That is censorship of obvious MISINFORMATION, which also happens to be malicious.
Censorship of factual information and opinions is for the birds, or China, excluding classified information which is really kept out of public knowledge because it is impossible to keep away from enemies at that point. (There are of course cases of our government hiding information solely to keep it away from honest citizens, which I can't agree with.)
Even misinformation is generally combatted not through censorship, but through EDUCATION. If the people in the hypothetical theater weren't panicky idiots, there wouldn't be a problem.
"A method for the processing of data recieved in the form of input into information which may be disclosed through output"
If they're anything like the USPO I stand a chance.
The real political game all happens outside the boundaries of law and of the constitution. It is all about favors and money.
Here's an analogy I like. Think of the constitution and all of our laws and regulations as a set of rules for engagement (local and international) similar to the hardware on a computer. On top of that we put an 'abstraction layer' that allows us to get the results we want more directly, ignoring what is really happening at the low level. There is an 'abstraction layer' for the rich and powerful that consists of lobbyists, personal ties and favors (which you can't effectively outlaw,) and shady, less-than-legal happenings.
Above this abstraction layer somewhere are the real intentions of the user. In the case of my analogy, the intentions of the user are ALWAYS to gain power, or to preserve power. That is just business. Morals are mostly nonexistant at the highest levels of power, because they are a restriction that would not allow such power, assuming the individual(s) are within the standard deviation of skill at manipulating the whole system, and are not abnormally predisposed to power.
Hey,
Aspartame in diet soda decomposes to methanol and then to formaldehyde, but that's drinkable, right?
Brain damage in the name of physical fitness, how wonderful is that?
Your analogy doesn't work.
It would be one thing if the ISPs were regulated by a free market, but they have no real competition in any given location. It's like picking a president. All you get is A or B.
When there is no free market to regulate, businesses have TOO MUCH POWER and need regulation and intervention to not completely screw consumers and prevent progress.
Gosh, don't you know hilarity when you see it?!
For instance:
"Have you seen all those pants that have things written across their rear? What's up with that?!"
"Have you ever noticed guys stand at every other urinal in bathrooms? What's up with that?!"
Hilarity!
There are some things that are obvious. A cat is a cat. If there are people that can't come up with any of the obvious ones ie "monkey" "baboon" "a baboon" and so on, then that's too bad. Iff the picture is too vague, and the answer is not obvious, that is the fault of whoever impliments it and the picture and question chosen. There are too many good pictures that have obvious interpretations, and would be very suitable for this use.
Even if there are multiple answers, throwing out random combinations of words from the dictionary is ineffective, especially if multiple fails block out a user.
Since there would be a limited number of picture/question combos, making a database of all the pictures and their answers would be the easiest, and then its just a matter of keeping them fresh and large in number.
Ok now I have an account. From my post above with a score of 0:
If it's a picture of a baboon you could have the script accept a number of responses, like 'baboon', 'a baboon', 'monkey', 'silly willy monkey', etc. to make it easier on humans.
In some cases, you could have say, a silhouette of a cat, in another, a picture of a cat's face. I dare someone to try to write a script that can make that distinction.
Multiple allowed responses apply to having multiple languages too. There is no reason that multiple responses can't be treated as correct, it will not weaken the security in any significant way because there are still a basically infinite number of other responses that are wrong.
10 out of infinity is not a higher probobility than 1 out of infinity.
Slashdot Mirror
That is censorship of obvious MISINFORMATION, which also happens to be malicious.
Censorship of factual information and opinions is for the birds, or China, excluding classified information which is really kept out of public knowledge because it is impossible to keep away from enemies at that point. (There are of course cases of our government hiding information solely to keep it away from honest citizens, which I can't agree with.)
Even misinformation is generally combatted not through censorship, but through EDUCATION. If the people in the hypothetical theater weren't panicky idiots, there wouldn't be a problem.
you are
What free market?
"Ecosystems" have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a phone.
"A method for the processing of data recieved in the form of input into information which may be disclosed through output" If they're anything like the USPO I stand a chance.
Well you wouldn't want the enemy telling all your mines that the war is over...
The real political game all happens outside the boundaries of law and of the constitution. It is all about favors and money. Here's an analogy I like. Think of the constitution and all of our laws and regulations as a set of rules for engagement (local and international) similar to the hardware on a computer. On top of that we put an 'abstraction layer' that allows us to get the results we want more directly, ignoring what is really happening at the low level. There is an 'abstraction layer' for the rich and powerful that consists of lobbyists, personal ties and favors (which you can't effectively outlaw,) and shady, less-than-legal happenings. Above this abstraction layer somewhere are the real intentions of the user. In the case of my analogy, the intentions of the user are ALWAYS to gain power, or to preserve power. That is just business. Morals are mostly nonexistant at the highest levels of power, because they are a restriction that would not allow such power, assuming the individual(s) are within the standard deviation of skill at manipulating the whole system, and are not abnormally predisposed to power.
lawsuits against Nintendo because of repetitive stress injury from waving the thing around.
Hey, Aspartame in diet soda decomposes to methanol and then to formaldehyde, but that's drinkable, right? Brain damage in the name of physical fitness, how wonderful is that?
Your analogy doesn't work. It would be one thing if the ISPs were regulated by a free market, but they have no real competition in any given location. It's like picking a president. All you get is A or B. When there is no free market to regulate, businesses have TOO MUCH POWER and need regulation and intervention to not completely screw consumers and prevent progress.
Gosh, don't you know hilarity when you see it?! For instance: "Have you seen all those pants that have things written across their rear? What's up with that?!" "Have you ever noticed guys stand at every other urinal in bathrooms? What's up with that?!" Hilarity!
There are some things that are obvious. A cat is a cat. If there are people that can't come up with any of the obvious ones ie "monkey" "baboon" "a baboon" and so on, then that's too bad. Iff the picture is too vague, and the answer is not obvious, that is the fault of whoever impliments it and the picture and question chosen. There are too many good pictures that have obvious interpretations, and would be very suitable for this use. Even if there are multiple answers, throwing out random combinations of words from the dictionary is ineffective, especially if multiple fails block out a user. Since there would be a limited number of picture/question combos, making a database of all the pictures and their answers would be the easiest, and then its just a matter of keeping them fresh and large in number.
Ok now I have an account. From my post above with a score of 0: If it's a picture of a baboon you could have the script accept a number of responses, like 'baboon', 'a baboon', 'monkey', 'silly willy monkey', etc. to make it easier on humans. In some cases, you could have say, a silhouette of a cat, in another, a picture of a cat's face. I dare someone to try to write a script that can make that distinction. Multiple allowed responses apply to having multiple languages too. There is no reason that multiple responses can't be treated as correct, it will not weaken the security in any significant way because there are still a basically infinite number of other responses that are wrong. 10 out of infinity is not a higher probobility than 1 out of infinity.