Doh! That was the pretty much the method I was secretly keeping to myself. =) They must already apply a complex algorithm, because I've had stuff blocked with my name stuck in it. But, if someone generated completely unique spam-mails for each person, it would be difficult to catch, though for spam to be effective as an ad, there would have to be some commonality between the messages. A large amount of random bytes at the end of each email would likely bypass the system, until you filtered for large amounts of random bytes. But if you tagged on, say, large chunks of Shakespeare at random...
Now if you get Hamlet with your next spam, don't blame me =)
Ah, but before, the only criteria you gave for something being subjective was disagreement. Now your definition has changed to "anything that cannot be objectively proven," which of course is the definition of subjectivity.
Note, however, that "objective proof" still relies on basic presuppositions, such as "general reliability of the senses". Otherwise, Slashdot may just be a figment of your imagination. Another is non-contradiction (if A=B, A != C, then B != C), which you would have to throw out the window to say something is both good and bad at the same time, in the same manner. If you throw that out, then you have no way of defending your point- We can both be right at the same time even though we disagree. Again, that's popular to say, but it doesn't hold water.
If we apply that to the original statement, it is possible for some things to be objective, at least partly, even though people disagree on them. In your example of killing, my answer would be "it depends". That doesn't mean it's subjective, just that your example isn't specific enough. In math, it would be like asking "Does k = 10?", without saying "5 + 5 = k".
If the killing meets certain criteria, yes, it is objectively wrong. With other criteria, it is objectively right. As I said before, I don't think you would believe it is subjective if you were being attacked in cold blood. By saying it is subjective, you are saying that it is a matter of personal opinion. In that case you would be forced to justify your own killing, if it was the killer's opinion you should be killed, whether in self defense or not.
To tie it back to the issue, there are objectives in determining "good and bad". I still find it odd that a person would object to a.kids domain, but defend female mutilation and killing.
Promising newcomers such as CloudMark, which taps the collective power of e-mail recipients to identify spam, may improve things for a while.
I've been using this for a while, and am catching like 80% with 0 false-positives so far. The only downside has been a few minor bugs, which is expected for a beta product and have more to do with Outlook than anything. I think the concept is sound, and would be pretty hard to circumvent. Basically, a fingerprint (one-way hash?) of the email (not just the header) is looked up in a database which contains reported spam. Reports are weighted for reliability, which prevents spammers from unblocking their own spam. I can think of only one way, besides a DoS, to get around it, but I ain't telling here =)
www.cloudmark.com
For example, I personally think that female genital mutilation is "bad", but there are many cultures in which it is considered a "good" thing to do.
So if your daughter/wife/girlfriend went to one of those places, and they mutilated her, you would have no problem with it? Female mutilation is objectively bad. Anybody who says different is wrong. If you're so intent on defending a culture's judgement call, then you should also not have a problem when ours makes one, as Congress did in this bill. But why limit the judgement call to a culture? Suppose an individual decides it's "good" to kill you- will you stand there and defend his opinion while he chops your head off? You simply have no basis for defending your position if you don't believe in absolutes. Not only is your position opinion- it's self-defeating.
To show that "good and bad are subjective", requires nothing more than a single case where two people disagree
Where did you pull that criteria from? Disagreement prooves nothing. I think your logic is bad. You think it is good. Therefore, by your own logic, your own logic is subjective. By your logic, ALL logic is subjective. Say I disagree with 1+1 = 2. Is math suddenly subjective? Or I disagree that Slashdot exists. Is it suddenly subjective?
Good and bad can be subjective, as in the case of jelly bean flavors or Linux distros. It also can be objective, as in "you have a bad tire" or "it is bad to rape someone".
1)Nobody's saying kids can only access.kids.us sites. It's still up to parents, and this would be a tool they can use to help them do their job. Whether they can physically grab the child or not is beside the point. You presuppose that the only type of harm is physical.
2)Though it's really popular to say, "good" and "bad" are not always subjective. If you really believed that, then you would have no problem with.kids.us, because you would realize that is just your subjective opinion and of no more weight than someone who thinks it's good. You also would be unable to say "good and bad are subjective", because that would be an objective claim. "It's bad to say morals are objective" is illogical because it's an objective moral itself.
3)just because a.kids.us domain exists does not mean parents will over shelter their children. There are ways of teaching your kids about the bad things in the world. You don't have to give them a crack pipe to teach them about drugs. One good way to start would be to not teach them that good and bad are subjective. Then they may not decide it's "good" to shoot up their school.
all you're saying is that, as a parent, you are incapable or unwilling to be present when your child uses the internet
Lemme check the thread...Nope, I am not saying that. I am saying that there is no "right to publicly available porn" and that it should not be available on publicly funded computers, especially where children can see it. I'm saying I don't want to have to explain it to my kid when he sees it on your screen, and I don't want to have to punch a guy out when he touches my kid in the juvenile section after spending a few hours in the internet room.
neither of them say that the ACLU opposes libraries blocking porn
The ACLU merely puts up a better front. They have entered lawsuits against libraries that voluntarily chose to filter, as well as businesses that installed filters.
The ALA is more open in it's opposition to filters (and "adult sections"), saying that there should be no restrictions on content. By their, and your, logic, a library should carry Playboy, and put it on a low shelf so kids can reach it.
where it's impossible for other means of controlling access to be used (public terminals, librarian present, restrict access to adults)
Why would you allow those methods, but be opposed to internet filtering? They carry the same "problems" you suggest: subjectivity of librarian watching screens, the embarrassment of looking up a medical site, and the fact that it restricts access to what you think should be publicly available "information". They are what the ALA terms "psychological restrictions". I too am skeptical of bills "for the children", and actually any government encroachment on rights. However, I do not view public access to porn as a "right", nor do I think porn is "speech" or "information" or "art". I readily admit that in this country, we have the right to do some things even if others think they are morally questionable. I would be oppose a law requiring ISPs to filter. That would be limiting free speech. However because this is a public place, and publicly funded, I think it is very appropriate to filter. Think of it this way: the podium at a white house press confrence is publicly funded, but not just any joe can get up there and say what he wants. That's not the place for it. By the same token, some things, like educational books and novels belong in publicly funded libraries. Some things, like chickens, motorcycles, and porn do not. It is no more of a limit on free speech to restrict access to porn than it is to require people to wear clothes when they browse the stacks.
This is exactly why an objective filter (software) cannot be relied upon
People every day write intelligent algorithms to handle vague concepts. For example, Cloudmark does a good job with "spam". Again, it need not be 100% to be effective.
Note in all this that I'm not objecting to libraries blocking porn
Then you are in direct disagreement with the ALA and ACLU.
But it sure makes for good campaign fodder.
So your theory is that politicians are doing this for votes. Well, I'm not a politician, and I hold these views. I know plenty of others that do, including librarians who say it IS a problem- or was before they added filtering software. You dismiss our opinion based on your speculation that filtering software isn't good enough, speculation that it's not a problem, and speculation that it's a campaign ploy. The facts are, though, that it is a problem, there is a reasonable solution, and that those truely opposed believe children have a right to view pornography.
Neither your supposed infrequency of it occuring, or the fact that it may be worse to get hit by a car has anything to do with the argument. Robbery may not be "as bad" as murder, but there's still laws against it. There are also laws against giving porn to minors.
a)not all packages allow exceptions But some do. Use those ones.
b)you don't even know it's there to ask to see it Then unblock google.
c)providing internet access is not distribution of porn Then putting a filter on to block porn should not bother you. I'm not against providing internet access. It would be the same as blocking a call to a 1-900 number from a library (non-pay) phone.
d)when was the last time your child saw porn at the library? It is already blocked in my library. Apparently, though, some children have.
provide a clear-cut definition of pornography that leaves no room for error or misconception Provide a clearcut definition of information, art, expression, terrorism etc. Just because something is loosely defined does not mean there can be no objectivity when dealing with it. I think a good definition would be "an explicit literary or graphic depiction of a sexual act with the intent of illiciting a sexual response from the viewer." Sure, it'd be hard to write an algorithm that get's 100%, but that's not neccessary to provide an affective filter.
Should public money be used for building nuclear bombs?
If the presence those bombs can protect the public, and the public supports it, yes.
Public money gets used to pay for lots of things I don't like.
I'm sorry to hear that. Why don't you use public venues to make your opinion known, and if the public agrees with you then legislation can be enacted to take care of that? It's ironic how your view is actually the one that boils down to censorship. "Not everybody has the same values, therefore nobody can have values."
Filter software (all of it) has a long and sordid history of blocking all kinds of things This is a technically inaccurate generalization. There are plenty of fully customizable filtering programs available.
why should the librarian be forced to unlock your site for you?
The same reason she has to help me look up a book or find an article. Because it's her job to help people find information. I do have some sympathy when it comes to embarrassing but legitimate topics, but it's not unreasonable to think that librarians would think to unblock webmd.com. Strange you disregard the embarassment of a mother when her child points to the screen you left up and says "what are those guys doing, mommy?"
It is if you are not supervising them
Suppose it's not my kid, but the perv next to him who then decides to feel up my kid. Of course, I suppose you would call that "freedom of expression", too?
The library is not a free babysitting service Neither is it a place to look up porn. This isn't asking anyone to babysit- it's saying some things belong in a library and some things do not. Newspapers do. Hamsters do not. Popular Science does. Playboy does not. Informational websites do, pornographic ones do not.
If you do not take the responcibility to keep your child safe then you have failed in your job as a parent.
No disagreement here. One way of keeping my children safe is to participate in my government and support legislation that helps me to do so. For example, legislation against kidnaping, drunk driving, pedophilia, and porn in public view. By your logic, if someone teaches a child not to talk to strangers, watches him, and takes all precautions, but the child is kidnapped, it's the parent's fault.
To you, this is true. But this is not true for everyone else and I resent you forcing your view down my thraot.
Relativism defined. "Everyone else" does not think porn is art. Your argument boils down to "if you disagree with me and say so, then you are forcing your view down my throat." You don't have ground to stand on, though, because you are doing the exact same as I am: registering your opinion.
This is not about forcing blocks at ISPs or on your PC. It's mainly about libraries. Should public funds go to distributing porn?
the filtering programs also block sites on politics, health, science and other non-pornographic topics
Anybody reading slashdot should know that this is pure spin. Think about it: any filtering software has customizable exception lists for authorized personel. Can't get to www.libraries.ex? Ask the librarian to unblock it.
It's the parent's responsibility.
Ultimately, yes. But it's not irresponsible to let your child go to the library. It's the librarian's responsibility to help people find information. Despite what the ALA and ACLU say, porn is not information. Nor is it "art" or "speech".
They're not solid state, but if all you want to do is blow holes in stuff with light, put some of these on your Hummer...Of course, they also sell these so purchase at your own risk...
It'd be cool if slashdot supplemented the original link./. (cache | translate) users should be smart enough to know to use it for good not evil. Or combine w/ persnickity's idea.
By the same logic, it would be considered hacking to type in a domain name, such as beta.slashdot.org, before somebody was "ready". This is ridiculous.
...and in other news, inventor Dean Kamen has sued Denmarks LEGO Company under the DMCA. Dean charges the company's Mindstorms product is being used to illegaly produce copies of his patented Segway transportation device.
"they'll be putting Hollywood out of business, possibly within the next three years."
Good. Any way we could speed it up? This is capitalism, folks. If the consumer decides you have an inferior product or service, you get the axe. No special exceptions if you're a mushminded no-morals multi-millionare in rehab.
This may be true for true consumer networks, but the advantages of such a network for businesses is countless. Delivery-tracking systems is one example. Industry is moving towards geo-located services, in which case this type network will be even more valueable.
This is more speculative, but IMHO, there will likely be a bigger move away from cities as this sort of technology becomes more widespread. As travel becomes cheaper and faster, and communication does the same, the motivation for living in a crowded city will lessen. Why live in the city if I can check slashdot from my 40 acre plot in the mountains =)
As for the best approach, satellite may not be it, due to the extreme task of getting a consistant, usable signal 60 miles up and back down without large antenna. Personally, I'd vote for the solar plane idea. It's cheaper and easier to build in redundancy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not impressed until they get it to run on one of these. I'll call it...mini me...
Quick! Someone tell me first aid for a pen in my boss's eye!
Doh! That was the pretty much the method I was secretly keeping to myself. =) They must already apply a complex algorithm, because I've had stuff blocked with my name stuck in it. But, if someone generated completely unique spam-mails for each person, it would be difficult to catch, though for spam to be effective as an ad, there would have to be some commonality between the messages. A large amount of random bytes at the end of each email would likely bypass the system, until you filtered for large amounts of random bytes. But if you tagged on, say, large chunks of Shakespeare at random...
Now if you get Hamlet with your next spam, don't blame me =)
Ah, but before, the only criteria you gave for something being subjective was disagreement. Now your definition has changed to "anything that cannot be objectively proven," which of course is the definition of subjectivity.
.kids domain, but defend female mutilation and killing.
Note, however, that "objective proof" still relies on basic presuppositions, such as "general reliability of the senses". Otherwise, Slashdot may just be a figment of your imagination. Another is non-contradiction (if A=B, A != C, then B != C), which you would have to throw out the window to say something is both good and bad at the same time, in the same manner. If you throw that out, then you have no way of defending your point- We can both be right at the same time even though we disagree. Again, that's popular to say, but it doesn't hold water.
If we apply that to the original statement, it is possible for some things to be objective, at least partly, even though people disagree on them. In your example of killing, my answer would be "it depends". That doesn't mean it's subjective, just that your example isn't specific enough. In math, it would be like asking "Does k = 10?", without saying "5 + 5 = k".
If the killing meets certain criteria, yes, it is objectively wrong. With other criteria, it is objectively right. As I said before, I don't think you would believe it is subjective if you were being attacked in cold blood. By saying it is subjective, you are saying that it is a matter of personal opinion. In that case you would be forced to justify your own killing, if it was the killer's opinion you should be killed, whether in self defense or not.
To tie it back to the issue, there are objectives in determining "good and bad". I still find it odd that a person would object to a
Promising newcomers such as CloudMark, which taps the collective power of e-mail recipients to identify spam, may improve things for a while.
I've been using this for a while, and am catching like 80% with 0 false-positives so far. The only downside has been a few minor bugs, which is expected for a beta product and have more to do with Outlook than anything. I think the concept is sound, and would be pretty hard to circumvent. Basically, a fingerprint (one-way hash?) of the email (not just the header) is looked up in a database which contains reported spam. Reports are weighted for reliability, which prevents spammers from unblocking their own spam. I can think of only one way, besides a DoS, to get around it, but I ain't telling here =) www.cloudmark.com
For example, I personally think that female genital mutilation is "bad", but there are many cultures in which it is considered a "good" thing to do.
So if your daughter/wife/girlfriend went to one of those places, and they mutilated her, you would have no problem with it? Female mutilation is objectively bad. Anybody who says different is wrong. If you're so intent on defending a culture's judgement call, then you should also not have a problem when ours makes one, as Congress did in this bill. But why limit the judgement call to a culture? Suppose an individual decides it's "good" to kill you- will you stand there and defend his opinion while he chops your head off? You simply have no basis for defending your position if you don't believe in absolutes. Not only is your position opinion- it's self-defeating.
To show that "good and bad are subjective", requires nothing more than a single case where two people disagree
Where did you pull that criteria from? Disagreement prooves nothing. I think your logic is bad. You think it is good. Therefore, by your own logic, your own logic is subjective. By your logic, ALL logic is subjective. Say I disagree with 1+1 = 2. Is math suddenly subjective? Or I disagree that Slashdot exists. Is it suddenly subjective?
Good and bad can be subjective, as in the case of jelly bean flavors or Linux distros. It also can be objective, as in "you have a bad tire" or "it is bad to rape someone".
1)Nobody's saying kids can only access .kids.us sites. It's still up to parents, and this would be a tool they can use to help them do their job. Whether they can physically grab the child or not is beside the point. You presuppose that the only type of harm is physical. .kids.us, because you would realize that is just your subjective opinion and of no more weight than someone who thinks it's good. You also would be unable to say "good and bad are subjective", because that would be an objective claim. "It's bad to say morals are objective" is illogical because it's an objective moral itself. .kids.us domain exists does not mean parents will over shelter their children. There are ways of teaching your kids about the bad things in the world. You don't have to give them a crack pipe to teach them about drugs. One good way to start would be to not teach them that good and bad are subjective. Then they may not decide it's "good" to shoot up their school.
2)Though it's really popular to say, "good" and "bad" are not always subjective. If you really believed that, then you would have no problem with
3)just because a
Yeah when I read it, my first thought was "would hardback books not fit?"
all you're saying is that, as a parent, you are incapable or unwilling to be present when your child uses the internet
Lemme check the thread...Nope, I am not saying that. I am saying that there is no "right to publicly available porn" and that it should not be available on publicly funded computers, especially where children can see it. I'm saying I don't want to have to explain it to my kid when he sees it on your screen, and I don't want to have to punch a guy out when he touches my kid in the juvenile section after spending a few hours in the internet room.
neither of them say that the ACLU opposes libraries blocking porn
The ACLU merely puts up a better front. They have entered lawsuits against libraries that voluntarily chose to filter, as well as businesses that installed filters.
The ALA is more open in it's opposition to filters (and "adult sections"), saying that there should be no restrictions on content. By their, and your, logic, a library should carry Playboy, and put it on a low shelf so kids can reach it.
where it's impossible for other means of controlling access to be used (public terminals, librarian present, restrict access to adults) Why would you allow those methods, but be opposed to internet filtering? They carry the same "problems" you suggest: subjectivity of librarian watching screens, the embarrassment of looking up a medical site, and the fact that it restricts access to what you think should be publicly available "information". They are what the ALA terms "psychological restrictions". I too am skeptical of bills "for the children", and actually any government encroachment on rights. However, I do not view public access to porn as a "right", nor do I think porn is "speech" or "information" or "art". I readily admit that in this country, we have the right to do some things even if others think they are morally questionable. I would be oppose a law requiring ISPs to filter. That would be limiting free speech. However because this is a public place, and publicly funded, I think it is very appropriate to filter. Think of it this way: the podium at a white house press confrence is publicly funded, but not just any joe can get up there and say what he wants. That's not the place for it. By the same token, some things, like educational books and novels belong in publicly funded libraries. Some things, like chickens, motorcycles, and porn do not. It is no more of a limit on free speech to restrict access to porn than it is to require people to wear clothes when they browse the stacks.
This is exactly why an objective filter (software) cannot be relied upon
People every day write intelligent algorithms to handle vague concepts. For example, Cloudmark does a good job with "spam". Again, it need not be 100% to be effective.
Note in all this that I'm not objecting to libraries blocking porn
Then you are in direct disagreement with the ALA and ACLU.
But it sure makes for good campaign fodder.
So your theory is that politicians are doing this for votes. Well, I'm not a politician, and I hold these views. I know plenty of others that do, including librarians who say it IS a problem- or was before they added filtering software. You dismiss our opinion based on your speculation that filtering software isn't good enough, speculation that it's not a problem, and speculation that it's a campaign ploy. The facts are, though, that it is a problem, there is a reasonable solution, and that those truely opposed believe children have a right to view pornography.
Neither your supposed infrequency of it occuring, or the fact that it may be worse to get hit by a car has anything to do with the argument. Robbery may not be "as bad" as murder, but there's still laws against it. There are also laws against giving porn to minors.
a)not all packages allow exceptions
But some do. Use those ones.
b)you don't even know it's there to ask to see it
Then unblock google.
c)providing internet access is not distribution of porn
Then putting a filter on to block porn should not bother you. I'm not against providing internet access. It would be the same as blocking a call to a 1-900 number from a library (non-pay) phone.
d)when was the last time your child saw porn at the library?
It is already blocked in my library. Apparently, though, some children have.
provide a clear-cut definition of pornography that leaves no room for error or misconception
Provide a clearcut definition of information, art, expression, terrorism etc. Just because something is loosely defined does not mean there can be no objectivity when dealing with it. I think a good definition would be "an explicit literary or graphic depiction of a sexual act with the intent of illiciting a sexual response from the viewer." Sure, it'd be hard to write an algorithm that get's 100%, but that's not neccessary to provide an affective filter.
Should public money be used for building nuclear bombs?
If the presence those bombs can protect the public, and the public supports it, yes.
Public money gets used to pay for lots of things I don't like.
I'm sorry to hear that. Why don't you use public venues to make your opinion known, and if the public agrees with you then legislation can be enacted to take care of that? It's ironic how your view is actually the one that boils down to censorship. "Not everybody has the same values, therefore nobody can have values."
Filter software (all of it) has a long and sordid history of blocking all kinds of things
This is a technically inaccurate generalization. There are plenty of fully customizable filtering programs available.
why should the librarian be forced to unlock your site for you?
The same reason she has to help me look up a book or find an article. Because it's her job to help people find information. I do have some sympathy when it comes to embarrassing but legitimate topics, but it's not unreasonable to think that librarians would think to unblock webmd.com. Strange you disregard the embarassment of a mother when her child points to the screen you left up and says "what are those guys doing, mommy?"
It is if you are not supervising them
Suppose it's not my kid, but the perv next to him who then decides to feel up my kid. Of course, I suppose you would call that "freedom of expression", too?
The library is not a free babysitting service
Neither is it a place to look up porn. This isn't asking anyone to babysit- it's saying some things belong in a library and some things do not. Newspapers do. Hamsters do not. Popular Science does. Playboy does not. Informational websites do, pornographic ones do not.
If you do not take the responcibility to keep your child safe then you have failed in your job as a parent.
No disagreement here. One way of keeping my children safe is to participate in my government and support legislation that helps me to do so. For example, legislation against kidnaping, drunk driving, pedophilia, and porn in public view. By your logic, if someone teaches a child not to talk to strangers, watches him, and takes all precautions, but the child is kidnapped, it's the parent's fault.
To you, this is true. But this is not true for everyone else and I resent you forcing your view down my thraot.
Relativism defined. "Everyone else" does not think porn is art. Your argument boils down to "if you disagree with me and say so, then you are forcing your view down my throat." You don't have ground to stand on, though, because you are doing the exact same as I am: registering your opinion.
This is not about forcing blocks at ISPs or on your PC. It's mainly about libraries. Should public funds go to distributing porn?
the filtering programs also block sites on politics, health, science and other non-pornographic topics
Anybody reading slashdot should know that this is pure spin. Think about it: any filtering software has customizable exception lists for authorized personel. Can't get to www.libraries.ex? Ask the librarian to unblock it.
It's the parent's responsibility. Ultimately, yes. But it's not irresponsible to let your child go to the library. It's the librarian's responsibility to help people find information. Despite what the ALA and ACLU say, porn is not information. Nor is it "art" or "speech".
And here I thought the densest server was that blonde waitress at Waffle House...
They're not solid state, but if all you want to do is blow holes in stuff with light, put some of these on your Hummer...Of course, they also sell these so purchase at your own risk...
More technical article here
It'd be cool if slashdot supplemented the original link. /. (cache | translate) users should be smart enough to know to use it for good not evil. Or combine w/ persnickity's idea.
By the same logic, it would be considered hacking to type in a domain name, such as beta.slashdot.org, before somebody was "ready". This is ridiculous.
The article failed to mention that Janet Reno accounts for 70% of that.
Sounds like the Head from C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength...
...and in other news, inventor Dean Kamen has sued Denmarks LEGO Company under the DMCA. Dean charges the company's Mindstorms product is being used to illegaly produce copies of his patented Segway transportation device.
"they'll be putting Hollywood out of business, possibly within the next three years."
Good. Any way we could speed it up? This is capitalism, folks. If the consumer decides you have an inferior product or service, you get the axe. No special exceptions if you're a mushminded no-morals multi-millionare in rehab.
Of course, it could be possible that the killer is reading this /. thread and getting all sorts of handy tips...
This may be true for true consumer networks, but the advantages of such a network for businesses is countless. Delivery-tracking systems is one example. Industry is moving towards geo-located services, in which case this type network will be even more valueable.
This is more speculative, but IMHO, there will likely be a bigger move away from cities as this sort of technology becomes more widespread. As travel becomes cheaper and faster, and communication does the same, the motivation for living in a crowded city will lessen. Why live in the city if I can check slashdot from my 40 acre plot in the mountains =)
As for the best approach, satellite may not be it, due to the extreme task of getting a consistant, usable signal 60 miles up and back down without large antenna. Personally, I'd vote for the solar plane idea. It's cheaper and easier to build in redundancy.