Slashdot Mirror

this is what i found http://www.blogherald.com/2011... 4. What About Record-Keeping Requirements? Current Federal law requires that individuals and companies involved in the production of pornography, to maintain certain records on performers including their legal name, date of birth and any other name they have gone by. However, according to the EFF, the Department of Justice has expanded the definition of “producer” to also include “secondary producers”, a list that includes people who post such images and content online. As you can see in the link above, there’s a lot of debate and legal wrangling over this issue, including whether non-commercial sites are exempt from the requirements (it is implied they are but there is some debate) and the overall legality of the rules is being challenged. Also, it’s worth noting that nudity alone does not trigger the record keeping requirement. The image must be considered “sexually explicit” under the law.""""""end copy and paste"'''''''

what is sexually explicit lol no clue in god green earth but i would say any penetration,sucking licking of any sexual organs.,fem breasts erect dicks and pussys are what i would consider sexually explicit but again the supreme court pussyed out by saying nothing of what sexually explicit is except for well know it when we see it..hahahha our government hard at work..And cowarding out to protect the innocent . what is

You haven't looked at any of the documents. You don't know FACT ONE about how this all transpired.

Did Joynet purchase textdrive?
The answer is YES

Did the lifetime customers receive service from Joynet after the purchase?
Again the answer is Yes for the last 7 years they have

Now we have established that Joynet purchased Textdrive, and that the customers were acquired by Joynet so please explain to me how it would be possible for joynet to claim that Textdrive sold the Lifetime customers when provided services? Or that Textdrive did not become a part of Joynet even though they were purchased by Joynet and the services remained.

Seriously am I the only one that just doesn't get social networking sites?

Nope... your up there with Wal-Mart.

5% of 100 million is 5 million. The nature of the mainstream media presents an ever-narrowing number of people that provide actual insight into current events in the mainstream media. Niche topics have always been incredibly limited in the MSM, confined to expensive quarterlies and trade magazines.

The blogosphere solves all this, and broadens the journalistic community that the average media-savvy person experiences in their life from maybe 5 key policy makers, 50 public faces, and 500 writers, to a peer-linking meritocratic network in the hundreds of thousands with public feedback. This exposes them to the words of hundreds of individuals in an hour of following heavily networked blogs, untainted by any mandatory viewpoints that a hierarchical organizational and ownership structure imposes - and it provides an ideal community for narrower topics to be covered in more breadth than they ever have before.

The point made in the summary is a fallacy - 100 blogs covering news COULD revolutionize journalism. That wouldn't be diminished by 10 million other blogs covering what color the belly button lint of their favorite bands is.

As for diaries and journals - I know people who keep the dead tree form that will compulsively rush off to write in them. Having an audience of a hundred people reading them regularly has a non-surprising effect on the person's interest in them.

Yes, having a blog is like owning a camera - but that doesn't mean that cameras didn't revolutionize the picture-conveying industry.

* optimizer - noun one who makes (something) as perfect, effective, or functional as possible * search engine - noun computer software used to search data for specified information A Search Engine Optimizer is one who makes (a computer program used to (thoroughly look into (something) in an effort to find (something else))) as perfect, effective, or functional as possible.

A search engine optimizer employed by the search engine company might seek to improve the engine for its owners. He would seek to make it more usable, more successful, and of course, more profitable. A search engine optimizer employed by a third party seeks to make that same search engine more usable (in finding the products of the company he works for), more successful (in driving custom to the company he works for) and more profitable (to the company he works for). Optimal is not an absolute. Optimal is a balance. The balance point where the results you wish to achieve are maximised overall. The cattle-breeder wants more meat from each animal. He may call himself a cattle optimizer if he wishes. His optimal aim might seem to be to make bigger better cattle, but 'better for whom? The cattle? No, he is balancing his aims of more profitable cattle against the harm done to the cattle in terms of health, creating a species that needs support to survive, the lifespan of the cattle, ability to breed, etc. Search engineers themselves learn a lot from SEOs. That rather proves that the term SEO is rather more apt than ever.

Nobody earns 6 fig salary writing blogs dude. What do you think adsense ads are enough to pull this kind of salary? I think this is a misinformation someone has spread to create a hype around blogs. BTW this is what blogsinc, the company that is being sold, paid some of the writers - http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/26/weblogs-inc-p ay-rates-revealed-by-disgruntled-potential-recruit

The posters talking about a repeat of the .com bubble are simply not paying attention. The business press and venture capitalists are interested because working business models are finally emerging for a small number of worthwhile blogs. Sony is paying $25,000 a month to sponsor Lifehacker, the latest Gawker blog. Meanwhile, Google is touting Weblogs Inc. as the poster child for AdSense revenue at a presentation for stock analysts. This is real revenue. Yes, many blogs are flooding the Internet with crapola. But some of the better blogs are providing useful news and information and building niche audiences that advertisers will pay to reach.

It isn't extortion or blackmail. It's called leverage, and it isn't illegal. Does the article submitter also imagine that haggling is illegal?

The only way this could be construed as immoral or objectionable activity is if you accept the premiss that Microsoft's monopoly dominance is absolute and that there are no acceptable alternatives -- but that belief is fundamentally incompatible with a belief in the potential of FOSS, so what are you doing here if you think that?

BTW, the Inquirer is a hack rag.