| brent timothy saner on 21 Oct 2008 12:13:28 -0700 |
|
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 http://ubuntusatanic.org > > 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 http://ubuntupornstars.org, 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. </sarcasm> 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 www.promotinglinux.com, 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, promotinglinux.com 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 Halloween > 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 reality. 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 www.plug.org. 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 http://www.notebookarmy.org/gpg.txt (this is a shorter sig.) grep -i hotchicks * Attachment:
signature.asc ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|