How to avoid the spam on this news group?
in [Unix Programming]
|
Prev: How to implement a http(apache)-access-only system
Next: pthread_cond_wait segmentation fault Options
From: Rainer Weikusat on 15 Nov 2009 09:14 David Schwartz <davids(a)webmaster.com> writes: > On Nov 13, 7:08�am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote: >> HTTP content is as exposed or unexposed as USENET content -- someone >> who bothers to look at it can see it. > > That's not the law in the United States. 'The law in the United States' has no more technical effects than any other paper decree. And regarding 'inspectability' of the content, there is no difference between content distributed using HTTP and content distributed using NNTP: Both is possible, neither is technically feasible because of the large amount of data. > The headers are intended to > be used and processed by the ISP. The payload of an HTTP transfer is > not. USENET content is destined for the ISP itself. This is wrong. USENET content is replicated using NNTP and 'destined' for and created by people who use the service. The ISP is a mere passive infrastructure provider.
From: Golden California Girls on 15 Nov 2009 11:01 Rainer Weikusat wrote: > 'The law in the United States' has no more technical effects than any > other paper decree. And regarding 'inspectability' of the content, > there is no difference between content distributed using HTTP and > content distributed using NNTP: Both is possible, neither is > technically feasible because of the large amount of data. Don't lie. It is technically feasible. It is not economically feasible. If it wasn't technically feasible the data volume would have no bearing on the answer.
From: Rainer Weikusat on 15 Nov 2009 14:25 Golden California Girls <gldncagrls(a)aol.com.mil> writes: > Rainer Weikusat wrote: >> 'The law in the United States' has no more technical effects than any >> other paper decree. And regarding 'inspectability' of the content, >> there is no difference between content distributed using HTTP and >> content distributed using NNTP: Both is possible, neither is >> technically feasible because of the large amount of data. > > Don't lie. Assuming that I was wrong, who told you that I knew this and intentionally wrote something other than the truth? > It is technically feasible. It is not economically feasible. If it > wasn't technically feasible the data volume would have no bearing on > the answer. It isn't technically feasible, except for really coarse-grained and inefficient measures, because ultimatively, each particular set of octets which make up a given content would need to be inspected by a human prior to copying the data to the computer the requesting client ran on and the latency introduced by such a cumbersome procedure would remove all technical points in favor of not sending the content around by snail mail.
From: Golden California Girls on 15 Nov 2009 16:35 Rainer Weikusat wrote: > Golden California Girls <gldncagrls(a)aol.com.mil> writes: >> Rainer Weikusat wrote: >>> 'The law in the United States' has no more technical effects than any >>> other paper decree. And regarding 'inspectability' of the content, >>> there is no difference between content distributed using HTTP and >>> content distributed using NNTP: Both is possible, neither is >>> technically feasible because of the large amount of data. >> Don't lie. > > Assuming that I was wrong, who told you that I knew this and > intentionally wrote something other than the truth? > >> It is technically feasible. It is not economically feasible. If it >> wasn't technically feasible the data volume would have no bearing on >> the answer. > > It isn't technically feasible, except for really coarse-grained and > inefficient measures, because ultimatively, each particular set of > octets which make up a given content would need to be inspected by a > human prior to copying the data to the computer the requesting client > ran on and the latency introduced by such a cumbersome procedure would > remove all technical points in favor of not sending the content around by > snail mail. Thank you for confirming that is it economic rather than technical reasons. Obviously no one has the money to hire 99% of the planet to read it, not that there is any technological reason that it can't be done.
From: Rainer Weikusat on 15 Nov 2009 16:47
Golden California Girls <gldncagrls(a)aol.com.mil> writes: > Rainer Weikusat wrote: >> Golden California Girls <gldncagrls(a)aol.com.mil> writes: >>> Rainer Weikusat wrote: >>>> 'The law in the United States' has no more technical effects than any >>>> other paper decree. And regarding 'inspectability' of the content, >>>> there is no difference between content distributed using HTTP and >>>> content distributed using NNTP: Both is possible, neither is >>>> technically feasible because of the large amount of data. >>> Don't lie. >> >> Assuming that I was wrong, who told you that I knew this and >> intentionally wrote something other than the truth? >> >>> It is technically feasible. It is not economically feasible. If it >>> wasn't technically feasible the data volume would have no bearing on >>> the answer. >> >> It isn't technically feasible, except for really coarse-grained and >> inefficient measures, because ultimatively, each particular set of >> octets which make up a given content would need to be inspected by a >> human prior to copying the data to the computer the requesting client >> ran on and the latency introduced by such a cumbersome procedure would >> remove all technical points in favor of not sending the content around by >> snail mail. > > Thank you for confirming that is it economic rather than technical reasons. > Obviously no one has the money to hire 99% of the planet to read it, not that > there is any technological reason that it can't be done. The technical reason is introducing latencies of hours, if not days, which would render the technology useless[*]. There are also other reasons, like the one you mentioned, or one I mentioned (only authority can make authoritative descisions on politcal issues). [*] The whole point of using computers for communication is that 'the mechanics' operate automatically and thus, fastly and disconnected from 'human time'. Enforcing a censorship-by-humans onto that would essentially turn the wheel back to how things operated before The Internet was invented. Of course, this can be done. But the side-effect would be also technical one: End of 'internet communication'. |