These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

UK to block ****.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
voetius
Grundrisse
#41 - 2013-07-24 16:38:53 UTC

just to add to Complex Potential's list, yesterdays i (the cutdown Independent) had an interested article that made most of these points but also that booze and fags cause more actual harm, but it's too much trouble to put ciggies in plain packaging e.g. when you could be doing stuff that will keep the readers of the Daily Hate happy X
Complex Potential
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#42 - 2013-07-24 16:53:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Complex Potential
Good point veotius. Also the government makes vast quantities of tax from ciggies and booze, but not from p0rn.
Kirjava
Lothian Enterprises
#43 - 2013-07-24 17:42:19 UTC
There's a simple answer to this porn issue.

Take your child aside and explain sexuality to them as soon as they start to exhibit an interest in it. No need to be explicit, just enough knowledge that leaves them less adventurous on the internet, and keep a trusting rel.... oh **** who am I kidding such a system will never happen, easier to blame it on the internet and not do parenting isn't it.....

Though there was an article in the Guardian today that seemed to say that kids seeing porn were less likely to go have sex and a decrease in teenage pregnancies and corresponding delay in being sexually active.

[center]Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. /人◕‿‿◕人\ Unban Saede![/center]
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#44 - 2013-07-24 20:13:28 UTC
They did not keep us from p0rn when its only forms were magazines and VHS. What makes them think it can be stopped now Ugh
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2013-07-24 22:28:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tumahub
Give the state another excuse to lock people up? Check.
Take away the fap outlet so that more teens have sex and birth welfare dependent kids? Check.
Flaunt the power that the national "security," sector has over the general populace ensuring compliance? Check.

Seems like a win-win-win situation for any self-interested MP. More power, more compliance, and more dependent voters who will indulge their central planning micromanagement fetish.
Something Random
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2013-07-24 22:37:32 UTC
I dont see big ****...

IM BLIND

Please feel free to donate....

"caught on fire a little bit, just a little."

"Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangs all here!"

I love Science, it gives me a Hadron.
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#47 - 2013-07-25 03:18:18 UTC
Slade Trillgon wrote:
They did not keep us from p0rn when its only forms were magazines and VHS. What makes them think it can be stopped now Ugh

Especially when the ISPs are being forced to do the filtering at their own expense. Which means they will go with the lowest cost solution.

If I were one of the ISPs, I'd probably go with blocking everything on the grounds that:
- Any traffic I don't inspect could be used to bypass the filter
- I don't have the money to buy the processing power to inspect all traffic
Therefore I must block all traffic to make sure that nobody goes to the forbidden sites.

If a customer has a problem with that, they could always opt out of the filter.
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#48 - 2013-07-25 11:23:32 UTC
Hesod Adee wrote:
Slade Trillgon wrote:
They did not keep us from p0rn when its only forms were magazines and VHS. What makes them think it can be stopped now Ugh

Especially when the ISPs are being forced to do the filtering at their own expense. Which means they will go with the lowest cost solution.

If I were one of the ISPs, I'd probably go with blocking everything on the grounds that:
- Any traffic I don't inspect could be used to bypass the filter
- I don't have the money to buy the processing power to inspect all traffic
Therefore I must block all traffic to make sure that nobody goes to the forbidden sites.

If a customer has a problem with that, they could always opt out of the filter.


But the ISP's are owned by big businesses, who have the politicians at their finger tips, who want to control the people, who want to be controlled.

The cycle continues to be concentrated

^“[t]otal number of companies that control 60 percent of all minutes spent online in the US dwindled 87 percent, from 110 in March 1999 to 14 in March 2001”^

I doubt that it is very different in other Industrialized nations.

It would not surprise me in the least if there were not significant ties between the following Corps and the primary ISP's

*Granted the following link is over a decade old, but the main difference between now and then will lay mainly in shuffling and further concentration.*

Viacom
News Corp
Bertelsmann
Vivendi Universal
Sony
AOL Time Warner
Walt Disney

In other words the reason for the blocking 'material' will always be profits and control. The cost of the tech to do this will just be the scapegoat.
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2013-07-25 16:09:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tumahub
I believe the snowden affair has taught us, among other things, that ISPs are DEEPLY in bed with national governments (specifically the US and UK). So it would not surprise me in the least to find out that ISPs were "absorbing the cost," of censorship, which in-reality would mean nothing more than an increased kickback from the state for their cooperation. Likely with some bonus money for ferreting out those who got around the filter.

Content: Meanwhile, In England...
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#50 - 2013-07-26 21:54:29 UTC
News that should surprise no-one: UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

Quote:
it’s hardly encouraging to discover that even when TalkTalk subscribers turn filtering completely off, their traffic is still routed through Huawei’s system.


I wonder which sites critical of China or the UK will be 'accidentally' blocked, even on people who turn off all the filters.

Or how long it will be before someone takes out all internet in the UK by attacking Huawei's system.
Emiko P'eng
#51 - 2013-07-27 16:32:56 UTC
Don't Worry the filter will work fine!

We will be getting the Chinese 'Government Spying' company to install and run it for us!
(Note: The above comments are called 'English Satire' for all the Chinese Cyber Spies looking in Twisted)

BBC Technology - Chinese firm Huawei controls net filter praised by PM

BBC Technology - UK to probe Huawei staff's role at cybersecurity centre

Only in the UK Roll
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
#52 - 2013-07-28 18:11:39 UTC
As expected , Cameron's Great Firewall extend to more than just p0Γn. Long live comrade Cameron !

0ccupational Hazzard --> check out the true love story 
Robby Altair
#53 - 2013-07-28 23:44:03 UTC
Emiko P'eng wrote:
Don't Worry the filter will work fine!

We will be getting the Chinese 'Government Spying' company to install and run it for us!
(Note: The above comments are called 'English Satire' for all the Chinese Cyber Spies looking in Twisted)

BBC Technology - Chinese firm Huawei controls net filter praised by PM

BBC Technology - UK to probe Huawei staff's role at cybersecurity centre

Only in the UK Roll



You see good things happen when East meets West. NO,.... wait a minute. It's... Evil.

Room 3420 Boelter Hall UCLA
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#54 - 2013-07-29 02:35:09 UTC
Zhula Guixgrixks wrote:
As expected , Cameron's Great Firewall extend to more than just p0Γn. Long live comrade Cameron !

Is comrade the right term here ?

We are talking about China here, not Russia.
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
#55 - 2013-07-29 20:11:05 UTC
Hesod Adee wrote:
We are talking about China here, not Russia.
On paper, China is a communistic country. Russia isn't

0ccupational Hazzard --> check out the true love story 
Ariah Thorland
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#56 - 2013-08-05 11:12:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Ariah Thorland
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16497122

In short, consumption of online p0rnography is a valid predictor for future compulsive/problematic internet use in adolescents.
I am all for free speech and free internet, but the average age where children come into contact with online p0rn is 11 years nowadays IIRC- but maybe the solution isn't a censored internet but better parenting here.

Are you saying the average age children view sex is right around the age where they learn what it is. Shocking.

New plan, we don't tell them about it until they are 25. Big smile


Prohibiting something doesn't even work with alcohol. France has any alcohol prohibited till you're 18 I think. Our class once had exchange students (when we were like 15/16) - a single crate of beer was enough to make 6 of em nearly pass out (that's like 3 bottles). Point isprohibiting something till point t is stupid because at t+1 the consument will just knock him/herself out with an overdose due to zero experience.
Same goes for - media. People allways find ways to access what they want. If I wait long enough at the train station I'll probably see a pre-schooler with a smartphone. In theory that's all it takes to watch "rated A" content. Not a smart move by the parents - but uh smart parenting ....

In all honesty though - the people that get elected dwon't know s*** about how a computer works for another 30 years. What do you expect?
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
#57 - 2013-08-05 22:46:59 UTC
With all that T3MP[]ЯA thing running and storing your traffic in background.. maybe this is just an attempt to reduce costs of storing the data. I guess P0Яn makes a lot of total traffic.

0ccupational Hazzard --> check out the true love story 
Previous page123