I cannot believe you're saying we should put our faith in directories and search. The point of DNS is not just that you can find what you're looking for but also that there is a unique first-come-first-served association between something simple to remember and a particular owner. You don't have to rely on Google's indexing or what a DMOZ editor thinks. Once you own example.com you own it for as long as you can keep the registration, at minimal cost. There is no doubt that when you go to example.com you are seeing that which belongs to the person who registered it. If they direct you there from a business card or over the phone that's still unique. DNS isn't a directory service based on categories or human meaning. It's a one-to-one relation.
Because consistency has long since evaporated. There are plenty of commercial sites running a.org and the.net tld is nowadays meaningless (unless the meaning is "I couldn't afford a.com"). Also, think of all the organisations that use another country's tld, rather than their own. (.tv anyone?)
Population of Tuvalu <12000. ICANN screwed up initial allocations in the first place by not putting US domains in.us and global thigns in the gTLDs.
I wouldn't consider armed militias a functioning government. These militias are causing trouble, but they are a far cry from providing an alternative to the government sanctioned by the US military.
I think that's the whole point. By causing sufficient trouble they prevent the government from governing (and thus oppressing). The idea is that no government at all is better than an oppressive government.
That's the argument anyway. I'm still not sure which side of it I'm on.
Why is it that the unborn are deprived of life without due process?
The debate lies in whether or not the unborn are alive in the first place, not whether or not they can be deprived of life without due process. That debate is (pardoning the pun) alive and well worldwide.
You cannot deprive of life that which does not have life. The problem is, nobody's really clear on what life means in the context of conception, pregnancy and birth.
On interactive TV forums I've written extensively talking about how web infrastructure isn't really for national TV and large events with not 100 or 1000 but multiple millions of people try to access the same data within a few seconds of each other.
This is on a smaller scale but certainly proves the point; I do feel there are solutions for pre-caching to tiered servers through the network fabric; but some day when SuperBowl XXX runs and 200,000 TV sets try to access the same JavaTV Applets at the same time... that real fun begins.
The problem is that we're using unicast when we mean to broadcast. IP isn't really engineered for broadcast like TV is but that's what mass media needs. 200M people want the olympic opening ceremony? The main stream gets broadcast. Only things that are truly on demand, or only required by a few, is it reasonable to unicast -- be they Klingon subtitles or the names of the current members of the IOC.
I'm sorry, the songs have all been BROADCAST! They have been on the radio, you can record them and play them back at your leisure. The Internet just makes this easier on a massive scale.
I hope you realise that radio stations have to pay for broadcast licenses [.au site] to do this, right? And that time shifting radio broadcast is only legal for limited playback (i.e. it is not designed to allow you to create a collectionref [pdf.au]). Copyright collection societies exist for precisely this reason.
I don't like the way copyright law operates at the moment; it's out-dated. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist at all and it doesn't mean that we're entitled to copy anything for free.
By "radioactive waste" I think GP was referring to waste that is radioactive, like C-14 (in various forms, including soot and CO2). Technically true. The comparison is entirely unfair, however, because molar quantity of radioactive material per KWh is not a measure of danger. Gamma energy released per sq km due to radioactive decay per KWh is probably better - though that's still not quite capturing it.
You have to look at the type of radiation, the energy of the radiation, the amount of the for a given unit of substance-energy-density, the longevity of the radioactive substance... it's all pretty complicated.
It's relatively trivial to write a windows batch file and corresponding shell script to back up your files with the surprisingly-powerful ncftp, as encrypted and signed by gpg. It's not an all-in-one-executable solution, but it's pretty close. I reckon with a bit of effort you could even make your shell script and batch file the same file;).
Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.
There are, broadly, two types of sexually transmitted infections: contact-transmissible (herpes, HPV etc) and fluid-transmissible (Hepatitis, HIV etc). Surprisingly enough, these can be transferred without sex. What it takes is either physical contact or fluid exchange. The only reason we separate STIs from other contagious diseases is because sexual fluid exchange is much more common than other fluid exchange (e.g. blood transfusions).
Let's step back though. Sure, you can get STIs other ways, but they're generally transmitted sexual. Damn straight. So not having sex vastly reduces your chance of catching an STI - this is also true.
The problem is that not everyone believes in abstinence. People don't abstain because they're afraid of catching diseases - most people anyway. People abstain for personal or religious reasons. Advocating abstinence only - to the exclusion of proper sex education and the provision of condoms - means that those people who exercise their right to have sex are not aware of risk-minimising measures available to them. Like condoms.
So, since you're not allowed to advocate a particular religious viewpoint, and most people aren't going to abstain because you tell them they'll get chlamydia and die, you're only protecting a few. The trouble is you're leaving the rest without any protection. A comprehensive sex education program, incorporating information about sexuality, readiness, the option to refrain, and ways to do it safely if you are going to do it, will ensure fewer people are harmed.
If you are having sex because it's suggested that condoms will stop you getting pregnant, abstinence only sex education wasn't going to stop you having sex in the first place.
Obama isn't going to convince Iran to disarm through 30s commercials and the occasional big speech. He'll be sitting down with leaders at Camp David for a week at a time. If he did that with the citizenry, I reckon he could probably get a fair proportion of the vote;)
PS: As voter turnout in the US is about 50%, if he has 45% of the population voting for him, that ain't half bad.
[a vote for a third party] is akin to throwing my vote away in the current environment.
Preferential voting.
Holler for it. There is no reason to not have it. Very simple to implement, very simple to understand and means that the system isn't limited to two parties.
Now don't you think that getting the kind of sentence that a rapist might get is a tad bit CRUEL AND UNUSUAL for downloading or uploading some worthless garbage?
Absolutely. But let's hear what the judge determines to be the sentence before leaping to conclusions, shall we?
Copyright laws have a huge cost to society, I think they should be abolished then we wouldn't have to deal with this crap.
For those who haven't seen the argument a million times before, I feel compelled to post it again. Copyright law is a benefit to society.
The whole point of IP law is that innovation can be protected for a short period of time (sufficient to guarantee a worthwhile return on investment) and then remove that protection to allow the advancement to be used by society.
In other words, IP laws both reward innovation and encourage openness that wouldn't otherwise be viable. In theory at least. Good principle, shitty implementation. Don't abolish the whole thing though, or we'll go back to black-box inventions and no cooperation.
.. they can confiscate the person's computer with no possible recourse for the victim?
Oh there's recourse. But have you ever made an administrative appeal to your state's supreme court? Let me tell you, it's a bitch. A bitch that takes lots of time and lots of money (even if you're representing yourself). And likely if you're right they'll still have legislative immunity from having to pay costs....
At that point it's faster, cheaper and easier to buy a new PC and rewrite your PhD thesis rather than appeal against the decision.
IOW, if your innocent website gets on such a blacklist, you certainly can sue them AND the blacklist-keeping organization for libel, provided the ISP(s) doesn't take steps (or takes way too long) to remove you from it.
If your website appears to even one other person as "blocked for hosting child pornography" and it is entirely innocent, that is libellous, and it doesn't matter whether you're removed from the blacklist promptly or not.
Publishing material which alleges involvement or complicity in a crime is prima facie libel. Ceasing to publish that information doesn't undo the damage done by the initial publication.
Of course, there is a causation/correlation argument that could be made here, but to someone with tendencies already, this may push them over the edge whereas they may have lived a normal life without it.
OR the child molestation may cause the pornography viewing. Or maybe rapists must rape because they don't have enough access to porn. The study you quote really doesn't show that pornography has any causative link with child abuse or rape. It can't unless it also looks at a control group of innocent people. Also, I believe it looks at regular porn, rather than child porn.
Even so, to demonstrate that child pornography causes child abuse you would need to show that a statistically significant number of people who view child pornography engage in child sexual abuse, and that those who do not view child pornography do not (statistically significantly) engage in child sexual abuse. To do so you would need a large sample who look at child porn. I am not aware of any such study and you are unlikely to get a group of those people other than people who have already been arrested. The real user base for child porn is very difficult to quantify or consider, entirely because it is such a taboo subject. People who enjoy CP aren't likely to admit it to anyone - even in an anonymous survey.
Slashdot Mirror
I cannot believe you're saying we should put our faith in directories and search. The point of DNS is not just that you can find what you're looking for but also that there is a unique first-come-first-served association between something simple to remember and a particular owner. You don't have to rely on Google's indexing or what a DMOZ editor thinks. Once you own example.com you own it for as long as you can keep the registration, at minimal cost. There is no doubt that when you go to example.com you are seeing that which belongs to the person who registered it. If they direct you there from a business card or over the phone that's still unique. DNS isn't a directory service based on categories or human meaning. It's a one-to-one relation.
Because consistency has long since evaporated. There are plenty of commercial sites running a .org and the .net tld is nowadays meaningless (unless the meaning is "I couldn't afford a .com"). Also, think of all the organisations that use another country's tld, rather than their own. (.tv anyone?)
Population of Tuvalu <12000. ICANN screwed up initial allocations in the first place by not putting US domains in .us and global thigns in the gTLDs.
I wouldn't consider armed militias a functioning government. These militias are causing trouble, but they are a far cry from providing an alternative to the government sanctioned by the US military.
I think that's the whole point. By causing sufficient trouble they prevent the government from governing (and thus oppressing). The idea is that no government at all is better than an oppressive government.
That's the argument anyway. I'm still not sure which side of it I'm on.
Why is it that the unborn are deprived of life without due process?
The debate lies in whether or not the unborn are alive in the first place, not whether or not they can be deprived of life without due process. That debate is (pardoning the pun) alive and well worldwide.
You cannot deprive of life that which does not have life. The problem is, nobody's really clear on what life means in the context of conception, pregnancy and birth.
If you've got investors coming around, I'd do it. Just think of all the extra hardware you can buy with all that VC...
Sigh. Moron.
Despite his poor elocution, he clearly meant the browser being used as the shell.
The #1 issue for me was the lack of AdBlock Plus, quickly followed by the lack of developer tools/extensions.
Unfortunately it's likely that most of the army will go with their army overlords... as happens in most countries. It's kind of like indoctrination.
On interactive TV forums I've written extensively talking about how web infrastructure isn't really for national TV and large events with not 100 or 1000 but multiple millions of people try to access the same data within a few seconds of each other.
This is on a smaller scale but certainly proves the point; I do feel there are solutions for pre-caching to tiered servers through the network fabric; but some day when SuperBowl XXX runs and 200,000 TV sets try to access the same JavaTV Applets at the same time... that real fun begins.
The problem is that we're using unicast when we mean to broadcast. IP isn't really engineered for broadcast like TV is but that's what mass media needs. 200M people want the olympic opening ceremony? The main stream gets broadcast. Only things that are truly on demand, or only required by a few, is it reasonable to unicast -- be they Klingon subtitles or the names of the current members of the IOC.
I'm sorry, the songs have all been BROADCAST! They have been on the radio, you can record them and play them back at your leisure. The Internet just makes this easier on a massive scale.
I hope you realise that radio stations have to pay for broadcast licenses [.au site] to do this, right? And that time shifting radio broadcast is only legal for limited playback (i.e. it is not designed to allow you to create a collection ref [pdf .au]). Copyright collection societies exist for precisely this reason.
I don't like the way copyright law operates at the moment; it's out-dated. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist at all and it doesn't mean that we're entitled to copy anything for free.
Greenpeace go over board on a regular basis
Only when the French are around...
And resistance is IR^2, damn!, I mean : futile. :)
I'm only doing this because I love to nitpick, but I think you can see your problem. Resistance is V/I - ohmicly anyway.
By "radioactive waste" I think GP was referring to waste that is radioactive, like C-14 (in various forms, including soot and CO2). Technically true. The comparison is entirely unfair, however, because molar quantity of radioactive material per KWh is not a measure of danger. Gamma energy released per sq km due to radioactive decay per KWh is probably better - though that's still not quite capturing it.
You have to look at the type of radiation, the energy of the radiation, the amount of the for a given unit of substance-energy-density, the longevity of the radioactive substance... it's all pretty complicated.
I dunno - coastguard?
It's relatively trivial to write a windows batch file and corresponding shell script to back up your files with the surprisingly-powerful ncftp, as encrypted and signed by gpg. It's not an all-in-one-executable solution, but it's pretty close. I reckon with a bit of effort you could even make your shell script and batch file the same file ;).
Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.
There are, broadly, two types of sexually transmitted infections: contact-transmissible (herpes, HPV etc) and fluid-transmissible (Hepatitis, HIV etc). Surprisingly enough, these can be transferred without sex. What it takes is either physical contact or fluid exchange. The only reason we separate STIs from other contagious diseases is because sexual fluid exchange is much more common than other fluid exchange (e.g. blood transfusions).
Let's step back though. Sure, you can get STIs other ways, but they're generally transmitted sexual. Damn straight. So not having sex vastly reduces your chance of catching an STI - this is also true.
The problem is that not everyone believes in abstinence. People don't abstain because they're afraid of catching diseases - most people anyway. People abstain for personal or religious reasons. Advocating abstinence only - to the exclusion of proper sex education and the provision of condoms - means that those people who exercise their right to have sex are not aware of risk-minimising measures available to them. Like condoms.
So, since you're not allowed to advocate a particular religious viewpoint, and most people aren't going to abstain because you tell them they'll get chlamydia and die, you're only protecting a few. The trouble is you're leaving the rest without any protection. A comprehensive sex education program, incorporating information about sexuality, readiness, the option to refrain, and ways to do it safely if you are going to do it, will ensure fewer people are harmed.
If you are having sex because it's suggested that condoms will stop you getting pregnant, abstinence only sex education wasn't going to stop you having sex in the first place.
And that is tonight's word.</rant>
Obama isn't going to convince Iran to disarm through 30s commercials and the occasional big speech. He'll be sitting down with leaders at Camp David for a week at a time. If he did that with the citizenry, I reckon he could probably get a fair proportion of the vote ;)
PS: As voter turnout in the US is about 50%, if he has 45% of the population voting for him, that ain't half bad.
[a vote for a third party] is akin to throwing my vote away in the current environment.
Preferential voting.
Holler for it. There is no reason to not have it. Very simple to implement, very simple to understand and means that the system isn't limited to two parties.
You can't do a name lookup for an arbitrary e-mail address, and you shouldn't be able to do it for a GMail address.
Well, for a long time, you could. And for a whole bunch of organisations, you still can.
*creak*
That's the sound of a long bow being drawn.
Now don't you think that getting the kind of sentence that a rapist might get is a tad bit CRUEL AND UNUSUAL for downloading or uploading some worthless garbage?
Absolutely. But let's hear what the judge determines to be the sentence before leaping to conclusions, shall we?
Copyright laws have a huge cost to society, I think they should be abolished then we wouldn't have to deal with this crap.
For those who haven't seen the argument a million times before, I feel compelled to post it again. Copyright law is a benefit to society.
The whole point of IP law is that innovation can be protected for a short period of time (sufficient to guarantee a worthwhile return on investment) and then remove that protection to allow the advancement to be used by society.
In other words, IP laws both reward innovation and encourage openness that wouldn't otherwise be viable. In theory at least. Good principle, shitty implementation. Don't abolish the whole thing though, or we'll go back to black-box inventions and no cooperation.
I'm not the GP but my bank does this. It's Commonwealth Bank in Australia. Interestingly it's slogan was for a long time "which bank?"
.. they can confiscate the person's computer with no possible recourse for the victim?Oh there's recourse. But have you ever made an administrative appeal to your state's supreme court? Let me tell you, it's a bitch. A bitch that takes lots of time and lots of money (even if you're representing yourself). And likely if you're right they'll still have legislative immunity from having to pay costs....
At that point it's faster, cheaper and easier to buy a new PC and rewrite your PhD thesis rather than appeal against the decision.
IOW, if your innocent website gets on such a blacklist, you certainly can sue them AND the blacklist-keeping organization for libel, provided the ISP(s) doesn't take steps (or takes way too long) to remove you from it.
If your website appears to even one other person as "blocked for hosting child pornography" and it is entirely innocent, that is libellous, and it doesn't matter whether you're removed from the blacklist promptly or not.
Publishing material which alleges involvement or complicity in a crime is prima facie libel. Ceasing to publish that information doesn't undo the damage done by the initial publication.
OR the child molestation may cause the pornography viewing. Or maybe rapists must rape because they don't have enough access to porn. The study you quote really doesn't show that pornography has any causative link with child abuse or rape. It can't unless it also looks at a control group of innocent people. Also, I believe it looks at regular porn, rather than child porn.
Even so, to demonstrate that child pornography causes child abuse you would need to show that a statistically significant number of people who view child pornography engage in child sexual abuse, and that those who do not view child pornography do not (statistically significantly) engage in child sexual abuse. To do so you would need a large sample who look at child porn. I am not aware of any such study and you are unlikely to get a group of those people other than people who have already been arrested. The real user base for child porn is very difficult to quantify or consider, entirely because it is such a taboo subject. People who enjoy CP aren't likely to admit it to anyone - even in an anonymous survey.