> So billy user's not supposed to fsck his zip-disk, is he?
When those decisions were made, no users were not intended to be doing that sort of thing. In this age of one user per CPU that should be rethought a bit. But instead of turning end users loose with fsck I'd suggest a GUI wrapper set to automatically trigger during (auto)mount when the system detects an uncleanly umounted volume.
> I've also worked with unices where 'ping' and 'traceroute' > were in/sbin.
Sensible since both commands are network troubleshooting tools intended for admin use. But since users can and do use them they don't require that you run them as root. (Except for ping not allowing the -f option to normal users.)
Many distros move traceroute to/usr/sbin because it isn't critical to getting a machine up, which is the dividing line between/sbin and/usr/sbin as/usr could be a remote volume and not available during the the early stages of booting or when something has went wrong.
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they aren't."
Not much you could expect the system to do if the sound device disappears while sound is playing other than to abort. So much for flipping to another machine for a moment and expecting the MP3 to still be playing when you flip back.
Those who fail to understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it... poorly. And it is clear the people behind this project don't understand UNIX. If someone who DID understand the reasons why UNIX does things the way it does rethought the system and proposed a new layout us greybeards would actually listen instead of laugh.
But we have seen this broken thinking too many times to take it seriously this time. And if you hang in there for a few years you too will probably grok UNIX and start laughing at the kids who keep trying to reinvent the wheel for no good reason.
> If I compile them myself, should the go in local? As a newbie, > I'm not sure how these distinctions are determined.
First off, as a newbie you should NOT be compiling KDE or GNOME. Use the packages that come with your distribution and let it worry about where to put things. Those puppies are a bitch to build from scratch.
Packaged software generally goes in/usr/bin. Stuff you build goes in/usr/local/bin. That is what the local part means, stuff built at the local site.
> In Windowsland, it's a little easier.
No, you just think you understand it. Windows scatters stuff worse because there are several schemes used intermittently by apps depending on the whim of the developer and it's age.
A typical windows app will dump executables, libraries and config files into one directory except for what goes into the registry. But some impose a bit more order on it's directory under "Program Files". Yet others dump stuff in C:\WINDOWS or C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 or C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM or...... Some will drop an.CFG file, especially older Win16 apps. Some will have updated copies of.DLL files supplied by MS and either keep the files local or try to update the system wide copy. Either behaviour is broken. (Thankfully new versions of Windows block attempts to replace system files.)
I know this is/. and all, and opinions are like assholes and everyone not only has one they feel obligated to share it. But goddamn, can't people be bothered to do a little research? There IS a well written document explaining this stuff in great detail. (Google it yourself, consider it an assignment.)
But briefly:
/bin Binaries needed at boot, but also usable by normal users
/sbin Needed at boot time, not intended for non-root
/usr/bin End user binaries installed by the installer/package manager
/usr/sbin System/admin programs under package management
/usr/local/bin Stuff you built with "make install"
Pop a console and incant "which realplay" and you will be enlighened. If it fails it means Real fscked up the install and put the executable off the PATH. In that case, if you have the locate command try "locate realplay" and look through the output for a likely candidate.
> do you think I can possibly remember where all teh junk > installed on the system is?
Should be easy enough. RPM or APT knows where everything outside of/usr/local and/opt is located and which package owns it. Add and remove packages as needed and let the system take care of things until you grow in your UNIX skills. If you need a package that isn't available in the package format for your system build it up and let it install in/usr/local as almost all such obscure packages will default to.
> I mean, really, how long have we been using BSD and SysV > style init programs
They make a lot of sense. Take an hour and study it and with a little luck you will have an "Ah Ha!" moment and grok it. Then you will understand that it already IS as simple as it can be and still have it's feature set.
The problem is catching each and every stupid mistake this moron made.
The trouble with throwing away thirty years of hard won knowledge and reinventing the wheel from scratch is that since you don't know WHY the existing system is built the way it is your new system is going to have to learn it all again the hard way.
Haven't actually tried it either, but I doubt you can do that. KVMs have to have smarts so as to fake out each PC to think it always has the keyboard/mouse. Some are even bright enough to hold the state of the keyboard LEDS and restore the correct pattern when you switch machines. Unless you got one that was also smart enough to handle audio in a similar way (at which point it would probably BE the audio device) you would run into trouble. You see, if the KVM isn't faking things for a device each time you switched you would generate a disconnect on the machine you just switched away from and a connect event on the one you just punched up. I doubt Linux could handle that many disconnect/connect events and I'd bet money Windows wouldn't last a day under that sort of abuse.
I'm thinking ahead. Your solution would just escalate things to the next level. Use the zombied Windows machines to accept the maila nd respond to the challenge. And that is just where spam is already going with open relays becoming harder and harder to keep available. Lets not fight the last war, lets make it impractical to fight one ever again.
Eh? There is zero demand for spam now, but we are all up to our butts in it. Me and Thee aren't the ones who count for teh purpose of determining demand. So long as someone thinks they can make a buck they will can spam. If they can.
And yes, most spam pitches illegal products and services. Selling Viagra over the counter is illegal. Selling pyramid schemes is illegal. Selling pirate DirecTV access cards is illegal. Etc. Of course those stupid enough to send one of those idiots their credit card info will find out they are only interested in credit card fraud.
No, you just encourage them to ask for a larger settlement next time. So long as they can get more in a settlement than it costs them to file a couple of papers you encourage them to sue more people.
Depending on some signing authority to end spam is stupid. Spammers will just buy keys like they buy disposable AOL accounts unless the price is high enough to be a burden on small sites.
Expecting laws to stop people who already make hiding their true identity and crossing as many jurisdictions as possible because they are usually selling ILLEGAL products is insane.
In the end there is only ONE solution. It is the use of encryption/signing, but not the way most people think of using it. Mail User Agents need the following fixes, made so that the average AOL/Outlook user can handle it. By default they only accept mail from people already in the address book. All mail is sent GPG/PGP signed, with the public key attached and the clients grab keys automatically.
When an mail arrives from someone that isn't in the address book it sends them a challenge that only a human can answer (more on this below). If that test passes it allows the original message through and sticks the public key in the addressbook. If the message was not signed it stores the address of the SMTP server it came from as a backwards compatible fallback. The end result is that legit senders only get challenged once if their client signs, otherwise they get challenged once each time they send from a different server. Spammers have to have a human involved for each spam for each user which kills the attraction of the practice.
Now, about those challenge methods that only a human can solve. Make that a plugin architecture. Have modules that send a multiple choice question or two, some that send text as a graphic in some whacked way, etc. Allow people to express their personality through their choice of verification method.
This suggestion would kill spam dead, put only a minimal burden on legit traffic and require no laws or centralization of the Internet. Which is why Outlook will never implement it and therefore the problem will continue to fester.... until enough people become willing to trade liberty for what? In this case, mere convenience.
> Imagine that he receives significantly more money than it > takes to settle.
Kinda risky strategy. Give the money to the EFF and you know exactly where it will go.
And yes, I can imagine the RIAA launching moreof these attacks if they get their money from this one. Sure 15,000 isn't a whole lot to the MUSIC INDUSTRY, but it isn't peanuts to the RIAA. They are just an industry lobbying organization. They just might decide that if suing one worked a hundred would net them a serious chunk of cash.
Well he can be 'reasonable' with his own money. I won't help him set the precedent that the RIAA can run around threatening people, expect them to take a dive before the first round and then, even better still, you can actually get blood from the turnip because idiots will toss money into the hat.
Amen to that. If we all pitch in and pay the fine it will only encourage them to repeat the trick. Sorry, but if you want help you had better be willing to do your part.
As a more libertarian sort, I'm much more likely to contribute to mutual aid than to give outright charity. Helping somebody fight against injustice boils down to selfish self-defensein that it lowers the odds of it happening to me in turn. Helping somebody who wants to bend over and take it only raises the odds of getting screwed in return, and where is my motivation for that?
Yes it sucks to be that one guy who gets picked as a test case, but Freedom isn't free any more than Free Software is free. And it isn't until the crap hits the fan that you are forced to look deep down into your self and decide whether to be a sheep or stand up and accept the responsibility to defend the Liberties you were supposedly endowed with. And should the day come that a hero fights a truly just cause alone, our experiment in self government is concluded.
If this guy didn't know that being a mp3 trader (yes I know he claims the defense of only indexing files) in any way risked the wrath of the RIAA then the guy is an idiot. Idiots deserve no help from me. So lets assume he did know and was doing it as an act of civil disobedience. Then he is obligated to follow through and BE the test case. I'm sure that the authorities would have been more than happy to let Rosa Parks chicken out and settle for a small fine and stop the growing civil rights battle swirling around her case, but what sort of world would she have helped build?
Damn! This must be prime time in France or something. But I'll school ya.
Of course there are WMDs in Iraq! Our leaders wouldn't lie. We have to put our unwavering blind faith in our Great Leader. You wouldn't want people to think you are one of those candy assed Saddam loving liberals, now would you? And remember, only by becoming a Police State can we defend the liberties that America stands for. Back in the good old days we could all sit around and shoot the bull about policy, but in these more serious post 9/11 times dissent only helps the terrorists. You wouldn't want to help the terrorists, right?
> getting hacked is no big deal, so I will be lazy about security
I said nothing of the sort. But it IS a risk of being on the Internet. If you can't deal with that fact perhaps it is you that needs to pull the plug from the wall. Security is not about being 100% secure and forgetting about it. It is an ongoing process and unless YOU are a net-god and never misconfigure anything, never miss a patch on ANY machine on your networks, etc, it will probably happen to you someday. And when it does, you will probably do exactly what I did. Act to contain the damage, clean up the mess and learn from the experience.
We all lock our cars, some buy security systems and Lo-Jack. Yet a few cars will get stolen every day. Does that mean it was all a waste of time and money? Nope. At some point you have to stop securing things and get on with life. It is a point of diminishing returns. Where that point is depends on your risk factors and the potential losses from a failure of security.
Oh yea, those enlightened, peaceful people who happened to develop civilization before those less fortunate guys just have to all die to make room for the oppressed peoples of the world. Sorry, even if they had the Prime Directive already it should not have applied in that case. You had a spacefaring civilization who had already made first contact with multiple specied. Ok, they didn't have the warp drive or anti-matter. So that puts them about 100 years behind Star Fleet. So why the hell are we trying to cure AIDS in Africa? They are at least 100 years behind the Western World and AIDS did originate there so it is there problem and it would be interference to try to assist them. No? You think that is barbaric, uncivilized and generally unfroody?
So do I, but I apply that sentiment broadly. Interferring with the development of a civilivation far beneath your own level has been shown to cause only pain, even when done for the best of intentions. But failure to lend aid (especially AFTER the doctor had a cure!) to a neighbor who is in your own league and not hostile is wicked. Hell, letting a plague wipe out an enemy is pretty morally questionable if you can lend them medical assistance without endangering your own safety; it is the sort of thing that makes friends out of former enemies.
Won't happen, being Trek and all that rot, but nothing would make me laugh harder than to see that species a) find a cure on their own, b) upon finding it realize that Archer & Co. had to know the cure also and lied to them and then c) invade Earth.
Weren't you listening, Citizen? When your President says he didn't have sex with Ms. Lewinsky you should have believed him. Had everyone been good patrotic Americans who trusted our Leaders, unlike yourself, the country would not have been dragged through that horrid scandal, which as we all know was just a Right Wing Conspiracy by unamerican traitors like you to discredit our previous Great Leader.
Oral sex isn't really 'Sex' you see. Now if he had fucked her he would have had Sex, but even Ken Starr agrees he only had Oral Sex. Oh and that odd thing with the cigar, but that wasn't sex either and the only reason it made the press was to discredit our Leader.
p.s. It is all too easy to write just like the New York Times editorial page isn't it.:)
No! They would never do that, it would violate the 2nd Amendment. But who can be against common sense regulations to protect the children from another Columbine Massacre?
After all, we have an X-Stop here in my library's network stack to block anything that somebody thinks might be harmful to a minor from reaching any patron, regardless of their age. And yup, it was done to 'protect the children' and therefore Congress assures us it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. Would our leaders lie to us? What kind of unpatriotic terrorist would even dare to question our leaders?
> There is no faster way to ruin a good story than by introducing > time travel, clones or alternate dimensions.
There should be a law on this subject. 1st Amendment be damned. No author may publish a work of fiction, in any medium, involving time travel unless they have at least two (2) Hugo or Nebula awards. The hope being that any author so acclaimed will know better.
Slashdot Mirror
> So billy user's not supposed to fsck his zip-disk, is he?
/sbin.
/usr/sbin because it isn't critical to getting a machine up, which is the dividing line between /sbin and /usr/sbin as /usr could be a remote volume and not available during the the early stages of booting or when something has went wrong.
When those decisions were made, no users were not intended to be doing that sort of thing. In this age of one user per CPU that should be rethought a bit. But instead of turning end users loose with fsck I'd suggest a GUI wrapper set to automatically trigger during (auto)mount when the system detects an uncleanly umounted volume.
> I've also worked with unices where 'ping' and 'traceroute'
> were in
Sensible since both commands are network troubleshooting tools intended for admin use. But since users can and do use them they don't require that you run them as root. (Except for ping not allowing the -f option to normal users.)
Many distros move traceroute to
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they aren't."
Not much you could expect the system to do if the sound device disappears while sound is playing other than to abort. So much for flipping to another machine for a moment and expecting the MP3 to still be playing when you flip back.
Those who fail to understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it... poorly. And it is clear the people behind this project don't understand UNIX. If someone who DID understand the reasons why UNIX does things the way it does rethought the system and proposed a new layout us greybeards would actually listen instead of laugh.
But we have seen this broken thinking too many times to take it seriously this time. And if you hang in there for a few years you too will probably grok UNIX and start laughing at the kids who keep trying to reinvent the wheel for no good reason.
I don;t hate it because it is different. I do think it is lame.
> If I compile them myself, should the go in local? As a newbie,
/usr/bin. Stuff you build goes in /usr/local/bin. That is what the local part means, stuff built at the local site.
.CFG file, especially older Win16 apps. Some will have updated copies of .DLL files supplied by MS and either keep the files local or try to update the system wide copy. Either behaviour is broken. (Thankfully new versions of Windows block attempts to replace system files.)
> I'm not sure how these distinctions are determined.
First off, as a newbie you should NOT be compiling KDE or GNOME. Use the packages that come with your distribution and let it worry about where to put things. Those puppies are a bitch to build from scratch.
Packaged software generally goes in
> In Windowsland, it's a little easier.
No, you just think you understand it. Windows scatters stuff worse because there are several schemes used intermittently by apps depending on the whim of the developer and it's age.
A typical windows app will dump executables, libraries and config files into one directory except for what goes into the registry. But some impose a bit more order on it's directory under "Program Files". Yet others dump stuff in C:\WINDOWS or C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 or C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM or...... Some will drop an
I know this is /. and all, and opinions are like assholes and everyone not only has one they feel obligated to share it. But goddamn, can't people be bothered to do a little research? There IS a well written document explaining this stuff in great detail.
(Google it yourself, consider it an assignment.)
But briefly:
/bin Binaries needed at boot, but also usable by normal users
/sbin Needed at boot time, not intended for non-root
/usr/bin End user binaries installed by the installer/package manager
/usr/sbin System/admin programs under package management
/usr/local/bin Stuff you built with "make install"
> Is the *current* de facto standard even in any recognizable
> language?
Yes. UNIX is not just an OS, it is a philosophy, a language and a Way of Life. Learn it, Love it, Live it.
Pop a console and incant "which realplay" and you will be enlighened. If it fails it means Real fscked up the install and put the executable off the PATH. In that case, if you have the locate command try "locate realplay" and look through the output for a likely candidate.
> do you think I can possibly remember where all teh junk
/usr/local and /opt is located and which package owns it. Add and remove packages as needed and let the system take care of things until you grow in your UNIX skills. If you need a package that isn't available in the package format for your system build it up and let it install in /usr/local as almost all such obscure packages will default to.
> installed on the system is?
Should be easy enough. RPM or APT knows where everything outside of
> I mean, really, how long have we been using BSD and SysV
> style init programs
They make a lot of sense. Take an hour and study it and with a little luck you will have an "Ah Ha!" moment and grok it. Then you will understand that it already IS as simple as it can be and still have it's feature set.
The problem is catching each and every stupid mistake this moron made.
The trouble with throwing away thirty years of hard won knowledge and reinventing the wheel from scratch is that since you don't know WHY the existing system is built the way it is your new system is going to have to learn it all again the hard way.
Haven't actually tried it either, but I doubt you can do that. KVMs have to have smarts so as to fake out each PC to think it always has the keyboard/mouse. Some are even bright enough to hold the state of the keyboard LEDS and restore the correct pattern when you switch machines. Unless you got one that was also smart enough to handle audio in a similar way (at which point it would probably BE the audio device) you would run into trouble. You see, if the KVM isn't faking things for a device each time you switched you would generate a disconnect on the machine you just switched away from and a connect event on the one you just punched up. I doubt Linux could handle that many disconnect/connect events and I'd bet money Windows wouldn't last a day under that sort of abuse.
I'm thinking ahead. Your solution would just escalate things to the next level. Use the zombied Windows machines to accept the maila nd respond to the challenge. And that is just where spam is already going with open relays becoming harder and harder to keep available. Lets not fight the last war, lets make it impractical to fight one ever again.
> No demand equals no supply.
Eh? There is zero demand for spam now, but we are all up to our butts in it. Me and Thee aren't the ones who count for teh purpose of determining demand. So long as someone thinks they can make a buck they will can spam. If they can.
And yes, most spam pitches illegal products and services. Selling Viagra over the counter is illegal. Selling pyramid schemes is illegal. Selling pirate DirecTV access cards is illegal. Etc. Of course those stupid enough to send one of those idiots their credit card info will find out they are only interested in credit card fraud.
No, you just encourage them to ask for a larger settlement next time. So long as they can get more in a settlement than it costs them to file a couple of papers you encourage them to sue more people.
1. File lawsuits.
2. Collect settlements greater than legal expenses.
3. Profit!
Depending on some signing authority to end spam is stupid. Spammers will just buy keys like they buy disposable AOL accounts unless the price is high enough to be a burden on small sites.
Expecting laws to stop people who already make hiding their true identity and crossing as many jurisdictions as possible because they are usually selling ILLEGAL products is insane.
In the end there is only ONE solution. It is the use of encryption/signing, but not the way most people think of using it. Mail User Agents need the following fixes, made so that the average AOL/Outlook user can handle it. By default they only accept mail from people already in the address book. All mail is sent GPG/PGP signed, with the public key attached and the clients grab keys automatically.
When an mail arrives from someone that isn't in the address book it sends them a challenge that only a human can answer (more on this below). If that test passes it allows the original message through and sticks the public key in the addressbook. If the message was not signed it stores the address of the SMTP server it came from as a backwards compatible fallback. The end result is that legit senders only get challenged once if their client signs, otherwise they get challenged once each time they send from a different server. Spammers have to have a human involved for each spam for each user which kills the attraction of the practice.
Now, about those challenge methods that only a human can solve. Make that a plugin architecture. Have modules that send a multiple choice question or two, some that send text as a graphic in some whacked way, etc. Allow people to express their personality through their choice of verification method.
This suggestion would kill spam dead, put only a minimal burden on legit traffic and require no laws or centralization of the Internet. Which is why Outlook will never implement it and therefore the problem will continue to fester.... until enough people become willing to trade liberty for what? In this case, mere convenience.
Junk faxes might be illegal but we get a dozen or so every week. Bet you do too. So don't be too confident that a law will stop spam.
> Imagine that he receives significantly more money than it
> takes to settle.
Kinda risky strategy. Give the money to the EFF and you know exactly where it will go.
And yes, I can imagine the RIAA launching moreof these attacks if they get their money from this one. Sure 15,000 isn't a whole lot to the MUSIC INDUSTRY, but it isn't peanuts to the RIAA. They are just an industry lobbying organization. They just might decide that if suing one worked a hundred would net them a serious chunk of cash.
Well he can be 'reasonable' with his own money. I won't help him set the precedent that the RIAA can run around threatening people, expect them to take a dive before the first round and then, even better still, you can actually get blood from the turnip because idiots will toss money into the hat.
Amen to that. If we all pitch in and pay the fine it will only encourage them to repeat the trick. Sorry, but if you want help you had better be willing to do your part.
As a more libertarian sort, I'm much more likely to contribute to mutual aid than to give outright charity. Helping somebody fight against injustice boils down to selfish self-defensein that it lowers the odds of it happening to me in turn. Helping somebody who wants to bend over and take it only raises the odds of getting screwed in return, and where is my motivation for that?
Yes it sucks to be that one guy who gets picked as a test case, but Freedom isn't free any more than Free Software is free. And it isn't until the crap hits the fan that you are forced to look deep down into your self and decide whether to be a sheep or stand up and accept the responsibility to defend the Liberties you were supposedly endowed with. And should the day come that a hero fights a truly just cause alone, our experiment in self government is concluded.
If this guy didn't know that being a mp3 trader (yes I know he claims the defense of only indexing files) in any way risked the wrath of the RIAA then the guy is an idiot. Idiots deserve no help from me. So lets assume he did know and was doing it as an act of civil disobedience. Then he is obligated to follow through and BE the test case. I'm sure that the authorities would have been more than happy to let Rosa Parks chicken out and settle for a small fine and stop the growing civil rights battle swirling around her case, but what sort of world would she have helped build?
Damn! This must be prime time in France or something. But I'll school ya.
Of course there are WMDs in Iraq! Our leaders wouldn't lie. We have to put our unwavering blind faith in our Great Leader. You wouldn't want people to think you are one of those candy assed Saddam loving liberals, now would you? And remember, only by becoming a Police State can we defend the liberties that America stands for. Back in the good old days we could all sit around and shoot the bull about policy, but in these more serious post 9/11 times dissent only helps the terrorists. You wouldn't want to help the terrorists, right?
> getting hacked is no big deal, so I will be lazy about security
I said nothing of the sort. But it IS a risk of being on the Internet. If you can't deal with that fact perhaps it is you that needs to pull the plug from the wall. Security is not about being 100% secure and forgetting about it. It is an ongoing process and unless YOU are a net-god and never misconfigure anything, never miss a patch on ANY machine on your networks, etc, it will probably happen to you someday. And when it does, you will probably do exactly what I did. Act to contain the damage, clean up the mess and learn from the experience.
We all lock our cars, some buy security systems and Lo-Jack. Yet a few cars will get stolen every day. Does that mean it was all a waste of time and money? Nope. At some point you have to stop securing things and get on with life. It is a point of diminishing returns. Where that point is depends on your risk factors and the potential losses from a failure of security.
Oh yea, those enlightened, peaceful people who happened to develop civilization before those less fortunate guys just have to all die to make room for the oppressed peoples of the world. Sorry, even if they had the Prime Directive already it should not have applied in that case. You had a spacefaring civilization who had already made first contact with multiple specied. Ok, they didn't have the warp drive or anti-matter. So that puts them about 100 years behind Star Fleet. So why the hell are we trying to cure AIDS in Africa? They are at least 100 years behind the Western World and AIDS did originate there so it is there problem and it would be interference to try to assist them. No? You think that is barbaric, uncivilized and generally unfroody?
So do I, but I apply that sentiment broadly. Interferring with the development of a civilivation far beneath your own level has been shown to cause only pain, even when done for the best of intentions. But failure to lend aid (especially AFTER the doctor had a cure!) to a neighbor who is in your own league and not hostile is wicked. Hell, letting a plague wipe out an enemy is pretty morally questionable if you can lend them medical assistance without endangering your own safety; it is the sort of thing that makes friends out of former enemies.
Won't happen, being Trek and all that rot, but nothing would make me laugh harder than to see that species a) find a cure on their own, b) upon finding it realize that Archer & Co. had to know the cure also and lied to them and then c) invade Earth.
Weren't you listening, Citizen? When your President says he didn't have sex with Ms. Lewinsky you should have believed him. Had everyone been good patrotic Americans who trusted our Leaders, unlike yourself, the country would not have been dragged through that horrid scandal, which as we all know was just a Right Wing Conspiracy by unamerican traitors like you to discredit our previous Great Leader.
:)
Oral sex isn't really 'Sex' you see. Now if he had fucked her he would have had Sex, but even Ken Starr agrees he only had Oral Sex. Oh and that odd thing with the cigar, but that wasn't sex either and the only reason it made the press was to discredit our Leader.
p.s. It is all too easy to write just like the New York Times editorial page isn't it.
No! They would never do that, it would violate the 2nd Amendment. But who can be against common sense regulations to protect the children from another Columbine Massacre?
After all, we have an X-Stop here in my library's network stack to block anything that somebody thinks might be harmful to a minor from reaching any patron, regardless of their age. And yup, it was done to 'protect the children' and therefore Congress assures us it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. Would our leaders lie to us? What kind of unpatriotic terrorist would even dare to question our leaders?
> There is no faster way to ruin a good story than by introducing
> time travel, clones or alternate dimensions.
There should be a law on this subject. 1st Amendment be damned. No author may publish a work of fiction, in any medium, involving time travel unless they have at least two (2) Hugo or Nebula awards. The hope being that any author so acclaimed will know better.