ill-defined caveat regarding the nebulous property of 'percieved value to others'.
It is not nebulous or ill-defined at all, it is quite plainly spelled out in the narcotics laws of your local jurisdiction, which are by definition the local standards for materials that impose a higher perceived cost than benefit. If none of this makes sense to you, try Tierra del Fuego, I hear you can set up your anarchy there for little cost.
Your idea of "offensive content" may differ wildly from someone else's; the question becomes "who is right?"
This debate exists solely in your head. The definitions of child porn (photographed vs "drawn"), and the penalties for being in possession of/distributing/creating, are all public record.
I am not campaigning against Freenet, I think this type of tool has many valid uses. That said, users have to realize the practical issues involved with its use in their own legal jurisdiction - the judge will not be amused by rants on "what is right? what is wrong?".
In many Western nations there is no longer a distinction in terms of the penalties assessed. In any case the entire distinction is an artificial one you have concocted for the sake of argument or assauging your own notion of guilt.
Fair enough, I should have clarified my statement to specifcally characterize that which is inject into horses. But as entered, I must admit my claim is false, and is retracted.
Every day laypeople put drugs in their bodies, some of which have been later determined to be harmful, often not by research performed by doctors, but simply by observations over time. Note also I specifically stated "mentally fit", by which it is implied the person has some understanding of what they are doing, and the risks involved. This really isn't that radical, there have been many cases whereby rational individuals simply cannot afford to wait for the FDA.
Ketamine is not intended for human consumption, therefore your comment is a non-sequiter. Find me one vet who will tell me otherwise and I will retract this statement.
I'm all for people consuming anything and everything they want -- crack, heroin, asperin, ibuprofen, cialis, PCP,
Once again, an interesting theoretical tack that is of no practical value in society. And yes I am assuming that you are just another honkey who priases unqualified freedom as long as you don't have to live next door to it, in which case you quickly become a proponent for regulation...
But that's a piss-poor reason for prohibiting booze (or PCP), because it indiscriminately punishes the well behaved and the ill-behaved user equally.
This is an amusing theoretical stance on the basis of the virtues of liberty, but it is of no practical value. As for your qualification that drunk drivers are more dangerous than PCP users, it is also fallacious, useless, and misleading.
As I stated explictly in my post, these drugs have no medicinal value in their present forms. I accept that there may be some component or reformulation that is of value. I offered this qualification for a reason.
Its a judgement call, a subjective one to be sure, but on average PCP will cause you to ignore pain in yourself and others. Crack will make you extremely irrational. The impact of these states tends, on average, to be an unacceptable social cost. They also have no medicinal value whatsoever in their present forms (not subjective).
If the data is being created through abusive means, go after the source of the data.
Uh, if you are hosting child porn, you are the host of the data, under current law. Many nations are now erasing the line between being a "distributor" of this material and being in possession of it. Really, you need to know this, because you will find very few individuals in Western societies who will vigorously defend you in public or the courts. You will find out what "pariah" means.
And in the strict sense, with Freenet you are a distributor in any case - you are providing a service to obtain this material - remember under the law ignorance is not an excuse, you could find it difficult to claim you were an unwitting accomplice.
If you understand the risks, side-effects, and possible benefits, anyone who is mentally fit should be able to insert whatever materials they wish into their own body presuming no perceived liabilities to others (which would preclude crack, PCP, etc).
I already do not look at any ads. NONE. No Adsense ads. No Overture ads. No banner ads. Using Greasemonkey and adblocker, I have created an ad-free web. Soon this will become common, because Microsoft will be foreced to released a Greasemonkey-like tool for IE within the next two years, bet on it. And when they do, the market for scripts for this tool will immediately brim over with everything Greasemonkey coders have thought of and then some. It will happen. Users will not look at any content they do not approve of in five years.
For people who are visually impaired and would like larger fonts, it is practically a requirement that they hack up the content after it is downloaded.
Its simple - in five years most users will be using some version of Greasemonkey, MS will be forced to adopt a page scripting engine if this catches on. Users will not look at content they do not want to look at.
Also, there are plenty of benchmarks showing Java is as fast or faster than C and C++ on large datasets and long-running applications, when the environment initialization isn't a hit on performance.pAlso known as contrived tests.
Sorry, if you want to change the world you are required to sign your name to your work. You might be jailed or killed, but those are the risks you have to take if you want change. No one is going to pay serious attention to "Kilroy was here".
But everyone already knows that, hell, in the end you can just torture people to get the passphrase/keycard or whatever dodad is being used to create the secure loop. Whats missing is some information on what can be practically done to create adequate security, to which I hardly ever hear BS refer.
Every posting in his cryptogram seems to be telling me the same thing - nothing anyone is doing is actually secure, and no currently proposed measures are going to help. So basically he's telling me to live in a shack in the woods like the Unabomber if I want security. Also he seems to be drifting more and more into political banter...and I don't consider him to be any more informed that the next blogger.
Its obvious Google and Yahoo are moving on to trust-based (or perceived trust) ranking for sites based on what they see users clicking on through the web accelerator, Yahoo's MyWeb, etc. Hopefully this will help grade down the obvious spam...although you only find out its spam by going to the page...we'll see.
Most of those crossing the border are just looking to better themselves and their families. We need a legal way to help those who want "the American Dream" and kick those listed above out.
Duh, its called the INS and has existed for decades. You go in to their offices or their website and get the forms you need. Or they will mail them to you. Fill out these forms and you will be granted some sort of response. Maybe that response is "no", maybe its "come back in six months" but those are the breaks. Some of us, like me, have stood in line for twelve hours at the INS (with nary a portapotty to be found) in order to get proper documentation. Those that don't or won't are leeches.
He certainly knows more about crypto than us, but in most of his posts he's just another guy poking holes but never offering anything constructive.
I am not strongly in favor of RealId or a similar scheme, but Schnier is way out there with regards to what must be practically implemented in order to have some control of access to services and privileges in society. His premise that identification itself is invalid is moronic and simply shows that he has lived most of his life in some sort of ivory tower or another, or improperly imposes the computer security worldview onto the world writ large.
This also goes for Miguel de Icaza who has really shot his wad and is now offering that identification leads to genocide. Hel-lo! Miguel - look up NON-SEQUITER.
No Senator/Congressperson is oging to vote against an implied national security bill. No Senator/Congressperson is going to hold up a military spending bill that seeks to get body armor to soldiers in Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not nebulous or ill-defined at all, it is quite plainly spelled out in the narcotics laws of your local jurisdiction, which are by definition the local standards for materials that impose a higher perceived cost than benefit. If none of this makes sense to you, try Tierra del Fuego, I hear you can set up your anarchy there for little cost.
This debate exists solely in your head. The definitions of child porn (photographed vs "drawn"), and the penalties for being in possession of/distributing/creating, are all public record.
I am not campaigning against Freenet, I think this type of tool has many valid uses. That said, users have to realize the practical issues involved with its use in their own legal jurisdiction - the judge will not be amused by rants on "what is right? what is wrong?".
In many Western nations there is no longer a distinction in terms of the penalties assessed. In any case the entire distinction is an artificial one you have concocted for the sake of argument or assauging your own notion of guilt.
Fair enough, I should have clarified my statement to specifcally characterize that which is inject into horses. But as entered, I must admit my claim is false, and is retracted.
Every day laypeople put drugs in their bodies, some of which have been later determined to be harmful, often not by research performed by doctors, but simply by observations over time. Note also I specifically stated "mentally fit", by which it is implied the person has some understanding of what they are doing, and the risks involved. This really isn't that radical, there have been many cases whereby rational individuals simply cannot afford to wait for the FDA.
No, he puts his infant daughter in the oven (has happened).
Ketamine is not intended for human consumption, therefore your comment is a non-sequiter. Find me one vet who will tell me otherwise and I will retract this statement.
Once again, an interesting theoretical tack that is of no practical value in society. And yes I am assuming that you are just another honkey who priases unqualified freedom as long as you don't have to live next door to it, in which case you quickly become a proponent for regulation...
This is an amusing theoretical stance on the basis of the virtues of liberty, but it is of no practical value. As for your qualification that drunk drivers are more dangerous than PCP users, it is also fallacious, useless, and misleading.
As I stated explictly in my post, these drugs have no medicinal value in their present forms. I accept that there may be some component or reformulation that is of value. I offered this qualification for a reason.
Its a judgement call, a subjective one to be sure, but on average PCP will cause you to ignore pain in yourself and others. Crack will make you extremely irrational. The impact of these states tends, on average, to be an unacceptable social cost. They also have no medicinal value whatsoever in their present forms (not subjective).
Uh, if you are hosting child porn, you are the host of the data, under current law. Many nations are now erasing the line between being a "distributor" of this material and being in possession of it. Really, you need to know this, because you will find very few individuals in Western societies who will vigorously defend you in public or the courts. You will find out what "pariah" means.
And in the strict sense, with Freenet you are a distributor in any case - you are providing a service to obtain this material - remember under the law ignorance is not an excuse, you could find it difficult to claim you were an unwitting accomplice.
If you understand the risks, side-effects, and possible benefits, anyone who is mentally fit should be able to insert whatever materials they wish into their own body presuming no perceived liabilities to others (which would preclude crack, PCP, etc).
I already do not look at any ads. NONE. No Adsense ads. No Overture ads. No banner ads. Using Greasemonkey and adblocker, I have created an ad-free web. Soon this will become common, because Microsoft will be foreced to released a Greasemonkey-like tool for IE within the next two years, bet on it. And when they do, the market for scripts for this tool will immediately brim over with everything Greasemonkey coders have thought of and then some. It will happen. Users will not look at any content they do not approve of in five years.
Its simple - in five years most users will be using some version of Greasemonkey, MS will be forced to adopt a page scripting engine if this catches on. Users will not look at content they do not want to look at.
Also, there are plenty of benchmarks showing Java is as fast or faster than C and C++ on large datasets and long-running applications, when the environment initialization isn't a hit on performance.pAlso known as contrived tests.
Who are the idiots retyping this info for each new driving direction query? Yahoo at least remembers where I live (if I choose to let it).
There was concern that it would soon be extinct.
Sorry, if you want to change the world you are required to sign your name to your work. You might be jailed or killed, but those are the risks you have to take if you want change. No one is going to pay serious attention to "Kilroy was here".
But everyone already knows that, hell, in the end you can just torture people to get the passphrase/keycard or whatever dodad is being used to create the secure loop. Whats missing is some information on what can be practically done to create adequate security, to which I hardly ever hear BS refer.
Every posting in his cryptogram seems to be telling me the same thing - nothing anyone is doing is actually secure, and no currently proposed measures are going to help. So basically he's telling me to live in a shack in the woods like the Unabomber if I want security. Also he seems to be drifting more and more into political banter...and I don't consider him to be any more informed that the next blogger.
Its obvious Google and Yahoo are moving on to trust-based (or perceived trust) ranking for sites based on what they see users clicking on through the web accelerator, Yahoo's MyWeb, etc. Hopefully this will help grade down the obvious spam...although you only find out its spam by going to the page...we'll see.
Duh, its called the INS and has existed for decades. You go in to their offices or their website and get the forms you need. Or they will mail them to you. Fill out these forms and you will be granted some sort of response. Maybe that response is "no", maybe its "come back in six months" but those are the breaks. Some of us, like me, have stood in line for twelve hours at the INS (with nary a portapotty to be found) in order to get proper documentation. Those that don't or won't are leeches.
I am not strongly in favor of RealId or a similar scheme, but Schnier is way out there with regards to what must be practically implemented in order to have some control of access to services and privileges in society. His premise that identification itself is invalid is moronic and simply shows that he has lived most of his life in some sort of ivory tower or another, or improperly imposes the computer security worldview onto the world writ large.
This also goes for Miguel de Icaza who has really shot his wad and is now offering that identification leads to genocide. Hel-lo! Miguel - look up NON-SEQUITER.
Sorry, but thats as simple as it can be put.