I'll try once more: If you're not going to take the ideas as they're presented, then your misinterpretation of what I wrote is not my fault. It's like rearranging the letters of a word and then saying it's misspelled.
My comment to your first comment comes from the fact that the way you worded it
I disagree that my first comment was worded badly. That you interpreted wrongly is certainly true, but it was due to you making assumptions, not any badly worded sentences. I'll break the sentences of my original post down for you if you'd like.
A common theme running through these comments has been that the court/state should provide a list of child porn sites to be blocked.
the first idea that came across was that your daughter had already been found to be the subject of some child porn site.
Okay, the bolded sentence is the first sentence from my original post. How does it convey anything about my daughter being found on a child porn site? I don't even mention my daughter until the next paragraph. Not only is this sentence clear, it is a model "topic sentence", informing the reader of what the entire paragraph is about.
This is just not realistic for two reasons:
Perhaps you were unclear about what "this" was referring to. I'm not sure why you should be, since convention and grammatical rule both dictate that "this" refers to the subject of the previous sentence (or, more accurately, independent clause). Anyway, to me this sentence also reads clearly.
1) Due to the migratory nature of these types of sites, any published list would be outdated even before it's released,
Again, very clear.
and 2) such lists would be "requestable" under FOIA terms, which means any jackoff OUTSIDE Pennsylvania would have a free list of places to get spank material.
Again, I'm not sure what's unclear about this. Is it because I didn't explicitly state that jackoffs INSIDE PA wouldn't matter since presumably their ISPs would be blocking the sites in question?
Take the word "OUTSIDE" off and it reads better.
No it doesn't. such lists would be "requestable" under FOIA terms, which means any jackoff Pennsylvania would have a free list of places to get spank material. No it doesn't!
Since your who first comment wasn't well written, it just came across as either your daughter was in a kiddie porn site or someone might use the picture of it even though it was not porn.
I have a 2-year-old daughter, and the thought of anyone getting off on a picture of her is absolutely revolting to me.
Again, no place in my post, not even specifically in this sentence (which is the only place I mention my daughter) do I make mention of her being on any child porn sites or even of any pictures of her being publicly available on the web. Please read the sentence for what it is, not for what you want it to be.
Your wording simply wasn't very specific at all. It left a lot of room for a lot of diverse interpretation. What meaning you intended wasn't the only meaning it could be read as.
My wording was very specific and said exactly what I wanted it to say. What you call interpretation is really assumption on your part. I can't be responsible for your assumptions. You claim to have read my post several times before replying, yet you totally ignored the entire first paragraph and focused on the one sentence that mentioned my daughter, making the assumption that a naked picture of her was available on the web somewhere. Since I never actually said that or gave you any evidence to indicate that this might be the case, you can't blame me for badly worded sentences. Instead, blame yourself for a failure to understand written language.
There can be different interpretations of things, yes. But an interpretation should be based on 1) the exact text being interpreted, and 2) outside sources of information that either support or deny the original text's ideas and your interpretations about them. You obviously didn't read my original post, and you provide no outside evidence. You do make assumptions. Ergo, you are a sucky interpreter.
I don't have any answers as to how to stop the horrendous nature of child porn, but somehow this just doesn't feel like its the right way to go about stopping it.
The issue comes down to whether the list should be public or not. I think it should be despite the fact that someone might use it quickly find sites to visit. The advantage is there can be public scrutiny to make sure things are done right, and that other means to block them (in browsers, firewalls, caches, etc) could be deployed as well.
Certainly. I agree that public scrutiny is the best alternative as well, in all things not just this issue. Please remember that my original post (see the first sentence of the first paragraph, aforesaid "topic sentence") dealt only with the inefficiency of state-published lists in this particular case in PA.
No, you got it wrong. You obviously didn't read my statement. My revulsion of child porn has nothing to do with with the reasons why such a list would be ineffective. They were two separate statements in two different paragraphs (which, if you go back to basic grammar structure, indicates that they are part of two separate ideas.)
My argument is in response to others on this list who argued that the state should provide a list of child porn sites to be blocked. (There were many people who made this statement, which is why my response is in its own thread and not in response to a particular one.) Specifically, such a list would be unproductive, and perhaps even counterproductive assuming the purpose of such a list is to combat the expansion of child porn. I'm not against such a list per se, I'm just saying I don't think the state should waste its time putting it together. To sum up, since you don't seem to be able to do so yourself, my argument against a state-created list is about inefficiency, not revulsion.
Alternatively, I think public lists like this would help the cause of shutting down child porn, since then the public could be informed and make intelligent decisions on what to do about this problem. Such lists could be helpful to parents who wish to modify or create content filtering software to help protect their children from sites they feel may be harmful. Also, I would be heavily in favor for an "open source", wiki-esque effort to identify and shut down child porn sites! Such a public, distributed effort would be more efficient than a state-run effort (volunteer based, so lower costs; real-time updating of information, instead of bureaucratic hemming and hawing; etc.), and it would provide The People with a sense of empowerment since they would be doing something real to stop this horrendous perversion.
In regards to limiting it to people inside PA, please read the article associated with this thread. It's about a PA judge who ordered the ISPs in PA to block these sites from PA customers based on a PA law. Anyone living outside PA isn't constrained by this law. Perhaps that will change if other states pass other laws, but that's not the point. The point is that the limitation was not set by me but rather by the PA legislature.
Finally, I'm not sure what family webpage you're referring to, since my family doesn't have one. I have a personal webpage, which has absolutely no child porn on it, and not even any images for that matter. If it showed up on some list of child porn websites, then obviously the list would be inaccurate and therefore worthless, which would strengthen my position. In referencing some pervert whacking off to a picture of my daughter, I was being theoretical. If indeed I ever knew about such an act, I would not hesitate to hunt said pervert down and castrate him.
A common theme running through these comments has been that the court/state should provide a list of child porn sites to be blocked. This is just not realistic for two reasons: 1) Due to the migratory nature of these types of sites, any published list would be outdated even before it's released, and 2) such lists would be "requestable" under FOIA terms, which means any jackoff OUTSIDE Pennsylvania would have a free list of places to get spank material.
I have a 2-year-old daughter, and the thought of anyone getting off on a picture of her is absolutely revolting to me. I don't have any answers as to how to stop the horrendous nature of child porn, but somehow this just doesn't feel like its the right way to go about stopping it.
OCR is probably the quickest part of the process. It's the human interactive portions that require a long time. In addition to scanning, which you've already mentioned, you've got to proofread multiple times, and then format the final work. That's not something that can be done by a program.
...should we agree to any compromise? The Constitution is clear: to the author and for limited times. Any reasonable person can see that for a corporation (which is not a person) to hold copyright is unconstitutional. Corporations aren't authors; people working within corporations are authors, and they should hold copyrights to everything they write, whether for the company or not. In addition, for anything to be copyrighted longer than the author's life is clearly unconstitutional. How does a copyright term of the author's life + 70 years benefit the author solely? There's nothing about heirs, nothing about companies being able to snatch copyrights from authors. Nothing like that! Unfortunately, it appears that most of the judges who heard this case were unreasonable.
We should not have to negotiate for our Constitutional rights.
1. A work is copywrited for the life of the author, and no longer.
Just one qualification: A work should be copyrighted for no longer than the life of the author. I would certainly support shorter copyrights!
From an American perspective, I believe the Constitution doesn't allow for copyrights longer than the author's life, since it says that copyrights can be secured "for the author" -- not for greedy descendents and "trusts". However, IANAL, so somebody else will have to take that one to the Supreme Court.
How many books are we talking about? Those out of copyright and not in PG.
Well, under the current state of US Copyright Law (TM), anything before 1923 is public domain. In addition, some things after 1923 are public domain due to legal technicalities (e.g., forgetting to re-register the copyright, explicit gifts to the public domain, etc.). So, that number is very big and pretty much uncalculable.
According to the latest Project Gutenberg Weekly Newsletter (which are sent to the Book People Mailing List, archived here), there are 6267 books in Project Gutenberg.
So, for a simple calculation:
how_many_books_we_are_talking_about = ${Number of books printed before 1923} - 6267
Re:What books need to be done?
on
Just One Page a Day
·
· Score: 3, Informative
who does the final proof reading, and if there is someone doing the final proof reading that kinda eliminates the need for the distributed part.
charlz has a workflow diagram for the works that go through his site. As you see, each book has a project manager, who has final processing/proofing responsibilities.
Also, I'm not sure you get the idea of two rounds of proofing. They don't see different versions of a corrected page -- the first one sees the straight OCR output (or, sometimes the project manager will do some automated corrections on it first) and then the first round proofer edits the text. Then, when all the pages have gone through the first round, the second round proofer reads the text as it was edited by the first round proofer. This helps because it builds off the edits of the first round proofer and allows the second round proofer to perhaps catch things not caught in the first round.
When proofreading, you're never going to capture all the mistakes with one pair of eyes. A distributed proofreading effort is very beneficial to the goals and efforts of Project Gutenberg, and I applaud the efforts of all those who have proofed even one page.
Having said that, I've done over 300 (under a different name).
Okay, so I hit the submit button and got the following:
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO Next Hit Forward New Bills Search Prev Hit Back HomePage Hit List Best Sections Help
Doc Contents No records found with Please enter another Search Phrase.
Apparently IE don't work so well as Ms. Tubbs would like...
By the way, I just sent the following message to the Honorable Tubbs:
On behalf of the Slashdot community (http://www.slashdot.org), I think it's despicable that you require your constituents to use Microsoft Internet Explorer to contact you via the web. There are several other browsers available, all of which are better than IE.
I just have one question for you -- how much was the last check Bill Gates sent you?
One interesting tidbit is that it's required that you indicate whether or not you are a registered voter. Guess that makes it easy to sort the wheat from the chaff....
"For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building."
Businesses have to register all over the world so that consumers' rights can be protected and taxes can be collected.
Or so the government can keep tabs on you.
Why do Spanish commercial website owners feel that they are different?
Read the article. It's not about commercial website owners -- it's about "the little guy" (TM). Like people who don't even make enough money to pay for their domain name registration (or make any money at all!), but now have to pay exhorbitant fees because they "generate revenue", which is -- as so often happens with government mandates -- vague and interpretable in a plethora of ways.
It would be similar to saying that you have to register -- and pay a fee -- simply because you wanted to have a yardsale.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll try once more: If you're not going to take the ideas as they're presented, then your misinterpretation of what I wrote is not my fault. It's like rearranging the letters of a word and then saying it's misspelled.
Plucker is a viewer for PalmOS, but I believe they were working on a viewer for X as well.
I disagree that my first comment was worded badly. That you interpreted wrongly is certainly true, but it was due to you making assumptions, not any badly worded sentences. I'll break the sentences of my original post down for you if you'd like.
Okay, the bolded sentence is the first sentence from my original post. How does it convey anything about my daughter being found on a child porn site? I don't even mention my daughter until the next paragraph. Not only is this sentence clear, it is a model "topic sentence", informing the reader of what the entire paragraph is about.
Perhaps you were unclear about what "this" was referring to. I'm not sure why you should be, since convention and grammatical rule both dictate that "this" refers to the subject of the previous sentence (or, more accurately, independent clause). Anyway, to me this sentence also reads clearly.
Again, very clear.
Again, I'm not sure what's unclear about this. Is it because I didn't explicitly state that jackoffs INSIDE PA wouldn't matter since presumably their ISPs would be blocking the sites in question?
No it doesn't. such lists would be "requestable" under FOIA terms, which means any jackoff Pennsylvania would have a free list of places to get spank material. No it doesn't!
Again, no place in my post, not even specifically in this sentence (which is the only place I mention my daughter) do I make mention of her being on any child porn sites or even of any pictures of her being publicly available on the web. Please read the sentence for what it is, not for what you want it to be.
My wording was very specific and said exactly what I wanted it to say. What you call interpretation is really assumption on your part. I can't be responsible for your assumptions. You claim to have read my post several times before replying, yet you totally ignored the entire first paragraph and focused on the one sentence that mentioned my daughter, making the assumption that a naked picture of her was available on the web somewhere. Since I never actually said that or gave you any evidence to indicate that this might be the case, you can't blame me for badly worded sentences. Instead, blame yourself for a failure to understand written language.
There can be different interpretations of things, yes. But an interpretation should be based on 1) the exact text being interpreted, and 2) outside sources of information that either support or deny the original text's ideas and your interpretations about them. You obviously didn't read my original post, and you provide no outside evidence. You do make assumptions. Ergo, you are a sucky interpreter.
Certainly. I agree that public scrutiny is the best alternative as well, in all things not just this issue. Please remember that my original post (see the first sentence of the first paragraph, aforesaid "topic sentence") dealt only with the inefficiency of state-published lists in this particular case in PA.
No, you got it wrong. You obviously didn't read my statement. My revulsion of child porn has nothing to do with with the reasons why such a list would be ineffective. They were two separate statements in two different paragraphs (which, if you go back to basic grammar structure, indicates that they are part of two separate ideas.)
My argument is in response to others on this list who argued that the state should provide a list of child porn sites to be blocked. (There were many people who made this statement, which is why my response is in its own thread and not in response to a particular one.) Specifically, such a list would be unproductive, and perhaps even counterproductive assuming the purpose of such a list is to combat the expansion of child porn. I'm not against such a list per se, I'm just saying I don't think the state should waste its time putting it together. To sum up, since you don't seem to be able to do so yourself, my argument against a state-created list is about inefficiency, not revulsion.
Alternatively, I think public lists like this would help the cause of shutting down child porn, since then the public could be informed and make intelligent decisions on what to do about this problem. Such lists could be helpful to parents who wish to modify or create content filtering software to help protect their children from sites they feel may be harmful. Also, I would be heavily in favor for an "open source", wiki-esque effort to identify and shut down child porn sites! Such a public, distributed effort would be more efficient than a state-run effort (volunteer based, so lower costs; real-time updating of information, instead of bureaucratic hemming and hawing; etc.), and it would provide The People with a sense of empowerment since they would be doing something real to stop this horrendous perversion.
In regards to limiting it to people inside PA, please read the article associated with this thread. It's about a PA judge who ordered the ISPs in PA to block these sites from PA customers based on a PA law. Anyone living outside PA isn't constrained by this law. Perhaps that will change if other states pass other laws, but that's not the point. The point is that the limitation was not set by me but rather by the PA legislature.
Finally, I'm not sure what family webpage you're referring to, since my family doesn't have one. I have a personal webpage, which has absolutely no child porn on it, and not even any images for that matter. If it showed up on some list of child porn websites, then obviously the list would be inaccurate and therefore worthless, which would strengthen my position. In referencing some pervert whacking off to a picture of my daughter, I was being theoretical. If indeed I ever knew about such an act, I would not hesitate to hunt said pervert down and castrate him.
A common theme running through these comments has been that the court/state should provide a list of child porn sites to be blocked. This is just not realistic for two reasons: 1) Due to the migratory nature of these types of sites, any published list would be outdated even before it's released, and 2) such lists would be "requestable" under FOIA terms, which means any jackoff OUTSIDE Pennsylvania would have a free list of places to get spank material.
I have a 2-year-old daughter, and the thought of anyone getting off on a picture of her is absolutely revolting to me. I don't have any answers as to how to stop the horrendous nature of child porn, but somehow this just doesn't feel like its the right way to go about stopping it.
A moratorium on Federal taxing of the internet, yes. I don't believe this affects how states can tax.
Contact somebody at Distributed Proofreaders. I'm sure they would be happy to help. This sounds like a great work that I'm sure people would love!
OCR is probably the quickest part of the process. It's the human interactive portions that require a long time. In addition to scanning, which you've already mentioned, you've got to proofread multiple times, and then format the final work. That's not something that can be done by a program.
...should we agree to any compromise? The Constitution is clear: to the author and for limited times. Any reasonable person can see that for a corporation (which is not a person) to hold copyright is unconstitutional. Corporations aren't authors; people working within corporations are authors, and they should hold copyrights to everything they write, whether for the company or not. In addition, for anything to be copyrighted longer than the author's life is clearly unconstitutional. How does a copyright term of the author's life + 70 years benefit the author solely? There's nothing about heirs, nothing about companies being able to snatch copyrights from authors. Nothing like that! Unfortunately, it appears that most of the judges who heard this case were unreasonable.
We should not have to negotiate for our Constitutional rights.
Just one qualification: A work should be copyrighted for no longer than the life of the author. I would certainly support shorter copyrights!
From an American perspective, I believe the Constitution doesn't allow for copyrights longer than the author's life, since it says that copyrights can be secured "for the author" -- not for greedy descendents and "trusts". However, IANAL, so somebody else will have to take that one to the Supreme Court.
...from the Howard J. Poindexter website
Well, under the current state of US Copyright Law (TM), anything before 1923 is public domain. In addition, some things after 1923 are public domain due to legal technicalities (e.g., forgetting to re-register the copyright, explicit gifts to the public domain, etc.). So, that number is very big and pretty much uncalculable.
According to the latest Project Gutenberg Weekly Newsletter (which are sent to the Book People Mailing List, archived here), there are 6267 books in Project Gutenberg.
So, for a simple calculation:
Check out the following for a start:
charlz has a workflow diagram for the works that go through his site. As you see, each book has a project manager, who has final processing/proofing responsibilities.
Also, I'm not sure you get the idea of two rounds of proofing. They don't see different versions of a corrected page -- the first one sees the straight OCR output (or, sometimes the project manager will do some automated corrections on it first) and then the first round proofer edits the text. Then, when all the pages have gone through the first round, the second round proofer reads the text as it was edited by the first round proofer. This helps because it builds off the edits of the first round proofer and allows the second round proofer to perhaps catch things not caught in the first round.
When proofreading, you're never going to capture all the mistakes with one pair of eyes. A distributed proofreading effort is very beneficial to the goals and efforts of Project Gutenberg, and I applaud the efforts of all those who have proofed even one page.
Having said that, I've done over 300 (under a different name).
They look for things like:
You know, all the books that make you a terrorist.
Oops, did I really post those titles in an open forum....?
It doesn't work in IE either. So much for the extraneous marketing attempt.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Doc Contents No records found with
Please enter another Search Phrase.
Apparently IE don't work so well as Ms. Tubbs would like...
By the way, I just sent the following message to the Honorable Tubbs:
One interesting tidbit is that it's required that you indicate whether or not you are a registered voter. Guess that makes it easy to sort the wheat from the chaff....
...that Micro$oft has our Government in its pockets...
Must be a long freakin' list!
Dude, you just violated copyright!
It says in the article that Caldera couldn't find a third party who wants them. I find that hard to believe....
...will want them. Wouldn't that be sweet!
Support free online books!
Or so the government can keep tabs on you.
Read the article. It's not about commercial website owners -- it's about "the little guy" (TM). Like people who don't even make enough money to pay for their domain name registration (or make any money at all!), but now have to pay exhorbitant fees because they "generate revenue", which is -- as so often happens with government mandates -- vague and interpretable in a plethora of ways.
It would be similar to saying that you have to register -- and pay a fee -- simply because you wanted to have a yardsale.
Why should he do that? It's not his job to police other people. Let Asscroft worry about it.