quote:Its because the current solutions/technology doesn't work well enough. Any teenager could probably work around a filter in seconds.
Some parents who do not have the technical capability, time or money to purchase/manage the exisiting solution need something more solid.
And the only way to do that is to manage the content, to regulate it more. Otherwise, it remains uncontrolled and unregulated.
Couldn't a parent sign up for an AOL-ish whitewashed list of sites if it were offered? (i.e., the "Clean ISP" would only carry preregistered sites)
How could that be worked around easier than what you propose?
It has to be at the ISP level for sure--that makes it harder. The Channel aspect of CP80 is only one element of the whole solution.
You still need to deal with foriegn sites that are not held accountable to US laws.
You still need to help low-tech etc. parents who just want to flip a switch and feel fairly confident that their kids are surfing porn.
You have to control proxy servers.
And yes, porn is being pushed over other ports, but today kids 11-17 are the largest consumers of porn on the Internet.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I understand that. And maybe you are willing to have to do that--but why should I have to have a pop-up blocker and turn off my images. Why should I have to impact my free speech.
Because you don't want to see it? I mean, that's the point, right? When you get down to it, the point is to avoid what you don't want to see.
Simple solution. Works great for me.
quote:Doesn't it bother you that you might be missing a pop-up that is actually useful? Or that you have to make a few more clicks to access content?
Nope. Never saw a popup that was actually useful to me, and I'm a total control freak. I hate having things shoved under my nose that I don't want. If I don't ask for it, I don't want it.
quote:I understand it is a small thing, but it is the priniciple of the fact that you have to experience the Internet differently.
I can't parse this.
quote:If there was a solution that allowed you to not have to have a pop-up blocker on or turn off you images--why wouldn't you want it?
Because I'm a total control freak. *grin
The only way I can really control the content of what I see is to do what I do. And it matters enough to me that it makes me happy to do it.
If it were a matter of relying on other people to regulate the content for me, I'd OCD on making sure they were doing their jobs, and that the laws were worded just right, and that the appropriate fines were levied -- nah, too much work, and not enough control.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Have you ever seen a pop-up that was actually useful, just out of curiousity?
Yes actually. It was a smart use of context sensitive advertisment. I was looking for computer components on a random site and the pop up was for a site selling discount parts. It worked for me--but that was an exception.
However, when there is value within a context, I doubt anyone would be so opposed to them.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's fine. But what do you do about misrepresented links, ads, popup traps, etc. How do you avoid those when you can't see them coming.
If you can't manage your web browsing better, I have little sympathy.
quote:If I do my very best to avoid porn, and then am lead to a hijacked domain that redirects to porn site that pops a couple a dozen porn windows open, have not my rights to free speech been attacked?
No. Absolutely not. It's possible some other rights have been violated, but not your free speech rights. Just like your free speech rights aren't violated when you see something you don't like on television.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Because you don't want to see it? I mean, that's the point, right? When you get down to it, the point is to avoid what you don't want to see.
So the 10 commandments can be in a public building--just don't look at them if they bother you?
Is that your solution?
quote:The only way I can really control the content of what I see is to do what I do. And it matters enough to me that it makes me happy to do it.
If it were a matter of relying on other people to regulate the content for me, I'd OCD on making sure they were doing their jobs, and that the laws were worded just right, and that the appropriate fines were levied -- nah, too much work, and not enough control.
But it has been done before and can be done again. But it does take people talking about--like in this group--and wanting to do something about it.
So I do appreciate your comments.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It has to be at the ISP level for sure--that makes it harder.
Why? what makes that harder? (I honestly don't get it. )
quote:You still need to deal with foriegn sites that are not held accountable to US laws.
I don't get this, either. If the foreign sites were unacceptable, they wouldn't be placed on the list of what my "Clean ISP" would carry. In fact, the "Clean ISP" could reference only cached sites, so there would be an extra level control for those that want it that way.
quote:You still need to help low-tech etc. parents who just want to flip a switch and feel fairly confident that their kids are surfing porn.
Well, sure. So we cache some major .gov sites, some recipe sites, some games sites (child-friendly), etc., and the kids can pick and choose from the info already cached.
quote:You have to control proxy servers.
Why? (honest question -- I promise! )
quote:And yes, porn is being pushed over other ports, but today kids 11-17 are the largest consumers of porn on the Internet.
Do you have a cite? (Just curious, and if it isn't handy, no biggie.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. Absolutely not. It's possible some other rights have been violated, but not your free speech rights. Just like your free speech rights aren't violated when you see something you don't like on television. [/QB]
Not true. And Janet Jackson was fined for that very act during the NFL half time peep show.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So the 10 commandments can be in a public building--just don't look at them if they bother you?
Is that your solution?
If by "public" you mean "open to the public," then, yes, they can be.
If by "public" you mean "a government owned building in which government business is conducted," then some displays of the 10 commandments are permitted, some aren't. See recent court decisions for guidance.
BUT, even a cursory examination shows this to be an unrelated issue. Government endorsement of religion is different than private speech.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is a choice that each individual must make. Not afraid of all the world has to offer? Get a standard connection. Want to be more conservative? Get a CP80 connection--with all its limitations.
But at least there is a choice on the table.
*blink* But if you want to do this TODAY, there are ISPs out there which offer whitelisted solutions -- AND free software packages which do the same thing.
Your port solution doesn't actually add any real functionality, and has the added wrinkle of requiring legislative intervention.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT might not think it's a biggie, but I do. I think the majority of porn consumed on the internet requires a credit card number, and most kids age 11 - 17 don't have one. If they steal their parent's and use it, that shouldn't last more than one month, which would make it hard for them to be the largest consumers of internet porn.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So the 10 commandments can be in a public building--just don't look at them if they bother you?
Is that your solution?
Well, no. I'm not offended by seeing the 10 Commandments.
quote:But it has been done before and can be done again. But it does take people talking about--like in this group--and wanting to do something about it.
Ah, gracious. You see, I've never seen something done like that that didn't need to be done and redone ad infinatum. It never seems to stick, it always seems to need constant fiddling.
quote:So I do appreciate your comments.
I appreciate yours, too! I'm a total technophobe, and you have been very patient at explaining things. Thank you.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not true. And Janet Jackson was fined for that very act during the NFL half time peep show.
You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of free speech issues. She wasn't fined because she violated someone's free speech. (In fact, she wasn't fined at all, the broadcasters were.)
The broadcasters were fined because they violated FCC decency rules, which are justified by the limited availability and government control of the broadcast spectrum.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It has to be at the ISP level for sure--that makes it harder.
Why? what makes that harder? (I honestly don't get it. )
for example, a parent has a filter on an computer at home. Her son comes home with a friend who has a laptop--without a filter. He plugs in, dials up. Unfiltered Internet access.
quote:You still need to deal with foriegn sites that are not held accountable to US laws.
I don't get this, either. If the foreign sites were unacceptable, they wouldn't be placed on the list of what my "Clean ISP" would carry. In fact, the "Clean ISP" could reference only cached sites, so there would be an extra level control for those that want it that way.
This is along the lines of what CP80 is suggesting.
quote:You still need to help low-tech etc. parents who just want to flip a switch and feel fairly confident that their kids are surfing porn.
Well, sure. So we cache some major .gov sites, some recipe sites, some games sites (child-friendly), etc., and the kids can pick and choose from the info already cached.
Again, along the lines of what CP80 is suggesting.
quote:You have to control proxy servers.
Why? (honest question -- I promise! )
A proxy server can be used to access any other site. So although playboy.com is blocked a proxy could access its content and then display it to you.
quote:And yes, porn is being pushed over other ports, but today kids 11-17 are the largest consumers of porn on the Internet. Do you have a cite? (Just curious, and if it isn't handy, no biggie.)
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: CT might not think it's a biggie, but I do. I think the majority of porn consumed on the internet requires a credit card number, and most kids age 11 - 17 don't have one. If they steal their parent's and use it, that shouldn't last more than one month, which would make it hard for them to be the largest consumers of internet porn.
Check the link above.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your port solution doesn't actually add any real functionality, and has the added wrinkle of requiring legislative intervention. [/QB]
Correct, but any filtering that is not backed-up by law is always going to be playing catch up. Today they need to block one url, tomorrow its 1000 different other ones.
There is no accountability to pornographers and there needs to be.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not true. And Janet Jackson was fined for that very act during the NFL half time peep show.
You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of free speech issues. She wasn't fined because she violated someone's free speech. (In fact, she wasn't fined at all, the broadcasters were.)
The broadcasters were fined because they violated FCC decency rules, which are justified by the limited availability and government control of the broadcast spectrum.
She actually did. I just don't think anyone sued here.
And besides, I have had people smarter than me explain that free speech works both ways. The right under law to say what you feel--and the right under law to listen to what you want to.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:for example, a parent has a filter on an computer at home. Her son comes home with a friend who has a laptop--without a filter. He plugs in, dials up. Unfiltered Internet access.
This is why ISP-level whitelisting seems preferable to me. Then anything that gets plugged in at that house will access the same content. And, as TomD said, this is already being offered at many local ISPs. (what am I missing here? )
quote:This is along the lines of what CP80 is suggesting.
quote:Again, along the lines of what CP80 is suggesting.
Then how does it differ from what I am suggesting? (Remember, you have to treat me like I'm dumb, because about this stuff, I surely am.)
quote:A proxy server can be used to access any other site. So although playboy.com is blocked a proxy could access its content and then display it to you.
Wait -- if the sites are cached, how does a proxy sneak in new info? Granted, this would mean limiting which parts of the internet you could access, but if it's important, then it's worth it.
Jeez Louise, how did they come up with that number?
I'm a total control freak about studies, too. If I can't see it published in a peer-reviewed journal, then it doesn't deserve my attention. And for the ones that make the cut, I go over any important ones with a fine-toothed comb, anyway.
*grin
Edit: In God we trust; all others, we virus scan.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
If you are in a public park and don't like something someone is saying, your only recourse is to leave, barring a few very specific exceptions. You have no right to not listen if you insist on staying in the park.
The Janet Jackson fines were not issued because viewers' free speech rights were violated.
If you wish to be an effective advocate for your cause, you would do well to learn the basics of the first amendment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Correct, but any filtering that is not backed-up by law is always going to be playing catch up. Today they need to block one url, tomorrow its 1000 different other ones.
Oh, good grief, myarro, you are so trusting! I assume that the legislation and enforcement would never totally keep up with those who want to shove things under my nose. That's why I do the low-tech and reliable stuff like turn off images and load them manually.
I'm pretty sure most people out there are going to find a way to dodge the law, at least for awhile. I need to hang around you and pick up some of the idealism. *smile
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: for example, a parent has a filter on an computer at home. Her son comes home with a friend who has a laptop--without a filter. He plugs in, dials up. Unfiltered Internet access.
Without the parent's account information, including password, set up on the friend's laptop I don't really think this would work the way you seem to think it would. At least, it wouldn't at my house with my ISP.
And I appreciate the link. Without more information on the study, I don't really think it proves anything, but it's nice to know where you got the numbers from. I especially like this part:
quote:Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., the chief sponsor of the Democrats' bill and a mother of 9-year-old twins, concedes the bill won't solve the problem and says anything government can do is secondary.
"Parents," says Lincoln, "are without a doubt the best line of defense for their children in trying to make sure they monitor what their children are watching and participating in."
quote: If you are in a public park and don't like something someone is saying, your only recourse is to leave, barring a few very specific exceptions. You have no right to not listen if you insist on staying in the park.
Right. But the privacy of your home and the computer in your home is totally different than a public place.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, just so we're clear: I like porn. That is, I like to see the porn I like to see, not the porn someone else wants to shove under my nose. Even if they have exquisite taste -- remember, I'm a total control freak.
If someone were to want to share some porn they found to be up to my standards, well, they would first have to cultivate a longterm relationship with me. (At least 5 years. I take my private intimacies seriously.)
Then I would suggest a tentative outreach, say, along the lines of inviting me to a play in Chicago, and "happening by" an exhibit at the Art Institute which touched on these themes indirectly. A hesitant conversational topic could then be broached, and we could return to discuss the subject more thoroughly in another month or two. Perhaps over tea.
That would be the civilized way to share such pleasantries. Not of this pop-up stuff. So caddish.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is no accountability to pornographers and there needs to be.
Even assuming we grant this, it's worth noting that the legislative element of your proposal is in fact the key element of your proposal, and sadly the weakest part. We have so far failed to demand accountability of pretty much anyone on the Internet.
If you're serious about this, proposing a non-anonymous Internet is in fact a better suggestion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Added for clarity: "Right. But the privacy of your home and the computer in your home is totally different than a public place. "
Not if you wish to connect it to the public internet. Information superhighway, electronic town square. . . going on the internet you are making the choice to leave the privacy of your computer and connect to public content, including some that you may find objectionable. Luckily, there are some great solutions available for people who wish to limit and restrict their own internet experience. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Correct, but any filtering that is not backed-up by law is always going to be playing catch up. Today they need to block one url, tomorrow its 1000 different other ones.
There is no accountability to pornographers and there needs to be.
Even filtering that is backed by law is going to be playing catch-up, for two reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread:
1) Feasibility. A law that placed significant filtering requirements on ISPs would likely not pass. If it did pass, the courts would not uphold it. And if the courts did uphold it, ISPs would either ignore it or go out of business due to the impossibility of implementation.
2) Jurisdiction. A law passed in the US only applies to content providers and ISPs in the US. Anyone outside the US can still publish anything they want, and anyone in the US can access it.
1). CP80 would not hold ISPs accountable. They would only require them to offer a choice--just like cable tv.
2). And as I have stated as many times as you have poised the question, US law does not have to reach beyond its jurisdiction. ONLY those people who subscribe to a CP80 solution would have the IP address of non-compliant content providers/countries blocked.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I have shown CT porn and I haven't known her anywhere near 5 years. I am so abashed. And there wasn't even any tea involved.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If someone were to want to share some porn they found to be up to my standards, well, they would first have to cultivate a longterm relationship with me. (At least 5 years. I take my private intimacies seriously.)
Whew. *wipes brow* I'm in under the wire.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, you know you get special dispensations. That's just the way you are. We packed extra space-warp time into the henna party. (Must've been something to do with the Turkish Delight.)
Well, Tom, I guess it's about time, then. *grin
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Added for clarity: "Right. But the privacy of your home and the computer in your home is totally different than a public place. "
Not if you wish to connect it to the public internet. Information superhighway, electronic town square. . . going on the internet you are making the choice to leave the privacy of your computer and connect to public content, including some that you may find objectionable. Luckily, there are some great solutions available for people who wish to limit and restrict their own internet experience.
So if you pick up your phone and dial a number, I can hijack that call and start selling you garbage?
I may connect to an enourmous public network, but I am still deciding and choosing what I want to see. You don't have the right to push somehting on me.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right. But the privacy of your home and the computer in your home is totally different than a public place.
You click on a link, you've decided to go to that site. If you don't want to see porn, stay at sites you are sure won't have it.
This can be done fairly easily with, say, a whitelist.
Agreed. But whitelist don't always work. Filtering is always in catch up mode. And there is no accountability.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if you pick up your phone and dial a number, I can hijack that call and start selling you garbage?
If you dial a phone number you see in a magazine, you might get porn if that's what the phone number connects to.
By taking a smidgeon of care, you cannot be "hijacked." If you go to only sites you know and trust, you won't see porn.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Agreed. But whitelist don't always work. Filtering is always in catch up mode. And there is no accountability.
if you make your own whitelist, then it will work. What is the problem?
Accountability is from the provider YOU choose to provide a white list. Sue them or choose another provider if it doesn't work.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if you pick up your phone and dial a number, I can hijack that call and start selling you garbage?
Well, yeah, if you're calling a party line free-for-all. If you are just calling one specific person, then, no -- at least it seems to me. That's why a whitelist would make sense, no?
quote:I may connect to an enourmous public network, but I am still deciding and choosing what I want to see. You don't have the right to push somehting on me.
I fervently hope you find a solution which allows you to restrict in full what you yourself will see, myarro. I'm not being facetious -- feeling used and threatened is an awful feeling.
I think you'll find that there are excellent options out there already, if you look. All the best.
posted
This is a fascinating discussion. I find myself wondering if myarro knows as much about some of the people he's talking to as the rest of spectators do...
There are several highly qualified IT admins and so forth here. I don't speak that language personally, but I'd bet that Tom D and fugu know what they are talking about. Just from experience, from the help they have given other people here.
You've also been arguing law with at least one attorney, and juvenile statistics with a pediatrician whose main focus is research, not patient care (unless I am mistaken).
I am not knowledgable in any of these areas, but many of these people I have met personally, and I know they aren't just internet wannabes manufacturing credentials for forum cache.
But I believe you have a system that you believe in, and I'm glad to see you remaining so pleasant about it all.
And I'm still listening. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if you pick up your phone and dial a number, I can hijack that call and start selling you garbage?
If you dial a phone number you see in a magazine, you might get porn if that's what the phone number connects to.
By taking a smidgeon of care, you cannot be "hijacked." If you go to only sites you know and trust, you won't see porn.
So what is the difference between limiting yourself to sites that you know and trust and having the Internet categorized for you into sites you can trust and not trust?
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by myarro: So if you pick up your phone and dial a number, I can hijack that call and start selling you garbage?
1. When I place a phone call I know who I am calling, and am calling only that person. When you surf the web, you can choose to know what sites you visit and visit only those sites. As has been mentioned several times, pop-up blockers exist and work. No one can hijack your internet usage if you take easily available percautions. If I start dialing random numbers and happen to get an obscene caller, I'll hang up. If you're clicking random links and you get a porn site, hit the back button.
2. By connecting myself to the public phone network, I open myself up for telemarkers, who can call and try to sell me something, yes. I'm sure you'll mention the do not call list, but companies with an existing relationship with me can still call and try to sell me something. Just like companies who's websites I visit can place ads trying to sell me something.
3. I can choose to have an unlisted number. You can choose to use parental controls on your computer.
4. Even if you did manage to hijack my phone call in progress, you can't make me give you my credit card number, so no, you can't sell me something against my will.
5. To take the comparison to kids, I happen to work for the phone company, and deal regularly with peole who's kids have called 900 numbers without their knowledge/permission. So, just like the internet, if kids try hard enough they can use the phone to access content their parents don't want them too. Are you going to cancel your phone line? Or are you going take responsibility for parenting your children?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Agreed. But whitelist don't always work. Filtering is always in catch up mode. And there is no accountability.
if you make your own whitelist, then it will work. What is the problem?
Accountability is from the provider YOU choose to provide a white list. Sue them or choose another provider if it doesn't work.
Okay, lets say you include funplace.com for your kids. Months from now it goes out of business. It gets hijacked by a pornographer and turned into a redirect for their porn site.
quote:So what is the difference between limiting yourself to sites that you know and trust and having the Internet categorized for you into sites you can trust and not trust?
I think you mean, "what is the difference between limiting yourself to sites that you know and trust and having the government force providers to categorize the Internet for you into sites you can trust and not trust?"
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what is the difference between limiting yourself to sites that you know and trust and having the Internet categorized for you into sites you can trust and not trust?
(Control! Of course.
With the former, you are in control. With the latter, you still have to practice CONSTANT VIGILANCE.
If you want a job done right, do it yourself. *nods sharply
quote:Okay, lets say you include funplace.com for your kids. Months from now it goes out of business. It gets hijacked by a pornographer and turned into a redirect for their porn site.
Whitelist failed.
And if you are paying a whitelist provider, they will either catch it or you will sue them for breach of contract.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A moderately large, moderately competent could run frequent WHOIS checks to see if registration has changed for whitelisted sites. Not hard, and it could be profitable if enough people want the service.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what is the difference between limiting yourself to sites that you know and trust and having the Internet categorized for you into sites you can trust and not trust?
(Control! Of course.
With the former, you are in control. With the latter, you still have to practice CONSTANT VIGILANCE.
If you want a job done right, do it yourself. *nods sharply
)
Sure. When was the last time you built a car, milked a cow, or developed your own flu vaccine.
I think the vigilance applies to watching elected officials to make choices that are good for the people they represent.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, lets say you include funplace.com for your kids. Months from now it goes out of business. It gets hijacked by a pornographer and turned into a redirect for their porn site.
Whitelist failed.
And if you are paying a whitelist provider, they will either catch it or you will sue them for breach of contract.
That contract does not exist nor will it ever because they know they cannot guarantee the whitelist will be always up to date. that is the problem.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if the issue was you and your family not seeing porn, there wouldn't be a problem here. But for some reason, you seem to think other people aren't competetant to keep themselves and their families from seeing porn, and need your help. Otherwise, if you just want a safe place on the internet to hang out, you'd be pushing and opt-in solution instead of an opt-out solution, and we would all tell you to go ahead and enjoy yourself because it wouldn't infringe on our rights or businesses.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That contract does not exist nor will it ever because they know they cannot guarantee the whitelist will be always up to date. that is the problem.
If people aren't willing to pay for such a service, then why should the government impose it?
And if they are willing to pay for such a service, then it will exist.
And the whitelist can't get out of date as far as being overinclusive with a modicum of care. Of course, sites will get added to it quite slowly, but that's a different issue.
quote:A moderately competent perl script could do this, and it wouldn't even be that large.
I'm thinking bandwidth plus the eventual ire of the whois server providers your script hits constantly might raise the cost a little bit. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. When was the last time you built a car, milked a cow, or developed your own flu vaccine.
Watch it, boy. *grin You're talking to a woman who grew up on a farm and rebuilt a Chevy Cavalier from scrap parts. (Why? I still ask myself that.) I may not have had the skills and resources to manufacture my own spare parts or my own vaccines, but I do have the skills and resources to operate my own laptop effectively enough to block out the obnoxious crap. So do you.
One might be tempted to reductio to the other absurdum and ask why we don't we rely on the government wipe certain parts of our anatomies, such as our drippy noses. As for me, I'm sure they would do it wrong, and I have a thing about taking care of myself whenever feasible.
It's just the cranky control-freak in me.
quote:I think the vigilance applies to watching elected officials to make choices that are good for the people they represent.
I wish I had your energy! About certain things I am forced to practice CV, but luckily this isn't one of them. Luckily, as we have touched on before, I have the skills and resources to do this one myself. (Unlike, say, perform my own open-heart surgeries -- not that the thought hadn't crossed my mind, but I can't cut and work the bypass machine at the same time.
Did sew up my own toe, though. And did a darn sight better job than that butchering of my left index finger by some fly-by-night ER yahoo. )
Seriously, I must go. But I will be back tomorrow. It has been quite a conversation!
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. When was the last time you built a car, milked a cow, or developed your own flu vaccine.
You're appealing to the specialization that occurs in a free market to support your argument in favor of the government requiring every single ISP to offer a particular service?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
)
