You have the right to say and read anything you want, but that doesn't mean that the goverment has to provide the means to do it.
Actually, you'll find that many people feel that protecting rights like free speech includes providing people with the avenues to use them. This is why we have things like public access cable and public television, arts funding, etc. The free exchange of ideas is fundamental to our culture and the government has an obligation to facilitate that exchange.
You don't have a constitutional right to access the internet from a library.
True, but not relevant. You don't have a constitutional right do to much of anything. Go read the Bill of Rights again.
The fact that other legitimate information is also blocked is too bad, but if you want to read about reproductive health, or whatever, pickup a book, or surf from home, or an internet cafe
You're saying that basic information about health isn't approprtiate in a community library and that you should be expected to pay for it? (Even assuming that such access is available, it's not everywhere). That a child who's too young to make intelligent decisions about what they want to see needs to be protected at the expense of an adult?
It's not the govenment's responsibility to provide this information to you, and it is their responsibility to protect kids.
I think you'll find in your re-reading that there's not a single line about the government being obligated to protect children.
Excellent plan! Lets see now, whats the MAIN reason for having a library? Oh, right, it's so that you don't have to buy your own massive collection of books when you want to do research. Shared resources, excellent! Okay, so why would you put COMPUTERS in a library? After all, everyone has them, right? Oh? They don't? Hrm, so maybe it's because computers are being used as another communal resource, so that people have access to the massive amounts of information on the internet.
Here's another bit of information: If you're truly dead set on keeping sex away from your children, and you don't think they can be trusted alone on a computer at the library, it's YOUR job to be there with them.
By the way, in the absence of this law, there wouldn't be a requirment NOT to have filters - it's up to the discretion of your local library. The law was challenged on the grounds that it's requirements were too broad and infringed on adults rights, not that the concept of filters was inherently bad.
What about government financed health care surfing? Or theology research? Or anything else thats blocked by a porn filter when it shouldn't be? Go build me a guaranteed, provably 100% correct pornography filter, then we can talk about this some more. Filters that won't tell you what they're blocking need not apply.
What a stupid argument. By logical extension, there should be no problem with simply dispensing of the Internet altogether, because we did just fine without it. And books, for that matter - oral tradition worked for thousands of years.
I don't understand why people think it's so damn important that we "protect the children". Protect your own damn kids. I've never had too much problem with porn at a library, or in a school lab. It's a public environment, and most people like to look at thier porn in private. I'd be interested if there's an logical evidence that there's a rash of perverion in our libraries that our kids need to be protected from - to the point of requiring legislation to support it.
Spam filtering works because spam is pushed to you. You choose which of it you're willing to accept and filter adapts to that. Web browsing is pull. You can't reasonable hire a bunch of people to sit there all day clicking links and builing a list. Even if you did, you'd still have a hard time building a good filter off of it.
Censorware isn't about protecting people - it's about controlling content. Thats all it's for, and thats all it's good for, and thats why you won't see things like Bayesian porn filters anytime soon. Thats why the block lists are encrypted and you'll get sued if you try to look at them. They aren't a helpful service to protect you from doing something on accident - they're a tool for someone else to restrict what you can view.
It's fundamentally impossible to have a perfect internet filter. Until the advent of AI, it's just not technically possible - not even unfeasable. The law requires a specific type of filtering software - the kind thats proven not to work, and to have signifigant political bias in it.
It's stupid to expect librarians to filter. They don't have the time or the expertise for it - no one does. Thats why internet filtering doesn't work.
Now, if you can, as the article implies, simply request that the filter be removed, that might be okay - the reading I'd done when this case first came around implied that simple disabling the filter wasn't an option
Just a small point - copying thats neccesary for use, such as the loading into RAM (I assume thats what you're talking about when you say "running an OS") or copying to disk for installation is explicity allowed under copyright law - this is one reason EULAs are so damn stupid.
Ian also says that he was able to find similiar copies of the same code in other, non Linux operating systems (I'd have to assume this means one or more of the BSDs). This makes it seem likely that it's a case of common ancestry rather than code pollution.
As a point of clarity, he also doesn't say it's the exact same code, simply very similiar - very likely from the same source.
As far as SCOs case, it's certainly possible that code pollution exists, but the scope of thier claims seems totally absurd, even given that.
Re:For crying out loud
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Refusing to disclose the code limmits them (perhaps entirely) from claiming damages - you can't be expected to pay damages when you weren't given the opportunity to correct the situation. They aren't even offering licenses to Linux users (which would be an obvious shakedown), so they can't even use that as an out.
It's probably too late, but if they give you ANY sort of hassle about keeping the number, raise bloody hell. Demand to speak to supervisors, file complaints with the BBB and FCC - the whole works. That number portability fee is to compensate them for a federal mandate on portability - don't let them get it for free!
Safari has an emulation layer to make signals and slots work with khtml. I wouldn't say it is based on Trolltech's Qt.
I'm not familiar with Safari internals, but that doesn't make any sense. Konquerer is based on KHTML, and like the rest of KDE it's based on Qt. I'd assume that KHTML uses signals and sockets itself, or at least has a trivial interface. Unless you mean that Safaris emulation layer translates signals/slots into whatever event/message mechanism Mac applications use.
California has a law making it illegal to hunt whales, period, whether you're in your car or not. You can just as accuratly say that California has a law making it illegal for you to hunt whales in your bedroom.
A couple other posters have replied to me with other third party solutions, too. And I agree - that's exactly what you'd need. But setting up a system like that isn't neccesarily trivial, either (and setting up logging on 5000 workstations isn't either). All the people responding by saying that you should just use a network share or a cron job to archive the logs are (still) missing the point - thats fine for home use, or whatever, but when the absence of these logs (and, more imporantly, a verifiable chain of custody) can mean jail time for you and your employees, the loss of your trading license, and all kinds of other nasties, you want something more reliable than a network share or a cron job to an FTP server. You want a server will all the normal redundancies (RAID, offsite backup, etc) that logs all the traffic. And it's probably easier to just prohibit IM - at least while you spend the time to design a system or evaluate the third party ones.
Thats fine, and all, but do you really want to bet your buisness on that? You need something more reliable than that when you're looking at legal issues like these.
I believe that Jabber uses end-to-end encryption, so the server couldn't actually log like this - unless the Jabber protocol is trivially vulnerable to man in the middle attacks, or you add an extension to the protocol.
On the other hand, using a Jabber server as a front end to the other IM networks would probably work.
Missing the point - in this case, all the logging is done on client machines, outside the direct control of the support staff. That'd be a disaster if, say, someones hard drive failed and the log was lost, and then they were sued. Email is easy because you just mirror it on a server. You'd need some sort of complicated transparent proxy to log normal IMs, and that wouldn't work with encrypted conversations.
In other words - yes, it can be done. No, it's not trivial.
If it makes you feel any better, I only write REAL thin clients:P Anything of mine you'd want to use you can screen-scrape just by writing an IE plugin to parse the DOM. ActiveX controls of of the devil.
Depends on your users, I suppose. One of the specs for my current project is that use of the keyboard is to be minimized at all costs, and the mouse should be the primary interface. All the desktop applications use drag and drop pretty much exclusivly. In my personal life, I don't use DnD much either, but apparently some people think it's really important.
Yeah, I know, you don't need to do that with IE. IE's HTML behavoirs specify a "download" behavior that you can use to retrieve the HTML from an arbitrary URL, then call a callback function with the HTML retrieved passed as an argument. IE has alot of this sort of functionality which is great for thin client developers but not the sort of thing you'd want on a general purpose web page document.showModal, for example. No more accidently clicking next to the popup window and sticking it behind the main one! And a whole popup API that makes it much simpler to do things like tooltips or dynamic help.
server side content generation doesn't really have anything to do with CSS. Client side creation of tables is a tossup - I go with generating the HTML (and the CSS for styling, and the javascript) on the server, because then my pages work without requiring Javascript. And it's a cleaner interface to the user, and faster rendering on the browser.
Except that I have plenty of experience with CSS, and I don't like it. It sucks ass. It's overly verbose (which is fine, but it makes me want to smack every person who says that using CSS will make your markup smaller). It's awkward to dynamically position elements relative to other elements, unless they are both absolutly positioned. Absolute positioning is lame, so that sucks. Even something as relatively common as "This element should fill the rest of the visible screen, wrapping or clipping where neccesary" is awkward, unless you explicitly position and size everything inside of it. This is one reason why obnoxious web pages with "This web pages designed for 800x600 resolution" or whatever are making a comeback - because relative positioning in CSS is awkward, especially if you want to use DHTML, but just specifying pixel widths and sizes for everything is easy.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you'll find that many people feel that protecting rights like free speech includes providing people with the avenues to use them. This is why we have things like public access cable and public television, arts funding, etc. The free exchange of ideas is fundamental to our culture and the government has an obligation to facilitate that exchange.
You don't have a constitutional right to access the internet from a library.
True, but not relevant. You don't have a constitutional right do to much of anything. Go read the Bill of Rights again.
The fact that other legitimate information is also blocked is too bad, but if you want to read about reproductive health, or whatever, pickup a book, or surf from home, or an internet cafe
You're saying that basic information about health isn't approprtiate in a community library and that you should be expected to pay for it? (Even assuming that such access is available, it's not everywhere). That a child who's too young to make intelligent decisions about what they want to see needs to be protected at the expense of an adult?
It's not the govenment's responsibility to provide this information to you, and it is their responsibility to protect kids.
I think you'll find in your re-reading that there's not a single line about the government being obligated to protect children.
Here's another bit of information: If you're truly dead set on keeping sex away from your children, and you don't think they can be trusted alone on a computer at the library, it's YOUR job to be there with them.
By the way, in the absence of this law, there wouldn't be a requirment NOT to have filters - it's up to the discretion of your local library. The law was challenged on the grounds that it's requirements were too broad and infringed on adults rights, not that the concept of filters was inherently bad.
What about government financed health care surfing? Or theology research? Or anything else thats blocked by a porn filter when it shouldn't be? Go build me a guaranteed, provably 100% correct pornography filter, then we can talk about this some more. Filters that won't tell you what they're blocking need not apply.
Go back to class and ask you teacher to explain what "federalism" means.
I don't understand why people think it's so damn important that we "protect the children". Protect your own damn kids. I've never had too much problem with porn at a library, or in a school lab. It's a public environment, and most people like to look at thier porn in private. I'd be interested if there's an logical evidence that there's a rash of perverion in our libraries that our kids need to be protected from - to the point of requiring legislation to support it.
Censorware isn't about protecting people - it's about controlling content. Thats all it's for, and thats all it's good for, and thats why you won't see things like Bayesian porn filters anytime soon. Thats why the block lists are encrypted and you'll get sued if you try to look at them. They aren't a helpful service to protect you from doing something on accident - they're a tool for someone else to restrict what you can view.
It's stupid to expect librarians to filter. They don't have the time or the expertise for it - no one does. Thats why internet filtering doesn't work.
Now, if you can, as the article implies, simply request that the filter be removed, that might be okay - the reading I'd done when this case first came around implied that simple disabling the filter wasn't an option
Just a small point - copying thats neccesary for use, such as the loading into RAM (I assume thats what you're talking about when you say "running an OS") or copying to disk for installation is explicity allowed under copyright law - this is one reason EULAs are so damn stupid.
I'd be interested if you could present a neat, point by point analysis of your take on SCOs position and why you believe it to be strong.
As a point of clarity, he also doesn't say it's the exact same code, simply very similiar - very likely from the same source.
As far as SCOs case, it's certainly possible that code pollution exists, but the scope of thier claims seems totally absurd, even given that.
Refusing to disclose the code limmits them (perhaps entirely) from claiming damages - you can't be expected to pay damages when you weren't given the opportunity to correct the situation. They aren't even offering licenses to Linux users (which would be an obvious shakedown), so they can't even use that as an out.
It's probably too late, but if they give you ANY sort of hassle about keeping the number, raise bloody hell. Demand to speak to supervisors, file complaints with the BBB and FCC - the whole works. That number portability fee is to compensate them for a federal mandate on portability - don't let them get it for free!
I'm not familiar with Safari internals, but that doesn't make any sense. Konquerer is based on KHTML, and like the rest of KDE it's based on Qt. I'd assume that KHTML uses signals and sockets itself, or at least has a trivial interface. Unless you mean that Safaris emulation layer translates signals/slots into whatever event/message mechanism Mac applications use.
The own 5.8% of Trolltech. The majority interest is held by employees, with 71%. Refrence here
We can just get 15% or so and start a stockholder suit against McBride for being a moron and dragging the company down.
California has a law making it illegal to hunt whales, period, whether you're in your car or not. You can just as accuratly say that California has a law making it illegal for you to hunt whales in your bedroom.
A couple other posters have replied to me with other third party solutions, too. And I agree - that's exactly what you'd need. But setting up a system like that isn't neccesarily trivial, either (and setting up logging on 5000 workstations isn't either). All the people responding by saying that you should just use a network share or a cron job to archive the logs are (still) missing the point - thats fine for home use, or whatever, but when the absence of these logs (and, more imporantly, a verifiable chain of custody) can mean jail time for you and your employees, the loss of your trading license, and all kinds of other nasties, you want something more reliable than a network share or a cron job to an FTP server. You want a server will all the normal redundancies (RAID, offsite backup, etc) that logs all the traffic. And it's probably easier to just prohibit IM - at least while you spend the time to design a system or evaluate the third party ones.
Thats fine, and all, but do you really want to bet your buisness on that? You need something more reliable than that when you're looking at legal issues like these.
On the other hand, using a Jabber server as a front end to the other IM networks would probably work.
In other words - yes, it can be done. No, it's not trivial.
If it makes you feel any better, I only write REAL thin clients :P Anything of mine you'd want to use you can screen-scrape just by writing an IE plugin to parse the DOM. ActiveX controls of of the devil.
Depends on your users, I suppose. One of the specs for my current project is that use of the keyboard is to be minimized at all costs, and the mouse should be the primary interface. All the desktop applications use drag and drop pretty much exclusivly. In my personal life, I don't use DnD much either, but apparently some people think it's really important.
Yeah, I know, you don't need to do that with IE. IE's HTML behavoirs specify a "download" behavior that you can use to retrieve the HTML from an arbitrary URL, then call a callback function with the HTML retrieved passed as an argument. IE has alot of this sort of functionality which is great for thin client developers but not the sort of thing you'd want on a general purpose web page document.showModal, for example. No more accidently clicking next to the popup window and sticking it behind the main one! And a whole popup API that makes it much simpler to do things like tooltips or dynamic help.
server side content generation doesn't really have anything to do with CSS. Client side creation of tables is a tossup - I go with generating the HTML (and the CSS for styling, and the javascript) on the server, because then my pages work without requiring Javascript. And it's a cleaner interface to the user, and faster rendering on the browser.
Except that I have plenty of experience with CSS, and I don't like it. It sucks ass. It's overly verbose (which is fine, but it makes me want to smack every person who says that using CSS will make your markup smaller). It's awkward to dynamically position elements relative to other elements, unless they are both absolutly positioned. Absolute positioning is lame, so that sucks. Even something as relatively common as "This element should fill the rest of the visible screen, wrapping or clipping where neccesary" is awkward, unless you explicitly position and size everything inside of it. This is one reason why obnoxious web pages with "This web pages designed for 800x600 resolution" or whatever are making a comeback - because relative positioning in CSS is awkward, especially if you want to use DHTML, but just specifying pixel widths and sizes for everything is easy.