order phentermine online cheap diet pill 808%

slot machine buy ohio commercial zyrtec dangers of phentermine

The problems regarding censorware blacklists are endemic, and not under my control.
See my page about Open Censorware issues
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/legal/open.php

I suspect “click-though” is not acceptable – it makes no logical sense in terms of the law, as I see it.

I’m not against someone collecting pricing info. But I have no interest myself in collating marketing information.

Again, my view is that “least worst” is going to end up being “endorsement” in practice.

And that Burke quote describes why I was driven to quit
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/000423.html

“The few open-blacklist products are oddities with a minuscule market impact”

I agree. And people like you and Karen are not helping this situation. So long as you dump all of the filtering products into one barrel, people who are responding to the legitimate concern about tranparency are left with a trivial marketshare. So who has the big piece of the market? Well, the people who sue you if you try to crack their encrypted blacklist.

There has to be leadership from people who are technically aware and Karen’s postion is an abject abdication of that leadership.

“Can the filter be turned off?”

On IF2K the library patron can be given a choice to “click through” without any librarian intervention. Librarians asked for this, IF2K delivered. In our view that is what the SCOTUS decision requires.

Cost

This is key. There is no reason at all that a library should not work its costs of CIPA compliance to its advantage. That means one shot pricing, a system configured to require a minimum of staff time and no annual subcription. Check out Lori’s site for price comparisons.

“Lice vs fleas”

Odious isn’t it. But if lice go away on command, tell you what they are eating and cost a fifth of fleas the issues really are pretty simple.

The problem is that so long as you insist upon calling all of them vermin the critical distinctions are missed.

The biggest reason to get involved is to bring your technical expertise and long standing reputation to bear on finding the least worst compliance alternative to a remarkably dumb law.

If you and Karen remain silent the mass market, agendized “solutions” win.

To quote Burke, “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

That said, I also recognize there are librarians out there who cannot afford not to comply with CIPA. I hope that the summary of web pages I’m making available to everyone at filtering.galecia.com will help people find a product that suits their needs…if that’s what they decide to do.

And further, I encourage those who use filters to take their responsibility seriously and learn how to use it as effectively as it can be used.

Lori

“Is the block list available?”
NO. It’s considered a deep secret, and the vendor will SUE anyone who makes it available. The few open-blacklist products are oddities with a minuscule market impact” (sorry, no offense meant to IF2K)

“Can the filter be turned off?”
In theory, maybe. But by the time the patron gets past the stigma of asking for the “porn password”, and finds one of the overworked staff, and the staff member finds someone authorized to do it, that’s a joke.

“What are the costs over and above the purchase of a filter and annual subscription (if any)?”
What’s the going rate for system administrators and technical support in your area?

This isn’t hard stuff. It’s not what people want to hear. But the answers are fundamentally pretty simple.

The biggest reason not to get into the “lice vs. fleas” business is this:

EVEN IF IT’S NOT AN “ENDORSEMENT”, IT WILL BE PUBLICIZED AS ONE!

It doesn’t matter if someone says “All censorware sucks, but BlinderBox sucks less”. That will be immediately put in their marketing literature as “Famous Expert picks BlinderBox over all other censorware!”. Moreover, anyone else who then criticizes BlinderBox will be met with the retort of “But Famous Expert picked us over all the others, and are you saying Famous Expert is wrong?”

The free-speech side has been down this path before. There’s still repercussions from a very ill-consider decision years ago to give some PR to a censorware maker. It was a disaster all around, for reasons similar to ones I outline above.

Note this is not an “ideological” objection. It’s an absolutely practical argument.

However, in many ways the pronouncement “Filters are bad news.” leaves librarians in libraries which cannot afford to forgo E-Rate funds or whose Boards think filtering is just a dandy idea, adrift.

The purist position denies those libraries the significant experience and knowledge Karen has as they struggle to make sense of a remarkably badly drafted law and a dog’s breakfast of agendized vendors.

“But what I’m not going to do is put myself in the position–even implied–of endorsing the concept that filtering is a good thing.”

Which no one is asking you to do. But what a lot of librarians could use is some advice as to what to look for from the vendors. Is the block list available? Can the filter be turned off? What are the costs over and above the purchase of a filter and annual subscription (if any)?

You can certainly say “All filters suck.”; but what would be more helpful would be to say “All filters suck, filters which can do “a”, “b” and “c” suck less.”

As I have written elsewhere, having lost in Court, the ALA and its technically more savvy members should take control of the filtering issue by setting standards for filters in libraries. Those standards should be based up an absolute commitment to intellectual freedom and a determination to minimize the damage done by CIPA. The vendors will have little choice but to conform to those standards if they want a shot at the library market.

Abdicating behind the announcement that “Filters are bad news.” abandons the implementation of filtering to the vendors.

When a critic as perceptive and challenging as Karen drops out of the debate librarians and library patrons lose. Again.

It is increasingly obvious to many of us that the “boobs” that are corrupting our children’s futures are the ones in Washington pushing an agenda of ignorance and deception.