I've often wondered - suppose they surveil a house, assume nobody's home, and break in ("legally", if not justifiably). Now, if you were home, just sleeping when they broke in, and you snuck up and attacked the person you thought was an intruder - are you guilty of assaulting a police officer? I fear that the answer would be yes...
The initial reaction among Americans to this news would likely be to cite "free speech"
... not as if America has a great record in this regard; we have some fairly ridiculous censorship laws on our books (by which YouTube MUST abide, or they WILL be shut down by the gov't) because we're always ThinkingOfTheChildren. Take a look at YouTube's code of conduct. Maybe that would be their code of content irrespective of the law in their host country... however, if somebody else created a YouTube fork that didn't follow that same code of conduct, they'd be shut down in a heartbeat.
Are you suggesting that they never pull any videos, or that they pick and choose which videos they pull (which is essentially what they did with Thailand and what they'll do with Japan here)? The actual fact is that, when it comes to foreign laws, they can decide which ones to follow. But what about the laws in their home country (America)? There are quite a few video images that are extremely illegal here; I suspect YouTube's owners could face jail time if they didn't pull those ones. And there are quite a few more video images, which, if you make available to minors, you can face fines or even jail time. Are you suggesting that they should be immune from those laws, too? (BTW, if you are, then I agree with you - this case, the Thailand case, the eBay nazi propaganda case, and thousands of other such cases underscore the underlying stupidity behind the concept of censorship).
diff tools (see full-width code lines side by side, one on each screen).
Well, for now, anyway. Give programmers a couple of years of working with two monitors at 1600x1200 resolution apiece, and they'll just start sticking 5000 characters to a line. You'll need four monitors to see the diffs side-by-side.
Good job underscoring the article's point. Although the article discussed obvious false positives (blocking of health-related sites, for example), you and I both agree that there are quite a few (probably most) sites that the filters are DESIGNED to filter out that aren't "harmful" (presuming that you and I both prescribe to the irrational viewpoint that representations of a normal human interaction is per se harmful). However, censoring software, by it's nature, must lump everything into a single category and obliterate all of it.
I believe that my 8 year old daughter would burst into tears
That's a pretty emotionally fragile kid you got there, bud - you should have that looked into. I think I know my 3-year-old pretty well, and if he saw something like that, he'd be a bit shocked and say, "Daddy, what are those people DOING?" I would explain it to him, and he might make a face, say something like "gross", and continue on about his day. Of course, he's not on the internet yet, but when he is, I'll install all the filtering software and act like all the other hysterically paranoid parents (and I'll worry about nothing EXCEPT nekkid people because everything else is OK). Why? Because if I don't, I suspect that the social work people will take him away from me. Funny how that works, isn't it? Parents get to choose the morality they observe in their household... as long as it's this one specific, narrowly defined, irrational, mass-hysteria-fueled morality.
When it comes to children, the parents, such as myself have the right to worry about what our kids see online.
Worry away - nobody's ever suggested that you shouldn't have the right to worry (and I can't imagine how we'd take it away from you). However, you should be very, very worried about what your kids see online. There appears to be loads of help protecting them from the evils of sex, but your children might still be exposed to: religious extremism (whichever religion you're not), glorification of drug use, glorification of violence, racial intolerance, pro-homosexual agendas (or anti), pro (or anti) abortion viewpoints... whew! It's almost as if they need to learn to think for themselves as they grow into adults! But at least they'll be able to grow up with the healthy notion that naked women are the tool of the devil and that they should be ashamed of their lack of control over their immoral thoughts.
When are people going to start using basic encryption
Never. Why? Because if they did, then the terrorists or the CP enthusiasts would use that same encryption to hide. See? You don't have to be a Canadian conservative to believe that no measure is too extreme, no freedom too precious, no authoritarian state too strict to stop the evils of terrorism and CP. EVERYBODY thinks that (except, I assume, you and me). Freenet is failing for this reason - nobody will run a node because it might be used to precisely those purposes. The problem is, you can't come up with an encryption mode that can work to hide the content you think deserves to be free, but not for the content you think doesn't.
kids have an inherent understanding of the consequences of violence. They inherently understand that if they do violence they will usually get violence in return. They do not inherently understand the societal and health consequences of sex
Why, it's almost as if... as if... the negative consequences of which you speak are not biological imperatives, but just some collective mass hysteria devoid of inherent meaning that's beaten into the head of each generation only through years of suspended logic.
Although I'm on the university's side about this... I somehow doubt that their claims are 100% accurate. If the FBI showed up with evidence that somebody had been using their networks for illegal purposes, I'm pretty sure they'd suddenly discover that log data in a dusty server room somewhere...
Ummm... as a parent, I think I would probably notice something like that... but I guess you might get some temporary gratification for a few hours before you lost all computer privileges.
Dude, I don't even have time to read other people's comments before I post angry disagreements to them - I sure as hell don't have time to read something I have to scroll to see all of. You gotta get in tune with the internet generation, man.
But that war is about oil, and only greedy corporations and rich people with Humvee's use oil. This war will be about THE CHILDREN, our nations most precious natural resource.
Well, if we're going to be blocking harmful content that may damage my kids minds beyond all hope of future repair, can we set aside a third port for anything related to the Mormon church?
Although if you think about it... if there weren't lots of people to whom this sounds like a dream job, they wouldn't need the institute in the first place. Gotta wonder about the sort of people who sign up.
hw class address
Set the hardware address of this interface, if the device driver
supports this operation. The keyword must be followed by the
name of the hardware class and the printable ASCII equivalent of
the hardware address. Hardware classes currently supported
include ether (Ethernet), ax25 (AMPR AX.25), ARCnet and netrom
(AMPR NET/ROM).
I'm willing to bet (after having done no research at all) that fewer manufacturers support this than you think.
Slashdot Mirror
I've often wondered - suppose they surveil a house, assume nobody's home, and break in ("legally", if not justifiably). Now, if you were home, just sleeping when they broke in, and you snuck up and attacked the person you thought was an intruder - are you guilty of assaulting a police officer? I fear that the answer would be yes...
Oh, there's some pulling out involved... although as I understand it, you don't have to actually be an active participant.
Wow... VERY well put. Thanks.
... not as if America has a great record in this regard; we have some fairly ridiculous censorship laws on our books (by which YouTube MUST abide, or they WILL be shut down by the gov't) because we're always ThinkingOfTheChildren. Take a look at YouTube's code of conduct. Maybe that would be their code of content irrespective of the law in their host country... however, if somebody else created a YouTube fork that didn't follow that same code of conduct, they'd be shut down in a heartbeat.
Are you suggesting that they never pull any videos, or that they pick and choose which videos they pull (which is essentially what they did with Thailand and what they'll do with Japan here)? The actual fact is that, when it comes to foreign laws, they can decide which ones to follow. But what about the laws in their home country (America)? There are quite a few video images that are extremely illegal here; I suspect YouTube's owners could face jail time if they didn't pull those ones. And there are quite a few more video images, which, if you make available to minors, you can face fines or even jail time. Are you suggesting that they should be immune from those laws, too? (BTW, if you are, then I agree with you - this case, the Thailand case, the eBay nazi propaganda case, and thousands of other such cases underscore the underlying stupidity behind the concept of censorship).
Well, for now, anyway. Give programmers a couple of years of working with two monitors at 1600x1200 resolution apiece, and they'll just start sticking 5000 characters to a line. You'll need four monitors to see the diffs side-by-side.
Good job underscoring the article's point. Although the article discussed obvious false positives (blocking of health-related sites, for example), you and I both agree that there are quite a few (probably most) sites that the filters are DESIGNED to filter out that aren't "harmful" (presuming that you and I both prescribe to the irrational viewpoint that representations of a normal human interaction is per se harmful). However, censoring software, by it's nature, must lump everything into a single category and obliterate all of it.
That's a pretty emotionally fragile kid you got there, bud - you should have that looked into. I think I know my 3-year-old pretty well, and if he saw something like that, he'd be a bit shocked and say, "Daddy, what are those people DOING?" I would explain it to him, and he might make a face, say something like "gross", and continue on about his day. Of course, he's not on the internet yet, but when he is, I'll install all the filtering software and act like all the other hysterically paranoid parents (and I'll worry about nothing EXCEPT nekkid people because everything else is OK). Why? Because if I don't, I suspect that the social work people will take him away from me. Funny how that works, isn't it? Parents get to choose the morality they observe in their household... as long as it's this one specific, narrowly defined, irrational, mass-hysteria-fueled morality.
Worry away - nobody's ever suggested that you shouldn't have the right to worry (and I can't imagine how we'd take it away from you). However, you should be very, very worried about what your kids see online. There appears to be loads of help protecting them from the evils of sex, but your children might still be exposed to: religious extremism (whichever religion you're not), glorification of drug use, glorification of violence, racial intolerance, pro-homosexual agendas (or anti), pro (or anti) abortion viewpoints... whew! It's almost as if they need to learn to think for themselves as they grow into adults! But at least they'll be able to grow up with the healthy notion that naked women are the tool of the devil and that they should be ashamed of their lack of control over their immoral thoughts.
Never. Why? Because if they did, then the terrorists or the CP enthusiasts would use that same encryption to hide. See? You don't have to be a Canadian conservative to believe that no measure is too extreme, no freedom too precious, no authoritarian state too strict to stop the evils of terrorism and CP. EVERYBODY thinks that (except, I assume, you and me). Freenet is failing for this reason - nobody will run a node because it might be used to precisely those purposes. The problem is, you can't come up with an encryption mode that can work to hide the content you think deserves to be free, but not for the content you think doesn't.
Go back to Europe and take your un-American viewpoints with you, you hippy!
Why, it's almost as if... as if... the negative consequences of which you speak are not biological imperatives, but just some collective mass hysteria devoid of inherent meaning that's beaten into the head of each generation only through years of suspended logic.
Although I'm on the university's side about this... I somehow doubt that their claims are 100% accurate. If the FBI showed up with evidence that somebody had been using their networks for illegal purposes, I'm pretty sure they'd suddenly discover that log data in a dusty server room somewhere...
Now there's an idea - if I break the law, I go to jail for it. The people who passed this law broke the first amendment when they passed it...
Ummm... as a parent, I think I would probably notice something like that... but I guess you might get some temporary gratification for a few hours before you lost all computer privileges.
Dude, I don't even have time to read other people's comments before I post angry disagreements to them - I sure as hell don't have time to read something I have to scroll to see all of. You gotta get in tune with the internet generation, man.
But that war is about oil, and only greedy corporations and rich people with Humvee's use oil. This war will be about THE CHILDREN, our nations most precious natural resource.
Yes, Captain Obvious, I did, didn't I?
Well, if we're going to be blocking harmful content that may damage my kids minds beyond all hope of future repair, can we set aside a third port for anything related to the Mormon church?
Cooperate, world. You see Iraq? Cooperate.
I don't think that's going to be a big hurdle.
Yes, and everybody here except for you thinks that those laws, and every other law that legislates morality, is wrong. Way to make his point for him.
Hell, if it was possible, I would have been doing it rather than wasting all my time trying to figure out some way to do it.
Although if you think about it... if there weren't lots of people to whom this sounds like a dream job, they wouldn't need the institute in the first place. Gotta wonder about the sort of people who sign up.
foo@bar:~$ man ifconfig
<pgdn>
I'm willing to bet (after having done no research at all) that fewer manufacturers support this than you think.
At what the hell ISP is that outside the AUP? I can see why you don't work there any more... I'm amazed they stayed in business for two whole years.