Well if the number of hits is 305,921 it’s completely accurate to say 300,000 is inaccurate.
1 Like
No, it’s accurate to say 300,000 is imprecise. [/pedantry]
2 Likes
Ha- yeah, she turns around all indignant and says “You underestimate us, rounding this figure down is insulting. 5000 of those accesses were mine and I’ll tell you that I work much more effectively when I’m not distracted by the raging horn I get sometimes. It’s for our country, dammit!”
1 Like
General Motors is the one I remember. Now I can’t find anything specific about it, though it may have been through a Hughes subsidiary.
She has forgotten about the commission to investigate internet content and all those volunteers who showed up to help out. The report hasn’t been published yet, but it promises to be thorough.
1 Like
At the risk of apologetics, there is a lot of weight to this excuse.
The metrics that classify porn vs non-porn would have been generated by a net-nanny system, and we all know how accurate they are, right?
With the collusion of ad and referral networks you see when you watch your own network activity, I’d find it easy to imagine that (say) collegehumor would be classed as ‘porn’ due to boobage, and each intentional pageview on (say) buzzfeed triggers a handful of unintentional network requests to collegehumor ads - which each get logged as individual “porn accesses”.
- I used to manage a proxy server for a university, and the ‘acceptable use’ filters. It’s pretty easy to fire false positives unwittingly.
Even more so if they have censorware in place that actively blocks stuff. Inline iframe ads for off-colour sites injected into borderline sites would simply not show up - and result in the ‘borderline’ site actually looking tamer and safer. Yet each pageload would also ping the adserver and be logged as an attempted access.
2 Likes
It would also be a disciplinary matter in most places of work to smoke.
Parliament doesn’t introduce any pretence that they’re equal to those they rule… sorry, represent.
1 Like
Part of the pieces of Hughes that GM owned mutated into DirecTV, which would be my guess; but I also can’t find anything specific.
Rule 34 probably applies to all of the products you alluded to 
David Cameron is a dangerous idiot.
Any further expansion on the conversation is side stepping the core issue.
A dangerous idiot who will likely be in office until 2015, assuming he does not tick off the libdems. Was there any vote in parliament on this issue?
The apologetic is the point of this post, since it’s a net nanny of this type that Cameron is proposing to apply to the entire country. If all these MPs and their staff are actually avidly reading Boing Boing (classified as porn by at least one net nanny service), that’s all the more reason that Cameron’s Big Internet Idea should be binned.
1 Like
If you mean Johnson and Johnson, there 230+ subsidiaries (many rather cryptically named) make things a trifle tricky; but I wonder if http://www.mentorwwllc.com/global-us/ puts out any…prurient… marketing material?
I stayed at a Marriott recently; Internet access was $10/day (and didn’t work very well, perhaps because I was on the 38th floor, plus if you had browser windows open after your 24 hours ran out, they sometimes turned into Marriott Wifi Login pages instead of whatever they’d been; I kept it connected to my work VPN to limit that kind of damage.)
At $DAYJOB, there’s a censorware filter on the company firewall, which not only protects us from NSFW material and malware, but also from “online communications” sites like Instagram, Tumblr (hi, Cory!), and maybe still Facebook. If I weren’t running Adblock, I suspect I’d see a lot more advertising windows get caught by the censorware, and probably some of those 300K page views are ads. It also protects us from Evil Hacker Sites, which since I do computer security, means “stuff I check all the time for work-related reasons.”
It really is misleading, they were all just watching the feed of the parliamentary proceedings. But that gets classified as porn because of how often they’re explicitly screwing the people.
Okay, not all of them, I’m sure a few of them actually are watching “How a Bill Becomes a Law - An XXX Parody”
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
