#facestab chump Archives for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009RSS

last updated at 2010-01-23 20:38

more censorship than you can throw a stick at > you like that, don't you? > kinda kinky...

most Americans accept interracial marriage, but many people of faith say they would be troubled by a family member's decision to marry an atheist: Pew Research Center

pretender: Well, why would they not be troubled?
pretender: Their faith tells them to, it's kinda obvious

Disturbing the Peace -- and Democracy

There is a very special place in hell for people who put MIDI music on their webpages

pretender: And it's right next to the talking flash ads people

Google uses ext4fs

textjunky: "In the end we mostly ended up using the benchmarks to validate our assumptions"
textjunky: and the choice of ext4 was obvious because "The only upgrade option we have is online."
textjunky: they didn't look at either of the reiserfs's

Indymedia ordered to silently disclose identities of site visitors (more US insanity)

textjunky: "U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison and Assistant U.S. Attorney Doris Pryor did not follow department regulations requiring the 'express authorization of the attorney general'"
textjunky: seemingly

Arkham's Razor: A theory which suggests that the simplest explanation tends to lead to Cthulhu.

USA officially gone mad now

textjunky: click on a link => raid by Feds
textjunky: even CNET can see that this "raises questions about entrapment, the problems of identifying who's using an open wireless connection--and whether anyone who clicks on a FBI link that contains no child pornography should be automatically subject to a dawn raid by federal police. "
textjunky: just trust the pigs, right? ahahahahaha
textjunky: <pigs> just trust us!
textjunky: after all, it's for the children .. right? <PUKE>
textjunky: remember, because these offenses carry such stigma, those charged usualyl plead guilty, the charge never gets to a jury of sane people who might question just WTF the 'right thing' to do might be
textjunky: <pigs> he clicked the link! that means he was gonna abuse a child! right?
textjunky: <USA> duh yeah you so clever
nene: I thought entrapment was all about enticing someone to do something they wouldn't normally do? A much bigger problem with this is that there is no conclusive evidence about who clicked on the link, there is no evidence of intent. There isn't even any record of the referrer.
nene: For all you know, you get sent a link, the link goes to a 302/301 that your browser follows ... BOOM you're eating gravel a few days later
textjunky: "the magistrate judge ruled that even the possibilities of spoofing or other users of an open Wi-Fi connection 'would not have negated a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of child pornography would be found on the premises to be searched.'"
textjunky: i read that as 'they don't care if the evidence was left by you or by your neighbour, your taking the rap'
textjunky: convicted for clicking the FBI link and for "two thumbnails ... in a hidden 'thumbs.db' file automatically created by the Windows operating system" ... demonstrates to me no intent that justifies dawn raids and prison time
textjunky: "Civil libertarians warn that anyone who clicks on a hyperlink advertising something illegal--perhaps found while Web browsing or received through e-mail--could face the same fate."
textjunky: with civil libertarians like these, who needs nazis?
textjunky: what if the text of the link was 'click here to find out information about our death cult' or 'click here to register your interest in friday's execution'? clicking a link, obtaining some publication, viewing some material, even if it gives you strong or confused emotions, should never be a crime
textjunky: and the USA ... what ever happened to 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'?
textjunky: treat abuse, do not punish communication
textjunky: or curiosity, or concern
textjunky: the penalty for not doing so is that you destroy your own ability to act with justice, and thereby you contribute to misery as much as supposed offeners whom you pretend to attack
textjunky: this is not the Toy Universe Your God gave to you where you click the button for Justice and Justice comes out.
textjunky: imho

Pornography: Beneficial or Detrimental?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled cat stories

nene: Not a lol-cat though; he gets embaressed and self-sconciousif you laugh at him

On the PlayStation 3: Hello hypervisor, I'm geohot

seti: A glitching attack, apparently


textjunky: "Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA -- a secret treaty that contains provisions requiring nations to wiretap the Internet, force ISPs to spy on users, search laptops at the border, and disconnect whole households from the net on the basis of mere accusation of copyright infringement"
textjunky: "Attendees at the so-called 'public meeting' were booed by representatives from big business..."
textjunky: "effort to force members of the public who attended the meeting to sign non-disclosure agreements"
textjunky: oh yah, people will go along with that

How to fail at hail


textjunky: test. testing google filter capabilities.
textjunky: chump has been searchable via google up until now.
textjunky: hopefully from now on it won't be
textjunky: ;-)
textjunky: <google> o/' i no give you what you want. i no give you what you neeed. o/'
textjunky: idiots for using a URL cloaking/redirection service ... because it makes it a real pita to mirror the supposedly threatened-with-extinction site
textjunky: if you're falling off google, maybe this is why, not because of deliberate censorship. google pagerank works by examining links on pages to evaluate their relationships. cloaking those relationships would probably mean the pages are evaluated as LESS useful than they would be (and rightly so .. these articles suck, because i can't see what they link to.)
textjunky: sorry, that's a bit harsh .. it doesn't excuse any deliberate censorship and doesn't explain why published news articles should not be appearing in google news search .. but ffs use real links!
textjunky: i can't find any links to offensive/threatening/defamatory/plagiaristic/whatever-it-is-you-are-alleging articles on wikipedia
textjunky: maybe there are some, but with cloaked links, i'm not gonna click every link and read every page of your opus maximus

Criminal charges related to murder/terrorism? filed in Belgium against: the US gov't; 4 US federal judges; US official Patrick Fitzgerald; author Patricia Cornwell; Google Inc.; Jimmy Wales & Wikipedia; CNN; AP; New York Times; Pearson plc; 7 US & Belgian law firms; college professors; and others

textjunky: "wide-ranging scheme of terrorist and anti-Semitic crimes to murder, destroy and slander the Brussels-based journalist Dr Les (Leslie) Sachs, a non-Zionist Jew of unitarian Christian faith, now an EU citizen, and a political refugee dissident from the United States"
textjunky: "illegal controls of the European internet by US judges and the CIA, the illegal blocking and erasure of the European websites of Sachs, from Google and internet search engines"
textjunky: but he's not chinese?! why they block?! .... </sarcasm>
textjunky: "Backed by nearly all the powers of the George Bush machine and the US government, Patricia Cornwell has boasted she can murder anyone and get away with it, as recorded in Vanity Fair magazine..."
textjunky: for sure this story is censored by someone ... no news coverage at all AT ALL for a story which definitely rates some kind of coverage, if only ridicule and explanation of claims as severe as this
textjunky: some mention of the background in wikipedia
textjunky: (two paragraphs)
textjunky: says US judges found for Cornwell
textjunky: "Leslie Sachs, author of The Virginia Ghost Murders (1998), claimed there were similarities between his novel and Cornwell's The Last Precinct. In 2000, he sent letters to Cornwell's publisher, started a web page, and placed stickers on copies of his novel alleging that Cornwell was committing plagiarism."
textjunky: things escalated from there
textjunky: relevance to this channel is that this supports arguments made recently by me in this channel that google's claims that they are backing away from china because they are uneasy about censorship are kinda bogus
textjunky: different values different places different censorships ... true ... censorship bad, true ... but censorship + alleged govt hackors == abandon chinese google ... why throw censorship in there? govt hackers is reason enough .... unless it's not really
textjunky: in which case censorship isn't really enough either, and google'd be better to just say 'bah' ('changed our mind') ... so wtf?
textjunky: i'm not gonna put a giant boot here because this guy might just be some nut .. someone who's nuttier than me even ...
textjunky: but well, if the facts he alleges are at all tangible .. there should be a giant boot
textjunky: allegedly alleges ... a link to actual online copy of the filed charges would be useful, or at least info on whether those charges are filed directly by him, or via some prosecution dept etc who would do sanity screening of allegations
textjunky: it does say 'criminal charges' which in many countries implies some level of screening ...
textjunky: interesting timing .. the google blog alleging censorship and hacking from chinese agents dated Jan 12 ... indymedia story of Sachs' allegations of censorship and hacking (and more) by US agents/persons dated Jan 14 ...
textjunky: however the material mentioned in the sachs story dates quite a bit earlier
textjunky: interesting that if supposedly $2m has been spent trying to defame sachs yet not a single news article returned by google news search... which is correct? indymedia contributor Dan Hajidah, or google news?
textjunky: woulda thought "les sachs" would at least get some false positives ...
textjunky: google doesn't even suggest a spelling that would get hits ...
textjunky: less sex?
textjunky: soo .. talking about this case could be subjudice ... that might explain some censorship, but not complete censorship ... the whole story could be fabricated, but it seems unlikely for that to happen without at least some pages that discuss that possibility .. so ... WTF?!
textjunky: so between those two possibilities, there seems basically no room at all, without google complying with someone's order to censor discussion of/by this guy blanket-wise
textjunky: ipso facto, google does censor in the west, even if it's just to comply to the standards that newspapers etc do with defamation, subjudice etc
textjunky: incidentaly, the US system doesn't seem to pay much mind to the idea of subjudice, so actually, i don't really believe that google have a morally sound reason to censor this particular issue and not censor a whole freeeking raft of other stuff that we'd notice
textjunky: so the idea that something is awry at least, some level of graft at work, seems fairly self-evident .. to me ..
textjunky: let's get banned. http://www.dr-les-sachs.be
seti: this guy is plain nuts.


textjunky: EPIC FAIL LULZ
textjunky: cf free.*

Rechump because it goes to the heart of the matter (TM)

textjunky: "...companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right..." as citizens do, to free speech
seti: Counterpoint by Glenn Greenwald
textjunky: What the Supreme Court got right ...
textjunky: i find it amusing when people lean heavily on the rule of law and the inflexibility of the constitution as excuses why We Should All Just Do What person-X in Authority Has Said
textjunky: those amendments to the constitution that you lean heavily on ... are the evidence that it is a flexible document, open to negotation like any other
textjunky: amendment to the constitution
textjunky: so if everyone dislikes the current interpretation of the constitution made by the court, revise the document again. duh.
textjunky: and the process to attain that involves dissent, negotiation, in some cases even civil disobedience and unrest
textjunky: o/' the truth of all predictions is always in your hands o/'
textjunky: of course .. the oldest trick in the book is pushing through some result like this, in the hope that it will result in popular uprising to overturn some great statute like the first amendment, then rushing in with jackbooted militia and ruling as a tyrant for decades to come ...
textjunky: choose wisely, young skywalker ...
textjunky: "All of the hand-wringing sounds to me like someone expressing serious worry that a new law in North Korea will make the country more tyrannical."
seti: Keith Olbermann interviews Alan Grayson about http://savedemocracy.net/
seti: driftglass weighs in on our new robotic overlords



textjunky: "It is vitally important to learn the correct, or 'clixby', responses to a clabby gambit, and not to get trapped by a 'ditherington'."
textjunky: "For instance, if confronted with a clabby gambit such as 'Oh, Mr Smith, I didn't know you'd had your leg off', the ditherington response is 'I haven't....' whereas the clixby is 'good.'"
textjunky: from

Run by the Daily Chump bot.