I assume the networking comment referred to the layer 7 protocols, and I think #1 was a reference to the difference in how library updates are handled in linux compared with WinXP (I haven't used a later version of windows, so I can't really comment on them).
That is a bad idea. If the penalty for murder was the same as for mugging, then muggers would be much more likely to kill their victims because that way tehy can't be so easily identified. the same applies to everything else.
Whilst stealing enough to live on *might* be acceptable if he couldn't even get a minimum wage job (which should be enough that a person doesn't need welfare, but that is a rant for another time), couldn't get welfare payments, and didn't have anyone else to support him, he didn't need 27.5GUSD, which is more than most people earn in their lifetimes and would be enough to love pretty luxuriously. Hell, for that much money, the prospect of having to spend the rest of one's life living in countries without extradition treaties with the US would be very tempting to most people.
The hypothetical rapist you mentioned is almost certainly mentally ill, and as a danger to society should be kept in a secure hospital until he is cured.
IMO, if there really is no more legal way to feed one's dependants then stealing is more moral than allowing them to starve. It is then better to steal from one who would miss what he has lost less, because that does less harm to others. It all depends if you consider your duty to your family/friends more important than your duty to society at large.
feeding oneself is more morally grey, but I suspect that most people would take care of themselves before worrying about strangers if they truly are that desperate.
Probably because in 1927 Islam was basically irrelevant to English society, and Zionism was very different to what it is today.
Furthermore, GP is probably living in an area where the only religious nutjobs who matter are Christian, and so is beng slightly parochial.
Finally, Judaism was not of great significance for most of history, and the Islamic peoples lost their power at about the same time as their religion became oppressive, so they too had less potential to cause harm.
They're opposed to the filter on practical grounds, but those grounds cover basically anything at the ISP level. It isn't as good as philosophical objections, but it's better than nothing.
- pedophiles etc have an addiction and/or psychological problem and they do not reason the same way as a sane person
There are mental health laws which can be used to keep someone in a secure hospital if they are a danger to society, and prisons for those who actually abuse children. Also, looking at RC material != dangerous to the public.
- you can't let the very people who profit from attracting people to sites to self regulate, that is where the government has to step in
The operators of pay pron sites aren't interested in children because they can't pay, they just drain bandwidth for no return. teenagers are more likely to use ad-supported sites, and should figure out that clicking on ads is a bad idea.
Parents are not internet experts. They do not have the skills to implement content filtering. The experts are the internet companies; but they have a vested interest in not filtering. So that leaves government and the content filtering software companies (but parents don't have the skills to select which program to buy - we just have to do our best).
The AU government used to offer a home filter, the current government scrapped it. Before that, only 5% or so of families used it, even after several ad campaigns. Most comprehensive anti-malware suites include a filter, which can be trivially configured using a point-and-drool interface. Circumventing this filter is no easier than circumventing an ISP-level filter, and it probably is harder (since at home, proxies, google translate, and so on can be blocked as well).
Filtering is an imperfect science. A progressive percentage reduction in accessibility is how you break down the grouping the internet has given to otherwise isolated cases of pedophiles etc. There will be sites blocked which should not. Considering how little of the complete internet is actually viewed by any individual, I can't imagine how you would know the difference - it certainly wasn't there a mere 15 or so years ago.
I don't see how that makes an arbitrary blacklist any better. Just because you won't notice the pages are missing doesn't mean those interested in issues such as anti-abortion or pro-euthanasia campaigning wouldn't.
Companies web sites will change how they operate and check their site availability in advance - not unlike registering a business. Businesses have to manage these sorts of hurdles all the time - it is a risk of business and hence the source of return.
It isn't a source of return, it is a pointless nuisance, especially since single pages can be blocked.
It is correct for governments to classify the content of material at the internet companies and ISPs. Magazines are controlled this way - the creator (hence profit maker) and distribution chain (the other profit makers) had to meet Australian standards. The most obvious example is 'sealed section' magazines and their location within newsagencies. The internet companies are not fighting for your freedom; they want to avoid the restriction that was placed on print media.
There is a difference between classification, which is purely informational, and censorship based on such classification. I have no problem with banning R, X, and RC material on television, for example, nor with having a watershed to prevent MA and M material being shown during times when children are likely to be watching TV unsupervised (3PM-6PM in particular). The same with magazines: ordianry newsagents have to sell porn mags under plain covers, adult shops don't need to because anyone going into one would know what they are going to see, and children shouldn't be there. Nonetheless, it isn't that hard for an under-age teenager to get into one (buying anything would be another matter, of course), but the difference is that they are deliberately seeking out the material, not passively being shown it.
This is why I would like to see above-the-line voting abolished, but at the same time add a "no further preferences" option to the ballot (as the first option, to kill a few donkey votes), which, if your vote goes that far down the list, means that your paper is then ignored for the rest of the redistribution. This is better than allowing an incomplete list without a terminator, because the coutners are supposed to try to figure out how you were trying to vote if your paper seems invalid.
Although counting would be slower and more expensive, senate vote results aren't usually needed for some time anyway, and this would go some way towards improving the quality of election results.
I love the part where they ask for all the organisations you've been a member of since your 16th birthday, then give you only a few lines to fill it out. I would be tempted to fill that out honestly, starting with the most stupidly irrelevant clubs, then ask for more paper so I could actually finish answering.
To be fair to the/b/tards, if their physical age matches the typical mental age, wanting porn of people their own age would be fairly reasonable. They probably find it funny because annoying the mods is funny, and CP would be the best way to do that.
I know a few supporters. One is a paid-up member of the FFP, believe in YEC and doesn't believe in any form of environmentalism or conservation at all. He's a CS student who should know better, but he hasn't let reality get in his way before and he isn't going to start now. A few believe that it could be made to work and that it won't be abused (these people are mostly in the liberal right and are law students or lawyers), and there are a few more who would like a magical filter which blocks all CP but not anything else, costs nothing for the end user, doesn't slow down the internet and comes with lots and lots of pink ponies, but have enough sense to know that this won't ever happen.
However, no-one who can be informed approves once they have the problem explained to them, they just probably won't do anything about it.
But does the existence of such cartoons cause any harm to you or anyone else? It is one thing to prevent images which are "obscene and repugnant to the vast majority of people" being posted on billboards and all the strawmen that pro-censorship advocates like to use, but it is quite another to prevent an adult viewing something in private, or transmitting it to another adult by any reasonable means.
From the ACMA website, it seems that small breasts is just one criterion used to decide if a woman looks underage, and it isn't new. The problem is that the law prohibits anything that turns on pedobear even if you can prove that no children were involved.
People won't care too much about them having affairs: look at the Rann-Chantelois business in SA, where the only people that care are the religious nutjobs and the die-hard liberals (neither group would ever vote for him) and the media and talking heads, who make money off of it. Rudd getting wasted in a strip joint didn't hurt his polling position either (although that might have been a special case). OTOH, a photo of Conroy buying porn or logs from his internet connection of him downloading RC material (a MITM would be illegal so I'm not suggesting that) would be useful.
I have heard from one of the former maintainers of graypag.es that there is special regulations preventing reverse-lookup directories if you take the information (directly or indirectly) from the national phone number database. If you got the information yourself, that would be legal, but that is totally impractical. I'm not sure if you're allowed to make a reverse database for your personal use (although it would be hard to prove you had done that), but it would take a lot of effort and hardly be worth doing.
That is because the list of vertices is not the complete information. What is needed is the set of planes, which can be specified using the vertices and instructions about how to connect them together. that description would be copyrightable, but the collection of planes would not necessarily be. Thus, for example, if you wrote some OpenGL code to display an accurate model of the Washington Memorial and hard-coded the model, then whilst your code would probably be copyrightable, if I extracted the generated set of textured planes, it is fairly likely that I am not violating your copyright.
If there was an element of creativity in the creation of the model, there would be copyright on the creativity. If the deviation from the original was simply a question of the precision to which the measurements were made, then there would be little to no creativity.
Photographs/prints of paintings which are themselves out of copyright would provide plenty of lawyer-fodder in this regard.
I don't believe this myself (I'm basically apathetic, God might exist but I'm doing fine without Him), and I don't know if anyone does, but one way to reconcile the "long day" justification with original sin is to say that Adam was the first man with sentience and a soul. Animals, lacking a soul, could die like they do now, but the intact, sinless soul would provide protection from death. After the Fall, man partially lost that protection, so bodies could die but the soul survived, trapped somehow. After the Resurrection, the souls of the dead became able to go to heaven.
I'm not a theologian, and this idea has serious holes in it relating to Jesus's soul, but possibly someone who actually cares about these things might be able to make it work.
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons.
And in a few weeks it will be back, using NNTP over SSL. Enough people have cheap servers that many of the text groups can be kept alive, even if some of the smaller groups go quiet, people stop carrying alt.binaries.*, and are more active about cancelling spam (which would be a good thing, IMO).
It makes it very risky for someone with little money to go up against a large corporation, because they’re going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themself, and on the outside chance that you get a terrible judge who gives the case to the large corporation, you’re stuck with the bill.
A way to protect people against that would be to limit the amount either side can spend to some amount based on the amount of damages sought, with it being a criminal offence to try to circumvent the rules (by paying indirectly, for example).
Slashdot Mirror
I assume the networking comment referred to the layer 7 protocols, and I think #1 was a reference to the difference in how library updates are handled in linux compared with WinXP (I haven't used a later version of windows, so I can't really comment on them).
That is a bad idea. If the penalty for murder was the same as for mugging, then muggers would be much more likely to kill their victims because that way tehy can't be so easily identified. the same applies to everything else.
Whilst stealing enough to live on *might* be acceptable if he couldn't even get a minimum wage job (which should be enough that a person doesn't need welfare, but that is a rant for another time), couldn't get welfare payments, and didn't have anyone else to support him, he didn't need 27.5GUSD, which is more than most people earn in their lifetimes and would be enough to love pretty luxuriously. Hell, for that much money, the prospect of having to spend the rest of one's life living in countries without extradition treaties with the US would be very tempting to most people.
The hypothetical rapist you mentioned is almost certainly mentally ill, and as a danger to society should be kept in a secure hospital until he is cured.
IMO, if there really is no more legal way to feed one's dependants then stealing is more moral than allowing them to starve. It is then better to steal from one who would miss what he has lost less, because that does less harm to others. It all depends if you consider your duty to your family/friends more important than your duty to society at large.
feeding oneself is more morally grey, but I suspect that most people would take care of themselves before worrying about strangers if they truly are that desperate.
I expect he'll look more like this.
Probably because in 1927 Islam was basically irrelevant to English society, and Zionism was very different to what it is today.
Furthermore, GP is probably living in an area where the only religious nutjobs who matter are Christian, and so is beng slightly parochial.
Finally, Judaism was not of great significance for most of history, and the Islamic peoples lost their power at about the same time as their religion became oppressive, so they too had less potential to cause harm.
I don't now if you can update your facebook status via XMPP status messages, but the old Pidgin fb-chat plugin could do status updates.
Of course, you don''t really have to go there anyway :)
They're opposed to the filter on practical grounds, but those grounds cover basically anything at the ISP level. It isn't as good as philosophical objections, but it's better than nothing.
- pedophiles etc have an addiction and/or psychological problem and they do not reason the same way as a sane person
There are mental health laws which can be used to keep someone in a secure hospital if they are a danger to society, and prisons for those who actually abuse children. Also, looking at RC material != dangerous to the public.
- you can't let the very people who profit from attracting people to sites to self regulate, that is where the government has to step in
The operators of pay pron sites aren't interested in children because they can't pay, they just drain bandwidth for no return. teenagers are more likely to use ad-supported sites, and should figure out that clicking on ads is a bad idea.
Parents are not internet experts. They do not have the skills to implement content filtering. The experts are the internet companies; but they have a vested interest in not filtering. So that leaves government and the content filtering software companies (but parents don't have the skills to select which program to buy - we just have to do our best).
The AU government used to offer a home filter, the current government scrapped it. Before that, only 5% or so of families used it, even after several ad campaigns. Most comprehensive anti-malware suites include a filter, which can be trivially configured using a point-and-drool interface. Circumventing this filter is no easier than circumventing an ISP-level filter, and it probably is harder (since at home, proxies, google translate, and so on can be blocked as well).
Filtering is an imperfect science. A progressive percentage reduction in accessibility is how you break down the grouping the internet has given to otherwise isolated cases of pedophiles etc. There will be sites blocked which should not. Considering how little of the complete internet is actually viewed by any individual, I can't imagine how you would know the difference - it certainly wasn't there a mere 15 or so years ago.
I don't see how that makes an arbitrary blacklist any better. Just because you won't notice the pages are missing doesn't mean those interested in issues such as anti-abortion or pro-euthanasia campaigning wouldn't.
Companies web sites will change how they operate and check their site availability in advance - not unlike registering a business. Businesses have to manage these sorts of hurdles all the time - it is a risk of business and hence the source of return.
It isn't a source of return, it is a pointless nuisance, especially since single pages can be blocked.
It is correct for governments to classify the content of material at the internet companies and ISPs. Magazines are controlled this way - the creator (hence profit maker) and distribution chain (the other profit makers) had to meet Australian standards. The most obvious example is 'sealed section' magazines and their location within newsagencies. The internet companies are not fighting for your freedom; they want to avoid the restriction that was placed on print media.
There is a difference between classification, which is purely informational, and censorship based on such classification. I have no problem with banning R, X, and RC material on television, for example, nor with having a watershed to prevent MA and M material being shown during times when children are likely to be watching TV unsupervised (3PM-6PM in particular). The same with magazines: ordianry newsagents have to sell porn mags under plain covers, adult shops don't need to because anyone going into one would know what they are going to see, and children shouldn't be there. Nonetheless, it isn't that hard for an under-age teenager to get into one (buying anything would be another matter, of course), but the difference is that they are deliberately seeking out the material, not passively being shown it.
The internet is anal
This is why I would like to see above-the-line voting abolished, but at the same time add a "no further preferences" option to the ballot (as the first option, to kill a few donkey votes), which, if your vote goes that far down the list, means that your paper is then ignored for the rest of the redistribution. This is better than allowing an incomplete list without a terminator, because the coutners are supposed to try to figure out how you were trying to vote if your paper seems invalid.
Although counting would be slower and more expensive, senate vote results aren't usually needed for some time anyway, and this would go some way towards improving the quality of election results.
I love the part where they ask for all the organisations you've been a member of since your 16th birthday, then give you only a few lines to fill it out. I would be tempted to fill that out honestly, starting with the most stupidly irrelevant clubs, then ask for more paper so I could actually finish answering.
To be fair to the /b/tards, if their physical age matches the typical mental age, wanting porn of people their own age would be fairly reasonable. They probably find it funny because annoying the mods is funny, and CP would be the best way to do that.
I know a few supporters. One is a paid-up member of the FFP, believe in YEC and doesn't believe in any form of environmentalism or conservation at all. He's a CS student who should know better, but he hasn't let reality get in his way before and he isn't going to start now. A few believe that it could be made to work and that it won't be abused (these people are mostly in the liberal right and are law students or lawyers), and there are a few more who would like a magical filter which blocks all CP but not anything else, costs nothing for the end user, doesn't slow down the internet and comes with lots and lots of pink ponies, but have enough sense to know that this won't ever happen.
However, no-one who can be informed approves once they have the problem explained to them, they just probably won't do anything about it.
He did make the point that harassment was different. Also rule 35.
But does the existence of such cartoons cause any harm to you or anyone else? It is one thing to prevent images which are "obscene and repugnant to the vast majority of people" being posted on billboards and all the strawmen that pro-censorship advocates like to use, but it is quite another to prevent an adult viewing something in private, or transmitting it to another adult by any reasonable means.
From the ACMA website, it seems that small breasts is just one criterion used to decide if a woman looks underage, and it isn't new. The problem is that the law prohibits anything that turns on pedobear even if you can prove that no children were involved.
People won't care too much about them having affairs: look at the Rann-Chantelois business in SA, where the only people that care are the religious nutjobs and the die-hard liberals (neither group would ever vote for him) and the media and talking heads, who make money off of it. Rudd getting wasted in a strip joint didn't hurt his polling position either (although that might have been a special case). OTOH, a photo of Conroy buying porn or logs from his internet connection of him downloading RC material (a MITM would be illegal so I'm not suggesting that) would be useful.
I have heard from one of the former maintainers of graypag.es that there is special regulations preventing reverse-lookup directories if you take the information (directly or indirectly) from the national phone number database. If you got the information yourself, that would be legal, but that is totally impractical. I'm not sure if you're allowed to make a reverse database for your personal use (although it would be hard to prove you had done that), but it would take a lot of effort and hardly be worth doing.
That is because the list of vertices is not the complete information. What is needed is the set of planes, which can be specified using the vertices and instructions about how to connect them together. that description would be copyrightable, but the collection of planes would not necessarily be. Thus, for example, if you wrote some OpenGL code to display an accurate model of the Washington Memorial and hard-coded the model, then whilst your code would probably be copyrightable, if I extracted the generated set of textured planes, it is fairly likely that I am not violating your copyright.
If there was an element of creativity in the creation of the model, there would be copyright on the creativity. If the deviation from the original was simply a question of the precision to which the measurements were made, then there would be little to no creativity.
Photographs/prints of paintings which are themselves out of copyright would provide plenty of lawyer-fodder in this regard.
I don't believe this myself (I'm basically apathetic, God might exist but I'm doing fine without Him), and I don't know if anyone does, but one way to reconcile the "long day" justification with original sin is to say that Adam was the first man with sentience and a soul. Animals, lacking a soul, could die like they do now, but the intact, sinless soul would provide protection from death. After the Fall, man partially lost that protection, so bodies could die but the soul survived, trapped somehow. After the Resurrection, the souls of the dead became able to go to heaven.
I'm not a theologian, and this idea has serious holes in it relating to Jesus's soul, but possibly someone who actually cares about these things might be able to make it work.
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons.
And in a few weeks it will be back, using NNTP over SSL. Enough people have cheap servers that many of the text groups can be kept alive, even if some of the smaller groups go quiet, people stop carrying alt.binaries.*, and are more active about cancelling spam (which would be a good thing, IMO).
It makes it very risky for someone with little money to go up against a large corporation, because they’re going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themself, and on the outside chance that you get a terrible judge who gives the case to the large corporation, you’re stuck with the bill.
A way to protect people against that would be to limit the amount either side can spend to some amount based on the amount of damages sought, with it being a criminal offence to try to circumvent the rules (by paying indirectly, for example).
Of course not, you don't get the alt-text if you do that.