The only scenario where the filters could make a difference is the case where someone accidentally accesses a child porn site
ah - maybe he gets the point now
I would argue that the harm done by child pornography is to the minors coerced into the production of it, not to the people who view it."
ah - this is why the internet is full of people without training commenting on issues they aren't qualified to:)
of course he totally misses the case of people receiving HTML email with URL references to pictures. this is unsolicited kiddie pr0n and can be harmful
So it seems that by blocking someone from accidentally viewing child porn, all you've really accomplished is to avoid offending their sensibilities."
wow - 'sensibilities' is a little tame. this can be quite emotionally and psychologically harming. this is another problem that isn't tackled: child porn should not become so common-place that it is part of your 'sensibilities'. it should be rare enough to be shocking and disgusting.
So, I don't think the filtering accomplishes much at all, but it could set a very bad precedent once the filters are in place.
This is naive since providers already filter SPAM without asking permission for every email, and in fact users actually complain that providers aren't filtering ENOUGH transparently. so the argument is applied selectively when it is convenient.
what's to stop organizations and lawmakers from demanding that ISPs block access to overseas sites that violate copyright,"
well, don't elect those lawmakers. what can i tell you? they represent the people. if you have no fundamental faith in lawmakers then the smaller issue of whether or not ISPs are blocking illegal material seems a bit trivial.
if we give cops guns they may shoot us. what's to stop them robbing stores themselves and making this a police state?
... the rationalization continues.
the sad irony is that this will affect less than 10Mbps of total traffic on a >10Gbps total volume
it can't automatically filter out reviewers whose taste doesn't agree with mine:) since the numbers of stars they would use to rate a movie are irrelevant to me.
In fairness, the Statistics Canada issue to which I have tried alluded to dates at least back to 1998 so I assume the policy has changed since then? At the time, IIRC, there were reports in the media which were especially disoncerting since I had filled out the long form in the census of 1996.
Thanks for the poke, gvc.
Next time, I'll double check and actually have a reference for my rant.:)
Are we referring to the same Canada that sells census data to private companies after removing potential identifying information like Social Insurance Numbers and names but leaves postal codes? (I have a problem with a government agency that is able to collect personal infromation by force of law and then sells that information but that is the subject of another rant).
Postal codes in Canada are unique to small areas (in some cases, very small) and I once lived on a block where the postal code was unique to the 8 homes on my side of the street. Anyone who had purchased the census data for the postal code, had access to a phone book and half a brain could matched info to people.
Slashdot Mirror
My son uses the DDR pad to play Finding Nemo on our PS2. It was the only way he could complete one of the levels.
Go figure.
What old laptop you buy from a friend for $50 wouldn't be capable of running Linux and have a higher screen resolution?
What is this "friend" thing that people keep talking about?
ah - maybe he gets the point now
I would argue that the harm done by child pornography is to the minors coerced into the production of it, not to the people who view it."
ah - this is why the internet is full of people without training commenting on issues they aren't qualified to :)
of course he totally misses the case of people receiving HTML email with URL references to pictures. this is unsolicited kiddie pr0n and can be harmful
So it seems that by blocking someone from accidentally viewing child porn, all you've really accomplished is to avoid offending their sensibilities."
wow - 'sensibilities' is a little tame. this can be quite emotionally and psychologically harming. this is another problem that isn't tackled: child porn should not become so common-place that it is part of your 'sensibilities'. it should be rare enough to be shocking and disgusting.
So, I don't think the filtering accomplishes much at all, but it could set a very bad precedent once the filters are in place.
This is naive since providers already filter SPAM without asking permission for every email, and in fact users actually complain that providers aren't filtering ENOUGH transparently. so the argument is applied selectively when it is convenient.
what's to stop organizations and lawmakers from demanding that ISPs block access to overseas sites that violate copyright,"
well, don't elect those lawmakers. what can i tell you? they represent the people. if you have no fundamental faith in lawmakers then the smaller issue of whether or not ISPs are blocking illegal material seems a bit trivial.
if we give cops guns they may shoot us. what's to stop them robbing stores themselves and making this a police state?
... the rationalization continues.
the sad irony is that this will affect less than 10Mbps of total traffic on a >10Gbps total volume
anyone?
So you would be broadcasting the "Ad Channel"? ;)
Actually some ads are more entertaining than the TV shows in between them. :(
it can't automatically filter out reviewers whose taste :) since the numbers of stars they
doesn't agree with mine
would use to rate a movie are irrelevant to me.
so I assume the policy has changed since then?
At the time, IIRC, there were reports in the media which were especially disoncerting since I had
filled out the long form in the census of 1996.
Thanks for the poke, gvc. Next time, I'll double check and actually have a reference for my rant. :)
Are we referring to the same Canada that sells census data to private companies after removing potential identifying information like Social Insurance Numbers and names but leaves postal codes? (I have a problem with a government agency that is able to collect personal infromation by force of law and then sells that information but that is the subject of another rant).
Postal codes in Canada are unique to small areas (in some cases, very small) and I once lived on a block where the postal code was unique to the 8 homes on my side of the street. Anyone who had purchased the census data for the postal code, had access to a phone book and half a brain could matched info to people.
I did a Google on ITunes and I got 8,430,000 hits.
Marketing speak sucks.