Therefore, you must use at least two (prefreably more) of these services, and secret-share it between them. Then, your correspondants will be the only ones to have all shares.
About destroying innocense- The world is not an innocent place. You must accept that. Children will run into pornography sooner or later, unless the parent does not allow any interaction with the outside world. One of the best ways to get a child interested in something is make it taboo. For example, why do children swear? Children swear because that makes their parents and other adults react in a certain way attracting their attention, thus inducing more swearing in the future.
It's better thae children be given the tools to correctly treat pornography and other smut on the net, than to let them be exposed (which they surely will be) and have a much stronger influence, as the facts are not given and the whole subject considered taboo.
The solution cannot be by legal means. The DNS artist can easily register cartoonnetwork.tv outside the US, where these laws do not apply and put the porn ads there. And what about goatse.cx? I don't see anyone suing them! Don't want your kids to see pornography? Lock them in their room and don't give them internet access. However, they will see porn from friends sooner or later, so good luck.
Lets trace back the process of images being shown to the minor from this site.
Photons emitted from the monitor reach the childs eye. Is the manufacturer of the monitor responsible? Unlikely, because it was not advertised as to prevent that.
Computer hardware sends a signal to the monitor to show given explicit image. Is the manufacturer of the hardware responsible? Unlikely, due to the same reason as above
Software running on the hardware manifets an image of the explict data and commands hardware to display given information on the screen. Is the manufacturer responible? Depends if it was advertised to be suitable for unattended use by minors. My guess is - no.
Software retrieves data from misspelled address as requested. No complaints to software here.
Minor requests misspelled site from software by typing the address. The minor is assumed not to be responsible.
Parent allows minor to use internet-connected PC unattended. The parent is clearly responsible, as the internet connection and the PC are not advertised to by suitable for unattended use by minors!
Notice that nowhere in this chain of responsibility do we see the website owner. If I own a porn site called http://qwerty.com/ (not actually a porn site), and some child decides to type some characters on the keyboard when unattended, it's only the parents' responsibility. So, why regulate misspellings and not all short names? It's better to make sure parents understand that the Internet is not "safe" for children (if they see viewing porn as an unsafe activity for children, which I don't).
The user names for students used to all start with an 's' and then 7 distincitve digits of the ID number (we have a 9-digit ID number here in Israel, first digit is always zero, last digit is checksum). Very secure scheme indeed. However, a few years ago the system changed to allow users to pick any login of up to 8 letters starting with 's' when they open their account. They were smart enough to disallow account names starting with 'sys' (I know, I tried;). Still, we have accounts such as 'sex', 'sexyguy', 'someone', 'site', and my personal favorite: 'sisadmin'. Luckily, grad students are not required to start their login with an 's'.
Actually, I can say that I am advertising exactly what the code is expected to do, in a unambigous language -- The source itself is more than simply a statement of what the software does. It is the software itself. I think, that in this case, under a properly written lemon law, the distributer will be liable only if the binary does not match the source, and therefore caused damage.
There's no such thing as Linux 7.2. The latest version of Linux is 2.4.19-pre7 (or, if you prefer, 2.5.12). Anyway, 7.2 is the version of RedHat, not Linux!
There might be a way of getting this to pass the legal system. I know of all the technical solutions, but there might also be a legal solution to making deep linking a copyright violation.
Consider a site which makes the link text consist of the full text of the linked article, maybe even a data link that is the article itself. In that case, the link is the article, and therefore the link text itself is substatial enough to be copyrighted, thus cannot be posted on a website.
Well, IE is technically not a browser at all. To call something a "web browser" it must at least adhere to RFC 2616. Well, MSIE does not. To quote the RFC:
7.2.1 Type [snip]
Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. If and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the resource. [snipped]
Thus, a browser MUST adhere the Content-Type if it's given. OK, now load IE and try to visit this site, or this site (warning: browser will crash). Note that the content type of these sites is text/plain and thus the text should simply be displayed on screen.
Therefore, IE6 is not a "web browser" and thus cannot be the "better" browser.
Some sites may apply cloaking based on the IP addess of the spider.
I suggest using Google's cache as a method to detect cloaking. The advantage is that the page cached is exactly the same page used for indexing, and google is the most popular search engine, and thus you win.
Browser statistics are false. There cannot be true browser detection. Many users spoof thier browser as IE on Windows for compatibility problems. Opera does so by default. This makes sites wrongly detect the browser. Also, sites designed to work on with IE will make users of other browsers leave and thus generate much more IE hits. Also, if you are browsing without images, frames or popups you will generate less hits. Moreover, if the tracking is based on loading of images or IFRAMEs, then it would not work if those features are off. Given this information, there can be no accurate gathering of browser statistics, other than relying on specific browser quirks for checking. (such as IE bugs)
Poison could be a good analogy. Some poisons can be harmful to humans, but not to other creatures, and ofcourse many poisons have useful applications. I don't agree that posting a virus online is like miserpresenting a poision. I think it's more like selling cyanide (clearly marked) in a store. You could put it in someone's (or your own) drink, but it's your responibility. There's nothing wrong with selling hazardous materials, just as there's nothing wrong with publishing virus code.
Machine/Source code is simply a list instructions and data. No more, no less. Code does not do damage directly more than a note that says "jump off a bridge", or a worm is like a note that says "tell your friends to do what this note says and then jump off a bridge".
I don't see how instructions to do something harmful (either to the one who's executing them or to someone else) could be deemed illegal. It's just instructions for God's sake. If someone actually reads and performs these instructions it's HIS problem/responsibility. Same goes to running malicious code. If you are stupid enough to install KaZaA, then it's your problem.
In the US, guns are legal for anyone, and these do direct damage. There is no reason to ban malicious code anymore there is to ban a note saying "kill yourself".
Well, IE is technically not a browser at all. To call something a "web browser" it must at least adhere to RFC 2616. Well, MSIE does not. To quote the RFC:
7.2.1 Type [snip]
Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. If and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the resource. [snipped]
Thus, a browser MUST adhere the Content-Type if it's given. OK, now load IE and try to visit this site, or this site (warning: browser will crash). Note that the content type of these sites is text/plain and thus the text should simply be displayed on screen.
Therefore, IE6 is not a "web browser" and thus the best browser for the M$Win platform is Mozilla.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not an ELF binary.
An unexpected snag arose during the upgrade: all the PC fans had to be replaced because they were defective.
I guess all those PC fans were replaced with linux advocates...
Well we know M$ is bad, but MSNBC extincting an entire species with a lava flow?
Therefore, you must use at least two (prefreably more) of these services, and secret-share it between them. Then, your correspondants will be the only ones to have all shares.
About destroying innocense- The world is not an innocent place. You must accept that. Children will run into pornography sooner or later, unless the parent does not allow any interaction with the outside world. One of the best ways to get a child interested in something is make it taboo. For example, why do children swear? Children swear because that makes their parents and other adults react in a certain way attracting their attention, thus inducing more swearing in the future.
It's better thae children be given the tools to correctly treat pornography and other smut on the net, than to let them be exposed (which they surely will be) and have a much stronger influence, as the facts are not given and the whole subject considered taboo.
The solution cannot be by legal means. The DNS artist can easily register cartoonnetwork.tv outside the US, where these laws do not apply and put the porn ads there. And what about goatse.cx? I don't see anyone suing them!
Don't want your kids to see pornography? Lock them in their room and don't give them internet access. However, they will see porn from friends sooner or later, so good luck.
Lets trace back the process of images being shown to the minor from this site.
Notice that nowhere in this chain of responsibility do we see the website owner. If I own a porn site called http://qwerty.com/ (not actually a porn site), and some child decides to type some characters on the keyboard when unattended, it's only the parents' responsibility.
So, why regulate misspellings and not all short names? It's better to make sure parents understand that the Internet is not "safe" for children (if they see viewing porn as an unsafe activity for children, which I don't).
Simple - There is none.
[stupid lameness filter wants me to wait 20 seconds before posting]
Yeah! They won't do anything against data ca*I$&#(*%F
NO CARRIER
The user names for students used to all start with an 's' and then 7 distincitve digits of the ID number (we have a 9-digit ID number here in Israel, first digit is always zero, last digit is checksum). Very secure scheme indeed. ;). Still, we have accounts such as 'sex', 'sexyguy', 'someone', 'site', and my personal favorite: 'sisadmin'.
However, a few years ago the system changed to allow users to pick any login of up to 8 letters starting with 's' when they open their account. They were smart enough to disallow account names starting with 'sys' (I know, I tried
Luckily, grad students are not required to start their login with an 's'.
Actually, I can say that I am advertising exactly what the code is expected to do, in a unambigous language -- The source itself is more than simply a statement of what the software does. It is the software itself.
I think, that in this case, under a properly written lemon law, the distributer will be liable only if the binary does not match the source, and therefore caused damage.
It's pretty damn slow.. I'm sure SOMEONE will get into Fort Knox eventually
No no... Microsoft will simply buy all th gold there.
Same audience: geeks who read /.
Now, if there's a game that would justify making a Linux version - this is the one!
Are they planning it?
There's no such thing as Linux 7.2. The latest version of Linux is 2.4.19-pre7 (or, if you prefer, 2.5.12). Anyway, 7.2 is the version of RedHat, not Linux!
There might be a way of getting this to pass the legal system. I know of all the technical solutions, but there might also be a legal solution to making deep linking a copyright violation.
Consider a site which makes the link text consist of the full text of the linked article, maybe even a data link that is the article itself. In that case, the link is the article, and therefore the link text itself is substatial enough to be copyrighted, thus cannot be posted on a website.
What do you think?
Actually, IE does not implement HTTP.
As I wrote ealier, IE does not implement RFC2616. Details in the link.
Can you post/GPL your scripts?
For those who haven't head George Orwell's 1984, this is a reference to the only crime in the 1984 world, which is thought against the government.
Well, IE is technically not a browser at all. To call something a "web browser" it must at least adhere to RFC 2616. Well, MSIE does not. To quote the RFC:
Thus, a browser MUST adhere the Content-Type if it's given.
OK, now load IE and try to visit this site, or this site (warning: browser will crash). Note that the content type of these sites is text/plain and thus the text should simply be displayed on screen.
Therefore, IE6 is not a "web browser" and thus cannot be the "better" browser.
Some sites may apply cloaking based on the IP addess of the spider.
I suggest using Google's cache as a method to detect cloaking. The advantage is that the page cached is exactly the same page used for indexing, and google is the most popular search engine, and thus you win.
Browser statistics are false. There cannot be true browser detection. Many users spoof thier browser as IE on Windows for compatibility problems. Opera does so by default. This makes sites wrongly detect the browser. Also, sites designed to work on with IE will make users of other browsers leave and thus generate much more IE hits. Also, if you are browsing without images, frames or popups you will generate less hits.
Moreover, if the tracking is based on loading of images or IFRAMEs, then it would not work if those features are off.
Given this information, there can be no accurate gathering of browser statistics, other than relying on specific browser quirks for checking. (such as IE bugs)
Poison could be a good analogy. Some poisons can be harmful to humans, but not to other creatures, and ofcourse many poisons have useful applications. I don't agree that posting a virus online is like miserpresenting a poision. I think it's more like selling cyanide (clearly marked) in a store. You could put it in someone's (or your own) drink, but it's your responibility. There's nothing wrong with selling hazardous materials, just as there's nothing wrong with publishing virus code.
Directly does damage?!
Machine/Source code is simply a list instructions and data. No more, no less. Code does not do damage directly more than a note that says "jump off a bridge", or a worm is like a note that says "tell your friends to do what this note says and then jump off a bridge".
I don't see how instructions to do something harmful (either to the one who's executing them or to someone else) could be deemed illegal. It's just instructions for God's sake. If someone actually reads and performs these instructions it's HIS problem/responsibility. Same goes to running malicious code. If you are stupid enough to install KaZaA, then it's your problem.
In the US, guns are legal for anyone, and these do direct damage. There is no reason to ban malicious code anymore there is to ban a note saying "kill yourself".
Goto slashdot. See Mozilla icon. Think Mozilal.0 RC1 is released. Be disappointed.
/. many articles on Mozilla will there be before 1.0?!
C'mon! How
Well, IE is technically not a browser at all. To call something a "web browser" it must at least adhere to RFC 2616. Well, MSIE does not. To quote the RFC:
Thus, a browser MUST adhere the Content-Type if it's given.
OK, now load IE and try to visit this site, or this site (warning: browser will crash). Note that the content type of these sites is text/plain and thus the text should simply be displayed on screen.
Therefore, IE6 is not a "web browser" and thus the best browser for the M$Win platform is Mozilla.