However, I don't see your point. Mandated filtering has nothing to do with the government telling you what you can or can not view -- not at any rate until they begin to require filters on your home connection.
When a large segment of the population must, for financial reasons, rely on public libraries and schools for their Internet connections, government filtering of those connections is telling them what they can view.
I personally know little about fltering companies in the U.S., but I detect in your words both strawman reasoning and ad hominen argumentation: if I can label them "born-again evangelical Christians", then I don't have to deal with the content of their argument, as we all know born-again types are incapable of rational thought.
I was using that as an example. I am sure that there are censorware packages being released by people with all sorts of agendas. But that's the point: They have an agenda. In fact, that's the entire point of filtering. Someone, with no oversight, is choosing what a large segment of the population can and cannot see on the Internet based on their own moral values.
By the way, I appreciate both your intelligence and debating skills. It's rare to find both on Slashdot.
And a poor woman surfing at her local library is going to get more and better information off the net than she can get from a gynecologist, "top-notch" or not?
Sometimes what she needs is a lot more time than the assembly line doctor can spend. Sometimes she needs to read the stories of others who fought the illness. And yes, in many cases, she will get better, more complete information from reputable resources on the Internet than from some free clinic doctor.
My comment was meant to indicate that "the poor" are every bit the shibboleth for filtering opponents as "the children" are for proponents. Proponents want to protect "the children", opponents want to protect "the poor". I have a hard time subscribing to the sincerity of either side.
If you doubt my sincerity, think about my motives. I have no children. I'm not poor and neither are my friends or family. I have never used a library computer for Internet access. I have six computers in my home and a broadband connection. I work at a computer all day long. My friends all have computers. So why do I care about filtering? Because I believe in the Constitution of the United States and I oppose government-mandated filtering of what the public can read and see. I think that people in the U.S. have a right to read everything and make up their own minds. I don't think that a censorware company run by born-again, evangelical Christians should be given a mandate by the government to determine what children, or anyone else, in this country can read on the Internet.
Now consider the motives of the filtering proponents. They want to push their own moral agenda on society. Many of them are opposed to abortion, premarital sex, or pornography and will go to great lengths to suppress information on those topics -- even if it means that kids will end up pregnant, diseased, or dead.
Poverty in this country is not due to lack of opportunity, but to lack of responsibility.
Just when I think that you can't get any more offensive, you surprise me with a "gem" like that. I know people that work hard every day and barely have enough money to make ends meet -- much less purchase computers, modems, and Internet service. There are Hispanic laborers in this area who work seven days a week and can't even afford a used car much less a computer. There are maids in hotels with no real job skills that are supporting their children and their elderly parents.
Not everyone who is poor is lazy, shiftless, unmotivated, and irresponsible. Most poor people had no farm to grow up on. They were born into poverty in tiny, subsidized, inner city apartments to uneducated parents. Instead of patting yourself on the back for rising out of middle income and making it to upper-middle income, you should spend some time in Appalachia or the projects in any major city. Then tell me how it's all a matter of being responsible.
Second, here anyone that has a real job can afford a private internet connection that is not censored
What an elitist snob you are! People who have to get up at the crack of dawn to pick up your trash have "real jobs." So do people that rake leaves and cut grass for a living. People that risk their lives and health to do coal mining have real jobs. Yet you don't think that they deserve real Internet access?
if you can ever prove that a filter vendor deliberately blocked a political site, you definitely should be able to either get that damned law overturned in court
Peacefire.org (www.peacefire.org) wrote a report that lists the following candidate's sites that were blocked by filtering software:
Some of the Democratic candidates' sites blocked by Cyber Patrol include:
* Pat Casey, 10th District, Pennsylvania
* Linda Chapin, 8th District, Florida
* Llord Doggett, Texas
* Mark Greene, 12th District, Texas
* Joan Johnson, Colorado
Some of the Republican candidates' sites blocked by Cyber Patrol include:
* Grant Garrett, 9th District, Michigan
* Jeffery Pollock, 3rd District, Oregon
* Jim Ryun, 2nd District, Kansas
* Chris Vance, 9th District, Washington
Libertarian candidate blocked by Cyber Patrol:
* Joe Whelan, West Virginia
Republican candidates' sites blocked by N2H2 Bess:
* Bob Levy, 18th District, Houston, Texas
* Stephen A. Urban, 11th District, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania
* Arneze Washington, 9th District, Oakland, California
* Kathy Williamson, 32nd District, Los Angeles, California
Democratic candidates blocked by N2H2 Bess:
* Brian Pedigo, 2nd District, Bowling Green, Kentucky,
* Ed Markey (a 20-year incumbent)
Libertarian Party websites blocked by N2H2 Bess:
* Fred Foldvary, 9th District, Berkeley, California
* Keith D. Gann, 39th District, Orange County, California
* Jim Higgins, 2nd District, Creve Coeur, Missouri
* Thomas Knapp, 4th District, Lebanon, Missouri
* Al Newberry, 5th District, Missouri
* Wayne L. Parker, 5th District, Saucier, Mississippi
* and the Missouri Libertarian Party.
Other political candidates' websites blocked by N2H2 Bess:
* Alan R. Barreca, Natural Law Party, California
* Clifton Byrd, Reform Party, Texas
* Dennis Carriger, Reform Party, Missouri
* Bruce Currivan, Natural Law Party, D.C.
* Ellen Jefferds, Natural Law Party, D.C.
* Edmon V. Kaiser, American Independent Party, California
* Jon Kurey, Natural Law Party
* Martin Lindstedt, Reform Party, Missouri
* Nikki Oldaker, Independent write-in, Florida
* Rob Penningroth, Reform Party, Missouri
* David J. Schaffer, Natural Law Party, Ohio
* Douglas Schell, Reform Party, North Carolina
* Frank Taylor, Minnesota
Can I prove that the sites were blocked intentionally? No. But this clearly shows the danger inherent in blocking software -- especially since blocking software itself is not open source. We will probably never know which (if any) of the above sites were blocked because of political beliefs, bribes, or simply because the person(s) compiling the sites did not like the candidates in question.
Makers of censorware should get to decide, unregulated, what is and is not to be viewed by U.S. citizens, whether the citizens are adults or minors. We need to get this stuff removed from libraries and schools and the prudish parents will just have to get over the fact that their little darlings will be able to see porn -- or they can home-school the kids (in order to insure that they end up as screwed up as the parents).
Or better yet consult the doctors at the local free clinic.
Free clinics seldom employ top-notch oncologists who are up-to-date on the latest research, clinical trials, and regimens. Ask yourself this: If you, or a family member, were diagnosed with breast or testicular cancer, wouldn't you want to be able to research it online?
Frankly, most of the argument on BOTH sides of this issue are strawmen.
If you believe that, then you have not been following what these packages block. Major, popular censorware packages installed in schools and libraries have blocked everything from Amnesty International to Planned Parenthood to web sites of Congressional candidates.
Filtering proponents are no more out to prevent "the poor" (whatever that means)
It means people that have very little money. Poor people are people who can't afford things like computers, ISP fees, etc.
from accessing information on STDs than opponents are trying to cram porn down children's throats.
I don't think that most filtering proponents are trying to limit what poor people see -- though there are some religious zealots that don't want to let any of us see information of contraception, abortion, STDs, gay rights, etc. Most of the filtering proponents simply don't give a damn about anything other than keeping children from seeing the naughty bits of the Internet. And that's the problem. They are willing to trample the rights of everyone else while sounding the what-about-the-children battlecry.
While that is true, they have the option of refusing the money and not censoring.
Yeah, public schools -- the same ones that can't afford to pay a living wage to teachers -- can afford to refuse funds earmarked to putting in computers and Internet access.
Chinese don't have that option.
And what option does a low-income person have in this country if they rely on the library for Internet access?
I in general I don't like the idea of any censorship; however, we are talking SCHOOLS and LIBRARIES in this case. It is sensible that CHILDREN should not have easy access to pornographic and violent information at an institution that is expected to educate children without direct parental supervision.
Is it sensible that the poor be denied access to information about contraception, venereal disease, and breast cancer? Millions of poor and lower middle income families rely on libraries for their Internet access.
Teach your children some values and they won't be on inappropriate sites. If you can't trust them, then don't leave them to use computers unsupervised.
Or is it wrong for parents to "censor" what their children can view and hear?
No, but it's wrong for parents to censor what every other person in the community can view and hear -- and that's what government-mandated censorware does. It prevents adults from viewing materials that someone (who?) decided were inappropriate for children. If I want my child to be able to find information on AIDS and other STDs, it's not the government's place, or the place of some born-again Christian extremists who write censoring software, to prevent that.
Do you think movie ratings are a form of censorship... (the goal of "censorware" is the same)?
No, the goal of censorware is not to rate web sites according to content and to restrict access based on age. The goal of censorware is to blindly block access to large portions of the web without regard to the user's age.
How do you leap from a government that dictates what it citizens can view to equating that with mandating that schools have software in place to manage access to content that most parents do not what their children to have access to.
First, children are citizens, too. If a sexually active 17 year old wants to find out about birth control over the Internet, he/she should be able to. And these rules don't just affect children. They affect everyone who uses computers in public libraries. If a poor woman in the inner city wants to find out about her treatment options for ovarian cancer, she should be able to using the library's computer. I'm so sick of hearing someone wail "what about the children" every five minutes. If you have kids, raise them yourself and quit trying to turn libraries and schools into cyber daycare centers with computer programs that .
"Out of the 94,000 Internet bars in China, 17,488 have been shut down and another 28,000 were ordered to install monitoring software soon. Of the 27 million Internet users in China, about 4.5 million rely on these bars."
From a previous Slashdot story:
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime proponent of censorware, introduced the amendment...Essentially it says that any school or library which receives federal funds to build its network must install censorware. Since these funds are the chief way that poor and middle-income areas bring the internet into public institutions, effectively this means that only rich counties will have the option of an uncensored internet."
I'm so glad that I don't live in China, where the government attempts to censor public internet access.
If the Chinese government takes away Internet access for millions of users, who will fill my e-mail inbox with unreadable spam that uses character sets not installed on my computer? My, this would be a tragedy...
Carts were expressly forbidden on a PGA tournament course until this disabled golfer imposed his "civil liberties" on them.
Supreme Court Justice Stevens, an avid golfer, said the walking requirement is "at best peripheral" to PGA Tour events. And in any case, Stevens wrote, if the purpose of walking is to tax golfers' stamina, Martin's disability does that for him.
It's people like you that make life disturbingly difficult for intelligent people.
Yeah, it must suck to just be "intelligent" and have to deal with someone who's so far above you.
P.S. I seriously doubt that you are nearly as intelligent as any of the seven Supreme Court Justices that voted in favor of golfer Casey Martin.
It's as if you believe that your original post was somehow a worthwile contribution and cburley's retorts were just an annoying diversion.
That is what I believe. And the moderators, for the most part, agreed with me.
If your knee-jerk, hot-headed troll flames are so crucial to Slashdot, aren't the level-headed, oh-so-patient attempts to skool your sorry ass at least worth a reply?
I gave Mr. Burley the courtesy of several replies and he only became more irrational and long-winded, ignoring important points I made while trying to attack out-of-context quotes. Unfortunately, he is not as intelligent as I am, nor is he a skilled debater, so his attempts to "skool" me were simply a waste of my time.
As a practical aside, you might note that in many oppressive societies, outspoken, hotheaded loudmouths are marginalized, imprisoned, or in some cases killed by their own government.
So you think that I would be marginalized, imprisoned, or killed by my government because I posted something on Slashdot that was pro-government? And Mr. Burley, after his violently anti-government statements, would have fared how? You aren't very bright, are you?
How does it make you feel for me to post this anonymously?
No matter how you posted, you'd still be anonymous. It's not like any of us have ever heard of you in real life -- or ever will.
I just can't justify getting involved in any more of this long, off-topic flame fest. Basides, I have to go quit my job and take my life's savings to create a golf association that doesn't discriminate against handicapped players.
Maybe after I finish that, I can get back to being a tyrant...
infant-murdering lobby (you use loaded words, I'll use 'em too, okay?).
I use legal terms. When you shoot a doctor or kill people by bombing an abortion clinic, our laws recognize that as murder. Performing an abortion is not murder under U.S. laws. If you don't like that, lobby for the laws to be changed. But don't try to twist words to impose your morality on all of those who disagree with you.
As far as your claim that "the Supreme Court allowed a disabled professional golfer to continue to earn a living", that is an out-and-out lie. The Supreme Court, as I understand it, forced an independent organization to change its rules for a game to accommodate someone who was already entirely free to play the game however he saw fit, using whatever rules he liked, assembling and organizing with others with a like mind for that purpose, purchasing, renting, or borrowing land and/or other resources for that purpose.
How is a professional golfer supposed to earn a living by "purchasing, renting, or borrowing land" on which to play golf? He's a golfer, not an investment banker. And, like it or not, the PGA is the only game in town for professional golfers -- just as the NBA is for pro basketball players. The rules weren't "changed". The PGA was just required to make a reasonable accomodation for a handicapped player. Golf is about hitting a ball into a hole, not about walking and that's what the Supreme Court decided.
For someone who's so quick to point out his supposed "Christianity", you sure don't seem to have much in common with Christ when it comes to compassion for the less fortunate.
Let's face it, the reason Timothy McVeigh happened is because of people like you
You are another Timothy McVeigh with your rantings about dying for a cause, "tyrants", Waco, gun control, etc. I never mentioned anything about any of that. I simply said that junk e-mail, like junk faxes, should be made illegal. How the hell did that turn into an argument about abortions, gun control, tyrants, Waco, etc.? You need psychological counseling.
people who can't get up in the morning without first thinking about how to get the government to impose their wills on others' lives, whether it's gun control, morality policing, whatever, but don't have the guts to impose it themselves, directly.
"Morality policing?" You mean things like the religious right trying to ban abortions, same sex marriages, needle exchange programs for drug addicts, gays in the military, sex education in schools, and medical marijuana use for terminal cancer patients?
You are rude, insulting, and totally without honor. You have called me names and made slanderous accusations. If this is your idea of Christianity, I'm proud to be an atheist.
As a Christian, I'm willing to die for my ideals.
The world will be a better place for all of us if you make good on that -- for if you continue on the path you've started down, I fear that you you will be capable of unspeakable acts of violence. Anyone who would find any justification for the acts of Timothy McVeigh or the Operation Rescue murderers is a sick and dangerous man.
Thank you for your response. But if you are upset that RICO laws were used to fight anti-abortion terrorists and murderers and that the Supreme Court allowed a disabled professional golfer to continue to earn a living, we don't have enough in common to make further discussion between us worthwhile.
I'm a hell of a lot smarter than you are -- and I have the IQ scores and professional credentials to prove it.
they are deleteing part of the library of congress, how is that not taking away rights, things are different now.
And what does that have to do with e-mails entitled "Lose weight now!!", "68 MILLION Email Adresses - ONLY $149!!", "Sexual Enhancement", "Your Free Sex Passwords", "NEW MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGH: EAT LOTS, DON'T GAIN!", "Advertise on tthe[sic] Internet !!!", "Easy fast cash in 48 hours!!", "Forbidden XXX", "ÐÌsì£~--ÅÜÁnqܾ÷/ÓqÅã¥Ü¾", "Terminate Credit Card Debt!", "Herbal Viagra.- 30 day trial....", "Prescriptions Online", and "Snoring Remedy -80% Effective -No Surgery"?
We might as well dismantle our government now. When you don't want Congress to pass laws to protect the citizens, then Congress serves no purpose.
But I think the more laws that we pass the more screwed we're letting ourselves get.
Why would you be against a law prohibiting theft -- which is what spam is? Laws aren't bad. The anti junk fax law that I pointed out is an example of a perfectly good law that hasn't hurt anyone (other than junk faxers).
If we are allowed to track down spammers we could fight them much easier.
So laws are bad but lawsuits are good? You and I are definitely not on the same page.
Hmm, so when someone expresses concern about civil liberties being slowly eliminated, that's "hate mongering"??
No, but when they say the following, it is "anti-government hate mongering":
If they make more crap illegal then it'll be turned around and used against otherwise normal activity and pretty soon we'll have tons of law telling us what we can and can not do with the internet.
Read it. Any Internet-related law "will be...used against" non-spammers and "we'll have tons of law[sic] telling us what we can and can not do with the internet." The original poster stated it as fact.
As far as the other adjective, "anti-government", is concerned, I find it interesting that when someone says government should be kept small, effective, and non-intrusive, they're "anti-government"
Don't twist what he wrote. He didn't express anything like what you just did. His premise was that the government, if it outlawed spam, would run amuck, destroying our civil liberties and passing an uncontrollable barrage of laws related to the Internet. If you don't see that as an anti-government sentiment, you probably think of Timothy McVeigh as a patriot.
I hate spam, but I don't really think the government should be getting involved. They take enough liberties away from us. If they make more crap illegal then it'll be turned around and used against otherwise normal activity and pretty soon we'll have tons of law telling us what we can and can not do with the internet.
Drop the Republican anti-government hate mongering. The federal government passed a law against junk faxes years ago and it hasn't lead to the confiscation of fax machines, innocent people being fined or jailed, or any violation of anyone's liberties. The law simply recognized that junk faxes, like e-mail spam, cost the recipients. In the case of faxes, the costs include toner and paper while spam e-mail costs include higher ISP fees to cover the cost of bandwidth, storage, and the salaries of the abuse department personnel.
The only law that I think should be allowed concerns the requirement of those doing business on the net do so with full disclosure. If someone is going to mass e-mail they should not be allowed to misrepresent their e-mail address or host of origin.
Your time isn't worth anything, is it? Well mine is and I don't want to have to wade through multiple spams per day. I don't want to have to opt-out 20 times a day. I want to be able to use a pager to tell me when I receive e-mail -- and not have it go off every two minutes because some loser sent me spam. It's my e-mail. I've paid for it, and no spammer has a right to use it for his advertising.
Collect calls from telemarketers are illegal. Junk faxes are illegal. E-mail spam should also be illegal.
But not if you use the Advanced Search -- where you can easily enter a phrase. Try it and see.
I will take my info any way I can if it is the right stuff
But it wasn't "the right stuff". I wanted a count of how many times the phrase "to be or not to be" occurred on Google-indexed web pages. What you provided was information about Shakespeare -- hardly the same thing.
According to Google's own FAQ, "The Google directory contains over 1.5 million URLs." BFD. The regular Google search has over 100 times that many. And that's why it's almost always the right tool for the job.
What do you mean "the page"? The Google Web Directory entry you dug up? No. I don't use their "Web Directory." I have a bookmark on Google's Advanced Search and I type text in there. You obviously want some pre-packaged, AOL/Yahoo-like, tree-structured, pre-digested, categorized listing. I wanted to search for every occurence of the phrase "to be or not to be" and find out how many times it was used on the web. Your link did not provide that information. The Web Directory is for clueless people. Here's Google's own description of it:
While Google's regular web search is likely the fastest way to find information on a specific subject, the Google directory is particularly useful when you're not sure how to narrow your search from a broad category.
If you're going to be a smartass, you need to be better at it.
For systems beyond a certain age, this is just a dumb idea, especially on a large scale. You'd get more performance if you invested the time and money necessary to keep them going in a few cheap current systems.
Many applications don't need any more performance than they already have. What is a dumb idea is to port reliable applications off of reliable computers onto new systems when there is no overriding cost or performance concern driving the effort.
I don't know how Microsoft and Intel have managed to convince people that they need a ghz-class machine to do word processing...
Slashdot Mirror
However, I don't see your point. Mandated filtering has nothing to do with the government telling you what you can or can not view -- not at any rate until they begin to require filters on your home connection.
When a large segment of the population must, for financial reasons, rely on public libraries and schools for their Internet connections, government filtering of those connections is telling them what they can view.
I personally know little about fltering companies in the U.S., but I detect in your words both strawman reasoning and ad hominen argumentation: if I can label them "born-again evangelical Christians", then I don't have to deal with the content of their argument, as we all know born-again types are incapable of rational thought.
I was using that as an example. I am sure that there are censorware packages being released by people with all sorts of agendas. But that's the point: They have an agenda. In fact, that's the entire point of filtering. Someone, with no oversight, is choosing what a large segment of the population can and cannot see on the Internet based on their own moral values.
By the way, I appreciate both your intelligence and debating skills. It's rare to find both on Slashdot.
And a poor woman surfing at her local library is going to get more and better information off the net than she can get from a gynecologist, "top-notch" or not?
Sometimes what she needs is a lot more time than the assembly line doctor can spend. Sometimes she needs to read the stories of others who fought the illness. And yes, in many cases, she will get better, more complete information from reputable resources on the Internet than from some free clinic doctor.
My comment was meant to indicate that "the poor" are every bit the shibboleth for filtering opponents as "the children" are for proponents. Proponents want to protect "the children", opponents want to protect "the poor". I have a hard time subscribing to the sincerity of either side.
If you doubt my sincerity, think about my motives. I have no children. I'm not poor and neither are my friends or family. I have never used a library computer for Internet access. I have six computers in my home and a broadband connection. I work at a computer all day long. My friends all have computers. So why do I care about filtering? Because I believe in the Constitution of the United States and I oppose government-mandated filtering of what the public can read and see. I think that people in the U.S. have a right to read everything and make up their own minds. I don't think that a censorware company run by born-again, evangelical Christians should be given a mandate by the government to determine what children, or anyone else, in this country can read on the Internet.
Now consider the motives of the filtering proponents. They want to push their own moral agenda on society. Many of them are opposed to abortion, premarital sex, or pornography and will go to great lengths to suppress information on those topics -- even if it means that kids will end up pregnant, diseased, or dead.
Still want to talk sincerity?
Poverty in this country is not due to lack of opportunity, but to lack of responsibility.
Just when I think that you can't get any more offensive, you surprise me with a "gem" like that. I know people that work hard every day and barely have enough money to make ends meet -- much less purchase computers, modems, and Internet service. There are Hispanic laborers in this area who work seven days a week and can't even afford a used car much less a computer. There are maids in hotels with no real job skills that are supporting their children and their elderly parents.
Not everyone who is poor is lazy, shiftless, unmotivated, and irresponsible. Most poor people had no farm to grow up on. They were born into poverty in tiny, subsidized, inner city apartments to uneducated parents. Instead of patting yourself on the back for rising out of middle income and making it to upper-middle income, you should spend some time in Appalachia or the projects in any major city. Then tell me how it's all a matter of being responsible.
Second, here anyone that has a real job can afford a private internet connection that is not censored
What an elitist snob you are! People who have to get up at the crack of dawn to pick up your trash have "real jobs." So do people that rake leaves and cut grass for a living. People that risk their lives and health to do coal mining have real jobs. Yet you don't think that they deserve real Internet access?
if you can ever prove that a filter vendor deliberately blocked a political site, you definitely should be able to either get that damned law overturned in court
Peacefire.org (www.peacefire.org) wrote a report that lists the following candidate's sites that were blocked by filtering software:
Some of the Democratic candidates' sites blocked by Cyber Patrol include:
* Pat Casey, 10th District, Pennsylvania
* Linda Chapin, 8th District, Florida
* Llord Doggett, Texas
* Mark Greene, 12th District, Texas
* Joan Johnson, Colorado
Some of the Republican candidates' sites blocked by Cyber Patrol include:
* Grant Garrett, 9th District, Michigan
* Jeffery Pollock, 3rd District, Oregon
* Jim Ryun, 2nd District, Kansas
* Chris Vance, 9th District, Washington
Libertarian candidate blocked by Cyber Patrol:
* Joe Whelan, West Virginia
Republican candidates' sites blocked by N2H2 Bess:
* Bob Levy, 18th District, Houston, Texas
* Stephen A. Urban, 11th District, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania
* Arneze Washington, 9th District, Oakland, California
* Kathy Williamson, 32nd District, Los Angeles, California
Democratic candidates blocked by N2H2 Bess:
* Brian Pedigo, 2nd District, Bowling Green, Kentucky,
* Ed Markey (a 20-year incumbent)
Libertarian Party websites blocked by N2H2 Bess:
* Fred Foldvary, 9th District, Berkeley, California
* Keith D. Gann, 39th District, Orange County, California
* Jim Higgins, 2nd District, Creve Coeur, Missouri
* Thomas Knapp, 4th District, Lebanon, Missouri
* Al Newberry, 5th District, Missouri
* Wayne L. Parker, 5th District, Saucier, Mississippi
* and the Missouri Libertarian Party.
Other political candidates' websites blocked by N2H2 Bess:
* Alan R. Barreca, Natural Law Party, California
* Clifton Byrd, Reform Party, Texas
* Dennis Carriger, Reform Party, Missouri
* Bruce Currivan, Natural Law Party, D.C.
* Ellen Jefferds, Natural Law Party, D.C.
* Edmon V. Kaiser, American Independent Party, California
* Jon Kurey, Natural Law Party
* Martin Lindstedt, Reform Party, Missouri
* Nikki Oldaker, Independent write-in, Florida
* Rob Penningroth, Reform Party, Missouri
* David J. Schaffer, Natural Law Party, Ohio
* Douglas Schell, Reform Party, North Carolina
* Frank Taylor, Minnesota
Can I prove that the sites were blocked intentionally? No. But this clearly shows the danger inherent in blocking software -- especially since blocking software itself is not open source. We will probably never know which (if any) of the above sites were blocked because of political beliefs, bribes, or simply because the person(s) compiling the sites did not like the candidates in question.
Makers of censorware should get to decide, unregulated, what is and is not to be viewed by U.S. citizens, whether the citizens are adults or minors. We need to get this stuff removed from libraries and schools and the prudish parents will just have to get over the fact that their little darlings will be able to see porn -- or they can home-school the kids (in order to insure that they end up as screwed up as the parents).
Or better yet consult the doctors at the local free clinic.
Free clinics seldom employ top-notch oncologists who are up-to-date on the latest research, clinical trials, and regimens. Ask yourself this: If you, or a family member, were diagnosed with breast or testicular cancer, wouldn't you want to be able to research it online?
Frankly, most of the argument on BOTH sides of this issue are strawmen.
If you believe that, then you have not been following what these packages block. Major, popular censorware packages installed in schools and libraries have blocked everything from Amnesty International to Planned Parenthood to web sites of Congressional candidates.
Filtering proponents are no more out to prevent "the poor" (whatever that means)
It means people that have very little money. Poor people are people who can't afford things like computers, ISP fees, etc.
from accessing information on STDs than opponents are trying to cram porn down children's throats.
I don't think that most filtering proponents are trying to limit what poor people see -- though there are some religious zealots that don't want to let any of us see information of contraception, abortion, STDs, gay rights, etc. Most of the filtering proponents simply don't give a damn about anything other than keeping children from seeing the naughty bits of the Internet. And that's the problem. They are willing to trample the rights of everyone else while sounding the what-about-the-children battlecry.
While that is true, they have the option of refusing the money and not censoring.
Yeah, public schools -- the same ones that can't afford to pay a living wage to teachers -- can afford to refuse funds earmarked to putting in computers and Internet access.
Chinese don't have that option.
And what option does a low-income person have in this country if they rely on the library for Internet access?
By the way, did you vote in the last elections?
Yes, and I voted with the majority -- for Gore.
I in general I don't like the idea of any censorship; however, we are talking SCHOOLS and LIBRARIES in this case. It is sensible that CHILDREN should not have easy access to pornographic and violent information at an institution that is expected to educate children without direct parental supervision.
Is it sensible that the poor be denied access to information about contraception, venereal disease, and breast cancer? Millions of poor and lower middle income families rely on libraries for their Internet access.
Teach your children some values and they won't be on inappropriate sites. If you can't trust them, then don't leave them to use computers unsupervised.
Or is it wrong for parents to "censor" what their children can view and hear?
No, but it's wrong for parents to censor what every other person in the community can view and hear -- and that's what government-mandated censorware does. It prevents adults from viewing materials that someone (who?) decided were inappropriate for children. If I want my child to be able to find information on AIDS and other STDs, it's not the government's place, or the place of some born-again Christian extremists who write censoring software, to prevent that.
Do you think movie ratings are a form of censorship... (the goal of "censorware" is the same)?
No, the goal of censorware is not to rate web sites according to content and to restrict access based on age. The goal of censorware is to blindly block access to large portions of the web without regard to the user's age.
How do you leap from a government that dictates what it citizens can view to equating that with mandating that schools have software in place to manage access to content that most parents do not what their children to have access to.
First, children are citizens, too. If a sexually active 17 year old wants to find out about birth control over the Internet, he/she should be able to. And these rules don't just affect children. They affect everyone who uses computers in public libraries. If a poor woman in the inner city wants to find out about her treatment options for ovarian cancer, she should be able to using the library's computer. I'm so sick of hearing someone wail "what about the children" every five minutes. If you have kids, raise them yourself and quit trying to turn libraries and schools into cyber daycare centers with computer programs that .
From this story:
"Out of the 94,000 Internet bars in China, 17,488 have been shut down and another 28,000 were ordered to install monitoring software soon. Of the 27 million Internet users in China, about 4.5 million rely on these bars."
From a previous Slashdot story:
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime proponent of censorware, introduced the amendment...Essentially it says that any school or library which receives federal funds to build its network must install censorware. Since these funds are the chief way that poor and middle-income areas bring the internet into public institutions, effectively this means that only rich counties will have the option of an uncensored internet."
I'm so glad that I don't live in China, where the government attempts to censor public internet access.
If the Chinese government takes away Internet access for millions of users, who will fill my e-mail inbox with unreadable spam that uses character sets not installed on my computer? My, this would be a tragedy...
you continue to stupefy me
Stupefy: 1. To make stupid; to make dull; to blunt the faculty of perception or understanding in; to deprive of sensibility; to make torpid.
I think you need to blame your parents and schooling for that.
Carts were expressly forbidden on a PGA tournament course until this disabled golfer imposed his "civil liberties" on them.
Supreme Court Justice Stevens, an avid golfer, said the walking requirement is "at best peripheral" to PGA Tour events. And in any case, Stevens wrote, if the purpose of walking is to tax golfers' stamina, Martin's disability does that for him.
It's people like you that make life disturbingly difficult for intelligent people.
Yeah, it must suck to just be "intelligent" and have to deal with someone who's so far above you.
P.S. I seriously doubt that you are nearly as intelligent as any of the seven Supreme Court Justices that voted in favor of golfer Casey Martin.
It's as if you believe that your original post was somehow a worthwile contribution and cburley's retorts were just an annoying diversion.
That is what I believe. And the moderators, for the most part, agreed with me.
If your knee-jerk, hot-headed troll flames are so crucial to Slashdot, aren't the level-headed, oh-so-patient attempts to skool your sorry ass at least worth a reply?
I gave Mr. Burley the courtesy of several replies and he only became more irrational and long-winded, ignoring important points I made while trying to attack out-of-context quotes. Unfortunately, he is not as intelligent as I am, nor is he a skilled debater, so his attempts to "skool" me were simply a waste of my time.
As a practical aside, you might note that in many oppressive societies, outspoken, hotheaded loudmouths are marginalized, imprisoned, or in some cases killed by their own government.
So you think that I would be marginalized, imprisoned, or killed by my government because I posted something on Slashdot that was pro-government? And Mr. Burley, after his violently anti-government statements, would have fared how? You aren't very bright, are you?
How does it make you feel for me to post this anonymously?
No matter how you posted, you'd still be anonymous. It's not like any of us have ever heard of you in real life -- or ever will.
dont forget "FREE PENIS ENLARGEMENT"
I've tried my hand at that...
You win.
I just can't justify getting involved in any more of this long, off-topic flame fest. Basides, I have to go quit my job and take my life's savings to create a golf association that doesn't discriminate against handicapped players.
Maybe after I finish that, I can get back to being a tyrant...
infant-murdering lobby (you use loaded words, I'll use 'em too, okay?).
I use legal terms. When you shoot a doctor or kill people by bombing an abortion clinic, our laws recognize that as murder. Performing an abortion is not murder under U.S. laws. If you don't like that, lobby for the laws to be changed. But don't try to twist words to impose your morality on all of those who disagree with you.
As far as your claim that "the Supreme Court allowed a disabled professional golfer to continue to earn a living", that is an out-and-out lie. The Supreme Court, as I understand it, forced an independent organization to change its rules for a game to accommodate someone who was already entirely free to play the game however he saw fit, using whatever rules he liked, assembling and organizing with others with a like mind for that purpose, purchasing, renting, or borrowing land and/or other resources for that purpose.
How is a professional golfer supposed to earn a living by "purchasing, renting, or borrowing land" on which to play golf? He's a golfer, not an investment banker. And, like it or not, the PGA is the only game in town for professional golfers -- just as the NBA is for pro basketball players. The rules weren't "changed". The PGA was just required to make a reasonable accomodation for a handicapped player. Golf is about hitting a ball into a hole, not about walking and that's what the Supreme Court decided.
For someone who's so quick to point out his supposed "Christianity", you sure don't seem to have much in common with Christ when it comes to compassion for the less fortunate.
Let's face it, the reason Timothy McVeigh happened is because of people like you
You are another Timothy McVeigh with your rantings about dying for a cause, "tyrants", Waco, gun control, etc. I never mentioned anything about any of that. I simply said that junk e-mail, like junk faxes, should be made illegal. How the hell did that turn into an argument about abortions, gun control, tyrants, Waco, etc.? You need psychological counseling.
people who can't get up in the morning without first thinking about how to get the government to impose their wills on others' lives, whether it's gun control, morality policing, whatever, but don't have the guts to impose it themselves, directly.
"Morality policing?" You mean things like the religious right trying to ban abortions, same sex marriages, needle exchange programs for drug addicts, gays in the military, sex education in schools, and medical marijuana use for terminal cancer patients?
You are rude, insulting, and totally without honor. You have called me names and made slanderous accusations. If this is your idea of Christianity, I'm proud to be an atheist.
As a Christian, I'm willing to die for my ideals.
The world will be a better place for all of us if you make good on that -- for if you continue on the path you've started down, I fear that you you will be capable of unspeakable acts of violence. Anyone who would find any justification for the acts of Timothy McVeigh or the Operation Rescue murderers is a sick and dangerous man.
Thank you for your response. But if you are upset that RICO laws were used to fight anti-abortion terrorists and murderers and that the Supreme Court allowed a disabled professional golfer to continue to earn a living, we don't have enough in common to make further discussion between us worthwhile.
hey dumbass
I'm a hell of a lot smarter than you are -- and I have the IQ scores and professional credentials to prove it.
they are deleteing part of the library of congress, how is that not taking away rights, things are different now.
And what does that have to do with e-mails entitled "Lose weight now!!", "68 MILLION Email Adresses - ONLY $149!!", "Sexual Enhancement", "Your Free Sex Passwords", "NEW MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGH: EAT LOTS, DON'T GAIN!", "Advertise on tthe[sic] Internet !!!", "Easy fast cash in 48 hours!!", "Forbidden XXX", "ÐÌsì£~--ÅÜÁnqܾ÷/ÓqÅã¥Ü¾", "Terminate Credit Card Debt!", "Herbal Viagra.- 30 day trial....", "Prescriptions Online", and "Snoring Remedy -80% Effective -No Surgery"?
We might as well dismantle our government now. When you don't want Congress to pass laws to protect the citizens, then Congress serves no purpose.
But I think the more laws that we pass the more screwed we're letting ourselves get.
Why would you be against a law prohibiting theft -- which is what spam is? Laws aren't bad. The anti junk fax law that I pointed out is an example of a perfectly good law that hasn't hurt anyone (other than junk faxers).
If we are allowed to track down spammers we could fight them much easier.
So laws are bad but lawsuits are good? You and I are definitely not on the same page.
Hmm, so when someone expresses concern about civil liberties being slowly eliminated, that's "hate mongering"??
No, but when they say the following, it is "anti-government hate mongering":
If they make more crap illegal then it'll be turned around and used against otherwise normal activity and pretty soon we'll have tons of law telling us what we can and can not do with the internet.
Read it. Any Internet-related law "will be...used against" non-spammers and "we'll have tons of law[sic] telling us what we can and can not do with the internet." The original poster stated it as fact.
As far as the other adjective, "anti-government", is concerned, I find it interesting that when someone says government should be kept small, effective, and non-intrusive, they're "anti-government"
Don't twist what he wrote. He didn't express anything like what you just did. His premise was that the government, if it outlawed spam, would run amuck, destroying our civil liberties and passing an uncontrollable barrage of laws related to the Internet. If you don't see that as an anti-government sentiment, you probably think of Timothy McVeigh as a patriot.
I hate spam, but I don't really think the government should be getting involved. They take enough liberties away from us. If they make more crap illegal then it'll be turned around and used against otherwise normal activity and pretty soon we'll have tons of law telling us what we can and can not do with the internet.
Drop the Republican anti-government hate mongering. The federal government passed a law against junk faxes years ago and it hasn't lead to the confiscation of fax machines, innocent people being fined or jailed, or any violation of anyone's liberties. The law simply recognized that junk faxes, like e-mail spam, cost the recipients. In the case of faxes, the costs include toner and paper while spam e-mail costs include higher ISP fees to cover the cost of bandwidth, storage, and the salaries of the abuse department personnel.
The only law that I think should be allowed concerns the requirement of those doing business on the net do so with full disclosure. If someone is going to mass e-mail they should not be allowed to misrepresent their e-mail address or host of origin.
Your time isn't worth anything, is it? Well mine is and I don't want to have to wade through multiple spams per day. I don't want to have to opt-out 20 times a day. I want to be able to use a pager to tell me when I receive e-mail -- and not have it go off every two minutes because some loser sent me spam. It's my e-mail. I've paid for it, and no spammer has a right to use it for his advertising.
Collect calls from telemarketers are illegal. Junk faxes are illegal. E-mail spam should also be illegal.
It comes up when you do a search
But not if you use the Advanced Search -- where you can easily enter a phrase. Try it and see.
I will take my info any way I can if it is the right stuff
But it wasn't "the right stuff". I wanted a count of how many times the phrase "to be or not to be" occurred on Google-indexed web pages. What you provided was information about Shakespeare -- hardly the same thing.
According to Google's own FAQ, "The Google directory contains over 1.5 million URLs." BFD. The regular Google search has over 100 times that many. And that's why it's almost always the right tool for the job.
did ya actually look at the page?
What do you mean "the page"? The Google Web Directory entry you dug up? No. I don't use their "Web Directory." I have a bookmark on Google's Advanced Search and I type text in there. You obviously want some pre-packaged, AOL/Yahoo-like, tree-structured, pre-digested, categorized listing. I wanted to search for every occurence of the phrase "to be or not to be" and find out how many times it was used on the web. Your link did not provide that information. The Web Directory is for clueless people. Here's Google's own description of it:
While Google's regular web search is likely the fastest way to find information on a specific subject, the Google directory is particularly useful when you're not sure how to narrow your search from a broad category.
If you're going to be a smartass, you need to be better at it.
For systems beyond a certain age, this is just a dumb idea, especially on a large scale. You'd get more performance if you invested the time and money necessary to keep them going in a few cheap current systems.
Many applications don't need any more performance than they already have. What is a dumb idea is to port reliable applications off of reliable computers onto new systems when there is no overriding cost or performance concern driving the effort.
I don't know how Microsoft and Intel have managed to convince people that they need a ghz-class machine to do word processing...
I'd prefer to see them going after the Chinese spammers that clog e-mail servers worldwide.