everyone will be asking if someone has a saved page of the reference your looking for and they will sell it to you for a price, looks a like a new ecomerce business idea that could make someone lots of money
Now you are really thinking "outside the filter". :) Progress is being made as to not allowing ILCF to be so much of negative.
Which reminds me, has anyone told Senator Conroy about "usenet", "newsgroups" and "binaries" ?
Another "ooops" for The Filterers, eh ?
regarDS
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12
TANSTAAFL,
i dont speak israeli so i dont know that term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch", popularized by science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein in his 1966 novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"
"TANSTAAFL means that a person or a society cannot get something for nothing. Even if something appears to be free, there is always a cost to the person or to society as a whole even though that cost may be hidden or distributed"
Well worth a read as a reasonable education re: politics and how to overthrow a corrupt and tyrannical Government. :)
regarDS
i dont speak israeli so i dont know that term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch", popularized by science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein in his 1966 novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"
"TANSTAAFL means that a person or a society cannot get something for nothing. Even if something appears to be free, there is always a cost to the person or to society as a whole even though that cost may be hidden or distributed"
Well worth a read as a reasonable education re: politics and how to overthrow a corrupt and tyrannical Government. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12
derspatz writes...I doubt if ILCF is going to negatively impact on my day to day internut use in the slightest.
and if it did ?
Part of the acceptable price one has to pay in order to protect the rights of the children (yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll deem that quote of Rabbi Daniel Lapin's, as so frequently mis-used and mis-attributed in here, already included by way of reply) and the interests of Big Businesses that help sustain our economies.
TANSTAAFL, and for too long too many have been trying to eat for free at the expense of the rest of us. ILCF is but a small part of bringing about a more controlled user-pays system, among other things.
So my short answer is "fine by me".
regarDS
and if it did ?
Part of the acceptable price one has to pay in order to protect the rights of the children (yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll deem that quote of Rabbi Daniel Lapin's, as so frequently mis-used and mis-attributed in here, already included by way of reply) and the interests of Big Businesses that help sustain our economies.
TANSTAAFL, and for too long too many have been trying to eat for free at the expense of the rest of us. ILCF is but a small part of bringing about a more controlled user-pays system, among other things.
So my short answer is "fine by me".
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12
'Young people' do what they want on the net, and nobody will stop that. Not governments, not schools, not parents, nobody. We are not idiots like Senator Conroy thinks we are. We know about Tor, We know about UltraSurf, we know about anonymous proxies, we know about VPNs. And those who don't will be taught by people with a level of knowledge like my own – and people like me are hardly in short supply.
So what are you worried about ? Apparently, just like with me, neither ILCF nor Senator Conroy nor FF are going to negatively impact your day to day internut use either.
regarDS
So what are you worried about ? Apparently, just like with me, neither ILCF nor Senator Conroy nor FF are going to negatively impact your day to day internut use either.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12
Let me draw you attention once again to the ACMA Blacklist:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/webmaster/ACMA.PNG
What a pretty picture. Who made that and for whom ?
99+% of the material to be blacklisted will not actually be illegal!
How can you justify and defend such blatent prudishness?
I've not actually been given any kind of example on non illegal prudishness, but as I've said before, I doubt if ILCF is going to negatively impact on my day to day internut use in the slightest.
regarDS
http://users.bigpond.net.au/webmaster/ACMA.PNG
What a pretty picture. Who made that and for whom ?
99+% of the material to be blacklisted will not actually be illegal!
How can you justify and defend such blatent prudishness?
I've not actually been given any kind of example on non illegal prudishness, but as I've said before, I doubt if ILCF is going to negatively impact on my day to day internut use in the slightest.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12
there are far too many Good Financial Reasons for ILCF
Such as?
Such as the ones listed in the message where I wrote that.
regarDS
Such as?
Such as the ones listed in the message where I wrote that.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12
You seem to think that it's going to remove the stuff from the net entirely
No I don't, and nor do I think ILCF is going to do a perfect job of keeping "unwanted" stuff out of every home everywhere in Oz – and my many contributions in these threads should have made that sentiment clear by now.
If they want to clean up the net, spend more on law enforcement who can track down and shut down these sites
I reckon "do both". Track down what can be tracked down and shut down what can be shut down, BUT ALSO filter what can be filtered. The problem is multi-faceted and so it isn't unreasonable to assume that the solutions employed will have to be too.
that ultimately is going to help favour the profits of Big Business as well as putting the Government in more favour when it comes to families and families of traditional faith
"Big Business" isn't going to benefit at all, since most businesses have things like this which sit between the net connection and filter things as well as managing antivirus, antispyware, antispam and so on.
The context of "Big Business" as I've been using it, is not so much to do with people at work being unable to access certain material, but rather the Businesses themselves not wanting the general public to have such free and unfettered non-profit giving access to what is their property/information that they have spent good money to obtain or develop in order to sell in one way or another.
Such as (I've mentioned a number of times) the News Media and the Music and Film industries. Etc.
Sure, ILCF isn't aimed at protecting the business of those Big Businesses right off the bat but you can bet your favorite P2P software that it is rightfully on the agenda for further down the track.
Which brings me back to my point that the opponents of ILCF aren't just up against the likes of FF and most married mothers with children, it is up against some prime big businesses who have very little to lose and lots to gain by a better control and regulation of information on The Net.
Which in turn convinces me that the opponents of ILCF are backing a losing horse; there are far too many Good Financial Reasons for ILCF than against it from the POV of Big Businesses who are currently losing money that could easily be gained by the introduction of suitable filtering and controls.
regarDS
[EDIT] Spelling.
No I don't, and nor do I think ILCF is going to do a perfect job of keeping "unwanted" stuff out of every home everywhere in Oz – and my many contributions in these threads should have made that sentiment clear by now.
If they want to clean up the net, spend more on law enforcement who can track down and shut down these sites
I reckon "do both". Track down what can be tracked down and shut down what can be shut down, BUT ALSO filter what can be filtered. The problem is multi-faceted and so it isn't unreasonable to assume that the solutions employed will have to be too.
that ultimately is going to help favour the profits of Big Business as well as putting the Government in more favour when it comes to families and families of traditional faith
"Big Business" isn't going to benefit at all, since most businesses have things like this which sit between the net connection and filter things as well as managing antivirus, antispyware, antispam and so on.
The context of "Big Business" as I've been using it, is not so much to do with people at work being unable to access certain material, but rather the Businesses themselves not wanting the general public to have such free and unfettered non-profit giving access to what is their property/information that they have spent good money to obtain or develop in order to sell in one way or another.
Such as (I've mentioned a number of times) the News Media and the Music and Film industries. Etc.
Sure, ILCF isn't aimed at protecting the business of those Big Businesses right off the bat but you can bet your favorite P2P software that it is rightfully on the agenda for further down the track.
Which brings me back to my point that the opponents of ILCF aren't just up against the likes of FF and most married mothers with children, it is up against some prime big businesses who have very little to lose and lots to gain by a better control and regulation of information on The Net.
Which in turn convinces me that the opponents of ILCF are backing a losing horse; there are far too many Good Financial Reasons for ILCF than against it from the POV of Big Businesses who are currently losing money that could easily be gained by the introduction of suitable filtering and controls.
regarDS
[EDIT] Spelling.
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12
Edit: Original Message Deleted. No point. I shouldn't have responded to an obvious attempt at a Troll. Please delete.
regarDS
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12
derspatz writes...I'm suggesting that one should rise above it ... "let the dead bury the dead", and all that.
Yeah, because not getting involved works out so well...
That would depend on whether something is actually worth getting involved with. The internut in its current form is your sacred cow, not mine, and while it remains so broken, so out of control, so misused and abused, so much like a virtual Babylon and cesspit rather than clean and beautiful Eden, (etc, etc), I for one am not going to deem it worthy of involving myself in keeping it that way ... I'll deem the "Clean the Stream" mop up crews the more worthy of involvement with and support of.
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’
The "good men" are doing something; they are working on cleaning the stream and flushing the mire and disease and corruption away for the benefit of the whole community.
Tis a tough job (and obviously not popular for everyone) and I don't expect them to get it right straight off the bat, but that is not to say that the attempt and efforts should not be made at all.
Status quo is up against Big Businesses such as the News Media, Music and Film Industry, "Working Families" everywhere (especially children and the mother's of children), citizens of traditional faiths, and a Government who is historically more interested in protecting the profits (and taxes from) Big Businesses and Families over a small minority of selfish singles who although might protest about loss of rights that have neither been defined nor earned, are actually/realistically/selfishly more interested in maintaining links into the kinds of materials that either they ought not to, or at very least should be paying what is due for.
Who/what do you think is going to win when the situation is presented in those terms ?
ILCF phase one probably IS the thin end of the wedge that ultimately is going to help favour the profits of Big Business as well as putting the Government in more favour when it comes to families and families of traditional faiths.
regarDS
Yeah, because not getting involved works out so well...
That would depend on whether something is actually worth getting involved with. The internut in its current form is your sacred cow, not mine, and while it remains so broken, so out of control, so misused and abused, so much like a virtual Babylon and cesspit rather than clean and beautiful Eden, (etc, etc), I for one am not going to deem it worthy of involving myself in keeping it that way ... I'll deem the "Clean the Stream" mop up crews the more worthy of involvement with and support of.
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’
The "good men" are doing something; they are working on cleaning the stream and flushing the mire and disease and corruption away for the benefit of the whole community.
Tis a tough job (and obviously not popular for everyone) and I don't expect them to get it right straight off the bat, but that is not to say that the attempt and efforts should not be made at all.
Status quo is up against Big Businesses such as the News Media, Music and Film Industry, "Working Families" everywhere (especially children and the mother's of children), citizens of traditional faiths, and a Government who is historically more interested in protecting the profits (and taxes from) Big Businesses and Families over a small minority of selfish singles who although might protest about loss of rights that have neither been defined nor earned, are actually/realistically/selfishly more interested in maintaining links into the kinds of materials that either they ought not to, or at very least should be paying what is due for.
Who/what do you think is going to win when the situation is presented in those terms ?
ILCF phase one probably IS the thin end of the wedge that ultimately is going to help favour the profits of Big Business as well as putting the Government in more favour when it comes to families and families of traditional faiths.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12
OK, so here's the full letter I'll send off to Rudd's office today.
Mr. Rudd,
Etc. You probably should have used "PM" or "Prime Minster" there ... giving respect where it is due and all that (regardless of whether you voted for him or not. Manners and all that) but at a guess, that kind of letter is getting a bit long to get much in the way of attention or reply.
Be interested in what you get back but long experience has shown me that long-windedness gets one nowhere.
I said "shown", not "taught" or "learned". :)
Better 5 short letters sent, each covering part of the topic, than one single letter sent trying to cover the whole subject.
regarDS
Mr. Rudd,
Etc. You probably should have used "PM" or "Prime Minster" there ... giving respect where it is due and all that (regardless of whether you voted for him or not. Manners and all that) but at a guess, that kind of letter is getting a bit long to get much in the way of attention or reply.
Be interested in what you get back but long experience has shown me that long-windedness gets one nowhere.
I said "shown", not "taught" or "learned". :)
Better 5 short letters sent, each covering part of the topic, than one single letter sent trying to cover the whole subject.
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
