Checks and credit cards are absurdly easy to fake in the modern world. Banks need to get off their asses and roll out a new system
Actually, the OLD sytem, where they checked your signature, was far more secure than the "new" one, where they just feed the cheque into a machine that reads the magnetic ink numbers. Whese are, as Knuth has discovered to his cost, very easy to counterfeit.
Anyway, my cheque account usually has $1 in it. When I write a cheque, about once a month, I transfer exactly that amount into it. So I'm not very concerned about this.
In general, the whole idea of having a different TLD depending on the type of content of a site is silly. If I have A Lego site, and have a subsection of Lego porn, are you going to force me to move my entire site to XXX? Even if I just have to move some pages, it would double my hosting fees and make administration much harder.
The REAL answer already exists and costs nothing. Just use the correct metatags on the pages. Endusers can filter on that easily and effectively. But they don't want to do that because the registrars can't make any money out of it.
It would have to be voluntary but it would be easier to filter and such.
Sorry, this is a bad idea. Unless you're a registrar, who will make some change from porn sites registering mirrors in.xxx. None of the "bad" porn sites would meekly move their sites to a domain that will be blocked by default in many places. The "good" porn sites already have some registration barriers.
Regulation? -- whose standards? The US? Japan? Saudi Arabia?
Yod just create an expensive apparatus that would do NOTHING to make nasty porn less accessible.
I don't want to insult you, but I you must be a bit autistic if you can't see how you can offend people by making such statements, regardless of the literal meaning.
Whatever you intend, it comes off as snide, condescending and sneering. Save your [sic]s for academic treatises, or be prepared to deal with a lot of ill will.
It now makes phishing very easy to do because you have many more avenues to pursue for misspellings, etc.
Just within.com, you can do thousands of variations on a company name, trademark, product, etc, etc. More TLDs multiplies that, but so what.
If people are dumb enough to get suckered by mcdonalds.fastfood, they would be by macdonaldsfastfood.com. Making a convincing phishing site and arranging hosting are capital and time expensive; the domain name itself isn't. That's not a limiting factor now.
Prime minister, we must not allow an origins of our species gap!
The British aren't alone in this. China, for instace, tries to make the case that Peking Man (Homo erectus pekinensis), a real hominid, is the direct ancestor of the modern Chinese race, while the rest of us are lower on the tree, coming from Africa.
Japanese also have an exaggerated sense of their own antiquity and separateness. Shinichi Fujimura made a career out of planting and then "discovering" Stone Age artifacts and fossils.
How many times do you have to draw attention to a typo ("we;re [sic] going to hell regardless") before it counts as a sneer? Do you think I don't know the difference between a semicolon and an apostrophe?
My printouts of emails from my former boss were accepted as proof by a magistrate when I sued him for late payment of wages. Anyway, courts can also accept oral testimony based on your memory of events, your own notes, etc. It's up to the opposition to disprove them then.
representative of what the populace thinks about the issue
If you read the instructions to moderators, that is not at all what moderation is supposed to do. It's supposed to highlight posts worth reading, and push ones not so out of sight. It's not meant to be a "poll" on "what the populace thinks". Otherwise every "me too" on a subject you agreed with, or "fuck you" on one you didn't would be modded up.
And if a poll was wanted, why limit it to the few moderators?
the application will likely completely fail unexpectedly at some point in the future, possibly with absolutely no ability to re-work it to get around the failure (i.e. they IP ban your hosts).
Anyone with a brain. Dropping litter in the street is not as evil as theft, and rather a lot less evil than murder, for instance. If not, we;re all going to hell regardless.
Bulletin: there are shades of grey between black and white. At least 254.
would require me to break multiple web sites' Terms of Service (TOS).
A website's "terms of service" are not the Ten Commandments. They're not laws, or even moral rules. They're just what one company wants you to do. You don't work for them, why do you care? If they notice and complain, it's your boss's problem, legally; and morally, I wouldn't lose any sleep.
Only thing to do is cover your ass and get your boss to put his instructions in a memo so he can't blame you should problems arise.
Really "scraping a website" is not a moral question on the scale of collaborating with Nazis. It's a business. Other businesses are your rivals, not your friends. They'd fuck you over in a minute.
Not a matter of being "anglo-saxon", more of coming from recent immigrant heritage perhaps, ones with living memories of how fascism operates. Anglos haven't really seen this first hand. Anyway, I'm Anglo-Saxon and I'm certainly against it.
Name a race (as that's what you're talking about) that isn't doing this now. The Slavs are going back to authoritarianism under Putin, China has never left it, can't think of any African or Arab countries that do either.
So, again, what's with the "anglo-saxon" tag? Are people of any ethnicity resisting this?
One thing is for certain... Google and all other search engines will have a heck of a time trying to devise new algorithms to return relevancy, especially if someone registered a ".restaurant" TLD
No they won't. Search engines long ago stopped giving much if any weight to the name of a site, or even the metadata that was supposed to describe it, as the SEO assholes had done such a thorough job of overloadng them with their crap. You can't trust the description of a site supplied by its owner. Useful search engines have to analyse both the actual content of a site and the external links to it. Ones that don't do that are 99% spam already.
Actually, the parent poster had a better point. What's to stop someone from registering "McDonalds.Hamburger", "McDonalds.Fries", or "McDonalds.restaurant", other than the cost.
And why would anyone WANT to? What possible use could they be put to? If they did find some way to commercialise them, McDonalds' lawyers simply sue them for trademark violation and the domain is handed over.
Maybe you can imagine some nefarious phishing site, but that's already possible with all kinds of typo-variations of names on.com already.
Has it not occurred to you that by creating a highly lucrative market for the consumption of such imagess, they create an enormous commercial pressure for the abuse of children by those who wish to profit by it?
Highly lucrative? I really don't think money is the motive for this. There are plenty of easier ways to make money in porn without risking being jailed for 20 years to life. And anyway, the censorship in question is mostly about FREE distribution. If anything, that undermines anyone trying to make money out of it. "Enormous commercial pressure"? How enormous? Do you have a figure, or are you just making it up as you go along?
How can you possibly argue that someone who will knowingly pay others to abuse children is doing no harm??
Follow that up with someone who actually said that.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting ahead of ourselves, arent we?
Why don't we check out the 400 billion stars in our own galaxy first?
Or is it you don't know what a galaxy is?
(Sorry, is that too many rhetorical questions?)
Or a road trip.
Where did you go? Mars? Every couintry I've lived in uses cheques. Australia, Hong Kong, for a start.
Actually, the OLD sytem, where they checked your signature, was far more secure than the "new" one, where they just feed the cheque into a machine that reads the magnetic ink numbers. Whese are, as Knuth has discovered to his cost, very easy to counterfeit.
Anyway, my cheque account usually has $1 in it. When I write a cheque, about once a month, I transfer exactly that amount into it. So I'm not very concerned about this.
In general, the whole idea of having a different TLD depending on the type of content of a site is silly. If I have A Lego site, and have a subsection of Lego porn, are you going to force me to move my entire site to XXX? Even if I just have to move some pages, it would double my hosting fees and make administration much harder.
The REAL answer already exists and costs nothing. Just use the correct metatags on the pages. Endusers can filter on that easily and effectively. But they don't want to do that because the registrars can't make any money out of it.
Sorry, this is a bad idea. Unless you're a registrar, who will make some change from porn sites registering mirrors in .xxx. None of the "bad" porn sites would meekly move their sites to a domain that will be blocked by default in many places. The "good" porn sites already have some registration barriers.
Regulation? -- whose standards? The US? Japan? Saudi Arabia?
Yod just create an expensive apparatus that would do NOTHING to make nasty porn less accessible.
Whatever you intend, it comes off as snide, condescending and sneering. Save your [sic]s for academic treatises, or be prepared to deal with a lot of ill will.
Just within .com, you can do thousands of variations on a company name, trademark, product, etc, etc. More TLDs multiplies that, but so what.
If people are dumb enough to get suckered by mcdonalds.fastfood, they would be by macdonaldsfastfood.com. Making a convincing phishing site and arranging hosting are capital and time expensive; the domain name itself isn't. That's not a limiting factor now.
Dictionary of Modern English Usage by Henry Watson Fowler, P 532
"a neat & compendious form of sneer".
The British aren't alone in this. China, for instace, tries to make the case that Peking Man (Homo erectus pekinensis), a real hominid, is the direct ancestor of the modern Chinese race, while the rest of us are lower on the tree, coming from Africa.
Japanese also have an exaggerated sense of their own antiquity and separateness. Shinichi Fujimura made a career out of planting and then "discovering" Stone Age artifacts and fossils.
Right. And how many people have been sent to prison (in the US) for using a proxy to scrape a website?
Can you name one?
And yet there has to be SOME evidence that both parties knowlngly entered into it.
How many times do you have to draw attention to a typo ("we;re [sic] going to hell regardless") before it counts as a sneer? Do you think I don't know the difference between a semicolon and an apostrophe?
I don't ask you to apologise for others. But I will just point out how hypocritical it is for you to say that while at the same time sneering at me.
Whether you are sincerely a religious nutcase or just a troll pretending to be one, I can't tell and don't really care.
My printouts of emails from my former boss were accepted as proof by a magistrate when I sued him for late payment of wages. Anyway, courts can also accept oral testimony based on your memory of events, your own notes, etc. It's up to the opposition to disprove them then.
If you read the instructions to moderators, that is not at all what moderation is supposed to do. It's supposed to highlight posts worth reading, and push ones not so out of sight. It's not meant to be a "poll" on "what the populace thinks". Otherwise every "me too" on a subject you agreed with, or "fuck you" on one you didn't would be modded up.
And if a poll was wanted, why limit it to the few moderators?
"Absolutely no ability"? Proxies?
Anyone with a brain. Dropping litter in the street is not as evil as theft, and rather a lot less evil than murder, for instance. If not, we;re all going to hell regardless.
Bulletin: there are shades of grey between black and white. At least 254.
What "contract"? No contract was mentioned.
A website's "terms of service" are not the Ten Commandments. They're not laws, or even moral rules. They're just what one company wants you to do. You don't work for them, why do you care? If they notice and complain, it's your boss's problem, legally; and morally, I wouldn't lose any sleep.
Only thing to do is cover your ass and get your boss to put his instructions in a memo so he can't blame you should problems arise.
Really "scraping a website" is not a moral question on the scale of collaborating with Nazis. It's a business. Other businesses are your rivals, not your friends. They'd fuck you over in a minute.
Not a matter of being "anglo-saxon", more of coming from recent immigrant heritage perhaps, ones with living memories of how fascism operates. Anglos haven't really seen this first hand. Anyway, I'm Anglo-Saxon and I'm certainly against it.
Name a race (as that's what you're talking about) that isn't doing this now. The Slavs are going back to authoritarianism under Putin, China has never left it, can't think of any African or Arab countries that do either.
So, again, what's with the "anglo-saxon" tag? Are people of any ethnicity resisting this?
No they won't. Search engines long ago stopped giving much if any weight to the name of a site, or even the metadata that was supposed to describe it, as the SEO assholes had done such a thorough job of overloadng them with their crap. You can't trust the description of a site supplied by its owner. Useful search engines have to analyse both the actual content of a site and the external links to it. Ones that don't do that are 99% spam already.
And why would anyone WANT to? What possible use could they be put to? If they did find some way to commercialise them, McDonalds' lawyers simply sue them for trademark violation and the domain is handed over.
Maybe you can imagine some nefarious phishing site, but that's already possible with all kinds of typo-variations of names on .com already.
Highly lucrative? I really don't think money is the motive for this. There are plenty of easier ways to make money in porn without risking being jailed for 20 years to life. And anyway, the censorship in question is mostly about FREE distribution. If anything, that undermines anyone trying to make money out of it. "Enormous commercial pressure"? How enormous? Do you have a figure, or are you just making it up as you go along?
How can you possibly argue that someone who will knowingly pay others to abuse children is doing no harm??
Follow that up with someone who actually said that.