| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Comments:
<0> this is a porn case
<1> wasn't the bill about porn on the Internet that children could potentially access?
<2> tweek - originally yes...
<1> and not child porn? (though, admittedly, that's probably what ... uhm ... children ... would be after :)
<2> tweek - child porn specific...
<3> sure you can block cookies if you are aware you can , most are not , but cookies are only one of many ways to gather info
<2> or children accessing porn -- or both
<4> grow up. your adversary is obviously the flame shrouded bull
<4> duh
<5> They don't need to query google, just start a gov program to surf randomly.
<2> JBL -- I think most here would know how to do so...
<2> at least I would hope they do
<1> axemas: that'd probably be the better way, but it wouldn't make any legal sense.
<6> woooooo, pig sooie!!!
<0> the thing is, the request is frivolous
<3> im sure , most ppl on IRC are a bit more savy than your typical AOL user
<4> oh now you liven up
<7> child porn is horrible... but I don't see anything wrong with children viewing porn, I'd be a lier if I said I was never a child when the internet first came out.
<1> axemas: their claim would probably be 'children could get to this easily, therefore it is necessary.'
<5> Tweek, the whole this is just a work program for lawyer. Hey just hire people to surf for 6$/hour.
<0> the govt does not need that info to make their case, or they can get it in other ways...
<4> sweet corn husking, I've beem swallowed
<6> woooooo, pig sooie!!! Razorbacks!!!
<1> panini: they need Google queries to show, on average, what people are looking for.
<1> panini: they need Google's site index to show, on average, what Google has access to.
<0> those averages are not necessary to make their case
<1> Google's a very popular gateway to teh Intar-webs but IMO it shouldn't be ****ing legislated or bullied into submission. it's still a private corporation.
<5> The whole things is just a math word problem, if you hire 100 people, for 6$/hr, how many U.S. lawyers will lose their job "litigating with Google"?
<0> that's a statistical argument, and the law should not be based on that
<1> panini: they already have AOL, MSN, and Yahoo data, anyway, so you may b... ??
<4> Sonic Youth owns me, musically
<1> 'statistical argument, and the law should not be based on that'...?
<1> you're ****ing high.
<6> Is Alabama nice to live in, particularly Auburn?
<4> youre weak ?
<0> that's correct. the law is not statistical
<1> I remember legislation a while back that forbid water to contain any amount of carcinogenic substances...
<2> swiggy -- dunno - try looking it up get an idea... mapquest info -- and local papers ...
<1> which makes no sense whatsoever to a chemist.
<0> to write a internet porn law, it's irrelevant how many ppl search for porn
<6> kali: ever been to Alabama?
<2> swiggy - just p***ing through...
<1> oh, you mean, 'the law does not apply to a percentage of people that is not 100%'.
<6> kali: how about Fayetteville, Arkansas?
<1> it's not statistically logical, in that sense. it's boolean.
<4> at least I got that plug in.. Peace and love to my brothers.\
<2> swiggy as I say I was only p***ing through, but I do know you can look up info on a city - lots of them have clubs and organizational web sites with a lot of info
<5> It's easy to find porn, just type "hot young chicks" in Google. Works great, no need for the government to improve it through legislation or litigation.
<7> great point
<1> what I mean is, perhaps the US Congress p***es a law forbidding any Internet search engine hosted in the US to be allowed an index that is 0.0001% child porn?
<0> ok, say they get their data. How will they make their argument? "We need an internet porn law, because 75% of all google searches contain the word 'tits'" ??
<4> It's the USA we're concerned about, not some bull**** desire
<7> children shouldn't be denied access to porn, if they can get p***ed their parents I don't think the government should make it any harder for them.
<5> The government wants a random sample, but the whole % of success is dependent on the words chosen.
<1> BeauW: my thoughts. if they want it, they'll get it.
<4> stake me to a post, I've beem here too long
<1> it's ****ing out there.
<7> lucky for me the government wasn't giving me a very hard time when I was 13
<4> I am the government. hold on
<5> And really, if you think about, to help kids not find porn on the net, they need to restrict their vocabulary.
<0> BeauW: they wouldn't let you into strip clubs
<1> panini: perhaps the committee determines that 0.37% of 'legitimate', non-porn queries pull up at least one site exclusively dedicated to porn?
<1> panini: how about mail-order porno?
<7> panini: they still won't for 2 months
<4> what am I?
<4> we are together
<1> BeauW: what ****ing type of idiot are you? get a fake.
<2> slopearea no no it is WHO are you
<5> I think the government is working on a new interactive dictionary, that asks your age before you can open it, and the word you get out of it can't allow you to find porn.
<4> you are stronger than I
<5> That's the point of the subpoena.
<4> you know it too well
<1> axemas: ...?
<4> but it is beneath you to say it
<5> Sorry, just spacin' out on this subject.
<4> back spasm blues?
<5> hope you can see the humor.
<4> loser
<0> tweek: good point, that might be the argument they are making
<7> no matter what restrictions anyone puts on porn, there will always be that one really smart kid who can figure out how to access porn, and that kid will be friends with everyone else.
<1> panini: there are a ****ing thousand things that can be done with that data.
<1> but I don't think Google should be forced to turn it over.
<4> alas we have yet to see this very bare expression I intended
<0> well, google doesn't have any grounds for a refusal of subpoena
<8> BeauW, they can always buy a Playboy
<9> not object to government subpoenas in criminal cases in which someone is suspected of a crime, but they suggested that the latest demand was so broad it amounted to a fishing expedition.
<7> Google is bigger than government
<0> lol, no
<7> TheTailor: they could always steal a playboy, but you gotta be 18 to buy one.
<8> haha
<0> i *wish* the govt was that small
<4> time limits are a bitch, like that goonies movie
<1> I wish Google was that big :)
<8> No, Google isn't bigger than government :)
<7> ok maybe not yet
<9> Supreme Court held that the government had failed to prove that the law's criminal penalties would protect children without unduly limiting options for adults.
<8> Not ever
<7> never say never
<8> Not ever
<9> TheTailor -- Govt can do whatever it wants
<1> heh, that'd be funny if Google in response decided to block .gov and .edu hosts in response :)
<2> tweek -- hehe - they don't dare -- lose money and stockholders....
<1> AAAman: I highly doubt that such a law could ever be effectively enforced.
<7> lol tweek
<1> something like CAN-SPAM or some ****. they've tried (and FAILED) before at this ****.
<1> Kaliuna: it'd still be funny as **** :)
<4> The Goonies are pissed off
<2> tweek oh you got that right - spammers figure out out ways to get around the blocks...
<2> tweek - well ya would be funny
<1> the Do-Not-Call Registry, I'll (grudgingly) admit, has seen some success...
<4> Don't **** with the chinese, they always have something to learn
<2> yes it has - but it won't block calls to businesses....
<1> there's still at least one big corporation that is paying zero attention to it however. can't remember which.
<0> speaking of porn, I found a "porno" version of the White House site: http://www.pornolize.com/pornolize4?lang=en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwhitehouse.gov&submit=Translate
<10> tweek i think directv got nailed
<11> directv got nailed big time
<1> really?
<10> $50k if i remember
<10> or $50k per call for X calls
<1> panini: heh, they should put random porno in place of the pictures, and resize
<10> hows that for a phone bill lol
<4> China is strong for so long, regardless of the west
<6> Twooooobar!
<4> Lets stop war
<10> whats ironic is that lawmakers of course excluded themselves from the do not call list laws.. politicians can still call you in the middle of dinner
<1> China I think will break under its own weight.
<12> Sweegmon
<0> Twobar! How's the "Backdoor Mountain" sequel coming?
<6> slop: do you think Bin Laden is sincere about his offer of a truce?
<4> Come on baby. lets stop war? We can milk trade routes forever
<13> Twobar, I bought a gun today
<14> its taking 17minutes to delete the backup folder I made of a HDD from a laptop i'm working on
<12> panini, I have to find a co star for Swigert to play opposite of
<1> bud``: s/ironic/another example of the notion that politicians must save their seat before stuffing their faces/
<12> Darth, a High Point ?
<1> s/stuffing their faces/saving the world/
<15> Good evening from Canada
<14> 2Gb worth of legit stuff, 15Gb of porn this guy had on his laptop
<9> Twobar has swinging doors
<0> tweek: eventually... but they could enjoy a couple decade period of economic boom first
<13> almost bought a winchester model 70 stainles 06
<13> 30-06
<12> AAAman will play the star role in "Brokeback Mountain 2"
<13> but I went with a mini 14 instead
<12> Darth, Winchester is going out of business
<4> China is definately one of the top 3 security council representatives
<6> Canada will soon emerge from the darkness of fascism
<13> Twobar i know
<16> twobar: should we be buying winchesters, then?
<9> Twobar is an old hand at mountain climbing
<12> Darth, Mini 14 is very nice
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
fuking boyes
#windows
#heroin
#goal
LENNIX LEWIS STATS
usa gabile
WMR1000BI telnet
#politics
#online
Duplicate entry 'localhost-mail' for key 1
|
|