nzook@math.utexas.edu writes:
I must admit that I'm disappointed. I figured that I would take some hits, but for people to only scan a post before reaching for the lighter...
I must admit that I'm disappointed. I figured people on this list would assume good faith on the part of other list members until it was demonstrated otherwise. I read your entire post. You advocate using the government to force people to behave as you see fit. I pointed out that the services you want could be offered without the need for more legislation.
2- The censorship that I advance is censorship _by parents_ _for their own children_. Only.
People have talked about cable boxxes and telephones. Are you not aware that many cable companies offer boxes with a (physical) key that must be present in order for certain channels to come through? That the phone companies currently allow customers to disallow outgoing 900 calls? My idea is to implement a net-equivalent system--household by household determination of what will be allowed into their homes.
The cable and telephone companies _offer_ these services. You propose mandating what is provided.
3- In this system, the work to determine which parts of the net to allow/ disallow access to falls entirely on the parents.
And on the Department of Internet Connectivity and Hiding Erotic Data (DICHED).
4- I believe that this system could be used to gain the protection sysops deserve.
What's wrong with leaving the sysops free to protect themselves as they see fit? Regards, Patrick May ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "A contract programmer is always intense." pjm@gasco.com