[Warning to humor/lexicaly impaired: Use of third person 'you' below]
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ahem, yes I am aware any simple system is easily
> circumvented & defeated, but that doesnt imply
> that it will be.
So are most hard systems also :)
> ok, fine, status quo stays the same :p
The real answer is -participation- coupled with the right (and a system
to back it up) to say "No, thank you. But, I don't believe I want to
play." And have it respected. If one of the existing nodes isn't
providing a particular services, and you really truly believe there is a
market for that service; why are you still sitting on your butt? It is not
expensive, nor does it take large amounts of ones time. Start a node and
impliment whatever sort of reputation/content filtering floats your boat.
Nothing stops you from filtering the traffic to YOUR node any way you see
fit. The system is intended to PROMOTE that exact behaviour.
Why do you want somebody else to make the decision for you?
As has been explained many times before; NONE of these mechanisms are in
and of themselves outside the charter of the CDR. The only stipulation is
that the outbound traffic from each node is NOT modified or filtered in
any way by OTHER nodes, and gets passed to all nodes via the backbone. I
may have no intention of putting my reading material under your thumb, but
I'm willing to invest a feed to see how it comes out... I love
experiments, they trump 'theory' every time!
What is problematic with the proposals from the CACL contingent is that
they desire to require ALL nodes to operate under one set of rules. Their
justification is that their feelings are hurt, and those of us who don't
respond appropriately are being mean. The 'friction' is it isn't their
marbles so they got nothing to take home...
Now ask yourself this, if they don't believe enough in their philosophy to
operate by it on a mailing list, what does that portend for 'real life'?
> lets just gripe,bitch,moan to the list
> for another few years. wheeeeeeeeeee
> I thought things might be different after
> a half decade of cyberspace lightning, but
> so nice that some things just dont change.
People are people, people are strange; technology has nothing to do with
that. Another example of why CACL theory fails. Technology neither creates
or solves problems, they satisfy (or not) human desire. There will always
be friction between human desires...
--
____________________________________________________________________
There is less in this than meets the eye.
Tellulah Bankhead
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
