Yeah keep ignoring logic. That's a great start. Lets judge things on what reputation says instead of logic.
You still don't get it. I'm not talking about if something is true or not, but if you should believe someone. If someone consistently gives you bad information, just ignore what they have to say as it's about as valid as a random number generator as far as truth goes. If I wrote a program that strung together random phrases to create "facts", would you give it any credibility? No, you'd ignore it. This is what you should do with anything Rush Limbaugh says. Unforunately a significant percentage of the populace doesn't ignore this human random phrase generator, so other people have to track down references that prove him wrong. I say skip the middle man and ignore this fool. For example, if Rush says its" 11pm" when it is actually "11:01pm"
Rush Limbaugh doesn't merely state things that are imprecise, he makes statements that are flat out wrong. Sorry if you can't see that, but it's a fact.
I don't know why you're mentioning Al Franken. He's irrelevant to this discussion. Slashdotters, as I've said previously self correct. If you have a problem with that statement, address it. Ignoring it only makes you sound ignorant.
Estimating those costs is all total garbage. Too many times business likes to judge everything from a dollars and cents perspective. It's nice to do that of course, because you get everything in common units and money=money. Thus there's a strong drive to get such numbers, even if you just make them up out of thin air.
The problem of course is that reducing things like this to dollars and cents is often impossible. Estimating risk is notoriously difficult, so I think most businesses go by just "feel" rather than making up numbers. This is one reason I think IT departments need a budget. The budget gets set on what the company thinks they can afford. The IT manager can spend money from the budget and manage the risk.
I read highly rated posts all the time that I know to be completely false. 9 times out of 10 someone replies later with a correction to things that are wrong. It's not perfect of course, and more specialized areas of knowledge don't get corrected. It's much harder to fake things on the internet with discussion groups. There's just too much freedom to find new information.
This never happens with Rush Limbaugh though. There's really no self correction as anyone expressing disent it filtered out by his lackeys working the call in phones.
Ahh.. so you're the person who thinks any post with any edge to it whatsover is "flamebait". Thanks for taking us down to the level of milquetoast.
As for the ad hominem attacks, you act as if an attack on someones integrity and truthfullness isn't something that matters. It's not an argument of logic, but one of reputation. That is:
1. Person X makes claim Y 2. Person X is a known lier and is almost always wrong. 3. Ignore whatever Person X has to say.
The problem is people don't ignore what Rush Limbaugh has to say, and in fact think has has an ounce of credibility. Pointing out Rush's lack of credibility is a completely valid point.
Consider all the dupes, mistakes, etc, and you realize... Gee, He is human. Just like the slash editors.
And this is an excuse for making massive blunders day after day? The difference between Rush Limbaugh and Slashdot is that Slashdot is self-correcting and often has good information. Rush Limbaugh isn't self correcting and almost never has good information. The size of the audience does not mean check your data better
It should. Larger audience means more money, so more money to actually hire people to check facts. It's pretty sad when a syndicated talk show gets facts wrong more often than a single person armed with Google.
He's listened to by millions of idiots that believe every word he says. If the man had any integrity he would actually check things out before he starts espousing them. As for "maybe it's true" it's not true at all, and no one but miss-informed people thought it was when he said it. If you had bothered to read the article that was published more than 2 years before Rush made his miss-informed statement you might have realized that.
It's not as if this is the first thing Rush has said that's complete crap and was easily verifiable as complete crap. Anyone that actually cares about finding truth should be completely disgusted with this purveyor of lies.
Sorry, but Rush Limbaugh is 100% guilty in promoting this crap. Here's a link to his actual crappy and massively missinformed quote. http://mediamatters.org/items/200508090007
His quote came from Aug 3, 2005. The article you quoted came from May 6, 2003.
Just goes to show if Rush says it, it's probbably wrong.
What's the difference between porting WoW to linux, and adding a custom interface for people with limited mobility?
Nothing. I expect a company to do neither, nor do I think they should in any way be required to do so. Would it be nice for a company to do either things? Sure. This is a damn videogame we're talking about here, not a supermarket. Were something to happen to you, I think you'd see things differently.
And laws should be based on the person who's most clouded by personal involvement? There's a reason we don't let victims of crimes try and sentence alleged perpetrators. The fact that people are actually taking this "make videogames accessible to the handicapped" seriously indicates that we've gone off the deep end in this country. Life isn't equal and it never will be.
I think the people who've assumed the purpose of this device is to "save" electricity are missing the actual use of this device. The article never mentions it, but I have to believe the use of this invention is to power traffic lights or anything else that uses electric power in remote areas where electric power hasn't been strung. It would of course be rather pointless to try to offset the tiny amounts of power that a traffic light uses with this (relatively) expensive machine. On the other hand if the total cost of this device is cheaper than bringing in electric power, then it makes sense to use it.
I hadn't thought of additional complexities and weight savings gained from losing the transmission and much of the drivetrain. It's not an unreasonable idea. I'd just like to see an actual car that's been designed as a diesel-electric or gasoline-electric before I think it's a viable alternative to what we've got now.
Yes, hybrids don't run at a perfectly constant speed, but the battery boost allows the engine to be smaller and not run at high revs when accelerating.
The point I'm trying to make is that all the transitions from motion->electricty->motion is most likely going to kill any additional efficiencies gained by an engine that runs at constant speeds. If the engine is truly going to run at constant speeds you'll still need a battery to store some energy for accelerating from a stop. In that case you'll have motion->electricity->battery->electricity->motion. Not exactly really efficient. It might even be worse than that because of AC/DC conversion.
Diesel-electric trains get away with this without the batteries because they really have no need for fast accelerations from a dead stop. I suppose if car makers are clever they might try a flywheel to store energy and incur less loss, but I don't know how feasible that is.
There's a much simpler and more effective solution... Go full electric drive hybrid. Decouple the engine from the drive.
So you want to go from: gasoline->motion->electricty->motion
instead of
gasoline->motion
I can't really imagine that's any more (and probbably less with all those energy form transformations) efficient than the current hybrids. Engine efficiency comes from small engines running at constant speeds. That's already accomplished with the hybrids.
And ending a life is something that's automatically wrong? I don't know if you know this, but life depends upon death. It's a great big circle. It's not philosophy, it's a necessary fact of reality. Destruction is creation, creation is destruction. You can't seperate the two.
Nice to see such black and white arguments like: Using a nuke is evil. Period.
But then you say.... unless you're blowing an asteroid out of orbit or something equally improbable
So it's evil. Period. with the exception for times when it isn't. Either it's "evil. period" or it's not. You don't get to make exceptions. That's what that whole "period" business is about.
Nuclear weapons aren't terribly usefull, it's true. At one time people were considering using them for mining operations. I believe that turned out to be fairly impractical. One could argue that posessing nuclear weapons has lead to greater stability of the world. I don't know if that'a a very sound statement, but it's something to consider. What I'm getting at is that nuclear weapons are a tool of deterence. There hasn't been a major world war since they were invented (that is rivaling WWI, WWII, etc). That's pretty much the limit of the use of nuclear weapons. There's a LOT more ways to use nuclear weapons in a bad way than a good way.
But, getting back to the analogy I think it's a good one. TPM, like nuclear weapons is far more likely to be used for evil than it is for good. People make the argument about how "objects aren't inherently good or evil, it's how you use them" and that's obviously true. I think this argument really misses the point. The question we want answered is "should I create this tool?" not "is this tool good or bad?". A vaccine against smallpox can mostly be used for good things. I suppose you could use it to vaccinate some people and not others, then release smallpox, but that's unlikely.
So, what I'm getting at is the argument that "it's just a tool" is a load of garbage. All tools aren't equal in what they can do.
There not really "Electric Engine"s either are they?
Why not? Electricity is used to create an electric or magnetic field, which then accelerates plasma/ions. Electric sounds like a reasonable name to me. Ion or plasma is fine too, but most people don't understand what that means and they do understand what electric means. Calling them Electric Engines would mean calling pretty much every engine around an electric engine.
I'm not sure I follow. Not all engines require electricity to run. Rocket engines make no use of electricty at all, apart from maybe some pumps. The difference in this case is that electrical power is the primary source of power to create the thrust. Find a way to generate electrical power (nuclear reactor, solar cell) and you can save a lot of propellant weight.
But I wouldn't want to be the parent of a six year old who's going to get asked about it in the middle of a sporting event and I'm sure even those who don't mind the idea of their children seeing the nude physical body at a younger age still want to have some control on how their children are introduced to the body and sexuality instead of it being thrust apon them.
Uh huh. And ads for viagra, beer, and blowing someones brains out are just fine. There actually was an add for Viagra or Levitra during the super bowl. Are we all supposed to be concerned when some religious extremist has to explain to his kid what these drugs are for?
More to the point, where's the restrictions on things I don't like? I don't want kids to watch Rush Limbaugh, but unfortunately the FCC won't ban him. I honestly believe he's more harmful to children that Janet Jacksons teet. Why is it that what certain people don't like (and pretty much everyone has and does) (nudity, sex) is restricted, but what almost no one does and everything thinks is wrong (murder) is OK to show on TV?
If you make a film with a lot of kinky sex and freakish violence in it, some people will not want to see it, or want their kids to see it, or even want it promoted in their neighborhoods. Their desire not to be grossed out supersedes your right to perform a song about fucking your mother.
And I thought people had a choice whether to go to movies or not. Apparently people are forced into going to movies that they're "grossed out" by. Go ahead an make a movie where somebody shits on somebody else's face then ass-fucks them with a gardening trowel while nibbling their jugular vein open, if that's what your "artistic vision" calls for, but don't act all shocked and hurt when a ratings board gives it a grade that suggests suburban mall theaters might not want to show it. Nobody feels bad for you.
I think I want a rating on your post. Have you gone completely mad? There's not even that kind of shit in porn, much less anything resembling a movie. If you actually want to make a point maybe you should stick with what's actually in NC-17 movies.
Strange. In my experience Windows 2000 is about as stable as you can expect. I get uptimes on the average of probbably a month at a time. The only time I reboot is when software needs to be installed. At client sites the freezing/crashes of windows 2000 machines can all be traced to either bad hardware, or buggy anti-virus software. I'd bet all your freezing issues can all be traced to bad hardware.
That's not to say windows is bug-free. The biggest bug I've seen is with windows explorer crashing.
Also, there's no reason to assume "fundies" are idiots. They may be misguided, wrong, or just of a different opinion than you, but that doesn't make them idiots.
Stupid is as stupid does. Just like there's a lot of way to be smart, there's a lot of ways to be stupid. If you go on spouting garbage that's obviously incorrect, that's a form of stupidity. These same people may be quite intelligent in other ways but in seperating fact from fantasy they've shown a massive deficiency.
For example, Apache has no hard coded passwords. But... what if you have your web application accessing a MySQL database on a different server? Well, then you need to login to that MySQL database. The password is stored in your web app. And that, in theory, is easy to do because the web app isn't compiled and it's stored in a single location.
Any webapp written in Java most certainly is compiled. Even if you're using a non-compiled languages you're an idiot if you hard code passwords into the application. It takes what, about 5-10 minutes of extra work to make it minimally configurable?
When was the last time that password was updated? Hopefully the last time someone with access to the passwords left. Otherwise what's the point? Changing a secure password adds no security. It's like changing the locks on your car every 6 months "just in case someone copied my key". This is especially true for passwords of applications where there's no one typing it in, using it somewhere else, etc.
Legions of these apps were coded by programmers who may be very competant, but are not security aware...
Yah, I think that's actually what the article is getting at. It's a terrible problem and I find no excuse for it other than incompetence. I bet it's often hard to convince the middle managers to spend money on adding password configuration to an app that fully functions. That's the real problem here.
I think you and the mods missed the point. So how does tomcat talk to mysql? Do you use a password? Trust the IP? Bind to 127.0.0.1 or Unix sockets only?
Umm.. all my web applications use a password that I set in an xml configuration file. If I needed to change the password I'd change it in the database, change it in the config file, and restart the app. Anyone that's hard coding passwords into the application is an idiot and should be fired. You better have procedures in place, and you better keep that config file locked down since you have a powerful DB account password in plain text in your front end app server.
And chmod 600 is hard to do? I must be missing something.
What the Chinese are doing, and what Australia is discussing are two different things
Strange, they sound largely the same to me. Both are examples of large scale government censorship. Sure, they differ in scope, but I'd like to suggest that getting your ideas on human rights from China tends to be a bad idea.
Anyone who would seriously think of filtering the internet obviously has no idea of what it is.
I guess you've never heard of the Great Firewall of China. I'm sure people have found ways around the firewall, but my guess is it's largely effective at limiting the content that the Chinese people can receive.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah keep ignoring logic. That's a great start. Lets judge things on what reputation says instead of logic.
You still don't get it. I'm not talking about if something is true or not, but if you should believe someone. If someone consistently gives you bad information, just ignore what they have to say as it's about as valid as a random number generator as far as truth goes. If I wrote a program that strung together random phrases to create "facts", would you give it any credibility? No, you'd ignore it. This is what you should do with anything Rush Limbaugh says. Unforunately a significant percentage of the populace doesn't ignore this human random phrase generator, so other people have to track down references that prove him wrong. I say skip the middle man and ignore this fool.
For example, if Rush says its" 11pm" when it is actually "11:01pm"
Rush Limbaugh doesn't merely state things that are imprecise, he makes statements that are flat out wrong. Sorry if you can't see that, but it's a fact.
I don't know why you're mentioning Al Franken. He's irrelevant to this discussion. Slashdotters, as I've said previously self correct. If you have a problem with that statement, address it. Ignoring it only makes you sound ignorant.
Estimating those costs is all total garbage. Too many times business likes to judge everything from a dollars and cents perspective. It's nice to do that of course, because you get everything in common units and money=money. Thus there's a strong drive to get such numbers, even if you just make them up out of thin air.
The problem of course is that reducing things like this to dollars and cents is often impossible. Estimating risk is notoriously difficult, so I think most businesses go by just "feel" rather than making up numbers. This is one reason I think IT departments need a budget. The budget gets set on what the company thinks they can afford. The IT manager can spend money from the budget and manage the risk.
I read highly rated posts all the time that I know to be completely false. 9 times out of 10 someone replies later with a correction to things that are wrong. It's not perfect of course, and more specialized areas of knowledge don't get corrected. It's much harder to fake things on the internet with discussion groups. There's just too much freedom to find new information.
This never happens with Rush Limbaugh though. There's really no self correction as anyone expressing disent it filtered out by his lackeys working the call in phones.
Well I think the above is definitively flamebait.
Ahh.. so you're the person who thinks any post with any edge to it whatsover is "flamebait". Thanks for taking us down to the level of milquetoast.
As for the ad hominem attacks, you act as if an attack on someones integrity and truthfullness isn't something that matters. It's not an argument of logic, but one of reputation. That is:
1. Person X makes claim Y
2. Person X is a known lier and is almost always wrong.
3. Ignore whatever Person X has to say.
The problem is people don't ignore what Rush Limbaugh has to say, and in fact think has has an ounce of credibility. Pointing out Rush's lack of credibility is a completely valid point.
Unless you can prove it, STFU. Otherwise, your statements are slanderous.
Please sue my Rush Limbaugh (hope hope hope) PLEASE!!!!
Consider all the dupes, mistakes, etc, and you realize... Gee, He is human. Just like the slash editors.
And this is an excuse for making massive blunders day after day? The difference between Rush Limbaugh and Slashdot is that Slashdot is self-correcting and often has good information. Rush Limbaugh isn't self correcting and almost never has good information.
The size of the audience does not mean check your data better
It should. Larger audience means more money, so more money to actually hire people to check facts. It's pretty sad when a syndicated talk show gets facts wrong more often than a single person armed with Google.
He's listened to by millions of idiots that believe every word he says. If the man had any integrity he would actually check things out before he starts espousing them. As for "maybe it's true" it's not true at all, and no one but miss-informed people thought it was when he said it. If you had bothered to read the article that was published more than 2 years before Rush made his miss-informed statement you might have realized that.
It's not as if this is the first thing Rush has said that's complete crap and was easily verifiable as complete crap. Anyone that actually cares about finding truth should be completely disgusted with this purveyor of lies.
Sorry, but Rush Limbaugh is 100% guilty in promoting this crap. Here's a link to his actual crappy and massively missinformed quote. http://mediamatters.org/items/200508090007
His quote came from Aug 3, 2005. The article you quoted came from May 6, 2003.
Just goes to show if Rush says it, it's probbably wrong.
What's the difference between porting WoW to linux, and adding a custom interface for people with limited mobility?
Nothing. I expect a company to do neither, nor do I think they should in any way be required to do so. Would it be nice for a company to do either things? Sure. This is a damn videogame we're talking about here, not a supermarket.
Were something to happen to you, I think you'd see things differently.
And laws should be based on the person who's most clouded by personal involvement? There's a reason we don't let victims of crimes try and sentence alleged perpetrators. The fact that people are actually taking this "make videogames accessible to the handicapped" seriously indicates that we've gone off the deep end in this country. Life isn't equal and it never will be.
I think the people who've assumed the purpose of this device is to "save" electricity are missing the actual use of this device. The article never mentions it, but I have to believe the use of this invention is to power traffic lights or anything else that uses electric power in remote areas where electric power hasn't been strung. It would of course be rather pointless to try to offset the tiny amounts of power that a traffic light uses with this (relatively) expensive machine. On the other hand if the total cost of this device is cheaper than bringing in electric power, then it makes sense to use it.
I hadn't thought of additional complexities and weight savings gained from losing the transmission and much of the drivetrain. It's not an unreasonable idea. I'd just like to see an actual car that's been designed as a diesel-electric or gasoline-electric before I think it's a viable alternative to what we've got now.
Yes, hybrids don't run at a perfectly constant speed, but the battery boost allows the engine to be smaller and not run at high revs when accelerating.
. Not exactly really efficient. It might even be worse than that because of AC/DC conversion.
The point I'm trying to make is that all the transitions from motion->electricty->motion is most likely going to kill any additional efficiencies gained by an engine that runs at constant speeds. If the engine is truly going to run at constant speeds you'll still need a battery to store some energy for accelerating from a stop. In that case you'll have motion->electricity->battery->electricity->motion
Diesel-electric trains get away with this without the batteries because they really have no need for fast accelerations from a dead stop. I suppose if car makers are clever they might try a flywheel to store energy and incur less loss, but I don't know how feasible that is.
There's a much simpler and more effective solution... Go full electric drive hybrid. Decouple the engine from the drive.
So you want to go from:
gasoline->motion->electricty->motion
instead of
gasoline->motion
I can't really imagine that's any more (and probbably less with all those energy form transformations) efficient than the current hybrids. Engine efficiency comes from small engines running at constant speeds. That's already accomplished with the hybrids.
And ending a life is something that's automatically wrong? I don't know if you know this, but life depends upon death. It's a great big circle. It's not philosophy, it's a necessary fact of reality. Destruction is creation, creation is destruction. You can't seperate the two.
Nice to see such black and white arguments like:
Using a nuke is evil. Period.
But then you say....
unless you're blowing an asteroid out of orbit or something equally improbable
So it's evil. Period. with the exception for times when it isn't. Either it's "evil. period" or it's not. You don't get to make exceptions. That's what that whole "period" business is about.
Nuclear weapons aren't terribly usefull, it's true. At one time people were considering using them for mining operations. I believe that turned out to be fairly impractical. One could argue that posessing nuclear weapons has lead to greater stability of the world. I don't know if that'a a very sound statement, but it's something to consider. What I'm getting at is that nuclear weapons are a tool of deterence. There hasn't been a major world war since they were invented (that is rivaling WWI, WWII, etc). That's pretty much the limit of the use of nuclear weapons. There's a LOT more ways to use nuclear weapons in a bad way than a good way.
But, getting back to the analogy I think it's a good one. TPM, like nuclear weapons is far more likely to be used for evil than it is for good. People make the argument about how "objects aren't inherently good or evil, it's how you use them" and that's obviously true. I think this argument really misses the point. The question we want answered is "should I create this tool?" not "is this tool good or bad?". A vaccine against smallpox can mostly be used for good things. I suppose you could use it to vaccinate some people and not others, then release smallpox, but that's unlikely.
So, what I'm getting at is the argument that "it's just a tool" is a load of garbage. All tools aren't equal in what they can do.
There not really "Electric Engine"s either are they?
Why not? Electricity is used to create an electric or magnetic field, which then accelerates plasma/ions. Electric sounds like a reasonable name to me. Ion or plasma is fine too, but most people don't understand what that means and they do understand what electric means.
Calling them Electric Engines would mean calling pretty much every engine around an electric engine.
I'm not sure I follow. Not all engines require electricity to run. Rocket engines make no use of electricty at all, apart from maybe some pumps. The difference in this case is that electrical power is the primary source of power to create the thrust. Find a way to generate electrical power (nuclear reactor, solar cell) and you can save a lot of propellant weight.
But I wouldn't want to be the parent of a six year old who's going to get asked about it in the middle of a sporting event and I'm sure even those who don't mind the idea of their children seeing the nude physical body at a younger age still want to have some control on how their children are introduced to the body and sexuality instead of it being thrust apon them.
Uh huh. And ads for viagra, beer, and blowing someones brains out are just fine. There actually was an add for Viagra or Levitra during the super bowl. Are we all supposed to be concerned when some religious extremist has to explain to his kid what these drugs are for?
More to the point, where's the restrictions on things I don't like? I don't want kids to watch Rush Limbaugh, but unfortunately the FCC won't ban him. I honestly believe he's more harmful to children that Janet Jacksons teet. Why is it that what certain people don't like (and pretty much everyone has and does) (nudity, sex) is restricted, but what almost no one does and everything thinks is wrong (murder) is OK to show on TV?
If you make a film with a lot of kinky sex and freakish violence in it, some people will not want to see it, or want their kids to see it, or even want it promoted in their neighborhoods. Their desire not to be grossed out supersedes your right to perform a song about fucking your mother.
And I thought people had a choice whether to go to movies or not. Apparently people are forced into going to movies that they're "grossed out" by.
Go ahead an make a movie where somebody shits on somebody else's face then ass-fucks them with a gardening trowel while nibbling their jugular vein open, if that's what your "artistic vision" calls for, but don't act all shocked and hurt when a ratings board gives it a grade that suggests suburban mall theaters might not want to show it. Nobody feels bad for you.
I think I want a rating on your post. Have you gone completely mad? There's not even that kind of shit in porn, much less anything resembling a movie. If you actually want to make a point maybe you should stick with what's actually in NC-17 movies.
Strange. In my experience Windows 2000 is about as stable as you can expect. I get uptimes on the average of probbably a month at a time. The only time I reboot is when software needs to be installed. At client sites the freezing/crashes of windows 2000 machines can all be traced to either bad hardware, or buggy anti-virus software. I'd bet all your freezing issues can all be traced to bad hardware.
That's not to say windows is bug-free. The biggest bug I've seen is with windows explorer crashing.
Also, there's no reason to assume "fundies" are idiots. They may be misguided, wrong, or just of a different opinion than you, but that doesn't make them idiots.
Stupid is as stupid does. Just like there's a lot of way to be smart, there's a lot of ways to be stupid. If you go on spouting garbage that's obviously incorrect, that's a form of stupidity. These same people may be quite intelligent in other ways but in seperating fact from fantasy they've shown a massive deficiency.
They have a password to your DB. Chmod 600 isn't going to help you if they get root. Or if the server is running as root and they exploit that.
Then you're fucked. Why would you expect any security model to hold up when someone has root access to your server?
For example, Apache has no hard coded passwords. But... what if you have your web application accessing a MySQL database on a different server? Well, then you need to login to that MySQL database. The password is stored in your web app. And that, in theory, is easy to do because the web app isn't compiled and it's stored in a single location.
Any webapp written in Java most certainly is compiled. Even if you're using a non-compiled languages you're an idiot if you hard code passwords into the application. It takes what, about 5-10 minutes of extra work to make it minimally configurable?
When was the last time that password was updated?
Hopefully the last time someone with access to the passwords left. Otherwise what's the point? Changing a secure password adds no security. It's like changing the locks on your car every 6 months "just in case someone copied my key". This is especially true for passwords of applications where there's no one typing it in, using it somewhere else, etc.
Legions of these apps were coded by programmers who may be very competant, but are not security aware...
Yah, I think that's actually what the article is getting at. It's a terrible problem and I find no excuse for it other than incompetence. I bet it's often hard to convince the middle managers to spend money on adding password configuration to an app that fully functions. That's the real problem here.
I think you and the mods missed the point. So how does tomcat talk to mysql? Do you use a password? Trust the IP? Bind to 127.0.0.1 or Unix sockets only?
Umm.. all my web applications use a password that I set in an xml configuration file. If I needed to change the password I'd change it in the database, change it in the config file, and restart the app. Anyone that's hard coding passwords into the application is an idiot and should be fired.
You better have procedures in place, and you better keep that config file locked down since you have a powerful DB account password in plain text in your front end app server.
And chmod 600 is hard to do? I must be missing something.
What the Chinese are doing, and what Australia is discussing are two different things
Strange, they sound largely the same to me. Both are examples of large scale government censorship. Sure, they differ in scope, but I'd like to suggest that getting your ideas on human rights from China tends to be a bad idea.
Anyone who would seriously think of filtering the internet obviously has no idea of what it is.
I guess you've never heard of the Great Firewall of China. I'm sure people have found ways around the firewall, but my guess is it's largely effective at limiting the content that the Chinese people can receive.