But why? Fox has some pretty good looking women doing their news. I can't say the same for MSNBC or any of the others. I mean why *wouldn't* I want to watch Katie Couric give the nightly news. I mean she does a bang up job. Btw, Fox News is mostly filled with *Shows* not f'ing news. They state that over and over again before the start of whatever show it is. They aren't journalists, they're entertainers. Hell Bill O'Reilly has said that many times. However, I stopped watching all but local news. ALL of the networks grease their news (even local), so you better watch it with a grain of salt and take from it what you can. Then go over multiple sources (who probably got their stuff from the same central source that was also tainted). But yeah, if you read the last sentence the poster states "let the flame war begin". So they obviously were looking to start something. And seeing as their is a minority of conservative people that actually post on /. it's going to be a one-sided battle. Its kind of funny actually since the left knows they're going to win here and anywhere else they have a majority. Sort of pointless unless it gives you feel good points. I mean if you need a hug I'll give you a hug. If that makes you feel better. Wow, I better watch out or I'll turn into a hippie.

If you want to fund this study I also have a bridge I'd like to show you...

While you disagree with the other side at least you see that there is a disagreement and are ok with it being that way. Others would rather force their side, regardless of which it is on the other. And I'd disagree; here in the US you'll find that both sides can equally be prudes which is where this conversation was heading. I may disagree how you'd raise your kids but I sure as hell won't be telling you how to raise them. However, if there is some tool I could use to keep mine away from things I deem as unnecessary for them to get involved in that is my prerogative and I'll use it. Just because another tool becomes available doesn't mean that *everyone* has to use it. The bigger issue I see with this is if we start to segment the internet due to one sector this will give governments, private companies, etc to effectively do what China does and remove things that those in charge don't deem "fit" for anyone or will use it as a propaganda machine. I think if it was done on the ISP end it would encourage competition since not all ISPs would have to have adhere. And ISPs DO have the ability to do this. Whether it is legal or not is another issue, as you'll have those that don't want it. Although if it were opt-in it wouldn't be a huge deal; they'd have to use static IPs most likely. Or just put certain subnets on it and make sure that those that opt-in only pull IPs from that pool. If it's not hurting your liberties I don't see the issue in the end. Keep in mind your liberties don't extend into raising my child for me which is why I disagreed with her. However, I don't see giving the option she suggests is infringing on anyone viewing the internet since it is opt-in not opt-out. It does put a burden on the ISP, but I'd suggest they just opt some policy of "if your kids sees porn on the net we're not responsible" deal. Since ultimately it is up to the parent to supervise their kid. A while back I had a mother ask me how to supervise her teen on the net and I basically told her to stick the computer in a room where everyone is normally and to just monitor usage when the kid is on the net. Beyond that I basically left it in her hands to do her job as a mother. Oh and I suggested removing power from the machine while she wasn't home; unless the kid went to buy another power cord or something.

While that may be true citizens should have some sort of integrity about themselves. There was a time when, regardless of the abilities people had, that privacy was respected. This "Its the internet age you have no privacy" is bunk. We only have privacy regardless of whether its digital or not if people kept some sort of respect and integrity about themselves. However we live in an age where people are selfish as hell and could care less about smearing or stabbing someone in the back to get ahead or just watch the fires burn around them. Sad days.

I'd hope it wouldn't be useful at all. This is plain cockamamie crap. I don't care if my food tells you I was in Bangladesh. It isn't foolproof enough to use in any court of law. This is paramount to saying "We should have Thought Police like in Minority Report." Total BS. Technology should only be used in court battles to a point otherwise we're going to start putting more innocent people in jail than there already are and I'm sure that number is too high as it is even if we can't properly calculate; everyone in jail is innocent. / sarcasm I love IT/science, but using it unabashedly without 2nd guessing its uses or even the outcome is foolish. This issue is just like with the science freaks that think some day some special break through is going to happen that explains the entire universe. Not only is that foolish thinking its ridiculous thinking. Everyone knows the answer already. 42.

That was iron buddy.

Only if he can find a Johnson.

Ugh, that is what I get for drinking and typing. Line 10 should be: on full CCTV camera and has the DNA to prove it?

Huh, really? So the camera is just gonna grow arms and legs and stop the crime. Damn I want that camera because I'm gonna get rich quick! Cameras are way more worthless than cops. Cops peek just over cameras since they on occasion do stop a crime before it happens. But usually its to pick up the pieces or to harass you.

Personally the latter portion is where I hate cops the most. Some cops can be complete anal asshats but I think those are the young ones who seem to think their cock is bigger than yours and want to prove it with the power they wield; those same cops should be fired and put on an island to rot. I know some good people who are officers and they wear the uniform respectfully.

Also, wouldn't you just love to be the poor sap that gets screwed by some political stooge that knows you know something about him so he stages a crime on full CCTV camera and hast he DNA to prove it? Seeing as its now proved to be pretty "easy" to fake DNA. Which I'm sure has been used at some stage before the public knew about it. It would be very surprising to find that none of the major government agencies (CIA, FBI, Interpol) didn't know about any of this before hand. I'm just saying.

It may be patched, but if someone used the flaw around the time it was originally created (2001) then that is an awful long time for someone to have created another method into the machine after they've gotten in. Ever read The Cuckoo's Egg? Simply put if a hacker got into a system you'd think the first thing they do after escalating their privileges is to create a backdoor in case the one they came in was closed. Now...try to find that backdoor and any other apps the hacker put on the system. 8 years of residing on a system is a looong time, assuming they weren't found out beforehand.

Ugh.. 2nd line: should be *proven 4th line: should read: issues crop up around the planet

Well by the standards shared by this particular judge I would think this would/should hold up against an RIAA legal battle, unless of course your ISP "finds" the IP address "assigned" to your modem/router. Which technically is a total farce since its been prove that both MAC spoofing and IP address spoofing is very simple.

BUT...wtf does EU law have to do with US law?! NO JUDGE should be using another countries laws/case law in the US court system. I realize that simliar issues crop around the planet, but our judges should be following what laws we have not another. They should be applying US law and the US Constitution and if it doesn't exist in either law or the Constitution I'd have to check on what should be done. My suggestion would be for them to drop the case until something is legislated and/or notify the stated/federal legislature of this gap to actually utilize our freak'n system that is in place. This legislating from the bench pisses me off; although I didn't read the article (per procedure for posting) so I don't know.

well...I suppose it is working...odd. For some reason the preview mode didn't display the markup properly.