> It's totally different than tobacco. Growing your > own cannabis is far more akin to brewing your own > beer, which is a widely appreciated and accepted > hobby.
Actually I think all three are the same. (I dont see how tobaco should be concidered different)
I did however totally forget one can brew their own beer/wine/etc however.
That still proves my point. Lots of people do it, its not illegal, the govt still gets their money on the 99% of the people that still find it more convient to buy canned beer at a store or from a brewer, just as 99% of the populous that wants to smoke pot would go to the quick-e-mart and pay $10 per pack (or however it was to be sold in stores, id imagine it would be packaged similar to the many ways you can get tobaco, which is mainly cigerettes, but still in raw form for those into that kinda thing)
My point from the start was that taxing is NOT a reason in the govt's eyes for not allowing hemp/pot to be sold purely because you can grow it yourself. The exact same situation holds true for alcohol and tobaco yet there are no problems there.
> My guess is that the issues are: A) the cotten > cartel is terrified of hemp and b) if Joe Average > can grow enough pot for his own consumption then > there is nothing to tax.
No. A is your only valid point, and due to companys that is the only real reason its still illegal to this day.
As for taxing it. The same is true with tobaco. I can leagally grow that in my backyard and roll my own ciggeretts. How many people in the US do you know that do _that_ ?
Its cheaper and easier to buy packs at the store. If pot was legalized, it would become the same thing.
As for your danger points, well, we KNOW how hardful tobaco is and alcohol is, yet both are very legal. What i kill myself with slowly is none of the governments concern or business.
I dont care if pot would make you die faster than alcohol or tobaco or not. It has nothing to do with the fact that if i want to slowly kill myself with any substance i want, thats my choice.
As for driving intoxicated, thats already illegal no matter how you are intoxicated. Keep that law and use it. No one should be driving while intoxicated, be it drugs, alcohol, or too much cold medicine.
Hemp was the worlds most abundant renewable resource 2nd to water. Its cheaper and cleaner to make paper from, it can be turned easily into cleaner fuel, even MORE so than corn oil can, it has MANY medical uses which have been proven (compared to tobaco's big zero)
But i do aggree with another point. Id like to see studies too. Its a shame its still illegal for no reason so we cant do them.
(quote) As for me, I enjoy a nice cold beer, straight from the tap. I don't drink excessively, and I do it because I enjoy the taste. And no, you cannot make non-Alcoholic brew taste like the "real thing." So take your lack of personal accountability stance and go shove it up your ass. (/quote)
Dude you missed the point.
There is no difference between drinking beer or smoking pot. They have similar level of effects and are equal in the danger department. They should be treated the same.
The obvious answer is both should be legal, but that clearly isnt going to be allowed to happen.
You see, when its something the lawmakers do, its ok, but when they dont do it, its illegal.
I do aggree they should be held in the same legal sense. If they wont legalize them, criminalize it all! Its only fair.
Whats almost funny is they also have pattented the process of taking someone to court and having them discuss the issue at hand! We cant sue them because we would be voilating their patent heh
Ahh I'd love to see what happens with this one in court.
Re:ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what?
on
Verbing Weirds Google
·
· Score: 1
> You mean as in "He was so microsoft that I threw > him out."?
Was thinking more along the lines of "Damn RedHat, they are 8.0 is so microsofted!" Which is almost universially reconized as meaning 'bloated and filled with crap an OS shouldnt have':)
> There's no privacy to lose, it's all their stuff > until you get past the register with it. > You guys have got the paranoia setting just a > little bit too high these days..
Your right, and not a single person is arguing your wrong. Why do you even mention that comment at all?
The problem everyone is complaining about is them voilating your privacy by tracking you AFTER you get past the register.
Just wait till you go to buy a pair of jeans and get charged for those jeans plus all the clothes your wearing cuz everything replys to whatever device is used to checkout.
Hmm.. maybe its just me, but the URL you link to has nothing on it about RC timers or anything (obvious atleast) that would do what you suggest. Am i just missing it?
Ive done this before in a way myself. It was just an exparement at the time because I was bored.
I setup an oBSD box with wireless card in it not connected to any real network, but acting as an access point. It handed out seemingly public IPs (It was slightly off from the real IPs my network used)
I did not use WEP on purpose, but set the network name to 'Private_GO_AWAY' (or some such message)
It then ran honeyd and pretended to be a network of a few hosts.
People looking for net access failed to get it, and most left it at that.
Once someone attempted to open a connection to any of these fake IPs, my machine portscanned them back, fingerprinted the OS, grabbed banners from any service it found running, and logged this all with date/time/MAC/hardware brand/etc info. It also at that point started logging every packet that IP sent up until it left the wireless network.
It was fun to watch people who actually tried to 'break in' over wireless. As i recal it was only about 5 people in a 6 month period, out of hundreds of people 'passing by' looking for net access.
Only those 5 or so people do I have detailed logs on. (I didnt bother logging anything about the ones just wanting net access, other than the fact they requested an IP and when)
If my signal is being broadcast out and they have full rights to do what they want with it, I feel the same is true for the replys from their wireless hardware to me:)
> Do your friends have any details on this PCI-card > posted anywhere? I'd like to learn some more about > it! It would seem to me pretty much the ultimate > way to secure a key.. but they did weld the card > into the slot, right?
Unfortunatly they gave up on the project because of all the physical security issues still remaining. Like you just said, assuring it isnt removed from the computer somehow is one, i have no idea if they thought of or solved that.
I also lost touch about 3 years ago, the only thing keeping most people from doing this with easy to get parts is the BIOS monitoring stuffs they used. Im more of an electronics buff, but im sure someone knows how to monitor resets and post from the PCI bus.. after all, SCSI cards and the like are passed control for booting at this time, that would be one good way to do it.
However for desktops, they decided it was easier to store an encryption key on a floppy disk and require that read to unlock the encrypted disk (just a second disk, not the boot volume) One can do this pretty nify like today with front panel USB jacks and one of those 16-32mb USB keychain disks (Plus have room for your files too!)
> Would a smartcard system not solve this problem?
Lets put you in charge of the server 2500 miles away from you in a company server room somewhere that gets rebooted due to a power outage lasting longer than the UPSs could at 4am, and see how you like having to enter codes so it can read the filesystem.
Servers tend to run by themselfs. Any human interaction defeats the point. But the only way to make it automated means someone can get to the key.
The only thing Close i've seen is a hardware solution a few friends were working on way back when.
It was a PCI card that monitored the BIOS. When the BIOS was performing a POST, it allowed you to read from the ROM on the card. Once you peformed this read, you could not read it again until its unlocked via BIOS POST.
This way with the system running a full root compromise will not yeild your keys.
However this still doesnt help physical security much. (Does anything?)
I used to run an ISP, and let me tell you your numbers are WAY off:)
Incoming (From the internet into our network) SMTP traffic is closer to 30% of all bandwidth used.
The next largest chunk is web traffic (between customers and the internet) which is about 50%
Another 10% is POP3 to customers and the internet (Only the latter being really noticable) Then another 10% or so of other things like ssh/telnet, games (well, random high ports, im just assuming) and the like.
I setup SpamAssassin in a global way for the customers and run stats on the data captured.
For around 3000 email accounts or so (I am rounding up) spam is held in a quarenteen for 5 days and then deleted. (This is so users can go to a web control panel and deliver mail that was flagged as spam incorrectly and add it to a safe-list)
The 5 day queue stats are Total size of SPAM spools : 1.4G Total number of SPAMs : 154502
This compared to (for reference) Total size of quarantine spools : 33M Total number of e-mails with viruses : 237
in the same time period.
This added to the fact customers STILL get spam, still complain, still threaten to leave to go to our competition which still gets as much spam as we do, and it really turns out that any amount of money we spent to fight spam is a loss. We get nothing for it other than knowing a few of our customers are slightly less pissed off than without our efforts.
On top of that we have customers that complain when an ad that they signed up comes in and they have to *gasp* go to a little effort to safe-list the emails they want. From them we get "How dare you!" and they still threaten to leave.
Damed if you do, damned if you dont, and everyone blames the ISP.
This is always a finantual loss (everything costs money, it doesnt make us a dime), and on top of that paying staff to deal with it costs.
And none of this takes into account spam complaints from customers that we have to look into and deal with, which in reality Does cost us money (losing a paying customer) and all it gains us (finantually speaking) is the privlige of not being blacklisted.
While I cant say I like the fact there are some ISPs out there that totally ignore spam complaints, I fully understand why.
> And as for the desktop? There's no need whatsoever
(Not to sound like a broken record here, but)
Noone ever said there was a need. So why are you pointing this out?
Do you honestly think there is a need for a 2ghz P4 with a gig of ram and 40+ gigs of storage (Which is what is currently being sold at local computer stores as 'high end' personal computers) is *needed* for email and webbrowsing?
No. Yet most of the people that buy home PCs use them for nothing more than that, and thats what they end up getting because they *WANT* the greatest and newest there.
Once a system comes out advertizing "It supports 8 gigs of memomry, thats over twice what any older PC is even possible of handling!" alot of non geeks and non needing people will buy it just because its the top of the line.
The cow like masses buying what they dont need and spending tons of money on it for no reason is exactly what keeps prices low for us geeks that really do put that hardware to good work:P
ISPs wont be reiquired to go every inch out of their way to do everything possible to block these sites. Most likely they are just handed a list of IPs to block.
There is a difference in 'block all child porn' and 'block these IPs containing child porn'. Specifcially, the first is not possible, the second is.
If someone avoids the ISPs blocks in any means, that isnt the ISPs fault nor responsibility to make sure that doesnt happen.
Selling say an adult mag to a person under 18 (some places 21) is illegal. But do you notice all the shop owner is required to do is check ID?
There are Many ways around this. A good fake ID. Have a friend over 18/21 do it. Etc, etc. This is in no way the shop owners problem. They check the ID, see if its over the right age, and that is it.
It will be just the same bare minumim work as that, and clearly a list of domains/IPs only. Anything more is going over and above what can be reasonalbly asked.
The only problem with a secret list is the possible abuse, but, the list really isnt 100% secret, as atleast the ISPs will need to see it. If any obvious domains are listed that shouldnt be, someone will notice and report it to the public at large and all will be well again.
> Linux is a full OS and quite capable of running > anything without asking for permission once booted.
How do you plan on getting this 'anything' to linux to run? It aint gunna be the drive on the xbox thats for sure.
Do you really want to network copy things to ram each time it boots? Better question, will your average gamer?
If one wants to go through all that trouble, may as well mod it really. Its great to have options and all, I just dont think this will be the next gaming platform for xbox or anything is all.
> since signing Linux means that ANY other > application can be run on top of Linux (Think Wine, > VMWare and so on..), which nullifies ALL of the > controls Microsoft has put in place to make the > console 'theirs'.
You dont know much about public/private key encryption and signing do you?:)
Once its signed, its only valid while signed. If a single bit changed the signature will no longer be valid and will fail to boot.
All MS has to make sure of is you cant 'swap out' disks after linux is booted to get other software loaded.
Granted maybe that isnt possible, but if it wasnt they wouldnt sign it.
Once its signed its not modifiable, so your stuck with whatever software is included when it was signed.
> How is this valid in a court of law right now? > Would this really be concidered a valid defense for > people making/selling mod chips?
Up until the DMCA, yes, that was all one needed to make it legal.
The only way it would have been illegal is if the MAIN use was for piracy. This proves it isnt.
Unfortunatly the DMCA makes this chip illegal just because it allows you to do something with MS's hardware that MS didnt say you could (Which is all the DMCA law reads, as it seems even counting is concidered an encryption device now.)
> Ok, but what I say to that is: if you know you > have something you need/want to hide - then take > steps to hide it.
I wasnt at all arguing about google. I aggree, if you want something hidden, take steps to hide it.
I was just countering the too-oft-used saying "You dont have anything to hide do you? So why worry!"
I personally dont think this is at all a case to care.
My only point is that there is a time and place to care, and while this isnt it, you shouldnt shrug them all off by saying something threatening such as "You dont have anything to hide do you?"
> To all you paranoid slashdotters out there this > might sound weird. But, really, truly, I have > NOTHING to hide - so why worry?
Well, I am happy that is the case for you. And I am happy that is the case for everyone where its true:)
But for some people, it simply isnt the case.
Id like to start out by saying right/wrong is NOT the same as legal/illegal. If you think they are the same, then either you are a very evil person, or a lawyer;) (Yes yes just kidding to all the lawyers out there... Easy shot)
There are laws to make right things illegal, and there are wrong things that are perfectly legal.
That said, lets say I was doing something that, while I and most people do concider not wrong, the government where I live says is illegal.
Lets also say I have good reason to believe and minor proof that the reason its illegal is due to racism in the govenrment, and not because 'its dangerous or bad to do'
Should a (from this point of view) corupted governments word be enough to make/force me to stop doing something that isnt harmful to anyone?
If i could do something, that literally effected NOONE else but me. Where I could be a hermit in a shack in the middle of the woods a hundred miles in any direction from any other person, and still do my thing, the only living thing (human or not) that would be effected is myself.. then why shouldnt I be able to do so?
Reality says i can (As if noone knows im doing it, and cant tell without my admitting to it, and its not effecting anyone else to say so for me)
But the law says 'no bad stop'
In that case I would feel I need to hide my actions, not because i feel my actions are _wrong_ but because i have been told those actions are _illegal_ and I do not have the opertunity to argue my case with anyone that would listen (No thats not the job of the police, only the judge, and they usually follow whats been done in the past.)
Now, i personally have nothing to hide either. However, I can see there are plenty of times when people DO have GOOD reasons to hide things.
In addition, if i have some sexual fetish that, while nothing is wrong with it, there is no reason anyone but me and my sexual partners need know it unless *I* choose. That is a good reason to hide that.
Not because its wrong or needs hidden, but because its easier dealing with other people if they didnt know things about me they did not understand.
Especially when you look at the average person and all the out right false facts they have about things, and fear/prejudices preventing them from using an open mind to understand an issue better, they would rather fear it and shun anyone that is different.
These reasons alone are good enough to keep things hidden.
If i could go out and run wires to provide DSL (or whatever) services over, then yes it would be a vaild argument.
The government claims i have no right to do this, only the phone co has a right to do that.
Well, for exchange for this "right", they better fucking stop bitching and DO THAT.
They bitch and moan they want to be the only one allowed to place wires to peoples home. This is the cost, they HAVE TO DO IT no matter who asks, them, their competition, the govt, anyone.
> They learned enough not to bother investing money > in improving broadband in Kansas. Who really lost?
The people lost, the government and coproration wins. This is the USA, its not surprising in the least anymore. This is what our country is setup to do.
Re:Bladerunner
on
Goodbye, Dolly
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sigh, you totally missed my point.
> Cellular nuclei moving from mature adult mammalian > somatic cells into unfertilized egg cells that > have no nuclei of their own is not natural, it is > in fact impossible without medical science
You are correct. It is impossible without medical science. Fortunatly medical science is very possible. This means anything coming FROM medical science is also possible, and thus natural.
Nature is the container of all that we are in. By the very fact cloning happens, means its playing by the rules of nature.
Just because it requires a human to do it is totally irrelivent.
Humans happen in nature too, thus we are possible (Fortunatly no one has argued that one yet) Thus, anything we (being of nature) do, is natural as well.
I also find it funny you claim what i say is "pseudo religious nonsense" when in fact its most religons that argue the same point you are making, while science argues the point I am making.
Slashdot Mirror
> It's totally different than tobacco. Growing your
> own cannabis is far more akin to brewing your own
> beer, which is a widely appreciated and accepted
> hobby.
Actually I think all three are the same.
(I dont see how tobaco should be concidered different)
I did however totally forget one can brew their own beer/wine/etc however.
That still proves my point.
Lots of people do it, its not illegal, the govt still gets their money on the 99% of the people that still find it more convient to buy canned beer at a store or from a brewer, just as 99% of the populous that wants to smoke pot would go to the quick-e-mart and pay $10 per pack (or however it was to be sold in stores, id imagine it would be packaged similar to the many ways you can get tobaco, which is mainly cigerettes, but still in raw form for those into that kinda thing)
My point from the start was that taxing is NOT a reason in the govt's eyes for not allowing hemp/pot to be sold purely because you can grow it yourself.
The exact same situation holds true for alcohol and tobaco yet there are no problems there.
> My guess is that the issues are: A) the cotten
> cartel is terrified of hemp and b) if Joe Average
> can grow enough pot for his own consumption then
> there is nothing to tax.
No. A is your only valid point, and due to companys that is the only real reason its still illegal to this day.
As for taxing it. The same is true with tobaco. I can leagally grow that in my backyard and roll my own ciggeretts. How many people in the US do you know that do _that_ ?
Its cheaper and easier to buy packs at the store.
If pot was legalized, it would become the same thing.
As for your danger points, well, we KNOW how hardful tobaco is and alcohol is, yet both are very legal. What i kill myself with slowly is none of the governments concern or business.
I dont care if pot would make you die faster than alcohol or tobaco or not. It has nothing to do with the fact that if i want to slowly kill myself with any substance i want, thats my choice.
As for driving intoxicated, thats already illegal no matter how you are intoxicated. Keep that law and use it.
No one should be driving while intoxicated, be it drugs, alcohol, or too much cold medicine.
Hemp was the worlds most abundant renewable resource 2nd to water.
Its cheaper and cleaner to make paper from, it can be turned easily into cleaner fuel, even MORE so than corn oil can, it has MANY medical uses which have been proven (compared to tobaco's big zero)
But i do aggree with another point. Id like to see studies too. Its a shame its still illegal for no reason so we cant do them.
> You can ask: if patents on computer programs were
:)
> not available, would Google have developed their
> idea anyway?
Seeing as they made it work and its been around for years before the patent, I'd have to say yes
(quote)
As for me, I enjoy a nice cold beer, straight from the tap. I don't drink excessively, and I do it because I enjoy the taste. And no, you cannot make non-Alcoholic brew taste like the "real thing." So take your lack of personal accountability stance and go shove it up your ass.
(/quote)
Dude you missed the point.
There is no difference between drinking beer or smoking pot. They have similar level of effects and are equal in the danger department.
They should be treated the same.
The obvious answer is both should be legal, but that clearly isnt going to be allowed to happen.
You see, when its something the lawmakers do, its ok, but when they dont do it, its illegal.
I do aggree they should be held in the same legal sense. If they wont legalize them, criminalize it all! Its only fair.
Whats almost funny is they also have pattented the process of taking someone to court and having them discuss the issue at hand!
We cant sue them because we would be voilating their patent heh
Ahh I'd love to see what happens with this one in court.
> You mean as in "He was so microsoft that I threw
:)
> him out."?
Was thinking more along the lines of
"Damn RedHat, they are 8.0 is so microsofted!"
Which is almost universially reconized as meaning 'bloated and filled with crap an OS shouldnt have'
> There's no privacy to lose, it's all their stuff
> until you get past the register with it.
> You guys have got the paranoia setting just a
> little bit too high these days..
Your right, and not a single person is arguing your wrong. Why do you even mention that comment at all?
The problem everyone is complaining about is them voilating your privacy by tracking you AFTER you get past the register.
Just wait till you go to buy a pair of jeans and get charged for those jeans plus all the clothes your wearing cuz everything replys to whatever device is used to checkout.
Hmm.. maybe its just me, but the URL you link to has nothing on it about RC timers or anything (obvious atleast) that would do what you suggest.
Am i just missing it?
Ive done this before in a way myself.
:)
It was just an exparement at the time because I was bored.
I setup an oBSD box with wireless card in it not connected to any real network, but acting as an access point.
It handed out seemingly public IPs (It was slightly off from the real IPs my network used)
I did not use WEP on purpose, but set the network name to 'Private_GO_AWAY' (or some such message)
It then ran honeyd and pretended to be a network of a few hosts.
People looking for net access failed to get it, and most left it at that.
Once someone attempted to open a connection to any of these fake IPs, my machine portscanned them back, fingerprinted the OS, grabbed banners from any service it found running, and logged this all with date/time/MAC/hardware brand/etc info.
It also at that point started logging every packet that IP sent up until it left the wireless network.
It was fun to watch people who actually tried to 'break in' over wireless.
As i recal it was only about 5 people in a 6 month period, out of hundreds of people 'passing by' looking for net access.
Only those 5 or so people do I have detailed logs on. (I didnt bother logging anything about the ones just wanting net access, other than the fact they requested an IP and when)
If my signal is being broadcast out and they have full rights to do what they want with it, I feel the same is true for the replys from their wireless hardware to me
> Do your friends have any details on this PCI-card
> posted anywhere? I'd like to learn some more about
> it! It would seem to me pretty much the ultimate
> way to secure a key.. but they did weld the card
> into the slot, right?
Unfortunatly they gave up on the project because of all the physical security issues still remaining. Like you just said, assuring it isnt removed from the computer somehow is one, i have no idea if they thought of or solved that.
I also lost touch about 3 years ago, the only thing keeping most people from doing this with easy to get parts is the BIOS monitoring stuffs they used. Im more of an electronics buff, but im sure someone knows how to monitor resets and post from the PCI bus.. after all, SCSI cards and the like are passed control for booting at this time, that would be one good way to do it.
However for desktops, they decided it was easier to store an encryption key on a floppy disk and require that read to unlock the encrypted disk (just a second disk, not the boot volume)
One can do this pretty nify like today with front panel USB jacks and one of those 16-32mb USB keychain disks (Plus have room for your files too!)
> Would a smartcard system not solve this problem?
Lets put you in charge of the server 2500 miles away from you in a company server room somewhere that gets rebooted due to a power outage lasting longer than the UPSs could at 4am, and see how you like having to enter codes so it can read the filesystem.
Servers tend to run by themselfs. Any human interaction defeats the point.
But the only way to make it automated means someone can get to the key.
The only thing Close i've seen is a hardware solution a few friends were working on way back when.
It was a PCI card that monitored the BIOS.
When the BIOS was performing a POST, it allowed you to read from the ROM on the card.
Once you peformed this read, you could not read it again until its unlocked via BIOS POST.
This way with the system running a full root compromise will not yeild your keys.
However this still doesnt help physical security much. (Does anything?)
I used to run an ISP, and let me tell you your numbers are WAY off :)
Incoming (From the internet into our network) SMTP traffic is closer to 30% of all bandwidth used.
The next largest chunk is web traffic (between customers and the internet) which is about 50%
Another 10% is POP3 to customers and the internet (Only the latter being really noticable)
Then another 10% or so of other things like ssh/telnet, games (well, random high ports, im just assuming) and the like.
I setup SpamAssassin in a global way for the customers and run stats on the data captured.
For around 3000 email accounts or so (I am rounding up) spam is held in a quarenteen for 5 days and then deleted. (This is so users can go to a web control panel and deliver mail that was flagged as spam incorrectly and add it to a safe-list)
The 5 day queue stats are
Total size of SPAM spools : 1.4G
Total number of SPAMs : 154502
This compared to (for reference)
Total size of quarantine spools : 33M
Total number of e-mails with viruses : 237
in the same time period.
This added to the fact customers STILL get spam, still complain, still threaten to leave to go to our competition which still gets as much spam as we do, and it really turns out that any amount of money we spent to fight spam is a loss. We get nothing for it other than knowing a few of our customers are slightly less pissed off than without our efforts.
On top of that we have customers that complain when an ad that they signed up comes in and they have to *gasp* go to a little effort to safe-list the emails they want. From them we get "How dare you!" and they still threaten to leave.
Damed if you do, damned if you dont, and everyone blames the ISP.
This is always a finantual loss (everything costs money, it doesnt make us a dime), and on top of that paying staff to deal with it costs.
And none of this takes into account spam complaints from customers that we have to look into and deal with, which in reality Does cost us money (losing a paying customer) and all it gains us (finantually speaking) is the privlige of not being blacklisted.
While I cant say I like the fact there are some ISPs out there that totally ignore spam complaints, I fully understand why.
> And as for the desktop? There's no need whatsoever
:P
(Not to sound like a broken record here, but)
Noone ever said there was a need. So why are you pointing this out?
Do you honestly think there is a need for a 2ghz P4 with a gig of ram and 40+ gigs of storage (Which is what is currently being sold at local computer stores as 'high end' personal computers) is *needed* for email and webbrowsing?
No. Yet most of the people that buy home PCs use them for nothing more than that, and thats what they end up getting because they *WANT* the greatest and newest there.
Once a system comes out advertizing "It supports 8 gigs of memomry, thats over twice what any older PC is even possible of handling!" alot of non geeks and non needing people will buy it just because its the top of the line.
The cow like masses buying what they dont need and spending tons of money on it for no reason is exactly what keeps prices low for us geeks that really do put that hardware to good work
> A lot of which you can get for free.
I tried both of them and they didnt seem that impressive...
(It was a joke.. laugh!)
> and second, I'm appalled that you actually think
:P
> tap water is free.
In canada tap water IS free
> So how do they intend to block such sites?
ISPs wont be reiquired to go every inch out of their way to do everything possible to block these sites.
Most likely they are just handed a list of IPs to block.
There is a difference in 'block all child porn' and 'block these IPs containing child porn'.
Specifcially, the first is not possible, the second is.
If someone avoids the ISPs blocks in any means, that isnt the ISPs fault nor responsibility to make sure that doesnt happen.
Selling say an adult mag to a person under 18 (some places 21) is illegal.
But do you notice all the shop owner is required to do is check ID?
There are Many ways around this. A good fake ID. Have a friend over 18/21 do it. Etc, etc.
This is in no way the shop owners problem.
They check the ID, see if its over the right age, and that is it.
It will be just the same bare minumim work as that, and clearly a list of domains/IPs only.
Anything more is going over and above what can be reasonalbly asked.
The only problem with a secret list is the possible abuse, but, the list really isnt 100% secret, as atleast the ISPs will need to see it.
If any obvious domains are listed that shouldnt be, someone will notice and report it to the public at large and all will be well again.
> Linux is a full OS and quite capable of running
> anything without asking for permission once booted.
How do you plan on getting this 'anything' to linux to run?
It aint gunna be the drive on the xbox thats for sure.
Do you really want to network copy things to ram each time it boots?
Better question, will your average gamer?
If one wants to go through all that trouble, may as well mod it really.
Its great to have options and all, I just dont think this will be the next gaming platform for xbox or anything is all.
> If Microsoft declines, future legal actions could > point to their anti-competitive behavior in this
:)
> area.
Really? I didnt know MS did anything to prevent sony and nintendo from entering the console market!
And isnt it so messed up how when you buy a TV your forced to get an xbox and they wont take them back so you can buy any other console?
Oh wait, thats NEVER happened.
Ah well, you had a good point till reality kicked in
> since signing Linux means that ANY other
:)
> application can be run on top of Linux (Think Wine,
> VMWare and so on..), which nullifies ALL of the
> controls Microsoft has put in place to make the
> console 'theirs'.
You dont know much about public/private key encryption and signing do you?
Once its signed, its only valid while signed. If a single bit changed the signature will no longer be valid and will fail to boot.
All MS has to make sure of is you cant 'swap out' disks after linux is booted to get other software loaded.
Granted maybe that isnt possible, but if it wasnt they wouldnt sign it.
Once its signed its not modifiable, so your stuck with whatever software is included when it was signed.
> How is this valid in a court of law right now?
> Would this really be concidered a valid defense for
> people making/selling mod chips?
Up until the DMCA, yes, that was all one needed to make it legal.
The only way it would have been illegal is if the MAIN use was for piracy. This proves it isnt.
Unfortunatly the DMCA makes this chip illegal just because it allows you to do something with MS's hardware that MS didnt say you could (Which is all the DMCA law reads, as it seems even counting is concidered an encryption device now.)
> Ok, but what I say to that is: if you know you
:)
> have something you need/want to hide - then take
> steps to hide it.
I wasnt at all arguing about google.
I aggree, if you want something hidden, take steps to hide it.
I was just countering the too-oft-used saying "You dont have anything to hide do you? So why worry!"
I personally dont think this is at all a case to care.
My only point is that there is a time and place to care, and while this isnt it, you shouldnt shrug them all off by saying something threatening such as "You dont have anything to hide do you?"
Sorry if there was any confusion
> To all you paranoid slashdotters out there this
:)
;)
> might sound weird. But, really, truly, I have
> NOTHING to hide - so why worry?
Well, I am happy that is the case for you. And I am happy that is the case for everyone where its true
But for some people, it simply isnt the case.
Id like to start out by saying right/wrong is NOT the same as legal/illegal.
If you think they are the same, then either you are a very evil person, or a lawyer
(Yes yes just kidding to all the lawyers out there... Easy shot)
There are laws to make right things illegal, and there are wrong things that are perfectly legal.
That said, lets say I was doing something that, while I and most people do concider not wrong, the government where I live says is illegal.
Lets also say I have good reason to believe and minor proof that the reason its illegal is due to racism in the govenrment, and not because 'its dangerous or bad to do'
Should a (from this point of view) corupted governments word be enough to make/force me to stop doing something that isnt harmful to anyone?
If i could do something, that literally effected NOONE else but me. Where I could be a hermit in a shack in the middle of the woods a hundred miles in any direction from any other person, and still do my thing, the only living thing (human or not) that would be effected is myself.. then why shouldnt I be able to do so?
Reality says i can (As if noone knows im doing it, and cant tell without my admitting to it, and its not effecting anyone else to say so for me)
But the law says 'no bad stop'
In that case I would feel I need to hide my actions, not because i feel my actions are _wrong_ but because i have been told those actions are _illegal_ and I do not have the opertunity to argue my case with anyone that would listen (No thats not the job of the police, only the judge, and they usually follow whats been done in the past.)
Now, i personally have nothing to hide either.
However, I can see there are plenty of times when people DO have GOOD reasons to hide things.
In addition, if i have some sexual fetish that, while nothing is wrong with it, there is no reason anyone but me and my sexual partners need know it unless *I* choose.
That is a good reason to hide that.
Not because its wrong or needs hidden, but because its easier dealing with other people if they didnt know things about me they did not understand.
Especially when you look at the average person and all the out right false facts they have about things, and fear/prejudices preventing them from using an open mind to understand an issue better, they would rather fear it and shun anyone that is different.
These reasons alone are good enough to keep things hidden.
> That's a legitimate argument.
No.
If i could go out and run wires to provide DSL (or whatever) services over, then yes it would be a vaild argument.
The government claims i have no right to do this, only the phone co has a right to do that.
Well, for exchange for this "right", they better fucking stop bitching and DO THAT.
They bitch and moan they want to be the only one allowed to place wires to peoples home.
This is the cost, they HAVE TO DO IT no matter who asks, them, their competition, the govt, anyone.
> They learned enough not to bother investing money
> in improving broadband in Kansas. Who really lost?
The people lost, the government and coproration wins.
This is the USA, its not surprising in the least anymore. This is what our country is setup to do.
Sigh, you totally missed my point.
> Cellular nuclei moving from mature adult mammalian
> somatic cells into unfertilized egg cells that
> have no nuclei of their own is not natural, it is
> in fact impossible without medical science
You are correct.
It is impossible without medical science.
Fortunatly medical science is very possible.
This means anything coming FROM medical science is also possible, and thus natural.
Nature is the container of all that we are in.
By the very fact cloning happens, means its playing by the rules of nature.
Just because it requires a human to do it is totally irrelivent.
Humans happen in nature too, thus we are possible (Fortunatly no one has argued that one yet)
Thus, anything we (being of nature) do, is natural as well.
I also find it funny you claim what i say is "pseudo religious nonsense" when in fact its most religons that argue the same point you are making, while science argues the point I am making.