Just so you know that we've been using Linux for a while:

From richard Sun Oct 29 10:44:49 PST 1995
Newsgroups: wimsey.general
Subject: Re: stolen NeXT equipment
References: <DH81wF.EHo@prosoft.com>
Organization: Wimsey Information Services Inc.

And while we're on the subject of stolen equipment, Wimsey had a PC system
with Linux installed on it stolen early last week. Along with it was taken
the monitor from one of our NCD X-windows terminals. These guys were
obviously pretty stupid because the monitor is only useful on the terminal
and they left that behind! They worked at removing the monitor too!

Some times I despair that the human race is evolving upwards!

richard

-------
In article xxx@Direct.CA> wrote:
>
>Actually, it is true that if you want to regulate the internet there
>should be new laws to allow you to do so. Honesty compels me to say,
>that I hope the day never comes.

And here I'll point out that if you can't enforce a law everywhere, you
can't enforce it anywhere. You and anyone else are perfectly free to point
your news software at one of the wide open news servers elsewhere in the
world and read (and in some cases post) anything in any group you like.
(the location of such news servers is left as an exercise for the reader)

This is the absurdity of geographic enforcement of laws in a non-geographic
based medium. I'm fond of telling people that we are only 40ms from Toronto.
The extension of this is that we are only 100ms from France, Sweden, and
Cairo (for example) and only 1000ms from Beijing (am logged onto 2 computers
in that fair city as I write this - one day I may get to visit them).

The laws in those various jurisdictions vary from extremely broad to
draconian. The Net visits them all, and with little exception, the ISPs in
those jurisdictions have to pay at least lip service to the local laws. We
worked fairly closely with the people in Beijing before we shipped them
their systems - winnowing down the news list to those that we and they felt
would be acceptable. The point is that a PPP/SLIP connected customer there
can still point their news reader (as you can) to an ISP in Sweden and get
anything they want.

>You have been duly informed. It is a continued problem that happens
>in your system everyday. It is obvious to me. Are you saying that because
>it is harder to control you are absolved from having to control it?
>Again Stuart, pre-supposing that you actually are responsible for the
>routing out of this evil, the fact that it would be difficult for you
>to do so should not deter your from doing it.

All ISPs in jurisdictions that have censorship laws of any kind have to walk
a fine line - and you are deriving what appears to be pleasure from shaking
the fence. If your intention is to have a rational discussion then there are
forums and less confrontational ways of doing it. If you are simply trying
to get a rise out of the local ISPs then you are part of the problem, not
part of the solution.

>
>>I'll also point out that whenever they *do* get around to doing something
>>it is highly probable that the result will be less acceptable to more >people than the status quo.
>
>I see, so in order to avoid the backlash from customers who will be
>angry at loosing access to their favorite newsgroups because of a
>law that compels you to remove them from your system, you will just
>never carry them in the first place. Thus, the customers, never knowing
>that they are being denied access to something, will never be disappointed
>when, and if, a law forces you to deny it to them.

Grow up - we make pragmatic decisions every day that affect our customers.
Some are economic, some are moral. All affect what our customers are
offered. The nice thing about it is that you are free to start up a
competing service (or take your custom elsewhere) so in the grand scheme of
things it doesn't really matter. We all do what we can to protect the rights
of others. In the mean time we also have to have our own personal comfort
level with the possibilities that some idiot somewhere will make a complaint
to the authorities in forceful enough manner that they can't ignore it -
and come and take our systems away. We've made our decision the way we have
because we are very personally involved with the financial aspect of our
company - if it goes, we go. Those who have the luxury of having publicly
traded shares and deeper pockets and less personal involvement in the day to
day running of their news system can afford to make different decisions. I
don't like the fact that the playing field isn't level, but I have
dependants that I can't ignore.
>
>Flawless logic. I still prefer a provider that doesn't pre-sort things
>for me and allows me to form my own opinion. Of course, if my provider
>ever stops doing that, without first improving its service, I will be
>moving to another provider who holds similar opinions to your own :-)

Personally, I prefer a provider that gives me unlimited free bandwidth and
infinite local storage with no rules and regulations - however I don't ever
expect to find one. If I did, I'd switch.

richard                           
-------------

From richard Thu Nov 30 07:27:53 PST 1995
Newsgroups: direct.general,direct.help,direct.suggestions,van.general,bc.general
Subject: Re: RALLY AGAINST INTERNET DIRECT! SIGN PETITION!
In article <49d9lk$rmb	xxx@Direct.CA> wrote:

rantings and ravings snipped...

>
>The fact is, that something that was never meant to serve everyone is
>being molded because of the profit motive into something that will be
>palatable for all.

I applaud your socialistic attitudes - you've learned one half of an
education. I suggest that before you consider "profit motive" a dirty phrase
that you ponder the fact that in our case, the news groups and their
surrounding infrastructure is only about 10% of our business and yet they
contain over 90% of the potential to directly cause our demise from legal
causes (the other 10% might come from WWW stuff but is MUCH more
identifiable as to source, so liability can be passed on)

We have a limited amount of time and other resources available to us to
carry on our business. If we spent 99% of our resources on news to the
detriment of the other aspects then nobody would benefit. Business is always
a balancing act - and until you have experienced it for yourself then I
suggest you refrain from passing judgment. The world is full of people who
think "things should be such and so" who have absolutely no idea of the
facts of economic life. TANSTAAFL - "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch
"

>
>Forgive me for not being overjoyed :-)

I'll forgive you if you'll forgive us.

snip...
>This thread has proven to be an extremely interesting one and in a few
>days we have managed to move from examining how many newsgroups there
>are to a discussion of how and when to censor information on the net.
>
>On the other hand, because of my participation, I have managed to
>fall behind on a number of course assignments, and there aren't too many
>days left in the term to catch-up! I also feel distinctly uncomfortable
>having so many site administrators giving me their well reasoned arguments
>while finding myself being outvoted and defending groups with which I
>do not 100% agree :-)

You just ran into one of the same types of problems that a business faces in
its day to day operations. You have to make a pragmatic decision that will
affect your future - so do we. As for having site administrators' attention
focused upon you, remember that while you may be the one that is spurring
the rhetoric, you are not the only one that reads it. We know about the
lurkers out there - and not all of them are simple businessmen. Some have
the power in their hands to make a difference to all of us - and they have
their comfort level too.
>
>I will be trying to lay low for a few days, and cutting down on the time
>I spend on the net. It must be nice for you guys to be able to log
>onto the net through ethernet connections with full T1s or better
>at your disposal!

I sit at the end of a 19,200 connection using an older modem because I can't
get ISDN in Pitt Meadows and all our 28,800 modems are available for our
customers. Such is the lot of an ISP.
>
>Anyone want to hire me?

Anything is possible - but remember, business is not a social program - it
is the source of that which socialists seek to redistribute - wealth. On the
sweat of our effort live a lot of people that think it is their right to put
their hands in our pockets. It is a burden which we bear because we are ever
optimistic that those who can, will see that living out of our pockets is not
as good or satisfying as earning their own way - its just easier.

richard

------------                  

From richard Fri Dec 01 07:39:00 PST 1995
Newsgroups: direct.general,direct.help,direct.suggestions,van.general,bc.general
Subject: Re: RALLY AGAINST INTERNET DIRECT! SIGN PETITION!
References: <45g3kl$o4o@	xxx@grid.direct.ca>
Organization: Wimsey Information Services Inc.

In article <49lok4$qpe@grid.direct.ca>, xxx@Direct.CA> wrote:
>
>>The laws in those various juresdictions vary from extremely broad to
>>draconian. The Net visits them all, and with little exception, the ISPs in
>>those juresdictions have to pay at least lip service to the local laws.
>
>Don't you think that paying lip service to the laws is . . . not far
>from just ignoring them?

Try that in China - they shoot/hang people for ignoring such laws!

>Yes, in other words technology is rendering a large body of law throughout
>the world, if not obsolete, then hard to enforce. Then again, it is still
>not impossible to  enforce such laws, if sufficient resources are plowed
>into the enforcement. Whether this happens or not depends on the level of
>political will and public outcry.

The technology exists to monitor every packet in/out of such places as China
since their bandwidth is still pretty low - T1 or less total I think. The
transition from no contact (computer or otherwise) to full integration is
going to be a long one, but it is unstoppable. The problem will be with
people who think it is further along than it is getting caught and punished.
Walking on eggs is easy compared to this.
>
>So, please note that I have no problem accepting that an ISP has to do,
>what an ISP has to do in order to survive, but I do have a problem when
>the ISP tries to portray the actions circumstances force him into as more
>morally correct than the actions of other ISPs that may or may not have
>to obey the same imperatives.

I'm sure glad to hear that.
>>
>>Grow up - we make pragmatic decisions every day that affect our customers.
>
>I am grown up. This is why I have eyes to read with and I am able to
>translate the subtext of what is being said into a more explicit discourse.
>Was the clarification of what was said inaccurate? Why are you angry if I
>point out to you, a pragmatic decision you have made that affects your
>customers? You did made the decision knowing your customers would know
>about it, didn't you?

I guess the problem here is the lack of emoticons (smilies) etc. It is
difficult to figure out the tone of a conversation without them.

snip...
>>aspect of our company - if it goes, we go. Those who have the luxury of
>
>Yes, but what I am tactfully trying to say is that paying lip service to
>some issues to protect yourself is not something you should be using as
>the basis of showing your moral superiority over someone else who
>acknowledges the fact that all these actions have more facade than depth.

not superiority - fear.
>
>>having publicly traded shares and deeper pockets and less personal
>>involvement in the day to day running of their news system can afford to
>>make different decisions. I don't like the fact that the playing field
>>isn't level, but I have dependants that I can't ignore.
>
>I see, so you are angry that someone who is willing to take more risks in
>the marketplace than you, appears, in your opinion, to be reaping the
>market benefits of these risks. In fact public support for the groups we
>have been discussing is, in your opinion, so big, that you are loosing
>market share because you are not carrying these groups.

Nope - not angry at them - mildly pissed off at the whole system and the way
it has in the past been abused by ignorant enforcement people - While the
impoundment of our computer systems probably wouldn't put us out of business
for various reasons, it would cause me to develop another ulcer and raise my
blood pressure to the point where I would be in serious trouble. I shouldn't
have to worry about that, nor should any other ISP.

>
>Excuse me, didn't Stuart say, a few posts ago, that your customers agreed,
>nay, demanded that these steps (the removal of these groups from the feed)
>be taken, and didn't he also say that, in the long run, your customers would
>be happier with you for having taken the proactive decision of not carrying
>the groups in question? If these points are true, how is it that ID is
>profiting from an unequal playing field?

The playing field is uneven because of the differences in perception of the
personal risk of the various principles of the companies - because the law
is open to interpretation, not cut and dried as it should be. There is an
element of risk, and in general this affects larger publicly traded
companies much less than smaller tightly held ones no matter what the
industry. 

snip (things about billing systems)...

richard

-----------------

From richard Sun Jan 07 18:39:28 PST 1996
Newsgroups: wimsey.general
Subject: Re: newsgroup addition
References: <4ci95k$70g@wolfe.wimsey.com> <4cittf$650@wolfe.wimsey.com>
Distribution: local
Organization: Wimsey Information Services Inc.

In article <4cittf$650@wolfe.wimsey.com>,
Stuart Lynne <sl@whiskey.wimsey.com> wrote:
>In article <4ci95k$70g@wolfe.wimsey.com>,  <cmarlowe@wimsey.com> wrote:
>>Wimsey folk,
>>
>>please add the following newsgroup:
>>
>>alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc
>
>The purpose of this group is to distribute copyrighted software illegally.

The bottom line is that if it is illegal in Canada (and distribution of
copyright software without proper license is illegal in Canada) and a news
group either purports in its name to deal with the subject
(alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.beastiality for example) or we discover in
the normal course of our business that the typical contents is illegal, then
we simply don't carry the group.

We were informed (and subsequently verified) that the alt.binaries.warez.*
groups were specifically full of flagrant software copyright violations, so
we don't carry them. In addition, the groups are extremely large (software
doesn't compress very well) and the contents are typically poorly archived
anyway - missing a piece out of a 30+ part archive means the whole thing is
toast. We think that the majority of our news readers would rather we kept
some of the good news around longer, rather than spend the disk space and
other resources passing these groups.

richard
---------------

From richard Sun May 21 11:52:44 PDT 1995
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Political correctness is making me heave!!!
References: <3pmqd9$rrv@stud.Direct.CA>
Organization: Wimsey Information Services Inc.

In article <3pmqd9$rrv@stud.Direct.CA>, El Guapo <scottg@Direct.CA> wrote:
>
>Don't call a personhole a manhole; you can't call me a wretch - this is
>the ninties, take that line out of Amazing Grace, a song that is older
>than Canada itself; don't degrade animals and treat them as creatures
>of amusement for people - take that ball off the seal's nose in the new
>pool at Kits Beach.
snip...

>We're living in a society that thinks it has evolved socially, morally, and
>intellectually.  Well we better wait for the real world to catch up.
>

I see the things you have mentioned as a radical swing away from the 'me'
attitude of the '80s to the 'not me' of the '90s. The 'not me' also
translates into 'not my fault', '"they" made me do it', 'I used to do it so
you shouldn't', 'I used to have it done to me so you shouldn't do it' and a
whole litany of other attitudes that to my mind are simply contra-survival.

Unlike most other animals on this planet, humans learn mostly by experience.
They have little that could be construed as instinct, and most of that has
to do with survival in the first few days of life; turn the head and make
sucking motions, grab if support is withdrawn and such. The education of our
young is supposed to codify and make more efficient the much less formal
education that parents could/would do without it. The fact is though, that
it seems that few parents and even fewer educators are teaching morals to
our young. Morals are not instinctive, they are learned from example.

What type of example do we portray when we cheat on our taxes, speed in our
car, drive when we have been drinking, leave a mess where we have been, and
generally blame someone else for the things that are wrong with our lives?
It has become easier to fob off the responsibility to 'them' (government,
teachers, neighbours, police, other countries, etc.) for the mess we find
ourselves in. What does this tell our children? It tells them that they can
do anything and simply blame it on someone else and portray themselves as a
victim. Not in my house!

richard