Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Judicial Panel Merges NSA Spying Suits

   (Aug 12, 2006 - 2:50 AM)

   Now, correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but I think we can see where this is headed. Multiple lawsuits crop up because of this crap... fine and dandy with me, the more the merrier. So, they lump them all together as one lawsuit. Now, considering the fact that they *JUST* dismissed a lawsuit under similar grounds, could there possibly be a pattern here that relates to the fact that the Justice Department, AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon declined commenting? Nooooo..... certainly not. After all the U.S. Government has always been open and honest with its people.

2. Comment - Web Porn Labeling Proposal Approved

   (Jun 29, 2006 - 1:20 AM)

   I think this is a little too broad to be applicable. For instance... my personal archive ( http://www.idbeholda.tk ). Offensive? Yes. Obscene? Oh, God, Yes! Pornographic? Depends on your perspective of duality. The problem with this idea is that anyone who has ever posted anything that somebody could potentially find offensive in some way *MUST* put up a warning label. That sounds fairly innocuous enough, until you see where I'm headed with this. In the long run, if the law's wording were followed to a T, chances are, 90% of the population that comprises the internet community could technically have a felony charge on their hands, including the largely popular and widely known internet community of USENET. Whether or not the material contained within is actually *deemed* offensive, which doesn't just include pictures or even movies, is an entirely different matter because what is deemed as offensive to one person may not be to another individual.
   
   This new law could even be broadly determined that the wording in text files or even anonymous posts could be "offensive" to someone, therefore since there is no "prewarning" that perceived objectionable material could be provided to someone at little to no cost, who is responsible? The host, webmaster, poster, or even the person who came across material that they found either pornographic or offensive. So at what cost do we say enough is enough, and that parents need to start watching their kids? But even more importantly, what would be the percentage needed to determine if said material should be deemed objectionable, and by whom? This could even be argued down to what sort of census would be needed to determine an accurate summary of said material. While it may be a good idea to make a law that is genuinely good-hearted in nature, the broad spectrum and closed-mindedness of the issue at hand is what really makes this idea less than suitable for any person or group of people to accurately handle.

3. Comment - Wikipedia Credibility Under Fire Again

   (Dec 22, 2005 - 1:20 AM)

   @zridling
   
   This isn't about profits or money, this is about factual accuracy. Period.