Here they come again...
-
Ummm.... huh? I read the link and didn't see anything that pertains to non-US sites. Did I miss something??
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
"...would also limit pornographic Web sites to an online red-light district." If they get their way, it will impact all adult-sites and anything they deem as unsavory. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
"...would also limit pornographic Web sites to an online red-light district." If they get their way, it will impact all adult-sites and anything they deem as unsavory. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
Tom Archer wrote: and anything they deem as unsavory. And of course, that's the slippery slope... Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
"...would also limit pornographic Web sites to an online red-light district." If they get their way, it will impact all adult-sites and anything they deem as unsavory. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
To me it looked like they just wanted to replace the site's .com with a .prn? Certainly not the end of the world... kinda like putting the Playboy and Penthouse magazines behind the counter. No??
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
-
To me it looked like they just wanted to replace the site's .com with a .prn? Certainly not the end of the world... kinda like putting the Playboy and Penthouse magazines behind the counter. No??
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
Yes, but this means that an Adult website ran out of Europe or somewhere else would be in violation of U.S. law if it registered a .com domain whereas anywhere else in the world it would be perfectly legal. I do believe that there should be a domain just for adult crap, but, it would have to be decieded by an international body, not the U.S. Jason Gerard
-
To me it looked like they just wanted to replace the site's .com with a .prn? Certainly not the end of the world... kinda like putting the Playboy and Penthouse magazines behind the counter. No??
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
I'd be weary if, in the future, a whois on codeproject.prn returned a record. :-D Jeremy L. Falcon "The One Who Said, 'The One Who Said...'" Homepage : Sonork = 100.16311
01000010011011110110001000100000011101110110000101110011
00100000011010000110010101110010011001010010111000000000 -
I'd be weary if, in the future, a whois on codeproject.prn returned a record. :-D Jeremy L. Falcon "The One Who Said, 'The One Who Said...'" Homepage : Sonork = 100.16311
01000010011011110110001000100000011101110110000101110011
00100000011010000110010101110010011001010010111000000000That would just point to David's Rant and Rave posts. :) Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
To me it looked like they just wanted to replace the site's .com with a .prn? Certainly not the end of the world... kinda like putting the Playboy and Penthouse magazines behind the counter. No??
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
Several issues here: Renaming of sites: 1) The cost would be huge for many to go out and re-register hundreds of domain names. Remeber this can be anything the US doesn't like - not just porn. It can be legal gambling, political sites that have different views, etc. 2) There are millions of links and banners across the Web that would become dead - causing more costs in updating those links and losing money in that as well as customers not getting to the sites. 3) It's not the US' call to do this. Other ramifications: "...make it illegal to film someone for a "lewd or lascivious purpose" without that person's consent" This bit is absolutely unacceptable in a free society. If you do something in public, then in my opinion, you've already given your consent. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
Yes, but this means that an Adult website ran out of Europe or somewhere else would be in violation of U.S. law if it registered a .com domain whereas anywhere else in the world it would be perfectly legal. I do believe that there should be a domain just for adult crap, but, it would have to be decieded by an international body, not the U.S. Jason Gerard
Jason Gerard wrote: I do believe that there should be a domain just for adult crap, but, it would have to be decieded by an international body, not the U.S In a perfect world... True! But I doubt an international body could agree on anything.
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
-
When will the US government realize that the Internet is not an American entitiy and thusly is not subject to their out-dated, Victorial beliefs? http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/17/surveillance.reut/index.html Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
When will the rest of the world realize that the American Gubberment doesn't care what you think? They don't want viddie cams snapping away at them hosing the front desk girl is all. Maybe you'all in UK enjoy having cams all over the damn place (nice arse, Tom, but a little fuzzy for my tastes), but Congress is gonna make sure that they can prevent you from using them. So there. Get used to it.
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
-
Several issues here: Renaming of sites: 1) The cost would be huge for many to go out and re-register hundreds of domain names. Remeber this can be anything the US doesn't like - not just porn. It can be legal gambling, political sites that have different views, etc. 2) There are millions of links and banners across the Web that would become dead - causing more costs in updating those links and losing money in that as well as customers not getting to the sites. 3) It's not the US' call to do this. Other ramifications: "...make it illegal to film someone for a "lewd or lascivious purpose" without that person's consent" This bit is absolutely unacceptable in a free society. If you do something in public, then in my opinion, you've already given your consent. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
Tom Archer wrote: This bit is absolutely unacceptable in a free society. If you do something in public, then in my opinion, you've already given your consent. I think you need to research the initial "acts" that inspired the bill. A man placed hidden cameras all over a neighbors house - in their bedrooms (both parent's and children's) and bathrooms. The family pressed charges and found to their horror that the current laws in their state did not cover this and the man was only charged with a misdeamor. During the investigation, they found he had installed a camera in a small bathroom (located near his backyard swimming pool) of his own house . He had video tapes of many of the neighborhood women and teenaged girls as they changed clothes after being invited to his home by his wife and children. In the end, I think he only paid a very small fine. I agree that if someone does something in public, that they automatically give consent, but that is NOT the case here. Now maybe the proposed bill is too broad in scope, but the intent is basically good.
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
-
When will the rest of the world realize that the American Gubberment doesn't care what you think? They don't want viddie cams snapping away at them hosing the front desk girl is all. Maybe you'all in UK enjoy having cams all over the damn place (nice arse, Tom, but a little fuzzy for my tastes), but Congress is gonna make sure that they can prevent you from using them. So there. Get used to it.
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
Todd C. Wilson wrote: So there. Get used to it It will fail just as the past attempts to govern the Inet have. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
When will the rest of the world realize that the American Gubberment doesn't care what you think? They don't want viddie cams snapping away at them hosing the front desk girl is all. Maybe you'all in UK enjoy having cams all over the damn place (nice arse, Tom, but a little fuzzy for my tastes), but Congress is gonna make sure that they can prevent you from using them. So there. Get used to it.
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
Todd C. Wilson wrote: but Congress is gonna make sure that they can prevent you from using them. So there. Get used to it. You're kidding, right? US Congress has no business whatsoever making laws that tell other countries' citizens what they can and can't do while not on US soil. To say otherwise is absolute foolishness. This bill seems to address two separate issues: videotaping people in conditions that are assumed to be 'private', and porn on the internet. It's insane that you can videotape someone legally where, in the same situation, you'd be tried for a federal offense if you just recorded audio. As to the second part of the bill to clean up the internet, I think this is just pie-in-the-sky politic-ing. There's no way that the rest of the world is going to say "Oh, US Congress has just said that we have to do these things differently on the internet now, so let's get to it!". -- Russell Morris "WOW! Chocolate - half price!" - Homer Simpson, while in the land of chocolate.
-
When will the US government realize that the Internet is not an American entitiy and thusly is not subject to their out-dated, Victorial beliefs? http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/17/surveillance.reut/index.html Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
Oh, ok. So in your country you believe in videotaping people having sex and playing it live for paying customers.... without the consent of the people having sex in the first place? Can't wait to see you and your wife in the next online sex movie... :laugh:
-
Todd C. Wilson wrote: but Congress is gonna make sure that they can prevent you from using them. So there. Get used to it. You're kidding, right? US Congress has no business whatsoever making laws that tell other countries' citizens what they can and can't do while not on US soil. To say otherwise is absolute foolishness. This bill seems to address two separate issues: videotaping people in conditions that are assumed to be 'private', and porn on the internet. It's insane that you can videotape someone legally where, in the same situation, you'd be tried for a federal offense if you just recorded audio. As to the second part of the bill to clean up the internet, I think this is just pie-in-the-sky politic-ing. There's no way that the rest of the world is going to say "Oh, US Congress has just said that we have to do these things differently on the internet now, so let's get to it!". -- Russell Morris "WOW! Chocolate - half price!" - Homer Simpson, while in the land of chocolate.
Russell Morris wrote: You're kidding, right? Partly. Your job is to figure out the sarcasm and the underlying truths of it. Russell Morris wrote: US Congress has no business whatsoever making laws that tell other countries' citizens what they can and can't do while not on US soil. To say otherwise is absolute foolishness. Really. Try telling that to Deutsche Bahn and New Zealand, just to name a few recently. .AU was in the news a while back about similar things too. Once Bush Jr complete's Daddy Bush's 1000 points of light, we'll all be one happy big new world order planet. Then you too can bitch and moan about how things used to be while watching football on your HDTV.
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
-
When will the US government realize that the Internet is not an American entitiy and thusly is not subject to their out-dated, Victorial beliefs? http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/17/surveillance.reut/index.html Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
my god ... you mean its not american??? do you think george knows this?? --- situations to avoid #37:
"good morning ... how many sugars do you take in your coffee ... and what was your name again?" -
Tom Archer wrote: This bit is absolutely unacceptable in a free society. If you do something in public, then in my opinion, you've already given your consent. I think you need to research the initial "acts" that inspired the bill. A man placed hidden cameras all over a neighbors house - in their bedrooms (both parent's and children's) and bathrooms. The family pressed charges and found to their horror that the current laws in their state did not cover this and the man was only charged with a misdeamor. During the investigation, they found he had installed a camera in a small bathroom (located near his backyard swimming pool) of his own house . He had video tapes of many of the neighborhood women and teenaged girls as they changed clothes after being invited to his home by his wife and children. In the end, I think he only paid a very small fine. I agree that if someone does something in public, that they automatically give consent, but that is NOT the case here. Now maybe the proposed bill is too broad in scope, but the intent is basically good.
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
You're making an invalid assumption that I don't know what happened. I'm very well aware of the fact that some people have hidden vcams and tape people and that they people have gotten away with it because they didn't record voices (which would have been wire-tapping). I've also seen Ms Harmon (who played a victim on a Lifetime movie) in numerous interviews about this "cause". However, the bill is far too broad and regardless of intent would eventually involve outlawing many other acts that I don't think should be outlawed. This is the game legislatures play all the time. They play up one specific act and in response to it, quickly pass a bill that outlaws many other acts before people realize what's happened. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
Tom Archer wrote: This bit is absolutely unacceptable in a free society. If you do something in public, then in my opinion, you've already given your consent. I think you need to research the initial "acts" that inspired the bill. A man placed hidden cameras all over a neighbors house - in their bedrooms (both parent's and children's) and bathrooms. The family pressed charges and found to their horror that the current laws in their state did not cover this and the man was only charged with a misdeamor. During the investigation, they found he had installed a camera in a small bathroom (located near his backyard swimming pool) of his own house . He had video tapes of many of the neighborhood women and teenaged girls as they changed clothes after being invited to his home by his wife and children. In the end, I think he only paid a very small fine. I agree that if someone does something in public, that they automatically give consent, but that is NOT the case here. Now maybe the proposed bill is too broad in scope, but the intent is basically good.
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
Sounds like the episode of CSI two weeks ago. That is such a good show. Joshua Guy
Sonork ID: 100.9944 ICQ: 519642 Hotmail: JoshuaJGuy@hotmail.com
-
Oh, ok. So in your country you believe in videotaping people having sex and playing it live for paying customers.... without the consent of the people having sex in the first place? Can't wait to see you and your wife in the next online sex movie... :laugh:
You're putting words in my mouth - I have a person that does that already and she's Mrs. Archer :laugh: Seriously, what I'm against is that the law is too broadly worded and would encompass many acts that it should not. I definitely believe in privacy. However, the way the bill is worded if I tape the Mardi Gras party, I would be in violation. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
my god ... you mean its not american??? do you think george knows this?? --- situations to avoid #37:
"good morning ... how many sugars do you take in your coffee ... and what was your name again?"By the way, what's wrong with #37 :) Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
When will the US government realize that the Internet is not an American entitiy and thusly is not subject to their out-dated, Victorial beliefs? http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/17/surveillance.reut/index.html Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
Tom Archer wrote: When will the US government realize that the Internet is not an American entitiy and thusly is not subject to their out-dated, Victorial beliefs? Regardless of what I think of this and other proposed laws, I believe the american goverment has the right to regulate (to a certain limit) the way we americans use the internet. If that has a negative effect on foreign companies trying to make business with us, so be it. The same applies to any country in the world. US laws are not (and cannot) be enforced in foreign countries in the same manner that foreign laws cannot be enforced here.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
Checkout GUIDGen.NET