I hear the ACLU runs a flavor of linux on their servers...
-Chad
Holy Cow! You were right! Since Dec of 2005:
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.aclu.org
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't
On Feb 8, 2008 4:36 PM, Trevor Sharpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Hansen wrote:
Nobody agrees with the ACLU or any other organization on everything, all
the time. I agree with them often, but certainly not always. But to
say it's a
Justin Findlay wrote:
On AD 2008 February 07 Thursday 09:22:23 PM -0700, Trevor Sharpe wrote:
I would imagine that Thad Van Ry is correct. I have been in contact with
my Representative Tim Cosgrove, and have received similar comments that
this bill might very well pass. I suspect that it might
Kyle Waters wrote:
RMS is a socialist. Does that mean I have to stop using gcc and
associated libraries?
I like it when RMS encourages people to use their liberty by sharing (an
application of capitalism). I hate it when he seems to advocate
removing people's liberty by forcing them to share
Jason Hall wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008 11:16 AM, Nathan Blackham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So in the begining that was their agenda. I point you to there current
page:
http://aclu.org/about/index.html
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and
guarantees:
- Your First
RMS is a socialist. Does that mean I have to stop using gcc and
associated libraries?
Kyle
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
On Feb 8, 2008 10:43 AM, Jason Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008 9:58 AM, Nathan Blackham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 8, 2008 9:38 AM, Mister E [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ACLU will fight any fight that is against civil rights. They are
blind
when it comes to other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Hansen wrote:
Nobody agrees with the ACLU or any other organization on everything, all
the time. I agree with them often, but certainly not always. But to
say it's a communist organization or that only socialists should support
them or that
On 2/8/08, Nathan Blackham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ACLU will fight any fight that is against civil rights. They are blind
when it comes to other issues.
This used to be true. I can remember the ACLU supporting the right of
people to protest outside abortion clinics, for instance.
But in
Jonathan Ellis wrote:
This used to be true. I can remember the ACLU supporting the right of
people to protest outside abortion clinics, for instance.
But in the last decade or so they seem to have become a lot more
partisan. I can't think of any non-liberal or politically correct
cases
On Feb 7, 2008 9:35 AM, Thad Van Ry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 7, 2008 9:27 AM, Nathan Blackham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So If I put up a page that they have to agree to that says, If you are a
minor you can use it. And they have to click ok, does that count as
restricting access?
Nathan Blackham wrote:
So If I put up a page that they have to agree to that says, If you are a
minor you can use it. And they have to click ok, does that count as
restricting access?
I think so. To be completely safe, just copyright the text of the
agreement page and say that the text may
On 07 Feb 2008, at 10:04, Thad Van Ry wrote:
The bill says:
(4) Restrict access means to use a reasonable method for
ascertaining the age of a
person using wireless Internet access or preventing the display of
material harmful to minors
over the wireless local area network, including:
(a)
On Feb 7, 2008 9:53 AM, Nathan Blackham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, after reading it, I see that it is a horribly written bill. The
definition of restricting access still makes my question valid though. The
bill says you either have to ascertain the age or restrict access (Sec.
Back maybe 20 years ago the first Leisure Suit Larry game from
Sierra came out. In order to play the game, it would ask questions
that only adults should know the answers to. I recall questions about
politics, history, etc. Once you got two to three of them correct, the
game would start. It could
Chris Carey wrote:
Back maybe 20 years ago the first Leisure Suit Larry game from
Sierra came out. In order to play the game, it would ask questions
that only adults should know the answers to. I recall questions about
politics, history, etc. Once you got two to three of them correct, the
game
On Feb 7, 2008 2:49 PM, Kyle Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Carey wrote:
Back maybe 20 years ago the first Leisure Suit Larry game from
Sierra came out. In order to play the game, it would ask questions
I was about twelve at the time and it sometimes took me a couple of
tries to
See, we could be providing our youth an education while they bypass
the age test.
On Feb 7, 2008 3:03 PM, Jake Pollmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Leisure Suit Larry quiz is how I learned who Spiro Agnew was. I
wasn't old enough to understand all of the nuances of the game, but I
(like
On Feb 7, 2008 9:27 AM, Nathan Blackham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So If I put up a page that they have to agree to that says, If you are a
minor you can use it. And they have to click ok, does that count as
restricting access?
Why do people seem so reluctant to read the bill? It can be found
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thad Van Ry wrote:
Why do people seem so reluctant to read the bill? It can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/2mbwjl
The bill states the ways that age can be verified, currently it states
only viewing government issued ID or asking for credit card
Chris Carey wrote:
Digg frontpaged a story on this Bill today
I just had a thought... if a bill like this says filtering is required,
how accurate must the filter be? Let's say I set up a web proxy that
blocks URLs based on some hand crafted regular expressions. The
accuracy might be low, yet
On Feb 6, 2008 2:18 PM, Shane Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just had a thought... if a bill like this says filtering is required,
how accurate must the filter be? Let's say I set up a web proxy that
blocks URLs based on some hand crafted regular expressions. The
accuracy might be low,
Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 2:18 PM, Shane Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just had a thought... if a bill like this says filtering is required,
how accurate must the filter be? Let's say I set up a web proxy that
blocks URLs based on some hand crafted regular expressions. The
Another interesting thing in the ars technica article is that it says
that it is no longer is limited to business.
If you live in Orem and your next-door neighbor's kid uses your open
WAP to look at pictures of naked women, you could find yourself on the
hook for a $1,000 fine. Yarro thinks
On Feb 6, 2008 2:50 PM, Shane Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Didn't you read the Ars Technica page? Rep. Daw said he intends to pull
the age requirement and replace it with filtering. Thus filtering is
now the core issue.
The Ars article is based on an SLTrib article, both of which give
On Feb 6, 2008 3:07 PM, Chris Carey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another interesting thing in the ars technica article is that it says
that it is no longer is limited to business.
If you live in Orem and your next-door neighbor's kid uses your open
WAP to look at pictures of naked women, you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
I've been curious to listen to the meeting in question to see how much
people have misunderstood this bill. It's hard to fight something you
don't understand. I was very sad to hear Pete Ashdown misrepresent it
on the
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 14:40 -0700, Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
This bill does no such thing. Go read the text. I'm not in favor of
the bill but you should all know that it applies only to access points
operated by businesses
The bill states
A person may not provide wireless Internet
28 matches
Mail list logo
