In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:59:39 +0100
<2240078.EvRcx2ysn6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Senate panel backs development of super V-chip
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The Senate Commerce Committee approved legislation Thursday asking the
> | Federal Communications Commission to oversee the development of a super
> | V-chip that could screen content on everything from cell phones to the
> | Internet.
> `----
>
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6200543.html
>
> And later on they say that open systems are not secure, that Vista is needed
> for control, that open source is 'unamerican'....
It's certainly unChinese. Perhaps the US government and the Chinese
authorities can collaborate on a Worldwide Web Censorship Project:
<hypothetical strawman="yes">
The WWCP would require that any sensitive material
(sensistive as determined by authorities) be tagged by
the ISP as "sensitive material", with varying levels
of appropriateness or inappropriateness for various
protected groups:
- children
- minorities
- religious
- various disadvantaged/challenged individuals
(blind, deaf, immobile, autistic, etc.)
- sexual preferences
- sexual gender (lesbian, gay, transsexual, etc.)
and would also be tagged for certain subjects:
- explosives (e.g., detailed technical specs on Fat Man
and location of uranium collection points, as opposed
to humorous depictions of cartoon iron bombs and other such)
- terrorist/subversive material
- salacious material (e.g., Buffy the Vampire Slayer --
in the buff [*])
- criminal advocacy (e.g., "How To Rob A Bank", if not
sufficiently humorous -- of course "sufficiently humorous"
would have to be determined by the relevant authorities)
- thoughtcrime (which, broadly defined, is anything the
authorities deem dangerous)
Of course the website developer would be welcome to assist
authorities by pretagging his stuff. (Many probably would.)
Browsers would be required to honor this tag, and would
have options to switch it on or off under administrator
control only -- and by default the administrator would
be the ISP issuing Internet access, unless the user
of the ISP completes a training course of at least
two weeks' duration.
</hypothetical>
Oh yeah, that'll fly about as well as a lead balloon
six feet under. Never mind the technical aspects; the
political ones, if the problem is properly characterized,
might (and should) be downright frightening a la George
Orwell's work _1984_.
As for open systems being non-secure, perhaps someone needs
to properly define the term "secure". I seem to recall
that the vast majority of intrusion problems are related to
a certain closed-source vendor's products, for some reason.
There's lots of workarounds to attempt to fend off said
intrusion problems, of course -- some of them successful.
As for open systems being unAmerican...that's techically
correct, in a way, since Linux was originally created by a
Finnish citizen. However, Americans have preferred open,
honest administration (at many levels of government and in
business), and presumably that would also extend to other
concepts, such as computers, whom many probably still
think of as a "black box". (Or, if one prefers, "gray
box" or "beige box". Note that "white box" testing is a
known concept in quality assurance, and ideally everyone
would be comfortable with at least the major components
of a computer system, including CPU, RAM, interrupts,
main processor buss, DMA, memory refresh circuitry, ...)
>
> Academia's Open Access movement mirrors FOSS community
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Free and open source software (FOSS) has roots in the ideals of academic
> | freedom and the unimpeded exchange of information. In the last five years,
> | the concepts have come full circle, with FOSS serving as a model for Open
> | Access (OA), a movement within academia to promote unrestricted access to
> | scholarly material for both researchers and the general public.
> `----
>
> http://www.linux.com/feature/118139
[*] one might ask as to whether our problem with
porn/erotica is with those flaunting it -- and
apparently nowadays there's a lot of women who are
flaunting it, for whatever reason -- with those pushing
it (pimps), or with those who would drool at the sight
of a naked woman sitting calmly on a bench reading
a book (and many probably would, myself included).
Ideally, no one would look twice at a naked woman
reading a book on a bench -- or at least do no more
than look, anyway, or maybe say "hi" and walk on, if
they don't know each other.
As it is, human sexuality is at best complicated
(one study suggests a good chunk thereof is all in the
mind) and at worst downright mysterious; women may for
their own reasons want to hide their assets, not only
for safety from the weirdos, but also to allow her
lover the forbidden fruit to enhance his pleasure,
and therefore hers. At least, that's one face --
the best one, AFAICT -- to put on it; other spins are
less charitable regarding gender equality.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
