But as the old sayings goes: your rights stop where my nose begins. You don't have the right to eat my kids.
But I can't punch you in the nose or eat your kids over the internet. That's the beauty of computers - it's absolutely, positively, completely, irrevocably, unarguably impossible to infringe on somebody else's actual rights by using one.
Depends on what the government is talking about censoring - get the right "hot button emotional issue" and you'll see overwhelming support for government-controlled censorship. Except for the die-hard, "freedom of speech is absolute or it's nothing" Slashdot trolls like me and my heroes over at the Freenet project.
Most don't, by first instinct, treats the government as a suspicious object and also believe that a collective loss of liberty can be justify by a collective increase in security and harmony.
So what you're saying is that most people (Eastern and Western) are complacent, drooling idiots who get what they deserve but are unfortunately screwing everything up for the intelligent minority? Yes, I must agree.
Does that mean I approve of "government censorship of the internet?
Um, well, actually, by definition, yes, you do. You just believe (and I sure do hope you're right) that we can give them this broad, sweeping power to censor and they'll limit themselves to this one very specific sort of content.
she agrees with it, since "too much information can be confusing for the people" and that she thinks it is good that the government has some control over all this "confusion"
Oh, hell, that's not just China - 90% of America thinks that way, and 50% of Slashdot thinks that way if you bring up the right "think of the children" sort of censorship.
Just add a "Kid Flag" to the browsers. Have the parents set the "Kid Flag" and have sites have to enforce rules around it.
Or even better... have the adult population actually grow up, think rationally for once and realize... it's a computer. It can't kill you (unless you bring it into the bathtub when it's plugged in). It can't hurt you (unless you drop it on your foot). All it can do is expose you to other peoples thoughts and ideas. If being exposed to other people's thoughts and ideas is all it takes to harm you, at ANY age, the gene pool is better off without you in it.
Oh noes! I have been called a name! I must cower behind my orthopedic keyboard in fear!
Based on the demeanor of your response, it's clear that you're under 15 as well - WAY under 15. So apparently, yes - OP was incorrect in calling you an old anything.
Well, in a way, yes, it does - but only because of the proliferation of arrogant blowhards such as yourself who believe that your pet prejudice is more important than other people's freedom.
Well, either it's an absolute, or it doesn't exist at all.
However, as another poster noted, you can easily control what's hosted on your node - if you don't request something, it doesn't get on your node. But once you request it, you start hosting it for others.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you can find that stuff on the regular world wide web if you start looking for it. When the people *using* illegal web sites stop being convinced that they're good for sharing illegal images, then I think we can fairly categorize that as hysteria. In the mean time, I think we have to shut down the internet.
Yep, assuming that you're Toad from the list, that's pretty much what you said back then.
I've added you to my friends list as my small token of appreciation for the great service that you're doing for humanity - if there's any cosmic justice in the world, you and Ian will both be remembered by history as heroes of the 21st century.
But I still think you're wrong about developing multiple client implementations.
that they use security through obscurity to guard against someone finding a way to break the system.
I brought this up on the FreeNet mailing list many years ago, and I got a different answer. The context of my post then was that I'd like to try reimplementing the core (the "node") in C to see if I could achieve any sort of speedup that way. Maybe I could, maybe I couldn't - there wouldn't be any harm in trying, and it would be a fun intellectual challenge. Of course, to do so, I'd need to have a good understanding of the intra-node protocol. So I mentioned on the list that I was willing to try to document said protocol in a rigorous way as a first step in trying to write a C-based node. I was warned that any attempt to document the internal protocol was futile since they regularly changed the details of it (?!) Nor was my proposal to develop a node in C met with anything I could call enthusiasm - ironic in light of the FAQ entry which states "people willing to implement freenet in other languages however are very much encouraged to try". Good luck with that seeing as how there's no specification and no plan to develop one.
Yeah, I just saw one at Barnes and Noble in the kids section when I was there with my son last weekend. Unfortunately, they're for nine and up, and my son is only four... the truth is, I want the damned thing for myself, but I have to wait until he's nine and pretend I got it for him and do all the projects after everybody else is in bed.
If you're a half decent programmer its not too hard to role [sic] your own
Dear God, please don't do that to the rest of us. Roll your own as a learning experience (everybody should do it at least once), but please use the standards for code anybody else is going to have to maintain.
but we all know how often the best scenario unfolds
Um, actually, no, we don't. We have no idea how many people fantasize about heroin use but then don't use it again. In fact, the only ones we ever find out about are the ones who do use it again. It could be 99% for all we know.
That's just your assumption, though, isn't it? Have you seen the movies/pictures this guy was arrested for looking at? Oops, if you have, you're going to jail too. They might have been FAR more innocuous than you were thinking - that's what bugs me about this... by definition, we can never really know what the standard is.
Slashdot Mirror
But I can't punch you in the nose or eat your kids over the internet. That's the beauty of computers - it's absolutely, positively, completely, irrevocably, unarguably impossible to infringe on somebody else's actual rights by using one.
Welcome to the club. We attack at dawn.
Depends on what the government is talking about censoring - get the right "hot button emotional issue" and you'll see overwhelming support for government-controlled censorship. Except for the die-hard, "freedom of speech is absolute or it's nothing" Slashdot trolls like me and my heroes over at the Freenet project.
Well, perhaps that's because it's censored?
So what you're saying is that most people (Eastern and Western) are complacent, drooling idiots who get what they deserve but are unfortunately screwing everything up for the intelligent minority? Yes, I must agree.
No it doesn't, you've just been brainwashed into believing it does.
Um, well, actually, by definition, yes, you do. You just believe (and I sure do hope you're right) that we can give them this broad, sweeping power to censor and they'll limit themselves to this one very specific sort of content.
Oh, hell, that's not just China - 90% of America thinks that way, and 50% of Slashdot thinks that way if you bring up the right "think of the children" sort of censorship.
Or even better... have the adult population actually grow up, think rationally for once and realize... it's a computer. It can't kill you (unless you bring it into the bathtub when it's plugged in). It can't hurt you (unless you drop it on your foot). All it can do is expose you to other peoples thoughts and ideas. If being exposed to other people's thoughts and ideas is all it takes to harm you, at ANY age, the gene pool is better off without you in it.
Of course, his "logic" makes as much sense as most of the things we ban teenage "children" from for their "protection".
/Somewhat more enlightened "old fart" who hasn't forgotten being a teenager.
Based on the demeanor of your response, it's clear that you're under 15 as well - WAY under 15. So apparently, yes - OP was incorrect in calling you an old anything.
Well, in a way, yes, it does - but only because of the proliferation of arrogant blowhards such as yourself who believe that your pet prejudice is more important than other people's freedom.
Well, either it's an absolute, or it doesn't exist at all.
However, as another poster noted, you can easily control what's hosted on your node - if you don't request something, it doesn't get on your node. But once you request it, you start hosting it for others.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you can find that stuff on the regular world wide web if you start looking for it. When the people *using* illegal web sites stop being convinced that they're good for sharing illegal images, then I think we can fairly categorize that as hysteria. In the mean time, I think we have to shut down the internet.
Yep, assuming that you're Toad from the list, that's pretty much what you said back then.
I've added you to my friends list as my small token of appreciation for the great service that you're doing for humanity - if there's any cosmic justice in the world, you and Ian will both be remembered by history as heroes of the 21st century.
But I still think you're wrong about developing multiple client implementations.
I brought this up on the FreeNet mailing list many years ago, and I got a different answer. The context of my post then was that I'd like to try reimplementing the core (the "node") in C to see if I could achieve any sort of speedup that way. Maybe I could, maybe I couldn't - there wouldn't be any harm in trying, and it would be a fun intellectual challenge. Of course, to do so, I'd need to have a good understanding of the intra-node protocol. So I mentioned on the list that I was willing to try to document said protocol in a rigorous way as a first step in trying to write a C-based node. I was warned that any attempt to document the internal protocol was futile since they regularly changed the details of it (?!) Nor was my proposal to develop a node in C met with anything I could call enthusiasm - ironic in light of the FAQ entry which states "people willing to implement freenet in other languages however are very much encouraged to try". Good luck with that seeing as how there's no specification and no plan to develop one.
Yeah, I just saw one at Barnes and Noble in the kids section when I was there with my son last weekend. Unfortunately, they're for nine and up, and my son is only four... the truth is, I want the damned thing for myself, but I have to wait until he's nine and pretend I got it for him and do all the projects after everybody else is in bed.
And you're about to sacrifice your freedom to a jury pool who are far less informed, and far less capable of detached, rational thought.
Dude, you lost. Repeatedly. Get over it.
You're not familiar with Western law. Rule 1: Whatever happened, it's always the man who's going to be punished.
Dear God, please don't do that to the rest of us. Roll your own as a learning experience (everybody should do it at least once), but please use the standards for code anybody else is going to have to maintain.
Um, actually, no, we don't. We have no idea how many people fantasize about heroin use but then don't use it again. In fact, the only ones we ever find out about are the ones who do use it again. It could be 99% for all we know.
They should choose to, not be compelled to.
Yep, and somebody LOOKED. They'll never recover from this barbaric abuse.
That's just your assumption, though, isn't it? Have you seen the movies/pictures this guy was arrested for looking at? Oops, if you have, you're going to jail too. They might have been FAR more innocuous than you were thinking - that's what bugs me about this... by definition, we can never really know what the standard is.