Er, by link, I mean the non-link source which you didn't post (but which I almost asked you to post). And the google result which I didn't click on (due to work, as I already stated)..
Generally, "referred to" means you posted a link. FYI.
Net neutrality returns to reply that BT isn't in the business of blocking sites that are considered illegal. BT is in the business of sending a packet from one IP:port to another IP:port.
I have a friend... had sex with a girl who showed him a fake ID... His life has been ruined and he's in prison now
The people who were responsible should be tarred, feathered... hell, castrated, beheaded, and have their entrails removed and remains paraded through town. And not re-elected, if that's what it takes to get rid of them.
Fuck that shit.
And no, to clarify and avoid any misunderstanding, I don't mean him. Nor the girl... well, unless she was the one who reported him.
In my state, at least, it's a valid defense that you believed the person was of-age. Not saying you go free, but at least it's a defense to "your life is ruined, do not pass go, do not collect $200". And the age of consent is 17 here anyway - what bass-ackward state do you live in where the AOC is still 18? In fact, most states it's sixteen. There should be a class-action lawsuit on behalf of everyone convicted of having sex with a 17-year-old, on the basis of the fact that it's fucking legal in most of the civilized world. And most of the uncivilized world, too, for what it's worth - not that the uncivilized world cares all that much about people who've passed puberty consensually fucking each other.
Siri uses Google and who-knows-how-many other resources to come up with an answer. AFAIK, rehab actually bubbles to the top somehow. Do I think they programmed it to respond to requests for drug dealers by telling you the nearest NA group? No, I don't think that. Possible, but unlikely.
An "age gap" provision doesn't necessarily mean there is no crime. It may make an offense a misdemeanor rather than a felony, or it might just make it permissible defense against charges in court. Other defenses exist in some states, for instance, if you didn't realize the person was underage*, or if they're your spouse**.
*this defense is probably much more likely to be convincing if the minor is 15 than if they are 5 **possible in some states, with parental and/or a judge's approval
If Siri pulls out important key words, and performs a blind context search over a generic database, then they are no different from Google.
Then replace "concierge" with Google and re-ask it.
My point was, if you wouldn't blame Google for helping someone find a drug dealer, and you wouldn't blame Siri for helping someone find a drug dealer, and you would blame a concierge for helping someone find a drug dealer - well, there's a difference there, and the difference is the human. It's not an appropriate analogy to compare BT to the concierge. It's all computerized. There's no human at BT saying "this site is okay... this site is not" every time a subscriber wants to load a page. Even if there were, the human would just make a list and a computer would do the rest of the work blocking the sites, and as you said, it would open the door to liability if it let something through that it should have blocked.
You want some drugs, so you hunt down the concierge, pass him a tip, and discretely ask him where to get <insert favorite narcotic slag>. The concierge points you to some dealer working out of a van down by the river, and you get your fix. The concierge hasn't sold any drugs, and let's say hes not getting a kickback from the dealer. According to the law, he has still willfully aided in a felony.
Why don't you replace "concierge" with Siri and ask that same question.
The.torrent file is itself just a link, and a description of what the link contains. As long as we're being perfectly arbitrary about it, why not draw the line at the link to the.html file that linked you to the.torrent file, and told you what it linked to?
The "full-blown flu" symptoms aren't the flu at all; they're just the body's response to it, trying to kill it and making you very uncomfortable in the process.
If your body overreacts to the flu vaccine, it could be exactly like having the "full-blown flu", but you don't have the flu. You're not contagious.
If you connect to the right IP address and get the wrong site, it's because you put the wrong name in the host header, or omitted it.
How do you set the host header of your request? It's the domain up there in the address bar.
It's almost always used by your browser to determine which IP to send the packets to. Almost always. Ever heard of a proxy server? It's just a HTTP server set up on a port other than port 80, which has no content of its own but is configured to fetch content from other domains, based on the host header of your request, and return them to you.
Just set your HTTP proxy to the IP of the site, port 80, and then you can put any domain you want in the domain and you'll either get a page from that site (if it entirely ignored the host of your request, which it might if it only hosts one domain) or an error page saying "no, you dummy, I'm not an open proxy, and that's not one of the domains I'm configured to host". Or, in the highly unlikely probability that it is incorrectly configured to be an open proxy server, it might even give you a page from the domain you indicated.
In fact, there are people who compile lists of HTTP servers which are configured (probably incorrectly) to act like open proxy servers.
I'm religious, but your Lord is not my Lord, and I dispute your claim that your Lord is the one who "owns time". So instead of getting into a pissing contest over whose God gets to be the one running Time, how about we just agree to call it the "Current Era", and leave all the dates the same so we don't have to fuck around with changing calendars?
You might as well have said,
I'm religious, but your Lord is not my Lord, and I dispute your claim that your Lord is the one who "owns marriage". So instead of getting into a pissing contest over whose God gets to be the one running weddings, how about we just agree to call them "civil unions", and leave everything else the same so we don't have to fuck around with changing the rest of the laws and stuff?
I'm not going to argue with the sentiment (I've actually argued for that civil union point before), but it's goddamn petty. It's not going to change, and the only thing to do is ignore the people who want to be petty about it, because they'll never change.
For a better analogy, it's like trying to substitute "Xmas" for "Christmas". The Christians take it as a direct attack on them (which it is, really), most everyone else thinks you're being petty, it never really catches on, and (not least importantly) the joke's on you really since you're still basing it off of the same Christian roots that you attempted to eradicate. X is the first letter in the Greek word for "Christ". Similarly, the "current era" is still based on the life of Christ. Change it from AD (Anno Domini, "the year of our Lord", not "after death" as it's often misunderstood to mean) to CE? You called it something different. Big whoop.
For an analogy that Christians would appreciate, it's like the whiners who complained about the title on Jesus cross: "Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews". The title stayed, and the whiners were told to go take a piss. Who cares what it's called? It is what it is, and it's called what it is, and that's the way it's going to stay. Unless you really, seriously believe that a sign on a gallows is going to change anyone's mind as to whether the executed was (or wasn't) the king of the Jews.
Or for an analogy that Slashdotters might appreciate more, it's like using the word "fracking" on TV because you (still) can't broadcast the word "fucking" over public airwaves. Everyone knows what it means, and everyone thinks it's a stupid fucking technicality.
There's a riddle that goes... if you call a lamb's tail a leg, how many legs does it have? Four. It has four legs and a tail, and you're silly if you call its tail a leg.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, by link, I mean the non-link source which you didn't post (but which I almost asked you to post). And the google result which I didn't click on (due to work, as I already stated)..
Generally, "referred to" means you posted a link. FYI.
Thanks for that, I wasn't about to click that particular link at work. Wikipedia's one thing...
Net neutrality returns to reply that BT isn't in the business of blocking sites that are considered illegal. BT is in the business of sending a packet from one IP:port to another IP:port.
Pretty sure that's already happened.
I have a friend ... had sex with a girl who showed him a fake ID ... His life has been ruined and he's in prison now
The people who were responsible should be tarred, feathered... hell, castrated, beheaded, and have their entrails removed and remains paraded through town. And not re-elected, if that's what it takes to get rid of them.
Fuck that shit.
And no, to clarify and avoid any misunderstanding, I don't mean him. Nor the girl... well, unless she was the one who reported him.
In my state, at least, it's a valid defense that you believed the person was of-age. Not saying you go free, but at least it's a defense to "your life is ruined, do not pass go, do not collect $200". And the age of consent is 17 here anyway - what bass-ackward state do you live in where the AOC is still 18? In fact, most states it's sixteen. There should be a class-action lawsuit on behalf of everyone convicted of having sex with a 17-year-old, on the basis of the fact that it's fucking legal in most of the civilized world. And most of the uncivilized world, too, for what it's worth - not that the uncivilized world cares all that much about people who've passed puberty consensually fucking each other.
Pardon, had a few too many tabs open and a few too many beers down and assumed that that was the entire title.
Key word, though, being "BT" and coming at the very fucking beginning so I still don't see how you didn't figure out that BT is involved.
In some states, that's a defense you can use. Might get you a lighter sentence.
Where did BT factor into any of this?
Perhaps you're reading the wrong story. The one I'm reading is entitled "BT Ordered to Block Usenet Binaries".
Siri uses Google and who-knows-how-many other resources to come up with an answer. AFAIK, rehab actually bubbles to the top somehow. Do I think they programmed it to respond to requests for drug dealers by telling you the nearest NA group? No, I don't think that. Possible, but unlikely.
http://twitter.com/#!/zackwhittaker/status/29299981554
An "age gap" provision doesn't necessarily mean there is no crime. It may make an offense a misdemeanor rather than a felony, or it might just make it permissible defense against charges in court. Other defenses exist in some states, for instance, if you didn't realize the person was underage*, or if they're your spouse**.
*this defense is probably much more likely to be convincing if the minor is 15 than if they are 5
**possible in some states, with parental and/or a judge's approval
If we're talking about most states, we might as well point out that 16 is legal anyway in most states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_-_North_America.svg
You know what else is still ridiculously cheap? Fresh air and sunshine.
I don't buy into the idea that just because something has value we should automatically expect it to come at a cost.
Actually my point was that Siri has net neutrality and hotel concierges do not, and BT is more like Siri than it is like a concierge.
If Siri pulls out important key words, and performs a blind context search over a generic database, then they are no different from Google.
Then replace "concierge" with Google and re-ask it.
My point was, if you wouldn't blame Google for helping someone find a drug dealer, and you wouldn't blame Siri for helping someone find a drug dealer, and you would blame a concierge for helping someone find a drug dealer - well, there's a difference there, and the difference is the human. It's not an appropriate analogy to compare BT to the concierge. It's all computerized. There's no human at BT saying "this site is okay... this site is not" every time a subscriber wants to load a page. Even if there were, the human would just make a list and a computer would do the rest of the work blocking the sites, and as you said, it would open the door to liability if it let something through that it should have blocked.
You want some drugs, so you hunt down the concierge, pass him a tip, and discretely ask him where to get <insert favorite narcotic slag>. The concierge points you to some dealer working out of a van down by the river, and you get your fix. The concierge hasn't sold any drugs, and let's say hes not getting a kickback from the dealer. According to the law, he has still willfully aided in a felony.
Why don't you replace "concierge" with Siri and ask that same question.
The .torrent file is itself just a link, and a description of what the link contains. As long as we're being perfectly arbitrary about it, why not draw the line at the link to the .html file that linked you to the .torrent file, and told you what it linked to?
The "full-blown flu" symptoms aren't the flu at all; they're just the body's response to it, trying to kill it and making you very uncomfortable in the process.
If your body overreacts to the flu vaccine, it could be exactly like having the "full-blown flu", but you don't have the flu. You're not contagious.
If you connect to the right IP address and get the wrong site, it's because you put the wrong name in the host header, or omitted it.
How do you set the host header of your request? It's the domain up there in the address bar.
It's almost always used by your browser to determine which IP to send the packets to. Almost always. Ever heard of a proxy server? It's just a HTTP server set up on a port other than port 80, which has no content of its own but is configured to fetch content from other domains, based on the host header of your request, and return them to you.
Just set your HTTP proxy to the IP of the site, port 80, and then you can put any domain you want in the domain and you'll either get a page from that site (if it entirely ignored the host of your request, which it might if it only hosts one domain) or an error page saying "no, you dummy, I'm not an open proxy, and that's not one of the domains I'm configured to host". Or, in the highly unlikely probability that it is incorrectly configured to be an open proxy server, it might even give you a page from the domain you indicated.
In fact, there are people who compile lists of HTTP servers which are configured (probably incorrectly) to act like open proxy servers.
Only until they're outlawed too.
No, Google creates a specific index of the internet, which is mostly used for pirating porn. Unless some people are stilling paying for it...
See, if we're making broad generalizations it's easy to paint everything the same color. You're using too wide a brush.
I'm religious, but your Lord is not my Lord, and I dispute your claim that your Lord is the one who "owns time". So instead of getting into a pissing contest over whose God gets to be the one running Time, how about we just agree to call it the "Current Era", and leave all the dates the same so we don't have to fuck around with changing calendars?
You might as well have said,
I'm religious, but your Lord is not my Lord, and I dispute your claim that your Lord is the one who "owns marriage". So instead of getting into a pissing contest over whose God gets to be the one running weddings, how about we just agree to call them "civil unions", and leave everything else the same so we don't have to fuck around with changing the rest of the laws and stuff?
I'm not going to argue with the sentiment (I've actually argued for that civil union point before), but it's goddamn petty. It's not going to change, and the only thing to do is ignore the people who want to be petty about it, because they'll never change.
For a better analogy, it's like trying to substitute "Xmas" for "Christmas". The Christians take it as a direct attack on them (which it is, really), most everyone else thinks you're being petty, it never really catches on, and (not least importantly) the joke's on you really since you're still basing it off of the same Christian roots that you attempted to eradicate. X is the first letter in the Greek word for "Christ". Similarly, the "current era" is still based on the life of Christ. Change it from AD (Anno Domini, "the year of our Lord", not "after death" as it's often misunderstood to mean) to CE? You called it something different. Big whoop.
For an analogy that Christians would appreciate, it's like the whiners who complained about the title on Jesus cross: "Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews". The title stayed, and the whiners were told to go take a piss. Who cares what it's called? It is what it is, and it's called what it is, and that's the way it's going to stay. Unless you really, seriously believe that a sign on a gallows is going to change anyone's mind as to whether the executed was (or wasn't) the king of the Jews.
Or for an analogy that Slashdotters might appreciate more, it's like using the word "fracking" on TV because you (still) can't broadcast the word "fucking" over public airwaves. Everyone knows what it means, and everyone thinks it's a stupid fucking technicality.
There's a riddle that goes... if you call a lamb's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?
Four. It has four legs and a tail, and you're silly if you call its tail a leg.
Duh... like any other revolutionary change to the way we've counted dates. Pick any time of arbitrary significance. Say... "now".
Now you just have to decide whether it was the beginning of year 0 or 1.
Then comes the hard part: getting people to switch. This works better when you bring an army.
>Run away
It is cold and dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.