says nothing about them not being fined, and I don't read that as not being able to be arrested during their term, just not while they are in session or on their way to or from, which makes sense, personal shit doesn't need to be drawn into the congressional halls.
Right, but it also means they can't be prosecuted or fined for introducing a bill during a session, no matter how much everyone thinks its unconstitutional.
No, this means that the executive cannot detain a legislator without extremely good evidence.
Plus, make it a Felony to pass an unconstitutional amendment, CONGRATS! It passes constitutional muster now.
Not too long ago I returned from just driving randomly around the country. The places where they didn't sell alcohol (or sold it in a variety of ways that pretty much prevented me from easily getting some) always had people who were eager and willing to tell me where I could go to buy alcohol. Dry towns make for drunk drivers... That was my observation at least.
Yep. Look at Germany, open container laws all over the country (as long as you're not driving) beer and wine available at 16, hard alcohol available at 18... and little to no drunk driving. Why? Because they punish you at the WHEEL rather than at the bar.
(And yeah, I love me some alcohol, so I pretty much got drunk in the majority of the states.)
I hear this gets you an achievement on XBox Live...
And if you think about it, these people have just as much problem with "Playboy" (soft-core female only pornography) as they do with "Backdoor Sluts 9" (BDS9 makes Crotch Capers 3 look like a child's movie)
Wouldn't it even violate COPPA, because you'd have to get the name of the card holder... There, now you know who the child's parent is... and look, yellow pages just told me where they live.
What is the answer? I don't know. But for parents using a TV or computer as a babysitter and ignoring the kid results in damage. Damage to the kid and damage to society. We are currently dealing with that damage today, mostly in the inner cities but believe me, it isn't confined there by any means. Would COPA be a solution? Not really, but it couldn't hurt in this sort of case. Where would we go for a real solution?
You really think that the inner cities are so bad because their parents are babysitting them with TV and the computer?
God, just more racism seriously...
These people are poor, and crime gives a reasonably effective income alternative to them. They learn the crime from their environment, and they emulate it.
Your program would unfairly burden blacks and other minorities. And besides? How do you plan to enforce this requirement for a license and education for breeding?
End absent-parent child support - no amount of money paid to the mother makes up for lack of a responsible two-parent family. If you can't be bothered with birth control you get to live with the results of your inattentiveness.
Jesus Christ, you probably believe in him don't you? Children don't know about birth control, because they're taught that it's wrong. So, when they have sex, they don't DOUBLE the wrong by using birth control, oh no... that would be WORSE than just having sex on it's own.
This is also straight out of a line from Leykis who really just wants to "protect" men from having men to take responsibility for their children after they leave.
Holding parents responsible for the actions of their children, really. This means that when the 10-year-old kills a neighbor child the parents and the child are responsible. Today often as not the child gets some slap on the wrist punishment because of their age and the parents get nothing. How could you be an effective parent and not know your kid is seriously screwed up when a 10-year-old kills someone
It's lovely how people assume things like this. Children are not reasoning adults, and it's entirely possible that they didn't understand that holding their friend under water for so long would kill him, and that it's a really really wrong thing to do.
Children are all too often too young to associate consequence with their actions. Children will do the wrong thing sometimes when had they been a reasonably responsible adult, they would not have. The issue here is that the child has to understand that what they did was wrong before they did the action.
You, Sir, disgust me with your attempts to explain away all our problems on irresponsible parents... our problems are from all irresponsible adults, including you!
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection"
But but... if we don't indoctrinate them with censorship now, whatever will they do when their children get into school, and they're asked to read the new Harry Potter-look-a-like book? They need to know how to lay down the ban hammer and throw those books out of school!
They should grow up on Conservapedia, where they liberally censor people, so they know that anything that offends them can be just be told to go away.
Like Satan! In the name of Jesus Christ, I compel you to leave me!
Or... Realize that it is stupid to "protect" kids from the internet. Now, granted you don't want your kid talking to MrSerialRapist997 on AIM, but some of the things that are censored are absolutely pointless. For example, its OK if an 18 year old swears once in a while, but a 10 year old shouldn't? It is totally OK for an 18 year old to play a game in which you kill people, but not a 16 year old? Really if censoring content is all people use to judge parenting ability, then that is just sad. Now, I think that if you are say, starving your kids, they should be relocated, but just because a kid can say some swear words, plays some violent video games and have seen naked people, doesn't make the parenting bad and our society needs to realize that.
ZOMG! *calls social services* "Come quick! You need to help these children... they're allowed to CURSE!"
Wow... you don't really understand the point do you?
There is a difference between walking down a low-traffic street during daytime and hanging out with junkies and hookers downtown at 3AM in the morning... the first one is that my child is really unlikely to go hang out with junkies and hookers at 3AM in the morning. And if I lived where junkies and hookers hung out at 3AM in the morning, you're darn sure my child isn't ready to walk that street alone, daytime OR NOT.
I'm not concerned about my children being protecting from "accidental" pornography. It's not a damaging experience for the child unless you PUSH it on the child. If the child comes across it accidentally, just like the picture "Les Dauphins" they're not going to see what's really going on... they simply don't understand the idea of sex at that point. By swooping in to protect the child, you're telling them that it's something that they really need to be protected from, and this conditioning stays with them throughout life.
Example, parent swoops up a kid from any dog that it sees, and tries to avoid their kid from contacting, seeing, or even hearing a dog, and reacts very protectively of the child when something gets through. That child will grow up afraid of dogs.
Next, parent does the same thing with cobra snakes... ok, hey, at least the cobra snake is a REAL threat to the child.
The important thing to teach a child is discretion, not cherry pick your supervised time, or limit their access. While you with your children you're actively teaching them the important things to watch out for, and letting them find what they do and do not want to participate in. Then, when it comes to them walking down the street at 3AM with junkies and hookers around, they're going to be conscious, aware and active in their safety... rather than your protected child that never learned to deal with real issues. "If I can see it, it's ok then!"
Most parents would agree with you. Unfortunately, there are some very vocal and influential people who don't just want to "protect" their own kids, they want to protect everybody's.
Also, this is not entirely about "protecting the children". People wouldn't be so noisy about keeping something away from the kids if they weren't actually offended by it themselves. But just being offensive is no longer enough, by itself, to justify censorship, either legally or in the minds of most people. So it has to be about The Children.
Personally, I would like to see children protected — but not from porn. The fact is, I just don't see the harm in kids seeing graphic sex. It's not like it's not something they won't need to learn about eventually. On the other hand, it bothers the hell out of me that children are exposed to so much violence in their entertainment. And not just violence, but violence separated from any kind of emotional context. That cannot be a good thing.
*applause* I agree:)
I believe in protecting the children too... from Lawn Darts! Not from pornography...
And prostitution is only a dangerous profession where they cannot turn to the protection of the law, and illegal immigrants are only exploited by businesses because they can't go to any authority to complain about work conditions, or pay.
Making something illegal makes criminals, but it doesn't make the illegal something wrong. Didn't we learn that with prohibition? OH THAT'S RIGHT, we still have temperance movements... *sigh*
True but a society must also take care to protect it's most vulnerable members.
There are readily available, affordable and even free technical means by which any concerned parent can prevent his or her child from being accidentally exposed to pornography. Should a parent fail to do so, the failure is on the part of the parent, not the society.
It's not the presence of a law that kept my children and so far has kept my grandchildren from being accidentally exposed to pornography (online, on television, wherever) but the presence of parents who care.
... but seriously, how damaging is it? I was "accidentally" exposed to porn as a child... hundreds thousands MILLIONS of children are exposed to porn as children. And honestly, at age 12 for girls, and 14 for boys there is no good reason to forcefully protect them from pornography at all... they're sexually mature at that time.
This whole "think of the children" crap is a bunch of hog-wash from puritanical idiots... our ancestors lived for a long time with just as health of psychologies as we have now (perhaps more, if you're living in America).
There are a number of cultures that when contact with Europeans began, they were in one-room huts where the parents made love while their children slept.
Demonizing and vilifying sex is just bogus mojo... Romeo and Juliet were 14! Get off your high horse... Young children don't even UNDERSTAND sexual content... and once they can, hey, they're sexually mature!
And I myself am willing to sacrifice a bit of freedom for a year to prevent a terrorist attack, I am not willing to sacrifice a lot of freedom for my lifetime to prevent a terrorist attack.
I believe a quote is in order here...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
"Poisoning CXOPQ.VICTIM.COM is not super valuable to Mallory. But Mallory has another trick up her sleeve. Because her response didnâ(TM)t just say CXOPQ.VICTIM.COM was 6.6.6.0. It also contained Additional RRs pointing WWW.VICTIM.COM to 6.6.6.0."
This is, then, not quite right? Rather Mallory's response would not list an A record for CXOPQ.VICTIM.COM, but instead another delegation, plus glue? There would be no reason to process glue if an authoritative A record response was returned..
Is the fundamental underlying issue merely that it would break too many existing configs if caching resolvers were stricter? I hope Dan Kaminsky's eventual disclosure goes into a bit more detail on this. I'd also quite like to here what DJB has to say.
Of course Mallory's response listed an A record for CXOPQ.VICTIM.COM... and the authority for that record is listed as whatever. In addition to that is the glue that says "Hey, btw, WWW.VICTIM.COM is XYZ." Typically the glue is used to indicate the DNS authority of the information, however that DNS authority can really be anything... WWW.VICTIM.COM for all it matters, they really are free to name their name servers whatever they want.
The A record returned wouldn't be authoritative, it'd be the same kind of answer that the DNS cache would receive from its parent DNS, or what the end-user's computer would receive from its DNS cache. If you went and asked the authority for confirmation for that address, then there's no reason for the DNS cache.
There are a number of solutions, more accurately, the explanation is what the PROBLEM is, not what the SOLUTION was. That's what I'm looking forward to.
Also, a girl? On Slashdot? Have we broken 20% yet? The nominal on IRC seems to be 3 boys for every girl, which is just about perfect for a lot of girls....
You don't bailiwick every subdomain, it wouldn't work.
When asking about www.victim.com, you get an answer for aaa.victim.com, telling the difference between aaa.victim.com and ns1.victim.com would be impossible. The bailiwick can really only at best check all but the last subdomain, and even then you might get an answer about the authoritative NS server for ns1.victim.com, while asking for computer1.corp.victim.com or whatever...
You don't need the address for the NS server as you're getting a result already. If you didn't ask for the information then it shouldn't be in the reply - if it is just discard the entire packet as bogus and keep listening for the real one.
Why? Because of recursion... Rather than asking up the line to the root DNS machines, peers can talk to themselves to speed up getting answers.
Someone who knows more about how DNS works could explain better, but it's nice to get an answer back about who is authoritatively saying that's the DNS address. ("Ping, hey, ns1.google.com, what address does www.google.com have? Hm... doesn't agree with mine, looks like I can fix that information, thanks!")
Slashdot Mirror
says nothing about them not being fined, and I don't read that as not being able to be arrested during their term, just not while they are in session or on their way to or from, which makes sense, personal shit doesn't need to be drawn into the congressional halls.
Right, but it also means they can't be prosecuted or fined for introducing a bill during a session, no matter how much everyone thinks its unconstitutional.
No, this means that the executive cannot detain a legislator without extremely good evidence.
Plus, make it a Felony to pass an unconstitutional amendment, CONGRATS! It passes constitutional muster now.
Not too long ago I returned from just driving randomly around the country. The places where they didn't sell alcohol (or sold it in a variety of ways that pretty much prevented me from easily getting some) always had people who were eager and willing to tell me where I could go to buy alcohol. Dry towns make for drunk drivers... That was my observation at least.
Yep. Look at Germany, open container laws all over the country (as long as you're not driving) beer and wine available at 16, hard alcohol available at 18... and little to no drunk driving. Why? Because they punish you at the WHEEL rather than at the bar.
(And yeah, I love me some alcohol, so I pretty much got drunk in the majority of the states.)
I hear this gets you an achievement on XBox Live...
Get off slashdot "God lover"! :P Just teasing.
And if you think about it, these people have just as much problem with "Playboy" (soft-core female only pornography) as they do with "Backdoor Sluts 9" (BDS9 makes Crotch Capers 3 look like a child's movie)
Wouldn't it even violate COPPA, because you'd have to get the name of the card holder... There, now you know who the child's parent is... and look, yellow pages just told me where they live.
I think I'll go over and visit them :)
OK.... I'm not usually a spelling Nazi but "wimmen" Jesus f***ing Christ are you serious!!?
*ahem* Have you heard of colloquial speech? Yes... now shut up and die troll...
What is the answer? I don't know. But for parents using a TV or computer as a babysitter and ignoring the kid results in damage. Damage to the kid and damage to society. We are currently dealing with that damage today, mostly in the inner cities but believe me, it isn't confined there by any means. Would COPA be a solution? Not really, but it couldn't hurt in this sort of case. Where would we go for a real solution?
You really think that the inner cities are so bad because their parents are babysitting them with TV and the computer?
God, just more racism seriously...
These people are poor, and crime gives a reasonably effective income alternative to them. They learn the crime from their environment, and they emulate it.
Your program would unfairly burden blacks and other minorities. And besides? How do you plan to enforce this requirement for a license and education for breeding?
End absent-parent child support - no amount of money paid to the mother makes up for lack of a responsible two-parent family. If you can't be bothered with birth control you get to live with the results of your inattentiveness.
Jesus Christ, you probably believe in him don't you? Children don't know about birth control, because they're taught that it's wrong. So, when they have sex, they don't DOUBLE the wrong by using birth control, oh no... that would be WORSE than just having sex on it's own.
This is also straight out of a line from Leykis who really just wants to "protect" men from having men to take responsibility for their children after they leave.
Holding parents responsible for the actions of their children, really. This means that when the 10-year-old kills a neighbor child the parents and the child are responsible. Today often as not the child gets some slap on the wrist punishment because of their age and the parents get nothing. How could you be an effective parent and not know your kid is seriously screwed up when a 10-year-old kills someone
It's lovely how people assume things like this. Children are not reasoning adults, and it's entirely possible that they didn't understand that holding their friend under water for so long would kill him, and that it's a really really wrong thing to do.
Children are all too often too young to associate consequence with their actions. Children will do the wrong thing sometimes when had they been a reasonably responsible adult, they would not have. The issue here is that the child has to understand that what they did was wrong before they did the action.
You, Sir, disgust me with your attempts to explain away all our problems on irresponsible parents... our problems are from all irresponsible adults, including you!
Great, now maybe they can get New York's attorney general from implmenting the same law through the back door.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1545501748.shtml">Techdirt's latest on the topic
HEY HEY! WE're talking about the CHILDREN... you can't use language like "through the back door"! I know that's just a codeword for ANAL SEX!
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection"
- Senior US District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., commenting on this same law when he struck it down last year ( http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article1554275.ece ).
But but... if we don't indoctrinate them with censorship now, whatever will they do when their children get into school, and they're asked to read the new Harry Potter-look-a-like book? They need to know how to lay down the ban hammer and throw those books out of school!
They should grow up on Conservapedia, where they liberally censor people, so they know that anything that offends them can be just be told to go away.
Like Satan! In the name of Jesus Christ, I compel you to leave me!
Or... Realize that it is stupid to "protect" kids from the internet. Now, granted you don't want your kid talking to MrSerialRapist997 on AIM, but some of the things that are censored are absolutely pointless. For example, its OK if an 18 year old swears once in a while, but a 10 year old shouldn't? It is totally OK for an 18 year old to play a game in which you kill people, but not a 16 year old? Really if censoring content is all people use to judge parenting ability, then that is just sad. Now, I think that if you are say, starving your kids, they should be relocated, but just because a kid can say some swear words, plays some violent video games and have seen naked people, doesn't make the parenting bad and our society needs to realize that.
ZOMG! *calls social services* "Come quick! You need to help these children... they're allowed to CURSE!"
I figured... but hey, with those names... sometimes you need to ask just to make sure.
Be sure to visit my page http://pen.is/ ... we sell pens from island!
Wow... you don't really understand the point do you?
There is a difference between walking down a low-traffic street during daytime and hanging out with junkies and hookers downtown at 3AM in the morning... the first one is that my child is really unlikely to go hang out with junkies and hookers at 3AM in the morning. And if I lived where junkies and hookers hung out at 3AM in the morning, you're darn sure my child isn't ready to walk that street alone, daytime OR NOT.
I'm not concerned about my children being protecting from "accidental" pornography. It's not a damaging experience for the child unless you PUSH it on the child. If the child comes across it accidentally, just like the picture "Les Dauphins" they're not going to see what's really going on... they simply don't understand the idea of sex at that point. By swooping in to protect the child, you're telling them that it's something that they really need to be protected from, and this conditioning stays with them throughout life.
Example, parent swoops up a kid from any dog that it sees, and tries to avoid their kid from contacting, seeing, or even hearing a dog, and reacts very protectively of the child when something gets through. That child will grow up afraid of dogs.
Next, parent does the same thing with cobra snakes... ok, hey, at least the cobra snake is a REAL threat to the child.
The important thing to teach a child is discretion, not cherry pick your supervised time, or limit their access. While you with your children you're actively teaching them the important things to watch out for, and letting them find what they do and do not want to participate in. Then, when it comes to them walking down the street at 3AM with junkies and hookers around, they're going to be conscious, aware and active in their safety... rather than your protected child that never learned to deal with real issues. "If I can see it, it's ok then!"
Most parents would agree with you. Unfortunately, there are some very vocal and influential people who don't just want to "protect" their own kids, they want to protect everybody's.
Also, this is not entirely about "protecting the children". People wouldn't be so noisy about keeping something away from the kids if they weren't actually offended by it themselves. But just being offensive is no longer enough, by itself, to justify censorship, either legally or in the minds of most people. So it has to be about The Children.
Personally, I would like to see children protected — but not from porn. The fact is, I just don't see the harm in kids seeing graphic sex. It's not like it's not something they won't need to learn about eventually. On the other hand, it bothers the hell out of me that children are exposed to so much violence in their entertainment. And not just violence, but violence separated from any kind of emotional context. That cannot be a good thing.
*applause* I agree :)
I believe in protecting the children too... from Lawn Darts! Not from pornography...
And prostitution is only a dangerous profession where they cannot turn to the protection of the law, and illegal immigrants are only exploited by businesses because they can't go to any authority to complain about work conditions, or pay.
Making something illegal makes criminals, but it doesn't make the illegal something wrong. Didn't we learn that with prohibition? OH THAT'S RIGHT, we still have temperance movements... *sigh*
True but a society must also take care to protect it's most vulnerable members.
There are readily available, affordable and even free technical means by which any concerned parent can prevent his or her child from being accidentally exposed to pornography. Should a parent fail to do so, the failure is on the part of the parent, not the society.
It's not the presence of a law that kept my children and so far has kept my grandchildren from being accidentally exposed to pornography (online, on television, wherever) but the presence of parents who care.
... but seriously, how damaging is it? I was "accidentally" exposed to porn as a child... hundreds thousands MILLIONS of children are exposed to porn as children. And honestly, at age 12 for girls, and 14 for boys there is no good reason to forcefully protect them from pornography at all... they're sexually mature at that time.
This whole "think of the children" crap is a bunch of hog-wash from puritanical idiots... our ancestors lived for a long time with just as health of psychologies as we have now (perhaps more, if you're living in America).
There are a number of cultures that when contact with Europeans began, they were in one-room huts where the parents made love while their children slept.
Demonizing and vilifying sex is just bogus mojo... Romeo and Juliet were 14! Get off your high horse... Young children don't even UNDERSTAND sexual content... and once they can, hey, they're sexually mature!
There's nothing unconstitutional for punishing a legislator for breaking the Constitution...
It's all due process silly!
And I myself am willing to sacrifice a bit of freedom for a year to prevent a terrorist attack, I am not willing to sacrifice a lot of freedom for my lifetime to prevent a terrorist attack.
I believe a quote is in order here...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
HEAR HEAR!!!
Let's pass a law to make sure that happens... oh wait >_
Pen island. Who represents. Please, hold your applause.
Please indicate which links are NSFW, kthnx.
You're right. I asked my information his opinion on the matter, and he clearly said that he should be free, not so much that he wants to be free.
You know, I asked my data for their opinion, and they said the very same thing.
As for my datum, it disagrees. An argumentative little datum it is.
That's quite the unusual phenomenon... perhaps I should alert a medium...
*flashes her boobs, and laughs at the ease of distracting men*
OK, so diffing against the matasano post:
"Poisoning CXOPQ.VICTIM.COM is not super valuable to Mallory. But Mallory has another trick up her sleeve. Because her response didnâ(TM)t just say CXOPQ.VICTIM.COM was 6.6.6.0. It also contained Additional RRs pointing WWW.VICTIM.COM to 6.6.6.0."
This is, then, not quite right? Rather Mallory's response would not list an A record for CXOPQ.VICTIM.COM, but instead another delegation, plus glue? There would be no reason to process glue if an authoritative A record response was returned ..
Is the fundamental underlying issue merely that it would break too many existing configs if caching resolvers were stricter? I hope Dan Kaminsky's eventual disclosure goes into a bit more detail on this. I'd also quite like to here what DJB has to say.
Of course Mallory's response listed an A record for CXOPQ.VICTIM.COM ... and the authority for that record is listed as whatever. In addition to that is the glue that says "Hey, btw, WWW.VICTIM.COM is XYZ." Typically the glue is used to indicate the DNS authority of the information, however that DNS authority can really be anything... WWW.VICTIM.COM for all it matters, they really are free to name their name servers whatever they want.
The A record returned wouldn't be authoritative, it'd be the same kind of answer that the DNS cache would receive from its parent DNS, or what the end-user's computer would receive from its DNS cache. If you went and asked the authority for confirmation for that address, then there's no reason for the DNS cache.
There are a number of solutions, more accurately, the explanation is what the PROBLEM is, not what the SOLUTION was. That's what I'm looking forward to.
You're right. I asked my information his opinion on the matter, and he clearly said that he should be free, not so much that he wants to be free.
You know, I asked my data for their opinion, and they said the very same thing.
Also, a girl? On Slashdot? Have we broken 20% yet? The nominal on IRC seems to be 3 boys for every girl, which is just about perfect for a lot of girls....
*gasp* OMGWTFBBQ?!?!?!
You don't bailiwick every subdomain, it wouldn't work.
When asking about www.victim.com, you get an answer for aaa.victim.com, telling the difference between aaa.victim.com and ns1.victim.com would be impossible. The bailiwick can really only at best check all but the last subdomain, and even then you might get an answer about the authoritative NS server for ns1.victim.com, while asking for computer1.corp.victim.com or whatever...
You don't need the address for the NS server as you're getting a result already. If you didn't ask for the information then it shouldn't be in the reply - if it is just discard the entire packet as bogus and keep listening for the real one.
Why? Because of recursion... Rather than asking up the line to the root DNS machines, peers can talk to themselves to speed up getting answers.
Someone who knows more about how DNS works could explain better, but it's nice to get an answer back about who is authoritatively saying that's the DNS address. ("Ping, hey, ns1.google.com, what address does www.google.com have? Hm... doesn't agree with mine, looks like I can fix that information, thanks!")
Sorry, but I'm wearing the HTTP panties "403 Forbidden" :) My ports are closed until you can find the right sized diamond to activate my modules...
God, I just gave up on that last word, and it still ended up being a sexual innuendo...