111–120 of 176 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean frogs I assume. Pre-boiled frogs don't mind a new dip.
It's a legend anyhow, but an apt one. http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
The truth is that the myth is true. However they have already censored all of the boiling frog videos from the internets.
In my previous line of work, as a criminal lawyer, this is how this would be used: Q: "Mr Smith, isn't it true that you willingly removed a filter on you Internet connection, places there for your safety, and the safety of your children, and now your connection allows you to watch hard core porn?" A: "But... I did it because.." Q: "Yes or no, Mr. Smith? Did you ask for the filters to be removed?" A: "Yes, bu..." Q: T…
"No"
If the lawyer wants to be an ass then he can enjoy some excessively pedantic replies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A voluntary filter is not tyranny and it's fucking disgusting to compare optional filtering of semi-random webcontent with governments who murder and torture their citizens. You are the one that made the equivalence, not the person to which you replied. Nice straw man. This UK porn filter is a step on a path. Yes, that current position is not tyranny, but it's a step on the path to it. Frogs can't be dropped into boi…
You mean frogs I assume. Pre-boiled frogs don't mind a new dip.
Sorry for the 19th century text wall, but this is so pertinent that it hurts. "Next in importance to personal freedom is immunity from suspicions, and jealous observation. Men may be without restraints upon their liberty: they may pass to and fro at pleasure: but if their steps are tracked by spies and informers, their words noted down for crimination, their associates watched as conspirators, who shall say that they…
In a despotism these roles are reversed, in government, secrecy is assumed. For the people, there is no privacy. Government is not longer the servant but the master.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is filtering on most mobile phone data contracts in the UK. YOU CAN OPT OUT. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO OPT OUT OF THE PROPOSED FILTERS TOO. Justifications: "Children have too easy access to very hard core porn. Provide filtering, or we'll regulate you".
>YOU CAN OPT OUT. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO OPT OUT OF THE PROPOSED FILTERS TOO. ..Thereby putting your name on a list of people who like to look at $blocked_thing. Why this is problematic is left as an exercise for the reader. Any such filtering should be OPT IN by default. Not the other way around. Further, what data children have the ability to access is the concern of their parents, not the government.
# obviously not real sql
select * from citizens where (citizen.id not in opt_in_list)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People often dismiss out of hand the notion that tyranny could possibly take hold over the first world democracies of the west in the 21st century. And to that I can only sigh. Perhaps it will not be known as tyranny, perhaps someone will come up with a different, more apt name once, if, we are in the clutches of it, but it will be every bit as bad and every bit as difficult to throw off, if not more so. Jesus fuck…
A voluntary filter is not tyranny and it's fucking disgusting to compare optional filtering of semi-random webcontent with governments who murder and torture their citizens. You are the one that made the equivalence, not the person to which you replied. Nice straw man. This UK porn filter is a step on a path. Yes, that current position is not tyranny, but it's a step on the path to it. Frogs can't be dropped into boi…
This has been called "kettling" in police jargon regarding crowd-control. For an older example, look to Roman general Fabius Maximus (from which the Fabian Society took its name) who used a new tactic [1], consisting of attrition, to defeat his enemies. Also, might as well mention that Sung Tzu (correct me if I'm wrong) said the weakest and dumbest way to enact political change is via military action, preferring subversion instead.
There was a debate in Finland when the child porn filter was introduced a few years back. One guy had a website where he kept database of sites which were blocked but did not contain any child porn. Aftermath was that the site was added to list and that raised even more questions about the whole censorship idea. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsiporno.info ) Unlike in Britain, the consumers did not have an option t…
Aha! Another great business opportunity reveals itself!
If you built a relationship with the filter provider, you could get companies to pay you to have their competitor's websites added to to the list of blocked websites!
Sorry for the 19th century text wall, but this is so pertinent that it hurts. "Next in importance to personal freedom is immunity from suspicions, and jealous observation. Men may be without restraints upon their liberty: they may pass to and fro at pleasure: but if their steps are tracked by spies and informers, their words noted down for crimination, their associates watched as conspirators, who shall say that they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the problem with Tor is that it's slooooooooooow.
Running a relay to help could be a good start. It's pretty simple[0][1]. The risks associated with being a Tor exit node do not apply to all relay types and the network can be helped greatly by running a standard relay too (standard relays only pass encrypted traffic from A to B). [0] https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-doc-relay.html.en [1] https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-relay-debian.html.en
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And some Americans dismiss their constitution as out of date. It seems more relevant than ever.
Even so, there are a lot of flaws within it unless some people are considered 3/5ths of persons on the basis of their skin. The idea is to transcend, not regress…