|
Author
|
Topic: Could someone please hack this site?
|
RedHeadedBastard!
unregistered
|
posted 09-14-2001 21:05
 
www.azzam.com IP: Logged |
Clme
cake fiend
|
posted 09-14-2001 21:19
 
Hrm... seems to be a rather capitalistic site  Probably harmless... probably. IP: Logged |
fenomas
argument nazi
|
posted 09-16-2001 20:21
No need, read their "urgent web appeal". Sounds like they got notice.IP: Logged |
Jimbo
1 dr3w j00 4 p1ggy!
|
posted 09-16-2001 22:06
Well, I read it, but I'm not quite sure what the "appeal" was... quote:
"In the battle before this one, we saw 'fly-people'. They were five metres high and were flying at us from the sky, attacking us with swords. We didn't know who these people were or how to fight them."
[Captured Serb Prisoner-of-War at Mujahideen Base Camp, Zavidovic, North Bosnia, 14 September 1995]
Wtf?! IP: Logged |
fenomas
argument nazi
|
posted 09-17-2001 02:47
I meant the one that said "We are currently seeking web hosting. Please contact us with the relevant ftp details."Hee hee, that made me giggle. IP: Logged |
Jimbo
1 dr3w j00 4 p1ggy!
|
posted 09-17-2001 07:13
1. Azzam.com is dead now
2. That doesn't make me happy. At ALL. The place wasn't really all that hate-mongering, when you get right down to it - and having been the victim of "web censorship" myself on more than one occasion, I don't like seeing somebody else's site killed - even when I (radically) disagreed with their views.
3. Now that they're down, wtf are we supposed to go to read how "the other side" DOES think?Getting that site's hosting pulled was just retarded. Whoever instigated it needs to pull their head out of their ass. IP: Logged |
fenomas
argument nazi
|
posted 09-17-2001 17:29
Not necessarily. Its a question of whether someone is actively blocking them from access, or whether their provider simply decided to pull their access. Any hosting company is a service provider, and has a certain freedom to choose who to provide services to. Just because I have Freedom of Speech doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to publish that speech. And any business has an obligation to its staff/shareholders/etc not to make business choices that put it in danger, either of losing money, or of getting bricks thrown through the window.If this was someone suing the ISP to pull their site, then I'm with you. But if joesisp.com decided it didn't want to host their site then that's their choice. Depending on contractual whatevers, which obviously we're not privy to.
IP: Logged |
Jimbo
1 dr3w j00 4 p1ggy!
|
posted 09-17-2001 18:14
Beyond a certain point, I feel that hosting services which rescind hosting based on their PERSONAL OPINIONS of the legal content posted by a customer become morally equivalent to apartment complexes who refuse to rent to black people.If the latter is unacceptable, why isn't the former? IP: Logged |
jumper42
Frat Troll
|
posted 09-17-2001 22:29
i am with jimbo on this one; yes i hated their message, but they are protected under the 1st amendment. It is not the popular speech that needs protecting but the unpopular crap that makes your skin crawl, with few exceptions under the law i.e. child pr0n. If a company can make that decision on their beliefs or ethnicity than that is discrimination. It would be like if Denny's was still allowed not to serve blacks.IP: Logged |
fenomas
argument nazi
|
posted 09-18-2001 03:23
I disagree.. ISPs are different from Denny's.
What if you go to one of them "self-publish" book outfits, and they agree to publish your book, then when they find out the book is [racist|dangerous|what-have-you] they decline to publish it after all? Of course, once again, there's only one arbiter of who's right, and that's the contract between the two parties. If, perchance, it was some kind of free hosting, which is just a theory based on their message hoping someone else would host their site for free, then I hardly see why the owner of the bandwidth would need any reason stronger than a mild case of gas to pull it.
... but it also makes a difference (idealogically) whether the provider knew what was in the site, but pulled it after complaints, or whether he didn't, and pulled it when he found out.... fen IP: Logged |
Jimbo
1 dr3w j00 4 p1ggy!
|
posted 09-18-2001 11:28
quote:
Originally posted by fenomas:
I disagree.. ISPs are different from Denny's.
What if you go to one of them "self-publish" book outfits, and they agree to publish your book, then when they find out the book is [racist|dangerous|what-have-you] they decline to publish it after all?
Are you expecting me to say that that should be okay? Vanity presses don't make their money from book sales in stores (typically), they make their money from charging the author to physically print some books. They do not have a legitimate business interest in pulling, say, Osama Bin Laden's autobiography from the press, because they do not have profits hinging on its successful sale. I actually think vanity presses and webhosting outfits make a pretty damn good analogical fit. NEITHER should be offering "you-publish" services and then unceremoniously yanking the rug out from under anybody they don't particularly like. IP: Logged |
fenomas
argument nazi
|
posted 09-18-2001 19:39
quote:
Originally posted by Jimbo:
NEITHER should be offering "you-publish" services and then unceremoniously yanking the rug out from under anybody they don't particularly like.
I don't think they *should* either. I'm a fan of personal liberty too. But it seems a little restrictive to say "if you run a business publishing things for people then you have to publish absolutely anything that anyone brings you, no matter what." Add the fact that with a web site, the content could change after the initial hosting agreement was made. After all, a publisher just owns the press, which is moot once the book is published, while an ISP owns the *bandwidth*. But don't argue with me, put W4R3Z on geocities and then argue the point with them.
IP: Logged |
jumper42
Frat Troll
|
posted 09-18-2001 20:08
call me dumb ass mother fucker with a huge cack, but dont you pay for the bandwith you use from the isp.IP: Logged |
fenomas
argument nazi
|
posted 09-19-2001 02:45
The ISP pays for the bandwidth in terms of connectivity and equipment. You may or may not pay them for access to the servers using said bandwidth, depending on your agreement with them.p.s. I don't know about your cack, but I can verify the other part. IP: Logged |
jumper42
Frat Troll
|
posted 09-19-2001 03:21
that madam is BLASPHEMY!the two go hand in hand or in your case hand to mouth  ------------------------------------------
i really need to proof read these things before i "submit now" [This message has been edited by jumper42 (edited 09-19-2001).] IP: Logged |
Clme
cake fiend
|
posted 09-19-2001 15:14
If you have a website on an ISP, you frequently (not always, but frequently) sign an agreement with them to use their service for a said price, up to a certain amount of bandwidth.As soon as you cross said amount of bandwidth, your service is either turned off or you are charged a higher amound. So yes, in some cases you pay for the bandwidth. However, the same ISP's that place such restrictions on bandwidth are also the ones that have clauses on "offensive" material. Whats offensive? Dont answer that. Its up to the provider. IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
PenIs Forum
