Post by thread:[OT:] PICList is NOT closing, Bad joke? (Apparentl

source= http://www.piclist.com/piclist/2005/04/05/170817a.txt? --- Volkan Tore www.piclist.com/member/volkan-fenomen-N88 PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com Goodbye & Thanks for the fish :) Without piclist cyberspace would loose a bulk of its intelligence which is rare already. %80 Adult material, %13 marketing, %5 information & %2 Knowledge, real bad joke...

On Apr 6, 2005, at 2:34 PM, V. T. wrote: > Without piclist cyberspace would loose a bulk of its intelligence which > is rare already. %80 Adult material, %13 marketing, %5 information & > %2 Knowledge, real bad joke... You left out "theft." Current estimates are running "50% to 60% of traffic is peer-to-peer 'sharing' applications" with 40% of measured traffic in some places being bittorrent. MPIAA/etc is convinced that ALL of that is people stealing music and video 'intellectual property', but even assuming it's not THAT bad, it's probably still pretty bad. Porn, theft, spam. Sigh. BillW

William Chops Westfield wrote: {Quote hidden}> > You left out "theft." Current estimates are running "50% to 60% of > traffic is peer-to-peer 'sharing' applications" with 40% of measured > traffic in some places being bittorrent. MPIAA/etc is convinced that > ALL of that is people stealing music and video 'intellectual property', > but even assuming it's not THAT bad, it's probably still pretty bad. > > Porn, theft, spam. > > Sigh. > BillW I think people need to take into account the positive value of materials, not the negative value. Sure the sharing of illegal software is bad, but the PICList is extremely beneficial for many people, as are many many many websites. Arguably pornography is the only thing on the internet that really has the potential to harm people. -- Martin K http://wwia.org/sgroup/biofuel/

> Arguably pornography is the only thing on the internet that really > has the potential to harm people. You should have put your flame shields up before saying that :-). Some will argue that porn does no harm to anyone. (Some of these people probably also promote tobacco.) Some will argue that Casino sites and similar do harm. Some will argue that sites that provide information about potentially dangerous activities do harm (explosives, poisons, ...) Some will argue that sites that express contrary opinions to theirs do harm. Some will say that religious sites are harmful. Some will ban internet access as too dangerous per se. Some will say (after they've brought the imitation stone tablets down from the mountain) that it's not the internet that harms people, it's people that harm people. Libertarians will argue that it's none of anyone else's business. Some .... RM

So, take everything harmful down and what'll that leave you ? http://www.piclist.com and http://www.for-pitys-sake-bring-back-the-porn.com {Quote hidden}> Some will argue that porn does no harm to anyone. > (Some of these people probably also promote tobacco.) > Some will argue that Casino sites and similar do harm. > Some will argue that sites that provide information about potentially > dangerous activities do harm (explosives, poisons, ...) > Some will argue that sites that express contrary opinions to theirs do > harm. > Some will say that religious sites are harmful. > Some will ban internet access as too dangerous per se. > Some will say (after they've brought the imitation stone tablets down > from the mountain) that it's not the internet that harms people, it's > people that harm people. > Libertarians will argue that it's none of anyone else's business. > Some ....

> You left out "theft." Current estimates are running "50% to 60% of > traffic is peer-to-peer 'sharing' applications" with 40% of measured > traffic in some places being bittorrent. MPIAA/etc is convinced that > ALL of that is people stealing music and video 'intellectual > property', > but even assuming it's not THAT bad, it's probably still pretty bad. > > Porn, theft, spam. I guess the 'normal' people have taken over our internet. Time to pull back into a new cyberspace. Where can I have an affinity gene spliced in? Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

>> Porn, theft, spam. None of this need have much visible effect on most users who wish to avoid it. ISP spam filtering is getting rather good, as are personal antispam products. Theft is up to the individual - as long as you don't allow an open relay through your system. Porn, should one wish to avoid it, can be avoided far far more successfully than almost anyone seems to claim. I choose not to go near porn sites (I'm a typical male and know that not starting is the only sure defence against all addictive things that target the pleasure centre strongly)(And the instruction manual says to flee from it, which seems to be extremely good advice). I am as active a pseudo random surfer as most (as people may have noticed), but I have probably accidentally stumbled on porn sites less than a dozen times in about 13 years on the internet. On the latest occasion I had a young woman with me who I was attempting to show something quite different and it was most embarrassing. I was using an anonymous proxy site to look back into my own server and probably got something cached that is more normal for that sort of service. I can't recall the last time it happened before that. My wife would probably claim that this was a result of failing memory :-). The invisible effect of these resource consumers is to greatly increase the cost of implementing the net. Hopefully the pay per view people end up contributing their unfair share to my free surfing. Russell McMahon ______________________________________________________________________ " ... whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things. " Philippians 4:8

Ok, so by "Arguably.. " I meant "IMO, YMMV, IANAL, but I would [not] argue that pornography... " -- Martin K http://wwia.org/sgroup/biofuel/ Russell McMahon wrote: {Quote hidden}>> Arguably pornography is the only thing on the internet that really has >> the potential to harm people. > > > You should have put your flame shields up before saying that :-). > > Some will argue that porn does no harm to anyone. > (Some of these people probably also promote tobacco.) > Some will argue that Casino sites and similar do harm. > Some will argue that sites that provide information about potentially > dangerous activities do harm (explosives, poisons, ...) > Some will argue that sites that express contrary opinions to theirs do > harm. > Some will say that religious sites are harmful. > Some will ban internet access as too dangerous per se. > Some will say (after they've brought the imitation stone tablets down > from the mountain) that it's not the internet that harms people, it's > people that harm people. > Libertarians will argue that it's none of anyone else's business. > Some .... > > > > RM >

I wonder if porn is, in truth, that bad. In Japan, porn is very open. People are squeezed together on a commuter train, yet several people are reading little pamphlets of the grossest porn imaginable, yet Japan's yearly sex crimes can be easily counted on one hand. No scientific study has ever shown a relationship between porn and sex crimes. Oh well, just my 2 breasts , i.e. cents worth. --Bob Martin K wrote: > Ok, so by "Arguably.. " I meant "IMO, YMMV, IANAL, but I would [not] > argue that pornography... " > -- Note: To protect our network, attachments must be sent to spam_OUTattachTakeThisOuTengineer.cotse.net . 1-866-263-5745 USA/Canada http://beam.to/azengineer