> This completely off-topic thread has gone on far too long. Aside from two or
> three posts about possible LINUX issues, I fail to see why we are having this
> completely irrelevant discussion about porn, censorship, religion and who
> knows what else.
I disagree. If an MS-based solution is manda
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Shlomo Solomon wrote:
This completely off-topic thread has gone on far too long. Aside from two or
three posts about possible LINUX issues, I fail to see why we are having this
completely irrelevant discussion about porn, censorship, religion and who
knows what else.
ENOUGH
This completely off-topic thread has gone on far too long. Aside from two or
three posts about possible LINUX issues, I fail to see why we are having this
completely irrelevant discussion about porn, censorship, religion and who
knows what else.
ENOUGH
--
Shlomo Solomon
http://the-solomons.n
It's worse than that - the mechanism that is required to enforce the law
makes anonymous surfing illegal. Say goodbye to Tor, for example, since the
ISP will be unable to enforce the law under it. The law was proposed by
politicians who don't accept democacy and don't understand the Internet - a
da
Yonah Russ wrote:
> Since the law is targeted at people under the age of eighteen, I
> assume the commission will ask the question: Would I choose to show
> that to a 17 year old?
I am assuming you are right, which is exactly the reason I'm so worried.
This is, precisely, the wrong question to ask
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
You are confusing a one to one relationship (surfer to voting center)
with a one to many one (surfer vs. potentially an infinity or URLs).
No- I 'm suggesting a 1-1 relationship of surfer to ISP proxy.
Try to think this through please. You go to an inte
On 3/3/07, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
> On 3/3/07, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually- I know one of the developers of the Estonian online voting
> technology which identifies each voter based on a physical smart card and a
> password. whi
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
On 3/3/07, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
> adults. If a parent really want's they're kids looking at porn sites,
> they'll give them their password.
Correct. And since they should have their own passwords and emai
On 3/3/07, Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yonah Russ wrote:
> This law isn't stopping anyone who already legally has the right to
> look at porn from looking at porn.
Sure it does! For one thing, porn is not illegal today.
I find it hard to believe that an adult is allowed to legally
that can actually be a good a argument for a bagatz in the unlikely event
that this idiotic proposal will pass, that can hold off the implementation
of this potential law for a few good months.
On 3/2/07, Shlomo Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't want to get into a debate about porn. Th
On 3/3/07, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
> adults. If a parent really want's they're kids looking at porn sites,
> they'll give them their password.
Correct. And since they should have their own passwords and email why
not buy them an internet account f
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
Are you over 18? Type in your password and see whatever you want.
Type your password WHERE in an Internet cafe ? And even if, what stops
one to use https://www.the-cloak.com after that for free ? And one day
after that is blocked https://some.where.els
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
No, they represent a fraction of the ruling coalition, which has passed
hairier laws in the past, using the well-known quid pro quo arrangements
with other coalition members from other parties. In this country the
words 'don't worry only a few MKs voted for
Yonah Russ wrote:
> This law isn't stopping anyone who already legally has the right to
> look at porn from looking at porn.
Sure it does! For one thing, porn is not illegal today.
> It just requires them to prove that they have the right.
Which is a way of stopping. Saying "you can't do X unless y
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Yonah Russ wrote:
adults. If a parent really want's they're kids looking at porn sites,
they'll give them their password.
Correct. And since they should have their own passwords and email why
not buy them an internet account from an ISP that provides filtered
service.
I
Are you over 18? Type in your password and see whatever you want.
-Yonah
On 3/3/07, Ori Idan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem is not porn or not.
The problem is letting other people decide what you can see and what you
can't see.
The government should not decide for me what I can see or n
On 3/3/07, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Peleg Wasserman wrote:
> The law was passed by 25 members of parliament, most of which come from
> religious factions. These people do not represent the majority of the
> people.
No, they represent a fraction of the ruling coalit
The problem is not porn or not.
The problem is letting other people decide what you can see and what you
can't see.
The government should not decide for me what I can see or not.
--
Ori Idan
On 3/3/07, Yonah Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/3/07, Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/3/07, Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yonah Russ wrote:
> I don't think so at all- I just think that the laws in a democracy are
> usually reasonably in line with the majority of the constituents.
While "Majority rules" is a very important basis of democracy, it is
very far from
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Peleg Wasserman wrote:
The law was passed by 25 members of parliament, most of which come from
religious factions. These people do not represent the majority of the
people.
No, they represent a fraction of the ruling coalition, which has passed
hairier laws in the past, u
The law was passed by 25 members of parliament, most of which come from
religious factions. These people do not represent the majority of the
people.
Second, while I do not agree with the way they decide speed limits (and
I do enforce them every day), I see why a commission of experts can
decide o
Yonah Russ wrote:
> I don't think so at all- I just think that the laws in a democracy are
> usually reasonably in line with the majority of the constituents.
While "Majority rules" is a very important basis of democracy, it is
very far from being the only one. Two others that come to mind are
"Min
22 matches
Mail list logo
