You are talking total shit. He did what many many journalists would do and investigated. I suggest you go learn about good journalism. I, for one, applaud what he's done.
All Republicans think the media is left-leaning. All Democrats think it is right-leaning. Maybe they are just getting it right somewhere in the middle?
One of the reasons Microsoft fought so hard in the browser wars was because it was felt that the *real* platform could well become the browser, which you could then access applications via, not the underlying OS. Looks like they won...
No it isn't theft. It isn't even morally theft. It's different. Thieving involves taking somethign away from someone. Infirnging copyright takes nothing away from anyone apart from the money in your wallet that might have otherwise gone on buying the product. So while it is morally wrong, it is not theft.
Woah. I apologise for signing up at the wrong time. This doesn't mean you have a point however. I imagine that a child porn website that is classified as illegal to view under UK law would be pretty much bad news all round. Maybe you think it's bad that they blocked legitimate images on there, I disagree myself. I don't think people need to see those that badly (unless maybe they confirm the existence of aliens or can create world peace) that the site can't be blocked for being against UK law to view...
I implied the opposite. The IWF classified each site blocked as illegal to view which we all know is impossible to automate with current technology. Please give me some credit. I don't see how you could think I was saying the classification had been automated...
"Well if I was working at the IWF a list of my brother's business competitors websites would be on that list lickidy split." And when your superior checked the website to find you'd falsely accused them of having child porn you'd be fired. Maybe the IWF was set up just to get at the business competitors of people's siblings? Somehow I really doubt it.
It is definitely leading to child porn, if we take the IWF's word for it. I see no reason not to though. But the path that led them there is totally unknown yes - hence why they are not taking action over it.
Depends...a 17 year old girl and her 19 year old boyfriend is covered by your definition. You'd need to be more careful with stats here I think. However there is no possibility here of the child being an equal participant. This is specifically adults looking at kids.
Absolutely, this is just a very small token effort. However it's more than many ISPs are doing and I suppose does help produce some sort of statistics.
Duuuuh. They classified them as child porn because they were illegal to look at under UK Law. It is legal in the UK to look at medical sites obviously. The sites looked at are definitly illegal to look at. The IWF know child porn because it's their job to stop it.
Slashdot Mirror
You are talking total shit.
He did what many many journalists would do and investigated.
I suggest you go learn about good journalism.
I, for one, applaud what he's done.
You clearly know me very well.
South Park is funny and popular. Who in hell wants to watch US game shows?
No one has the courage to say "It's dead Jim"...
Which European countries send away kids at 13-15 then?
What about the cost implications of using non-reusable orbiters?
I am sure they can recondition it.
All Republicans think the media is left-leaning. All Democrats think it is right-leaning. Maybe they are just getting it right somewhere in the middle?
Guaranateed, in an hour or so your comment will look very very odd.
One of the reasons Microsoft fought so hard in the browser wars was because it was felt that the *real* platform could well become the browser, which you could then access applications via, not the underlying OS.
Looks like they won...
No it isn't theft. It isn't even morally theft. It's different. Thieving involves taking somethign away from someone.
Infirnging copyright takes nothing away from anyone apart from the money in your wallet that might have otherwise gone on buying the product.
So while it is morally wrong, it is not theft.
Now that's pretty amusing. :-)
Er, that's yet another take on the "can we trust the IWF?" argument.
Well that's another matter.
Woah. I apologise for signing up at the wrong time.
This doesn't mean you have a point however.
I imagine that a child porn website that is classified as illegal to view under UK law would be pretty much bad news all round. Maybe you think it's bad that they blocked legitimate images on there, I disagree myself. I don't think people need to see those that badly (unless maybe they confirm the existence of aliens or can create world peace) that the site can't be blocked for being against UK law to view...
I implied the opposite. The IWF classified each site blocked as illegal to view which we all know is impossible to automate with current technology. Please give me some credit. I don't see how you could think I was saying the classification had been automated...
The UK ISP industry.
Maybe some people in the ISPA got together to chip in money to fund it.
Dunno.
"Well if I was working at the IWF a list of my brother's business competitors websites would be on that list lickidy split."
And when your superior checked the website to find you'd falsely accused them of having child porn you'd be fired.
Maybe the IWF was set up just to get at the business competitors of people's siblings?
Somehow I really doubt it.
It is definitely leading to child porn, if we take the IWF's word for it. I see no reason not to though.
But the path that led them there is totally unknown yes - hence why they are not taking action over it.
The IWF looks at the site. No one arrests them as this is their job.
Let's just assume that the IWF are not evil miscreants then shall we?
Can you tell me what they have to gain from it?
Depends...a 17 year old girl and her 19 year old boyfriend is covered by your definition.
You'd need to be more careful with stats here I think.
However there is no possibility here of the child being an equal participant. This is specifically adults looking at kids.
Absolutely, this is just a very small token effort. However it's more than many ISPs are doing and I suppose does help produce some sort of statistics.
Duuuuh. They classified them as child porn because they were illegal to look at under UK Law. It is legal in the UK to look at medical sites obviously. The sites looked at are definitly illegal to look at. The IWF know child porn because it's their job to stop it.
All of it. RTFA.
ALL of the blocked accesses were illegal material.
RTFA!