One might also make the leap and say that just by blacklisting the site, the ACMA is making conflicting statements ("We condemn child abuse, but you aren't allowed to speak against it unless we approve.")
I would suggest that this is in reality a test for future exercises in internet access denials. If the people tolerate the abolition of links at the governments will ALL information received is to be consdered suspect.
Wikipedia, I'd like to introduce you to a very lovely friend of mine. Her name is Streisand Effect, and I know you'll get to be really good friends.
Actually, this is a test case, but it's an important one. Not just to see if there's a double-standard (if ACMA doesn't send an order for its own entry, there is), but to see how well Wikipedia stands up to the legal challenges of blacklists. Now, I'm not an Australian, so I don't know if ACMA is a government or private body (like England's is), but I do know that this stuff needs to be done. I understand their wish to "not hurt their friends" (the ISP). It also, as you mentioned, brings the veracity of the articles into question. If wikipedia bends for this, then they may bend for more. They may bend for a non-government-approved version being illegal and remove it.
Wikipedia might not like being a test case, but they're the biggest one of all, like it or not.
Yet another additional surplus extra "me too" in the market.
I think you mean "mii too!"
so the big question becomes: Is Shell an oil company, or an energy company?
It's a Shell company! [insert rimshot]
While they call themselves an "energy company", they specialize in oil processing. Really, they're a fuel company. They don't create energy (conservation of energy), or oil.
What ever happened to: http://ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=54
They were attacked by a Beowulf cluster of atomic supermen, backed by genetically engineered Cyber-goats.
I haven't watched that video in a long time. Sadly, I didn't even need to navigate to the URL to know what it was...how geeky is that?
Hey, no problem. Let people have whatever weapons they want -- as long as they were honorably discharged by the military after having been trained in the use of said arms. And no one else.
This would, of course, cut most of the right wing nuts right out.
(Also, this might make those same right wingers straighten right the fuck out on their shameful treatment of our veterans.)
It would also cut out people with shitty hearing (but of sound mind) who were rejected for military service. It would also eliminate any other military reject who was rejected for any other myriad reasons not related to presence of mind.
Right-wing nuts pop up because of something like the dielectric effect. As soon as you put a polarizing issue out there, the right-wingers pull one way, the left-wingers pull the opposite. right-winger nuts are only right-winger nuts if you're left-leaning. The sad fact is that left-wingers are usually the ones advocating more outside control (from the personal perspective), and this is usually opposite what right-wingers believe in.
You're making a stupid argument. The 2nd amendment is there to make sure the soldiers aren't the only ones with the ability to force the issue. If the only people who get to use them are soldiers and former soldiers, then you've just circumvented the spirit of the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with poor treatment of vets.
Quite the roundabout way to agree with me, but yeah, I share your same sentiment. When I first thought of it I wasn't so much thinking of the 2nd amendment (although that's obviously a huge part of it) as I was of thinking of ways to reduce the size and scope of our Government and ways to reduce the ill will that our interventionist policies have generated.
I would advocate for a complete return to our non-interventionist roots. Not isolationism, as we should still trade with the rest of the world, just non-interventionism. Our security would rest on our nuclear deterrent and an armed population. The Swiss have managed to retain their independence with just the latter for hundreds of years so I see no reason why it wouldn't work for us (particularly when combined with the nuclear deterrent). You can also note how nobody is flying airplanes into Swiss buildings or kidnapping Swiss citizens who travel aboard.
Playing devil's advocate here, have the Swiss ever had anything worth flying planes into or any citizens who were loud enough to warrant kidnapping?
It would also allow us to wind down most of the military-industrial complex and return the monies spent on it to our citizenry where it would be put to more productive uses.
Say, that reads like idealism. Mighty dangerous thinking. I agree with what you're saying, but would you really ever trust the government not to find some other way of spending the money it just saved by not funding the military-industrial complex?
Sometimes it pays to read beyond the first sentence.
It was a roundabout sort of agreement with him. :)
...in your mad dash to be first post?
Summary says: "...to hunt down uninsured motorists"
I've got no sympathy at all for uninsured motorists.
I'm not sure I want cameras at every corner looking for anything.
Sure, right now they're looking for uninsured drivers. Will you feel the same way in 5 years when they decide to use the same cameras to monitor your face to make sure you're always praising Big Brother?
This is one of those slippery-slope situations and I, for one, don't welcome it.