The famous "Fire in a crowded theater" analogy is appropriate here.
The classic strawman argument to justify censorship: There exist situations where people are liable for their use of speech, therefore censorship is valid. The fallacy here is thinking that no censorship means no liability. Censorship and liability are two very, very different concepts. Liability means people must be tried in open court under the law. Censorship means that works can be banned without recourse to trial or law, and all outside the public eye. Empowering censors weakens both open society and the rule of law.
As you point out nearly all normal people support limits on the written and spoken word depending on the circumstances.
Indeed, depending on the circumstances. And the trouble is those circumstances for 99.9% of people will be "If they're talking about something I don't like." Given the opportunity, the public would happily ban "violent" video games. There used to be a rule of law which prevented this kind of thing from happening, but fear and apathy is slowly eroding it. We will all end up like Australia before too long.
So... Brazil doesn't believe in freedom of expression on the Internet, nor do they subscribe to the "post anything, trust nothing" philosophy of the Internet.
Can you name a single country in the world that does? Say what you like, but the fact is that all over the world governments and especially the public support censorship. You just say the magic words: child porn, terrorism, Muhammad, anorexia, extreme porn, etc, etc and people, pundits and politicians will trip over themselves in their eagerness to shut the web down. Public support for censorship in western democracies is overwhelming.
You don't think this is "really" supporting censorship. Well then here it is: The Ultimate Censorship Supporter Acid Test v0.9: Someone has written a graphic, explicit, sordid, supportive, but purely textual fictional story about sexually molesting children under the age of 5. It has been uploaded to a webserver somewhere. Should this page/site be censored?
If you answered yes (or are prepared to argue for it) then you are a firm supporter of censorship. You support the censorship of the purely written word, because you are either too afraid or too disgusted to stand up for the rights of everybody. People hate this test because it forces them to interpret the law and rights they way they should be interpreted; as applying equally, logically, and without prejudice to everyone, everywhere, all of the time.
Unfortunate schmucks like me who actually took these principles to heart in their formative years then get lumped with heaps of shit for daring to mention them out in the open where pedophiles/terrorists/witches/anorexics/suicide groups/etc are involved. I suppose we should have spent our youth learning to be hypocrites in order to survive in this enlightened age.
Google are fighting a losing battle. The public, governments, the media and now the legal system are not on their side. The internet genie is being put back in the bottle, one step at a time.
No. According to the BBC style guide, if an acronym is commonly spoken as a word, e.g. LASER, NASA, RADAR, then it is spelt as a normal word; laser, Nasa, radar. However, if the acronym is spoken as a acronym, as a sequence of letters, then it is spelt using all capitals, e.g. BBC, CNN, NSA.
Of course, the is a BBC/UK style guide. Americans do things differently when it comes to acronyms. American organisations often carry acronyms to excess(GE has an internal acronym dictionary), frequently structuring the original description to fit a premade acronym rather than the other way around. The most notorious example of this is the USA PATRIOT Act(yes the USA is part of the acronym). Since they are tailored to be like words, Americans tend to use acronyms as words, but still use upper case(go faster stripe) spelling in many documents. Hence they would write NASA and not Nasa.
As someone who grew up using the UK style, but who spends a lot of time on the US-centric internet I've tended to notice these differences as time goes by. Also, I am no longer able to discern which spelling must be used for countless words in English, which I imagine is the case for a lot of people. It's strange to think that when Hubble launched these kinds of confusion did not really impact on daily life so much.
That's not necessary, IPv6 already has the IPv4 address space blocked off and reserved for IPv4 addresses, so all you need is protocol translation for the systems that can't understand IPv6.
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you are incorrect. IPv6 does not have the IPv4 address spaces reserved for anything because IPv6 is not backwards compatible with IPv4. IPv6 is not an upgrade; it's an entirely different stack, requiring every network card on the planet to run in dual stack mode forever more.
Naturally, most have decided this is an insane suggestion and have simply stuck with alternative solutions like NAT. They might be technically inferior, but at least they're backwards compatible with what we already have.
Thus prior restraint came to be looked upon with a particular horror, and Anglo-American courts became particularly unwilling to approve it, when they might approve other forms of press restriction.
It's safe to say those days are long gone. The courts care far more about order and the rights of corporations now. Rights for individuals are ignored as they aren't needed to protect the rights of the powerful, who act through corporations.
This video is not going to go viral in its current form. I haven't seen so many frame errors since I tried to play a torrent that hadn't sully download. Yet more evidence that the Xiph foundation completely dropepd the ball when it came to Theora creation tools.
There is one thing people from other countries--especially the US--really need to understand about Ireland.
In Ireland, we do not really have laws. What we have are more like customs.
Now, it's customary for the Dail (Parliment) to pass the odd few reasonable laws, and its customary for the population to--more or less--abide by them. It's also customary at times, for the sake of appearances or to placate foreign interests, for the Dail to pass unreasonable, unpopular or at times ludicrous laws (e.g. blasphemy). On such occasions, it's customary for the population(and indeed the State) to completely ignore the laws as they are passed.
If you want an example of this, there's a story in the same newspaper about Ireland's oldest gay bar, which opened while homosexuality was still actually illegal in the country. While it may have been illegal, no one was actually going to waste their time dealing with it.
Despite this however, I imagine that internet censorship will eventually be implemented in Ireland as it has been in the UK and Australia, and in Saudi Arabia and China. The technologies developed by the west to oppress those in other countries are being turned back on its own apathetic populations. We've only ourselves to blame.
Think of your favourite choclate bar/soft drink/gooey sweet/etc. Now, remember that one time where you ate so such of it you felt or got physically ill.
This really really pisses off people who think they have no prejudice.
This test was so tedious I simply gave up when it asked me to do the whole thing over again.
I've just spend the last ten minutes sorting cropped images images of white and black americans, along with guns and coca-cola cans. Precisely how this tells anyone anything about how racist someone is escapes me. It feels like a "which anime character are you" test.
If these people really are notable, even in a niche, and there are decent references to cite for their articles, Wikipedia will eventually create articles for them.
2005 called; They want their optimism about Wikipedia back.
They have to hire someone qualified (with a proven track record) whose never worked for anyone before.
Hire someone from another country then. A Canadian or a Brit can do the same job with a pretty sure guarantee that they aren't in any American's pocket at least.
Sue, counter-sue. With each passing case, the US legal system sounds more like a venue for petty schoolground squabbles, instead of a place where adult disputes are resolved. Is there anyone at the helm of this vessel?
Child beauty pageants and child porn hysteria are two sides of the same coin; namely, the sexualisations of children and the sale of it for profit. And yes, I mean the "hysteria" is the sale of child sex for profit.
In both cases, business are selling images and/or stories of children to people hungry for them. Those involved will strenuously and vigorously deny this, but you need only to look at child pageant photographs or read pedophile/child porn news stories to see what is going on. The very people who howl loudest about child porn are the very same who greedily devour every morsel or every story about that same topic. It Freudianism on a sociological level and it stinks to high heaven.
These people are inexorably eroding free society as we know it; and we're letting them.
The speed ranking could be entirely location based.
It's been a talking point for a while for webhosts in Ireland that Google ranks sites more highly if they are based in the same locale/country as the user making requests. In other words(they claim), it's worth paying more to host your site with a local provider than getting a deal with a big overseas web-hosting company. Now they would say that; but having seen my share of generic search results return local companies again and again, I'm inclined to think their notion may have some merit. In any case, if Google are implementing this, they'll probably take location into account in a similar fashion.
Because Google Earth is a quantum leap in Atlas technology.
Prior to Google Earth/Maps, the dominant atlas technology was, well, Atlases; Big hefty books with discrete resolutions, fixed orientations, no hyper-linking(obviously), nice indices but no search functionality, oh and finally, they were super expensive. Google Earth is an improvement on the Atlas in every conceivable sense of the world, especially the most important ones; usability and accessibility. And the proof of this fact is in the increased amount of people using it, and getting results from it.
Google is delivering us the technologies sci-fi was promising over 60 years ago. It's delivering them because it understands that immediate and all consuming lust for payment and profit is not always the best way to improve technology or its use. The Anglo-Saxon model of money up front for everything is not what's going to take humanity into the 22nd century.
At last, 10 years of Paedophile and Child Pornography hysteria are beginning to pay off dividends. It begins with Sex Education classes, which by now are probably liability time bombs for all adults involved. It won't end there though. This has been the Endgame all along; a return to the social mores of the 1950s or earlier.
Child porn hysteria is toppling the fucking Catholic Church! What hope does your feeble "Free Society" have?
This will "develop" with Google gaining supremacy over the entire publishing industry. The intransigence, backwardness, and lack of innovation by publishers have left them essentially at the mercy of a company like Google, which has the mentality of a startup and the resources of a Fortune 500 company. The legions of middle men all looking for their cut--typified by these photographers--are one of the primary reasons media companies have failed to adapt to the internet. Frankly, as much as I dislike Google slowly gaining control over books like this, I have absolutely no sympathy for publishers or authors who are still living in the 1980s.
Get ready, because books are only the beginning. Sooner or later, Google is going to make a play for TV, movies and music; and great empires will fall.
Julius Caesar's rise to power was illegal; Auschwitz, terrible though it was, was not.
In fact, you have these completely backwards.
Caesar's rise was to power was largely no more or less legal than most Roman standards at the time, in fact mirroring Pompey's earlier rise. He himself was subjected to several injustices before finally deciding to cross the Rubicon. In the end, as was typical of Roman politics, he who controlled the army controlled the state, and Caesar was appointed Dictator for life by a vote in the Senate. Whatever you might say about it, his Dictatorship did have legal backing.
Auschwitz however, did not. Despite popular opinion, The Nazi's in fact embody a state almost totally devoid of the rule of law. Murders, beatings, property seizures, etc, etc were all ostensibly illegal in Nazi Germany, but political opponents were arbitrarily subjected to all and more as a matter of course. The only really firm "law" was the the principle of "working towards the Furher". Decisions were made in view of this principle at all levels of officialdom without any recourse to legalities or even much towards policy. Nazi rule was largely arbitrary, ad-hoc and indeed chaotic.
The documents defining Caesar's powers and rights are well recorded. But you would be hard pressed to find the legal paper trail that leads to Auschwitz. There is indeed a difference between what we call "law" and "order".
You're talking about a Supreme Court which ruled that Corporations can spend as much as they want on election campaigns. What the hell makes you think they're going to overturn software and business patents?
Slashdot Mirror
The classic strawman argument to justify censorship: There exist situations where people are liable for their use of speech, therefore censorship is valid. The fallacy here is thinking that no censorship means no liability. Censorship and liability are two very, very different concepts. Liability means people must be tried in open court under the law. Censorship means that works can be banned without recourse to trial or law, and all outside the public eye. Empowering censors weakens both open society and the rule of law.
Indeed, depending on the circumstances. And the trouble is those circumstances for 99.9% of people will be "If they're talking about something I don't like." Given the opportunity, the public would happily ban "violent" video games. There used to be a rule of law which prevented this kind of thing from happening, but fear and apathy is slowly eroding it. We will all end up like Australia before too long.
Can you name a single country in the world that does? Say what you like, but the fact is that all over the world governments and especially the public support censorship. You just say the magic words: child porn, terrorism, Muhammad, anorexia, extreme porn, etc, etc and people, pundits and politicians will trip over themselves in their eagerness to shut the web down. Public support for censorship in western democracies is overwhelming.
You don't think this is "really" supporting censorship. Well then here it is: The Ultimate Censorship Supporter Acid Test v0.9:
Someone has written a graphic, explicit, sordid, supportive, but purely textual fictional story about sexually molesting children under the age of 5. It has been uploaded to a webserver somewhere. Should this page/site be censored?
If you answered yes (or are prepared to argue for it) then you are a firm supporter of censorship. You support the censorship of the purely written word, because you are either too afraid or too disgusted to stand up for the rights of everybody. People hate this test because it forces them to interpret the law and rights they way they should be interpreted; as applying equally, logically, and without prejudice to everyone, everywhere, all of the time.
Unfortunate schmucks like me who actually took these principles to heart in their formative years then get lumped with heaps of shit for daring to mention them out in the open where pedophiles/terrorists/witches/anorexics/suicide groups/etc are involved. I suppose we should have spent our youth learning to be hypocrites in order to survive in this enlightened age.
Google are fighting a losing battle. The public, governments, the media and now the legal system are not on their side. The internet genie is being put back in the bottle, one step at a time.
No. According to the BBC style guide, if an acronym is commonly spoken as a word, e.g. LASER, NASA, RADAR, then it is spelt as a normal word; laser, Nasa, radar. However, if the acronym is spoken as a acronym, as a sequence of letters, then it is spelt using all capitals, e.g. BBC, CNN, NSA.
Of course, the is a BBC/UK style guide. Americans do things differently when it comes to acronyms. American organisations often carry acronyms to excess(GE has an internal acronym dictionary), frequently structuring the original description to fit a premade acronym rather than the other way around. The most notorious example of this is the USA PATRIOT Act(yes the USA is part of the acronym). Since they are tailored to be like words, Americans tend to use acronyms as words, but still use upper case(go faster stripe) spelling in many documents. Hence they would write NASA and not Nasa.
As someone who grew up using the UK style, but who spends a lot of time on the US-centric internet I've tended to notice these differences as time goes by. Also, I am no longer able to discern which spelling must be used for countless words in English, which I imagine is the case for a lot of people. It's strange to think that when Hubble launched these kinds of confusion did not really impact on daily life so much.
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you are incorrect. IPv6 does not have the IPv4 address spaces reserved for anything because IPv6 is not backwards compatible with IPv4. IPv6 is not an upgrade; it's an entirely different stack, requiring every network card on the planet to run in dual stack mode forever more.
Naturally, most have decided this is an insane suggestion and have simply stuck with alternative solutions like NAT. They might be technically inferior, but at least they're backwards compatible with what we already have.
It's safe to say those days are long gone. The courts care far more about order and the rights of corporations now. Rights for individuals are ignored as they aren't needed to protect the rights of the powerful, who act through corporations.
This video is not going to go viral in its current form. I haven't seen so many frame errors since I tried to play a torrent that hadn't sully download. Yet more evidence that the Xiph foundation completely dropepd the ball when it came to Theora creation tools.
As someone from Ireland, I can tell you that the above post is embellished--but only rhetorically.
There is one thing people from other countries--especially the US--really need to understand about Ireland.
In Ireland, we do not really have laws. What we have are more like customs.
Now, it's customary for the Dail (Parliment) to pass the odd few reasonable laws, and its customary for the population to--more or less--abide by them. It's also customary at times, for the sake of appearances or to placate foreign interests, for the Dail to pass unreasonable, unpopular or at times ludicrous laws (e.g. blasphemy). On such occasions, it's customary for the population(and indeed the State) to completely ignore the laws as they are passed.
If you want an example of this, there's a story in the same newspaper about Ireland's oldest gay bar, which opened while homosexuality was still actually illegal in the country. While it may have been illegal, no one was actually going to waste their time dealing with it.
Despite this however, I imagine that internet censorship will eventually be implemented in Ireland as it has been in the UK and Australia, and in Saudi Arabia and China. The technologies developed by the west to oppress those in other countries are being turned back on its own apathetic populations. We've only ourselves to blame.
Think of your favourite choclate bar/soft drink/gooey sweet/etc. Now, remember that one time where you ate so such of it you felt or got physically ill.
This test was so tedious I simply gave up when it asked me to do the whole thing over again.
I've just spend the last ten minutes sorting cropped images images of white and black americans, along with guns and coca-cola cans. Precisely how this tells anyone anything about how racist someone is escapes me. It feels like a "which anime character are you" test.
2005 called; They want their optimism about Wikipedia back.
Hire someone from another country then. A Canadian or a Brit can do the same job with a pretty sure guarantee that they aren't in any American's pocket at least.
Sue, counter-sue. With each passing case, the US legal system sounds more like a venue for petty schoolground squabbles, instead of a place where adult disputes are resolved. Is there anyone at the helm of this vessel?
Child beauty pageants and child porn hysteria are two sides of the same coin; namely, the sexualisations of children and the sale of it for profit. And yes, I mean the "hysteria" is the sale of child sex for profit.
In both cases, business are selling images and/or stories of children to people hungry for them. Those involved will strenuously and vigorously deny this, but you need only to look at child pageant photographs or read pedophile/child porn news stories to see what is going on. The very people who howl loudest about child porn are the very same who greedily devour every morsel or every story about that same topic. It Freudianism on a sociological level and it stinks to high heaven.
These people are inexorably eroding free society as we know it; and we're letting them.
The speed ranking could be entirely location based.
It's been a talking point for a while for webhosts in Ireland that Google ranks sites more highly if they are based in the same locale/country as the user making requests. In other words(they claim), it's worth paying more to host your site with a local provider than getting a deal with a big overseas web-hosting company. Now they would say that; but having seen my share of generic search results return local companies again and again, I'm inclined to think their notion may have some merit. In any case, if Google are implementing this, they'll probably take location into account in a similar fashion.
The next time one of these stories comes around, then you can jump to conclusion. Right now, well....
Perhaps. But the GPs original argument still allows for the Star Wars prequels, so I don't see that the public will necessarily buy it.
Because Google Earth is a quantum leap in Atlas technology.
Prior to Google Earth/Maps, the dominant atlas technology was, well, Atlases; Big hefty books with discrete resolutions, fixed orientations, no hyper-linking(obviously), nice indices but no search functionality, oh and finally, they were super expensive. Google Earth is an improvement on the Atlas in every conceivable sense of the world, especially the most important ones; usability and accessibility. And the proof of this fact is in the increased amount of people using it, and getting results from it.
Google is delivering us the technologies sci-fi was promising over 60 years ago. It's delivering them because it understands that immediate and all consuming lust for payment and profit is not always the best way to improve technology or its use. The Anglo-Saxon model of money up front for everything is not what's going to take humanity into the 22nd century.
At last, 10 years of Paedophile and Child Pornography hysteria are beginning to pay off dividends. It begins with Sex Education classes, which by now are probably liability time bombs for all adults involved. It won't end there though. This has been the Endgame all along; a return to the social mores of the 1950s or earlier.
Child porn hysteria is toppling the fucking Catholic Church! What hope does your feeble "Free Society" have?
This will "develop" with Google gaining supremacy over the entire publishing industry. The intransigence, backwardness, and lack of innovation by publishers have left them essentially at the mercy of a company like Google, which has the mentality of a startup and the resources of a Fortune 500 company. The legions of middle men all looking for their cut--typified by these photographers--are one of the primary reasons media companies have failed to adapt to the internet. Frankly, as much as I dislike Google slowly gaining control over books like this, I have absolutely no sympathy for publishers or authors who are still living in the 1980s.
Get ready, because books are only the beginning. Sooner or later, Google is going to make a play for TV, movies and music; and great empires will fall.
To which Religion retorts: "You can't disprove I didn't create you first, so therefore I did!"
In fact, you have these completely backwards.
Caesar's rise was to power was largely no more or less legal than most Roman standards at the time, in fact mirroring Pompey's earlier rise. He himself was subjected to several injustices before finally deciding to cross the Rubicon. In the end, as was typical of Roman politics, he who controlled the army controlled the state, and Caesar was appointed Dictator for life by a vote in the Senate. Whatever you might say about it, his Dictatorship did have legal backing.
Auschwitz however, did not. Despite popular opinion, The Nazi's in fact embody a state almost totally devoid of the rule of law. Murders, beatings, property seizures, etc, etc were all ostensibly illegal in Nazi Germany, but political opponents were arbitrarily subjected to all and more as a matter of course. The only really firm "law" was the the principle of "working towards the Furher". Decisions were made in view of this principle at all levels of officialdom without any recourse to legalities or even much towards policy. Nazi rule was largely arbitrary, ad-hoc and indeed chaotic.
The documents defining Caesar's powers and rights are well recorded. But you would be hard pressed to find the legal paper trail that leads to Auschwitz. There is indeed a difference between what we call "law" and "order".
You're talking about a Supreme Court which ruled that Corporations can spend as much as they want on election campaigns. What the hell makes you think they're going to overturn software and business patents?
Indeed. In fact many think they should be closer to outdoor sports like hunting.
"IT'S COMIN' RIGHT FOR US!!!"
Child Porn.