I'd much sooner accept that, though of course it opens up a bit of a can of worms with the "who filters," "who pays for the people filtering," "what criteria do they use," etc. After all, a whitelist is the only really effective form of filtering (aside from, of course, a parent in the room).
And if you think ISP's are going to do this filtering, you're out of your mind. What are they going to do? Start requiring you to register your children with your ISP?
If they're smart - and I'm not so certain they are, particularly in Australia - no, the ISP's won't be the ones doing this. Nor do I think anyone will have the balls to tell you what you can and can't filter in your own home, directly.
BUT: If a social worker is ever given reason to visit your home, even for a false complaint, how will "doesn't block XXX sites on house computer" look on their report? How many Fox News reports on people losing their kids because they "let them watch smut" before parents get scared? With the possibility of losing your children in play, how many parents will block.xxx "voluntarily?"
And even if ISPs don't outright filter said content, I could see them charging an increased rate for access to the XXX domains. Or, more likely, providing a cheaper "business tier" service with those already removed. After all, XXX means movies and other large content; it's only logical to charge less for those people who use less bandwidth, while at the same time handling the filtering for people not familiar enough with routers to do so on their own (though of course, that does mean the whole connection is filtered, not just the kids' computer, but ah well). And then, at home, people getting service will basically be asked, "do you want access to porn? It will cost more." And just like that, the Internet falls into de facto filtering, not by any grandiose legal procedures but simply because a) ISPs are businesses, b) people are cheap, and c) people are too embarrassed to admit they like porn to a CSR rep. Combine that with the inevitable snowballing of more and more conservative definitions of "pornography," and there you go: a nation restricted to the blandest, least offensive version of the Internet.
Is it a slippery slope argument? Oh, absolutely. But look at the individual steps: do any of them seem all THAT far fetched in the modern US's political climate? Censorship is a lot like a boiled frog that way: you never see it coming when it's done so very gradually.
How did your post hit +5? You've missed the point ENTIRELY. The reason the domain is a bad idea is because once you've set off a designation for "porn," the next logical steps for the puritanical minority are clear:
- demand that ALL sites with pornographic content be stored under the XXX domain. "The pornographic industry can either self-regulate using the tools we've given them or the government will have to step in and do it FOR them. You don't want that, do you?"
- demand that all work/government/public/houses-with-children computers hard-filter out XXX. "After all, it's explicitly for porn! What, do you want your kids reading porn? This just makes sense!"
- demand that any site with nudity be classified as "pornographic." Art, medical textbooks, pictures of the diagrams included with the space probe, whatever. "Adults on their own time can access these materials just fine. It's not hard to get around these things on a personal computer. If you need to see them at work, ask for a special exception."
- bad language and violence are moved into the designation. "We have an opportunity here to create a kid-safe Internet. We're not censoring these things, of course; we're just classifying them!"
- multiple heavily-conservative foreign nations ban the XXX domain entirely. "We don't feel this sort of content is appropriate for the mental well-being of our constituents. In the name of their safety, the People will block the people from viewing them."
- major websites begin to heavily censor their content to avoid being banned in entire countries and inaccessible from most terminals. "It's just a few pages cut. When we're only accessible to 10% of the computers out there, our ad revenue no longer supports the site."
- any and all content that in any way offends anyone or doesn't immediately appeal to the international lowest common denominator of "good taste" is relegated to a tiny, much-maligned red light district of the Internet.
The XXX domain is scary because it's essentially the beginning of an attempt to make the Internet look like broadcast television, only worse.
I have several complaints about BofA, but their handling of fraud isn't one of them. I've had my debit card stolen by Gypsies (yes, really) while in Europe, had it exposed by an online store's security compromise, had an Ebay transaction go very bad, and had it once used to buy $50 worth of gas 100 miles away where I never traced the angle of attack. In every case, I had the funds back within hours and a new card within the week.
Actually, I did have one complaint: when they stop a potentially fraudulent charge, an automated system calls YOU and asks for the last four digits of your SS to "confirm." I hung up and called the number on the card; they confirmed it was a real call and couldn't seem to understand why I thought that was insane.
But there's something else I learned about BofA recently: they're actually a number of smaller franchises pretending to be one unit. Though they appear unified, accounts are specific to your region/state/branch. I discovered this problem after moving cross country, when a bank manager very politely informed me that he could make zero changes to how my account was set up short of himself calling the same number to which I already had access. So the differing stories might be because we're actually dealing with different banks entirely.
I know this is Slashdot and all, but for the rest of the world, "system" means any organized collection of rules and doctrines. "System" here refers to the Emergency Response System as a whole, including the computers, the people who run them, the officials responsible for determining policy, etc.
Because, as you yourself point out, it's "optional." If I one day arrived at Slashdot and had to enable scripting to view the comments, I'd delete the bookmark and never look back, even after a decade as a reader.
Now wait, hold on a second: "this includes tracking down a loaner computer that, against regulations, might be taken off campus" - I was led to believe that the laptops were given out to students to take home. Does this statement contradict that, or do they specifically mean loaner computers are the only type that aren't allowed to be taken off school grounds?
If the laptops were never intended to leave the premises, I might forgive the security measures he describes.
God, I remember that. Used to get my Dad to take me to Fry's, marvel at all the stuff I could never hope to afford, then hop across the road and spend my allowance on shareware floppies.
Your sarcasm meter is broken. My point was that as soon as a title hits theaters, it has a torrent up. From a "competing with pirates" angle, there's little difference between having a rental up now or a month from now: the morally bereft have already partaken.
How is it a hassle? It IS a delay, but as Netflix is the only place I use to check new releases, it's one I admittedly won't notice. In return, we'll get way more instant-watch movies available, which I don't have to wait for and can watch on my laptop or two of the three consoles in the house.
It's hardly an anti-customer strategy when they make the same choice I'd have asked them to, given the option. The only thing currently stopping Instant-Watch from being really awesome is its subpar selection. And really, if I cared about seeing the movies from Netflix soon after they came out, I'd have seen them in theaters.
These things have gone from funny to angry and vindictive. In particular, that overpass-falling one strikes me as an easy mistake. Here in Raleigh, we just had two people do something very similar: an overpass (near the Crabtree area, for locals) looks for all the world like it's a single bridge. But in reality, each lane is its own structure, with about four to six feet between the two that drops straight down to the freeway below. I'd driven by a hundred times and had no idea, and while yes, I'd like to think I'd look before I leaped over, I could easily see paying more attention to traffic than the divider itself and making the same mistake.
That entry happened, according to the site, in Florida, so it's a different area. But there's certainly not enough information there to make a judgment call on his intelligence.
Any system wherein you upload pictures for the world to see is fail for not assuming that's what you want to do? We're not talking an OS or web server here; it's a social site.
I have to ask: if you have private pictures, why are they online?
So by your own admission, you've been entering and leaving for several decades now. And you stopped - or slowed down - not because of any real evidence, or anything you witnessed, or anything you had happen to you. You just suddenly decided it was "one of the most dangerous places" you could think of. Based on what? Stupid, trumped-up, half-reported crap like this "story"?
If you think it's likely you'll get out of your car when ordered not to, yell at officers when they tell you to get back in, and choke an officer when he tries to put cuffs on you, yeah, I suggest you stay out.
Man, that would an awesome movie: they train him to be an assassin. He knows nothing except what's in the folder he's given and, of course, how to KICK ASS. And, uh, do Parkour, since all action heroes can do that now.
The "comic book" effect on the art can be turned off in visual options. Am I the only one who goes through all the options menus before doing anything else in a new game?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd much sooner accept that, though of course it opens up a bit of a can of worms with the "who filters," "who pays for the people filtering," "what criteria do they use," etc. After all, a whitelist is the only really effective form of filtering (aside from, of course, a parent in the room).
And if you think ISP's are going to do this filtering, you're out of your mind. What are they going to do? Start requiring you to register your children with your ISP?
If they're smart - and I'm not so certain they are, particularly in Australia - no, the ISP's won't be the ones doing this. Nor do I think anyone will have the balls to tell you what you can and can't filter in your own home, directly.
BUT: If a social worker is ever given reason to visit your home, even for a false complaint, how will "doesn't block XXX sites on house computer" look on their report? How many Fox News reports on people losing their kids because they "let them watch smut" before parents get scared? With the possibility of losing your children in play, how many parents will block .xxx "voluntarily?"
And even if ISPs don't outright filter said content, I could see them charging an increased rate for access to the XXX domains. Or, more likely, providing a cheaper "business tier" service with those already removed. After all, XXX means movies and other large content; it's only logical to charge less for those people who use less bandwidth, while at the same time handling the filtering for people not familiar enough with routers to do so on their own (though of course, that does mean the whole connection is filtered, not just the kids' computer, but ah well). And then, at home, people getting service will basically be asked, "do you want access to porn? It will cost more." And just like that, the Internet falls into de facto filtering, not by any grandiose legal procedures but simply because a) ISPs are businesses, b) people are cheap, and c) people are too embarrassed to admit they like porn to a CSR rep. Combine that with the inevitable snowballing of more and more conservative definitions of "pornography," and there you go: a nation restricted to the blandest, least offensive version of the Internet.
Is it a slippery slope argument? Oh, absolutely. But look at the individual steps: do any of them seem all THAT far fetched in the modern US's political climate? Censorship is a lot like a boiled frog that way: you never see it coming when it's done so very gradually.
How did your post hit +5? You've missed the point ENTIRELY. The reason the domain is a bad idea is because once you've set off a designation for "porn," the next logical steps for the puritanical minority are clear:
- demand that ALL sites with pornographic content be stored under the XXX domain. "The pornographic industry can either self-regulate using the tools we've given them or the government will have to step in and do it FOR them. You don't want that, do you?"
- demand that all work/government/public/houses-with-children computers hard-filter out XXX. "After all, it's explicitly for porn! What, do you want your kids reading porn? This just makes sense!"
- demand that any site with nudity be classified as "pornographic." Art, medical textbooks, pictures of the diagrams included with the space probe, whatever. "Adults on their own time can access these materials just fine. It's not hard to get around these things on a personal computer. If you need to see them at work, ask for a special exception."
- bad language and violence are moved into the designation. "We have an opportunity here to create a kid-safe Internet. We're not censoring these things, of course; we're just classifying them!"
- multiple heavily-conservative foreign nations ban the XXX domain entirely. "We don't feel this sort of content is appropriate for the mental well-being of our constituents. In the name of their safety, the People will block the people from viewing them."
- major websites begin to heavily censor their content to avoid being banned in entire countries and inaccessible from most terminals. "It's just a few pages cut. When we're only accessible to 10% of the computers out there, our ad revenue no longer supports the site."
- any and all content that in any way offends anyone or doesn't immediately appeal to the international lowest common denominator of "good taste" is relegated to a tiny, much-maligned red light district of the Internet.
The XXX domain is scary because it's essentially the beginning of an attempt to make the Internet look like broadcast television, only worse.
Agreed. Apparently, this guy thought when people say they're selling speakers that "fell off the back of a truck," it was a valid legal argument.
I have several complaints about BofA, but their handling of fraud isn't one of them. I've had my debit card stolen by Gypsies (yes, really) while in Europe, had it exposed by an online store's security compromise, had an Ebay transaction go very bad, and had it once used to buy $50 worth of gas 100 miles away where I never traced the angle of attack. In every case, I had the funds back within hours and a new card within the week.
Actually, I did have one complaint: when they stop a potentially fraudulent charge, an automated system calls YOU and asks for the last four digits of your SS to "confirm." I hung up and called the number on the card; they confirmed it was a real call and couldn't seem to understand why I thought that was insane.
But there's something else I learned about BofA recently: they're actually a number of smaller franchises pretending to be one unit. Though they appear unified, accounts are specific to your region/state/branch. I discovered this problem after moving cross country, when a bank manager very politely informed me that he could make zero changes to how my account was set up short of himself calling the same number to which I already had access. So the differing stories might be because we're actually dealing with different banks entirely.
I know this is Slashdot and all, but for the rest of the world, "system" means any organized collection of rules and doctrines. "System" here refers to the Emergency Response System as a whole, including the computers, the people who run them, the officials responsible for determining policy, etc.
Because, as you yourself point out, it's "optional." If I one day arrived at Slashdot and had to enable scripting to view the comments, I'd delete the bookmark and never look back, even after a decade as a reader.
Now wait, hold on a second: "this includes tracking down a loaner computer that, against regulations, might be taken off campus" - I was led to believe that the laptops were given out to students to take home. Does this statement contradict that, or do they specifically mean loaner computers are the only type that aren't allowed to be taken off school grounds?
If the laptops were never intended to leave the premises, I might forgive the security measures he describes.
Yeah, I could make a car that went 861 MPH and got 2k+ MPG if I dropped it out of a plane, too.
God, I remember that. Used to get my Dad to take me to Fry's, marvel at all the stuff I could never hope to afford, then hop across the road and spend my allowance on shareware floppies.
I know you're not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition, but that's not a good alternative.
Your sarcasm meter is broken. My point was that as soon as a title hits theaters, it has a torrent up. From a "competing with pirates" angle, there's little difference between having a rental up now or a month from now: the morally bereft have already partaken.
Really? So you're saying pirates are patiently waiting for the DVD or Bluray to come out before watching films? How polite.
How is it a hassle? It IS a delay, but as Netflix is the only place I use to check new releases, it's one I admittedly won't notice. In return, we'll get way more instant-watch movies available, which I don't have to wait for and can watch on my laptop or two of the three consoles in the house.
It's hardly an anti-customer strategy when they make the same choice I'd have asked them to, given the option. The only thing currently stopping Instant-Watch from being really awesome is its subpar selection. And really, if I cared about seeing the movies from Netflix soon after they came out, I'd have seen them in theaters.
"I'm not calling you stupid, I'm just saying you do stupid things." Yeah, heard that one before. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.
These things have gone from funny to angry and vindictive. In particular, that overpass-falling one strikes me as an easy mistake. Here in Raleigh, we just had two people do something very similar: an overpass (near the Crabtree area, for locals) looks for all the world like it's a single bridge. But in reality, each lane is its own structure, with about four to six feet between the two that drops straight down to the freeway below. I'd driven by a hundred times and had no idea, and while yes, I'd like to think I'd look before I leaped over, I could easily see paying more attention to traffic than the divider itself and making the same mistake.
That entry happened, according to the site, in Florida, so it's a different area. But there's certainly not enough information there to make a judgment call on his intelligence.
But was it "fucking obvious" in 1998?
You misspelled "cheater" as "hardcore gamer."
No no no, let me fix that:
Threats are threats, even
when online. Sounds about right.
Next topic, please sir!
Any system wherein you upload pictures for the world to see is fail for not assuming that's what you want to do? We're not talking an OS or web server here; it's a social site.
I have to ask: if you have private pictures, why are they online?
So by your own admission, you've been entering and leaving for several decades now. And you stopped - or slowed down - not because of any real evidence, or anything you witnessed, or anything you had happen to you. You just suddenly decided it was "one of the most dangerous places" you could think of. Based on what? Stupid, trumped-up, half-reported crap like this "story"?
If you think it's likely you'll get out of your car when ordered not to, yell at officers when they tell you to get back in, and choke an officer when he tries to put cuffs on you, yeah, I suggest you stay out.
Man, that would an awesome movie: they train him to be an assassin. He knows nothing except what's in the folder he's given and, of course, how to KICK ASS. And, uh, do Parkour, since all action heroes can do that now.
Imagine you design cars. Someone calls you a "mechanic." Is this a problem?
Congratulations! You've just described the process of evolution.
The "comic book" effect on the art can be turned off in visual options. Am I the only one who goes through all the options menus before doing anything else in a new game?