Simple private possession of 3 (for some values of) has already been criminalised, as of January 2009 - but curiously the IWF seemingly don't want to block it. Possibly because no one has a clue what exactly is meant to be covered by the law (not even the police or the Government - "it's up to the court to decide!").
And yeah.. what kind of eejut would want to download a torrent on their mobile phone?
Mobile broadband is used for laptops. Admittedly I'd rather do downloading on a home connection, but it's surely still entirely feasible on 3G (you could still download a reasonable amount in the common 3GB monthly allowance).
You should be able to opt out of this blocking system (TFA claims this is the case - if someone knows otherwise, please say so, as that would be major news). The one you can't opt out of is the IWF blocking list that's on most ISPs (covers 95% of users), however that list doesn't cover adult sites (well, except for when they mess it up as with Wikipedia).
Amusingly the argument is usually the other way round - Iphone user asserts that even though it might not have any extra features, it's better because it's "much nicer".
The point is that everyone's preference varies, and it's subjective - this argument isn't valid either way, and no phones or PDAs are actually better by this measure.
Indeed. Chances are they already have - but consider, if it's not Apple, it probably wouldn't have made Slashdot.
Okay, I don't know about PDAs, but phones presumably have been used. "US Military Issues Phones to Soldiers" doesn't sound newsworthy, whether it's Nokia, Motorola or who else, but add an "i" in front of phone, and bingo...
(There's a trend of common stories made newsworthy by talking about the Iphone - remember that recent story of "You can access this website on an Iphone"?)
Note that the Iphone is barely mentioned in the story - I can see the Ipod being widely used is significant (although as you say, PDAs are nothing new), but it's a bit misleading to present the Iphone in the summary on an equal footing.
I'm curious about this too - if it's really the case that there is censorship that can't be removed on any "adult" site for mobile broadband, then that is major news (even leaving aside whether TPB has been fairly categorised or not).
However, my understanding is it can at least be removed - as you say, with Vodafone they charge your credit card (£1 IIRC - you're supposed to get it back, but I never did...) You do that once (I had to do it for a site that wasn't remotely "adult"), and then it's removed for good.
TFA does say:
BT's warning message advises customers to contact customer services if they want the block on the site to be lifted. The message also invites users to seek further information on the self-regulation scheme on the Internet Watch Foundation's website, although an IWF spokesman denies any involvement with the mobile filtering scheme.
Which suggests this is the case, at least.
The bit about the IWF is indeed confusing - the IWF maintain the list for the compulsory censorship that you can't opt out, which supposedly is restricted to "potential child pr0n". I've not heard of them maintaining lists of adult sites.
So in summary, I don't think this is preventing access altogether (can someone confirm that you can access TPB if you opt out on BT broadband?) but there are still concerns. It's still the "Think Of The Children" mentality ("in case phones or laptops fall into the hands of minors", says TFA). Why not just set it to child/adult settings when you buy it, as they can check your age then.
It's only ad hominem if you're insulting someone in order to criticise an argument.
I don't think he was trying to criticise his argument. He was simply calling him a self-righteous imbecile.
Indeed, the whole point of his post was that Stephen Hawking is a great man, whilst the OP is a self-righteous imbecile. I don't think "ad hominem" applies - it's obviously fair game to call someone a self-righteous imbecile when your point is that they are a self-righteous imbecile.
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. The differences are often simply a matter of definitions rather than what a person's views actually are.
All that matters here is that he doesn't seem to express belief in God - and more to the point for what started this thread, he doesn't seem to be a Christian.
they no longer are permitted to filter topics of their children's education.
And how on earth do parents currently filter topics they don't want them to see at school? They don't have access to the software!
I'm sorry, but presenting this censorship software as allowing control to the parents is nonsense. They don't have control - if I want say Christian websites to be blocked, I don't get that to happen, so why should it be any different for the parent who doesn't want his child accessing LGB sites?
If you want to argue that parents should have control of the censorship list - which would also mean allowing their child to view the LBG sites, if they wish - then I'm sure the ACLU and everyone opposed to the software would be fine with that. If you want to argue that children shouldn't have Internet access at all, or that parents should be able to request that, then that's another debate.
parenting by committee
It is supporters of this software that want parenting by "committee", as everyone has to be filtered.
Why are the public desires of parents being ignored?
But it's okay to ignore parents who don't want the system?
I see no problem with a school limiting internet access to a strict subset of tools based solely upon the curriculum they teach.
Is there evidence they've blocked everything except the strict subset required for lessons?
the biggest issue here is that school are allowing kids access to the freaking internet. I'm sure none of the kids there give a damn about any gay/lesbian website - they're too busy talking crap with their mates on facebook. Instead of learning stuff.
Except for people who might be gay, or questioning their sexuality, and either don't have access at home, or are too afraid they might get found out if they looked it up at home.
Plus, if it was really true that no one wanted to look at them, there's no reason to block them in the first place.
There is also the wider issue - whether or not kids want to look at it, the message is that homosexuality is a taboo topic that should be hidden, alongside other censored sites.
If he ACLU was actually interested in civil liberties in this case they would recognize the liberty of parents to raise their children as they see fit.
Civil liberties are primarily about individual freedom. What rights you have over someone else - including your children - is a matter for debate.
but it seems to me that the GLB community would have more political success without the "T".
It's hardly either/or. When lobbying for things specific to homosexuality, people don't drag the "T" into it, as there's no need - and I've never heard a politician say "Well I'd love to support gay rights, but I won't because they associate with those awful transgender people"...
But when communities help each other for support, that's to each other's advantage, and I don't see how it harms them. Most people probably aren't even aware of the connection anyway - as you didn't seem to be.
(And an honest question btw, do you always refer to surgery as mutilation, or are you just choosing that word for this context?)
That's perfectly fine for me to say to you on a forum, because that's my honest opinion, and I've said so politely, right? The point is that whilst we can't help our *feelings*, it's a different thing when you direct that comment about people - it's not just an honest description of what you can't help, it's reasonably read as a statement that the person intentionally posted.
Moreover, if it's fair for him to express his feeling, why was it trolling for the other poster to respond? He was only stating how he felt.
Heterosexual guys don't like gay guys coming on to them and find it revulsive. It's been that way for 20,000 years and is not going to change. Guys who do like other guys coming on to them are called homosexual.
It's not as simple as that. I'm bi, but I still sometimes might have someone come onto me that I'm not attracted to - whether they're male or female. I don't feel the need to post about it being repulsive. And heterosexual women often find it repulsive when slobbering males come onto them, but - and I hear there are some women on Slashdot - you don't hear them talking about us like that in front of us.
Whilst sexuality and transgender are different concepts, my understanding is that historically they were connected in terms of people fighting for LBG and transgender rights - e.g., the Stonewall riots. So that's why they are often grouped together - not because they are the same thing, but because of people fighting together. There are various issues that cross over for both - e.g., laws about marriage (or anything else that assumes that all people are both heterosexual and cisgendered), and fighting against prejudice and discrimination.
There is also the point that for people who are transgendered in sense of not identifying as specifically male or female, it follows that they can't be straight (or indeed gay) because the straight/gay labelling is defined in terms of what gender you are, as well as what you're attracted to.
The latter, at the extreme, cut off their genitalia. This is a group I have a little more trouble viewing as "normal". Or am I just too hung up on the extreme?
They have surgery. If you want to think of that as not "normal", "extreme" and "cutting off" bits, that's up to you. I stopped being squeamish about surgery a while ago.
Well, for starters, billions of people haven't made a religion out of his existence. And if a historian wanted to question the evidence of his existence, it could be done without people claiming that it was some kind of offensive attack on their faith.
Yeah, because maybe his family shouldn't get a windfall from the surge in book sales his titles are about to recieve. Funerals are expensive too.
Everyone has expensive funerals. Can we get the law written to give us a windfall upon death too?
I know, perhaps we could have some system where everyone pays a small amount, and you get a windfall if you die. It would be opt in, we could call it something like, I don't know, life insurance maybe?
Maybe when you die you won't care if you leave your kids with anything
That's a nice straw man. Of course authors can leave their kids something - possessions, money, exactly the same thing the rest of us leave. The question is whether they should be allowed to give them something the rest of us can't - a continued income.
So some guy spends ages training / doing a degree/PhD for a new job, then he gets hit by a car on the first day of the job. His widow and kids get nothing because of your idiot rule that says he can't get paid when he's dead. How unfair is that!
(I agree that a fixed short term would probably be better, but I don't think that widows and children have some automatic right to earn an income from someone after their death - that's just tough luck, and the financial problems of losing someone is something we all have to face. Take out life insurance like the rest of us have to - that's what it's for. Plus, I didn't think we lived in a world anymore where wives depend on their husband's income, nor do I care if their children might have to go and work for a living like the rest of us instead of living off their inheritance.)
If it's being done because they fear it would be illegal in the UK, that's fair enough, but on a general point:
So - no, it's not a racist agenda (not that 'The British' are a 'race' anyhow).
If one was discriminating based on a person's country (e.g., if I put a "No Americans" sign on my shop - or website), then I think that is reasonably described as racist, whether it's in real life or online.
I think open source is a great thing, but for heaven's sake. I like the freedom to run what software I want, even if the user doesn't allow it and the source to be distributed for free.
If you actually try RTFA, you'll see that Itunes is mentioned.
Likewise, just because your obscure OS with so little market penetration that its statistically irrelevant isn't supported does not mean it doesn't have movies. It means no one gives a fuck about you and your too cheap to pay for the service ass anyway./rant
Tell that to the Mac users when they whine that something isn't available on their OS.
I break the law when I copy a purchased CD to my mp3 player too. I guess I'm just lacking honesty and integrity. How appalling of me to break the law by doing this, just because the record companies won't give me what I want.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple private possession of 3 (for some values of) has already been criminalised, as of January 2009 - but curiously the IWF seemingly don't want to block it. Possibly because no one has a clue what exactly is meant to be covered by the law (not even the police or the Government - "it's up to the court to decide!").
And yeah.. what kind of eejut would want to download a torrent on their mobile phone?
Mobile broadband is used for laptops. Admittedly I'd rather do downloading on a home connection, but it's surely still entirely feasible on 3G (you could still download a reasonable amount in the common 3GB monthly allowance).
which unfortunately is not the case with BT.
You should be able to opt out of this blocking system (TFA claims this is the case - if someone knows otherwise, please say so, as that would be major news). The one you can't opt out of is the IWF blocking list that's on most ISPs (covers 95% of users), however that list doesn't cover adult sites (well, except for when they mess it up as with Wikipedia).
Amusingly the argument is usually the other way round - Iphone user asserts that even though it might not have any extra features, it's better because it's "much nicer".
The point is that everyone's preference varies, and it's subjective - this argument isn't valid either way, and no phones or PDAs are actually better by this measure.
Indeed. Chances are they already have - but consider, if it's not Apple, it probably wouldn't have made Slashdot.
Okay, I don't know about PDAs, but phones presumably have been used. "US Military Issues Phones to Soldiers" doesn't sound newsworthy, whether it's Nokia, Motorola or who else, but add an "i" in front of phone, and bingo...
(There's a trend of common stories made newsworthy by talking about the Iphone - remember that recent story of "You can access this website on an Iphone"?)
Note that the Iphone is barely mentioned in the story - I can see the Ipod being widely used is significant (although as you say, PDAs are nothing new), but it's a bit misleading to present the Iphone in the summary on an equal footing.
I'm curious about this too - if it's really the case that there is censorship that can't be removed on any "adult" site for mobile broadband, then that is major news (even leaving aside whether TPB has been fairly categorised or not).
However, my understanding is it can at least be removed - as you say, with Vodafone they charge your credit card (£1 IIRC - you're supposed to get it back, but I never did...) You do that once (I had to do it for a site that wasn't remotely "adult"), and then it's removed for good.
TFA does say:
BT's warning message advises customers to contact customer services if they want the block on the site to be lifted. The message also invites users to seek further information on the self-regulation scheme on the Internet Watch Foundation's website, although an IWF spokesman denies any involvement with the mobile filtering scheme.
Which suggests this is the case, at least.
The bit about the IWF is indeed confusing - the IWF maintain the list for the compulsory censorship that you can't opt out, which supposedly is restricted to "potential child pr0n". I've not heard of them maintaining lists of adult sites.
So in summary, I don't think this is preventing access altogether (can someone confirm that you can access TPB if you opt out on BT broadband?) but there are still concerns. It's still the "Think Of The Children" mentality ("in case phones or laptops fall into the hands of minors", says TFA). Why not just set it to child/adult settings when you buy it, as they can check your age then.
"Should've" == "Should have".
It's only ad hominem if you're insulting someone in order to criticise an argument.
I don't think he was trying to criticise his argument. He was simply calling him a self-righteous imbecile.
Indeed, the whole point of his post was that Stephen Hawking is a great man, whilst the OP is a self-righteous imbecile. I don't think "ad hominem" applies - it's obviously fair game to call someone a self-righteous imbecile when your point is that they are a self-righteous imbecile.
Who said he was an atheist?
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. The differences are often simply a matter of definitions rather than what a person's views actually are.
All that matters here is that he doesn't seem to express belief in God - and more to the point for what started this thread, he doesn't seem to be a Christian.
they no longer are permitted to filter topics of their children's education.
And how on earth do parents currently filter topics they don't want them to see at school? They don't have access to the software!
I'm sorry, but presenting this censorship software as allowing control to the parents is nonsense. They don't have control - if I want say Christian websites to be blocked, I don't get that to happen, so why should it be any different for the parent who doesn't want his child accessing LGB sites?
If you want to argue that parents should have control of the censorship list - which would also mean allowing their child to view the LBG sites, if they wish - then I'm sure the ACLU and everyone opposed to the software would be fine with that. If you want to argue that children shouldn't have Internet access at all, or that parents should be able to request that, then that's another debate.
parenting by committee
It is supporters of this software that want parenting by "committee", as everyone has to be filtered.
Why are the public desires of parents being ignored?
But it's okay to ignore parents who don't want the system?
I see no problem with a school limiting internet access to a strict subset of tools based solely upon the curriculum they teach.
Is there evidence they've blocked everything except the strict subset required for lessons?
the biggest issue here is that school are allowing kids access to the freaking internet. I'm sure none of the kids there give a damn about any gay/lesbian website - they're too busy talking crap with their mates on facebook. Instead of learning stuff.
Except for people who might be gay, or questioning their sexuality, and either don't have access at home, or are too afraid they might get found out if they looked it up at home.
Plus, if it was really true that no one wanted to look at them, there's no reason to block them in the first place.
There is also the wider issue - whether or not kids want to look at it, the message is that homosexuality is a taboo topic that should be hidden, alongside other censored sites.
If he ACLU was actually interested in civil liberties in this case they would recognize the liberty of parents to raise their children as they see fit.
Civil liberties are primarily about individual freedom. What rights you have over someone else - including your children - is a matter for debate.
but it seems to me that the GLB community would have more political success without the "T".
It's hardly either/or. When lobbying for things specific to homosexuality, people don't drag the "T" into it, as there's no need - and I've never heard a politician say "Well I'd love to support gay rights, but I won't because they associate with those awful transgender people"...
But when communities help each other for support, that's to each other's advantage, and I don't see how it harms them. Most people probably aren't even aware of the connection anyway - as you didn't seem to be.
(And an honest question btw, do you always refer to surgery as mutilation, or are you just choosing that word for this context?)
Okay how about this: I find you repulsive.
That's perfectly fine for me to say to you on a forum, because that's my honest opinion, and I've said so politely, right? The point is that whilst we can't help our *feelings*, it's a different thing when you direct that comment about people - it's not just an honest description of what you can't help, it's reasonably read as a statement that the person intentionally posted.
Moreover, if it's fair for him to express his feeling, why was it trolling for the other poster to respond? He was only stating how he felt.
Heterosexual guys don't like gay guys coming on to them and find it revulsive. It's been that way for 20,000 years and is not going to change. Guys who do like other guys coming on to them are called homosexual.
It's not as simple as that. I'm bi, but I still sometimes might have someone come onto me that I'm not attracted to - whether they're male or female. I don't feel the need to post about it being repulsive. And heterosexual women often find it repulsive when slobbering males come onto them, but - and I hear there are some women on Slashdot - you don't hear them talking about us like that in front of us.
I'm not against the former, though I'd be repulsed if one tried to come on to me.
Now you know what the majority of women feel like most of the time when a man tries to hit on them. They're replused by you too, don't you know?
The latter though, just seem wrong...
"Ur Wrong!"
And to think I come to Slashdot for a little more intelligent debate.
In what sense is what someone does with their own body "wrong" just because you wouldn't want it?
Whilst sexuality and transgender are different concepts, my understanding is that historically they were connected in terms of people fighting for LBG and transgender rights - e.g., the Stonewall riots. So that's why they are often grouped together - not because they are the same thing, but because of people fighting together. There are various issues that cross over for both - e.g., laws about marriage (or anything else that assumes that all people are both heterosexual and cisgendered), and fighting against prejudice and discrimination.
There is also the point that for people who are transgendered in sense of not identifying as specifically male or female, it follows that they can't be straight (or indeed gay) because the straight/gay labelling is defined in terms of what gender you are, as well as what you're attracted to.
The latter, at the extreme, cut off their genitalia. This is a group I have a little more trouble viewing as "normal". Or am I just too hung up on the extreme?
They have surgery. If you want to think of that as not "normal", "extreme" and "cutting off" bits, that's up to you. I stopped being squeamish about surgery a while ago.
Well, for starters, billions of people haven't made a religion out of his existence. And if a historian wanted to question the evidence of his existence, it could be done without people claiming that it was some kind of offensive attack on their faith.
Yeah, because maybe his family shouldn't get a windfall from the surge in book sales his titles are about to recieve. Funerals are expensive too.
Everyone has expensive funerals. Can we get the law written to give us a windfall upon death too?
I know, perhaps we could have some system where everyone pays a small amount, and you get a windfall if you die. It would be opt in, we could call it something like, I don't know, life insurance maybe?
Maybe when you die you won't care if you leave your kids with anything
That's a nice straw man. Of course authors can leave their kids something - possessions, money, exactly the same thing the rest of us leave. The question is whether they should be allowed to give them something the rest of us can't - a continued income.
So some guy spends ages training / doing a degree/PhD for a new job, then he gets hit by a car on the first day of the job. His widow and kids get nothing because of your idiot rule that says he can't get paid when he's dead. How unfair is that!
(I agree that a fixed short term would probably be better, but I don't think that widows and children have some automatic right to earn an income from someone after their death - that's just tough luck, and the financial problems of losing someone is something we all have to face. Take out life insurance like the rest of us have to - that's what it's for. Plus, I didn't think we lived in a world anymore where wives depend on their husband's income, nor do I care if their children might have to go and work for a living like the rest of us instead of living off their inheritance.)
If it's being done because they fear it would be illegal in the UK, that's fair enough, but on a general point:
So - no, it's not a racist agenda (not that 'The British' are a 'race' anyhow).
If one was discriminating based on a person's country (e.g., if I put a "No Americans" sign on my shop - or website), then I think that is reasonably described as racist, whether it's in real life or online.
Just because something is free doesn't mean I won't pay for something that I perceive as better value.
Oh, and don't forget to include the price of office, anti-virus and countless utils that are free under linux
Funny, I'm using free anti-virus, and you can get free office applications too.
I think open source is a great thing, but for heaven's sake. I like the freedom to run what software I want, even if the user doesn't allow it and the source to be distributed for free.
I'm in the UK. I sometimes have to wait months for recent TV shows and movies.
Not to mention having to worry about when it's on, or being in (yes, I could record it - but it's easier to download it).
If you actually try RTFA, you'll see that Itunes is mentioned.
Likewise, just because your obscure OS with so little market penetration that its statistically irrelevant isn't supported does not mean it doesn't have movies. It means no one gives a fuck about you and your too cheap to pay for the service ass anyway. /rant
Tell that to the Mac users when they whine that something isn't available on their OS.
I break the law when I copy a purchased CD to my mp3 player too. I guess I'm just lacking honesty and integrity. How appalling of me to break the law by doing this, just because the record companies won't give me what I want.