Hey, I got mail from some other registrar than the one I registered my domain with, saying my domain was about to expire in 9 years, and would I please hurry before I lost the domain.
Nazis didn't start by actually gassing dissidents and whatnot by the millions. They started by slowly removing the rights and freedom of them. If you notice something like that starting in your own society, it doesn't mean it has to escalate to what the Nazis did, but it would be a good idea to keep an eye on it anyway.
It can get a lot worse without being comparable to Auschwitz, or even the kristallnacht, but that doesn't mean it's ok.
All right, I may have over-extrapolated. Still, frost-like tools (I don't know any others, but they probably exist, and probably have about the same content - over-extrapolation again I'm afraid.) are the only way to find content that's not the "I killed my wife and now I can confess without repercussions HAHAHA"-type documents found on the main portal/link thingie.
Wow. This argument is horse#@$# of the worst kind. Accept it? I think NOT!
See response earlier in thread. I don't mean it should be legal to distribute kiddie porn, let alone create it, I just mean it is impossible to stop (the distribution that is) without limiting anonymity and thereby free speech.
To equate the evidence of the crime (the pictures/video/whatever of the crime) to protected free speech or even commercial speech requires you set aside: *snip*
So, news footage of a high-speed pursuit or bank robbery should not be protected free speech because it depicts a crime? Who gets to decide to what crimes this rule applies? What about depictions of police violence?
To allow it's trade or distribution perpetuates the crime.
Oh please. The same has been said about (regular) porn being a cause of rape. Also, it's not exactly *allowing* its distribution, it's more a case of accepting that the alternative (restricted privacy/anonymity/free speech) might be worse in the long run.
For an analogy: conspiring, growing, distributng and using pot is illegal.
So by your own logic, if I make a movie about growing cannabis, that should be illegal?
Actually, where I live growing, distributing and using small amounts of pot IS legal:)
By the way, I hope you're not really comparing the "crime" of smoking pot with raping children.
Please support your assertion with quantitative data.
Well, I'm sorry I did not perform a scientific investigation on the matter, but the difference between Kazaa and Frost is easily seen when searching for regular porn. Kazaa might return some child porn too, although I have never encountered it, while Frost hardly returns anything else.
In fact, I suspect that you're right. But given the emotive nature of the assertion, I'm going to call bullshit on it until you expand on how you determined the usage of freenet.
So, you suspect it is correct, but you still call it bullshit because I didn't explain exactly how I arrived at the assertion? Ok, I was searching for regular porn on freenet, and all I found was kiddie porn.
Living in a true democracy as you describe, is only good if you're in the majority.
How does a system where a MINORITY can elect a president fix that?
Also, you may or may not know this, but the Netherlands is actually a constitutional monarchy. (Which, of course, is a terrible thing: You can still go to jail here for insulting the Queen.)
How about none of the above?
Try using Frost to search for *ANY* images or videos and see the results. Extra points for searching for generic terms like blowjob. And no, Blowjob_11.jpg is NOT the 11th in a series.
Also the main link site (forgot the name) has several such sites.
Just because you couldn't find whatever you were looking for doesn't mean it's not there.
So what you're saying is that we need to accept terrible difficulty and enormous expenses to have a better solution? Sorry, there's no regular expression for determining the validity of a statement.
child porn has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. it is a crime to produce it in the first place, hence stopping its distribution is not a violation of freedom of speech.
That is not what I meant. I agree it should be illegal, it's just that with Freenet, it's next to impossible to track down, so you'll have to accept it popping up there.
The only alternative is to forbid anonymity entirely, because it's not possible to be only anonymous when your NOT distributing child porn.
Does it bother you that the main use of Freenet at the moment seems to be pr0n of a less-than-mature nature?
I can understand the argument that child porn is something we'll just need to accept if we want to allow true freedom of speech, but last time I checked freenet, just about the only content I could find was child porn, so it seems either pedophiles are more tech-savvy than average, or the need for anonymity for other "forbidden" content is not so great yet.
Of course, The RIAA's actions might change that quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
I only know two languages...English and bad english
Let me guess, the former is not your native language?
Hey, I got mail from some other registrar than the one I registered my domain with, saying my domain was about to expire in 9 years, and would I please hurry before I lost the domain.
Even more incoherent and flawed then stupid parent post is
We haven't heard from SCO in, what, a day?
Your ideas intrigue me. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
This is not straw man reasoning. It may be a fallacy of presupposition or loaded question though. :P
And no, I still don't have figures. What do you want, a graph of my porn habits?
Image the amount of rain I can record of the US Open!
Nazis didn't start by actually gassing dissidents and whatnot by the millions. They started by slowly removing the rights and freedom of them. If you notice something like that starting in your own society, it doesn't mean it has to escalate to what the Nazis did, but it would be a good idea to keep an eye on it anyway.
It can get a lot worse without being comparable to Auschwitz, or even the kristallnacht, but that doesn't mean it's ok.
All right, I may have over-extrapolated.
Still, frost-like tools (I don't know any others, but they probably exist, and probably have about the same content - over-extrapolation again I'm afraid.) are the only way to find content that's not the "I killed my wife and now I can confess without repercussions HAHAHA"-type documents found on the main portal/link thingie.
Wow. This argument is horse#@$# of the worst kind. Accept it? I think NOT!
:)
See response earlier in thread. I don't mean it should be legal to distribute kiddie porn, let alone create it, I just mean it is impossible to stop (the distribution that is) without limiting anonymity and thereby free speech.
To equate the evidence of the crime (the pictures/video/whatever of the crime) to protected free speech or even commercial speech requires you set aside: *snip*
So, news footage of a high-speed pursuit or bank robbery should not be protected free speech because it depicts a crime? Who gets to decide to what crimes this rule applies? What about depictions of police violence?
To allow it's trade or distribution perpetuates the crime.
Oh please. The same has been said about (regular) porn being a cause of rape. Also, it's not exactly *allowing* its distribution, it's more a case of accepting that the alternative (restricted privacy/anonymity/free speech) might be worse in the long run.
For an analogy: conspiring, growing, distributng and using pot is illegal.
So by your own logic, if I make a movie about growing cannabis, that should be illegal?
Actually, where I live growing, distributing and using small amounts of pot IS legal
By the way, I hope you're not really comparing the "crime" of smoking pot with raping children.
Please support your assertion with quantitative data.
Well, I'm sorry I did not perform a scientific investigation on the matter, but the difference between Kazaa and Frost is easily seen when searching for regular porn. Kazaa might return some child porn too, although I have never encountered it, while Frost hardly returns anything else.
In fact, I suspect that you're right. But given the emotive nature of the assertion, I'm going to call bullshit on it until you expand on how you determined the usage of freenet.
So, you suspect it is correct, but you still call it bullshit because I didn't explain exactly how I arrived at the assertion? Ok, I was searching for regular porn on freenet, and all I found was kiddie porn.
BTW, how come you people don't scream that 1/2 of the voters didn't vote for Clinton either? He didn't get a majority of the votes.
However, he DID get more votes than any other candidate.
Living in a true democracy as you describe, is only good if you're in the majority.
How does a system where a MINORITY can elect a president fix that?
Also, you may or may not know this, but the Netherlands is actually a constitutional monarchy. (Which, of course, is a terrible thing: You can still go to jail here for insulting the Queen.)
How about none of the above?
Try using Frost to search for *ANY* images or videos and see the results. Extra points for searching for generic terms like blowjob. And no, Blowjob_11.jpg is NOT the 11th in a series.
Also the main link site (forgot the name) has several such sites.
Just because you couldn't find whatever you were looking for doesn't mean it's not there.
Try file search on Frost
So what you're saying is that we need to accept terrible difficulty and enormous expenses to have a better solution? Sorry, there's no regular expression for determining the validity of a statement.
I used my psychic abilities to determine the content before downloading it.
By the way, you shouldn't share the My Pictures\Private\WifeOnHoliday folder
The quick'n'easy option being what, making freenet and anonymity illegal?
child porn has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. it is a crime to produce it in the first place, hence stopping its distribution is not a violation of freedom of speech.
That is not what I meant. I agree it should be illegal, it's just that with Freenet, it's next to impossible to track down, so you'll have to accept it popping up there.
The only alternative is to forbid anonymity entirely, because it's not possible to be only anonymous when your NOT distributing child porn.
but I've got to ask:
Does it bother you that the main use of Freenet at the moment seems to be pr0n of a less-than-mature nature?
I can understand the argument that child porn is something we'll just need to accept if we want to allow true freedom of speech, but last time I checked freenet, just about the only content I could find was child porn, so it seems either pedophiles are more tech-savvy than average, or the need for anonymity for other "forbidden" content is not so great yet.
Of course, The RIAA's actions might change that quickly.
The SMOC resents your implication that Slashdot Moderators On Crack must be niggers. Please report to your doctor for extermination.