Bright Spark
Posts: 315 
Location: Atikokan, Ontario
Location: Atikokan, Ontario
April 20th, 2007, 01:19 PM
Oh, I agree fully, I don't think I said anything contradictory to your statement Pangloss.
My idea simply implies that with a little caution to the wind, and a small amount of decency on those who produce the content, could have produced a solution that is far less taxing and far more effective than having to constantly police the Internet for sites to block.
Irregardless, I highly doubt that children (and even more importantly, children without credit cards) are in the pornography market's demographic, which was my entire point to having the domain names doled out in the first place, for blocking programs like Netnanny.
I would disagree also disagree with your statement on the Internet as anarchy. Upon its formation as a military tool, and even into its infancy as a university networker and communicator, the Internet was extremely well policed, kept in good order and was without incident. It wasn't until its popularity boomed and it became an information, advertisement and entertainment tool, and the guidelines were removed, that it became a chaotic mess. Au contraire, I believe the Internet relies on anarchy to survive in its current form; it's when we try to tell people what they can do that resentment is born. Thus, little has ever been tried in terms of telling people what they can and cannot do, international laws notwithstanding.
Oh, I agree fully, I don't think I said anything contradictory to your statement Pangloss.
My idea simply implies that with a little caution to the wind, and a small amount of decency on those who produce the content, could have produced a solution that is far less taxing and far more effective than having to constantly police the Internet for sites to block.
Irregardless, I highly doubt that children (and even more importantly, children without credit cards) are in the pornography market's demographic, which was my entire point to having the domain names doled out in the first place, for blocking programs like Netnanny.
I would disagree also disagree with your statement on the Internet as anarchy. Upon its formation as a military tool, and even into its infancy as a university networker and communicator, the Internet was extremely well policed, kept in good order and was without incident. It wasn't until its popularity boomed and it became an information, advertisement and entertainment tool, and the guidelines were removed, that it became a chaotic mess. Au contraire, I believe the Internet relies on anarchy to survive in its current form; it's when we try to tell people what they can do that resentment is born. Thus, little has ever been tried in terms of telling people what they can and cannot do, international laws notwithstanding.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,535 
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Location: Calgary, Alberta
April 20th, 2007, 01:30 PM
Who says the 'net is a chaotic mess? And even if it is, is that such a bad thing?
"Little has been done in terms of telling people what they can and cannot do. . ." What are you smoking? This world is filled to the brim with people all too eager to tell us what to do. The 'net is no exception.
As a BTW: throwing "caution to the wind" means to act recklessly, not with caution. There is also no such word as "irregardless" - the word you are looking for is "regardless."
Pangloss
Quoting snowles
The 'net ain't anarchy? Silly boy, tell me, who is the King of the net? Where are the laws enforceable? When a country as big a China tries to censor the contents of the 'net for its citizens people all over the world work (successfully) to thwart that censorship. That isn't resentment - it is freedom.
Oh, I agree fully, I don't think I said anything contradictory to your statement Pangloss.
My idea simply implies that with a little caution to the wind, and a small amount of decency on those who produce the content, could have produced a solution that is far less taxing and far more effective than having to constantly police the Internet for sites to block.
Irregardless, I highly doubt that children (and even more importantly, children without credit cards) are in the pornography market's demographic, which was my entire point to having the domain names doled out in the first place, for blocking programs like Netnanny.
I would disagree also disagree with your statement on the Internet as anarchy. Upon its formation as a military tool, and even into its infancy as a university networker and communicator, the Internet was extremely well policed, kept in good order and was without incident. It wasn't until its popularity boomed and it became an information, advertisement and entertainment tool, and the guidelines were removed, that it became a chaotic mess. Au contraire, I believe the Internet relies on anarchy to survive in its current form; it's when we try to tell people what they can do that resentment is born. Thus, little has ever been tried in terms of telling people what they can and cannot do, international laws notwithstanding.
My idea simply implies that with a little caution to the wind, and a small amount of decency on those who produce the content, could have produced a solution that is far less taxing and far more effective than having to constantly police the Internet for sites to block.
Irregardless, I highly doubt that children (and even more importantly, children without credit cards) are in the pornography market's demographic, which was my entire point to having the domain names doled out in the first place, for blocking programs like Netnanny.
I would disagree also disagree with your statement on the Internet as anarchy. Upon its formation as a military tool, and even into its infancy as a university networker and communicator, the Internet was extremely well policed, kept in good order and was without incident. It wasn't until its popularity boomed and it became an information, advertisement and entertainment tool, and the guidelines were removed, that it became a chaotic mess. Au contraire, I believe the Internet relies on anarchy to survive in its current form; it's when we try to tell people what they can do that resentment is born. Thus, little has ever been tried in terms of telling people what they can and cannot do, international laws notwithstanding.
Who says the 'net is a chaotic mess? And even if it is, is that such a bad thing?
"Little has been done in terms of telling people what they can and cannot do. . ." What are you smoking? This world is filled to the brim with people all too eager to tell us what to do. The 'net is no exception.
As a BTW: throwing "caution to the wind" means to act recklessly, not with caution. There is also no such word as "irregardless" - the word you are looking for is "regardless."
Pangloss
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,154
April 20th, 2007, 01:45 PM
I miss the days of the 90's where the net was reborn each day. Where chats proliferated and, despite the widespread goofery, you felt something new and wonderful and liberating was rising about the world. It's too bad common sense didn't rule most people's lives. Then we might not witness this incessant chatter about ever greater security and policing. Given how many dumbasses are in the Canadian House, who's to know how many peers they have globally?
I miss the days of the 90's where the net was reborn each day. Where chats proliferated and, despite the widespread goofery, you felt something new and wonderful and liberating was rising about the world. It's too bad common sense didn't rule most people's lives. Then we might not witness this incessant chatter about ever greater security and policing. Given how many dumbasses are in the Canadian House, who's to know how many peers they have globally?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,470
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
April 20th, 2007, 02:04 PM
Quoting tamarin
everything's getting worse isnt it tamarin? As time goes by life just gets less and less tolerable to you.
I miss the days of the 90's where the net was reborn each day. Where chats proliferated and, despite the widespread goofery, you felt something new and wonderful and liberating was rising about the world. It's too bad common sense didn't rule most people's lives. Then we might not witness this incessant chatter about ever greater security and policing. Given how many dumbasses are in the Canadian House, who's to know how many peers they have globally?
Bright Spark
Posts: 315
Location: Atikokan, Ontario
Location: Atikokan, Ontario
April 20th, 2007, 02:08 PM
Well, I had a nice rebuttal planned, but Firefox just crapped out on me, so I will try again.
First off, knock it off with the condescension, you are clearly getting testy with me for no other reason than I am questioning your statements. If you had read the entirety of my post, I was the one saying that the Internet is anarchy, and that it relies on it. You were the one in your OP who said that it was not until forces tried to dictate it. I also never said that the chaos caused by the Internet's anarchy is a bad thing, I have been merely been trying to state that with some foresight, policing it for children and blocking sites would have been far easier than the current methods of search and destroy being used by blocking programs now. You seem awfully antsy with me, and I'm not really sure why.
I will give you your statement that there are a lot of people trying to tell others what do to on the Internet, but when placed within its context, the amount of information and rights that are suppressed is quite minor in terms of its overall impact; to deny this is really quite laughable. If you had any of my posts on this board on the subject, you would know that I am a huge proponent of individual rights on the Internet. However, I know as well as anyone that like in real life, personal responsibility has to play a hand in our actions there as well. We cannot expect individual rights and then hide behind a cloak of secrecy and anonymity when it is deemed convenient. When you consider the number of sites that promote hate, incest, rape, abuse, racism, violence and everything else that go without incident, while at the same time this country bans cigarette ads from magazines in an effort to reduce the taint on the nation's youth, you can see the parallels between society and online society don't even come close to matching up. Further to the point, though there has been numerous pieces of legislation worldwide to try and stop the flow of downloading, they have been proven to be futile at best, and a grand total of zero cases have been ruled on in an American or Canadian court (with the exception of the pre-trial extortion tactics of the RIAA and MPAA). Downloading occurs at a far more frequent pace, and bootlegging in monsterous volume has become second nature in developing countries - a new study showed that fewer than 300 copies of Windows Vista have been sold in China since its release, a country with more than a billion people. Like it or not, we (and especially we as Canadians) can do almost whatever we want on the Internet without fear of criminal or civil suits; why you are bitter about those trying to "tell us what to do" is not only cryptic but petty.
Oh, and caution to the wind actually means to do something, regardless of the risks involved, not to act recklessly. And irregardless is a non-standard word, a deviation of 'regardless' that is meant for impact. I have a BA in English, so you can get off your high horse and knock off the lectures. Frankly though, if you've been reduced to whiny rhetoric and trying to (vainly) police my grammar, your argument as a whole (what little there is of it) comes across as being pretty weak; for someone who is arguing that the Internet is wrongfully full of people trying to tell others what to say and do, you sure come off as hypocritical.
Well, I had a nice rebuttal planned, but Firefox just crapped out on me, so I will try again.
First off, knock it off with the condescension, you are clearly getting testy with me for no other reason than I am questioning your statements. If you had read the entirety of my post, I was the one saying that the Internet is anarchy, and that it relies on it. You were the one in your OP who said that it was not until forces tried to dictate it. I also never said that the chaos caused by the Internet's anarchy is a bad thing, I have been merely been trying to state that with some foresight, policing it for children and blocking sites would have been far easier than the current methods of search and destroy being used by blocking programs now. You seem awfully antsy with me, and I'm not really sure why.
I will give you your statement that there are a lot of people trying to tell others what do to on the Internet, but when placed within its context, the amount of information and rights that are suppressed is quite minor in terms of its overall impact; to deny this is really quite laughable. If you had any of my posts on this board on the subject, you would know that I am a huge proponent of individual rights on the Internet. However, I know as well as anyone that like in real life, personal responsibility has to play a hand in our actions there as well. We cannot expect individual rights and then hide behind a cloak of secrecy and anonymity when it is deemed convenient. When you consider the number of sites that promote hate, incest, rape, abuse, racism, violence and everything else that go without incident, while at the same time this country bans cigarette ads from magazines in an effort to reduce the taint on the nation's youth, you can see the parallels between society and online society don't even come close to matching up. Further to the point, though there has been numerous pieces of legislation worldwide to try and stop the flow of downloading, they have been proven to be futile at best, and a grand total of zero cases have been ruled on in an American or Canadian court (with the exception of the pre-trial extortion tactics of the RIAA and MPAA). Downloading occurs at a far more frequent pace, and bootlegging in monsterous volume has become second nature in developing countries - a new study showed that fewer than 300 copies of Windows Vista have been sold in China since its release, a country with more than a billion people. Like it or not, we (and especially we as Canadians) can do almost whatever we want on the Internet without fear of criminal or civil suits; why you are bitter about those trying to "tell us what to do" is not only cryptic but petty.
Oh, and caution to the wind actually means to do something, regardless of the risks involved, not to act recklessly. And irregardless is a non-standard word, a deviation of 'regardless' that is meant for impact. I have a BA in English, so you can get off your high horse and knock off the lectures. Frankly though, if you've been reduced to whiny rhetoric and trying to (vainly) police my grammar, your argument as a whole (what little there is of it) comes across as being pretty weak; for someone who is arguing that the Internet is wrongfully full of people trying to tell others what to say and do, you sure come off as hypocritical.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,535
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Location: Calgary, Alberta
April 20th, 2007, 02:24 PM
Snowles:
Take a pill. A BA in English, huh? That would be "An Appeal To Authority," a child's tactic in debate.
If I am being petty in pointing out your semantic and grammatical errors, which were just an aside, anyway - what are you being in defending your mistakes so stridently?
Methinks you troll.
Pangloss
Snowles:
Take a pill. A BA in English, huh? That would be "An Appeal To Authority," a child's tactic in debate.
If I am being petty in pointing out your semantic and grammatical errors, which were just an aside, anyway - what are you being in defending your mistakes so stridently?
Methinks you troll.
Pangloss
World Police
Posts: 4,488
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
April 20th, 2007, 02:40 PM
Quoting snowles
Still, how can a search engine determine if it is a child doing the query rather then an adult, short of the search provider requiring a credit card? Would you have it so if you are accessing a .xxx domain, you would need to provide a CC or government ID to enter? How would it be possible to implement that across non-canadian hosts?
It's too bad a little bit of foresight and control wasn't exercised as the Internet rose in popularity. Blocking engines to prevent children from viewing questionable materials would have been infinitely easier had domain names simply been doled out based on the actual content (which was the actual intent, but never followed through) instead of allowing everyone .com addresses.
Les
Posts: 5,726
Location: 50 acres in Kootenays BC
Location: 50 acres in Kootenays BC
April 20th, 2007, 03:29 PM
"Conservtaive MP want ISP's licensed and offensive material blocked. "
Ah, Harpy's authoritarian religiosity is becoming blatant. Canada, welcome to theocracy. I wonder if we should start calling Stephen Canada's first Imam.
"Conservtaive MP want ISP's licensed and offensive material blocked. "
Ah, Harpy's authoritarian religiosity is becoming blatant. Canada, welcome to theocracy. I wonder if we should start calling Stephen Canada's first Imam.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,470
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
April 20th, 2007, 04:45 PM
I'm just pointing out (although I admit maybe not in the best way) that your outlook seems very negative. Why not see the good side of things sometimes, be a bit light hearted, not see the whole world as a terrible awful place.
As far as I can tell the internet is pretty much the same place as it always was, it just takes a little bit of dodging and know-how to get away from the crap. In some ways things are a lot better, we have higher speeds and better ideas... some of the sites designed now are actually starting to be useful, unlike the websites I remember coming across so often in the 90's which would be a single page of information without a single link or interactive feature.
Lighten up tamarin, not everything is bad.
I'm just pointing out (although I admit maybe not in the best way) that your outlook seems very negative. Why not see the good side of things sometimes, be a bit light hearted, not see the whole world as a terrible awful place.
As far as I can tell the internet is pretty much the same place as it always was, it just takes a little bit of dodging and know-how to get away from the crap. In some ways things are a lot better, we have higher speeds and better ideas... some of the sites designed now are actually starting to be useful, unlike the websites I remember coming across so often in the 90's which would be a single page of information without a single link or interactive feature.
Lighten up tamarin, not everything is bad.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,154
April 20th, 2007, 05:25 PM
Herman, the 90's were the golden age of the Internet. Little if any regulation. So many people were trying to add so many interesting extras that you could laugh all night long. Posting boards proliferated. And you could sign on with a different name each time. And if you wanted to be mischievous, you could sign on as a well known user and assume his profile and positions. Even receive his private mail. 'Twas a learning experience. I remember one well known troublemaker and waiting for him to log off so I could quickly jump in and receive his pm's. It was a startling insight into the predatory nature of so much of that time. The planned attacks, the orchestrated wolf packs. I miss it. A lot of goofin' off for sure but it was a real frontier. I often wonder if some of those early posters still frequent boards today. Some were excellent.
Herman, the 90's were the golden age of the Internet. Little if any regulation. So many people were trying to add so many interesting extras that you could laugh all night long. Posting boards proliferated. And you could sign on with a different name each time. And if you wanted to be mischievous, you could sign on as a well known user and assume his profile and positions. Even receive his private mail. 'Twas a learning experience. I remember one well known troublemaker and waiting for him to log off so I could quickly jump in and receive his pm's. It was a startling insight into the predatory nature of so much of that time. The planned attacks, the orchestrated wolf packs. I miss it. A lot of goofin' off for sure but it was a real frontier. I often wonder if some of those early posters still frequent boards today. Some were excellent.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,470
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
April 20th, 2007, 06:14 PM
I'm not sure being able to sign in as someone else and read their private emails is a good thing.
I'm not sure being able to sign in as someone else and read their private emails is a good thing.
