Violating, just this once, my normal practice of not feeding the "trolls"...
Moderation is not censorship. It's not even close. You can say whatever you want to say. No one is forced to listen. Not listening is not the same thing as censoring. Anyone that wants to read about Natalie Portman and Hot Grits and Taco's mom and your silly cries of censorship have only to set their thresholds to -1 and they can see it.
I happen to set my threshold to -1. Because sometimes some interesting stuff gets moderated down, and because I am interested in seeing how well the moderation is working. The number of posts that get moderated down wrongly is pretty small though, and those mistakes are usually corrected pretty quickly. The biggest problem I have seen is that way too much crap that should be moderated down isn't - presumably because the system is so stingy with moderation points, and a lot of folk won't moderate because it means they can't post. Those factors, combined with the floods of off-topic posts and flamebait of so-called "trolls" (a horribly misuse of the word by the way, real trolls are great, and usually get moderated to +4 at least if they are well written) actually make it so that you need to read at +2 if you want to avoid the crap. Doing that, of course, guarantees that you will miss some good postings. Very sad. Oh well, enough rambling, back to reading.
Actually you are the one that needs to do some reading. Libertarian is a word the european anarchists adopted for themselves after the agents provacateurs and the bomb throwing idiots managed to co-opt the name in popular usage. In the US that usage never became popular, but the word was similarly applied by emerging right-anarchists like Murray Rothbard to distinguish themselves from the typically european left-anarchists, who were called libertarians in europe but anarchists here.
Yes, it's confusing. But no more so than the fact that liberal is commonly used in this country to refer to the left, whereas in most other countries it refers to the right.
Anarchy - from the greek "an" meaning not or no, and "archos" meaning ruler, thus a synonm for freedom (not being ruled over.)
What you define as Libertarian is actually Minarchism - a doctrine generally held by those who are anarchists at heart but just don't believe that people are ready for it yet, and so advocate a "night-watchman" minimal state which can prevent worse states from taking over until people are ready for complete anarchy.
Here, read and understand this - then come back and tell us about anarchism.
Hardly. Mac OS 10 is a proprietary product, it may be built on Mach and thus similar to the HURD technically, it is not cross platform and it is not Open Source.
"The 90s" can be read two different ways. If you mean the years from 90-99 then obviously it is not. If you mean the 9th decade of the current century, then it is. Ultimately this is simply a matter of imprecise terminology. It does nothing to change the fact that centuries are 100 year increments, and that they start with the year 1, not 0, at least in the calendar that we normally use. If you don't like that, feel free to write a new calendar, and good luck getting people to use it...
If you metamoderate a moderation you are only told that it was moderated down or up, but not that it went from +4 to +3 instead of from 0 to -1. There's a big difference between the two.
Really? Are you told if it was moderated down for being "flamebait" or "overrated" at least?
I read all of the messages you posted (found through your user info,) and the page that you linked, and I want to thank you for responding and state that I do believe you are sincere. However, I must point out that, sincere or not, this move will simply not do what it is designed to do. Client side security simply does not work - any script kiddy with the motivation can and will break it in short order.
Talk City is a private organization, and has every right to do this, as you effectively point out. I question not their right, but their reasoning. The client requirement can not accomplish the goal of eliminating the disruptive minority except on a very short term. At the same time, it conflicts with the other professed goals of TC - you don't build a community by locking out a large portion of the community, however good the motivation. The mac version may be in the works, but in the meantime the mac users (and other of the TC communities from what I have heard as well) are finding new homes on EFnet. Once they are gone they may not come back.
I am afraid this signals the beginning of the end for TC chat. If TC determines to pursue security through blessed clients - an inherently broken approach - then it is likely that they will soon determine that security is impossible. I have no iron in this fire, if you had not posted and impressed me as a reasonable and sincere person I would probably think this is a good thing, as an exemplar I'll be able to point to the next time a client asks me to implement similar measures. However you have impressed me, and convinced me that TC is a basically decent organisation that offers a service of value to many people, and thus this situation strikes me as very sad. In the end though, I fear the outcome is still a foregone conclusion - client side security does not work, and the management appears to have vetoed the server side approach, so there you have it.
Very sad, and I do hope time proves my analysis wrong, though I sincerely doubt it will.
Using the S/390's virtual machine feature to create large numbers of small web server environments, for example, would not be economically advantageous. It would require many 12-CPU mainframes to support the same load as, say, a thousand 256 MB, 600 MHz Pentium III systems. Workloads that divide easily and don't individually require huge resources do not showcase the strengths of the mainframe.
Although he doesn't say it right out, it sure sounds like he is calculating this on the basis of processor performance. It sounds about right for that, but it's ignoring completely the fact that the mainframes strong point is not cpu horsepower, but I/O bandwidth. By coincidence, most web servers bottleneck on I/O bandwidth - without using more than a fraction of the available CPU power of their boxes. There are certainly exceptions to that, but it is the most common situation. For sites in that situation, the mainframe running multiple linux instances would, at the least, compare far better than his analysis suggests.
If that's your standard the mainframe isn't going to stand a chance. If you're cracking RC5 keys you don't want a mainframe - you want a supercomputer or a beowulf cluster.
Where the mainframe shines is I/O, not sheer processor horsepower.
Everyone that used it rather than an MPAA approved player costs the MPAA money (liscensing fees).
Not necessarily true, although they would like you to believe this. For them to be losing money, the people using the unapproved players would have to be people that would otherwise be using a player they have collected their tax on. If the people would otherwise simply not be buying DVDs in the first place, then they are gaining money from the existence of the unauthorised players.
This sounds like a really great idea. One suggestion - distribute it under a slightly modified version of the GPL - specifically add one clause stating that in accepting the license the licensee explicitly agrees that the software is for use only for legal fair use - NOT for making copies of works the licensee has no legal right to copy, and like the other conditions of the license breaking this one results in the immediate loss of it. Only get a lawyer to write it, run it by the FSF and make sure they agree it will hold. This could be a significant point in your favour when you get taken to court.
The lack of a DVD player for Linux is being addressed, but not the fundamental idiocy of CSS, Macrovision and Region Coding. Fine, we can play them.
Can we? The details on the binary aren't available (neither is the binary) yet, but what do you think the odds are of it working on SPARC, Alpha, PPC or Amiga hardware? On less common distributions? On the next kernel release or the one after that? On *BSD or GNU/Hurd systems for that matter?
The linux community should (and to a large degree does) shun binary only programs for good reasons. This should be no different.
See this post for another hosts perspective on this, if you haven't.
These sorts of problems have been around for years on IRC, there are ways to deal with them. Client side security is not one of them. It just doesn't work. How long before your problem chatters reverse engineer it and are right back in your face? Give it a day, two max.
Going to require that your users download a new client every two days, with a new security protocol? How long before all your serious chatters just give up and move on? How long before the problem chatters are the only ones still using the service?
The place to solve this sort of problem is on the server, not the client. If TC is really dumb enough to think this will really get rid of the problem chatters I suspect they are in for a very rude awakening. On the other hand, if the goal is simply to generate more ad revenue... well I doubt it will work out that way in the long run, 10% of a large audience is a lot more than 100% of a very small one, but at least the step makes some sense from that perspective.
Bottom line - TC is either incredibly stupid, or they are lying about the reason for the change. And either way it seems they are driving many of their users away.
It's nonsense. Not the part about a small percentage of people flooding and abusing. That part, I am sure, is true. But this is not only not the only way to fix that - it is not any sort of way to fix it.
Do you really suppose that other irc servers haven't faced the same problem?
This is just an excuse to force folks to watch there ads, sad thing is much of their clientelle is probably clueless enough to buy the excuse.
That said, this move is likely to buy them more of the problems, not less. It will be days, if even that, before l337 $cr1p7 k1dd132 around the world break their security protocol and the serious abuses begin. Security through obscurity doesn't work, I have a feeling talk city and their customers are about to find that out the hard way.
As I recall, one of the main advantages to the amiga was the tight coupling of the video hardware. Has that concept been totally abandoned? Probably this was covered at some point in the past, but if so I missed it.
I can't really tell what this is going to be? It looks like PC hardware thats supposed to be cheep but pretty decent, it talks about a fre other chips working without recompiling(?!), and its software. Its a little (lot) early and I have two exams, so I'm saving what little ablility to think I have, can someone please explain what this is?
Apparently the OS they are using is designed to run on top of a hardware virtualizer (I think that's what it's called) that abstracts the hardware - something like a java OS if you will, only apparently a lot more efficient. So in this case it is running with Linux as it's hardware virtualizer, for the purpose of allowing developers to work on programs for it, so that when/if the consumer model arrives there will be programs available to run on the thing.
English libel law is far worse than US. And yes, that is saying something.
Check out what happened to LM recently, or Count Nicolai Tolstoy earlier in the century. Apparently, in England at least, the truth is not an allowed defence against libel charges.
OS/2 definately supports TCP/IP, I think you must have a very old or stripped version, others have posted links of use on that issue. I haven't run it in several years, primarily because it supports so little hardware (I loved it but 9/10 machines I wanted to run it on turned out to be incompatible unfortunately,) but back then it had great networking support, can't imagine it's just disappeared.
So far as a browser, let me recommend Opera - the 16 bit windows version should run just fine under OS/2, and a fully native OS/2 port is in the works and expected to be available soon. The 16 bit version is up to date and very usable - I still have one box running Windows 3.1 (it's for my dad, he's used to it and doesn't want to take the time to learn Linux or Windows9x) and it works great.
It makes more sense than you might think at first blush. As others have pointed out, Solaris is better on the larger machines - Linux can actually outperform it if you are using a smaller (single cpu) or older SPARC. If you are already familiar with Linux that might be a good reason too - being Unix, Solaris isn't too different, but it is different. If you are a free software person you would definately want to run Linux, not only because it is free and Solaris isn't (for personal use it's free-beer but still not free-speech, and it can be a pain to port GNU software to it.) Finally, if you are building a Beowulf cluster I believe Linux is your only choice.
In between the troll posts I think others have answered most of your questions, but:
The only major production deployments of Linux on spark I have herd of recently have been Beowulf. I assume cost and performance have everything to do with that choice. Dose anyone have numbers ?
I don't have the numbers. I can make a pretty good guess though. Probably the main reason would be that Beowulf doesn't run on Solaris. SPARC is still widely used in server-space, just normally with Solaris instead of Linux. Linux just isn't all that well supported on SPARC (so far, this may be changing) whereas Solaris, of course, is. The systems aren't all that different, and Solaris isn't really very expensive compared to the hardware.
I'm not sure why anyone would choose SPARC over ALPHA for a beowulf cluster, anyone? As I understand it ALPHA is superior on the cost/performance scale for sheer processor power, which is generally what you want in a beowulf cluster. Of course, SPARC does have a reputation for superior reliability - perhaps that is an issue, with a large cluster of boxen even minor increases in reliability should be multiplied in terms of total maintainence required...
How the TCP/IP performance on the Sparc ports compared to the Intel ports of Linux (I'm thinking about the Mindcraft benchmarks here... would the different hardware have made any difference?)
Hrmm... since NT doesn't run on SPARC, I don't see how it would make a difference. Of course, if they had run a benchmark with NT on x86 vs linux (or solaris) on SPARC it would have looked different... as I recall they were benchmarking performance as a web server, and SPARC architecture is a big advantage there.
I remember back in '95 or so, when the SPARC port was just "finished" David Millar posted some benchmarks showing it had better TCP/IP than Solaris on the same hardware. Does anyone have that URL (or an updated version?)
I don't remember hearing that, and don't have a link. If it's true, I wonder how NetBSD would do - isn't it's TCP/IP implementation supposed to be superior to that of Linux?
There are 12 categories the administrator can toggle on and off. There are 2 categories which cannot be disabled. Any site blocked in the latter categories are always blocked. In earlier versions peacefire was blocked for all 12 - "Violence / Profanity, Partial Nudity, Full Nudity, Sexual Acts / Text, Gross Depictions / Text, Intolerance, Satanic or Cult, Drugs / Drug Culture, Militant / Extremist, Sex Education, Questionable / Illegal & Gambling, Alcohol & Tobacco" however it was apparently not on one of the reserved lists, so it would be possible to access it by turning off all administrator changeable settings - but it would not be accessible using the settings any user is actually going to use - if a parent (or other administrator) sets the program to block any of the categories it is listed under (and who would buy the thing if they didn't want to block at least one of those?) then peacefire would be blocked.
I have heard (but cannot confirm for sure at this point) that after this latest brouha they have finally been added to the reserved (not toggleable) list as well.
The whole logic of having a "reserved" list is questionable, what exactly is this software supposed to block outside of the 12 user selectable settings? And why do political sites wind up listed under many if not all of those 12 categories, when most are clearly innappropiate? Sexual acts, violence, nudity, gambling satanism and drugs on peacefire?
Of course, if you had read the essay you would have known this already. Better grab it quick, before the Uni turns yellow and orders the prof to take it down.
Slashdot Mirror
Violating, just this once, my normal practice of not feeding the "trolls"...
Moderation is not censorship. It's not even close. You can say whatever you want to say. No one is forced to listen. Not listening is not the same thing as censoring. Anyone that wants to read about Natalie Portman and Hot Grits and Taco's mom and your silly cries of censorship have only to set their thresholds to -1 and they can see it.
I happen to set my threshold to -1. Because sometimes some interesting stuff gets moderated down, and because I am interested in seeing how well the moderation is working. The number of posts that get moderated down wrongly is pretty small though, and those mistakes are usually corrected pretty quickly. The biggest problem I have seen is that way too much crap that should be moderated down isn't - presumably because the system is so stingy with moderation points, and a lot of folk won't moderate because it means they can't post. Those factors, combined with the floods of off-topic posts and flamebait of so-called "trolls" (a horribly misuse of the word by the way, real trolls are great, and usually get moderated to +4 at least if they are well written) actually make it so that you need to read at +2 if you want to avoid the crap. Doing that, of course, guarantees that you will miss some good postings. Very sad. Oh well, enough rambling, back to reading.
Actually you are the one that needs to do some reading. Libertarian is a word the european anarchists adopted for themselves after the agents provacateurs and the bomb throwing idiots managed to co-opt the name in popular usage. In the US that usage never became popular, but the word was similarly applied by emerging right-anarchists like Murray Rothbard to distinguish themselves from the typically european left-anarchists, who were called libertarians in europe but anarchists here.
Yes, it's confusing. But no more so than the fact that liberal is commonly used in this country to refer to the left, whereas in most other countries it refers to the right.
Anarchy - from the greek "an" meaning not or no, and "archos" meaning ruler, thus a synonm for freedom (not being ruled over.)
What you define as Libertarian is actually Minarchism - a doctrine generally held by those who are anarchists at heart but just don't believe that people are ready for it yet, and so advocate a "night-watchman" minimal state which can prevent worse states from taking over until people are ready for complete anarchy.
Here, read and understand this - then come back and tell us about anarchism.
Hardly. Mac OS 10 is a proprietary product, it may be built on Mach and thus similar to the HURD technically, it is not cross platform and it is not Open Source.
"The 90s" can be read two different ways. If you mean the years from 90-99 then obviously it is not. If you mean the 9th decade of the current century, then it is. Ultimately this is simply a matter of imprecise terminology. It does nothing to change the fact that centuries are 100 year increments, and that they start with the year 1, not 0, at least in the calendar that we normally use. If you don't like that, feel free to write a new calendar, and good luck getting people to use it...
Really? Are you told if it was moderated down for being "flamebait" or "overrated" at least?
Rick,
I read all of the messages you posted (found through your user info,) and the page that you linked, and I want to thank you for responding and state that I do believe you are sincere. However, I must point out that, sincere or not, this move will simply not do what it is designed to do. Client side security simply does not work - any script kiddy with the motivation can and will break it in short order.
Talk City is a private organization, and has every right to do this, as you effectively point out. I question not their right, but their reasoning. The client requirement can not accomplish the goal of eliminating the disruptive minority except on a very short term. At the same time, it conflicts with the other professed goals of TC - you don't build a community by locking out a large portion of the community, however good the motivation. The mac version may be in the works, but in the meantime the mac users (and other of the TC communities from what I have heard as well) are finding new homes on EFnet. Once they are gone they may not come back.
I am afraid this signals the beginning of the end for TC chat. If TC determines to pursue security through blessed clients - an inherently broken approach - then it is likely that they will soon determine that security is impossible. I have no iron in this fire, if you had not posted and impressed me as a reasonable and sincere person I would probably think this is a good thing, as an exemplar I'll be able to point to the next time a client asks me to implement similar measures. However you have impressed me, and convinced me that TC is a basically decent organisation that offers a service of value to many people, and thus this situation strikes me as very sad. In the end though, I fear the outcome is still a foregone conclusion - client side security does not work, and the management appears to have vetoed the server side approach, so there you have it.
Very sad, and I do hope time proves my analysis wrong, though I sincerely doubt it will.
Regards,
Arker
Although he doesn't say it right out, it sure sounds like he is calculating this on the basis of processor performance. It sounds about right for that, but it's ignoring completely the fact that the mainframes strong point is not cpu horsepower, but I/O bandwidth. By coincidence, most web servers bottleneck on I/O bandwidth - without using more than a fraction of the available CPU power of their boxes. There are certainly exceptions to that, but it is the most common situation. For sites in that situation, the mainframe running multiple linux instances would, at the least, compare far better than his analysis suggests.
MIPS?
If that's your standard the mainframe isn't going to stand a chance. If you're cracking RC5 keys you don't want a mainframe - you want a supercomputer or a beowulf cluster.
Where the mainframe shines is I/O, not sheer processor horsepower.
Sure could.
Question is, why? You lose the security advantages of having seperate virtual machines, and I find it hard to think of any advantage really.
Not necessarily true, although they would like you to believe this. For them to be losing money, the people using the unapproved players would have to be people that would otherwise be using a player they have collected their tax on. If the people would otherwise simply not be buying DVDs in the first place, then they are gaining money from the existence of the unauthorised players.
This sounds like a really great idea. One suggestion - distribute it under a slightly modified version of the GPL - specifically add one clause stating that in accepting the license the licensee explicitly agrees that the software is for use only for legal fair use - NOT for making copies of works the licensee has no legal right to copy, and like the other conditions of the license breaking this one results in the immediate loss of it. Only get a lawyer to write it, run it by the FSF and make sure they agree it will hold. This could be a significant point in your favour when you get taken to court.
Can we? The details on the binary aren't available (neither is the binary) yet, but what do you think the odds are of it working on SPARC, Alpha, PPC or Amiga hardware? On less common distributions? On the next kernel release or the one after that? On *BSD or GNU/Hurd systems for that matter?
The linux community should (and to a large degree does) shun binary only programs for good reasons. This should be no different.
See this post for another hosts perspective on this, if you haven't.
These sorts of problems have been around for years on IRC, there are ways to deal with them. Client side security is not one of them. It just doesn't work. How long before your problem chatters reverse engineer it and are right back in your face? Give it a day, two max.
Going to require that your users download a new client every two days, with a new security protocol? How long before all your serious chatters just give up and move on? How long before the problem chatters are the only ones still using the service?
The place to solve this sort of problem is on the server, not the client. If TC is really dumb enough to think this will really get rid of the problem chatters I suspect they are in for a very rude awakening. On the other hand, if the goal is simply to generate more ad revenue... well I doubt it will work out that way in the long run, 10% of a large audience is a lot more than 100% of a very small one, but at least the step makes some sense from that perspective.
Bottom line - TC is either incredibly stupid, or they are lying about the reason for the change. And either way it seems they are driving many of their users away.
It's nonsense. Not the part about a small percentage of people flooding and abusing. That part, I am sure, is true. But this is not only not the only way to fix that - it is not any sort of way to fix it.
Do you really suppose that other irc servers haven't faced the same problem?
This is just an excuse to force folks to watch there ads, sad thing is much of their clientelle is probably clueless enough to buy the excuse.
That said, this move is likely to buy them more of the problems, not less. It will be days, if even that, before l337 $cr1p7 k1dd132 around the world break their security protocol and the serious abuses begin. Security through obscurity doesn't work, I have a feeling talk city and their customers are about to find that out the hard way.
So far as I am concerned, binary-only doesn't count. However, this is bad news, since the courts cannot be counted on to understand that.
As I recall, one of the main advantages to the amiga was the tight coupling of the video hardware. Has that concept been totally abandoned? Probably this was covered at some point in the past, but if so I missed it.
I can't really tell what this is going to be? It looks like PC hardware thats supposed to be cheep but pretty decent, it talks about a fre other chips working without recompiling(?!), and its software. Its a little (lot) early and I have two exams, so I'm saving what little ablility to think I have, can someone please explain what this is?
Apparently the OS they are using is designed to run on top of a hardware virtualizer (I think that's what it's called) that abstracts the hardware - something like a java OS if you will, only apparently a lot more efficient. So in this case it is running with Linux as it's hardware virtualizer, for the purpose of allowing developers to work on programs for it, so that when/if the consumer model arrives there will be programs available to run on the thing.
English libel law is far worse than US. And yes, that is saying something.
Check out what happened to LM recently, or Count Nicolai Tolstoy earlier in the century. Apparently, in England at least, the truth is not an allowed defence against libel charges.
OS/2 definately supports TCP/IP, I think you must have a very old or stripped version, others have posted links of use on that issue. I haven't run it in several years, primarily because it supports so little hardware (I loved it but 9/10 machines I wanted to run it on turned out to be incompatible unfortunately,) but back then it had great networking support, can't imagine it's just disappeared.
So far as a browser, let me recommend Opera - the 16 bit windows version should run just fine under OS/2, and a fully native OS/2 port is in the works and expected to be available soon. The 16 bit version is up to date and very usable - I still have one box running Windows 3.1 (it's for my dad, he's used to it and doesn't want to take the time to learn Linux or Windows9x) and it works great.
Opera runs Java through the Sun plugin. From the site you (tried to) link to
But yes, once it is done, it will run Java, if you really want it to.
It makes more sense than you might think at first blush. As others have pointed out, Solaris is better on the larger machines - Linux can actually outperform it if you are using a smaller (single cpu) or older SPARC. If you are already familiar with Linux that might be a good reason too - being Unix, Solaris isn't too different, but it is different. If you are a free software person you would definately want to run Linux, not only because it is free and Solaris isn't (for personal use it's free-beer but still not free-speech, and it can be a pain to port GNU software to it.) Finally, if you are building a Beowulf cluster I believe Linux is your only choice.
In between the troll posts I think others have answered most of your questions, but:
I don't have the numbers. I can make a pretty good guess though. Probably the main reason would be that Beowulf doesn't run on Solaris. SPARC is still widely used in server-space, just normally with Solaris instead of Linux. Linux just isn't all that well supported on SPARC (so far, this may be changing) whereas Solaris, of course, is. The systems aren't all that different, and Solaris isn't really very expensive compared to the hardware.
I'm not sure why anyone would choose SPARC over ALPHA for a beowulf cluster, anyone? As I understand it ALPHA is superior on the cost/performance scale for sheer processor power, which is generally what you want in a beowulf cluster. Of course, SPARC does have a reputation for superior reliability - perhaps that is an issue, with a large cluster of boxen even minor increases in reliability should be multiplied in terms of total maintainence required...
How the TCP/IP performance on the Sparc ports compared to the Intel ports of Linux (I'm thinking about the Mindcraft benchmarks here... would the different hardware have made any difference?)
Hrmm... since NT doesn't run on SPARC, I don't see how it would make a difference. Of course, if they had run a benchmark with NT on x86 vs linux (or solaris) on SPARC it would have looked different... as I recall they were benchmarking performance as a web server, and SPARC architecture is a big advantage there.
I remember back in '95 or so, when the SPARC port was just "finished" David Millar posted some benchmarks showing it had better TCP/IP than Solaris on the same hardware. Does anyone have that URL (or an updated version?)
I don't remember hearing that, and don't have a link. If it's true, I wonder how NetBSD would do - isn't it's TCP/IP implementation supposed to be superior to that of Linux?
Short answer, yes.
There are 12 categories the administrator can toggle on and off. There are 2 categories which cannot be disabled. Any site blocked in the latter categories are always blocked. In earlier versions peacefire was blocked for all 12 - "Violence / Profanity, Partial Nudity, Full Nudity, Sexual Acts / Text, Gross Depictions / Text, Intolerance, Satanic or Cult, Drugs / Drug Culture, Militant / Extremist, Sex Education, Questionable / Illegal & Gambling, Alcohol & Tobacco" however it was apparently not on one of the reserved lists, so it would be possible to access it by turning off all administrator changeable settings - but it would not be accessible using the settings any user is actually going to use - if a parent (or other administrator) sets the program to block any of the categories it is listed under (and who would buy the thing if they didn't want to block at least one of those?) then peacefire would be blocked.
I have heard (but cannot confirm for sure at this point) that after this latest brouha they have finally been added to the reserved (not toggleable) list as well.
The reserved list certainly contains some strange choices. http://133.205.62.133/~coga/ for instance, and http://202.26.1.170/~t2m-n/ don't seem to have any objectionable material I can see.
The whole logic of having a "reserved" list is questionable, what exactly is this software supposed to block outside of the 12 user selectable settings? And why do political sites wind up listed under many if not all of those 12 categories, when most are clearly innappropiate? Sexual acts, violence, nudity, gambling satanism and drugs on peacefire?
Of course, if you had read the essay you would have known this already. Better grab it quick, before the Uni turns yellow and orders the prof to take it down.