derspatz writes...Admittedly, in their worlds free of spam,
that system assumes that people care what others think of them.
the fact that known spammers (and criminals) continue to spam
Oh, I should have described it a little better. At least one of the mentioned authors described in detail the fictional email/messaging system that made spam all but impossible. Once again, it involved everyone having their own permanent implant id/email address and no such thing as an anon id, nor the ability to create bogus ones. As the sending of anything was all biometrically linked, the only way a spammer could get their message out without giving themselves away, was to drug and kidnap someone and use their interface ... but in a world of constant passive surveillance etc, etc, etc, it wasn't worth the trouble.
Anyway, do you think we are going to end up with similar sorts of communication systems described in popular sci-fi ? Do you think we will end up opting for implants in relation to ID, debit/credit, network/voip access and the like ? Actually RFID implants for ID and debit/credit are already being used here and there if you care to look it up ... so how long before it is far more common along with imbedded mobile phone type devices that are also linked into the web to skype over to anywhere it can be tapped into ?
I reckon it and a whole lot more is all closer than we might imagine. No wonder the Power That Be want to try and get in with a level of greater control now ...
regarDS
Friday, October 31, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
he was responding to derspatz who can only get 256/64
I can get whatever speed I want, 256/64 is all I'm prepared to pay for, and I mainly only did that so the phone was freed up for my partner to use. I'm just not driven to keep up with the latest and greatest while it still isn't all that great.
regarDS
I can get whatever speed I want, 256/64 is all I'm prepared to pay for, and I mainly only did that so the phone was freed up for my partner to use. I'm just not driven to keep up with the latest and greatest while it still isn't all that great.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
So how do you propose the new internet without any control from ISPs or government will make people safer?
Policy4 ? :)
Actually, I more prefer the ideas on the subject by authors Ian M. Banks and Peter F. Hamilton, and truth be told, I've no memory of ever reading Gibson.
Admittedly, in their worlds free of spam, with complete free'n'easy access to any sort of information at any time (including pr0n), a lot of historical/traceable data retained in worlds having much in the way of passive surveillance and wet-ware identification systems rendering anonymity pointless and impractical considering a lack of non electronic legal tender, all makes for illegal behaviour somewhat difficult to get away with.
Which works as a great deterrent ... well, at least in print.
No point asking me the details on how it will be done, for I too am mostly one of those useless consumers along for the ride these days. I really would love to see the end of our reliance on ISPs and telcos though.
[whole bunch of probably unworkable ideas typed in then deleted ... maybe another time]
regarDS
Policy4 ? :)
Actually, I more prefer the ideas on the subject by authors Ian M. Banks and Peter F. Hamilton, and truth be told, I've no memory of ever reading Gibson.
Admittedly, in their worlds free of spam, with complete free'n'easy access to any sort of information at any time (including pr0n), a lot of historical/traceable data retained in worlds having much in the way of passive surveillance and wet-ware identification systems rendering anonymity pointless and impractical considering a lack of non electronic legal tender, all makes for illegal behaviour somewhat difficult to get away with.
Which works as a great deterrent ... well, at least in print.
No point asking me the details on how it will be done, for I too am mostly one of those useless consumers along for the ride these days. I really would love to see the end of our reliance on ISPs and telcos though.
[whole bunch of probably unworkable ideas typed in then deleted ... maybe another time]
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Enjoying your glorified dial up?
It serves, [deleted], it serves.
regarDS
It serves, [deleted], it serves.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
did I miss anything?
Yes, how about if everyone goes to VPNing and the filters are left guarding a figurative empty cell ?
The Government will be happy enough because they will be able to say they did everything they could/was expected of them, and move on to doing the next thing on the list required to keep their voters onboard.
At the end of the day, Senator Conroy only wants to look good so he keeps his job for as long as he can and take home the biggest guarenteed super/benfits package at the end of it all ...
regarDS
Yes, how about if everyone goes to VPNing and the filters are left guarding a figurative empty cell ?
The Government will be happy enough because they will be able to say they did everything they could/was expected of them, and move on to doing the next thing on the list required to keep their voters onboard.
At the end of the day, Senator Conroy only wants to look good so he keeps his job for as long as he can and take home the biggest guarenteed super/benfits package at the end of it all ...
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
derspatz writes...The Hebrew letters engraved into the very ring I'm always wearing, Maniac. :)
hehe this is the hebrew letters i have לנשוך את התחת שלי
Ouch, I bet that was unpleasant to have tattooed. :)
Shalom
hehe this is the hebrew letters i have לנשוך את התחת שלי
Ouch, I bet that was unpleasant to have tattooed. :)
Shalom
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
This cause is useless.
When your old, you can tell your grandkids you fought to keep child porn on the net. I am sure they will appreciate that.
Bwahahaha. Post of the day I reckon.
regarDS
When your old, you can tell your grandkids you fought to keep child porn on the net. I am sure they will appreciate that.
Bwahahaha. Post of the day I reckon.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
no how are things with 256/64 ??? we want to know ...
A little bit faster than dialup if you remember what that was like, [deleted].
Anyway, isn't this proposed ISP level content filtering going to give you everything you need to know about experiencing 256/64 ? :)
regarDS
A little bit faster than dialup if you remember what that was like, [deleted].
Anyway, isn't this proposed ISP level content filtering going to give you everything you need to know about experiencing 256/64 ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Hitler video's out.
Derspatz might appreciate it because he is constantly using jewish phrases.
Don't worry...this too shall pass
The Hebrew letters engraved into the very ring I'm always wearing, [deleted]. :)
The video has at last finished downloading for me and I agree – it is a laugh and a half. Loved the "vpn" bit, and the end was perfect.
Well done, who ever it was who made that !
regarDS
Derspatz might appreciate it because he is constantly using jewish phrases.
Don't worry...this too shall pass
The Hebrew letters engraved into the very ring I'm always wearing, [deleted]. :)
The video has at last finished downloading for me and I agree – it is a laugh and a half. Loved the "vpn" bit, and the end was perfect.
Well done, who ever it was who made that !
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
DS, your inconsistencies are starting to show. First you claim you want to protect us against things that *you* don't believe we should be allowed to view or stumble across.
Then in other messages you are advocating filtering to force the creation of an uncontrollable version of the net such as William Gibson's cyberspace.
And in some messages, both, whilst also maintaining a view that while our elective government can try and control that which is illegal both online and offline, it should, for it is obliged to. Where is the "I" in any of that richary ?
Also, there is no inconsistency for my views are not mutually exclusive in terms of the overall picture and progression I am viewing this all from.
Once again, here is my personal take on this.
1) Our elected government is obliged to administer law and protection and all that when it comes to things deemed illegal.
2) This is done reasonably well (but obviously not perfectly) in our offline world, and I for one as a citizen of Oz am glad of it and support it regardless that our elected government is not the one I voted for.
3) The internut is used extensively within Oz for all sorts of legal and illegal activity.
4) Just as it is our elected governments duty as per points 1 and 2, it similarly should apply to point 3. In other words, the same sort of regulation and application of law should apply, and as a citizen of Oz I support our elected government in their attempts.
5) I also recognise that governments are generally not to be trusted (only a fool would not think that) and as far as possible within the support of reasonable and just laws, one should never place anything too much in their control that they aren't justified in having or are likely to misuse.
6) Computer based communications are a hobby and interest of mine that goes back a long long time (was once even quite involved in radio, just like you are now) and I am in somewhat awe of what has been managed thus far in that regard in such a short period of time. I remember the days of FIDOnet when our main feeds between Oz and the USofA relied upon the donated time, effort, money, and good will of just two people; a Born Again Christian, and a (self professed) "Rampant Homosexual" as he called himself. We've certainly come a long way since so few were doing something great for so many, and I for one don't want it to stop with just what we have now regardless of what it is used for.
7) Yes, I share the dream of many that our internut be taken to Gibson cyberspace and Peter F.Hamilton and Ian M. Banks types of levels ... and beyond. Don't you ?
8) The necessary and right to attempt control that I want and support our elected government to bring to bear on our McWeb as it currently is, may well be just the kick up the arse the more clever of us (and less corporately bound) to help take this puppy to beyond the control of governments, but also AT LONG LAST less a slave to telcos and ISPs. I have a dream and I'm calling for change.
My pragmatism is consistent and I'm merely holding to more than one reason why ISP-level content filtering should be implemented.
While the nasties can be stopped, they should be ... and not only for the children – and it is ok to include "teh govamin" as one of those potential nasties. :)
Actually, I imagine there would be far more protection "for the children" in the sci-fi versions of our future net, than there is now, anyway – and I do expect it to happen sooner rather than later.
Anyway, perhaps a visit to my latest blog entry might help clarify my consistent persistent position in all of this, richary. ;)
regarDS
Then in other messages you are advocating filtering to force the creation of an uncontrollable version of the net such as William Gibson's cyberspace.
And in some messages, both, whilst also maintaining a view that while our elective government can try and control that which is illegal both online and offline, it should, for it is obliged to. Where is the "I" in any of that richary ?
Also, there is no inconsistency for my views are not mutually exclusive in terms of the overall picture and progression I am viewing this all from.
Once again, here is my personal take on this.
1) Our elected government is obliged to administer law and protection and all that when it comes to things deemed illegal.
2) This is done reasonably well (but obviously not perfectly) in our offline world, and I for one as a citizen of Oz am glad of it and support it regardless that our elected government is not the one I voted for.
3) The internut is used extensively within Oz for all sorts of legal and illegal activity.
4) Just as it is our elected governments duty as per points 1 and 2, it similarly should apply to point 3. In other words, the same sort of regulation and application of law should apply, and as a citizen of Oz I support our elected government in their attempts.
5) I also recognise that governments are generally not to be trusted (only a fool would not think that) and as far as possible within the support of reasonable and just laws, one should never place anything too much in their control that they aren't justified in having or are likely to misuse.
6) Computer based communications are a hobby and interest of mine that goes back a long long time (was once even quite involved in radio, just like you are now) and I am in somewhat awe of what has been managed thus far in that regard in such a short period of time. I remember the days of FIDOnet when our main feeds between Oz and the USofA relied upon the donated time, effort, money, and good will of just two people; a Born Again Christian, and a (self professed) "Rampant Homosexual" as he called himself. We've certainly come a long way since so few were doing something great for so many, and I for one don't want it to stop with just what we have now regardless of what it is used for.
7) Yes, I share the dream of many that our internut be taken to Gibson cyberspace and Peter F.Hamilton and Ian M. Banks types of levels ... and beyond. Don't you ?
8) The necessary and right to attempt control that I want and support our elected government to bring to bear on our McWeb as it currently is, may well be just the kick up the arse the more clever of us (and less corporately bound) to help take this puppy to beyond the control of governments, but also AT LONG LAST less a slave to telcos and ISPs. I have a dream and I'm calling for change.
My pragmatism is consistent and I'm merely holding to more than one reason why ISP-level content filtering should be implemented.
While the nasties can be stopped, they should be ... and not only for the children – and it is ok to include "teh govamin" as one of those potential nasties. :)
Actually, I imagine there would be far more protection "for the children" in the sci-fi versions of our future net, than there is now, anyway – and I do expect it to happen sooner rather than later.
Anyway, perhaps a visit to my latest blog entry might help clarify my consistent persistent position in all of this, richary. ;)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Hitler video's out.
http://www.overstream.net/view.php?oid=s4tsi5tzlgtt&noplay=1
Is there anything in it about sparrows/spatzen ? I'd like to commence my download of it, but you know how things are at 256/64 ... it really has to be worth the wait. :)
regarDS
http://www.overstream.net/view.php?oid=s4tsi5tzlgtt&noplay=1
Is there anything in it about sparrows/spatzen ? I'd like to commence my download of it, but you know how things are at 256/64 ... it really has to be worth the wait. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
This cause is useless.
Could this be another who has/is seen/seeing the light on the matter ?
regarDS
Could this be another who has/is seen/seeing the light on the matter ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
They want to control US not just child pornography or terrorist activities. They want to control the information we receive through the media and Internet.
You've got a resounding YES from me on that observation [deleted], which brings me back to my next "bigger picture" aspect of the tapestry that relates to global communications.
"The Web", which John Gilmore said "treats censorship as damage and routes around it", is becoming increasingly vulnerable to potentially crippling attacks by special interest groups (such as the Chinese Government) that in the end, won't present a pretty picture when it comes to the "route around" to "damage" ratio.
Complaining to the special interest groups to stop trying to do what they are doing isn't going to present a lasting solution.
Only changing/evolving what we have by way of global communications into something new and better will.
[deleted] reckons that I should "keep on waiting for "the next evolution of digital communication" but it won't happen in your lifetime.", but I beg to differ and with good reason.
I have already seen (and been but one tiny drop in the ocean in helping) computer based global communications become what it already has in such a relatively short period of time.
I do not for one moment think that what we have is the be all and end all. We WILL achieve so much more with it, and probably sooner rather than later if suitably motivated.
I reckon the Real Fear of those who crave and weild power is to be rendered irrelevant and without what they are so addicted to.
BTW, At the moment, I reckon it isn't just our elected government that is threatening The Net. It is also our dependance on telcos and ISPs.
regarDS
You've got a resounding YES from me on that observation [deleted], which brings me back to my next "bigger picture" aspect of the tapestry that relates to global communications.
"The Web", which John Gilmore said "treats censorship as damage and routes around it", is becoming increasingly vulnerable to potentially crippling attacks by special interest groups (such as the Chinese Government) that in the end, won't present a pretty picture when it comes to the "route around" to "damage" ratio.
Complaining to the special interest groups to stop trying to do what they are doing isn't going to present a lasting solution.
Only changing/evolving what we have by way of global communications into something new and better will.
[deleted] reckons that I should "keep on waiting for "the next evolution of digital communication" but it won't happen in your lifetime.", but I beg to differ and with good reason.
I have already seen (and been but one tiny drop in the ocean in helping) computer based global communications become what it already has in such a relatively short period of time.
I do not for one moment think that what we have is the be all and end all. We WILL achieve so much more with it, and probably sooner rather than later if suitably motivated.
I reckon the Real Fear of those who crave and weild power is to be rendered irrelevant and without what they are so addicted to.
BTW, At the moment, I reckon it isn't just our elected government that is threatening The Net. It is also our dependance on telcos and ISPs.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
[deleted] writes...What do internode, iinet and telstra have in common?
do tell please
The letters "e" and "t" ... which means they can all phone home.
regarDS
do tell please
The letters "e" and "t" ... which means they can all phone home.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
It only stands to reason that just as we seek to limit the import/export/spread of that deemed illegal in our offline world, the same should apply in our online world.
derspatz, I think you're missing the point: It's not the end we're in dissagreement with, it's the means.
That is good to know, [deleted]. I too have expressed my doubt as to the likelyhood of resounding success in relation to the ISP-Level content filtering, but it is nice to know that I'm not alone in the view that internut content in Oz should be brought into line with offline line content when it comes to illegal material and activities.
It's the means, not the end we're concerned with.
So, since we are in somewhat agreement re: ISP-Level "a bad way of doing it", what ideas do you have in how to achieve the required/desired end result ?
regarDS
derspatz, I think you're missing the point: It's not the end we're in dissagreement with, it's the means.
That is good to know, [deleted]. I too have expressed my doubt as to the likelyhood of resounding success in relation to the ISP-Level content filtering, but it is nice to know that I'm not alone in the view that internut content in Oz should be brought into line with offline line content when it comes to illegal material and activities.
It's the means, not the end we're concerned with.
So, since we are in somewhat agreement re: ISP-Level "a bad way of doing it", what ideas do you have in how to achieve the required/desired end result ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
What you do behind closed doors is nobody else's damn business.
So fire up those meth labs, cook up those explosives, pirate those DVDs, cyber-stalk Britney from school and spam bully that smart-arse kid with glasses who always does better than you in science, and browse/save for distribution on thumbdrive to your mates the latest degrading images from Europe of sex-slaved mafia kidnap victims. It's all ok, because you are doing it from behind closed doors and it is nobody else's damn business.
regarDS
So fire up those meth labs, cook up those explosives, pirate those DVDs, cyber-stalk Britney from school and spam bully that smart-arse kid with glasses who always does better than you in science, and browse/save for distribution on thumbdrive to your mates the latest degrading images from Europe of sex-slaved mafia kidnap victims. It's all ok, because you are doing it from behind closed doors and it is nobody else's damn business.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2001192.htm
KEVIN RUDD: From a Christian perspective we are custodians of the planet. We have a responsibility too ensure that those who come after us have a planet which is habitable.
Which gets back to what I was saying about our Duty of Care in relation to not only ourselves and family, but also our neighbore, communities, town, society, and nation.
"Golden Rule" kinda stuff, [deleted].
regarDS
KEVIN RUDD: From a Christian perspective we are custodians of the planet. We have a responsibility too ensure that those who come after us have a planet which is habitable.
Which gets back to what I was saying about our Duty of Care in relation to not only ourselves and family, but also our neighbore, communities, town, society, and nation.
"Golden Rule" kinda stuff, [deleted].
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Jurisdiction is never a problem
Respectfully, utter garbage, [deleted] ... and I suspect you know it.
regarDS
Respectfully, utter garbage, [deleted] ... and I suspect you know it.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
derspatz writes...No [deleted], I attend no church or stadium, warm no pew or grandstand seat (not even at xmas or grand final day), repeat no ritual/ceremony or intone some anthem/chant. About the only thing Holy to me is The Truth, and even then I jugde myself to be not worthy ...
Hang on, derspatz, now you're really going out there.
When you say, "No," you mean that your personal definition of "religious" isn't the same one that most people would understand.
I'm reply to this fully expecting moderation to make both this and your message to rightfully disappear Mark, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
That being said, my "No" is exactly as I said it. I am not religious "as most people would understand" and in fact you your self well know that I am quite anti-religion in its many forms, whether it be to do with any of the worlds major or minor Religions, or sporting activities, or Environtologists and their Church of Environtology, or the Cult of Darwin and Dawkins, or the disturbing new cult of "Obama is the Messiah" or anything else that folk to choose to blindly waste their lives and common sense being devoted to in a religious manner.
My sacred cow is to have no sacred cow, and I am a Fanatical Religious Zealot when it comes to exposing and attacking Fanatical Religious Zealotry when it darkens my path.
No point typing any more on this ... it's only going to be filtered.
regarDS
Hang on, derspatz, now you're really going out there.
When you say, "No," you mean that your personal definition of "religious" isn't the same one that most people would understand.
I'm reply to this fully expecting moderation to make both this and your message to rightfully disappear Mark, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
That being said, my "No" is exactly as I said it. I am not religious "as most people would understand" and in fact you your self well know that I am quite anti-religion in its many forms, whether it be to do with any of the worlds major or minor Religions, or sporting activities, or Environtologists and their Church of Environtology, or the Cult of Darwin and Dawkins, or the disturbing new cult of "Obama is the Messiah" or anything else that folk to choose to blindly waste their lives and common sense being devoted to in a religious manner.
My sacred cow is to have no sacred cow, and I am a Fanatical Religious Zealot when it comes to exposing and attacking Fanatical Religious Zealotry when it darkens my path.
No point typing any more on this ... it's only going to be filtered.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
He has a right to *air* those opinions, yes, but those opinions do not give him the right to determine how others live their lives.
Words fail me. Now there is a first.
regarDS
Words fail me. Now there is a first.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
derspatz writes...The McNet/internut
do you make up new words just to be annoying, or is that some sad attempt at humour?
You're not trying to stifle my imaginative/creative output there are you [deleted] ?
But since you ask, I make up new words to make the point that suits me and to help convey more succinctly in my mountains of waffle some of the more basic observations I have made and would like to convey. Cheers for only offering me two possible responses to your question, and pardon me for suggesting that there might be more than two answers possible.
Yes, I do it to convey humour and yes, I realise that some might find the words annoying ... or annoyed that they've not been so imaginative or creative. Yes, there might even be those who find humour annoying too when it comes to the apparent sacred cow that is The Web.
Oz has developed commonly agreed upon (obviously not unanimous) notions of what should be deemed illegal for the sake of the society and culture we want.
show me where there is "common" agreement on the type of things they're talking about filtering THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE FILTERED.
Surely if the idea is to make online filters match what we use as figurative offline filters in relation to material deemed illegal in both places, agreement is already a given ? As for a 100% success rate, show me where that is already being achieved in the offline world.
In short, it isn't. Mistakes are made. Similarly, mistakes will be made with the attempts to bring about law and order to the internut.
Obviously you are not suggesting that we scrap all laws and disband the police force and fire all judges because the legal system doesn't get it right every time ... so why appear to be suggesting that law and order should not be brought to your particular order of McNet just because it isn't going to get it totally right every time ?
regarDS
do you make up new words just to be annoying, or is that some sad attempt at humour?
You're not trying to stifle my imaginative/creative output there are you [deleted] ?
But since you ask, I make up new words to make the point that suits me and to help convey more succinctly in my mountains of waffle some of the more basic observations I have made and would like to convey. Cheers for only offering me two possible responses to your question, and pardon me for suggesting that there might be more than two answers possible.
Yes, I do it to convey humour and yes, I realise that some might find the words annoying ... or annoyed that they've not been so imaginative or creative. Yes, there might even be those who find humour annoying too when it comes to the apparent sacred cow that is The Web.
Oz has developed commonly agreed upon (obviously not unanimous) notions of what should be deemed illegal for the sake of the society and culture we want.
show me where there is "common" agreement on the type of things they're talking about filtering THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE FILTERED.
Surely if the idea is to make online filters match what we use as figurative offline filters in relation to material deemed illegal in both places, agreement is already a given ? As for a 100% success rate, show me where that is already being achieved in the offline world.
In short, it isn't. Mistakes are made. Similarly, mistakes will be made with the attempts to bring about law and order to the internut.
Obviously you are not suggesting that we scrap all laws and disband the police force and fire all judges because the legal system doesn't get it right every time ... so why appear to be suggesting that law and order should not be brought to your particular order of McNet just because it isn't going to get it totally right every time ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
stop accusing those who decide not to reply to you, or not to read your posts, of censorship
What the ? Examples ? I think you may have me confused with someone else, because I really don't know what you are referring to here, tardis42.
regarDS
What the ? Examples ? I think you may have me confused with someone else, because I really don't know what you are referring to here, tardis42.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Actually I believe it was developed to be impervious to nuclear attack – a decentralised system where any cause of obstruction would be skirted around.
A bottleneck like, hmm.. an ISP filter is an obstruction to be skirted around. Nothing more.
Hi D. The quote (as I provided the other day) to go with what you are referring to is:
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." – John Gilmore.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
regarDS
A bottleneck like, hmm.. an ISP filter is an obstruction to be skirted around. Nothing more.
Hi D. The quote (as I provided the other day) to go with what you are referring to is:
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." – John Gilmore.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
If they know what sites to block/place on these "blacklists", then why not hand that over to the police to investigate?
Jurisdiction ?
regarDS
Jurisdiction ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Are you honestly that stupid? From your posts I do not believe so, ergo I must assume that, again, you are trolling for a response.
Not trying to shout down/shut down an opinion and view you can neither agree with nor support there are you Org'asmo ?
I can assure you that there are particpants in this forum who if pressed to be really honest about it, can vouch that the basic views/position I'm sharing/taking now are totally consistent with views/positions I was sharing/taking 17 years ago.
Oh, and one of those particpants would be Mark Newton for that matter.
So yes, according to you, unless you are willing to see more than one side to all of this along with more different levels of "right", I must honestly either be "that stupid" or a whole bunch of things that are not necessarily trolling.
I for one prefer as far as possible to neither live, think, nor judge by such dualistic/limited "if it ain't xmas, it must be easter" type filters.
I reckon that the essential truth of this filtering thing is that "censorship is bad some but not all of the time", and that "the internut should be free and unfettered some but not all of the time".
Governments get it right some but not all of the time. You and I are obviously going to have different ideas re: the current topic at hand and how right or wrong our elected government have got it, but who knows what we might agree upon on some other topic ?
Oh, and one should only think/deal in absolutes some but not all of the time ... :)
regarDS
Not trying to shout down/shut down an opinion and view you can neither agree with nor support there are you Org'asmo ?
I can assure you that there are particpants in this forum who if pressed to be really honest about it, can vouch that the basic views/position I'm sharing/taking now are totally consistent with views/positions I was sharing/taking 17 years ago.
Oh, and one of those particpants would be Mark Newton for that matter.
So yes, according to you, unless you are willing to see more than one side to all of this along with more different levels of "right", I must honestly either be "that stupid" or a whole bunch of things that are not necessarily trolling.
I for one prefer as far as possible to neither live, think, nor judge by such dualistic/limited "if it ain't xmas, it must be easter" type filters.
I reckon that the essential truth of this filtering thing is that "censorship is bad some but not all of the time", and that "the internut should be free and unfettered some but not all of the time".
Governments get it right some but not all of the time. You and I are obviously going to have different ideas re: the current topic at hand and how right or wrong our elected government have got it, but who knows what we might agree upon on some other topic ?
Oh, and one should only think/deal in absolutes some but not all of the time ... :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
despatz, without meaning to offend, are you a religious person?
No [deleted], I attend no church or stadium, warm no pew or grandstand seat (not even at xmas or grand final day), repeat no ritual/ceremony or intone some anthem/chant. About the only thing Holy to me is The Truth, and even then I judge myself to be not worthy ...
Yes, a long time ago the acronym FRZ (Fanatical Religious Zealot) was coined for/because of me ... but that was long, long ago and a lot has happened since then. :)
But getting back on topic, I am all for our elected government's attempt at controlling illegal material on the internet not because any kind of sense of "I know what's good for you, so you should do what I say" (where "I" = "derspatz"), but rather because it is the Right Thing for our elected to be attempting in relation to bringing the landscape of the internut into line with the law of the land.
In short, regardless of how successful it is, to not attempt this would be wrong, or at very least at odds with what happens offline.
The McNet/internut isn't some sacred cow to be worshipped and be untouchable ... it is merely just yet another tool designed to serve us and be moulded and continually rebuilt and modified as is best to serve us in the same way any other tool or system is used in our societies.
Oz has developed commonly agreed upon (obviously not unanimous) notions of what should be deemed illegal for the sake of the society and culture we want. It only stands to reason that just as we seek to limit the import/export/spread of that deemed illegal in our offline world, the same should apply in our online world.
Thus, our elected government whom we are obliged to support once elected, are only trying to do what they were elected to do by attempting to bring Oz internut content into line with what is legal in our offline world.
Back to your first question [deleted], how about we agree that you don't ask me anymore about what sporting teams I support, and I don't ask you about yours, as it usually only decends into pointless and boring "my team is better than your team" type stuff, and that ain't what this thread is about. :)
regarDS
No [deleted], I attend no church or stadium, warm no pew or grandstand seat (not even at xmas or grand final day), repeat no ritual/ceremony or intone some anthem/chant. About the only thing Holy to me is The Truth, and even then I judge myself to be not worthy ...
Yes, a long time ago the acronym FRZ (Fanatical Religious Zealot) was coined for/because of me ... but that was long, long ago and a lot has happened since then. :)
But getting back on topic, I am all for our elected government's attempt at controlling illegal material on the internet not because any kind of sense of "I know what's good for you, so you should do what I say" (where "I" = "derspatz"), but rather because it is the Right Thing for our elected to be attempting in relation to bringing the landscape of the internut into line with the law of the land.
In short, regardless of how successful it is, to not attempt this would be wrong, or at very least at odds with what happens offline.
The McNet/internut isn't some sacred cow to be worshipped and be untouchable ... it is merely just yet another tool designed to serve us and be moulded and continually rebuilt and modified as is best to serve us in the same way any other tool or system is used in our societies.
Oz has developed commonly agreed upon (obviously not unanimous) notions of what should be deemed illegal for the sake of the society and culture we want. It only stands to reason that just as we seek to limit the import/export/spread of that deemed illegal in our offline world, the same should apply in our online world.
Thus, our elected government whom we are obliged to support once elected, are only trying to do what they were elected to do by attempting to bring Oz internut content into line with what is legal in our offline world.
Back to your first question [deleted], how about we agree that you don't ask me anymore about what sporting teams I support, and I don't ask you about yours, as it usually only decends into pointless and boring "my team is better than your team" type stuff, and that ain't what this thread is about. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
ok that's enough from me.. for now
I object to your self-censorship, [deleted] ! Desist desisting immediately, or else ! :)
regarDS
I object to your self-censorship, [deleted] ! Desist desisting immediately, or else ! :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
3 For (you should have your computers taken away from you permanently)
You're advocating filtering ?
regarDS
You're advocating
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
Australia needs a bill of rights. It's as simple as that.
Only if prefixed with a "Bill of Responsibilities."
On responsibilities and rights, I offer: "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country" – JFK
On getting ISP-Level content Filtering to work reasonably well, I offer: "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" – JFK
regarDS
Only if prefixed with a "Bill of Responsibilities."
On responsibilities and rights, I offer: "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country" – JFK
On getting ISP-Level content Filtering to work reasonably well, I offer: "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" – JFK
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt5
To do this, some determination of legal or illegal/appropriate or innapropriate needs to be made.
derspatz writes
Agree, although hasn't that already been done ?
Yes we have laws that state what is legal. To my knowledge, no censorship board has classified the entire internet based on Australian law, no.
Ah, communication clash/packet crash. I was indicating that I was under the impression that "some determination of legal or illegal/appropriate or innapropriate" has already been done in relation to the OFFLINE world. One would think that the same would apply to the online world, hence my question "hasn't that already been done".
If you are happy to have a machine try to determine what is legal before you get to see it, that's fine if you keep in on your PC thanks.
I am already more than happy to have a machine try and determine whether email etc should come to me or not, and I would like it extended to easily blat/twit a whole bunch of other stuff for not only myself but also those whom I have a duty of care in relation to even when I'm not necessarily in the immediate vicinity of.
That would include my family, my neighbore, my communities, my town, my society, and my nation.
Anyway, isn't that part of the reason human kind is so busy making machines ? To do the work for us that we don't want to have to do or is too distasteful to do ?
Sure, we all have the God Given Right to choose to drink poison if that is what we want to do, but I for one am also of the view that we have the responsibility to try and ensure poison isn't accidentally quaffed by those yet to know what is or isn't good for them, as well as try and prevent those who do know better from choosing to similarly harm themselves.
Which is why our society has developed and implemented laws and punishments and preventitive measures in relation to things deemed illegal. We've got that kind of system working as well as can be expected in the offline world, but now it is long overdue that similar attention is brought to the online world – which in turn, I might add, will obviously contribute towards improving things in that regarding in the offline world.
So, bring on the machines and let them rule, for I doubt if I'll see anything other than improvement for my preferred use of teh McWeb.
regarDS
derspatz writes
Agree, although hasn't that already been done ?
Yes we have laws that state what is legal. To my knowledge, no censorship board has classified the entire internet based on Australian law, no.
Ah, communication clash/packet crash. I was indicating that I was under the impression that "some determination of legal or illegal/appropriate or innapropriate" has already been done in relation to the OFFLINE world. One would think that the same would apply to the online world, hence my question "hasn't that already been done".
If you are happy to have a machine try to determine what is legal before you get to see it, that's fine if you keep in on your PC thanks.
I am already more than happy to have a machine try and determine whether email etc should come to me or not, and I would like it extended to easily blat/twit a whole bunch of other stuff for not only myself but also those whom I have a duty of care in relation to even when I'm not necessarily in the immediate vicinity of.
That would include my family, my neighbore, my communities, my town, my society, and my nation.
Anyway, isn't that part of the reason human kind is so busy making machines ? To do the work for us that we don't want to have to do or is too distasteful to do ?
Sure, we all have the God Given Right to choose to drink poison if that is what we want to do, but I for one am also of the view that we have the responsibility to try and ensure poison isn't accidentally quaffed by those yet to know what is or isn't good for them, as well as try and prevent those who do know better from choosing to similarly harm themselves.
Which is why our society has developed and implemented laws and punishments and preventitive measures in relation to things deemed illegal. We've got that kind of system working as well as can be expected in the offline world, but now it is long overdue that similar attention is brought to the online world – which in turn, I might add, will obviously contribute towards improving things in that regarding in the offline world.
So, bring on the machines and let them rule, for I doubt if I'll see anything other than improvement for my preferred use of teh McWeb.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
I think the protests (and I'll be there) are happening a little early. We need another week or two to get this message out to the people.
Well, I've done my bit for putting the message "out to the people" by getting off, uh, on my butt and updating my own blog on the subject.
It prolly doesn't read quite the way various folk in here would like it to, but any raising of awareness is a Good Thing for The Cause, yes ?
As you can imagine, I won't be attending any protests. Me and my placard/sandwich board would probably end up being physically filtered in ways too extreme to be shown on public media where The Children might happen to be watching. :)
regarDS
Well, I've done my bit for putting the message "out to the people" by getting off, uh, on my butt and updating my own blog on the subject.
It prolly doesn't read quite the way various folk in here would like it to, but any raising of awareness is a Good Thing for The Cause, yes ?
As you can imagine, I won't be attending any protests. Me and my placard/sandwich board would probably end up being physically filtered in ways too extreme to be shown on public media where The Children might happen to be watching. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
To do this, some determination of legal or illegal/appropriate or innapropriate needs to be made.
Agree, although hasn't that already been done ?
The volume of information and the changing nature of it is such that people can't do the determination. That leaves only automated systems.
Agree with that too ... who would want the literal job even if they were able to do it ?
One of the systems I evaluated 8 years ago sifted through employee email (was never deployed) and built up a weekly automated report ranking the naughtiest of employees to go to management (btw management said that they must be excluded from such a system).
Can anyone see the dodge/excuse "Parliamentary privilege" coming up once the filters are going ? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege
Yet another weak and corruptible link in the chain ... that will need to be reinforced against.
regarDS
Agree, although hasn't that already been done ?
The volume of information and the changing nature of it is such that people can't do the determination. That leaves only automated systems.
Agree with that too ... who would want the literal job even if they were able to do it ?
One of the systems I evaluated 8 years ago sifted through employee email (was never deployed) and built up a weekly automated report ranking the naughtiest of employees to go to management (btw management said that they must be excluded from such a system).
Can anyone see the dodge/excuse "Parliamentary privilege" coming up once the filters are going ? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege
Yet another weak and corruptible link in the chain ... that will need to be reinforced against.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4
Trying to solve a social problem with a technical solution usually never ends well.
Depends on the social problem one would think, but in the context of the topic at hand, IMBO, thems wise words, [deleted].
regarDS
Depends on the social problem one would think, but in the context of the topic at hand, IMBO, thems wise words, [deleted].
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
