Your using different criteria to evaluate danger. You're looking at each drug in a vacuum, he's looking at how society chooses to use each drug. And unless you know of some magical way to stop drunk driving and domestic violence, his perspective is a lot more realistic.
A pope actually treated the crossbow as some kind of WMD and prohibited its use against fellow Christians.
That was because a crossbow was the first weapon that was cheap, able to be used with a minimum of training, and capable of killing a fully armoured warrior.
Fully armoured warriors in those days tended to be the nobility. It used to be (generally) that the only people who could kill nobles, were nobles (even pikemen were regularly frowned upon for that reason). The crossbow was the first really democratic weapon.
It probably helps that Greek is transliterated when rendered with the English alphabet - which means most of the funky names you were saying were spelled phonetically, and thus easy for a recognition engine to pick up - even easier than a lot of regular English words.
The American Revolution was an example of mutual consent? The revolutionaries didn't "take their business elsewhere", they shot the storekeeper and took his stuff, at exactly the terms they dictated.
Personally, I'm fine with that, as I don't believe in the moral authority of monarchy. I think revolution against a tyrannical government is a perfectly moral reaction. But in your post, you say:
you do not get to dictate terms to the majority who have already agreed how things will work.
That seems to me to be rather fatalistic - "whatever is, is meant to be". If you disagree with the system, don't try and change it - leave. That's probably an apt discription of the Pilgrims, but not of later Americans.
I take it you disagree with the American War of Indepedance then? As they did exactly the opposite of what you recommend when faced with a world that did not offer the governmental option they wanted?
No, that's if it's GPL. If it's Open Source, it means that each customer can dick around with the source themselves, and don't have to rely on their vendor to do it. That's what Open Source is - you get the product, you get the code too. IIRC, that's what started Stallman's crusade - he got a binary blob of a printer driver that sucked, and he couldn't fix it 'cause he didn't have the code.
Now, the most popular Open Source licenses (GPL, BSD, etc) don't work that way. BSD puts no restrictions on distribution, GPL says that you're allowed to distribute only if you also distribute the code with it. But that doesn't mean commercial and Open Source are polar opposites - proprietary and Open Source are, but not commercial.
So do what my ISP does (Australian, not US). By default, ports 80 and 25 are blocked. If I want to open them, I log into my ISP, hit up my control panel, and turn off filtering. I've been running my own servers on my Internode connection for years.
It gets worse. She donated her rights to the song to the Libraries Board of South Australia a year before she died. They then sold the rights to a corporation, which is now suing Men at Work.
So she even tried to donate it to the public good, and its still being used to score free money for people not involved in its creation.
They said they'd give him 48 hours or they'd sue. How is that nice? They didn't mention that they understood he was not benefitting commercially, they didn't offer to negotiate in order to allow distribution under their auspirces, it was a completely stock-standard C&D. The only way it could have been less "nice" was if they announced they were starting legal action against him immediately.
Yeah, exactly. We issue them with monopoly powers, so they can continue to enrich our culture. What do they do? They sit on them, let them stagnate, and when somebody actually does act in the interest of the public, and makes them available on platforms the original provider has never supported nor, it seems, ever intends to, they shut him down.
So yes, screw Sony. They obtained their "intellectual property" under false pretences, and are now using it for the exact opposite of what it was intended for.
Hey, you were the one who said restricting XXX content to an.xxx TLD was censorship. If we're competing for ridiculous analogies, you win, with an extra side of hyberbole.
And yeah, it is being regulated because it's porn. We as a society have already decided that - which is why its illegal to sell it to minors.
As opposed to now, where if you have a fault, you have to get your ISP to get on to Telstra to get it fixed, and Telstra is actively in competition with your ISP, and thus has a disincentive to ever fix your connection.
Often the ISP is unwilling to open faults with the wholesaler because the wholesaler charges them outrages fees for doing so.
I've never heard anything indicating this - is this your experience with wholesalers in other countries? Because the NBN is still to embryonic to have nitty gritty details like outage fees sorted out.
The agreement is for Telstra to allow the NBN to use their pits and conduits - not their actual telco infrastructure. The deal is awesome for end users - its essentially doing what people have recommended for ages: splitting Telstra into government-controlled infrastructure which is wholesaled to all comers without prejudice, and into a private retail arm which competes equally with all other ISPs.
I have no idea why Telstra's shares are rising on the news - monopoly of the infrastructure was the only thing they had going for them.
and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains.
Why? The TLDs were designed to break up the WWW based on categories. Ok, so the US never really enforced the other TLDs, but other countries haven't been so lax. In Australia, you need to be a registered business (which is not hard - costs nothing, takes one phone call) to register a.com.au. You need to be a registered charity or non-profit to register a.org.au, a certified educational institute for.edu, etc (we do drop the ball with.net). I don't see any problem requiring pornographic sites onto a.xxx domain - and yes, legally there are fairly clear distinctions on what is pornographic. When edge cases come up, they tend to be discussed pretty publicly (see Bill Henson). The problem starts when you get government-level censorship of that particular TLD, but the problem is censorship, not categorisation. Trying to prohibit something because it may make censorship easier is like just as much a slippery slope as arguments in the other direction.
You will usually see donations from big industries to candidates from both parties. If there were seven parties that had a decent chance of getting their candidate elected, then they would have to bribe all seven of them - even if they don't get in this year, politicians tend to remember those who've paid them over the long term.
You speak and it is so. I guess there's some fundamental difference between the US and Taiwan that makes it ok for the US to threaten to shut down the whole internter (heh) and bad for Taiwan to shut down a tiny fraction of it.
Even on Slashdot, that's the worst analogy I've seen. You're not encouraging people to commit crimes themselves; you're not providing them with equipment needed to do so.
It would be more analagous to letting people know there's a murderer on the loose, and they should be on their guard before you've caught him, instead of holding off on the notification so that you don't look so bad.
Huh? ISPs already have this power. It's called "owning their infrastructure". If AISI stops providing accurate information, people will stop trusting it. This isn't a mandated cut-off - it's an advisory notice. ISPs aren't even obliged to pass it on.
Slashdot Mirror
SUM(DrunkDrivingDeaths) + SUM(AlcoholFueledDomesticViolenceDeaths) > SUM(ODedOnCrack)
Your using different criteria to evaluate danger. You're looking at each drug in a vacuum, he's looking at how society chooses to use each drug. And unless you know of some magical way to stop drunk driving and domestic violence, his perspective is a lot more realistic.
A pope actually treated the crossbow as some kind of WMD and prohibited its use against fellow Christians.
That was because a crossbow was the first weapon that was cheap, able to be used with a minimum of training, and capable of killing a fully armoured warrior.
Fully armoured warriors in those days tended to be the nobility. It used to be (generally) that the only people who could kill nobles, were nobles (even pikemen were regularly frowned upon for that reason). The crossbow was the first really democratic weapon.
It probably helps that Greek is transliterated when rendered with the English alphabet - which means most of the funky names you were saying were spelled phonetically, and thus easy for a recognition engine to pick up - even easier than a lot of regular English words.
The American Revolution was an example of mutual consent? The revolutionaries didn't "take their business elsewhere", they shot the storekeeper and took his stuff, at exactly the terms they dictated.
Personally, I'm fine with that, as I don't believe in the moral authority of monarchy. I think revolution against a tyrannical government is a perfectly moral reaction. But in your post, you say:
you do not get to dictate terms to the majority who have already agreed how things will work.
That seems to me to be rather fatalistic - "whatever is, is meant to be". If you disagree with the system, don't try and change it - leave. That's probably an apt discription of the Pilgrims, but not of later Americans.
He wasn't talking about homosexuality, or divorece. He was responding to a post suggesting polyamory would be beneficial to society.
I take it you disagree with the American War of Indepedance then? As they did exactly the opposite of what you recommend when faced with a world that did not offer the governmental option they wanted?
No, that's if it's GPL. If it's Open Source, it means that each customer can dick around with the source themselves, and don't have to rely on their vendor to do it. That's what Open Source is - you get the product, you get the code too. IIRC, that's what started Stallman's crusade - he got a binary blob of a printer driver that sucked, and he couldn't fix it 'cause he didn't have the code.
Now, the most popular Open Source licenses (GPL, BSD, etc) don't work that way. BSD puts no restrictions on distribution, GPL says that you're allowed to distribute only if you also distribute the code with it. But that doesn't mean commercial and Open Source are polar opposites - proprietary and Open Source are, but not commercial.
So do what my ISP does (Australian, not US). By default, ports 80 and 25 are blocked. If I want to open them, I log into my ISP, hit up my control panel, and turn off filtering. I've been running my own servers on my Internode connection for years.
It gets worse. She donated her rights to the song to the Libraries Board of South Australia a year before she died. They then sold the rights to a corporation, which is now suing Men at Work.
So she even tried to donate it to the public good, and its still being used to score free money for people not involved in its creation.
They said they'd give him 48 hours or they'd sue. How is that nice? They didn't mention that they understood he was not benefitting commercially, they didn't offer to negotiate in order to allow distribution under their auspirces, it was a completely stock-standard C&D. The only way it could have been less "nice" was if they announced they were starting legal action against him immediately.
Do what we say, or we sue. You have 48 hours.
Yeah, exactly. We issue them with monopoly powers, so they can continue to enrich our culture. What do they do? They sit on them, let them stagnate, and when somebody actually does act in the interest of the public, and makes them available on platforms the original provider has never supported nor, it seems, ever intends to, they shut him down.
So yes, screw Sony. They obtained their "intellectual property" under false pretences, and are now using it for the exact opposite of what it was intended for.
Hey, you were the one who said restricting XXX content to an .xxx TLD was censorship. If we're competing for ridiculous analogies, you win, with an extra side of hyberbole.
And yeah, it is being regulated because it's porn. We as a society have already decided that - which is why its illegal to sell it to minors.
As opposed to now, where if you have a fault, you have to get your ISP to get on to Telstra to get it fixed, and Telstra is actively in competition with your ISP, and thus has a disincentive to ever fix your connection.
Often the ISP is unwilling to open faults with the wholesaler because the wholesaler charges them outrages fees for doing so.
I've never heard anything indicating this - is this your experience with wholesalers in other countries? Because the NBN is still to embryonic to have nitty gritty details like outage fees sorted out.
The agreement is for Telstra to allow the NBN to use their pits and conduits - not their actual telco infrastructure. The deal is awesome for end users - its essentially doing what people have recommended for ages: splitting Telstra into government-controlled infrastructure which is wholesaled to all comers without prejudice, and into a private retail arm which competes equally with all other ISPs.
I have no idea why Telstra's shares are rising on the news - monopoly of the infrastructure was the only thing they had going for them.
Mod parent down; TPG is not Big Pond, and neither is Internode. It's misinformation, not informative.
To prevent pornographic content from being hosted outside of xxx domains is itself a form of censorship
Just like shelving all the fiction books together in the library is? I think you have a very wide view of censorship.
Yeah, so I got lazy after posting the first few .aus. My meaning's clear when you don't snip off half my sentence in a quotation.
and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains.
Why? The TLDs were designed to break up the WWW based on categories. Ok, so the US never really enforced the other TLDs, but other countries haven't been so lax. In Australia, you need to be a registered business (which is not hard - costs nothing, takes one phone call) to register a .com.au. You need to be a registered charity or non-profit to register a .org.au, a certified educational institute for .edu, etc (we do drop the ball with .net). I don't see any problem requiring pornographic sites onto a .xxx domain - and yes, legally there are fairly clear distinctions on what is pornographic. When edge cases come up, they tend to be discussed pretty publicly (see Bill Henson). The problem starts when you get government-level censorship of that particular TLD, but the problem is censorship, not categorisation. Trying to prohibit something because it may make censorship easier is like just as much a slippery slope as arguments in the other direction.
You will usually see donations from big industries to candidates from both parties. If there were seven parties that had a decent chance of getting their candidate elected, then they would have to bribe all seven of them - even if they don't get in this year, politicians tend to remember those who've paid them over the long term.
You speak and it is so. I guess there's some fundamental difference between the US and Taiwan that makes it ok for the US to threaten to shut down the whole internter (heh) and bad for Taiwan to shut down a tiny fraction of it.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/obama-internet-kill-switch-proposed-20100618-yln6.html?autostart=1
Even on Slashdot, that's the worst analogy I've seen. You're not encouraging people to commit crimes themselves; you're not providing them with equipment needed to do so.
It would be more analagous to letting people know there's a murderer on the loose, and they should be on their guard before you've caught him, instead of holding off on the notification so that you don't look so bad.
Huh? ISPs already have this power. It's called "owning their infrastructure". If AISI stops providing accurate information, people will stop trusting it. This isn't a mandated cut-off - it's an advisory notice. ISPs aren't even obliged to pass it on.
We were too busy out partying all night, thumbing our nose at the Man to elect decent (so far as the word can apply) politicians?
Yeah, I was covering those with the "it's bunk for a large number of reasons" which you snipped from your quote.