brent timothy saner on 21 Oct 2008 12:13:28 -0700

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] MBSFW Happy Soon To Be Halloween

going to combine all three of your posts for cruft-prevention's sake.

Art Alexion wrote:
> I'm thinking if you read the url before clicking on it, you might get a hint 
> at whether you want to go there or not.
> I, for one, found it amusing on this week before Halloween.  It's on topic and 
> I would have missed it had he not posted it.

i'm surprised you actually haven't heard of this before, as it's been a
pretty popular ubu-derivative. you would have come across it eventually.
do you follow distrowatch at all?

> The url was
> It was really about an Ubuntu theme and therefore on topic.  The "satanic" 
> part should have warned anyone who might take offense.
> If the url was, and it was indeed an ubuntu theme 
> or derivative distro, it would be on topic and appropriate to post.
> It has been noted that this list does not take positions on things 
> non-technical and that is as it should be.  

so if i posted a link to lolcats and NOT include any sort of technical
info, you'd expect it to be relevant/non-contested? after all, they
might use one of the images for a wallpaper.

he just posted a link. he provided no background on what it WAS, or how
it is relevant.

do you think if i posted a link to, it would go
over well? just because something SAYS linux or something linux-related
in the url, that does NOT make it relevant. it will not (and SHOULD not)
always be welcome with open arms. (granted, is
hilarious and a brilliant parody, but i digress).

> c'mon, the friggin' link had satanic in it.  If you really care about
> "the
> reports generated by the corporate firewall & content filtering
system", you
> don't click on links with satanic in them... unless you work for a
> supply store.

perhaps you are not familiar with how 90+% of EDUCATIONAL and CORPORATE
filtering/blocking software works.

1. via keywords.
"satanic" alone would be enough to get the site blocked in most
institutions. do i agree with that policy? no, not necessarily but it's

2. via flags
some of the bigger companies have employees hunt down websites that
contain potential offenses. that one image of a nude model? that's
enough to get the entire domain blocked.

3. association
if something links to a blocked/flagged site within X many hops, that
can get the ENTIRE DOMAIN blocked. even if it's not related, and is
submitted via end-user (i.e. a comment on a blog).

i don't know if you were aware of this, but PLUG PUBLICLY ARCHIVES
posts. webcrawlers for blocking companies will see the link in that post
(hell, this thread) and will block

congratulations; in your endeavor to defend a collection of questionable
themes, you've now blocked the entire archives. which is a shame,
because now some people who google for helpful information will miss out
on a LOT (such as the grep/xargs thread a bit back).

brent saner.
gpg info at
(this is a shorter sig.)

grep -i hotchicks *

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --