Slashdot Mirror

Strange... have they removed the /firstlady/images/ page? As I'm getting a 404 error !

Hah. Just joking. No ... I wasn't. Yes, I was too (no, I'm not joking).

Check it out yourself: http://www.whitehouse.com/. There is nothing objectionable (other than the word "SEXUAL") there whatsoever (on the front page) and an extremely clear warning:

We are the Worldwide Leader in Adult and Political Entertainment
Celebrating our 6th Anniversary (1997-2003)

This Website does contain sexually-oriented adult material
which may include visual images, movies and verbal descriptions of nude adults, adults engaging in sexual acts, and other audio and visual content that is sexually-explicit in nature. Permission to enter this Website and to view and download the content is strictly limited to consenting adults. You agree that:

1. You are at least 18 years old or the legal age in your area to view and access sexually-explicit images and content for your personal use. This site is not intended to be viewed by minors.
2. You are familiar with your local community standards and that the viewing of sexually explicit materials falls within the community standards of acceptance and tolerance in your community. If you are a minor or your community standards do not allow the viewing of sexually explicit material or if you find adult material offensive please leave.

I used to think like that until I looked at this site. [link not safe for work]

That's strange. They told me the exact opposite.

Fine. Click here and here, if you think this "criminal act" is effective. For that matter, why don't you go to my old site, which was hijacked by a porn king during a domain transfer screwup.

By the way, some people still don't realize that you can just type the middle part, leave out the www dot and the dot com part, and press CTRL-ENTER. It will automatically assume (default!) that you want a dot com world wide web page.

That's one of the first things I shut off in Mozilla...does it really take you that long to type out the URL (especially when it's been put in once before and autocomplete still knows about it)? Besides, would you want your kid to type in "whitehouse," hit Ctrl-Enter, and end up here when he really meant to go here? If you're looking up some company for which you're not sure about the URL, you're better off googling for it than if you blindly assume that www.$COMPANYNAME.com is what you want.

Or, to much more hilarious effect, White House and White House.

You think some semi-obscure web toon is bad?

What about all the kids in school doing a paper on the white house?

Though looking at it now, they toned down the front page at least. The got a lot of press about it.

The Other Whitehouse. It's easier, and you can guarantee someone in the government will read it. ;-)

Slashdot editor "michael" is arrested by federal agents for initiating a DOS attack against the White House servers.



...has anyone checked out the other White House website?

Head over to the real whitehouse alternative, much more fun.

In this country , CBN stands for Christian broadcasting network, you hoser!

This is the United States of America. Dammit.

Wow, that was inspiring! You should get a job as speechwriter for the White House.

Is this case the biggest turn-off or what?

You've got more chance of finding some action at www.whitehouse.com. Err, I mean www.whitehouse.gov.

Teach them about Top Level Domains(TLD's) - lets they start typing stuff like this.

The real problem is that most /.'ers would rather browse http://www.whitehouse.com than http://www.whitehouse.gov.

Or maybe the music industry is selling what people want but are ashamed to admit they want. Heck, it wouldn't be the first time.

I think people over-react to child porn. Just look at the replies in this topic. Everybody seems to have to put "I don't like kiddie-porn but..." in every message. It's almost like "I'm not a communist but..." Does anybody really think that someone who doesn't include that disclaimer goes out and rapes kids?

Exploitation of anybody, including children is bad. No question. I fully support going after anybody who makes, sells or buys child porn, but I'm not 100% sold on going after people who possess it. If it is simply found "in their possession", which could possibly even mean that it showed up in their browser cache. Should you be in trouble because you mistype a URL and get one of the many porn typo sites?

Maybe intentionally seeking out child porn online should be illegal, but the penalty should reflect the crime. Someone who doesn't buy, sell, or make kiddie porn hasn't hurt any kids. Now the the argument is of course that viewing child porn leads to other crimes against kids. But isn't that the kind of thing that Slashdotters hate when it comes to other things? Just because someone loves playing violent video games and perhaps even makes a level that reflects their school or office doesn't necessarily mean they're going to go shooting up their school or office. Perhaps the punishment for seeking out child porn should be giving up all their privacy in case they can't control their urges.

This isn't intended to be flamebait. I'm sure there's many a libertarian who would agree with me that any action that doesn't actually hurt somebody else shouldn't be illegal. If you're going to moderate it down because you don't like what I'm saying, consider posting a reply instead. And it's not offtopic, the topic is child-porn and law, isn't it?

Use the alternate whitehouse website.

Visiting http://www.whitehouse.com has such beautiful excuses...

Now instead of this ridiculous ".name" they should have introduced ".sex" and forced all those sex-companies into that TLD. That could have helped parents to make sure their children do not get exposed to lots of the smut on the net and I'd be happy with just blocking all mails from "*.sex" and have way less spam in my inbox. Of course that wouldn't have worked out completly -- someone is bound to try to offer adult content under other TLDs -- but I'm sure it would have helped.

No, it's very stupid and it wouldn't help at all. I don't say this to be insulting, but because this supposed panacea is constantly being brought up by people who can't or won't think things through.

People selling smut want to get it under the noses of as wide a potential audience as possible. Hence the existence of things like www.whitehouse.com. You will not be able to stop them or even put a dent in their operations unless you manage to outlaw porn in general worldwide, which is (A) bad policy, and (B) highly unlikely. If you create a .sex domain, then the porn operators will register in both - it costs them $10 and gets them more exposure.

If you want to provide a child-friendly environment, you can create a domain called .kids or whatever. Require organizations registering in it to either provide references from established child-friendly outfits (school system, CTW, etc.) or to post a large cash "smut bond". Anyone found with porn on a site reachable via a .kids URL (whether it's because they ran an open web proxy, or because they willingly put it up) forfeits their bond and loses their domain.

This works, because you have a finite number of domains to monitor, and you have specific disincentives to leverage. Trying to keep pornographic content out of the "rest of the internet" is an impossible task and only an idiot (or someone with a fat non-outcome-based contract) would attempt it.

Hey, maybe it would be possible to modify this technology so that whenever anyone from the RIAA or MPAA did a search for MP3 or MPG, all they'd get is Whitehouse.com

There is further information on the Presidential website on the recent earthquakes around Washington:

The White House

Hope this helps.

it's on the front page of the White House website.

Oh, we got a wise guy.

The United States Government appears to actually be taking a privacy issue seriously for once - it's on the front page of the White House website.

The United States Government appears to actually be taking a privacy issue seriously for once - it's on the front page of the White House website.

The United States Government appears to actually be taking a privacy issue seriously for once - it's on the front page of the White House website.

I said he can keep his immature stalkedbyseth.com-domain. Please tell me how his actions differ from those of the people who run www.whitehouse.com?

Answer: They don't. Michael is a dirty squatter.

Really, think about it: Slashdot editor Michael, a defender of people's rights online, stoops as low as people who run www.whitehouse.com. That, my friends is the true definition of hypocrisy.

Michael: Stop you ridiculous squatting. You can keep you immature stalkedbyseth.com -domain. We know you don't get any hits because of that domain. The reason your page gets any hits at all is because you squat on the domain censorware.org.

Really, think about it: Slashdot editor Michael, a defender of people's rights online, stoops as low as people who run www.whitehouse.com. That, my friends is the true definition of hypocrisy.

Michael: Stop you ridiculous squatting. You can keep you immature stalkedbyseth.com -domain. We know you don't get any hits because of that domain. The reason your page gets any hits at all is because you squat on the domain censorware.org.

Name a similarity between censorware.org and whitehouse.com?

Answer:They're both run by a dirty squatter to lure people in instead of the real sites.

Name a difference between the two sites mentioned in the beginning?

Well, at least whitehouse.com gives me a hard-on...

Name a similarity between censorware.org and whitehouse.com?

Answer:They're both run by a dirty squatter to lure people in instead of the real sites.

Name a difference between the two sites mentioned in the beginning?

Well, at least whitehouse.com gives me a hard-on...

Name a similarity between censorware.org and whitehouse.com?

Answer:They're both run by a dirty squatter to lure people in instead of the real sites.

Name a difference between the two sites mentioned in the beginning?

Well, at least whitehouse.com excites me...

Name a similarity between censorware.org and whitehouse.com?

Answer:They're both run by a dirty squatter to lure people in instead of the real sites.

Name a difference between the two sites mentioned in the beginning?

Well, at least whitehouse.com excites me...

Name a similarity between censorware.org and whitehouse.com?

Answer:They're both run by a dirty squatter to lure people in instead of the real sites.

Name a difference between the two sites mentioned in the beginning?

Well, at least whitehouse.com gives me a hard-on...

Name a similarity between censorware.org and whitehouse.com?

Answer:They're both run by a dirty squatter to lure people in instead of the real sites.

Name a difference between the two sites mentioned in the beginning?

Well, at least whitehouse.com gives me a hard-on...

I think I'll go and see what new has happened on the Censorware front...

What? I didn't expect that. I thought the page had something to do with exposing censorware. Oh well, it's the same as with whitehouse.com... Damn squatters...

Does this mean we'll have to pay both Comcast AND the White House to view the content?

But the point of this is not to eliminate porn! Quite the opposite. The point of this is to make porn accessible to those that want it, and easily avoidable to those that don't.

You don't like the idea of imposing fines? OK, then, have the recourse be a transfer to the .xxx domain, nothing more. Indeed new sites will pop up every day, but they will be relegated to the .xxx. Eventually, as the law of diminishing returns dictates, the people hosting the .com porn sites won't bother registering .com porn sites. They'll hit the .xxx right away so that they won't risk losing their domain.

I'm not some crazy zealot that's out there to rid the world of evil sexy images. I know that there are many ways to disseminate porn. Isn't that the only point of Usenet nowadays? All I know is I haven't seen a whole lot of spam linking to Usenet messages, but I have seen lots that link to web sites.

I'm just suggessting that properly classifying porn at a TLD reduces the chances that

1. You'll accidentally trip over it at work (try http://www.whitehouse.com)
2. Your 10-year old will blindly follow a link and wonder what that woman is doing with that dog
3. Your 17-year old porn addicted teenager will circumvent your filtering s/w

Nowhere have I advocated the elimination of porn or sexuality on the net. We shouldn't be subject to the tyranny of one country's morality. By enforcing TLD rules, we're just classifying info better, making it easier to search/sort/find/avoid.

Need to go to ICANN's unix.org? Fine, click a pulldown tab in your Mozilla 2.0 browser and select ICANN, or better yet, type http://icann//unix.org/ . Otherwise, stick with http://freenic//unix.org/ or (if opennic ever decides to dump ICANN peering) http://opennic//unix.org/

A lot of (heavily tech impaired) users have trouble understanding that there are TLD's besides ".com", and you want them to have to specify yet another domain on top of that? Why not just force them to memorize the IP addresses of their favorite sites while you're at it... Having multiple "xxxx.org" sites would only be more confusing, not less. Besides, improvements in search engine technology (ie. Google) have made control of xxxx.net/org/com somewhat less important, which is not to say that you could run unix.org from a Geoshitties site or anything...

The article plainly describes that the beam will be fired through the earth, past the detectors, and INTO CANADA

Can't you see that this is a retaliatory attack. The people of the United States have lived in fear of the looming Canadian invasion forces for the nearly two centuries since Canadian troups burned down their presidential mansion. It's only right that the US should be able to defend itself against the Canadian menace.

Today's Software and IT industries are plagued by programming errors. While some of these errors are the result of illegal use of non-Microsoft software on rogue networks, the majority of problems stem from difficulties in mingling code of different programming languages.

Standarization on the best-of-breed programming language, C++, would undoubtedly reduce errors in software.

In this comment, I seek to dispel the myth that non-C++ languages are beneficial in proper Software Engineering. I outline how standardization on the C++ language can strengthen your corporation's bottom line. And I describe how to contact the men in Congress to have C++ use finally made legally mandatory.

C++, a programming language invented by Lucent's Bjarney Strupstrup in 1995, has been hailed as a God-send to Computer Science since its creation. Based on Richie Kerninghan's language "C+", C++ brought several previously-theoretical programming languages features to the mainstream:

Church-Rosser Compliance
Known as "multiple inheritance" in the programming world and as "being Church-Rosser" in academia, C++'s compliance to this IEEE standard immediately placed it head-and-shoulders above other languages. "Churrossity" allows programmers to use blocks of code, called "objects," in place of other blocks of code ("arrays".) The layman can think of this as "allowing 'new' code to 'run' old code." This advance has not been possible in previous logic-based languages such as Ada.

Multi-Byte Characters
C++ allowed use of "Beaster," a subset of Microsoft's COM ("Common Object Model") windowing layer. The Beaster system allows non-English-speakers such as the Welsh to use computing technology, as it could redirect the signals used to display non-English characters on a computer's monitor screen or laser printer. It is also useful in helping the blind, who speak a specialized subset of English called "ALS."

Pass-By-Text
A non-recursive pass-by-text mechanism existed in Kerninghan's C+, called "macro facility." But Strupstrup did Kerninghan one better with the "String Template Loader" variable passing mechanism, which allowed text to be passed to procedures at run-time. This sped up code execution times, as code could be compiled while the user was running the program. This eliminated speed loss caused by incompatibility from obselete computer chips (Motorola and ADM.)

The superiority of C++ over other languages should be obvious. But is switching to it from other languages possible in your corporation? Astute observers will note that the eco-terrorist group FSF produces a C++ compiler called "DJGPP." Under President Bush's War on Terror, any organization supporting a terrorist organization is recursively itself a terrorist organization.

Corporations needn't worry. Microsoft has its own C++ offering, "Visual Studio." As an added bonus, Microsoft Visual Studio is highly standards compliant. It features a visual programming interface, and several features not found elsewhere (such as a visual debugger and an AOL instant messanger client called "Windows Messaging".)

But these advantages can only be realized if code written in inferior languages can be kept from polluting the inter-web eco-space. When compilers for other languages are available, low-level managers are tempted to write code in them. Why? Often times, managers are brought up from the ranks of Software Engineers, and thus lack an Executive's sense for using the right tool for the job. When these managers write code in a jungled zoo of languages, code in one program is unable to interact with code from another program (churrossity.) Only by standardizing on C++ can all programs run together smoothly. Using C++ to eliminate software errors will jump-start the sagging technology industry. This will boost our economy as a whole, which in turn will help us to win the War on Terror.

The effort to legally mandate this has been going on for a while. But it needs your help. Even the smallest person, such as a reader of this site, can make a difference with his Congressman. Congressmen are kept highly versed in technical issues by lobbyists from Microsoft and Intel. But without strong grassroots input, the men of Congress and the Senate are powerless to heed the corporations' pleas.

Please, I urge you to visit the Congress and the White House to help bring this important movement to its fruition.

Unless they try and DOS whitehouse.gov

Just as long as they don't DOS whitehouse.com. How much would that suck...

Okay, I understand not making pr0n flicks of someone without their knowledge and consent. And not making flicks of kids involved in sexual behavior (aren't there already laws for that?).

But trying to force everyone off of .com is just ridiculous. I don't think Landrieu groks this Internet thing.

I agree with the second part of the Bill. It's not like the purveyors or hard-core pornography care, giving them their own domain would make it easier for people to find their sites. What I don't agree with is hiding porn sites in the rest of the otherwise safe Internet and even hiding themselves so that people stumble onto them unsuspectedly. I don't want children to do that.

As an adult, I have the right to look at porn, Larry Flynn made sure of that (at least the movie says he did); This Bill doesn't inhibit that right. It does protect children from having prOn sites appearing as something other that prOn when searching for something else on Google.

And I don't think it will label all adult-related material as prOn. After all, Slashdot is adult-oriented and I can access it from my corporate network which is closely watched and filtered by Websense software. I cannot access www.whitehouse.com though, good thing.

And, this does nothing for other countries. And, this does nothing but group porn where it will be easier to find. For example, if I am wanting to go to the White House, but instead put in http://www.whitehouse.com, then I hit a porn site. Or, I can just put ".com" after phrases like "blowjob", "sexydancers", etc., and be fairly assured of porn sites. Now, just tack on ".prn" to any group of words in the english language? A kid won't be able to type in ".prn"?

You may find this interesting. At this link you can see what Microsoft's ultimate goal is, the source of their great profitability. Enjoy.

Ah, but in the U.S., I can look at contraversial religious websites, websites that criticize Islam (and my own religion) , porn [do you really need a link?], and pretty much anything I want. Even when someone says I can't look at some information, I can look at it, and they can take me to court, and see if a judge thinks their concerns are more important then free speech.

I'm getting sick of these sophmoric statements of "the U.S. is just as bad as [x]", where x is the criminal of the day. Part of my discomfort is because I recently had the same frame of mind, and I hate seeing others make the same mistakes.

Why would we know of U.S. warcrimes in Afghanistan? The Taliban kicked all the foriegn journalists out. Sure, we don't see all the evidence against Bin Laden, but few dispute that his organization trained Islamic radicals, and was probably behind other terrorist acts as well as Sep. 11. I would be angry if we were putting him on trial without enumerating evidence, but first we need to imprison him based on the evidence we have.

Yeah, the U.S. government used propaganda and spin control and even lies, just like every other government on earth. But we also have a free and active press, which is always trying to catch the government lying. Sure, the big media is all corporate controlled and puts the rich white man spin on everything, but there's plenty of other news outlets, and almost every large city I've been in has a newspaper whose sole reason for existance seems to be to criticize the big media paper in town. Afghanistan? No free press. Saudi Arabia? No real free press.

This is a country where three little letters seperate propaganda from porn from anti-propaganda, and there's nothing George W., Time Warner/AOL, or Microsoft can do to stop it. And when they try, we can eventually beat 'em in court.

Sigh ... yes, that's why it's funny.

If I wanted NC17 I'm quite capable of saying come and inject heroin into this then come a fuck this. Cunt. Dope. Stanley Kubrick. porn porn porn porn