Simpsons did it already...
But really look at project Westford created a bit of stink
@folkrav is right here
And I'll posit that you likely wouldn't like this ability to exist in the first place.
Let me walk you through a thought experiment. Any system that requires a verification step is likely tied to identity and putting up a gate to get in based on the identity or using it to get a token to access it ties you to that activity. Ok great let's not let the kids see porn, but the exact same approach can be used to prevent or put a chilling effect on people seeking lgbt content, anti Vax content, unionization information,church gatherings, crypto schemes,academic research, Israel, Palestine, or anything really.
The internet was never intended to be a secure place it was intended to survive a devastating nuclear attack and keep information flowing. Tacking on arbitrary mortality gates is Orwellian and not how the internet was designed to function. Maybe these guys need to a seperate network (without blackjack and hookers) just for the content you want kids to see and not tell them about the internet till later because these proposed measures are like outlawing the letter q because you don't like that it leads to the word question.
Yea this guy is the hero of the thread, I would have just not bothered with the article if it wasn't for you pointing that line out
Ok define acronyms FFS (for fuck sake)
DEI = diversity, equity, and inclusion. Seeing what the hell is hidden behind the letters makes easier to see what this is about
It would be funny if people just sent a letter to their mp every time they accessed those sites something like:
Dear honorable insert MP name
In advance of bill S-210 I am writing to inform you of my internet usage habits what follows is a list of hyperlinks to videos I have accessed today:
I hope this information helps you in determining my sexual interests to aid in your reelection campaign.
Sincerely xyz ABC of qwerty riding
And in the smallest print capable of your printer ( if you would like to unsubscribe from this mailing list please consider your vote on this matter)
No it's not paranoia if they are actually out to get you.
If they are out to get us it's just baffling to me. The internet was originally designed as a communications tool to survive large parts being damaged in the event of a major disaster/attack.
It got hijacked by people first who used it to share less and scientific information and more for the lack of a better word human information. Then corporations came and wanted to extract value from it some how. So we had the Dotcom bubbles and pop-up ads.
Now I don't have the hindsight now to succinctly explain what happened next but then Facebook became a dominant social media platform. And everyone gave them info about themselves contrary to the previous advice about never using your real name on the internet.
Now we have governments world wide actively trying to police porn a good 50 years after it existed on the internet. 20 years since it was freely and widely available as streaming video? What's the goal trying to tax free porn somehow?
I think the genie is out of the bottle at this point.
It's wild because back in the day they told us don't let anyone know your real name or where you live if you can help it. Now it's let's see your driver's license to verify you before you can look at cat videos...
But how much of this is actually new trying to build a world order and how much is just ignorance in the capabilities of the technology of the members of the Senate and House of Commons
Ok I don't understand this push to block porn at a country wide level.
Who wants this and why?
I honestly don't see why. Most to the time they tell you follow the money but I can't think how blocking porn helps anyone but VPN providers, and old school porno mag and video publishers.
Maybe this is a fundamentalist puritanical thing? But how is it getting such wide support? Are there that many but hurt virgins in the Senate and House of Commons?
Argh so many questions and this feels so absurd.
Ah I've gotten to the point where I have to define what "frame" and epoch each time base is in before I'll touch the representation of time( Unix,Gregorian, etc) .To be honest I'm probably just scratching the surface of time problem.
Hell probably the reason we haven't seen time travellers is we suck at tracking time and you probably need to accurately know your time and place to a very good precision to travel to a given point and we can't say where and when that is with enough accuracy to facilitate where to land. And people don't want to land in the earth's surface or 10000 km away from a stable orbit. Maybe some writer can build that out for a time travel book or to discount it for some reason lol
Huh what do you propose then, go back to the 1960s and ensure they are only using VOR and DME ground equipment. There isn't a check sum to check on GPS/GNSS it just a bunch of satellites broadcasting what they think is the correct time. If you jam those and replace them with signals close enough but wrong values you can trick the math that's used inside the GPS/GNSS receiver that computes the the position (and velocity), and it looks like this signal can be introduced slow enough to trick the receiver in real-world applications. One trick to protect yourself is to ensure the signals you receive are from the direction you expect but we aren't going to attach directional antennas on every face of a civilian aircraft, to ensure the strongest signal is from the top of the plane and not the bottom. Essentially civil navigation equipment isn't supposed to be messed with and if it is authorities are supposed to go over and arrest and fine the idiots doing things over the radio they shouldnt. When the bad guy is a government well yea I guess that plan doesn't work and governing bodies such as ICAO should impose penalties like no commerical aircraft from companies from those countries are not allowed elsewhere.
Well it's dark humor and I can see how some are deeply offended. The post even says it's a slow growing treatable form, so personally I'll laugh at the joke. It's not like he's end stage untreatable form of cancer. Like you know arch linux running on WSL level cancer.
I mean you're not wrong but I'd argue you can get more interesting cve's using a higher more performant language such as c++. Where there are are ways to include CVE 's from C and introduce new ones to each level of your program using inheritance.