Bill Brown. He has done impressive scores for the Tom Clancy games, the 21st century Wolfenstein games, and late-era Command & Conquer titles. He has also composed for Hollywood film titles in recent years.
And amen to David Wise. I have been a fan of game music for decades now, and this guy remains one of my favorites. He doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves when people make lists like the one you have constructed above. I wish he was still as prolific as he once was.
Though I remain a gamer, I still tend to prefer my game music old-school style. My favorite game soundtracks: Chrono Trigger, Donkey Kong Country 2, and Little Nemo: The Dream Master.
Paul will do everything he can to put a stop to it. While he supports tight border control, he strongly opposes any governmental infringement upon the civil liberties of the people. He espouses the founder's sentiment that one who would sacrifice his privacy for security deserves neither. This article describes just the sort of governmental bad behavior that is powering the grassroots of Paul's campaign.
Don't sit back and watch as our freedom is transformed into fascism! Support the Ron Paul campaign today!
[HR1995] directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Think about this for a second. The Patriot Act already gives the government the power to define "terrorism" however they see fit. Now, they want to fund research on how to control and suppress "terrorists" at home? Have we learned nothing in the last six years?
For your evaluation, I posit a short logical train. I implore you to board swiftly and to take careful note of the scenery along the way to our destination:
What exactly does prevention of radicalization mean?
Lets break this down:
Merriam-Webster defines "prevent" thus:
to deprive of power or hope of acting or succeeding
That's simple enough to understand.
Merriam-Webster defines "radicalize" thus:
to make radical especially in politics
I'm going to break this one down further to be perfectly clear:
Miriam webster defines "radical" thus:
marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional.
And "politics" thus:
the political opinions or sympathies of a person
Now for the fun part:
I believe that, based on the definitions given above, this is a fair definition of "prevention of radicalization:"
to deprive a person's political positions of power or hope of acting or succeeding in being made marked by considerable departure from the usual or traditional
That's quite a mouthful, so let's simplify it a little:
prevention of radicalization: to deprive a person's political positions of power to depart considerably from the usual or traditional.
There it is, in plain logic.
Scared yet?
You should be.
"Prevention of radicalization" is about controlling the political positions that we, as citizens, take. It's about castrating us of our political power, and not by just any means, either.
Look carefully at the final definition derived above. "Prevention of Radicalization" doesn't even seek to control our actions. It seeks to control our very positions. It seeks to prevent our political positions from becoming radical. This is about controlling our very thoughts and ideas!
How can you prevent people from thinking radically? That's the question you have to answer, because that's the question HR1955 is asking.
The result of this research, if it comes to pass, is not going to be pretty. The only answers I can come up with are truly disturbing.
The money is gets pulled back into the government so that congress can appropriate the money for everyone's benefit.
Read: The money gets pulled back into government to be appropriated to some special interest, which benefits a small segment of business owners within a particular industry by making it easier for them to compete against firms with alternative solutions, who don't get a cut of the funds.
Or perhaps: The money gets pulled back into the government so that a congressman can sneak funding for a pet project into a much larger and completely unrelated bill by hiding the expense deep within the bill's text.
Or, most likely: The money is used to build a gigantic bomb, which is used to kill 1,600 brown people in some godforsaken corner of the world where the leaders have dared to disobey the will of the US Government.
Facts are not copyrightable in the US, true, but these are not facts. Remember, everything about the characters and situations is fictional. In order for something to be a fact, it will have to do with the real world. Thus, Harry Potter's favorite color is no more of a fact than he is himself: it's just yet another fictional attribute of the fictional character.
It is a fact that JK Rowling published a book called "Harry Potter" and that it contained characters named "Harry Potter" Ronald Weasley" and "Hermione Granger." It is also a fact that in the story, they went to school at a place called "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry," which was headed by a wizard called "Albus Dumbledore," who assisted them in saving the world from the evil wizard "Voldemort." Any encyclopedic compilation of knowledge about the Harry Potter world is merely a collection of factual information about what Rowling has created.
Look at it this way: would it be fair for Rowling to prevent publication of a critical analysis of her work that used information as specific as Harry's favorite color to illustrate its position? Why should it be any less fair to allow someone to publish that information sans the analysis?
First off, I admit I haven't visited the website, so I can't comment on it's contents.
From what I understand, the Lexicon contains factual information about the characters and situations contained in the Harry Potter series - material which Rowling has already published. Factual information is not subject to copyright.
Similarly, cliffsnotes is protected from original authors when printing a plot summary. It's a fact that these characters were in the book and this is what happened to them.
Under the law, using the characters in a new adventure is what would violate Rowlings copyright. The Lexicon isn't attempting to do this.
Before we part, I must state the obligatory: IANAL. However, I do know that Billboard had a very hard time preventing people from publishing their chart histories for this same reason, and a significant percentage of their business depends on selling those chart histories.
He is running as a Republican, but his ideas are far more conservative than those of any other candidate. He can truthfully be considered as a conservative libertarian. Read on:
He supports the repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act and all other recent legislation that has passed despite questionable constitutional merit. The restoration of our civil liberties is at the top of his agenda and he will work to disassemble the fascist workings that are currently gaining steam.
He supports sound economic policy, which is something that often seems ignored by every other federally elected official. He would end deficit spending and force the congress to stick to a budget.
He supports the end of political corruption and does not believe that congress should be allowed to continue channeling government funds to their corporate bedfellows.
He ardently supports the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which it contains. He has voted "no" thousands of times during his 10 terms in the House of Representatives, refusing to approve any measure which violates the spirit of the Constitution.
Please, read more about this guy. He's very smart, very honest, and very serious about turning this government around.
These are the qustions that no one can answer, so they just make things up. Some of these people are scientists, others are crackpots. Some are a bit of both. Either way, there is no single, satisfying solution.
What created the precursor to the precursor of the precursor? And the precursor to that? It's almost a silly question because you can quickly see that the line of questioning will never be resolved.
Perhaps they spontaneously appeared. Or, as a facet of their infinite nature, they aways existed. Or, they were tears cried by God at the time of Creation. Pick the explanation you like, and it can be true for you.
Choose to get all your favorite media products from the kind, anonymous repository of media on the Internet. Not only can you find your favorite popular media for free, but you can also do so without unwittingly sponsoring the Mafiaa and the other dickcheese that keep pushing the ever-oppressive envelope on copyright law.
I fully intend to avoid shelling a single dime to any of these asshats for as long as I shall live. They're obviously not playing fair, so why should I?
I have been bitter about shelling out $40 a month for my Internet connection ever since I was first connected. The only provider available at my location is Comcast, and I'll be damned if I ever get to see a third of the 1.5 Mbit/sec speed that I was sold. I feel cheated each and every time I send my money to those fuckers, and I've got no alternative.
So far, I haven't been bothered by their "invisible limit" shenanigans. I doubt I ever will, as I am not a super-heavy user. Even so, I am driven thoroughly mad just knowing that these are the same assholes I send a check to every month.
I was so ticked I didn't even consider it worth my time to rant about these pompous, wretched thieves. It wasn't worth the anger and frustration it would stir within me. It was a pleasant surprise, then, that I read through your post with such revelry. A rational soul was lampooning these bastards for the fraud artists that they truly are! I cackled with mad delight as your sharp analogies illustrated all of my contemptuous feelings!
I thank you for these few precious moments of triumph amidst the endless hours of cold abuse.
I pledge allegiance to the feast of The Bottomless Gullet of the Corporation and to the Profit for which it stands, one Enterprise under Barbarism, impudent, with brutishness and covetousness for all.
My thoughts on the situation exactly. This bill raises barriers to entry which protect the big players by forcing small players out of the business.
No, it isn't surprising. Yes, it is despicable. Yes, consumers will pay - not only for the cost of the "free service," but also for lack of a more competitive market.
Anyone who believes in the conservative ideals of small government and civil liberty should consider voting for Representative Ron Paul of Texas. I'm fed up with the Republican party and their neo-conservative bullshit, and Paul takes a firm stance behind truly conservative principals and he defends the Constitution with fervor. I'm confident that, if elected, he will reign in the Republican party and set this country in a better direction.
He believes in civil liberty, the free market, he voted against the Iraq war, he seeks to abolish the IRS and the Federal Income Tax, he seeks to minimize the role of the federal government, and abolish deficit spending. What's more, he votes against any bill or resolution whatsoever which remotely violates the spirit of the Constitution. My libertarian ideals are so tickled by this man that I am supporting him despite his status as a Republican.
As a libertarian, I don't usually find that I can fully support many Democratic or Republican candidates from an idealogical standpoint. Libertarian candidates, like all third-party candidates, are marginalized by traditional political mechanisms and don't stand much of a chance in the running for any major political office, so I've decided to throw my support behind Ron.
Don't want to see it? Turn it off. Don't want the kids to see it? Turn it off.
It really is that simple. People are idiots.
Re:How Many Nodes Do You Need to Own?
on
Tor Open To Attack
·
· Score: 1
That's fine for small networks, but for a network with hundreds or thousands of nodes, controlling 5 to 10 percent may become infeasible.
No amount of surveillance is infeasible for a determined government.
Anonymity Vs Performance in Multi-Hop Networks...
on
Tor Open To Attack
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
...is really what the article is about. Granted, I only read the abstract, but someone here at/. seems too intent on making a dramatic headline out of this.
It has been known for some time that anyone with the resources to do so could launch an end-to-end attack on Tor. That someone with relatively few resources could launch the same attack is newsworthy, perhaps, but far more interesting is the observation that optimizing network traffic flow in order to improve performance is the direct cause of this weakness.
I know those TI-83 calculators are monochrome, boring, and expensive, but buying a competing brand may make life more difficult than it has to be.
I used a tri-color Casio calculator in high school, and all of the examples in the textbook gave instructions for TI calculators only. I spent hours figuring out how to use my Casio every time I had to do a new type of problem. In the end, I don't think it was worth it.
When I got to college I bought a TI anyway - our textbook had the instructions for TI right in it, and I didn't want to risk falling behind because of my calculator.
Lets face it, having any type of image, either real or computer generated, de-synthesizes its viewer to the actual criminal act of molesting a child. This in turn makes it easier for themselves to justify or at least in some form allows them to rationalize that what they are doing is ok.
Aside from the fact that the grammar in these sentances is questionable, I see no evidence to support what you are claiming.
We have all seen "To Catch a Predator" on TV.....this exact type of material is creating an epidemic in this country.
Yes, I have seen "To Catch a Predator," and I have seen no evidence on the show that computer generated images cause people to commit crime.
Whether it is real or computer generated material, it is wrong, it is disgusting and anyone who would defend it in the name of freedom of speech or expression needs to seriously question their own moral judgment.
Moral judgement is a funny thing - it varies from person to person. In light of the fact that there is very little evidence supporting the claim you made about child molesters earlier in your post, many people are taking a different moral standpoint than you are. This does not suggest that they need to question their moral judgement, only that they are looking at this from their own angle.
It seems to me that you are basing your judgement on this issue purely in the visceral loathing that you feel toward people that would hurt children. While this is perhaps an understandable response, I do not consider it a reasonable one. No one wants to see children get hurt, but right now we can't say if images either alleviate or exacerbate the problem, so banning them is not the right solution.
I believe that we, as a society, need more information before we can decide how best to alleviate the problem of child abuse. I do not advocate inaction, I advocate research. Actual research about child abuse is somewhat of a taboo and sees inadaquate funding and support, but society needs the research if we are to make any headway on the issue.
First of all, if you read the article, 2 sites were named as being found objectionable by Verizon:
"The company's clients host a number of websites and chatboards-- such as Boychat.org and Freespirits.org-- with a pederastic slant."
The article also seems to indicate that they would be legal in the US:
"With its transgressive content, Epifora had faced scrutiny before. After a July, 2001 report in Canada's National Post, MCI-Canada approached the Ontario Provincial Police for an opinion, and inspector Bob Matthews, of the OPP's "Project P" declared the material on Epifora's servers in compliance with the Criminal Code.
That says a lot, as Canadian law sets a higher bar than the US and most other countries, making no distinction between, say, photographs of minors having sex, textual descriptions thereof, or even speech "advocating" such acts."
Furthermore, I believe you are missing the point:
Weather or not you agree with what is being said, free speech is protected by law in Canada and in the US. The issue here is weather or not Telcos should be able to censor content by refusing to provide access to their backbone. Verizon is refusing a Canadian ISP access to the backbone because they host a few websites that Verizon doesn't like.
The websites are legal in Canada for sure. Should Verizon be allowed to do this? I don't think so. This is a slippery slope that nobody wants to end up at the bottom of.
...to put a reasonable "sin tax" on heroin...
I strongly disagree with that.
Do you also disagree with the ridiculously higy taxes on cigarettes and alcohol? Because making them out to be a "sin tax" is essentially how the government rationalizes these taxes to the people.
I submit that the truth of that depends on: 1-Is it true, in spite of extensive experience with banning other products and pretty solid economic theory, that legal prohibition doesn't decrease drug use? 2-If there is any illegal drug use, does that mean that drug prohibition has failed, or is only partially successful?
Don't forget that prohibition also results in the creation of a black market, which will mean products are of questionable origin and composition. Because it is under no supervision, products purchased on the black market run a serious risk of turning out counterfeit or of poor quality - and there is no warning or recourse for consumers. In the case of drugs, this lack of quality control makes them many times more dangerous to use.
Black markets also lead to increased incidence of other types of crime as illegal firms compete and attempt to keep themselves in operation.
Slashdot Mirror
Another great game composer to mention:
Bill Brown. He has done impressive scores for the Tom Clancy games, the 21st century Wolfenstein games, and late-era Command & Conquer titles. He has also composed for Hollywood film titles in recent years.
And amen to David Wise. I have been a fan of game music for decades now, and this guy remains one of my favorites. He doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves when people make lists like the one you have constructed above. I wish he was still as prolific as he once was.
Though I remain a gamer, I still tend to prefer my game music old-school style. My favorite game soundtracks: Chrono Trigger, Donkey Kong Country 2, and Little Nemo: The Dream Master.
Paul will do everything he can to put a stop to it. While he supports tight border control, he strongly opposes any governmental infringement upon the civil liberties of the people. He espouses the founder's sentiment that one who would sacrifice his privacy for security deserves neither. This article describes just the sort of governmental bad behavior that is powering the grassroots of Paul's campaign.
Don't sit back and watch as our freedom is transformed into fascism! Support the Ron Paul campaign today!
www.ronpaul2008.com
[HR1995] directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Think about this for a second. The Patriot Act already gives the government the power to define "terrorism" however they see fit. Now, they want to fund research on how to control and suppress "terrorists" at home? Have we learned nothing in the last six years?
For your evaluation, I posit a short logical train. I implore you to board swiftly and to take careful note of the scenery along the way to our destination:
What exactly does prevention of radicalization mean?
Lets break this down:
Merriam-Webster defines "prevent" thus: to deprive of power or hope of acting or succeeding
That's simple enough to understand.
Merriam-Webster defines "radicalize" thus: to make radical especially in politics
I'm going to break this one down further to be perfectly clear:
Miriam webster defines "radical" thus: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional.
And "politics" thus: the political opinions or sympathies of a person
Now for the fun part:
I believe that, based on the definitions given above, this is a fair definition of "prevention of radicalization:"
to deprive a person's political positions of power or hope of acting or succeeding in being made marked by considerable departure from the usual or traditional
That's quite a mouthful, so let's simplify it a little:
prevention of radicalization: to deprive a person's political positions of power to depart considerably from the usual or traditional.
There it is, in plain logic.
Scared yet?
You should be.
"Prevention of radicalization" is about controlling the political positions that we, as citizens, take. It's about castrating us of our political power, and not by just any means, either.
Look carefully at the final definition derived above. "Prevention of Radicalization" doesn't even seek to control our actions. It seeks to control our very positions. It seeks to prevent our political positions from becoming radical. This is about controlling our very thoughts and ideas!
How can you prevent people from thinking radically? That's the question you have to answer, because that's the question HR1955 is asking.
The result of this research, if it comes to pass, is not going to be pretty. The only answers I can come up with are truly disturbing.
How would you police the thoughts of a populace?
60 seconds of watching your 5 second google result reveals that you are putting us on.
There was no footage of moving rocks, just speculation like every other examination of the issue.
The money is gets pulled back into the government so that congress can appropriate the money for everyone's benefit.
Read: The money gets pulled back into government to be appropriated to some special interest, which benefits a small segment of business owners within a particular industry by making it easier for them to compete against firms with alternative solutions, who don't get a cut of the funds.
Or perhaps: The money gets pulled back into the government so that a congressman can sneak funding for a pet project into a much larger and completely unrelated bill by hiding the expense deep within the bill's text.
Or, most likely: The money is used to build a gigantic bomb, which is used to kill 1,600 brown people in some godforsaken corner of the world where the leaders have dared to disobey the will of the US Government.
Facts are not copyrightable in the US, true, but these are not facts. Remember, everything about the characters and situations is fictional. In order for something to be a fact, it will have to do with the real world. Thus, Harry Potter's favorite color is no more of a fact than he is himself: it's just yet another fictional attribute of the fictional character.
It is a fact that JK Rowling published a book called "Harry Potter" and that it contained characters named "Harry Potter" Ronald Weasley" and "Hermione Granger." It is also a fact that in the story, they went to school at a place called "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry," which was headed by a wizard called "Albus Dumbledore," who assisted them in saving the world from the evil wizard "Voldemort." Any encyclopedic compilation of knowledge about the Harry Potter world is merely a collection of factual information about what Rowling has created.
Look at it this way: would it be fair for Rowling to prevent publication of a critical analysis of her work that used information as specific as Harry's favorite color to illustrate its position? Why should it be any less fair to allow someone to publish that information sans the analysis?
First off, I admit I haven't visited the website, so I can't comment on it's contents.
From what I understand, the Lexicon contains factual information about the characters and situations contained in the Harry Potter series - material which Rowling has already published. Factual information is not subject to copyright.
Similarly, cliffsnotes is protected from original authors when printing a plot summary. It's a fact that these characters were in the book and this is what happened to them.
Under the law, using the characters in a new adventure is what would violate Rowlings copyright. The Lexicon isn't attempting to do this.
Before we part, I must state the obligatory: IANAL. However, I do know that Billboard had a very hard time preventing people from publishing their chart histories for this same reason, and a significant percentage of their business depends on selling those chart histories.
He is running as a Republican, but his ideas are far more conservative than those of any other candidate. He can truthfully be considered as a conservative libertarian. Read on:
He supports the repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act and all other recent legislation that has passed despite questionable constitutional merit. The restoration of our civil liberties is at the top of his agenda and he will work to disassemble the fascist workings that are currently gaining steam.
He supports sound economic policy, which is something that often seems ignored by every other federally elected official. He would end deficit spending and force the congress to stick to a budget.
He supports the end of political corruption and does not believe that congress should be allowed to continue channeling government funds to their corporate bedfellows.
He ardently supports the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which it contains. He has voted "no" thousands of times during his 10 terms in the House of Representatives, refusing to approve any measure which violates the spirit of the Constitution.
Please, read more about this guy. He's very smart, very honest, and very serious about turning this government around.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
These are the qustions that no one can answer, so they just make things up. Some of these people are scientists, others are crackpots. Some are a bit of both. Either way, there is no single, satisfying solution.
What created the precursor to the precursor of the precursor? And the precursor to that? It's almost a silly question because you can quickly see that the line of questioning will never be resolved.
Perhaps they spontaneously appeared. Or, as a facet of their infinite nature, they aways existed. Or, they were tears cried by God at the time of Creation. Pick the explanation you like, and it can be true for you.
Choose to get all your favorite media products from the kind, anonymous repository of media on the Internet. Not only can you find your favorite popular media for free, but you can also do so without unwittingly sponsoring the Mafiaa and the other dickcheese that keep pushing the ever-oppressive envelope on copyright law.
I fully intend to avoid shelling a single dime to any of these asshats for as long as I shall live. They're obviously not playing fair, so why should I?
Moraelin: You are a champion.
I have been bitter about shelling out $40 a month for my Internet connection ever since I was first connected. The only provider available at my location is Comcast, and I'll be damned if I ever get to see a third of the 1.5 Mbit/sec speed that I was sold. I feel cheated each and every time I send my money to those fuckers, and I've got no alternative.
So far, I haven't been bothered by their "invisible limit" shenanigans. I doubt I ever will, as I am not a super-heavy user. Even so, I am driven thoroughly mad just knowing that these are the same assholes I send a check to every month.
I was so ticked I didn't even consider it worth my time to rant about these pompous, wretched thieves. It wasn't worth the anger and frustration it would stir within me. It was a pleasant surprise, then, that I read through your post with such revelry. A rational soul was lampooning these bastards for the fraud artists that they truly are! I cackled with mad delight as your sharp analogies illustrated all of my contemptuous feelings!
I thank you for these few precious moments of triumph amidst the endless hours of cold abuse.
He's just the man for our much-needed governmental house cleaning.
Amen.
I pledge allegiance to the feast of The Bottomless Gullet of the Corporation and to the Profit for which it stands, one Enterprise under Barbarism, impudent, with brutishness and covetousness for all.
My thoughts on the situation exactly. This bill raises barriers to entry which protect the big players by forcing small players out of the business.
No, it isn't surprising. Yes, it is despicable. Yes, consumers will pay - not only for the cost of the "free service," but also for lack of a more competitive market.
Anyone who believes in the conservative ideals of small government and civil liberty should consider voting for Representative Ron Paul of Texas. I'm fed up with the Republican party and their neo-conservative bullshit, and Paul takes a firm stance behind truly conservative principals and he defends the Constitution with fervor. I'm confident that, if elected, he will reign in the Republican party and set this country in a better direction.
He believes in civil liberty, the free market, he voted against the Iraq war, he seeks to abolish the IRS and the Federal Income Tax, he seeks to minimize the role of the federal government, and abolish deficit spending. What's more, he votes against any bill or resolution whatsoever which remotely violates the spirit of the Constitution. My libertarian ideals are so tickled by this man that I am supporting him despite his status as a Republican.
As a libertarian, I don't usually find that I can fully support many Democratic or Republican candidates from an idealogical standpoint. Libertarian candidates, like all third-party candidates, are marginalized by traditional political mechanisms and don't stand much of a chance in the running for any major political office, so I've decided to throw my support behind Ron.
I've got an idea:
Lets take a ridiculous sounding true story and then wait until April Fools to post it. No one will believe it, but the joke is still on them!
After browsing all 6 of these websites for a combined total of about a half an hour, the only strong impression I am left with is this:
Rudy Giuliani is one sinister looking mofo.
Don't want to see it? Turn it off. Don't want the kids to see it? Turn it off.
It really is that simple. People are idiots.
That's fine for small networks, but for a network with hundreds or thousands of nodes, controlling 5 to 10 percent may become infeasible.
No amount of surveillance is infeasible for a determined government.
...is really what the article is about. Granted, I only read the abstract, but someone here at /. seems too intent on making a dramatic headline out of this.
It has been known for some time that anyone with the resources to do so could launch an end-to-end attack on Tor. That someone with relatively few resources could launch the same attack is newsworthy, perhaps, but far more interesting is the observation that optimizing network traffic flow in order to improve performance is the direct cause of this weakness.
I know those TI-83 calculators are monochrome, boring, and expensive, but buying a competing brand may make life more difficult than it has to be.
I used a tri-color Casio calculator in high school, and all of the examples in the textbook gave instructions for TI calculators only. I spent hours figuring out how to use my Casio every time I had to do a new type of problem. In the end, I don't think it was worth it.
When I got to college I bought a TI anyway - our textbook had the instructions for TI right in it, and I didn't want to risk falling behind because of my calculator.
Lets face it, having any type of image, either real or computer generated, de-synthesizes its viewer to the actual criminal act of molesting a child. This in turn makes it easier for themselves to justify or at least in some form allows them to rationalize that what they are doing is ok.
Aside from the fact that the grammar in these sentances is questionable, I see no evidence to support what you are claiming.
We have all seen "To Catch a Predator" on TV.....this exact type of material is creating an epidemic in this country.
Yes, I have seen "To Catch a Predator," and I have seen no evidence on the show that computer generated images cause people to commit crime.
Whether it is real or computer generated material, it is wrong, it is disgusting and anyone who would defend it in the name of freedom of speech or expression needs to seriously question their own moral judgment.
Moral judgement is a funny thing - it varies from person to person. In light of the fact that there is very little evidence supporting the claim you made about child molesters earlier in your post, many people are taking a different moral standpoint than you are. This does not suggest that they need to question their moral judgement, only that they are looking at this from their own angle.
It seems to me that you are basing your judgement on this issue purely in the visceral loathing that you feel toward people that would hurt children. While this is perhaps an understandable response, I do not consider it a reasonable one. No one wants to see children get hurt, but right now we can't say if images either alleviate or exacerbate the problem, so banning them is not the right solution.
I believe that we, as a society, need more information before we can decide how best to alleviate the problem of child abuse. I do not advocate inaction, I advocate research. Actual research about child abuse is somewhat of a taboo and sees inadaquate funding and support, but society needs the research if we are to make any headway on the issue.
First of all, if you read the article, 2 sites were named as being found objectionable by Verizon:
"The company's clients host a number of websites and chatboards-- such as Boychat.org and Freespirits.org-- with a pederastic slant."
The article also seems to indicate that they would be legal in the US:
"With its transgressive content, Epifora had faced scrutiny before. After a July, 2001 report in Canada's National Post, MCI-Canada approached the Ontario Provincial Police for an opinion, and inspector Bob Matthews, of the OPP's "Project P" declared the material on Epifora's servers in compliance with the Criminal Code. That says a lot, as Canadian law sets a higher bar than the US and most other countries, making no distinction between, say, photographs of minors having sex, textual descriptions thereof, or even speech "advocating" such acts."
Furthermore, I believe you are missing the point:
Weather or not you agree with what is being said, free speech is protected by law in Canada and in the US. The issue here is weather or not Telcos should be able to censor content by refusing to provide access to their backbone. Verizon is refusing a Canadian ISP access to the backbone because they host a few websites that Verizon doesn't like.
The websites are legal in Canada for sure. Should Verizon be allowed to do this? I don't think so. This is a slippery slope that nobody wants to end up at the bottom of.
Do you also disagree with the ridiculously higy taxes on cigarettes and alcohol? Because making them out to be a "sin tax" is essentially how the government rationalizes these taxes to the people.
I submit that the truth of that depends on: 1-Is it true, in spite of extensive experience with banning other products and pretty solid economic theory, that legal prohibition doesn't decrease drug use? 2-If there is any illegal drug use, does that mean that drug prohibition has failed, or is only partially successful?
Don't forget that prohibition also results in the creation of a black market, which will mean products are of questionable origin and composition. Because it is under no supervision, products purchased on the black market run a serious risk of turning out counterfeit or of poor quality - and there is no warning or recourse for consumers. In the case of drugs, this lack of quality control makes them many times more dangerous to use.
Black markets also lead to increased incidence of other types of crime as illegal firms compete and attempt to keep themselves in operation.