If you honestly intend to listen to my image file (which I suspect don't even follow the appropriate standards of the file formats they purport), then maybe we can talk about it's merits as music/line noise.
Ok, I honestly intend to listen to your image file as a song. Now what?
You might argue that it obviously sounds like crap and wasn't intended for it.
Ok, then, what if I write software that takes my image and uses the data to set beats and produces acceptable quality techno which can be changed back into data later? What if I did that with the full intent that it be listened to as music?
The DeCSS song is a little more complicated, depending on whether you believe it is intended to (and can be) enjoyed as pure music, or whether it is merely intended as a vector for code.
Ok, I honestly intend to listen to your source code as a song. Now what?
or
Ok, I honestly intend to listen to your song as source code. Now what?
Hmm... I think a key differentiator might be what -analog- formats the content exists as. We live in an analog world and digital encoding can really only exist as a means of temporarily storing something inherently analog. Content is analog.
I think most of the artists who record straight to digital might have something to say about this.
But I can save my generated techno to tape if that would help.
This is all academic. Data is data, not music, not images, not anything. It's just data. It might have "intended use", but that's meaningless. What if I take a Hubble image and use it to generate the "sounds of the cosmos" song, or some crap like that? Is that or should it be restricted because I'm ignoring the original intent of the data?
Any time you argue "intent" of data, I'll insert another data processing step that changes its intent. If you argue I shouldn't be able to do that, I'll argue that I should be able to generate music from Hubble Images.
But I am curious to see if you could think of a rule for which I could not find a loophole, so I encourage you to try.
We obviously know what's obvious and what obviously isn't. There should be a meta/moderating system for patents. This way we slashdotters can vote on new software patent applications, like so:
This was obvious in 1974
Completely obvious
Still frickin' obvious
Obvious
Clever
Cowboyneal
Tell me we wouldn't do a better job than the patent office...
A lot of people have already made the point that this ruling is a good thing indeed...that users should have the right to install software on their computers that renders webpages and/or ads any way they so choose.
Why is this a good thing? Well, think of the alternative. People dictating how a web page must be rendered? Where would style sheets be in this world? Would there have to be a federally dictated "standard rendering" to say how HTML should be displayed so that users don't bastardize it to their own ends by replacing or removing ads?
And, if the answer is no, then how do you propose wording a law that would prevent overwriting ads on a web page while not requiring such a standard?
And what of lynx, hmmm? It completely doesn't show the content in the standard format. Ban it? Only have the law apply to graphical browsers? See what I'm getting at? It's a pain in the ass.
Far better to have the freedom and let it be. If you don't want the adware, don't click the "I Agree" button. No one is forcing these people to install adware, for heaven's sake. What ever happened to personal responsibility?
If you don't like getting into the office all sweaty--God, I don't--then bike before work. Get up half an hour earlier and hit the local road. Take a new route each day for variety.
When you get home, hit the showers and you'll be ready to go.
But how do you convince yourself to get up instead of hitting snooze again?
You barely have to do anything to be ready to go biking. Just pee, get your clothes on, fill your water bottle, check your tires, put on your helmet, et voila. Five minutes prep, tops.
You know you're going to get to feel smug all day long since you've already done your exercising for the day. Even if you feel like crap now, you know you will feel better once you get on and pedal. And you know it will be worth it later.
The alarm goes off. Visualize that you're trying to pry yourself off the surface of Jupiter (smartasses: prove to me Jupiter has no solid surface, then we'll talk.) Now see how much easier it was on Earth?
If none of this works, say to yourself, "Get up, Trinity...Get...up!"
Seriously, though, it is worth it once you hit the road. Find what gets you out of bed that much earlier, and do it.
White space would obviously change the MD5 right? So all the infringer (or someone trying to hide the infringement, to take the argument SCO might use) would have to do is add some space here and there and the MD5 won't be at all the same. I don't think that's a valid method to determine if the code is stolen or not.
Yes, but this only goes to show that the developer could hide the information from the hash. That is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that they didn't in this case, apparently.
Rather, my parents' first computer was. I learned to program it as a kid before moving on to the c64.
POKE 61440, 127
That'll put a dim rectangle in the upper left corner of the 52x24 screen. Too bad no one ever asks me that in an interview these days...
As I sit here, I hold in my hand the Osborne I User's Reference Guide. I don't have the computer, but I kept the book for fun. It reads like an old school user's guide, with complete references for BASIC, and a chapter titled "IEEE-488 Implementation". Very useful for users.
Some specs:
SCREEN SIZE:
32 lines of 128 characters maintained in RAM
24 lines of 52 characters shown on screen
dim, normal, underlined video supported [through bank switching for dim/brite--there was a bank of shadow RAM under video RAM...underline was just bit 7]
32 block graphic characters predefined
uppercase/lowercase text display [Whooo!]
video emulates TeleVideo terminal
external video available via edge connector
DISK CAPACITY: Double-Density:
200K bytes per diskette
185K bytes of data space using CP/M
40 tracks of information
5 physical sectors each track (soft-sectored)
1024 bytes per sector
40 logical sectors to CP/M (128 bytes each)
1K-byte extents maintained by CP/M
3 reserved system tracks
Single Density:
100K bytes per diskette
92K bytes of data space using CP/M
40 tracks of information
10 physical sectors each track (soft-sectored)
256 bytes per sector
20 logical sectors to CP/M (128 bytes each)
2K-byte extents maintained by CP/M
3 reserved system tracks (See notes, page 760.)
SERIAL PORT:
1200- or 300-baud, software-selectable
2400- or 600-baud, jumper-selectable
uses 6850 chip, all parameters memory-mapped
standard female DB-25 connector provided
IEEE-488 PORT:
standard IEEE-488 implementation
may be configured as Centronics parallel port
26-pin edge connector provided
I'll stop typing now before I get to the memory map...:)
You forgot "4. Get fired." Although you can make it messy for your employer to do this, virtually all hires these days are going to be "at-will". The exact contract wording at my previous job (and practically the same wording as my current job) was "[Employer] reserves the right to terminate your employment at any time, for any reason, or for no reason."
You might want to check this out before trying to collect a couple bucks OT.
That said, can someone venture an explanation why Go is so difficult to program?
Part of it is the complexity of the lookahead tree, I'm sure. On a 19x19 Go board, you can play in any empty intersection (excepting suicide) at any time. Tree sizes grow fast, and you can't just build a big one for the whole board.
So you do things more locally. Utilize a mixture of small lookaheads, liberty counting, and lots and lots of pattern matching, so when the computer sees a pattern, it knows where to play in the pattern to make life, or kill.
Doing things locally, though, has drawbacks, since sometimes playing a stone many stones away from a group has impact on a fight later on. Go programs tend to miss the overall, but will fight well in a corner.
I'm a newbie, so I can beat GnuGo about half the time, and am very stoked when I can win a drag out fight for a corner of the board. Practice!
Go is a great, great game. It is elegant and beautiful. The rules can be learned in minutes--I highly recommend giving it a try if you haven't already.
And, as they say, lose your first 50 games as quickly as possible.:-)
You can never know for sure if it's a real memory or not, but when I was one, Mom gave me a balloon on a stick and a US flag for the 4th of July. I ran around the backyard with them waving them around--great fun.
Years later, Mom showed me a picture from that day, and I remembered it. When she flipped it over, the date on the back showed that I was one year old at the time.
Other memories from the 2-3 year range include the death of our pet bird, and when I was swinging and accidentally hit my friend's sister in the head.
But 7 years old, man? What happened to the entire first grade? Well, it was probably public school; you didn't miss much.;-)
The three movies, viewed together, are full of such holes. It's a complete mess. The best approach is to damn the torpedos, and just enjoy the hell out of them, because they're fine movies and excellent entertainment.
If you have difficulties, just remember that what you see on screen is what must have happened, because it's there on film! Duh!;-)
Remember when Doc wakes up at the beginning of BTTF3, sees Marty, slips backward on the hoverboard, and lands ass-and-hands on the pipe organ? Oh yeah.
"'And take good care of Einstein for me--'...Einstein?"
"It's your dog, Doc. It's what you call your dog in the future."
And who can forget: "Of course your President has to be an actor; he has to look good on TV!"
Hey, don't knock SETI@Home--this is the first time it actually has a better chance of succeeding than the crypto challenge does!
What would be bad-ass is if aliens came down from outer space with superpowerful quantum computers and totally schooled us in RC5-72 and SETI@Home at the same time!
In the article, it says he had a pound of marajuana, and two assault rifles. The article then goes on about drugs, drugs, drugs, more drugs.
Actually, it gives more punch when the assault rifles are listed second. Most people don't think pot is that bad, so it needs to be reinforced with something evil.
Putting the more-important-thing first often comes out with the opposite effect: "They seized assault rifles and a pound of marijuana." See how flat that sounds?
People are also more likely to remember the last thing in a list, so it has the most power.
On that note: someone I knew, a kind gentle man, was arrested for growing pot (several plants, but not large-scale). This guy wouldn't, and didn't, ever threaten anyone with guns. But he had some in the house.
The guns were reported in the paper. I was surprised at just how evil and dangerous it made him sound, and realized that I had passed similar judgement against people I didn't know just for reading in they paper that their guns were seized.
Different than the story in question, I know, but just beware when you see things like that printed. You probably know people who own assault rifles.
Being able to peruse the source and design for a program might allow you to determine the validity of the design, but that's about it. (Unless you want to pay your employees to line-by-line audit someone else's code.)
Like the bridge analogy, you can see that the bridge is sturdy and will hold a sherman tank. That's swell. What you don't see are the misplaced rivets that will cause the bridge to fail in unanticipated ways.
In other words, this is a kick-ass design, and I didn't notice that off-by-one bug until it was too late.
Another thing to ask is what do people really want? Bug-free software? Of course! And you know what they say they really want on airlines? More legroom and good meals!
Unfortunately, airlines that provide more legroom and good meals are running in the red. Unsurprisingly it turns out what people meant is they don't care about legroom and actually want the cheapest possible tickets and on-time flights. They complain that Southwest Airlines sucks, but everyone still flies with them!
My point is that people want the cheapest possible mostly-working software. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there somehow existed some kind of free operating system for which anyone could look at the source. Would it have fewer bugs than closed-source OSs? Possibly. Is that really important to people?
In the eyes of the law, no crime has yet been committed. These people are innocent until proven guilty.
The FBI seized the property of innocent people.
You obviously don't care about item one, but if item two doesn't bother you, you suck. You just wait until you commit a crime (er, I mean, are accused of committing a crime) and see if you get my sympathy.
There's no way MS is going to pull XBox from Australia. Here's what they want in priority order:
XBoxen sold in Australia, and possession of mod chips is illegal.
XBoxen sold in Australia, and possession of mod chips is not illegal.
XBoxen not sold in Australia.
MS is probably willing to go to great lengths to keep the XBox market alive. They just reported huge earnings and have something like $30B cash so they can comfortably lose money on the XBox for years until they gain market share. For them to give up just because something didn't make economic sense right now wouldn't be like Microsoft. Look at their history, for crying out loud.
And if they do pull out just to spite you, well, no big loss. PS3 will probably be out before you could change your laws anyway.
But then, with your line of thought, child molesters should be left alone as long as they don't harm _your_ kids right?
Wrong, actually. See, in that case there's a faultless victim who didn't want or choose to be involved. I'll go pretty far to protect anyone's kids from child molesters.
Joining the CoS is more analogous to gambling. In this case, there is no victim as such, since the person getting ripped off by the casino is there by choice and is a consenting adult. I'm not going to go very far at all to protect clueless adults from themselves.
But say for the sake of argument that the CoS was going after kids to get them prepped for later. This I'd find morally questionable, and borderline abusive. However, it still does not justify illegally distributing CoS documents when the act of doing so will not prevent the abuse from occurring.
You're a scientologist heh? High enough up the ladder to talk about restricted materials? Or will it kill you?;)
Heh! Nope, nope, and nope. I personally view the CoS as a fairly dangerous cult that has a strong effect on the weak-minded, and like to think that I'm smart enough to not join.
But they are. By immutable dogma they are coming after *everything* and everyone not in 100% compliance with Scientology's goal of 'Clearing the Planet'.
I'll stipulate, but I don't know that much about Scientology.
If you consider corruption of your government officials, perversion of the justice system *you* pay for, deliberate obstruction of civil liberties all citizens are supposed to be guaranteed to be irrelevant to you...
Of course these issues matter to me, and if I thought destroying the CoS would in some way fix that, I suppose I'd reconsider.
But this is kind of like toweling out your house after a flood--eventually you gotta fix the levee.
This is another issue I have where people feel better because they're doing something even if the thing they do doesn't actually accomplish their goal. It is rampant with people who write the government with no effect, but feel good for having done so, and also with the government passing "feel-good" laws.
Feel-good laws hurt me because they often restrict liberties with no benefit.
Something should be done, but often implemented solutions can be worse than nothing. And if you're going to act, act decisively and with (figurative) force. If you can't do it now, save it for the right time.
I'm looking into my crystal ball. At the current rate, the CoS will be up to the same tricks in 72 years regardless of the actions of these lawbreaking anti-CoS sites.
In fact, the only real objection to your post is that you felt it necessary at all. What's it to you? Apathy isn't a crime.
A good question. What it is to me is this: here are people illegally distributing content in a way that can only shift the balance of copyright power more to the hands of the very people I fear have too much already.
Lots of the sites that are critical of the CoS link to sites with illegally distributed copyrighted content. Under some portions of the DMCA, this is illegal--you can't link to infringing sites.
So what better way to destroy the net of anti-scientology sites than suing them all, even the ones that only link to sites that have illegal content? It's perfect leverage for the Church to attack the anti-crowd. So I gotta ask, what do you gain from this risk? Because it looks like nothing to me.
But I'm not going to get anywhere saying, "Look respect copyright, please" because people say, "But they're animals and don't deserve it!" So I lather it up with the "do yourself a favor and stay out of prison" angle.
I know people who have been called by the CoS and asked to remove copyrighted materials. The copyrighted materials were removed, but all the material critical to the CoS remains to this day, and the person has not yet been killed by the Church.
If it were only critical material, and not libelous or coyrighted by CoS, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on legally. As it is, they could complain that we need stronger copyright laws and sue people who link to sites with copyrighted CoS material to get it offline.
I lose personally in those cases, because it represents an intrusion into something I hold dear.
So basically I feel you could do it my way with the same good effects, and fewer negative effects. And while you're at it, respect copyright, please.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I honestly intend to listen to your image file as a song. Now what?
You might argue that it obviously sounds like crap and wasn't intended for it.
Ok, then, what if I write software that takes my image and uses the data to set beats and produces acceptable quality techno which can be changed back into data later? What if I did that with the full intent that it be listened to as music?
Ok, I honestly intend to listen to your source code as a song. Now what?
or
Ok, I honestly intend to listen to your song as source code. Now what?
I think most of the artists who record straight to digital might have something to say about this.
But I can save my generated techno to tape if that would help.
This is all academic. Data is data, not music, not images, not anything. It's just data. It might have "intended use", but that's meaningless. What if I take a Hubble image and use it to generate the "sounds of the cosmos" song, or some crap like that? Is that or should it be restricted because I'm ignoring the original intent of the data?
Any time you argue "intent" of data, I'll insert another data processing step that changes its intent. If you argue I shouldn't be able to do that, I'll argue that I should be able to generate music from Hubble Images.
But I am curious to see if you could think of a rule for which I could not find a loophole, so I encourage you to try.
Try booting a slack box sometime. It uses the Berkeley-style rc.d scripts instead of SysV. It rips through startup and shutdown.
Tell me we wouldn't do a better job than the patent office...
Why is this a good thing? Well, think of the alternative. People dictating how a web page must be rendered? Where would style sheets be in this world? Would there have to be a federally dictated "standard rendering" to say how HTML should be displayed so that users don't bastardize it to their own ends by replacing or removing ads?
And, if the answer is no, then how do you propose wording a law that would prevent overwriting ads on a web page while not requiring such a standard?
And what of lynx, hmmm? It completely doesn't show the content in the standard format. Ban it? Only have the law apply to graphical browsers? See what I'm getting at? It's a pain in the ass.
Far better to have the freedom and let it be. If you don't want the adware, don't click the "I Agree" button. No one is forcing these people to install adware, for heaven's sake. What ever happened to personal responsibility?
Stop the legal insanity!
There have been lots of reports of animals freaking out before earthquakes--maybe just their reaction to the same thing. "The earth is haunted!"
Is that radio control? Tell me that's not begging to be hacked.
"Look out, kids! Looks like Lucky's on a rampage again! Ha ha ha ha!"
When you get home, hit the showers and you'll be ready to go.
But how do you convince yourself to get up instead of hitting snooze again?
Seriously, though, it is worth it once you hit the road. Find what gets you out of bed that much earlier, and do it.
Yes, but this only goes to show that the developer could hide the information from the hash. That is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that they didn't in this case, apparently.
POKE 61440, 127
That'll put a dim rectangle in the upper left corner of the 52x24 screen. Too bad no one ever asks me that in an interview these days...
As I sit here, I hold in my hand the Osborne I User's Reference Guide. I don't have the computer, but I kept the book for fun. It reads like an old school user's guide, with complete references for BASIC, and a chapter titled "IEEE-488 Implementation". Very useful for users.
Some specs:
SCREEN SIZE:
DISK CAPACITY:
Double-Density:
- 200K bytes per diskette
- 185K bytes of data space using CP/M
- 40 tracks of information
- 5 physical sectors each track (soft-sectored)
- 1024 bytes per sector
- 40 logical sectors to CP/M (128 bytes each)
- 1K-byte extents maintained by CP/M
- 3 reserved system tracks
Single Density:SERIAL PORT:
IEEE-488 PORT:
I'll stop typing now before I get to the memory map... :)
You forgot "4. Get fired." Although you can make it messy for your employer to do this, virtually all hires these days are going to be "at-will". The exact contract wording at my previous job (and practically the same wording as my current job) was "[Employer] reserves the right to terminate your employment at any time, for any reason, or for no reason."
You might want to check this out before trying to collect a couple bucks OT.
Part of it is the complexity of the lookahead tree, I'm sure. On a 19x19 Go board, you can play in any empty intersection (excepting suicide) at any time. Tree sizes grow fast, and you can't just build a big one for the whole board.
So you do things more locally. Utilize a mixture of small lookaheads, liberty counting, and lots and lots of pattern matching, so when the computer sees a pattern, it knows where to play in the pattern to make life, or kill.
Doing things locally, though, has drawbacks, since sometimes playing a stone many stones away from a group has impact on a fight later on. Go programs tend to miss the overall, but will fight well in a corner.
I'm a newbie, so I can beat GnuGo about half the time, and am very stoked when I can win a drag out fight for a corner of the board. Practice!
Go is a great, great game. It is elegant and beautiful. The rules can be learned in minutes--I highly recommend giving it a try if you haven't already.
And, as they say, lose your first 50 games as quickly as possible. :-)
Warning: prepare to spend at least an hour looking at this site.
Years later, Mom showed me a picture from that day, and I remembered it. When she flipped it over, the date on the back showed that I was one year old at the time.
Other memories from the 2-3 year range include the death of our pet bird, and when I was swinging and accidentally hit my friend's sister in the head.
But 7 years old, man? What happened to the entire first grade? Well, it was probably public school; you didn't miss much. ;-)
If you have difficulties, just remember that what you see on screen is what must have happened, because it's there on film! Duh! ;-)
Remember when Doc wakes up at the beginning of BTTF3, sees Marty, slips backward on the hoverboard, and lands ass-and-hands on the pipe organ? Oh yeah.
"'And take good care of Einstein for me--' ...Einstein?"
"It's your dog, Doc. It's what you call your dog in the future."
And who can forget: "Of course your President has to be an actor; he has to look good on TV!"
Hey, don't knock SETI@Home--this is the first time it actually has a better chance of succeeding than the crypto challenge does!
What would be bad-ass is if aliens came down from outer space with superpowerful quantum computers and totally schooled us in RC5-72 and SETI@Home at the same time!
Actually, it gives more punch when the assault rifles are listed second. Most people don't think pot is that bad, so it needs to be reinforced with something evil.
Putting the more-important-thing first often comes out with the opposite effect: "They seized assault rifles and a pound of marijuana." See how flat that sounds?
People are also more likely to remember the last thing in a list, so it has the most power.
On that note: someone I knew, a kind gentle man, was arrested for growing pot (several plants, but not large-scale). This guy wouldn't, and didn't, ever threaten anyone with guns. But he had some in the house.
The guns were reported in the paper. I was surprised at just how evil and dangerous it made him sound, and realized that I had passed similar judgement against people I didn't know just for reading in they paper that their guns were seized.
Different than the story in question, I know, but just beware when you see things like that printed. You probably know people who own assault rifles.
Like the bridge analogy, you can see that the bridge is sturdy and will hold a sherman tank. That's swell. What you don't see are the misplaced rivets that will cause the bridge to fail in unanticipated ways.
In other words, this is a kick-ass design, and I didn't notice that off-by-one bug until it was too late.
Another thing to ask is what do people really want? Bug-free software? Of course! And you know what they say they really want on airlines? More legroom and good meals!
Unfortunately, airlines that provide more legroom and good meals are running in the red. Unsurprisingly it turns out what people meant is they don't care about legroom and actually want the cheapest possible tickets and on-time flights. They complain that Southwest Airlines sucks, but everyone still flies with them!
My point is that people want the cheapest possible mostly-working software. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there somehow existed some kind of free operating system for which anyone could look at the source. Would it have fewer bugs than closed-source OSs? Possibly. Is that really important to people?
No--really. Is it?
You obviously don't care about item one, but if item two doesn't bother you, you suck. You just wait until you commit a crime (er, I mean, are accused of committing a crime) and see if you get my sympathy.
MS is probably willing to go to great lengths to keep the XBox market alive. They just reported huge earnings and have something like $30B cash so they can comfortably lose money on the XBox for years until they gain market share. For them to give up just because something didn't make economic sense right now wouldn't be like Microsoft. Look at their history, for crying out loud.
And if they do pull out just to spite you, well, no big loss. PS3 will probably be out before you could change your laws anyway.
In Applied Cryptography, Schnier refers to this as "rubber hose cryptanalysis".
Wrong, actually. See, in that case there's a faultless victim who didn't want or choose to be involved. I'll go pretty far to protect anyone's kids from child molesters.
Joining the CoS is more analogous to gambling. In this case, there is no victim as such, since the person getting ripped off by the casino is there by choice and is a consenting adult. I'm not going to go very far at all to protect clueless adults from themselves.
But say for the sake of argument that the CoS was going after kids to get them prepped for later. This I'd find morally questionable, and borderline abusive. However, it still does not justify illegally distributing CoS documents when the act of doing so will not prevent the abuse from occurring.
Heh! Nope, nope, and nope. I personally view the CoS as a fairly dangerous cult that has a strong effect on the weak-minded, and like to think that I'm smart enough to not join.
I'll stipulate, but I don't know that much about Scientology.
Of course these issues matter to me, and if I thought destroying the CoS would in some way fix that, I suppose I'd reconsider.
But this is kind of like toweling out your house after a flood--eventually you gotta fix the levee.
This is another issue I have where people feel better because they're doing something even if the thing they do doesn't actually accomplish their goal. It is rampant with people who write the government with no effect, but feel good for having done so, and also with the government passing "feel-good" laws.
Feel-good laws hurt me because they often restrict liberties with no benefit.
Something should be done, but often implemented solutions can be worse than nothing. And if you're going to act, act decisively and with (figurative) force. If you can't do it now, save it for the right time.
I'm looking into my crystal ball. At the current rate, the CoS will be up to the same tricks in 72 years regardless of the actions of these lawbreaking anti-CoS sites.
A good question. What it is to me is this: here are people illegally distributing content in a way that can only shift the balance of copyright power more to the hands of the very people I fear have too much already.
Lots of the sites that are critical of the CoS link to sites with illegally distributed copyrighted content. Under some portions of the DMCA, this is illegal--you can't link to infringing sites.
So what better way to destroy the net of anti-scientology sites than suing them all, even the ones that only link to sites that have illegal content? It's perfect leverage for the Church to attack the anti-crowd. So I gotta ask, what do you gain from this risk? Because it looks like nothing to me.
But I'm not going to get anywhere saying, "Look respect copyright, please" because people say, "But they're animals and don't deserve it!" So I lather it up with the "do yourself a favor and stay out of prison" angle.
I know people who have been called by the CoS and asked to remove copyrighted materials. The copyrighted materials were removed, but all the material critical to the CoS remains to this day, and the person has not yet been killed by the Church.
If it were only critical material, and not libelous or coyrighted by CoS, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on legally. As it is, they could complain that we need stronger copyright laws and sue people who link to sites with copyrighted CoS material to get it offline.
I lose personally in those cases, because it represents an intrusion into something I hold dear.
So basically I feel you could do it my way with the same good effects, and fewer negative effects. And while you're at it, respect copyright, please.
And if the Scientologists were "coming for" any of these groups, or any group at all, in fact, then I might agree with you a little.
But they're not, and that makes all the difference.