Slashdot Mirror


Peer Pressure Porn Filter

Highwayman writes "Wired magazine presents one man's approach to stopping online pr0n 'Instead of relying on filters, the approach, which NetAccountability has been pitching primarily to religious groups, calls for Web users to share records of their online activity. Users pick a friend, spouse or other confidant who receives a regular report showing which sites they visit, highlighting potentially objectionable material.'"

870 comments

  1. Yes, this is so cool by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Think of it as a new way of recommending sites to your friends :)

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Yes, this is so cool by cpct0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yep. I know exactly a few people who might be really interested in the sites I visit. ^_^

      Besides, I wouldn't have to send them my new "discoveries" (either pr0n or not). They would be able to find those themselves in the wad of stuff I visit.

      One objection, though. Suppose I go visit one site that is so highly objectionnable there is even a virus in the site. Would that mean I would automatically infect people whom I trust because they too will go look at that site? Nice!

      "Don't go visit Goatse! It's a virus! Yeah, I tell ya!"

      Mike

    2. Re:Yes, this is so cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It reminds me of an ad for some internet filter on TV my wife and I saw.

      TV: "There are over 1,000,000 pr0n sites on the web..."

      Me: "Wow. Look like we have some catching up to do."

    3. Re:Yes, this is so cool by unicron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No shit, huh? This is the greatest webring the world has ever known.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    4. Re:Yes, this is so cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think if it as a new way to encourage confirmity. We need that, don't we?

    5. Re:Yes, this is so cool by MattCohn.com · · Score: 1

      Well, it would only work if it was a packet sniffer too. Or does it just keep track of HTTP on Port 80? If so, I think most of the porn (or, PR0N) surfers out there would be safe.

    6. Re:Yes, this is so cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem with this is that other people i.e your wife will ask you to install this software.. or parents will force their kids to use this software

    7. Re:Yes, this is so cool by ElPicador · · Score: 1

      he should probably patent this while he has the chance.

    8. Re:Yes, this is so cool by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the problem with this is that other people i.e your wife will ask you to install this software.. or parents will force their kids to use this software

      If you are a legal adult then you don't have to comply.

      If your wife wants you to install it, then the real question is why? Is there some agreement that you will never look at pr0n? If you agree, then you should respect your agreement. Or be clear that you no longer intend to keep this agreement to be pr0n free.

      If your parents want you to install it, and you are a legal adult, then frankly, it is none of their business.

      If you are not a legal adult, then what are the parent's motivations? To keep you pr0n free? Good luck. This may come as a shock to the parents, but once a guy is in his mid teens, he is naturally interested in sex. Are the parents trying to suppress this? Or out of touch with the fact of it? The realistic parents would probably feel about pr0n much like they would about masturbation. Do it in your own room please. Don't have your very own computer? Then do it when nobody else is home.

      If the parents really think they are entitled to control how you think then there are deeper problems, and this request for monitored surfing is just a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. (Assuming a near-adult, not a child.) In this case, you may just be stuck with unreasonable behavior motivated by good intentions until you are an adult.

      As for females, I simply don't know. I'm not one. And I make a point to stay away from them. Still, some of the above thinking might still apply. It is possible that some females, for some reason might take an interest in sex. Should they be able to masturbate privately? (If they do so at all? I'm not female and can't speak with any experience.) If masturbation is okay, then should they be able to view pr0n privately? Once they are in the real world, they can do what they wish. They should not be so sheltered from real life that they can't cope.

      On a slightly different subject, yes you can find things on the internet that are shocking, disturbing, etc. Of course, to a limited extend, this is true of TV as well. (Violence, etc. until you get de-sensitized to it) So should people be "protected" from seeing the web's content? Surely with the click of the mouse, even a teenager has the necessary power to dismiss and not see sick #$*@ that they don't want to see.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    9. Re:Yes, this is so cool by hobbesmaster · · Score: 4, Funny

      As for females, I simply don't know. I'm not one. And I make a point to stay away from them.

      Such is assumed, you're on Slashdot last I checked... ;)

    10. Re:Yes, this is so cool by end15 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey this is a great idea. Finally we can save ourselves the bore of watching it online and finally get the energy to watch it at the underground orgies all our friends have been talking about.

      --
      All glory to the Hypnotoad!
    11. Re:Yes, this is so cool by unitron · · Score: 1
      "And I make a point to stay away from them."

      That's like saying I make it a point to avoid people who are desperate to give me large amounts of money absolutely free. Who needs a solution for a non-existant problem?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    12. Re:Yes, this is so cool by plalonde2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I stopped buying porn. Now I buy lottery tickets. The fantasies are better. And more likely.

    13. Re:Yes, this is so cool by minektur · · Score: 5, Funny
      "If your parents want you to install it, and you are a legal adult, then frankly, it is none of their business."



      If your parents want you to install it and you are a legal adult, stop freeloading off your parents and get your own damn apartment and isp.


      If they pay for the internet access, and pay for house you are using it in, they can say how it is used, you slacker.

    14. Re:Yes, this is so cool by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Now I'm really confused.

      I don't know what your point was?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    15. Re:Yes, this is so cool by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you had a million dollars I bet you could hook that up.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    16. Re:Yes, this is so cool by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      get your own damn apartment and isp

      That's a very good point I had not thought to address. Of course, maybe your parents want to monitor your internet access even once you've moved out.

      I must disagree with your second point. Parents may be happy to put up their kids beyond their 18th birthday. This does not give them total control of the kid's life, especially what they do in private. Most reasonable parents would probably see it this way.

      If the parent's don't like it, they are free to kick out the kid. Nonetheless, they do not have a right to know what you think, what you read, what you fantasize about, and what you see on the Internet.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    17. Re:Yes, this is so cool by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      >>As for females, I simply don't know. I'm not one. And I make a point to stay away from them.
      >Such is assumed, you're on Slashdot last I checked... ;)


      Being on slashdot does not prevent me from having a boyfriend. :-)

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    18. Re:Yes, this is so cool by oni · · Score: 1

      who buys porn??

    19. Re:Yes, this is so cool by 'cool+mode'+spook · · Score: 1

      Instead of buying the program to see how naughty my spouse and kids were, I'd just open their closets and guage how bad they were by measuring how high I'm buried in dirty magazines.

    20. Re:Yes, this is so cool by miu · · Score: 1
      Now I'm really confused.

      I don't know what your point was?

      Dude, he was totally trying to burn you! He was trying to show that you had no problem keeping women away because you are unappealing and unlikely to have that problem.

      Which is silly, really, because it's not like you were claiming you had to beat off- ... repel the ladies with a stick. Now the laddies on the other hand...

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    21. Re:Yes, this is so cool by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now I buy lottery tickets. The fantasies are better. And more likely.

      I always figured the person standing ahead of me in line scratching off lottery tickets, while I strugle to not drop my armload of groceries, somehow was getting off on it.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    22. Re:Yes, this is so cool by gooberguy · · Score: 1

      Being on slashdot does not prevent me from having a boyfriend.

      There is a joke here, but I'll politely walk away from it. I think all the parties involved (including your boyfriend) would be happier if I did not call your sexual preference into question .

      D/\ Gooberguy

      --


      Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
    23. Re:Yes, this is so cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Think if it as a new way to encourage confirmity. We need that, don't we?

      We can neither confirm not deny that.

    24. Re:Yes, this is so cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the greatest webring the world has ever known.

      Beats heading to the confessional...

      Tommy Shaughnessy enters the confessional box and says, "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I have been with a loose woman."
      The priest asks, "Is that you, little Tommy Shaughnessy?"
      "Yes, Father, it is."
      "And who was the woman you were with?"
      "Sure and I can't be tellin' you, Father. I don't want to ruin her reputation."
      "Well, Tommy, I'm sure to find out sooner or later, so you may as well tell me now. Was it Brenda O'Malley?"
      "I cannot say."
      "Was it Patricia Kelly?"
      "I'll never tell."
      "Was it Liz Shannon?"
      "I'm sorry, but I'll not name her."
      "Was it Cathy Morgan?"
      "My lips are sealed."
      "Was it Fiona McDonald, then?"
      "Please, Father, I cannot tell you."
      The priest sighs in frustration.
      "You're a steadfast lad, Tommy Shaughnessy, and I admire that. But you've sinned, and you must atone. Be off with you now."
      Tommy walks back to his pew. His friend Sean slides over and whispers,
      "What'd you get?"

      "Five good leads," says Tommy.

    25. Re:Yes, this is so cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bob: "So my question is...why doesn't the user just email the weblog to the friend?"

      Program: "Because I have people skills!"

      Apparantly those people who want to get help are just lazy.

    26. Re:Yes, this is so cool by tkg · · Score: 1

      This may come as a shock to the parents, but once a guy is in his mid teens, he is naturally interested in sex.

      Shouldn't be too big of a shock. After all, most parents today were in their teens when they started having kids of their own.

      If the parents really think they are entitled to control how you think then there are deeper problems...

      It's not an issue of control, but one of guidance. Do you really want your kids to learn about relationships from Penthouse Forum and the like?

    27. Re:Yes, this is so cool by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      Well actually this app doesn't log every site you visit. It only logs sites that fits their algorithm for porn content. A better service is Covenant Eyes which logs all sites. This is even better.

      There are so many sites that have content that is just as bad to view (nearly nude underwear model pages) as ones missing that extra bits of cloth. Same thing with Celebrity galleries on sites like lycos, yahoo, others. Just because they wear clother over the 3 parts of the body (1 part for the guys) doesn't mean it isn't designed to tempt the viewer.

      robi

    28. Re:Yes, this is so cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Limiting pr0n to little boys makes them gay

  2. hmm.... by greenskyx · · Score: 1

    I already thought the government was going this for us.... on a more serious note... HAHAHAH HAHAHA HAAHAHA!

  3. yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why would someone willingly subject themselves to this? I mean, we're all human, we all have urges, and if any of us have gone out and looked at pr0n somewhere, how does that make us a bad person?

    1. Re:yeah, but... by bill.sheehan · · Score: 4, Funny
      That's just what we'd expect a filthy disgusting moral leper of a pervert to say.

    2. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What Qualifies as immoral content. Does that mean they are gonna see my Everquest sites(that whole false idol bs) and bitch at me for that? I like the idea as a concept. It would probably have practical application with those who are addicted to porn or gambling. However I do not necessarily share the same moral views as my neighbor or even my brother. So for keeping me morally straight that is crap cause i would just argue that EQ is not evil. Then come back from afk to fulfill my eq addiction :P

    3. Re:yeah, but... by truenoir · · Score: 1

      Some people have issues for one reason or another with looking at this stuff. It doesn't mean that they're a bad person now or whatever. However, this is a decent idea. I've known people that moved their computers into the living room or stopped having a net connection in their room in an attempt to stop looking at pr0n.

    4. Re:yeah, but... by Bvardi · · Score: 1

      Maybe this could be a whole new type of internet perversion.... getting your kicks by having people watch you surf porn! Actually I can see the point where it comes to religious groups, and it does allow for better accountability than simply blocking sites (so it might work better at work for example where nobody is going to mind you surfing work related things, but it won't block legitimate sites that just happen to run afoul of an overly-generous filtering mechanism) All in all it provides a better option under certain circumstances than a blanket filter controller by a service who won't release what they actually filter in the first place.

    5. Re:yeah, but... by frovingslosh · · Score: 0
      Heck with urges, you'll really be damned if you mistype a URL and get hijacked to a never-ending set of porn sites, each one opening two others when you try to kill it. Of course, the people who will panic most about this are just the people who would bother to send someone else their web logs and say look how riyious I am and what holy sites I'm visiting", which in a way servers them right.

      The whole concept seems pretty damn lame, certainly didn't merit mention as "stuff that matters".

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    6. Re:yeah, but... by thomas.galvin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      why would someone willingly subject themselves to this? I mean, we're all human, we all have urges, and if any of us have gone out and looked at pr0n somewhere, how does that make us a bad person?

      First off, there is the standard religious view that lust is bad. One of the best, if not only, ways of dealing with lust is to stop feeding it. The internet makes it very easy to feed lust; this makes it much easier to resist it.

      Secondly, take a walk through google sometime and look for the various studies on porn and psychology. Pornography addictions tend to create feelings of unworthiness, self-hatred, "dirtiness," etc. There are many, many people who generally want to stop using pornography, but cannot. Accountability is key in these situations. The point of these programs is not to catch someone red-handed, but to help them stay accountable, and to improve themselves.

      Also, consider the emotional and relationship issues. I've talked with seveal women who found out that their husbands were using, or even addicted to, pornography. To the person, they felt that they were not attractive enough to please their husbands, that they had done something wrong, that they couldn't trust their spouse... pornography has the potential to do great harm to an otherwise healthy marriage.

      Finally, consider that a great deal of the women invloved in the porn industry have histories of sexual abuse, and the emotioanl problems that entails... do you really want to take advantage of that situation for a few moments of pleasure?

    7. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Secondly, take a walk through google sometime and look for the various studies on porn and psychology. Pornography addictions tend to create feelings of unworthiness, self-hatred, "dirtiness," etc. "

      No, it's the religion that does that. The pr0n just makes you feel horny.

      "Finally, consider that a great deal of the women invloved in the porn industry have histories of sexual abuse, and the emotioanl problems that entails... do you really want to take advantage of that situation for a few moments of pleasure?"

      And so do a lot of the women who work at McDonald's...doesn't mean you have to stop eating there. Can't it just be possible that some of them LIKE getting paid for having sex? Sounds like a nice job to me. I've known a few women involved in the sex industry at one time or another during their lives who had no history of abuse or what-have-you, never used drugs, and all in all had a good time and made an obscene amount of money. Paying their way through college, actually.

    8. Re:yeah, but... by graveyhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not all pornography needs to be explitative (please be nice to their poor server!), you know? It is also a mistake to judge and portray ALL pornography the way you have. I personally have known several pornographers (and my wife even edited one of their videos) who are ashamed of that portion of the industry, and work their hardest (pun intended) to make guilt-free pornography and spread awareness.

      I think you have been watching too much "Sex in the City". My wife and I regularly enjoy pornography *together* and I sincerly doubt that it has any potential to ruin our marriage.

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    9. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One of the best, if not only, ways of dealing with lust is to stop feeding it. The internet makes it very easy to feed lust; this makes it much easier to resist it.
      Bullshit! I've been trying to supress my sex drive for YEARS. IGNORING IT DOESN'T WORK.
    10. Re:yeah, but... by Mr.+Shiny+And+New · · Score: 1

      the standard religious view that lust is bad

      Not all religions believe this. Furthermore, most religions don't believe that lust in general is bad, just in certain situations.

      Regardless, this seems to work a lot like any addiction support group. You have a web of support to help you stay on the straight and narrow. Seems reasonable to me; assuming you WANT to be "straight and narrow".

    11. Re:yeah, but... by graveyhead · · Score: 1

      Damn, sorry that was a weird typo and should have read "exploitative".

      Sorry 'bout that.

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    12. Re:yeah, but... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      First off, there is the standard religious view that lust is bad. One of the best, if not only, ways of dealing with lust is to stop feeding it.
      Yes, it works great. I'm sure most people who try to "stop feeding" lust overcome it, especially priests. Hell, has anyone ever "won" against lust by just suppressing it?
      Secondly, take a walk through google sometime and look for the various studies on porn and psychology. Pornography addictions tend to create feelings of unworthiness, self-hatred, "dirtiness," etc. There are many, many people who generally want to stop using pornography, but cannot.
      No, that's religion and imposed societal morals that lead to those negative feelings. They want to stop because religion/society says it is bad, but the body enjoys it and really wants it.
      Finally, consider that a great deal of the women invloved in the porn industry have histories of sexual abuse, and the emotioanl problems that entails... do you really want to take advantage of that situation for a few moments of pleasure?
      Have you ever bought a product produced in a third-world country? Lots of things, right? How can you live with yourself? Don't you know about how workers are mistreated?
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    13. Re:yeah, but... by thomas.galvin · · Score: 0, Troll

      Not all pornography needs to be explitative (please be nice to their poor server!), you know?

      Pornography habits tend to escalate. Softcore tends to lead to hardcore, tends to lead to expoitative, if one has access. And, to be completely honest, I think it is all exploitative; sexuality is not a commodity, nor are women.

      I think you have been watching too much "Sex in the City". My wife and I regularly enjoy pornography *together* and I sincerly doubt that it has any potential to ruin our marriage.

      You and your wife both enjoy/appreciate pronography. I'll have to admit that I have a fairly hard time seeing through your eyes, but such is life. And I'm not suggesting that it isn't stimulating or gratifying; simply that it violates the emotional contract of marriage.

      Consider, though, that many women, especially religious women, don't share that viewpoint. I've seen too many women crushed by their husband's viewing habits, or shamed when he suggested that they view porn together.

      I view sex as something that was meant to be shared between a husband and wife, not a husband, wife, and VCR. This software is designed to help such people.

    14. Re:yeah, but... by JaxGator75 · · Score: 2, Funny
      HA HA HA!!! "Catch someone red-handed..." HA HA HA!!!

      You just made my day!

      --
      Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
    15. Re:yeah, but... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      " I've talked with seveal women who found out that their husbands were using, or even addicted to, pornography. To the person, they felt that they were not attractive enough to please their husbands, that they had done something wrong, that they couldn't trust their spouse... pornography has the potential to do great harm to an otherwise healthy marriage."

      that is about trust and communication, not porn.
      if they feel they have done something wrong, perhaps the should talk top there husbands about it. I mean, I hate to sound crazy, but wouldn't it be worth a try?

      Very few women will want to have sex as often as a man will, so looking at porn to fire one off might be better then either forcing there wife to plaese you, or be all grouchy because they need some relief.

      not to say people can't get addicted to porn, they can. However looking at porn doesn't make you a bad person.

      *porn being consentual sex between to adults.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can cum all over yourself, you dirty, worthless creep.

      Methinks thou dost protest too much. Why would that be? Perhaps suppressed guilt?

    17. Re:yeah, but... by banzai51 · · Score: 1

      But isn't the point of blocking to keep kids out of it? I know filters and blockers are not perfect, but that is what parents buy them for. So what if adults look at p0rn? If a friend gave me thier web history, a) do you really think I'd care if I found out he surfed over to playboy? b) you honestly think I'm going to read through any of that garbage?

    18. Re:yeah, but... by mofolotopo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "You and your wife both enjoy/appreciate pronography. I'll have to admit that I have a fairly hard time seeing through your eyes, but such is life. "

      If you could, you'd be so turned on right now....

      "And I'm not suggesting that it isn't stimulating or gratifying; simply that it violates the emotional contract of marriage."

      But that's a crock and a half. You're essentially saying that his marriage is invalid becuase it doesn't agree with your idea of what marriage should be. I'd say that an open sexual relationship where both partners actually feel gratified is far more fundamental to the success of a relationship than the approval of strangers such as yourself, or myself for that matter. Neither you nor I have any right to judge as illlegitimate something that holds their relationship together. As a matter of fact, my opinion would be that a relationship based on repressed emotions and desires is inherently less stable and emotionally fulfilling than one that is based on open communication, including but not limited to communication about and fulfillment of sexual desires. So if I were to apply your "my way is the only way" mentality, his relationship is far more legitimate as a marriage than yours, because it's honest. How's that feel?

    19. Re:yeah, but... by graveyhead · · Score: 1, Troll
      it violates the emotional contract of marriage

      This is incredibly rude. How *dare* you? Who the fuck are you to decide the parameters of this "contract"? Your "emotional contract of marriage" is whatever the two people involved decide it is. Where is the moral imperative? You're the type of biggot that would object to my brothers wedding to another man.

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    20. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see where you're coming from. I don't think there is one religious answer. My Lutheran GF was surprised & disappointed my Methodist self rearely engaged in porn. I don't think it is bad for relationships, as long as it is a comfortable topic to discuss openly.

    21. Re:yeah, but... by jpatters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off, there is the standard religious view that lust is bad.

      Well, that's one view. Another view is that human sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. We all have different views on what things are shameful and what things are not, I happen to think that it is shamful to use guilt as a weapon, while only backing it up with a book of words that man put into God's mouth.

      One of the best, if not only, ways of dealing with lust is to stop feeding it. The internet makes it very easy to feed lust; this makes it much easier to resist it.

      Here you have made the leap from saying that some people think that lust is bad, to stating it as fact, by implying that lust is an addiction that is fed by the internet. I do not agree that lust is bad, nor do I agree that common availability of pron on the internet will typically lead to an unmanagable addiction.

      Secondly, take a walk through google sometime and look for the various studies on porn and psychology. Pornography addictions tend to create feelings of unworthiness, self-hatred, "dirtiness," etc.

      Feelings of unworthiness, self-hatred, "dirtiness," etc. are, in my view, caused by man attempting to control his fellow man by putting words into God's mouth that God did not say.

      I've talked with seveal women who found out that their husbands were using, or even addicted to, pornography. To the person, they felt that they were not attractive enough to please their husbands, that they had done something wrong, that they couldn't trust their spouse... pornography has the potential to do great harm to an otherwise healthy marriage.

      Is a marrage healthy if its foundation is based on an insecure body image and Church fostered shame for all things sexual? I agree that such feelings are valid, but disagree on the root cause.

      Finally, consider that a great deal of the women invloved in the porn industry have histories of sexual abuse, and the emotioanl problems that entails... do you really want to take advantage of that situation for a few moments of pleasure?

      All work is exploitation. I agree that the sex industry contains some of the most horrid working conditions there are, but no more so than any other industry that is as free from regulation. Nothing that better OSHA oversight, and some labor organizing can't fix.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    22. Re:yeah, but... by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Funny
      > sexuality is not a commodity, nor are women.

      You're new to this Internet thing, aren't you? :)

    23. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > I don't think there is one religious answer. My Lutheran GF was surprised & disappointed my Methodist self rearely engaged in porn.

      Note to self: Date a Lutheran next time. Not as fucked up and crazy as a Catholic, but not as boring as those damn Baptists. *g*

    24. Re:yeah, but... by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

      it violates the emotional contract of marriage

      This is incredibly rude. How *dare* you? Who the fuck are you to decide the parameters of this "contract"? Your "emotional contract of marriage" is whatever the two people involved decide it is. Where is the moral imperative? You're the type of biggot that would object to my brothers wedding to another man.

      I'm simply giving my oppinion. I honestly don't see how a healthy marriage can include recieving sexual gratification from outside sources. Marriage has, for hundreds of years, been a commitment between a husband and wife. I believe it is dangerous to alter that. I've given reasons why. What are your reasons for holding the opposite view?

      My moral imperative, such as it is, comes from the fact that I think I know the truth, and that this is a discussion board. It comes from talking with people who have been abused, raped, and had marriages dammaged by unfaithfulness, even unfaithfulness of the eyes.

    25. Re:yeah, but... by jxs2151 · · Score: 2
      Actually how dare *you*?

      Calling someone a bigot because they disagree with you makes you a bigot.

      Damn, now I'm a bigot.....see what you started?

    26. Re:yeah, but... by Opie812 · · Score: 0

      ...which in a way servers them right.... dude, you're working *way* too much. Go home.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    27. Re:yeah, but... by jxs2151 · · Score: 1
      They want to stop because religion/society says it is bad, but the body enjoys it and really wants it.

      Society imposes those restraints for a reason. Are you saying that *everyone* should be free to do *whatever* their body tells them feels good?

      Surely you aren't recommending anarchy are you?

      Blaming "society" when someone who does something wrong feels bad is a logical dead-end.

    28. Re:yeah, but... by jxs2151 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Holy Sh1t! Your answer to exploitation in the sex industry is OSHA and a labor union?

      What's your answer to child abuse? Applying Six Sigma techniques to leather belt manufacturing?

      Marz would be so proud....

    29. Re:yeah, but... by mofolotopo · · Score: 1

      "I'm simply giving my oppinion. I honestly don't see how a healthy marriage can include recieving sexual gratification from outside sources."

      What are the outside sources? It's a husband and wife enjoying themselves together, not a threesome. Are you also against masturbation without pornography? Seems to violate the same terms. How about use of sex toys between man and wife? Don't see how it's any different. If those are your views, you're entitled to them and your sterile, boring sex life.

      "My moral imperative, such as it is, comes from the fact that I think I know the truth, and that this is a discussion board. It comes from talking with people who have been abused, raped, and had marriages dammaged by unfaithfulness, even unfaithfulness of the eyes."

      NONE of which has anything to do with pornography shared consensually between man and wife.

    30. Re:yeah, but... by graveyhead · · Score: 2

      I wasn't just name-calling, I got the strong sense that thomas.galvin is scared to death of his own sexuality. Supression of ones' own sexuality (for whatever reason) leads to other outlets such as anger and sometimes the type of self-righteousness thomas is displaying. I suppose you are at least partially right, though. I need to learn to be tolerant of by his views, however uptight-god-fearing-christian they may be :P

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    31. Re:yeah, but... by jxs2151 · · Score: 1
      however uptight-god-fearing-christian

      Would you think it fair if I said you made some good points.......for a whacked-out, heathen....

      You get the picture?

      I find it one of the funniest ironies on the planet that those who preach (pardon the pun) tolerance are among the *least* tolerant people alive.

      Peace friend...

    32. Re:yeah, but... by jpatters · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your answer to exploitation in the sex industry is OSHA and a labor union? What's your answer to child abuse? Applying Six Sigma techniques to leather belt manufacturing?

      What should be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell, is that one of the many differences between the sex industry and child abuse is that one is an industry who's participants have consented to participate (except where lack of regulation of the industry, or overregulation of the consumers of it's product, have created conditions for abuse) and the other is a crime commited uppon helpless non-consenting children.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    33. Re:yeah, but... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Are you saying that *everyone* should be free to do *whatever* their body tells them feels good?

      Surely you aren't recommending anarchy are you?
      Yes, a very astute perception. When I said that the negative feelings people get when viewing porn coming from outside and don't originate from within, I was recommending anarchy. I just didn't have the courage to say it. Thank you for helping me out.

      Back to reality: All of those things where you asked "Are you saying..." can be answered by looking at what I was actually saying. Do I think everyone should be able to do anything that feels good? Irrelevant. I'm not talking about everything, just porn-viewing. I think they should be able to enjoy something that is harmless, like look at porn. My point about the guilt coming from morals and religion was to refute the idea that porn viewing inherently makes someone have these negative feelings. That is absurd.

      Society imposes those restraints for a reason.
      No, those societal morals evolve like anything else of that nature. Many of these societal morals have roots in religion, and in the case of the US, that means Christianity. They change all the time. A hundred years ago, people would have been shocked by the normal clothes teenagers wear (let alone the racy ones), being an independent woman would have been looked down upon, and cocaine would not have been considered a vice. And so on. There are a million things. Many people outwardly say that porn is bad (whether they believe it or not), more and more people publicly admit that they enjoy it. This is a case where it a moral is evolving. And in this case, I think it is for the better.
      Blaming "society" when someone who does something wrong feels bad is a logical dead-end.
      Actually, I don't "blame" society, because it does not consciously decide what morals will be, since they evolve naturally. But the fallacy of your statement above is "when someone does something wrong feels bad". Looking at porn is only "wrong" in your opinion, and I disagree with it.
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    34. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Very few women will want to have sex as often as a man will, so looking at porn to fire one off might be better then either forcing there wife to plaese you, or be all grouchy because they need some relief.

      now that is really cracking me up! I don't think I've dated a woman who didn't have a higher sex drive than I did, and I'm not known for having a low sex drive.

      In fact, every case I know of where a woman has had a "low sex drive" has actually been a relationship problem. The sex drive suddenly goes way up when she starts fucking someone else.

      Not that porn is a bad thing - most humans I know like it, some like it a lot - some find it not that interesting, but most like it.

    35. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit! No one told me there was porn on the Internet!

    36. Re:yeah, but... by graveyhead · · Score: 1

      That last part was actually a joke about my own intolerance, which I should have made clearer. I totally understood your point.

      Whacked-out heathen, huh? That's a good one. Sounds like a good title for my memoirs ;)

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    37. Re:yeah, but... by mad.frog · · Score: 1
      "I've talked with seveal women who found out that their husbands were using, or even addicted to, pornography. To the person, they felt that they were not attractive enough to please their husbands, that they had done something wrong, that they couldn't trust their spouse... pornography has the potential to do great harm to an otherwise healthy marriage."

      You're assuming that the marriage is, in fact, otherwise healthy. It's quite possible that the issue here is not one of addiction per se, but rather, that the porn-viewing spouse has sexual needs that can't (or won't) be fulfilled otherwise. (Barring outright infidelity, that is, which I'm presuming you'd consider to be an even worse scenario...)

    38. Re:yeah, but... by Bvardi · · Score: 1

      Well if the kids knew the parents would SEE what they were browsing - wouldn't that mean they were effectively blocked? It gives the ability to monitor what your kids are seeing (putting it in the hands of the parents, who SHOULD take responsibility) without blocking them from sites that might discuss things they SHOULD be seeing. For example do you want a filter company deciding if your kids should know about gay/lesbian issues? Or see renaissance nudes? (Etc etc)

    39. Re:yeah, but... by minektur · · Score: 1

      Actually, I object to your poor grammer. Learn how to use an apostrophe properly. Of course you might have been referring to same-sex polygamy.

    40. Re:yeah, but... by graveyhead · · Score: 1

      I object to being objected to about my poor grammer while objecting :P

      Technically, you are right, it should have read "brothers'" showing possession, but I read somewhere recently that it is just as acceptable to use no apostrophy at all, as long as you are consistent.

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    41. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "with people who have been abused, raped, and had marriages dammaged by unfaithfulness, even unfaithfulness of the eyes."

      You know people who have been abused, raped, and had marriages dammaged by porn?

      This has nothing to do with porn and everything to do with the attitudes of those that decided it was wrong (read: religious nazis). I suppose all the the women of the tribes you see in National Geographic are raped and abused everyday because they walk around without clothes...

    42. Re:yeah, but... by jxs2151 · · Score: 1
      "Looking at porn is only "wrong" in your opinion, and I disagree with it.

      I actually put that word in there to see if you were paying attention. Knowing what your reaction to it would be was almost too easy. You just helped me win $20 from my cube-mate.

      Do you know Bakunin?

    43. Re:yeah, but... by eniu!uine · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one that watches porn with my wife?

    44. Re:yeah, but... by jxs2151 · · Score: 1

      Uh..... I couldn't think of the opposite of uptight-god-fearing-christian on such short notice.

    45. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see here - you aren't enough man for your wife and your brother married another guy.

      I wouldn't spread that around too far if I was you.

    46. Re:yeah, but... by jxs2151 · · Score: 2
      What should be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell, is that one of the many differences between the sex industry and child abuse is that one is an industry who's participants have consented to participate (except where lack of regulation of the industry, or overregulation of the consumers of it's product, have created conditions for abuse) and the other is a crime commited uppon helpless non-consenting children.

      I challenge your assumption that the sex industry is composed of individuals that are there of their own free will

      Anyone with a quarter of a brain cell knows otherwise

    47. Re:yeah, but... by graveyhead · · Score: 1

      Let's see here - you aren't enough man for your wife and your brother married another guy.

      I wouldn't spread that around too far if I was you.


      What utter BS. You show even less tolerance than that guy thomas.galvin. The fact that we watch porn together has nothing to do with how much of a man I am. Let's just say I am above average in that department and leave it at that. What it is about, however, is exploring sexuality and discovering what excites each other. It is a two way street you know, you would not believe the pleasure we have *both* received, and I sincerely hope you never will.

      Also, leave my baby brother out of it or I'll have to come over there and kick your ass Jay and Silent Bob style.

      Obviously you aren't me and you don't even have the guts to post under your real name. You define the term "Anonymous Coward".

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    48. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm really sorry, but I can't help it. No, I watch porn with your wife all the time.

    49. Re:yeah, but... by randyest · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but are you serious?


      You actually know someone who tried to stop looking at porn? Why? I can only assume it was to screw some chick who was anti-porn. Not that that's a good excuse, but it's the only possible one.

      It's sad, really. Porn is not a problem.

      Have I been trolled?

      --
      everything in moderation
    50. Re:yeah, but... by finkployd · · Score: 1

      If that setup was not intentional, you have serious comedy problems :)

      Finkployd

    51. Re:yeah, but... by truenoir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm a Christian and have Christian friends. Perhaps to you porn isn't a problem, but for some people (myself included) it's a moral issue.

    52. Re:yeah, but... by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      I actually put that word in there to see if you were paying attention. Knowing what your reaction to it would be was almost too easy. You just helped me win $20 from my cube-mate.

      So, viewing porn is "wrong" but gambling is OK? Especially since every state outlaws gambling anywhere but sanctioned by the state (if it is even sanctioned by the state) and to be sure your employer does not pay you to gamble on company time, and more than likely forbids gambling somewhere in your contract/rules of conduct.

      If it weren't for double standards you wouldn't have any standards at all.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    53. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Marriage has, for hundreds of years, been a commitment between a husband and wife. I believe it is dangerous to alter that.


      Marriage has, for thousands of years, a way to ensure that the parental linage can be traced back through history, ie: Bob is the rightful heir to the his father's throne, land, chickens, whatever. The only commitment was to produce an offspring that would tend your farms when you died. It had nothing to do with loving your spouse, that is a relativly modern concept.

      Or an incredably old one whose time has come around again. There is some speculation that ancient Egyptions married mostly out of love, could divorce more or less at will, with no stigma to the man, and little (if any) to the women. Sounds like modern day America, actually.

      So, for my 2 cents, as long as the people in the relationship agree to it, and one or both are not obsessed with/addicted to it, then there is nothing wrong with having porn in the relationship.
    54. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I am Galstaff, sorcerer of light!"
      "Then why did you cast magic missle?!"

    55. Re:yeah, but... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1
      I actually put that word in there to see if you were paying attention. Knowing what your reaction to it would be was almost too easy. You just helped me win $20 from my cube-mate.
      Yes, I'm sure that happened.
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    56. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I happen to think that it is shamful to use guilt as a weapon, while only backing it up with a book of words that man put into God's mouth."

      Y'know, people like you are just as bad as religious bigots. I don't consider myself to be religious, and I don't put much stock in the Bible. But I don't go around pontificating about what a horrid thing it is, either. If people want to live their lives according to their interpretations of the Bible, or "The Lord Of the Rings," or the first Dragonlance trilogy, or whatever...what the Hell do I care? Good for them, I say. I feel good, believing that I live my life by my personal "code." If they get the same feeling from living by theirs, that's terrific.

      Every once in awhile, Christianity deserves a knock upside the head. A lot of evil is done in its name, and people too often excuse it by saying, "Well, it also does a lot of good." But this isn't a discussion about religious warmongering, or finger-happy priests. This is a discussion about a bunch of people who believe something about porn. And according to the article, this is their strategy. They share these "activity logs" with each other. They're not pushing it on anyone else. Who are they hurting?

      Using this as an instance to crack about the Bible only proves (a) you're a bigot with an axe to grind against Christianity, and (b) you think you're a lot wittier than you are, and you feel compelled to bestow your witticisms upon the rest of us. How's that for coincidence -- you're using intellectual masturbation to defend looking at pornography. What an achievement...

    57. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the only one here who has a wife. What are you doing on slashdot anyway?

    58. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so sorry. I'm praying that in next life, you'll turn out to be a happy agnostic, since the stress of this life could be too much for you to get you past 50th birthday... moral asshat.

    59. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well actually "brothers' wedding to another man" implies that more than one of your brothers is wedding the same man. Same-sex polygamy, as the comment observed :) You wanted "brother's" :)

    60. Re:yeah, but... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Care to account for your claims?

      Excepting the thing parent post already stated.

    61. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll. Pity that I didn't see any moralising going on in his post. Oh well.

    62. Re:yeah, but... by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 0, Troll

      You mean you're pissed that you can't control what other people do. Tough shit.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    63. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm.

      Wasn't wearing clothes part of the chain of events that led to Adam and Eve being kicked out of the Garden of Eden?

      Seems to me God was quite happy with us without clothes.

    64. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Cambodia where sexual slavery still occurs.

    65. Re:yeah, but... by bigchris · · Score: 1

      How did you draw that conclusion from what he said?

    66. Re:yeah, but... by jxs2151 · · Score: 1
      Holy smokes dude, this is fun! I bet another $10 that your response would be: "I doubt that happened"

      Close enough, I won more bucks.

      Thanks for providing my buds and I with entertainment.

    67. Re:yeah, but... by jxs2151 · · Score: 1
      Care to account for your claims?

      After you of course. I did challenge the veracity of your assertions first. The answer to that cannot be for me to account for mine. Rules of debate and all you know.

    68. Re:yeah, but... by jpatters · · Score: 1

      Y'know, people like you are just as bad as religious bigots. I don't consider myself to be religious, and I don't put much stock in the Bible. But I don't go around pontificating about what a horrid blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

      Calm down there buster, please note that I stated my *oppinion* on what I think is shameful. Are you saying that I am not alowed to hold that oppinion?

      This is a discussion about a bunch of people who believe something about porn. And according to the article, this is their strategy. They share these "activity logs" with each other. They're not pushing it on anyone else. Who are they hurting?

      They are hurting their children in at least two ways. One, the children will be forced to use this software, so there goes your whole "choice" argument, and two, they are teaching them that sexuality is something to be ashamed of. Of course, people hurt their children in all kinds of ways. I am not suggesting that we can or should try to fix this with legislation or anything, but I can speak about it, and that doesn't make me a bigot.

      Using this as an instance to crack about the Bible only proves (a) you're a bigot with an axe to grind against Christianity

      Christians claim that the Bible and the New Testiment contain the devine words of God, Jews claim that the former but not the latter, Muslims replace them with the Koran, Mormans have their Book of Morman. I didn't say that everyone who follows a revealed religion is bad for their beliefs, but the way I see it, if God had given Her word to man in a book, She would have made it obvious which one was the right one. Every sect says that their book is the obvious choice, but I don't see it. I think that none of these books contain Her words. There *is* some wisdom there, especially in the New Testiment, but they are all the words of man, not God.

      and (b) you think you're a lot wittier than you are, and you feel compelled to bestow your witticisms upon the rest of us. How's that for coincidence -- you're using intellectual masturbation to defend looking at pornography. What an achievement...

      Sigh. I was just responding to another post that claimed that porn is bad. I happen to think that sexuality in general is a good thing, and that porn is just an artistic expression of that. Some people like to attach a whole lot of shame to that, and when I say that that's bogus, you say that makes me a bigot? I think you just like to call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    69. Re:yeah, but... by Ionized · · Score: 1

      rules of debate? sure. burden of proof is on you, buddy. it's YOUR responsibility to show that people in the sex industry are there against their will. until then, you're just blowing smoke up everyone's ass.

    70. Re:yeah, but... by jpatters · · Score: 1

      Bah. You are the one saying that something that humans currently do is wrong and should be stopped, you should provide some evidance that porn is bad. You apparantly want me to prove that *no* porn is created by non-consenting people under duress before you accept that porn is ok, you are asking me to prove a negitive. The best I can do is point out some porn that is clearly consentual:

      Good Vibrations
      Nerve
      That Strange Girl

      All three of these are examples of porn produced by people who are consenting to the production, and they also promote a realistic body image.

      Can you come up with an example of porn that is non-consentual in nature and not so as a result of under-regulation of the industry or over-regulation of consumers?

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    71. Re:yeah, but... by jxs2151 · · Score: 1
      Oh bullshit. I challenged your assertion and you reply that the burden of proof is on me?

      You are a dipshit.

    72. Re:yeah, but... by jpatters · · Score: 1

      Try Cambodia where sexual slavery still occurs.

      Do you eat chocolate?
      Do you wear sneakers?

      Slavery is bad. But it is not relivant to a debate about the sex industry.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    73. Re:yeah, but... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1
      Holy smokes dude, this is fun! I bet another $10 that your response would be: "I doubt that happened"
      Close enough, I won more bucks.

      Thanks for providing my buds and I with entertainment.
      Okay, this might be funny to a 14 year old, or someone in their 30s with the social maturity of a 14 year old.

      If you and your "buds" really made bets that someone would make a mundane comment on a message board, that would of course be a very sad form of entertainment.

      If you just made that up to entertain yourself or feel cool, then even your imaginary life is extremely sad.

      I mean, honestly, are you going to respond to this comment saying you again knew that I would say this? That would totally "burn" me.
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    74. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think you just like to call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot."

      Well, you respond, and continue ranting about religion -- including a number of flawed "factual" assertations.

      And then I check out your "posting history," and find another couple of comments (of similar tenor) about religion, in unrelated threads.

      So, "No"...it looks pretty much like you're just a bigot with an axe to grind against religion, like I wrote in the first place...

    75. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it turns out that you're a dipshit, which everyone can see but you.

    76. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally meaningless comparison.

      There is no situation where "child abuse" is okay, however there are a lot of situations where "sex" is okay. So having a labor union could be a good thing for a sex industry, because it would fight against the bad things that are related to sex.

    77. Re:yeah, but... by jpatters · · Score: 1

      Well, you respond, and continue ranting about religion -- including a number of flawed "factual" assertations.

      Which are?

      And then I check out your "posting history," and find another couple of comments (of similar tenor) about religion, in unrelated threads.

      There is exactly one relivant comment in my "posting history" other than the ones within this article, and it is here:

      RE: Christians LIKE sex!

      Hardly ranting, I just state that the evidence that I have seen points to there being an inteligent creator of the universe, but that She has not revealed Herself to mankind. I also point out a possible motivation for why a person might want to fraudulently uphold some set of laws as having come from the mouth of God. One can only see this as ranting when looking through the blinders of theistic dogma.

      So, "No"...it looks pretty much like you're just a bigot with an axe to grind against religion, like I wrote in the first place...

      The difference between you and me is that you think your holy book is word of God, but every other holy book is fraudulent, while I think that they are all fraudulent.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    78. Re:yeah, but... by jxs2151 · · Score: 1
      Oh my....too much to believe. I told him the next comment would be something calling us pathetic or something about not having a life. I must admit that I missed the part about the juvenile, though I shoulda thought about that. The last refuge of Slashdotters is to imply that someone is either young or won't grow up. Like I haven't seen that in a million near-the-end-of-the-thread commens here.

      How does it feel to be so damned predictable?

    79. Re:yeah, but... by Gallowglass · · Score: 1
      Of course. Pornography is a moral issue. And I think that's the main point.

      The question that is being debated here is whether or not general morality should be imposed upon an individual. I will state right up front that IMHO, the answer should be "no".

      (Peel yourself off the ceiling. I am not advocating immorality. No, really I'm not. Come on back down here and give me your ear for amoment. . . Thanks.)

      I think everyone should behave in a moral manner. Morality is that voice inside you that tells you what is "wrong" and what is "right". And I think we all agree that someone who says he's a moral character and then sets it aside at his convenience is no truly a moral man. So I admire the truly moral man - even when I disagree with his conclusions.

      Which, to get back to the question of whether or not we should impose morality on an individual, let me ask you a very pertinent question:

      Why should my morality trump yours?

      Had enough time to think? Was your answer along the lines of, "It shouldn't!", "NO!!", or "Who the blurry whatnot do you think you are!!"

      That is, of course, the correct answer. But the corollary is "Why should your morality trump mine?" The answer should be the same, or you are simply saying that everyone should agree with you because you are the more moral person. As you have seen from the above messages, this tends to engender vigorous debate.

      No, I don't mind a person having a moral code. I applaud it. But what I want from him in his dealings with me is ethical behaviour. Because we can debate that, arrive at a mutually satisfactory compromise . . . and live in harmony.

    80. Re:yeah, but... by truenoir · · Score: 1

      I wasn't being judgemental on anyone, as you don't seem to be. I was simply stating fact, in response to a question of why people I knew would try to quit looking at porn. To me, this filter is a tool in a similar vein to what I've already known people to do. It creates accountability. You volunteer information with this tool to help keep yourself in check. It's not imposing someone elses moral values. It's saying to someone, "I want to live this way, please help me". No different from hiring a personal trainer to help get you out to the gym and eat right. If you're already fit, or if you don't care, then you don't need one. If you have no qualms about porn, or don't look at it anyway, you don't need to worry about this. That simple.

    81. Re:yeah, but... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1
      Oh my....too much to believe. I told him the next comment would be something calling us pathetic or something about not having a life.
      This is blowing my mind. Soon you're going to be pretend-rich!
      The last refuge of Slashdotters is to imply that someone is either young or won't grow up.
      Sorry to imply that you were young. It is obvious you aren't young. I know you're probably some loser in his thirties, and your social life consists mostly of some tech-related club. How does it feel to be so damned predictable?
      How does it feel to be so damned predictable?
      Your predictions were in pretend-world, so they don't count.
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    82. Re:yeah, but... by jxs2151 · · Score: 1
      I really didn't expect the ad hominem to start until later but I guess you only possess so many weapons before you must resort to the last refuge of the truly weak- personal attacks.

      I guess it's back to the drudgery now. Thanks for providing the entertainment.

      BTW, my next guess is that you're one of those last-word types......

    83. Re:yeah, but... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1
      I really didn't expect the ad hominem to start until later but I guess you only possess so many weapons before you must resort to the last refuge of the truly weak- personal attacks.
      Remember when we were talking about porn, and instead of responding to what I said, you acted like putting in the word "wrong" was a trick, and I was "fooled" because I said that I disagree with your opinion? At that point, there is no ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be if I were attacking you personally in order to weaken or disprove your arguments on the subject. But there are no arguments because that debate ended.
      In fact, if you really want to consider the whole discussion, your first comment implying that I fell for your "wrong" trap *was* the first ad hominem attack.
      I guess it's back to the drudgery now. Thanks for providing the entertainment.
      Hey, if this is what you need to feel cool, it's no skin off my back. I noticed that you alienated several people during the course of your entertainment in this thread, but I'm sure you're used to that at this point in your life.
      BTW, my next guess is that you're one of those last-word types......
      I bet my cube-mate $20 that you would try to weasel your way out by saying that I would try to get the last word. You TOTALLY fell for it!
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    84. Re:yeah, but... by jwinter1 · · Score: 1

      Winner: Dephex Twin

      jxs2151 was clearly losing an argument and tried to troll his way out of it.

      Loser: Myself and everyone else who read these comments.

      --
      Anything you can do, I can do meta.
    85. Re:yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's the religion that does that. The pr0n just makes you feel horny.

      This is what is known as "dualism", the separation of the mind and body. It is the Idea that one can work to satisfy a fleshly pleasure and not be mentally affected.

      I'm sorry to tell you, it doesn't work that way. You can't look at porno and be unaffected. It will, at least affect your attitude toward women.

      The way I see it is like this: You put garbage in the trash can, and you'll only pull out garbage. If we pollute our minds, we musn't expect to be good people. It doesn't work that way.

      Please don't think I'm trying to bash porn users, because I'm just as guilty. But I'm trying to end my addiction. And I've realized that as human beings, it is our own responsibility to define who we are. We actually need to look out for our own mental health. Just because it's alluring and everyone else loves it doesn't mean it's a good thing.

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Bollocks by wiggys · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Er, maybe I've missed something here but if you're a Catholic priest and you want to look at kiddy pictures then you're hardly likely to hand your logs over to someone are you?

    --

    Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.

    1. Re:Bollocks by robi2106 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is always a way to hide your smut surfing. These solutions are aimed at people that want freedom from this addiction by getting help from friends that understand the issue or were once addicted themselves.

      Just like with any 12 step program, you have to be willing to come to the meeting. For this app, you have to be willing to set up the accountability with a friend(s).

      robi

    2. Re:Bollocks by thomas.galvin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Friends of mine actually use software like this; I would, as well, if I had a net connection at home.

      The basic idea is "Install this when you are clear-headed and have moral convictions, and let it guide you in the moments of passion." Or something like that.

      The programs that I have seen tie into or replace WINSOC, so there really isn't a convinient way to bork the system. Yeah, for those of us in the know, we could get around it, but the average guy can't, and even the average computer guy would have to put some serious effort into it.

      The programs automatically generate and send a report on a regular basis, and this is transparent to the user. There is no "Click here to let your firemds know that you've been browsing younglove.com," it just quietly sends an email.

      Actually, I think you will find a number of church officials requiering that those in their employ install such software. Couldn't hurt.

    3. Re:Bollocks by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      addiction... I hate how carelessly that word gets thrown around these days.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    4. Re:Bollocks by Raul654 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think you will find a number of church officials requiering that those in their employ install such software. Couldn't hurt. I want to whack something with a sword, and set something on fire. Does that make me a bad person?

      Really, that's no way to treat an altar boy

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    5. Re:Bollocks by wiggys · · Score: 1
      Actually, I think you will find a number of church officials requiering that those in their employ install such software

      One word: Knoppix.

      --

      Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.

    6. Re:Bollocks by mcpkaaos · · Score: 0

      Yeah, kinda like 'crusade' ;/

      mcp/kaaos

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    7. Re:Bollocks by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      People keep talking about how it's not difficult to get around monitoring software.

      I don't think it has to be easy at all...what if that software is on your proxy server or gateway? Linux has a LOG target(and a ULOG, for userland processing daemons) for iptables...

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    8. Re:Bollocks by geekoid · · Score: 1

      what if I went to Suck.com? not a porn sight, but what do you think the reciepients of me email will think?
      and of course, god forbid you go to a site and click ona link that doesn't go where you think it goes. goat.cx for example.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Bollocks by c64cryptoboy · · Score: 1

      I understand and respect of the purposes of this software. However, I fear my old church would love to make installing it mandatory.
      I can hear it now: "If you don't have a problem with pornography, then you should have no problem installing this accountability software if only to challenge others and to take a clear stand".
      Who needs grace when you have legalism -- especially automated-legalism.

      --
      I put the 'fun' in fundamentalism
    10. Re:Bollocks by jbolden · · Score: 1

      so there really isn't a convinient way to bork the system.

      Boot Knoppix or something seems pretty easy. Use a java based browser. If you are right about it sending automatic email just kill your SMTP service (for example deliberately mess up your outgoing mail password). Use an anomizer with an unsupported browser so that everything is just one long shttp session. I can think 100 things that don't require much knowledge.
      (And before anyone comments, yes I agree Joe average user isn't going to think any of those on the spot in a moment of temptation).

      Actually, I think you will find a number of church officials requiering that those in their employ install such software.

      You see that's where this goes from being a voluntery self help thing to being an attack on freedom. Employment is trading labor for money, oppression is trading freedom for welfare maintance. I hope the employees feel quite right in subverting this.

    11. Re:Bollocks by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

      When my firend told me about this, he said "there's no way to get around it," and I replied "yes, there is."

      It's a computer. There is a way around it. If I really, really wanted to, I'd set up a proxy-type program and tunnel through that, and all they'd see in the email is a bunch of requests to my campuse's main server.

      As I said, though, there programs tie into or replace WINSOC, which would make bypassing them, for all but the uber-geeks, impossible.

    12. Re:Bollocks by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

      what if I went to Suck.com? not a porn sight, but what do you think the reciepients of me email will think?
      and of course, god forbid you go to a site and click ona link that doesn't go where you think it goes. goat.cx for example.


      Which is another reason something like this is preferable to a government or other third-party system; call him, let him know what suck.com is, or let him know that you accedentally clicked a link.

    13. Re:Bollocks by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Install this when you are clear-headed and have moral convictions, and let it guide you in the moments of passion."
      Interesting. I would assume you would install it when your mind was clouded by guilt and shame. This reminds me of two quotes from St. Augustine-

      "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet." [everyone's favorite]

      and

      "Love and do what you will"

      But I am a Jew so, what do I know?
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    14. Re:Bollocks by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think you will find a number of church officials requiering that those in their employ install such software
      One word: Knoppix [knopper.net].


      Hmm... my list of pastors that know what linux is, much less a bootable floppy or live file system, is rather short. Yours?

    15. Re:Bollocks by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

      Who needs grace when you have legalism -- especially automated-legalism.

      Grace is not a substitute for morality. The bible quite clearly tells the believers to hold themselves accountable to one another, to confess their sins to one another, to judge one another and help each other grow. Iron sharpens iron, and all that.

      My church isn't the type to requier you to do anything, but they would encourage this type of software. If you don't want their help or input, they tend not to give it. I don't know if I'd stay at a church that behaved otherwise.

    16. Re:Bollocks by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

      Boot Knoppix or something seems pretty easy. Use a java based browser. If you are right about it sending automatic email just kill your SMTP service (for example deliberately mess up your outgoing mail password). Use an anomizer with an unsupported browser so that everything is just one long shttp session. I can think 100 things that don't require much knowledge.
      (And before anyone comments, yes I agree Joe average user isn't going to think any of those on the spot in a moment of temptation).


      The programs I have heard about work on the socket level, so they would know what IPs you were hitting no matter what browser you used. The program then contact the main server, does a reverse-dns lookup, and emails the report to your accountability partner; you don't need an SMTP server on your machine. These things are designed for Windows, folks.

      As far as I can tell, there are only three ways around this:

      1. Boot to another OS, a la knoppix

      2. Replace the hacked socket library with your own, or

      3. Use some sort of a proxy that can hide the requests you are making from your own machine's socket layer.

      All of these are fairly easy to do, if you know how, but the fact is, this is all above the heads of the vast majority of users.

      Actually, I think you will find a number of church officials requiering that those in their employ install such software.
      You see that's where this goes from being a voluntery self help thing to being an attack on freedom. Employment is trading labor for money, oppression is trading freedom for welfare maintance. I hope the employees feel quite right in subverting this.


      Hardly. One of the qualifications for being a religious leader is a set of morals. Given the state of the varius churches today, I would suggest that a little accountability is in order...

    17. Re:Bollocks by protonman · · Score: 1

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

      --
      The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.
    18. Re:Bollocks by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      The programs that I have seen tie into or replace WINSOC,

      You mean, by INGSOC?

    19. Re:Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check it out, a descriptivist with a really gay, twee way of spellyng hir naaaim. Who says irony is dead?

    20. Re:Bollocks by c64cryptoboy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Grace is not a substitute for morality.

      They always supported legalism with (often Biblical) appeals to morality. Just like the Pharisees once did, but without all the diligent study. Why lead a church body when you can simply control it?

      Iron does sharpen iron, until they start making paper contracts governing how it should be conducted (I kid you not). The software (while good in-and-of itself) could be a natural extension of their legalism. It would start with the staff, then trickle down through the hierarchy with lots of judgmentalism towards anyone who didn't elevate themselves to that standard of accountability.

      I'll let you have the last word on this thread.

      --
      I put the 'fun' in fundamentalism
    21. Re:Bollocks by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Actually reading your description it seems like:
      knowing the IP address of the target and then just setting your DNS to something else (i.e. a non existent server) would work. As for blocking SMTP I'm not talking a server just the outgoing traffic: can just block the outgoing port in the TCP/IP configuration, though the password thing I suggested would work just as well.

      Hardly. One of the qualifications for being a religious leader is a set of morals. Given the state of the varius churches today, I would suggest that a little accountability is in order...

      I don't know if arbitrary church employees count as "religious leaders". As for the state of the church today, the problem was not the crime (priests molesting kids) but the leadership (covering the problem up, not addressing why it was occuring, hiding it from communities, not cooperating with the local law enforcement). Lots of religions have had problems with lower level staff being involved in crime; what is truly damaging had is very high level executive management assisting people in committing and covering up these crimes.

    22. Re:Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thomas.Galvin wrote: The basic idea is "Install this when you are clear-headed and have moral convictions, and let it guide you in the moments of passion"

      And then he contradicted himself: Actually, I think you will find a number of church officials requiering that those in their employ install such software. Couldn't hurt. "

      That demonstrates (one of) the problem(s) clearly: This is supposed to be a support for someone who wishes to live according to some moral guidelines, but will end up as being a stick to force others to live up to someone else's morals.

      There are many other things wrong with this: That someone is profiting on some people forcing their morals on others; or that it makes the forbidden fruit taste even sweeter when it happens to be available; or that no security system is 100% reliable, there will always be both false positives and false negatives; ans so on...

    23. Re:Bollocks by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Check it out, another illiterate idiot on /. What else is new?

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    24. Re:Bollocks by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      I imagine an SSH connection would be like pleading the 5th...making you presumed guilty.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
  6. This is a great idea. by Upright+Joe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Knowing the guys I work with, this technology could possibly allow me to build the best list of free porn sites ever.

    1. Re:This is a great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I agree. This is the most idiotic plan I've ever heard of. Bound to fail.

      OK, I agree to send a list of all sites I visit each day to ... yer mom.

    2. Re:This is a great idea. by Game+Genie · · Score: 4, Funny

      on the subject of great free porn: Usenet.

    3. Re:This is a great idea. by Upright+Joe · · Score: 1

      heh, alt.binaries.multimedia.erotica + news sniffer = time to get a bigger hard drive ;)

    4. Re:This is a great idea. by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 0, Insightful

      My journal contains the least comprehensive free porn site list of all time, but they are carefully chosen, and usually silly.

      --
      Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    5. Re:This is a great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ASCII porn?

    6. Re:This is a great idea. by Game+Genie · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long it would take to fill one of those pretty xServe RAIDs with porn.

    7. Re:This is a great idea. by Upright+Joe · · Score: 1

      Good question. I filled up 4GB in about 10 hours. but those things will hold 2.5TB. Man, I don't know if I can even watch that much porn. I'd hate to say there's such a thing as too much porn but damn, that's a lot of porn.

  7. Invasion of Privacy by destroyingworld · · Score: 1

    Wow This has to be one of the worst ideas i've ever heard for censoring ever.

    1. Re:Invasion of Privacy by truenoir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except this is voluntary, and actually a pay service. It's not for people that are okay with porn. It's for people that are addicted and want to stop. Of course, if used by a boss or a parent, then it's a little different. However, that's still just helping to enforce rules created by someone other than this company.

    2. Re:Invasion of Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, read the article for crissakes!

      This is voluntary. Nobody is "invading your privacy". This is for when you can't help yourself and you want a friend to help you stop. Kind of like having an AA sponsor.

  8. Privacy Shouting by joe630 · · Score: 1

    Why don't these people just give their records up to EVERYONE? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

    Everyone know that privacy is only needed because it's hiding things that are illegal or immoral.

    1. Re:Privacy Shouting by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      You mean, privacy is needed before its hiding things that you consider immoral, but I do not.

      Privacy helps us escape mob-lynches, but like everything else, the possible pitfalls of granting too much privacy to individuals can be seen lots of places online (yes, I'm talking to you, Anonymous Cowards ;)

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Privacy Shouting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't confuse anonymity with laziness. I post regularly but not obsessively -- maybe a dozen times a week -- all anonymously. Why? Because I don't feel like registering, not because I'm "hiding".

      What I have to say here and who I am are not related. If I had to post a comment as myself, where my identity had some role in the discussion, then I'd probably register.

    3. Re:Privacy Shouting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and I forgot. The comment you replied to was a joke. Joe630 agrees with you.

    4. Re:Privacy Shouting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not?

      Ever heard of the slashot effect?

      Can you imagine the Pervert effect? Make those list public and those sites will evaporate. Nerds may travel in herds, but they are nothing compared to the legions of perverts.

  9. Hmmm... by cmallinson · · Score: 1
    IE for the tame stuff / Mozilla for everything else?

    Yeah, I'll sign up.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boot up your linux partition(or a second Windows one). The 2nd thing is wht happens if I already have a large collection on my hard drive? Does it monitor that as well? What about downloading from KaZaA?

  10. Goatse by Kaa · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Yes! This is a perfect way of sharing the goatse links!!

    --

    Kaa
    Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
  11. good idea for other reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is a very good idea. It could potentially weed out other sorts of people as well. For example, I visit Slashdot about eighty times a day. I am embarassed about this addiction. If I could notify someone who cared about me, then I might be able to get support to stop it.

    Addiction to websites is a serious matter. Online gambling is on the rise, pornography is problematic, and addiction to chat forums like Slashdot and ICQ NSync channels is a big problem for people. As an additional plus, this could be used to recognize and weed out subversive political and religious views, and stop people from looking at questionable material in those veins.

    1. Re:good idea for other reasons by fobbman · · Score: 5, Funny

      We all know about your addiction. I see your user name posting all the time on Slashdot. You really should get a life.

    2. Re:good idea for other reasons by Edball · · Score: 1
      Funny you should mention this being a good way of dealing with an addiction for online gambling..
      When I clicked on the article I got a popup for none-other-than the aforementioned.

      Irony..

    3. Re:good idea for other reasons by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 1

      For example, I visit Slashdot about eighty times a day

      I have a Slashdot problem too. I tried getting a subscription thinking that if I had a monetary reason to stop viewing Slashdot so much that I would stop, but it hasn't. At least now I can see how many times I've loaded Slashdot on the subscription page, it averages around 20-30 (sometimes 40!) times a day. It's not an addiction I'm proud of, but if my employer gave me something more exciting to do maybe I wouldn't need to, because I only check Slashdot 2, maybe 3 times away from work.

    4. Re:good idea for other reasons by blackcoot · · Score: 1
      As an additional plus, this could be used to recognize and weed out subversive political and religious views, and stop people from looking at questionable material in those veins.


      Hrm... Big Brother said the same thing about putting cameras in every room.
    5. Re:good idea for other reasons by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Twenty-four Conservatives on my Freaks list. wooHOO!

      Wow. They get everywhere. I'm tempted to add myself to even up the political balance a little.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:good idea for other reasons by wurp · · Score: 1

      One thing that helped me for quite a while was to map slashdot to localhost in my /etc/hosts file. Obviously, I could get past it simply be editing the file back, but at least it took an effort. Of course, I've had it turned off for the past several months, but for a long time it really reduced my usage.

    7. Re:good idea for other reasons by FroMan · · Score: 1

      You are missing me on your freak list.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    8. Re:good idea for other reasons by zbuffered · · Score: 1

      Okay, so you used the word Weed twice in your post, and the word Addiction three times. Pothead. ;)

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    9. Re:good idea for other reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twenty-four Conservatives on my Freaks list.

      Cool. Thanks for a list of conservatives for me to designate friends.

    10. Re:good idea for other reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey now! Don't compare slashdot to something like a ICQ NSync channel.

      The channel at least has some journalistic integrity.

  12. Their Motto by mlknowle · · Score: 1

    ... is : NetAccountability - Because Lots of Little Brothers are Beter than Big Brother

    1. Re:Their Motto by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      Actually, that's the entire premise of public accountability. Rather than having one big, cruel, monolithic, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful Ministry of Truth, you turn every citizen into a little voyeur whose job it is to go around and watch for corruption. Watching the government, watching corporations, watching each other. In a world with no privacy, it's definitely the better alternative.

      So, the general premise is good. How useful it'll be when applied to porn, who knows? Likely they'll give it up after its biggest proponents find their own teenage sons to be the biggest 'offenders'.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  13. Reminds me of what happened to a friend of mine by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He calls up our University's tech services to report his internet connection sucked. It fixed itself within a few hours. The next day, he gets a call saying that his connection should work now, and that he had visited some "interesting" sites and that the network is for "academic use only", but that they had monitored his activity only because he had complained.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Reminds me of what happened to a friend of mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my ISP never bothered us about running multiple IPs with servers of various sorts, but then when I call to complain about connection problems, i realized about 1/2 way thru the conversation that I didn't check my OWN logs, and sure enough, some assholes found my MP3 and DivX collections and were leeching. We got a call telling us to take down the servers and use a router so that we had only one IP, so i complied. We then put stuff back up after a couple months.

    2. Re:Reminds me of what happened to a friend of mine by catdevnull · · Score: 1

      I've used that line, too. It's an old BOFH technique used to scare the crap out of somebody. I mean, c'mon--almost NOBODY uses the internet for "work" exclusively unless they work for IronFist Corp, Inc. or some other network Nazi monitored company.

      --

      I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
    3. Re:Reminds me of what happened to a friend of mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, same thing happened to me with my desk lamp (one of those flourescent jobbies inside the school-supplied desk). I finished my homework and decided to kick back with my new copy of InQuest gaming magazine. A few minutes into a fascinating article on Goblins, and my phone rings. Dude tells me "that's quite an interesting article on goblins, dorkboy .. but remember, school property is for academic use only! *click*"

      Well that put the fear of Zord into me and from then on I read my mag under sunlight only, and even then only off-campus!

    4. Re:Reminds me of what happened to a friend of mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude your school provides desk lamps? Please tell me where so I can transfer!

    5. Re:Reminds me of what happened to a friend of mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol... reminds me of when john had me install sub7 on his computer so he could tell if his younger brother was using his computer. Well a few months passed, we got his brother to stop using the computer when no one was home, but I decided to check in and see what he was doing online as we chatted, instead of asking I just connected up with sub7 and took a snapshot, he was playing a dumb game I forget the name. any way I had another friend(david) call him up on the phone and ask him if the game was any fun. he said yes or something not thinking twice about it. Then when he died I mentioned it david, and he said "ah! you died, from (some monster)" needless to say john was puzzled how david was seeing him, till the next day at school when I let him in on the joke.

  14. Apparently we have yet to understand... by Metalhead01 · · Score: 1
    the mystical powers of the "History" button

    This product is a load of crap, pure and simple. All it does is make the information in the browser's history preety, with bar graphs and whatnot. A total waste of time and money designed by a reactionary group of religious zealots.

    --
    The only reason I keep my Windows partition is so I can mount it like the bitch that it is.
    1. Re:Apparently we have yet to understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      history is easily deleted. this is built in deeper.

  15. Already done... by onthefenceman · · Score: 1

    Anyone who works at a major corporation is probably sharing their web use records with the HR dept whether they know it or not...

    --
    Have you seen my stapler?
  16. Dude, by quintessent · · Score: 4, Funny

    You surfed goatse, like, 20 times this month!

    1. Re:Dude, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well trolls will be trolls.

      They just love him.

  17. Who would trust a guy named by Xiarcel · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Chuck Swindoll"?

    It sounds like a bad Simpsons joke...

    1. Re:Who would trust a guy named by mrjive · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've sold porn filters to Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, and Brockway, and it sure put them on the map!

      --
      If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. -George Carlin
    2. Re:Who would trust a guy named by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      Actually, he's a big big radio preacher. so, to answer your question, LOTS of people will trust him, and lots will be disappointed.

      It's not the first time he's been wrong, but he's not all that bad either. He just didn't research this one very well.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    3. Re:Who would trust a guy named by Xiarcel · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is "With a name _like_ Swindle, he's gotta be trustworthy"?

    4. Re:Who would trust a guy named by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Funny as it might sound, the rebublican candidate for a house seat from Hawaii was named Orson Swindle.

      Guess how he fared...

    5. Re:Who would trust a guy named by bcboy · · Score: 1

      He's pretty bad. He has a long history of publishing ignorant bullshit marketed to unwary parents, under the guise of "informing" them about music, books, or what-have-you.

      In regard to "objectionable" media, he's definately from the "lock the kid in a box" school of parenting, rather than the "teach them to develop their critical thinking skills" school of parenting.

    6. Re:Who would trust a guy named by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think he went on a big rant about video games a while back... detailing how bad some games are in some scenes, of course it was totally unbalanced, so many parents got the impression "All video games are an abomination", but most of them are gone anyway. A much better Idea would have been to reccomend ccgr.org, a Christian games resource, and they're pretty practical, they gave UT 2003 a positive rating, so violence isn't really seen as bad, and that's A Good Thing.

      I personally think as you call it "lock the kid in a box" is very dumb, not only because it's restricting, but most parents don't watch their kids close enough, so the kid is likely to rebel, and get into so pretty bad stuff.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    7. Re:Who would trust a guy named by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      That's a great page.

      "Giants Citizen Kabuto: Another game I don't play because the female character refuses to wear clothes."

      Best. Review. Ever.

  18. Block porn? by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

    Why would I want to do that?

    --
    My other account has a 3-digit UID.
  19. They'd be surprised how quickly by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 1

    nobody will participate. If I *knew* I visisted a pr0n site, would I willingly let someone else see my web use log knowing that they'd be displeased? That's mental! I call this idea fux0r3d.

    1. Re:They'd be surprised how quickly by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      The way I understand it, it's for people who have a genuine desire to not visit these sites... and this is their way of shoring up their willpower. If they want to give in and surf porn, knowing that their best friend / spouse / etc. will see that could stop them.

    2. Re:They'd be surprised how quickly by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 1

      If they had a genuine desire to not visit these sites, why do they need peer pressure to assist them?

    3. Re:They'd be surprised how quickly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you don't get it. People won't install it voluntarily. People will install it when their wives and parents say, "Ooh, isn't that a great idea? Let's set it up." There's no quick way to nix the idea without, ahem, arousing suspicion. Describing it as "voluntary" is disingenuous.

    4. Re:They'd be surprised how quickly by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      For the same reason recovering drug users need the support of their friends and family.

  20. Sophomore Chem Class... by somethingwicked · · Score: 4, Funny

    Teacher hands out quiz...

    Scribble on paper briefly...

    Ignore for 20 minutes...

    Teacher-"Trade quizes."

    End result:
    Jason-"Yeah, Chris got a 98"
    Chris-"Jason got a 96"

    Yeah, this should be effective *grin*

    --

    ---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---

    1. Re:Sophomore Chem Class... by tgd · · Score: 4, Funny

      If I was Jason, Chris would be stuffed in a locker after class for only giving me a 96 when I gave him a 98.

    2. Re:Sophomore Chem Class... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ya, tipical jock very short sited, a bunch of 80's and 90's is better than the 50's you'd probaly make with out his help.

  21. great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    right on! now i can figure out with my friends where the good nekkid pix are no more wasting time with crap sites just look for multiple visits! woo!

  22. Re:Big Difference by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Big difference between self-censorship and attempted big-brother censorship.

    I was just about to post this same thought, and I noticed you beat me to it. There is a huge difference between people who are trying to monitor and clean up their own online surfing habits (for whatever reasons) and what the headline and story description said.

    This is just a way for people to keep them accountable in a way described in the Bible. Of course, knowing Slashdot, this will be made fun of to no end. People attempting to live their lives according to an external and somewhat objective standard is just so medieval.

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
  23. The perfect name by inkswamp · · Score: 1

    They should call this the Gladys Kravitz filter.

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    1. Re:The perfect name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darn it. I am old enough to understand that reference.

  24. Re:it won't work by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

    RTFA. It's not a filter. It's you sending a record to others frequently, so people can see if you look at pr0n. It's supposed to shame you into not looking at pr0n. Unfortunately, for guys who aren't married, odds are you have friends who are into pr0n, too.

    --
    Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
  25. Freshmeat again! by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Funny

    "You prev! I see from the NetAccountablity log you've been "browsing" FreshMeat again!"

    "But honey, it's all about software! Honest!"

    "Software, hardcore, whatever, it's all dirty!"

    1. Re:Freshmeat again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of. What was the old FM logo? In the freshmeat.net text it sure looked like a nude woman on all four viewed from a 3/4 top down perspective.

      But then I could just be seeing what I want to see.

    2. Re:Freshmeat again! by Doomrat · · Score: 1

      Damned preverts. :(

    3. Re:Freshmeat again! by L0stb0Y · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well I'd get into more trouble from HardOCP than Freshmeat~

      --
      "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams."
    4. Re:Freshmeat again! by bovilexics · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know the parent post is being sarcastic but I know similar consersations have happened many times in the past between many different couples, myself included.

      I had a little explaining to do when my wife saw the following bookmark in my browser -

      • What is tightrack.com, hmmmm?
        Welcome to the tight rack home?!?!

      Needless to say I had a little explaining to do but things were quickly cleared up. BTW, this is a site for a really cool pool table accessory that they actually use in the professional ranks. Safe to view from work.

      --
      Are you bovilexic? Moo!
    5. Re:Freshmeat again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope, I remember back when it was black w/ white text.
      pretty sure it was a chick taking it doggie style

    6. Re:Freshmeat again! by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Heh, my parents actually started going through my mail back when I was a teen. I was recieving issues of "Hot Box" in the mail. Imagine their surprise when they found out it was just a model railroading magazine for teen hobbyists.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    7. Re:Freshmeat again! by qute · · Score: 1

      I had that experience with a girlfriend once. She didn't believe me.
      I had to go to freshmeat while she was watching and show her: "See honey, programs. Here's one that checks links on a page".

      So she ended up negative on the whole karma thing. Whoopee :-)

      --
      -- Make software not war
  26. Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by sfe_software · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...for many reasons.

    First, the whole "my religion doesn't allow me to look at porn" argument is just nuts. If you truly believe this, you won't need your big brother (or whomever) to watch you.

    Second, what about self control? Okay, you don't want to look at porn. So the only way you can stop is to have your PC report which sites you visit to Grandma?

    Finally, if you want to look at porn, look at porn. If your religion forbids it, well, that sucks... but otherwise, who the hell cares if you look at porn? I enjoy it, am not ashamed of it, and I certainly don't need anyone else (or any religion) scrutinizing what sites I visit.

    So next we'll be CCing our Visa bill to someone, to curb excessive spending; faxing the grocery list/receipt to help with over-eating; and so on. Do these people actually need a babysitter? If so, what are they doing living on their own, let alone surfing the 'Net without supervision?

    --
    NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    1. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by DataPath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      some people view porn as an addiction like alcohol or smoking. They WANT to stop, but they don't have the self control. Think of it as an AA for porn. No one's asking you to participate, so let them do their thing.

      And about the decision personal or religious not to look at porn... a lot of people's wives arent' too fond of their husbands looking at the stuff.

      --
      Inconceivable!
    2. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by buckthorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, think about addictions. There are plenty of people who want to kick addictions to drugs, alcohol, food, hell most anything really. They want to quit, but their willpower is weak. So they turn themselves into rehab, sign up for Weight Watchers (where you weigh in as a group once a week), that sort of thing. I mean there are honestly people out there, and I'm one of them, who really try to get away from online pr0n but find the addiction too seductive sometimes to resist. It's the nature of addiction and temptation; it wouldn't be addictive and tempting if you didn't enjoy it. It's easy to enjoy things that you know are wrong.. the hard bit is stopping. This is legitimate help for some people.

    3. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Anybody who has a moral standard other than
      "if it feels good, do it" should be able to
      at least understand why such a strategy would be
      helpful to people who share moral standards with
      someone else.

      Really, the whole porn thing is not the interesting
      aspect of this approach. While it may be one of the
      principal uses in practice, you could just as well
      use the process to help you with a gambling
      addiction, or an ebay problem, or.... you name it.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    4. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by josh+crawley · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >...for many reasons.

      >First, the whole "my religion doesn't allow me to look at porn" argument is just nuts. If you truly believe this, you won't need your big brother (or whomever) to watch you.

      Damn straight. Then you also end up with Christan deviants whoi believe everything is "of the devil!"

      >Second, what about self control? Okay, you don't want to look at porn. So the only way you can stop is to have your PC report which sites you visit to Grandma?

      She wouldnt understand it.

      >Finally, if you want to look at porn, look at porn. If your religion forbids it, well, that sucks... but otherwise, who the hell cares if you look at porn? I enjoy it, am not ashamed of it, and I certainly don't need anyone else (or any religion) scrutinizing what sites I visit.

      I'm ashamed to look at porn. Tells me I'm not getting any ;-(

      >So next we'll be CCing our Visa bill to someone, to curb excessive spending; faxing the grocery list/receipt to help with over-eating; and so on. Do these people actually need a babysitter? If so, what are they doing living on their own, let alone surfing the 'Net without supervision?

      You know what I'd like to do? Get on that 'list' and fill the sucker with TGP's galore. Give them religous nuts something to look at ;-)

    5. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In response to your points:

      1) First, the whole "my religion doesn't allow me to look at porn" argument is just nuts. If you truly believe this, you won't need your big brother (or whomever) to watch you.

      There are two schools involved. The ones who hold deep spiritual beliefs, and as you said, do not need any help living by their beliefs. These are admittedly rare. There are alos others who are merely using that line as an excuse and do actually, as others pointed out, lack the fundamental willpower to stop.

      2) Self Control

      Discipline is one of the most complex, and difficult, lessons any of us learn. It is very difficult to deny anyone, let alone one's self, something pleasurable. We are fighting eons of evolution (or out nature by Creation) in so doing. This is what makes the religious dictates a challenge to follow. Discipline requires us to fight an enemy always our equal, ourself.

      3) Don't want to

      Generally, those who do not want to, don't. Those who vocalize that they do not want to and yet continue are facing the challenge of #2, discipline of the mind over the instinct.

      While I support other's right not to view things they find objectionable, I do not support anyone attempting to impose that on someone else. If you ask for help, it should be freely given, and for those who do have trouble in the self conflict, this is a good idea. However, no one should force that help on another.

      The use of religion, or morality, to impose limitations from one person or group to another has caused (and may soon cause) more and bloodier wars than just about anything else.

      --

      You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
    6. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point, Mr. I Love Porn.

      In Christianity, porn is bad because it incites lust.
      If you're not a Christian or a "disciple of Jesus Christ"
      (which means you live by his teachings and principles) then your moral compass points the other way. It's
      *VOLUNTARY* ...maybe you missed that part.

      Accountability means that you are in mutual submission to another person or group with the same beliefs and moral standards. If a "disciple" jerks off all day to pr0n and lies about not falling to the temptation of lust, then he's not being held accountable and guilty of 2 sins--lying and lust.

      It's not an invasion of privacy--it's living in transparent community.

      It's like have an "Open Source Lifestyle"--nobody is out to get you but, rather, the point is to improve one another (hence the verse "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.")

      I've found that I've only been worried about my "privacy" when I have something to hide.

      I'm posting this anonymously to avert the flames of yon heathen coders who think they're too smart for religion.
      (I won't prostelitize religion if you don't prostelize heathen hedonism).

    7. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by rutledjw · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Did you bother to READ the article? try that out sometime.

      Finally, if you want to look at porn, look at porn. If your religion forbids it, well, that sucks...

      And that's what the situation is here. It is VOLUNTARY and people are doing this so they are ACCOUNTABLE to their faith.

      If you enjoy pr0n and aren't ashamed, then don't use this software! That's a hard one to figure out...

      --

      Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
    8. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and about the decision personal or religious not to look at porn... a lot of people's wives arent' too fond of their husbands looking at the stuff.

      Oh right, so if you have a grudge against a husband you can install this on his computer to email his wife, then watch the fireworks? Maybe people have been too hasty judging this stuff as no-fun.

    9. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by Lxy · · Score: 1

      First, the whole "my religion doesn't allow me to look at porn" argument is just nuts.

      Religion teaches us not to look at porn, as it damages the mind and the heart of the person looking at it. Because of the judgementalism in our churches, it is something that is often condenmed. However, statistics have shown that as many as 90% of church going men are addicted to porn.

      Second, what about self control?

      Looking at porn is an addiction. Self control is great if you can hack it. For 90% of men in churches, self control isn't enough. It requires accountability.

      Finally, if you want to look at porn, look at porn.

      I don't care if you look at porn, I don't care if anybody looks at porn. The point is that to those who seek God, porn is a stumbling block. It's something that many men try to turn away from, and often do unsuccessfully. Because it's viewed as such a shameful sin, it's often tough to talk about. This tool is designed for accountability. It's installed by someone who really wants their loved ones to keep tabs on their online habits. It's meant to do what they feel is right.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    10. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by Cyno · · Score: 1

      It should be illegal for anyone to look at porn if their religion forbids it. If you want to believe in your religion you MUST BE RESPONSIBLE for your actions. If you break the laws of your own system of beliefs what's to stop you from breaking any other laws? I would have them put in jail for being a pud-whacking christian or whatever the hell they say they are, them sick fucks.

      Do these people actually need a babysitter?

      Yes.

    11. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by Grond · · Score: 1

      "First, the whole "my religion doesn't allow me to look at porn" argument is just nuts. If you truly believe this, you won't need your big brother (or whomever) to watch you."
      Ahh, while it's technically true that one wouldn't 'need' ones big brother watching over one, it certainly can't help. And of course the method would be useful for nonreligious people who want to curb their porn viewing (or addiction) for other reasons.

      "Second, what about self control? Okay, you don't want to look at porn. So the only way you can stop is to have your PC report which sites you visit to Grandma?"
      Is this the "only way you can stop?" No, but accountability-based methods are some of the best ways to stop addictive behaviors. Alcoholics anonymous and other groups modelled after it make use of group meetings for a reason. And generally, one would confide in someone that one sees on a regular basis, which probably isn't Grandma.

      "Finally, if you want to look at porn, look at porn. If your religion forbids it, well, that sucks... but otherwise, who the hell cares if you look at porn? I enjoy it, am not ashamed of it, and I certainly don't need anyone else (or any religion) scrutinizing what sites I visit."
      People who do not follow a religion or whose religion does not specifically forbid the viewing of porn may still wish to curb their habit for several reasons:
      1) their spouse dislikes porn
      2) they have children in the house and don't want to be viewing something that their children can't (by law)
      3) they are not of age and their parents want to use an accountability-based method to make sure that their child isn't breaking the law
      4) they don't want to feel addicted to something
      5) they decide that porn degrades women, sex, etc

      "So next we'll be CCing our Visa bill to someone, to curb excessive spending; faxing the grocery list/receipt to help with over-eating; and so on. Do these people actually need a babysitter? If so, what are they doing living on their own, let alone surfing the 'Net without supervision?"
      Managing money effectively is largely a taught or learned skill, not an inborn ability. People who did not have the benefit of being taught that particular skill by their parents, peers, or educators (as a great deal of people in the western world have not been, given the high rates of personal debt in those parts) may well need assistance later in life to help deal with bad spending habits. Similarly, people who overeat for whatever reason (low self-esteem, actual glandular problems, laziness, etc) may well desire some help in improving themselves. Which I think is the strangest part of your little diatribe: what is so wrong with a person wanting to fix something they see wrong with himself or herself and then having the courage to admit that they cannot do it on their own or at least could use a little help?

      I for one applaud that courage, even if I or others may have different moral opinions regarding that same behavior in ourselves.

    12. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by DataPath · · Score: 1

      my impression of the program is that its intended to be somewhat voluntary, and act by peer pressure... I don't think it just sits there and logs websites silently and forwards them to your boss, your wife, the CIA, the Illuminati, etc.

      --
      Inconceivable!
    13. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by sfe_software · · Score: 1

      Hm, this got a LOT of replies. Rather than reply to them all, I'll just sum up a couple things.

      I think I replied hastily and didn't really think it through. I never realized that for some, porn can become a real addiction. I've never considered it more than something I occasionally look at, so I didn't realize this was a real problem for some.

      Regarding my last paragraph, I was getting a little bit carried away, and that was meant as (poor) sarcasm. Maybe I'm just a bit irritable today...

      But a few people have pointed out the possible merits of such a system, and I'm sorry for the harsh remarks; I didn't mean to offend anyone for whom this is a real problem.

      --
      NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    14. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by CompCons · · Score: 1

      Ok...so someone wants to stop watching porn..this is a great idea, let them use it. But!!! lets keep an eye on things and make sure it doesn't become more than a voluntary service. I don't see anything wrong with an employer requiring this on your work computer either...but my home computer is my business(freedom is the basis of our society)

    15. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by Troy · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand some essential aspects of living a Christian life*.

      (*The basic ideas probably also apply to other religions -- I'm using Christian because I am one, so it is convenient.)

      Lesson 1 of Christian living is that we are sinful....if you don't like the word sinful, then substitute "disproportionately selfish". It does not mean that we are evil 24/7, but it does mean that we have frickin' huge moral blindspots and half of the time we really don't care.

      Lesson 2 shows us our goal -- we want to be more like Christ. We want to free ourselves from our own petty desires (but not our needs) and live lives of love for the world around us. While simulataneously loving everyone around us unconditionally, we also want to acheive moral perfection, because (at least half of the time) acting morally and being loving go hand-in-hand.

      Lesson 3 tells us that our goal is absolutely unachievable. We can't do it, no matter how hard we work. From here comes the Christ story and the Cross and Resurrection which points us down a REALLY REALLY REALLY good path to take if we even want to get close. As we go down this path, however, we continue to mess up....a lot. We continue to do wrong to ourselves and to others because of our disproportionate selfishness. In fact this is the most difficult and frustrating thing about being a Christian -- because you strive for a goal that you know you will never ever reach no matter how hard you strive, but you continue to strive because you find that you can stand to do no less. Self-discipline and willpower are good things, but ultimately fall short because JUST one mistake is really too much. I've also ancedotally found that people with a lot of self-discipline and willpower tend to be lacking in compassion and sympathy for those who struggle -- so they have different blindspots that they have to work through.

      Christians have developed a lot of techniques to help us down this path. A very old and very young one is the idea of a prayer partner -- someone with whom you can pray, share your joys and pains with, who loves you unconditionally and constantly encourages and pushes you to be and do better. Christian spouses typically act this way for each other, though many Christias also have same sex prayer partners too.

      This program is meant for those kinds of people. The idea is NOT to let a church or a religious group enforce rules of behavior on its members. The idea is that if Internet porn is a problem for you -- if it is one of your moral blindspots -- then you let a "prayer partner" type person monitor where you go. Knowing the problem that porn is amongst Christian men, reciprocality is likely. It becomes yet another way that the person can encourage and push you to do and be a better person.

      Now, like everything else, this could be used for emotional manipulation and censorship. However, the intent is to enable people to be more accountable to each other if the Internet presents a moral problem.

      Disclaimers:
      1) This is not an invitation to debate to merits of religion. I'm simply explaining how many Christians think about these issues.
      2) If you're not a Christian and this doesn't make sense to you, that is probably a function of you not being a Christian (and thus having different goals than many Christians do). It is not necessarily a function of it being dumb or lame.
      3) If you really really want to discuss religious issues, consider a visit to the forums at http://www.ship-of-fools.com. Well-spoken/argued peoeple of all persuations are always welcome on the Ship.

    16. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've lived on both sides of the fence. There have been times in my life where, thanks to my religious inclinations, I really wanted to stop looking at porn. I hated myself for looking at it, I felt like a pervert for looking at it. I was disgusted at myself, for liking something I knew to be horribly wrong. Yet I did, every chance I got.

      Now, after a lot of religious soul-searching, I've given up on religious soul-searching. I don't believe in divine beings, I don't believe in "sin"--if we define it to be offense against God. The suffering we inflict on others is the only sin we can commit. The funny thing? My "addiction" is gone. I still look at porn from time to time, but when it lost its shame, it lost its overwhelming attraction.

      I understand the feelings you, and others who think of themselves as "addicted" are going through. But the best help I could give people like you is to de-stigmatize pornography. The only power it has is the power that we give it.

      Do yourself a favor. Look at it or don't, that's not the point. But for the love of whatever deity you hold sacred, stop thinking of it as this huge, all-corrupting secret shame.

      [Yes, I recognize the irony in posting this anonymously.]

    17. Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... by buckthorn · · Score: 1

      It's no coincidence that people who smoke and are perfectly happy with smoking usually don't characterize themselves as addicted. There's no stigma, there's no need to quit, so they don't have to worry about that facet. And yes, I'm sure if I thought that porn was perfectly okay I wouldn't look at it as often as I want to now. That's the nature of self-denial... ask any dieter. That cheesecake in the fridge can sit there for days for all I care, I'm not on a diet. Put me on one and suddenly I'm a cheesecake-obsessing mofo and you have to chain the fridge shut to keep me away from it. "Addiction" loses its stigma when there's no stigma attached to the addicting item.

  27. accountability? by Azathoth!EDC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Man, if I'm watching some porn and my girlfriend walks into the room, she just shakes her head and laughs. And vice versa. People are prudes.

    1. Re:accountability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. When I'm watching porn and my girlfriend walks in the...oh, wait...I don't have a girlfriend.

    2. Re:accountability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe she's not so liberal. Maybe you just have a tiny dick.

    3. Re:accountability? by Opiuman · · Score: 1

      If I'm watching some porn and my girlfriend walks into the room, she asks me to send her the URL.

    4. Re:accountability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why don't people watch pr0n together? my so & i do. maybe we're just post-modern but we are poly too (and both bi) so it's all good. sex sex sex. yay!

      *whichah* *slap* *bite* that's fun! people need to lighten up about sex. as my friend (fem) says, "sex is inherently funny". it is! and pr0n's okay. i'm tired of those plastic girls tho, check out SuicideGirls. once my so's 18, we're gonna make our own porn. yay!
      ---
      umm... do you have a problem if you database your pr0n?

  28. Re:it won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing this isn't filtering, huh? RTFA

  29. WTF? by trianglecat · · Score: 1

    People who have something to hide or wish to have thier privacy respected (or really dig pr0n) would never opt in. Those that don't...might.

    so whats the point here?

    'nuff said.

  30. Won't work by spellcheckur · · Score: 1
    I mean, seriously... if I was susceptible to peer pressure, I never would have become a programmer.

    I'd have skipped school with my friends, spent my days in the arcade and ignored my homework, fantasizing about how I'd write better games than...

    oh. wait. that's what happened. nevermind.

  31. What a stupid article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only Ned Flanders and his kids would use the service. What moronic douchebag thinks this methodology would work? Religious right no doubt.

    1. Re:What a stupid article by Treebeard+the+Ent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are actually people who want to STOP looking at pr0n, but the temptation and availability and ease of covering your tracks is too much for them to handle. So this is an ideal solution for those people.

      It happens quite often really. I would pay for it. Now granted, most people that I know that would use such a service volentarily are christians who struggle with pr0n (such as myself).

      --
      Never argue with an idiot. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    2. Re:What a stupid article by stev3 · · Score: 1

      Not cool. I clicked on that :/

      Please inform everyone if you're going to be linking to that kind of stuff in the future. KTHXBYE

    3. Re:What a stupid article by Kosi · · Score: 1

      ROTFL. Why should people stop looking at porn anyway?

      You talk as if porn would be something bad, something that harms you. Someone who does not want to look at porn, simply won't do it. A person who senses that (s)he has problems with porn, maybe something like an addiction, should visit a psychatrist.

      Kosi

    4. Re:What a stupid article by bigchris · · Score: 1

      Why should you stop looking at porn? It may seem like a strange thing to you, but consider this: every time you look at porn you are objectifying the participants and gratifying your lust at the expense of the person's humanity. Basically, when you look at porn you are looking at it for your own gratification and you aren't considering the other person at all.

      I believe that porn is quite damaging - both to the party being objectified and to the party doing the objectifying.

      I also believe that porn isn't real, it's just a poor imitation of intimacy and love. You will never get any intimacy and you endanger your intimacy with those you love if you are a regular viewer of pornography.

      Christians beleive that pornography is wrong. Jesus states that "Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are good, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are bad, your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness" in Luke 11:33-35. Many Christians wish to obey Jesus and so they try to not look at images that cause them to be full of darkness. Pornography is one of those things.

      Also, many Christians find that they are hooked on pornography (and I suspect that it's not just Christians too!). They might find this tool very useful - in fact many Christians are already in groups where they voluntarily become accountable to group members. This software would help assist in their accountability.

      For the record, I'm a Christian, and also at the place I am living at the moment we've installed a caching proxy that filters on various things. I don't administer it, it's too tempting.

    5. Re:What a stupid article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28

    6. Re:What a stupid article by Kosi · · Score: 1

      First of all, I'd like to make clear, that "porn" in this discussion means "pictures of consenting adults having sex".

      every time you look at porn you are objectifying the participants and gratifying your lust at the expense of the person's humanity

      The first part is correct, as you objectify constantly (even when you're having fun with your wife, but not only when it comes to sexuality), but I can't understand how someone's species should change just because of being pictured while having sex.

      I believe that porn is quite damaging - both to the party being objectified and to the party doing the objectifying.

      Although I won't say that it's impossible that porn can inflict damage, it's very very unlikely that it will do. And, please, define what "damage" you are talking about here.

      I also believe that porn isn't real, it's just a poor imitation of intimacy and love.

      Love? We're talking about sex, and sex has not neccessarily something to do with love. They go together often, but that's all.

      You will never get any intimacy and you endanger your intimacy with those you love if you are a regular viewer of pornography.

      Why and how?

      Christians beleive that pornography is wrong.

      What is wrong in picturing the most beautiful thing one or more consentig adults can do together?

      btw, who's administering your censoring proxy? Your local reverend, strong in his faith? :)

      Kosi

    7. Re:What a stupid article by bigchris · · Score: 1

      "Love? We're talking about sex, and sex has not neccessarily something to do with love. They go together often, but that's all."

      Here we disagree. I beleive that marital love and sex go together. I beleive that God created man and woman to be in perfect unity together.

      I base this on Genesis 2:20-24:

      "But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
      The man said,

      "This is now bone of my bones,
      and flesh of my flesh;
      she shall be called 'woman,'
      for she was taken out of man."

      For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

      "Why and how?"

      Because monogamy is the only way, intimacy requires trust and love requires lack of self-centeredness. I beleive that pornography does not allow for either of these things.

      "What is wrong in picturing the most beautiful thing one or more consentig adults can do together?"

      Nothing! in the context of marriage sex is a beautiful thing. When it is taken outside of marriage I beleive it is corrupt.

      "btw, who's administering your censoring proxy? Your local reverend, strong in his faith? :)"

      My flatmate, because I asked him to.

    8. Re:What a stupid article by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      Here we disagree. I beleive that marital love and sex go together.

      That doesn't make the other statement untrue. Sex in itself has very little to do with love. If you were to take all of the people who have sex in a given 24 hour people and divide them into two groups - one who was expressing genuine love and one where they were gratifying themselves - you'd find the 'love' group significantly smaller than the gratification group even among married couples.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    9. Re:What a stupid article by bigchris · · Score: 1

      You make a very good point. What I probably should have stated was that I beleive that sex was made to be enjoyed within the context of a loving relationship between husband and wife.

      It's good to see some constructive criticism on slashdot!

    10. Re:What a stupid article by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Here we disagree. I beleive that marital love and sex go together.

      Sex will of course be part of marital love, but the other way round it's not mandatory. I'd never marry without having sex in the relationship, but I'd never refrain from having sex just because I'm not married with the girl. :)

      I beleive that God created man and woman to be in perfect unity together.

      So why does reality then proof that the unity is not that perfect?

      Because monogamy is the only way, intimacy requires trust and love requires lack of self-centeredness.

      The second part of the sentence is perfectly ok with me, but reality proofes again here that the first part is wrong.

      When it is taken outside of marriage I beleive it is corrupt.

      Aehm, you are aware that marriage is a thing created by men for various reasons, one of them to ensure their "female benefices"? It exists much longer than whole christianity.

      And: why do you think it's corrupt? Just because of some ancient writings of humankind, in which you can hardly find the original sense, as it was modified, manipulated and mistranslated many times over the years?

      Just think of this: If god really created the universe and humankind, he created humankind with a desire for sex. So, neither a human can be held responsible for having this desire, nor can it be something "bad", "dirty" or "immoral", as *god* created it!

      Religion was created by men, in times where knowledge of nature was small, and people explained things they did not understand with magic and myths (think of the old nature cults). These explanations were interwoven with rules for a better living together. Then, as knowledge grew, soemthing had to replace this magical and mythical universe, so the cults were replaced by the religions (just think how many of the christian holidays are in fact old pagan celebrations). These were focusing mainly now on giving rules how to live together, and dealing with the still not solved "problems" like sexuality and mortality. So, the rules you can find in the bible/quran/thora ran are rules made by humans from some thousand years ago. They contain rules being impossible to follow like "thou shalt not covet your neighbor's wife". Hey, I can't control being attracted to some girl, I can only control how I act on the subject.

      btw: Clever people quickly institutionalized these religion thing to gather might and wealth, and that's how the first christian church was born. But that would lead too far now ... :)

      To bring this to and end: Religion should be treated as what it is: ancient guidelines for the real (ancient!) life, written by ancient people, often with good intentions, but horribly mutilated over the time. One should check every single rule or guideline if it makes sense in todays world.
      A good example is the ban of pork and other meat in the muslim world. In the times these rules were developed, there were no fridges, and temperature is high in these regions. So pork (and others) becomes inedible very fast, many people died from disease or food poisoning. That's the reason for the ban of pork for muslims, and therefore it should be checked for what reason a common-sensed human should still comply to it.

      Kosi

    11. Re:What a stupid article by Tassach · · Score: 1
      christians who struggle with pr0n (such as myself).
      Welcome to the cognitive dissonance that happens when an arbitrary and artificial belief system collides with the reality of human nature. If your God is supposed to have made us in his own image, why do you think that his rules run completly opposite to our basic nature? If God thinks sex is so bad, why did he make it feel so good?

      Perhaps instead of struggling to give up your pr0n habit you should instead be struggling to give up your habit of blindly accepting superstitious beliefs. I suggest Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark as a starting point. Apply a little critical thinking to your situation and determine where the flaw lies.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    12. Re:What a stupid article by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      It's good to see some constructive criticism on slashdot!

      What was I thinkin'? Must've forgotten where I was....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    13. Re:What a stupid article by Treebeard+the+Ent · · Score: 1
      If your God is supposed to have made us in his own image,

      Yes, the Bible says that we were made in the image of God. Did you ever think that the passage was actually talking about us being made to look similar to God? Why would he do that? I don't know, you'll have to ask Him! Why would he give us free will to choose to not choose His ways? I can't be sure about that either, but I would have to assume that it is because he wants us to choose Him. He wants us to have a relationship with Him because we love Him, not because He makes us.

      why do you think that his rules run completly opposite to our basic nature?

      I wasn't always that way. He didn't always have rules for us to follow (with the exception of not being allowed to eat from ONE tree. We (humans) couldn't even follow one rule. He gave Adam and Eve the free will to choose to follow God. They chose to do the ONE thing God told them not to, hence bringing humans death (and several other consequences including God's Law).

      If God thinks sex is so bad

      I must have accidentally torn those pages out of my Bible. Can you please quote to me where it states that God thinks sex is bad? Or were you speaking on something of which you do not know about? The only time sex is referred to in a bad way are:

      Outside of marriage

      When sex is referred to between people of the same sex(please don't flame, if you want to discuss this one more, email me)

      why do you think that his rules run completly opposite to our basic nature?

      Refer to the statement about freewill...

      Perhaps instead of struggling to give up your pr0n habit you should instead be struggling to give up your habit of blindly accepting superstitious beliefs.

      Now I have not gone attacking your beliefs, have I? These are the set of morals that I subscribe to. I am not asking you to fully convert your thinking to mine. I am merely answering someone's question as to who would use this. (Ok, so the actual question was who would think it would work... short answer anyone who goes through the same struggle I have outlined)

      If you wish to discuss my religion, I suggest we do not flood /. with our discussion. You are welcome to email me at the email address I linked to previously.

      --
      Never argue with an idiot. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    14. Re:What a stupid article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey buddy, where's your e-mail address?

      I wanted to ask about how you feel about that tree of knowledge thingy. Do you believe God's rule about not eating the fruit of that tree is arbitrary? Could He have said "Thou shan't do handstands!" just as well?

      Or do you believe there is some significance in that fact that that tree is the tree of knowledge of Good & Evil?

    15. Re:What a stupid article by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1


      "arbitrary and artificial belief system collides with the reality of human nature"

      Ignoring the trolling for the time being...

      I think you misunderstand what the poster further up meant, and what is meant by most religious people when they say they feel they have a problem with sexual topics. As for Christianity, I think you will be hard pressed to find a Christian who believes that "God thinks sex is so bad". In fact most people will likely tell you that from their experiences as a Christian, both in reading scripture and engaging in fellowship and discussion with others that God designed sex to be something to be enjoyed. God designed sex to be something to be shared between two people who value each other and want to share their feelings for each other with each other.

      Where the problems lie is in the abuse of this enjoyment. Just as someone can have a good taste for well made foods and enjoy eating such foods, one can also be a glutton. They can enjoy eating fine foods and experience the good feelings involved with tasting and eating the food yet refrain from gorging on foods and practically lusting for more and more. But if they indulge themselves beyond a safe limit, this behaviour can descend to the point of practically worshipping the food and living your life with only the purpose of finding more ways of getting and eating that food. At this point there would be a problem.

      The same applies to sex. Finding another person that you have such great feelings for that you want to share the enjoyment of sex that God has given humans with is great, and most likely encouraged. God does not want people to live their lives constantly in pain and agony or living every day denying who they are or what they feel, God just wants people to use the gifts/abilities/etc that have been given to people in a meaningful way. Taking the enjoyment of sex and running wild with it, sleeping with different people all the time every day/week/weekend is not using sex in a meaningful way. This is what some people have problems with and what most Christians may mean when they indicate they have problems with sexual issues. They don't want to look pr0n all the time, they just don't have someone who they have deep enough feelings for to share the enjoyment of sex with yet. Or if a couple is already married, they may be running into problems where they feel like they can't share the enjoyment of sex with each other right now, but they want to share the enjoyment of sex with each other. Or perhaps one side of a marriage may be experiencing medical problems while the other still feels deeply for them and wants to share the enjoyment of sex with them.

      The issue is not as blind as you make it out to be, and basing your characterization of religion as "blindly accepting superstitious beliefs" on the way humans act as "human nature" is ridiculous. I think if you really believe your argument is valid you will want to read much more scripture relating to the topic you are arguing, otherwise you sound quite absurd.

    16. Re:What a stupid article by Treebeard+the+Ent · · Score: 1

      Sorry... included a mailto link but it didn't appear... my email is treebeardtheent6@hotmail.com

      --
      Never argue with an idiot. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    17. Re:What a stupid article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please submit this question to treebeardtheent6@hotmail.com and I shall answer...

      posting AC as we are now both off topic...

  32. Type for new linux distro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pornix, a bootable linux cd with a stripped copy of xfree86, kde, konqueror and mplayer. All history tracking will be sent to /dev/null, your files will be stored in a special encrypted partition that needs a password to boot the cd, and a password to access the partition. A panic key which quickly loads http://www.yahoo.com is also included.

    For all normal uses, you can surf without the cdrom. Don't forget to keep it safe.

    1. Re:Type for new linux distro. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      It pretty much already exists it just does other stuff too.

    2. Re:Type for new linux distro. by RedBear · · Score: 1
      Pornix, a bootable linux cd with a stripped copy of xfree86, kde, konqueror and mplayer.


      Um, where can I get the ISO? No, seriously.

      All kidding aside, this already pretty much exists in the form of ByzantineOS. Movix/Movix2 is close too, sans web browser. Both have downloadable ISOs. Have fun. ;)
  33. huh? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

    This makes no sense to me at all. Filters are supposed to keep other people (your kids, your patrons, your employees) away from using your machine to see porn, but this scheme is about your own habits. If you don't want to see porn, don't go to porn sites. How is sending someone a list of what sites you view going to help you do that?

    Unless you buy into the silly idea put forth by some on the wacko fringe of the religious right that porn is somehow "addictive", and this is suposed to be like an alcoholic having a friend keep an eye out to make sure he doesn't drink...even then, why would you pay this middleman?

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
    1. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People with an addictive/compulsive behavior pattern can become addicted to most anything. www.ncsac.org

    2. Re:huh? by buckthorn · · Score: 1

      You really don't think porn is addictive? What about people who go and spend hundreds at strip clubs on the weekend? Think they're not addicted? And besides, at the prices most online pr0n stops are charging, you'd have to be addicted to some degree or another.

      If you want to stop doing something and have great difficulty doing so, then it's an addiction. Ask anybody who's addicted to anything. It's a weird mental mindset, to which the simplistic "If you don't want to see porn, don't go to porn sites" reasoning fails to work.

    3. Re:huh? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      What about people who go and spend hundreds at strip clubs on the weekend?
      I'd say they're making a stupid choice, but not orders of magnitude more stupid than someine who sends hundreds of dollars at ski slopes on the weekend, or any other expensive hobby.
      If you want to stop doing something and have great difficulty doing so, then it's an addiction.

      No, it's not. Addiction is a well-defined condition consisting of tolerance, withdrawl, continued use in the face of strong negative consequences, and repeated failed attempted to quit. We'd been well-served to use the term properly and stop mis-applying it to things like gambling and porn.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:huh? by buckthorn · · Score: 1

      Addiction is a well-defined condition consisting of tolerance, withdrawl, continued use in the face of strong negative consequences, and repeated failed attempted to quit

      You don't think that applies to online pr0n as well? There are plenty folk that exhibit this sort of behavior in reference to it.

      Addiction is a mental state, not just a physical one.

    5. Re:huh? by llamaluvr · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Addiction is a well-defined condition consisting of tolerance, withdrawl, continued use in the face of strong negative consequences, and repeated failed attempted to quit.

      You just described exactly what a lot of people go through with pornography.

      www.xxxchurch.com is a good informational site about this sort of condition.

      What you have to understand about people that would use NetAccountability is that they desperately want to quit, but, they repeatedly find the temptation to be too great to resist.

      The same can be said for alcoholics and drug addicts.

      For those of you who look at pornography regularly, I challenge you to try not to look at any for as long as you can. You may experience "withdrawl", one of the symptoms that the above poster mentioned. Then come back and tell us that porn is not addictive.

      --
      Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
    6. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've misuderstood. The point of Matthew 5:28 is that having looked at a woman lustfully you've already got the adultery sin points for her, so there's not much point stopping at just a lustful look. Christianity's got a lot of good stuff like that in it, if you'll just give it a chance.

    7. Re:huh? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      You just described exactly what a lot of people go through with pornography.

      Please cite peer-reviewed psychological literature on this. You'll pardon me if I don't find a URL with "church" in it to be a reputable source...

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    8. Re:huh? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      For those of you who look at pornography regularly, I challenge you to try not to look at any for as long as you can. You may experience "withdrawl", one of the symptoms that the above poster mentioned. Then come back and tell us that porn is not addictive.

      For those of you who breathe regularly, I challenge you to try not to breathe for as long as you can. You may experience "withdrawal", one of the symptoms that the above poster mentioned. Then come back and tell us that breathing is not addictive.

    9. Re:huh? by buckthorn · · Score: 1

      Okay fine, you just described what I go through with pornography. To me, as as much of an addiction as I've ever had, and I was a smoker for three years. Unfortunately since nobody is likely to peer-review this posting, it won't meet your criteria.

    10. Re:huh? by llamaluvr · · Score: 1

      And just why isn't something with "church" in it a reputable source?

      Sounds like you're judging a book by it's cover...

      --
      Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
    11. Re:huh? by llamaluvr · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah, the difference is that you need to BREATHE in order to LIVE. You don't need pornography, alcohal, masturbation, nicotine, cocaine, etc, etc, to LIVE. But when a person physically does not feel that they can go on without having one of the aforementioned, then they are ADDICTED.

      --
      Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
  34. Think of it as being caught red handed. by nesneros · · Score: 1

    Or rosy palmed.

    --
    Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
  35. self-censorship! yayness. by buckthorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not a bad idea, really... but it's only as effective as any other form of self-censorship is. If there's any way to turn it off... unless it works on a double-key system, wherein you need two separate passwords.... or it just can't be bypassed completely. At any rate, glad to see that the concept of self-censorship is alive and well. And it wouldn't be such a bad thing to just have a regular way to track your internet usage for your own personal information anyway. Just the other day my wife lamented the lack of a game timer on The Sims Online..

    Seems like when we're online, sometimes self-awareness goes out the window. Nothing new to most of us, but I think we'd all be shocked at how much time we actively spend online, where we go, that sort of thing. Bring it on.

    1. Re:self-censorship! yayness. by Entropy_ah · · Score: 1

      Seems like when we're online, sometimes self-awareness goes out the window.
      I have a few comments to add to this
      First this new system of self..... Oh shit! its 6:30 already

      --
      my other penis is a vagina
  36. Line from the report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Brother Taco, http://goatse.cx, 127 visits in one hour

    ~~~

  37. side effects? by Hepkat · · Score: 1

    I don't think I want people knowing that I read slashdot....

    1. Re:side effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care if they know I read slashdot. I'd just hate for anyone to find out that I post to it.

  38. Really? by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Funny

    They would be able to find those themselves in the wad of stuff I visit.

    Too easy...

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Perhaps you don't see pr0n as a vice"

      I am sexually attracted to garage tools and appliances, so actually... ...I see a vice as pr0n.

  39. Only a niche audience... by elflet · · Score: 1

    This won't have any impact on the vocal minority who want to impose content filtering on public access points (e.g. libraries), since they want to "protect the innocent" by all means, including force.

    Speaking of libraries, there's already a peer-pressure effect. My wife works as a librarian and reports she doesnt't have trouble with people surfing "objectionable" sites because all of the machines are well in the open with plenty of patrons passing by. (She works in the Children's room, but also sits on Adult Reference and has a clear line of sight to most machines.)

    1. Re:Only a niche audience... by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      Speaking of libraries, there's already a peer-pressure effect. My wife works as a librarian and reports she doesnt't have trouble with people surfing "objectionable" sites because all of the machines are well in the open with plenty of patrons passing by.

      And that's an excellent solution to the problem of trench-coated weirdos using library computers for sleazy purposes.

      By the way, how many credit card numbers has seen seen?

      Can she also point out which patrons who have searched the web about their private medical issues?

      What about those browsing for unpopular political ideas?

  40. This has got to be... by talks_to_birds · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    ...about the stupidest thing I've heard of in a long time.

    "...The idea, according to Cotter, is that people will choose not to visit "sinful" websites if they know a close friend or family member will be aware of their actions..."

    Further proof that people who worry about "sin" and "sinful" are getting just exactly what they deserve: a big, fat neurosis

    t_t_b

    --
    I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
    1. Re:This has got to be... by thomas.galvin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This has got to be about the stupidest thing I've heard of in a long time.
      "...The idea, according to Cotter, is that people will choose not to visit "sinful" websites if they know a close friend or family member will be aware of their actions..."
      Further proof that people who worry about "sin" and "sinful" are getting just exactly what they deserve: a big, fat neurosis
      --
      NEWS FLASH: Lowest common denominator continues to plummet!


      Why, do you think, does the lowest common denominator continue to plummet? Perhaps because people no longer have moral convictions, but pragmatic guidelines? Because people no longer hold themselves accountable?

      The Bible says that believers are free indeed. Interesting, since we hold ourselves to a stricter set of rules than most people, as this software illustrates. What kind of freedom do we have?

      We have the freedom of knowing that our friends aren't talking about us behinde our back. We have the freedom of knowing that our marriages are going to be among the 20-30 percent that make it. We have the freedom of knowing that our children are going to be respectful, hard-working, and moral. We have the freedom of knowing that, when we screw up, we have a place to go to, and people that will help us, instead of judge us or take advantege of the situation.

      Too many people think that freedom is going to a bar, getting drunk, sleeping with anyone that is willing, and forgetting about it the next day, or, failing that, entering "natalie portman hot grits" and seeing what google serves up. Alway looking for the next fix, the latest high, that truly meaningful one night stand. Been there, done that.

      I try to live a moral life. It hasn't given me a neurosis. It has, however, given me a greater respect for myself, and for others. It's given me the freedom that comes from knowing that I don't have to hide what I am, because people see it every day.

      Perhaps it's not for everyone. C'est la vie.

    2. Re:This has got to be... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1

      Man, you got ripped on the moderation. Flamebait? It was on topic for the discussion, which was on topic for the article...

    3. Re:This has got to be... by DohDamit · · Score: 1

      You are going to be so disappointed when you grow up. You have none of the freedoms you've listed. Talk behind your back? How about going after your wife, crackhead? You can put that line about being among the 20-30 percent that make it on the dung heap as well. Your children will commit suicide/do drugs/have sex/have FORCED sex as often as others. I speak from my experience, and others. You have the freedom to know that the people who put themselves above you will screw up, and will hurt you.

      You're full of crap, bud. Your strawman drunkard pervert is a very, very small minority. Keep trying.

      As for not giving you a neurosis, I'd say it's given you a bit of an attitude, and a mind that's more closed than Fort Knox.

      Regarding not hiding who you are...you haven't been paying attention to the problems with the clergy lately.

    4. Re:This has got to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like when people worry about doing the right thing? being Honest?

      Hmm.
      I'd rather people TRIED to be honest than not give a shit at all.

  41. DIBS! by GLowder · · Score: 1

    I've got dibs on Hugh Hefner as who I'd have my report emailed to!

    --
    I used to have a good sig...
  42. Here is mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot

    Sublime

  43. Information Overload by Woil · · Score: 1

    It'd take someone a freaking long time to filter through all of the places that I view in one day.

    Add to this approach a method of collaboration, so that all sites that are approved by the *monitors* would then gain points where sites that are not approved would lose points. Then allow the *monitors* to auto approve anything that is above certain point levels.

    This might cut down on the amount of data to crawl through.

    Now if I could just find a decent source of audio-porn. You #(*$& visually oriented people... ;-)

    1. Re:Information Overload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Literotica for text and audio pr0n. The only popups are in the audience's pants.

  44. This makes one HUGE assumption... by Gudlyf · · Score: 1

    ...that the person sending their log of sites visited gives a rat's ass if people know he's looking at porn.

    --
    Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
    1. Re:This makes one HUGE assumption... by robi2106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Correct. If you don't want to stop alcoholism, then you don't go to an AA meeting. If you don't want to stop doing cokee, you don't go to rehab.

      If you don't want to stop pornography addictions, don't use these types of services.

      It isn't like someone is forcing you do do this.

      robi

    2. Re:This makes one HUGE assumption... by Kagato · · Score: 1

      The guy in the article isn't forcing people, sure. But that's not to say others won't. I know people who were presured hard core to do "promise keepers". It could be by family, soon to be family (my personal fav), SO's, Clergy, Work/Trade Groups, etc.

      I can see the same thing happening here. And since Mosses dropped the second tablet (See History of the World Part I) we're missing the 11th commandment. Thou shalt not gossip. I would never participate in a program like this.

  45. Re:it won't work by robi2106 · · Score: 1

    This doesn't interfere with any surfing or usenet traffic at all. It just logs it, sends the reports to a server where people you designate check up on you.

    You are free to surf as much of whatever sites as you want.

  46. Give me the e-mail addresses of the Xian Right... by scubacuda · · Score: 1
    ...I would be happy to e-mail them my surfing habits.

  47. How does this account for snail mail? by GhettoFabulous · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I mean really, if the only reason you want to block pr0n is because you don't want your family to think you are a perv this wouldn't work at all.

    Who's to stop you from picking up a couple of mags at a 7-11 on your way home from work? Who's to stop you from checking out the adult novelty shop? Or a stripbar? Or an that hottie from the other department? Or a crackwhore with HIV?

    Sexual repression will just lead to real problems. If people want to get there kicks off on the net, then whats the big deal? You can't get pregnant or diseased from the net. The worst I can see is a high VISA bill or maybe, but unlikely, an online text-based affair.

    This just seems like another halfassed scheme to profit off of morality freaks to me.

    1. Re:How does this account for snail mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, this question begs to be asked. Why do you care if someone else wants to censor themselves? Freedom of speech also implicitly allows for self-restraint. I say this is a good thing. I'd much rather have the opportunity to self-regulate myself than have the government do it for me. At least this way I have a choice. The day could come when you don't have a choice. Then you'd have something to rant about.

  48. Question by Raul654 · · Score: 1

    (flame suit on) Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? :) (/flame suit)

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  49. That Bill guy is nuts. It'll never work. by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

    If somebody wants to sneak a quick drink one night, is he really going to share that with a group of semi-strangers at the next AA meeting?

    It'll never work.

    --


    Evil is the money of root.
  50. Defeats the point. by Zone-MR · · Score: 1

    If someone wants to look at porn they will just do so w/o sending 'reports' to anyone, or they will edit their reports.

    This 'idea' will only be used by people who have nothing to hide, dont look at porn, and therefore wont be helped at all by it.

    And I strongly believe that internet activity is PERSONAL and should be kept private. There are hundreds or reasons other than porn why you might not want to share your records with other people.

    1. Re:Defeats the point. by aminorex · · Score: 1

      And hundreds of reasons, including porn, why
      you might *want* to share your records with other
      people.

      Information wants to be free.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:Defeats the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case, you don't know, it's common within some Christian circles at least to have a thing called an "accountability partner". The jist is, you decide you want to improve some area of your life (be more disciplined about your work, pray more, procrastinate less, control your temper better, etc.). Then, you find someone you know, a close friend who you trust and who wants to help you improve that area of your life. Then you go talk to them and perhaps you agree to periodically (once a week or something) talk over how things are going. Maybe you agree to help keep them accountable about something too.

      So you see, it is kept private -- it's kept between you and someone you know and trust. Perhaps the web site is offering something else, but if so it would be a bit weird as far as the accountability thing goes. Part of the whole point of the accountability thing is mutual assistance and (dare I say it) brotherly love. If this web site is just an automated filter, then it sucks rocks as accountability goes.

  51. Subtext... by aiken_d · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I wan't to stop looking at porn, but can't control myself, so I'll make it so that if I do look at porn someone will know that I did and I'll be embarassed."

    And you just know that people will share tricks for getting around the monitoring software, which adds a whole new layer of dishonesty and self-contempt to the whole exercise.

    Wouldn't be a whole lot easier to either 1) just stop looking at porn, or 2) admit that you like porn and get on with things?

    Cheers
    -b

    --
    If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
  52. Ug... by spoonist · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've already explained to my wife that Freshmeat isn't a pr0n site. Now I would have to explain that to someone else too? Great...

    (As a side note: my wife's actual comment was "Freshmeat? A porn site? Cool! Let's see!")

  53. Even better... by Petronius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    why don't we make people that surf questionable material wear a distinctive mark? Like a yellow star, a pink triangle or something... Oh, wait. It's been done before.

    --
    there's no place like ~
    1. Re:Even better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or green clovers, or blue diamonds? sounds like a magically delicious idea to me

    2. Re:Even better... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Make them wear a "/.".

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    3. Re:Even better... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      And here I am without mod points. Oh, well, I can't give you "flamebait" and "troll" at the same time, though you clearly deserve it.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:Even better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones that go to some websites will have to wear a scarlet "BJ", while others will wear a scarlet "69" or "3 WAY".

      (blatantly paraphrased from an SNL skit)

    5. Re:Even better... by thopkins · · Score: 1

      Make them wear a banner that says "I make bad jokes."

    6. Re:Even better... by MrLint · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Im a freaking adult, i dont really need a religious web filter telling me what is offensive to me on the internet link i pay for out of my pocket.

    7. Re:Even better... by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      The nazis had pieces of flair; they made the Jews wear them.

    8. Re:Even better... by Petronius · · Score: 1

      Sorry to offend you. My point is PEER PRESSURE==FEAR THE MOB. I think freedom begins with individual freedom. Also, it's the classic pattern: opt-in first, it soon turns into: "why aren't you joining the 'good' people?". Etc, etc.

      You want morality? Reform education, fire crooked politicians, ban money in government, increase citizenship.

      --
      there's no place like ~
    9. Re:Even better... by yatest5 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      why don't we make people that surf questionable material wear a distinctive mark

      Er, they do. They carry an extra 100 pounds of weight, wear glasses, have terrible complexions and 'unusual' stains on their thinkgeek t-shirts with 'witty' slogans. They also thing chicks dig case mods.

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    10. Re:Even better... by idontgno · · Score: 1
      Sorry to offend you. My point is PEER PRESSURE==FEAR THE MOB. I think freedom begins with individual freedom.

      Your example's tastelessness hid the point from me. I apologize for letting reflex inhibit rationality and interfere with communications.

      Now, back on-topic. These folks are using their individual freedom (right to associate freely, right to speak freely) to help them live their own lives. They've chosen this not to make anyone else look bad, but to help them live up to their own expectations.

      Peer pressure? This is a peer group its members freely choose to join. This is a peer pressure they freely choose to submit to.

      Granted, there is a danger in accepting any form of peer pressure: down the extreme end of that road is cyanide Kool-Aid, self-castration, drug dealing, Shriners in fezzes riding mini-bikes, ethnic cleansing, fashion...And of course, there are counterbalancing risks of totally ignoring peer pressure: sociopathy, anarchic chaos, movie directors, narcissism, egomania, dictators of all stripes, fashion designers...

      Also, it's the classic pattern: opt-in first, it soon turns into: "why aren't you joining the 'good' people?". Etc, etc.

      And this matters to you, why? You've already demonstrated remarkable resistance to peer pressure (oh, wait, this is /., nevermind). Seriously, though, your slippery-slope dog won't hunt, Personal moral decisions do not automatically become moral repression. Sometimes it happens (abortion, abolition), sometimes it doesn't happen (prohibition, abortion). Does that mean that no one, or no small group, can make a personal moral judgement for himself/herself/themselves? What happened to freedom?

      No, there's no threat here to anyone of reasonable intelligence and any hint of self-esteem. For those who don't, well, sheep will always be herded by someone.

      Let's face it, moral calculus is much harder than integral calculus, because it's up to each of us to figure it out for ourselves. Your answer sheet means nothing to anyone else, and their answers don't make yours wrong.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    11. Re:Even better... by Petronius · · Score: 1

      Points well taken. In retrospect, my example was tasteless, but I tend to freak out when people put out ideas involving a crowd ganging up on a few individuals. Historically, it's never been a pleaseant endeavor. Recently, this type of ideas seems to be more and more fashionable in the U.S. I think it's scary. Even when it's self-inflicted.
      Anyway, thanks for your perspective. Back to integral calculus now...

      --
      there's no place like ~
    12. Re:Even better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean a scarlet A?

      BTW, no one is forcing anything upon anyone here.

      Should I call Godwyn's law now?

    13. Re:Even better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yellow star? Pink triangle?

      Helloooo! The canonical Lucky Charms are "pink hearts, orange stars, green clovers-in-hats, blue moons, purple horseshoes, red balloons, 2-tone pots of gold, and bright 3-colored rainbows" (cite: http://www.cerealadventure.com/Cerealfun.asp?locat ion=CHistory)

      All the sex/personality tests on the web say it's" Pink hearts Yellow moons Orange stars Green clovers Blue diamonds Purple horseshoes," but General Mills says otherwise. Still, yellow stars and pink triangles?

      Sheesh. Some people have nothing else better to do than spout off authoritatively without doing their homework. Hmmph!

  54. It's been done by dopefish3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.thehuns.com/

    Just for the record. Don't shoot me! ;P

    1. Re:It's been done by RestiffBard · · Score: 1

      heh, thanks for the link. count on slashdot comments to always have the opposite link for whatever the story links too.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    2. Re:It's been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://dmoz.org/Adult

      Then click on something like image galleries, and free, or if you want, avs, pay, or whatever. All categorized for you, and from what I've seen, virtually no popups and great descriptions.
      The movies section also has a free section, although this needs to be added to in my opinion.

    3. Re:It's been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the same place as www.thehun.net? I'm at work & can't check right now..

    4. Re:It's been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude

      great site!!!

      thx :)

  55. You've Got to Be Kidding.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't going to stop pr0n. It will just give nutcases another excuse to lecture their fellow-travelers ("Brother John, aren't you ashamed of looking at 'Slipp'ry S'xy Shiksas twelve times a day? And you're not even Jewish...)

  56. Crazy by FattMattP · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The idea, according to Cotter, is that people will choose not to visit "sinful" websites if they know a close friend or family member will be aware of their actions.
    I think that people who would subject themselves to this have psychological problems. Seriously. If you want to view porn then view porn. If you don't want to, then don't. You have a problem if you feel that you can't control your own actions and must have someone watch over you. I hope that they eventually see how unhealthy such actions and attitudes are and seek counseling. Healthy adults take responsibility for their own actions and act accordingly.

    What is equally distrubing is that these are probably the same people that think the rest of us have the same problem and must be saved from ourselves. They lobby to get laws passed because "someone must watch over us" to protect us from ourselves.

    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    1. Re:Crazy by Sedennial · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd have to disagree. I see this 'accountability' in the same viewpoint as a support group for any addictive or undesirable behaviour that one wants to stay clear of but has a problem doing so due to addictive behaviour patterns. It could be gambling, alcohol, smoking, or even someone who has an history of RPG addiction.

      I don't see belonging to peer-accountibility group as the article mentions as calling for a defacto label of 'unhealthy'. In fact I'd call it the opposite. Someone who sees a behaviour they deem as self-negative and takes steps to correct/modify that behaviour without imposing their own standard on the rest of society is probably more healthy (IMHO) than many of the rest of us.

    2. Re:Crazy by Grip3n · · Score: 0

      It's called feeling a sense of guilt. This program is based on the presupposition that people want to do good, and obviously pornography is a very bad thing for the mind.

      You have psycological problems if you can look at orgies, women getting abused and used, and so on, without any sense of guilt.

      "Healthy adults take responsibility for their own actions and act accordingly". Ha! That's probably the worst assumption I've ever heard of in my life! Lets take a look...Bill Gates, Hitler, Stalin, George Bush, that WorldCom CEO, all the people at Enron that shreaded paper...hm...about the rest of humanity? Very few people take responsibility. You really need a reality check.

      --
      To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
    3. Re:Crazy by GringoGoiano · · Score: 1

      I think that people who would subject themselves to this have psychological problems. Seriously. If you want to view porn then view porn. If you don't want to, then don't. You have a problem if you feel that you can't control your own actions and must have someone watch over you. I hope that they eventually see how unhealthy such actions and attitudes are and seek counseling. Healthy adults take responsibility for their own actions and act accordingly.


      A fundamental idea in Christianity is that no one lives consistently according to their own moral standards, all violate their own conscience.



      Sometimes, that conscience has been conditioned through bad upbringing, bad experiences, etc. to count as sinful what actually is enjoyable, or no big deal. At other times, a person is so conditioned to accepted what is sinful as normal -- they've lost the ability to recognize sin.



      To quote some bible, here's a passage from Romans chapter 7, discussing struggles with sin:




      I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. ... For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.


      This particular passage turns into a repetetive, whining piece of text I never really liked. Sort of how I feel when I struggle with the evil I would not do. I'll admit my conflicted nature gladly.

    4. Re:Crazy by tjic · · Score: 1

      You say that a person has a problem if he feels that he can't control your his own actions and wants help.

      I think that most people who feel that they need help would agree with that - they *know* they have problems, and want to engineer (social) tools to help them achieve their longer term goals, instead of giving in to shorter term desires.

      Do you think the idea of two friends going on a diet together is "sick"? How about an alcaholic who goes to AA and has a "sponsor" whom he can call if the craving for a drink gets bad?

      What, exactly, is wrong with someone trying to build social structures to help them achieve their longer term goals?

      You're not arguing that /. is just a crutch for open source folks, are you? ;)

  57. It's only as effective as your peer group... by terradyn · · Score: 1

    You do realize if your peer group is primarily guys, this may turn out to have negative consequences (read - porn swapping engine). =P

  58. Typical Responses by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This guy comes up with a system that imposes nothing on others. It is a tool for people who decide that they would like to use. But it gets slammed by so many here because so many slashdotters are not about freedom. They are about freedom that they agree with.

    It is not invasion of privacy if you install it on purpose.

    It is not religious judgement of others if people use tools that monitor their own activity.

    This is an example of someone having an idea that ought to be welcome here. Rather than removing choices or limiting activity- people are given new choices to use if they so wish.

    Those of you who think pornography cannot be destructive are unaware of the fact that it can ruin some peoples lives. If they want help with that- what is the harm?

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Typical Responses by yy1 · · Score: 1
      This is an example of someone having an idea that ought to be welcome here. Rather than removing choices or limiting activity- people are given new choices to use if they so wish.

      The nitpick: uh the fact that it IS here means it was welcome here, how many thousands of people just went to that page because of slashdot?

      And in general this is a "guilt tool" to me that means its a way for one person to have power over another using guilt as the medium. The primary use I see for this is for parents for their kids, which would seem to be a valid use.

      This "first line of defense against temptation" crap is a joke because a) newstands, b) how hard really could it be to circumvent.

      I like the mumbo jumbo on the website about building bonds of accountability to push us forward into excellence, something along those lines, at 4 bucks a month I see them lookin to cash in on excellence.

      Unless is your isp this "service" is something that could have been an generated report autoemailed to you from the software that you put on the "watchee's" computer. Unless they do added value stuff like put little arrows next to all the porn sites or something.

      If they were really thinkin right they could collect alot of this great information that their customers provide and sell it to the porn sites or somenthing, I mean any site where people still go even when they know someone is watching must be good stuff!
      --
      Because, sometimes they just have to touch the stove.
      -YY1
    2. Re:Typical Responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just goes to show how amazingly hippicritical /. really is. It doesn't matter the subject, if it gets posted here, it gets slammed. (Well unless it's a Linus butt-kissing article)

      A retched hive of scum and villany.

    3. Re:Typical Responses by AndyS · · Score: 1

      I don't care so much about the porn, but I don't like what this does. A lot of people are ashamed of things. They might not want their parents to know that they are visiting sites that disagree with biblical fundamentalism, they might be chatting to people who they don't usually associate with.

      What bothers me is that in some communities this won't be a "I have a problem with porn, please monitor it for me", it will become socially mandatory, and those that avoid it will be shunned and thought of having something to hide.

      Nice idea for porn viewers anonymous. But in widespread use I don't like the idea

    4. Re:Typical Responses by dang-a-pin · · Score: 1

      Right behind you. People who say "what's the harm" to pr0n don't see that viewing it circumvents the part of your brain that discerns reality from unreality, as well as inserting a lot of that intense information into your long term memory. Sounds like subterfuge to me. It also only wastes all your time and ruins your appreciation for monogamus life, as well as the 99.9% of the population that do not look like a model or porn star. Why appreciate the imperfections of "regular" people when porn is such a great substitute? Wake up people!!! In that way, it kills many personal lives.

    5. Re:Typical Responses by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Those of you who think pornography cannot be destructive are unaware of the fact that it can ruin some peoples lives. If they want help with that- what is the harm?
      This is a strawman argument. The slant of this site isn't some sort of "anti porn addiction site", it's a christian site with an anti-porn agenda. The main purpose isn't to help people that porn is somehow ruining their lives (I'm still not sure how that's really possible), it's to enforce a christian religious belief. Yes, it's all voluntary, and they don't appear to be trying to impose their beliefs on anyone else, but those of us who don't think porn immoral or evil are going to react to a website that pushes an agenda we disagree with. That's what I see most of the posts here being about.

      I don't know where you're getting this idea that people object to it because it's an invasion of privacy, or some sort of assault on freedom. I haven't seen any posts that claim that. Perhaps that's an easy argument you can assume everyone has, and then easily dismiss it. To me the problem is it seems kinda creepy that you'd need the threat of shame from your friends or family to not do something you consider morally abhorent. I'd suggest to people like this that they either truly believe what their religion says, or get a different religion. There's so many brands these days, I'm sure you can find one that suits you better.
      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:Typical Responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it does not stop all the emails I get about pr0n on a regular basis.

    7. Re:Typical Responses by yy1 · · Score: 1
      ooh look what i found in their privacy policy:

      We will perform general trend analysis, behavior patterns, and statistical modeling to better understand our users and thus how to better serve them. This analysis, if shared with a third party, will not include any personally identifiable information about our end-users.


      So they will sell info on the top 100 porn sites!? or just demographics to people who wanna sell to the "moral compass" group.
      --
      Because, sometimes they just have to touch the stove.
      -YY1
    8. Re:Typical Responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who ever said it would be in widespread use? And exactly what 'communities' are you talking about?

      Try not stepping onto that slippery slope for once, you'll find that sometimes, a mountain is just a mountain.

    9. Re:Typical Responses by geekoid · · Score: 1

      My issue with software like this is the fact that people start to make assumptions that aren't true.
      Any site that someone with any imagination could deem as sexual could make them think your surfing porn.
      Suck.com
      freshmeat
      etc...

      naturally, anything can be destructive to the right person.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Typical Responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pr0n is a lousy substitute for the real thing. I speak from all-too-current experience. :)

    11. Re:Typical Responses by NineNine · · Score: 1

      It also only wastes all your time and ruins your appreciation for monogamus life, as well as the 99.9% of the population that do not look like a model or porn star

      Glad my wife falls in that 0.1%. But if the bitch ever gets too fat, I'm divorcing her.

    12. Re:Typical Responses by zbuffered · · Score: 1

      Anyone who has a problem with suck.com hasn't seen it.

      Religious zealot #2: Hey, you visited suck.com! Sinner!
      Religious zealot #1: Am not!
      Religious zealot #2(goes to suck.com): Oh.

      And there the story ends.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    13. Re:Typical Responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And in general this is a "guilt tool" to me that means its a way for one person to have power over another using guilt as the medium. The primary use I see for this is for parents for their kids, which would seem to be a valid use.


      Not exactly - I wish this had been around a year ago... I had a pretty bad problem with porn - I was lying to my family/friends, living with no respect for my fiance, and it was also affecting my job and personal life. I guess you would say I had the classic signs of an addiction.

      I delt with the temptation other ways, and things are looking much better for me now. However, if this had been around I'd have gladly paid triplr what they're asking for it. The accountability alone is priceless (please, don't confuse self-imposed accountability with 'guilt' - would you call AA meetings "guilt tools"?), and taking this step could have helped build trust between my fiance and I in a caring, loving, and compassionate way.

      Yeah, I'm posting as an AC here - I'm not ready to share my story with everyone, but I thought I'd give a different perspective on this.
    14. Re:Typical Responses by jimmy_dean · · Score: 1

      That's fantastic that you are finding success now. I would like to hear your story personally. Could you send me an email maybe and we can establish communication via email? I can give you some more details about myself if you want to email.

      --
      -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
    15. Re: Typical Responses by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Those of you who think pornography cannot be destructive are unaware of the fact that it can ruin some peoples lives.

      And religion can ruin some people's lives too. Did you have a point you wanted to make?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    16. Re: Typical Responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes he does, and he made it. It's only your own fault that you missed it.

    17. Re:Typical Responses by yy1 · · Score: 1

      Actually i would say that guilt plays a large part of what works in AA and most of the 12-step type groups, but thats pretty OT.

      I think that you are depending on the person you have it "report" to be diligent, and that supposedly the guilt of having them see your sin would suppress the sin in the first place.

      This idea seems to stem from catholic confession with NetAccountability acting as a "virtual confession booth". I wonder if people send their links to their priest? I saw something about that in the literature on the website...

      --
      Because, sometimes they just have to touch the stove.
      -YY1
    18. Re:Typical Responses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's all voluntary, and they don't appear to be trying to impose their beliefs on anyone else, but those of us who don't think porn immoral or evil are going to react to a website that pushes an agenda we disagree with. That's what I see most of the posts here being about.
      -----

      Which must be why I react so much to having an atheist agenda being pushed in this post....

      Frankly, I believe that most atheists I've heard from are prepared to push their adjenda onto all the rest of us while condemning us for the same, and I'm basing that on all those who have expressed sentiments to that affect...

      Their favorite word applies quite clearly in that case: hypocrite (one who pretends to believe something, but doesn't--it's also often misused).

  59. Could limit Slashdot usage by PizzaFace · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hell, if people saw their own Slashdot usage, they'd be appalled.

  60. Did this once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back when I was in college, a friend and I were sitting in our freshman dorm investigating this wonderful operating system called "Linux."

    Naturally the dorm used hubs instead of switches, so when we discovered tcpdump, we were treated to a display of the entire building's internet traffic.

    We watch for a while, barely able to make out anything as the packets flew by. Suddenly, we both said "Whoa...."

    Hit ctl-C and found the IP address, and filtered it. The guy was visiting certain sites like they were going out of style. The traffic kept increasing, and increasing....

    Finally we reversed his IP address and found his username, looked it up in the photo directory, and found his room phone number. I picked up the phone and dialed: "Hhh-hello?" "Yes, hello, is this so-and-so?" "Uh..*pant*...yeah?" "Well, I'm from the computing center, and we are aware that you have been visiting some inappropriate sites. Are you familiar with the school network use pol---"

    At that point I lost it and and had to slam the phone down. Ever since that time it was the best I could do to not laugh when passing that guy in the hall.

    1. Re:Did this once. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Back when I was in college, a friend and I were sitting in our freshman dorm investigating this wonderful operating system called "Linux."

      A few years back I was visiting the school where my mother works to teach some of the kids to program. During the break, I decided to make use of their Internet connection. A lot of the sites I wanted to look at were blocked. This struck me as odd. I eventually worked out that their porn filter was counting the occurence of the letter 'x' on a page, and blocking it if it hit a certain limit. This made almost any *nix site appear to be a porn site.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  61. This reminds me of a joke by bperkins · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why do you always bring two Mormans fishing?

    Because if you bring one, he'll drink all your beer.

    1. Re:This reminds me of a joke by Lester67 · · Score: 1

      Here... just so you feel better.

      Q: What's the difference between a Baptist and a Methodist?

      A: A Methodist will say "Hi" to you in the liquor store.

    2. Re:This reminds me of a joke by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

      Uh, I think you mean "Mormons," although technically the name of the church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Either way, congratulations on your excellent summary of the article. The idea that "peer pressure" can be a positive force is precisely what this article was about. Very clever.

    3. Re:This reminds me of a joke by pcb · · Score: 1

      The idea that "peer pressure" can be a positive force is precisely what this article was about.

      This always pisses me off! Why is not drinking a beer a "positive force"! People have been drinking beer and booze for centuries. There is nothing wrong with it. This mindless diatribe from religious fruit-cakes rattles my nerves. Man, I need a drink.

      Psst...keep your (made up) morals to yourself.

      -PCB

      --
      'Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.' B. Pascal
    4. Re:This reminds me of a joke by helix400 · · Score: 1

      This joke does fit the porn accountability idea.

      People want to follow their own rules. But if they feel they can't do it by themselves, they bring along a friend to help them.

      As a Mormon myself, the joke is of course satirical. But I have seen our church use this accountibility idea many times...and it works. Recommending that teens double date, holding group activities as an alternative to being alone and lazy, etc. It works very well. It's much easier to follow your own rules when others are around you than by having some authoritarian leader yell at you.

      A porn accountability idea would work just as well. Some porn addicts want to break their addiction problem so badly that they will gladly trade in their privacy to their deep dark secrets for the extra help they need.

    5. Re:This reminds me of a joke by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Recommending that teens double date, holding group activities as an alternative to being alone and lazy, etc. It works very well.

      Oh, sure, if the idea of one-on-one sex isn't enough and you need a hot teen foursome to get off anymore, you sick fuck! :)

      As long as we're bringing up old jokes: You can always spot the pr0n hounds in your office when you invite someone to join your foursome on Saturday, and they do a quick double-take before they realize you're only talking about a round of golf.

    6. Re:This reminds me of a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, Thanks for proving their point. :\

      P.S. Not all religions think drinking is immoral.

    7. Re:This reminds me of a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking the exact same thing, "So, you encourage your teens to have group sex?"

    8. Re:This reminds me of a joke by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Christianity certianly doesnt - Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine :^) Jesus liked to party. Pity some people have misrepresnted him on that account. what he is against, however, is getting drunk because you lose control then which is A Bad Thing. The overwhelming majority of my Christian friends (myslef included) would drink in moderation and enjoy it.

  62. Spam by gmuslera · · Score: 1
    I see the future, and it's full of spam saying "I consider you my friend and I report that I visited http://spamvertizedsite.com/".

    mmm well, ok, half will be spam, the other half will be worms that in the name of someone infected reports "visited sites" to all in their outlook contact list.

  63. Just pick... by scubacuda · · Score: 1
    ...any domain from this list and start sending them all your surfing logs.

    1. Re:Just pick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *opens the list and bursts into flames*

  64. Shut up freak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the friends I know look at pr0n, and we all know we do it, so we don't give a shit. As long as its not child porn most people have no problem with what you surf. This guy is just another zealot trying to cause trouble.

    1. Re:Shut up freak by AngryPuppy · · Score: 1

      He's not trying to get everyone to do this, therefore he's pushing nothing on anyone. The only folks involved would be those that choose to get involved. Personally, I would not get involved. If I did, the first time someone confronted me with something they considered wrong, they would learn that my philosophies don't match their own.

  65. Dumb idea, dumber reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the internet, as i have understood it, is for the transfer of bits of information. for that reason, its akin to a conversation-one with millions and millions of participants. if you dont like what one person is saying, then either respond in a useful fashion or shut the fux up and move to another topic. dont judge people by the information they seek. porn, kiddie and otherwise, is akin to those dammed rpgs-you enact fantasies so you feel less like a loser in real life and have a little bit of fun on the side. im all for porn, tho people who make young kids participate should get help and be restricted from hanging around gradeschools-but really, you have no justified position to take in dictating what others can view on the web just like you dont have a justified position to take on what thoughts people can have floating around their brains. stop being so damned sensitive to stuff like this and start caring about what people actually DO in life-not what links they hit and if they find the material enticing enough on a site to play with themselves. go after the people who make kiddie porn, not those who view it, go after those people who murder, not those who play fps games. give a damn about what your government is doing in your name rather than run around and say 'oh my god, what he's got going through his ram is offensive to me'. rant end

  66. XXXChurch! by WPIDalamar · · Score: 1

    In case you don't read the story... check out this link from it.

    http://www.xxxchurch.com/default.asp

    One of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

    (It's not porn, and is workplace-safe!)

    1. Re:XXXChurch! by klmarty · · Score: 1

      Not funny at all. It is very useful.

    2. Re:XXXChurch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +When checking into one of the mentioned hotel chains, ask to speak to the manager of the hotel and have him explain why he provides hard-core porn at his hotel.
      I work in a hotel and if somebody came up to me and said this I'd ask them to kindly leave the premises or I'll call the police. I don't go into churches and ask them why they rape little boys do I??

  67. Answer by Robber+Baron · · Score: 1

    Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?

    Uhhh...that thing between your legs is NOT a cow's teat that needs regular milkings!

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  68. its not funny by goombah99 · · Score: 1
    Actually the poster's point is well taken. I have a slashdot problem too. Its is addictive to my detriment. Obviously it fills some outlet need or news junky I was unaware of before it existed.

    as for the porn watching. Why is there a presumption this is bad and must be stopped? I mean just because ones adult procilivities might be a private matter that would be embarassing if revealed, especially to a freind, does not mean they are bad and should be stifled.

    there is seems to be a purtian starting assumption that is simply wrong here. Its important to object to this peer pressure as a matter of principle even if you dont feel threaten you.

    As for stopping children from getting porn, something I can beleive is a very good idea. But I dont see how this would help. In principle every parent could look at their childrens web logs but either wont, cant, or the children have alternative access points or methods of hiding their tracks. Still its a minimal thing every parent should do. Its not spying per se, but a way of showing your kid you set limits because you care about them

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:its not funny by renderhead · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. This idea isn't for people who want to look at porn, it's for people who don't want to look at porn but have a lot of trouble resisting (I have personal experience with this). As with any addiction, peer accountability is the best way to break out of the cycle.

      By the way, you seem to be rationalizing any and all behavior in your argument. You seem to suggest that feeling shame for something is no reason to stop it. Well I must disagree and say that sometimes the best way to stop feeling guilty or ashamed about something you're doing is not to fight off the guilt, it's to stop the activity.

      --
      I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.

      -RenderHead

    2. Re:its not funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good point. though I think there is some other term than shame involved. I think its possible to be embarassed by some activty were it widely known, yet not be personally ashamed of it. This is sort of a standard in situation comedies. Even shamless cats seem to exhibit this response: I've seen cats trip then look up as if to see if any one was looking.

  69. Easy to crack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just don't sign up. W00t, and I thought Cdilla was easy!

  70. Seems like the wrong way to me by AngryPuppy · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that if a person's convictions in their own beliefs and morals doesn't prevent them from doing what they consider wrong, then they need counseling rather than guilt to cure it. It also logs usage for a connection, not an individual, so I would think that your entire household would have to agree to this. Talk about ugly peer pressure with your kids when they know an outsider is watching them. And what about accidents? I've tried to get one web site, but arrived at another because I goofed somewhere on the URL. What about follow-up? If I was supposed to watch someone else, I would not feel inclined to confron them if they cruise into the "naughty stuff". Maybe I'm not right for this thing, tho.

  71. Apology by bperkins · · Score: 1

    You know, I posted this without really thinking. Let my apologize for beuing a jerk. This comment was insensitive,

    1. Re:Apology by Maserati · · Score: 1

      It's still a funny joke.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  72. OMG, MOD PARENT UP by Raul654 · · Score: 1

    Well played. You're just missing the part with the wirey grey-haired scientist who says how it will never work

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  73. My worksite does this already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our web access is unfiltered, but there's a dynamically generated web page on the main server showing the 200 most popular web addresses and the 200 most prolific web users (by total bytes downloaded).

    I've never heard of anyone being disciplined for visiting forbidden sites, and in fact non-work-related sites (bbc.co.uk, cnn.com, etc.) often show up in the low end of the stats. I figure it's just their way of letting us know "we could watch if we wanted to, so don't do anything stupid, OK?"

  74. Sign me up! by gosand · · Score: 1
    Sure, sign me up. I would love to see the reaction on their faces the first time they open that report.

    Actually, it would be funny to see them try to access "localhost", cause unless they have brag and my shell scripts that run every night, forget about it. :-)

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  75. YES!! by SuperDuG · · Score: 1
    -14:40:23- Begin posting funny comment on slashdot



    -14:42:34-
    Post Comment with +1 karma bonus



    -14:43:21- Visit Sublime Directory to get free porn


    -14:47:43- Begin wget all .jpg files from Sublime Site


    14:48:42- Load pictures into IMGV


    14:49:21- Begin a quick pickup game of "Five against one"


    14:52:32- I win ...


    14:53:33- Quick Clean-Up, time to check my karma rating for funny comment


    I tell ya what, this logging thing could be fun ... if anything to remember where you went for the good pics.


    And I agree, masturbation and pornography are definantelly the downfall of society, just think of all those HAPPY SEXUALLY REPRESSED PEOPLE OUT THERE!!


    jeeze people, that's why we got thumbs, use um!

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
  76. Right trend by Snaller · · Score: 0, Troll

    What they are really trying to do is find terrorists - remember most are, the State just haven't found them yet!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Right trend by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Wow, the State has moderation powers on slashdot ;)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  77. Sicko Porn Swapping by master_xemu · · Score: 1

    I know the attempt is to create a AA for porn addicts but what is to stop this from degrading into some Fundie Porn Swap? Makes you wonder doesn't it.

    1. Re:Sicko Porn Swapping by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      what is to stop this from degrading into some Fundie Porn Swap?

      Because $3.95/month is a lot to pay for a list of porn sites? I'm sure there are a large number of free lists out there...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  78. My son, what is this site!?!?! by Rudy+Rodarte · · Score: 1

    So, my son, you frequent this evil site named X which shall remain nameless for I cannot speak such an evil name.
    How can you look at a site that features:
    a nasty goat man
    the defimation of poor inocent Natalie Portman
    Thousands of references to the heart of all evil: SOVIET RUSSIA??
    For this, I shall cast ye into a lake of fire, made up of poor, /.ed servers!!

    1. Re:My son, what is this site!?!?! by Kaz+Riprock · · Score: 1

      What's funnier (scarier?) than your post is that I recognized the "evil site" by its IP...

      --
      Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
  79. It will *never* work by JoeShmoe · · Score: 0, Troll

    This guy clearly has his head in the sand. There is no way this idea could ever succeed, you know why? Because there is no hard and fast rulebook for defining pornography. So no matter how "religious" you are, there is someone who is going to have a more restrictive viewpoint than you. When you discuss movies with friends who are "religious" you can see exactly what I'm talking about.

    A lot of people who consider themselves good and faithful members of a religious group may go to see, say, The Matrix. Do you really think they want to rub that choice in other people's face? You know there's going to be any number of people that would object to the language/violence/tight leather in that movie. So why would a person put themselves in a position where they have to justify their actions constantly? No one would ever willingly put themselves through that, and I can't see how the chaos and bad feelings that would result from this could possibly be worth any perceived good.

    Not in the article but this guy's next idea is to have the peer print out a big scarlet "P" and pin it on the back of someone they catch browsing any website with nudity ("That www.louvre.fr site is nothing but smut!")

    - JoeShmoe
    .

    --
    -- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
    1. Re:It will *never* work by Sedennial · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Key point from the article: " Users pick a friend, spouse or other confidant".

      This will work - depending on the sincerity of the person using it. If they choose people close to them - who share similar values - they it will work to the extent of their value system. If they choose Joe Blow from church of the whatever who believe that women are from the devil, then yes it will fail. But if they choose someone from their peer group that they trust and know shares similar values as they do, the it will work to the level they choose it to.

    2. Re:It will *never* work by JoeShmoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But if they choose someone from their peer group that they trust and know shares similar values as they do"

      I should have elaborated on this point as being one of the reasons why it won't work. In fact,I think the Bible has some verse about this, "blind leading the blind". Basically I get to pick my judge! Where would the conflict come in? If I was secretly addicted to porn, all I would need to do is pick some young unmarried man to be my peer reviewer. Odds are if he's staying celibate he's got to be dipping in the porn fountain, especially if he's good with computers.

      Meanwhile Mrs. Chastity Witheredpuss will have one of the ladies from her sewing circle monitor her Internet habits...but since it's pretty much all just aol.com there's nothing scandalous to report.

      Now, if your browsing habits were broadcast to a number of people, or people that you didn't choose, that would be something intimidating enough to perhaps prevent you from viewing porn. But as I said, nobody in their right mind would open this can of worms.

      The only people I could see this helping are people who confess they are addicted to porn and are asking for peer review because they want help in avoiding temptation. But all it would probably do in this case is return them back to movies, magazines, and other non-trackable porn.

      All in all, still a worthless idea.

      - JoeShmoe
      .

      --
      -- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
    3. Re:It will *never* work by thomas.galvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This guy clearly has his head in the sand. There is no way this idea could ever succeed, you know why? Because there is no hard and fast rulebook for defining pornography. So no matter how "religious" you are, there is someone who is going to have a more restrictive viewpoint than you. When you discuss movies with friends who are "religious" you can see exactly what I'm talking about.

      Which is exactly why something like this will work, but a centralized "don't let them see this it's dirty" filtering system won't.

      These programs email your suriong habits to a friend or pastor, someone who knows you and can agree on what you should and should not be looking for. For example, someone shopping for a valentine's gift for his wife would have a fairly good reason for visiting victoria's secret, but an unmarried man wouldn't.

      These programs are about defining your own standards, and having someone help you hold to them.

      My pastors actually say that something can be sinful for one person and not another. If a man has a problem with violence, he shouldn't be watching violent movies, but for a man without that problem, the Matrix is nothing but a fun movie. For a man with an alcohol addiction, a glass of wine is a bad idea, but for a man without that problem, it's simply something that goes well with the fish.

    4. Re:It will *never* work by Sedennial · · Score: 1

      "...about this, "blind leading the blind". Basically I get to pick my judge!

      Ok, then what is your opinion vis-a-vis AA, NA, or GA? Isn't that peer review/peer accountability on the same order?

    5. Re:It will *never* work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they choose someone from their peer group that they trust and know shares similar values as they do

      I can see it now: I won't tell on you if you don't tell on me. WooHoo!

    6. Re:It will *never* work by JoeShmoe · · Score: 1

      My understanding, and I may be wrong, is that a two struggling addicts are never paired together. In fact, if people are drinking/whatever, they are kicked OUT of the program to prevent that from influencing another member. There is a significant amount of peer-peer support because addicts can understand and predict patterns of behavior...but the overall structure is a group...not just that peer-peer relationship.

      The equivalent would be if once a week everyone got together and compared porn logs and anyone who frequented porn sites was kicked out of the group.

      - JoeShmoe
      .

      --
      -- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
    7. Re:It will *never* work by JoeShmoe · · Score: 1

      I sort of already covered this in a previous reply but I thought I should elaborate...

      The view you express that what sinful to one person but not another is sort of the problem. There are very few people, I have found, that can tolerate something they view as wrong/sinful in a group setting. Alcohol may not be a problem for you...but you have to keep it to yourself. Otherwise, you drinking alcohol could influence another person.

      That's my point...who are these fair and impartial observers with no vested interest that you can choose to review your personal browsing habits? Your wife? I don't think any husband would want his wife to know how much he thinks about sex, she might feel she's inferior or not meeting his needs. Your pastor? What if HE thinks you are obsessed with violence but you believe it's not a big deal because it's fake?

      If you are open and honest then you are basically confronting someone with your viewing habits and guaranteeing they will eventually disagree/confront you about them, or possibly gossip behind your back. While "don't ask, don't tell" hardly seems and ideal approach, if I don't know you are a racist, I could probably be your co-worker or casual aquaintance. The moment I become aware of that aspect of your personality, the veil of ignorance is gone and I either have to confront it, or you will assume I condone it.

      I think the very reason the Army went with the don't ask, don't tell policy is because they knew if they made it public it would end up dividing the armed forces into gay/straight divisions. I don't think any religious group wants to see themselves split...there's already been some 6000 different splits in what was once a single monotheistic religion...how many more can it take!

      - JoeShmoe
      .

      --
      -- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
  80. This progresses naturally until.... by CrazyLegs · · Score: 1
    .... Donald Sutherland (or something that looks just like him) spots you on the street and points an accusing finger at you punctuated by his unhuman screeching noise....

    Perhaps the participants in this wrong-headed scheme could get uniforms or something. Maybe some kind of shirt. Brown. That's it's - brown shirts. And armbands, too!!

    But seriously, this has to one of the stupidest ideas I've heard in awhile. It smacks of those Promise Keepers guys.

    *shivers*

    --

    CrazyLegs

    "Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.

    1. Re:This progresses naturally until.... by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      -sarcasm-
      Yeah, I hate the idea of guys trying to better their lives for the sake of their family, wife, community, and their beliefs. Shudder
      -sarcasm-

      robi

    2. Re:This progresses naturally until.... by CrazyLegs · · Score: 1
      My comments were tongue-in-cheek, of course. If guys want to subscribe to this service/community/whatever, more power to them.

      But, c'mon, have you read the website? It's mob-rule driven by thought police and a narrow definition of morality and pornography. If you have a porn addiction so serious that you're willing to participate in NetAccountability, I think your problems might be serious enough to get real help. Guys who want to be better husbands/Dads/citizens should not begin the process by delegating their own responsibilities to a piece of software. To do so seems to imply that they are not serious about being accountable (but would rather have someone/something else do the heavy lifting for them).

      Regardless, my apologies if I offended anyone.

      --

      CrazyLegs

      "Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.

  81. New Product Idea by deadline · · Score: 1

    Get your clean weblogs here!

    100% guarenteed to pass the sinful site test.

    --
    HPC for Primates. Read Cluster Monkey
  82. Cyberconfessions: by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Funny

    TimBrown233: Father, forgive me, for I have sinned.

    TheRevster31: Do not be disheartened, child, for Satan, also known as the Hun in your case, tempts us at all hours.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:Cyberconfessions: by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

      heh he heheh

      The only thing funnier is if AUTOPR0N himself said it. He's got a lott hail mary's to do to fix his problem

    2. Re:Cyberconfessions: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This in fact was going on. Also by e-mail and phone. The catholic church recently decided that absolution cannot happen except in person. Nore mofr e-mail forgiveness.

      Otherwise that might have actually been funny.

    3. Re:Cyberconfessions: by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > TimBrown233: Father, forgive me, for I have sinned.
      > TheRevster31: Do not be disheartened, child, for Satan, also known as the Hun in your case, tempts us at all hours.

      Except it'd be more like:

      TimBrown233: Father, forgive me, for I have sinned.
      PopeJayPeeDeux: A/S/L? r u a cop?

    4. Re:Cyberconfessions: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course this would have nothing to do with the fact that you can't blow a priest over email.

  83. SSSSShhhhhhh!!!!! by Raul654 · · Score: 1

    Don't say that... the children don't know any different

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  84. Finally by JWyner · · Score: 1

    Took long enough for someone to respond to all the idiotic posts above. I agree 100%. I just wish I had some mod points for ya.... ;-)

    --
    "Owning a computer is like having your very own TV -- with a built in radio!" - Ed Helms
  85. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  86. Re:Big Difference by NialScorva · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The great thing about objective standards is that there's so many to choose from. Do you want the Fred Phelps brand of biblical objectivity, the Jerry Farwell brand of biblical objectivity, or the liberal brand of bibilical objectivity that allows for gay ministers?

    Just because Christians *claim* it's objective doesn't mean it is.

  87. Just like Micro$oft advertises... by L0stb0Y · · Score: 1

    You know, that ad where the two butterflys are out on the town together?

    See, M$ beat them to the punch.

    LosT

    --
    "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams."
  88. Hurry Up!!! by scott1853 · · Score: 4, Funny

    For the next hour feel free to surf all the porn sites you want, the NetAccountability server will be experiencing "technical" difficulties.

  89. Usenet? by Giro+d'Italia · · Score: 1

    Does this thing log nntp requests as well? Not all porn is on the web.

  90. Don't apologise for telling a good joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you sorry? It's funny. And the only difference between mormon and moron is an extra 'm'.

  91. Clever but problematic by Upright+Joe · · Score: 1

    These people are going to get a rude awakening when some piece of spyware or malicious website starts poping up porn ads everywhere and it shows up in their logs. Will their narrow-minded, conservative buddies believe that they didn't really intentionally hit that porn site? I doubt it considering that this product is for people that honestly believe that the proliferation of porn on the internet is a serious problem and that they need to somehow protect each other from it. If none of them would ever hit a porn site, then they obviously wouldn't need the product to begin with right?

    As clever of an idea as this is for these ultra-conservative, bible-thumping freaks, I think it may actually fail for technical reasons alone.

  92. Irrelevant by Hellraisr · · Score: 1

    I don't understand how this is supposed to replace a filter?

    Doing this is just going to give someone you trust a list of x rated popups that come up without your consent that you will then proceed to the doghouse for.

    Filters are the way to go still. Until they pass laws forcing x-rated material to have a certain HTML code in it which you can then just weed out, filtering is still the best solution.

  93. Neurotic by mugnyte · · Score: 1

    I hope I'm not completely redundant when I say that this goes on way more than just this idea. Religious types have been trying to reconcile the concept of Information That Wants To Be Free via the web for quite a while.

    I wouldn't be surprised if religious-based ISPs do a brisk business with insane filters.

    Religions are constantly trying to balance their moral standings above the rest of the world, but also try to interact with people in some bizarre way. It'd be best if they simply stuck to their webrings of God Is Great homemade fluff.

    mug

  94. Porn or war? by CAB · · Score: 1

    War is OK, but porn is not?

    Only wrong doing here is to let little Joe believe its common to have a dick like a redwood to have sex .
    An oak is sufficient ;-)

    --
    Best regards,
    Steen Suder
    -- for email: send to .net
    1. Re:Porn or war? by superyooser · · Score: 1
      War is OK, but porn is not?

      Both terrorists and pornographers are evildoers. We fight against each evil by methods appropriate to its nature.

    2. Re:Porn or war? by CAB · · Score: 1

      Why is porn evil?

      --
      Best regards,
      Steen Suder
      -- for email: send to .net
    3. Re:Porn or war? by superyooser · · Score: 1
      I thought it was self-evident. In the case that you're asking sincerely, here are a couple relevant pages I found when Googling:

      The Effects of Pornography

      Reasons Why Porn is Bad

  95. This is an excellent idea by Tikiman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nearly everyone who has posted so far as missed the point... pornography is a very real concern for many Christian men. Most of the world doesn't consider "lust" to bad at all... however, I think it can be incredibly destructive. Looking at pornography is a subtle form of adultery, whether you'd like to admit it or not. That being said, the Internet has an unlimited supply of porn that is available 24/7, and accessing it is completely anoymous. It is very easy to fall into this temptation, and it's very easy to become addicted to it. Please don't try to dispute this... just because *you* happen to see no problem with porn doesn't mean countless people have had real struggles with it. This program is designed for the person who wants to break an addictive cycle through accountibility, which is the basis for 12-step programs and other generally accepted methods for breaking addition. I'm really glad that someone has taken initiative to provide this kind of help.

    1. Re:This is an excellent idea by eddy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't have anything against it, but the whole concept is stupid. This is just a new vehicle of self-deceit. This "solution" creates one more thing for people to "fail" at, which will make them feel even worse about themselves!

      What is needed is for people to come to the insight that the problem isn't the "looking at porn" part, the problem is the "feeling guilt about it afterwards" part, a guilt that only exists because you've been _programmed_ to feel it! Guilt and fear is the core fuel of Christianity.

      I repeat, the solution isn't the add layers, the solution is to _remove_ layers. In this case, remove the belief that looking at something will harm you. Get a fucking grip!

      There's a small percentage that cannot handle porn and get addicted, just like there are people who cannot handle gambling or alcohol. Will this help these people? I think not. They'll just use it to deceive themselves and their family, thereby prolonging the time till they get _real_ help.

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    2. Re:This is an excellent idea by evil_qwerty · · Score: 1

      That comment is either the funniest thing Ive ever read, or the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. Is this a troll, sarcasm, or are you being serious?

    3. Re:This is an excellent idea by milesbparty · · Score: 1

      Guilt and fear is the core fuel of Christianity.

      Another slashdoter talking about something he knows nothing about. Seems to be the norm around here.

      --
      eMelody Web Directory add your site today!
    4. Re:This is an excellent idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding .. Guilt and Fear is the fuel of Catholicism!

    5. Re:This is an excellent idea by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Aye, it's Catholicism that's fueled by guilt and fear. They do often use the term 'shame.'

      That having been said, ever hear the term 'God-fearing Christian?' They mean it.

      There is no such thing, actually, as Christianity or catholicism, these days; everybody seems to have their own version.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    6. Re:This is an excellent idea by Tikiman · · Score: 1
      What is needed is for people to come to the insight that the problem isn't the "looking at porn" part, the problem is the "feeling guilt about it afterwards" part, a guilt that only exists because you've been _programmed_ to feel it! Guilt and fear is the core fuel of Christianity..

      Then you really don't understand Christianity at all I'm afraid... Suppose you are married man. You are supposed to love your wife. In fact, the Bible says you are supposed to love your wife as Christ loved the Church, which even a secular reading of the gospel would tell is "a lot". Now imagine that instead of being with and spending time with your wife, you spend time looking looking at pornography. Are you telling me you don't even smell a whiff or moral betrayal? That it is perfectly ok to bring sexual images of other people into your home? Are you saying that your wife should be perfectly fine with the idea of you viewing pornography, and that any objection she may have is because she is "programmed" to feel that way? I don't think you have really thought about the ramifications of allowing pornography in a relationship (remember the original article said "spouse"!). You can scoff at the idea of "mental adultery" if you want (Christians would call it "lust in your heart"), but the fact is that it is something that can really damage a relationship.

    7. Re:This is an excellent idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm quite sure he is serious. My brother is so evangelical he talks about being tortured by thoughts about sex. I tried to explain that this is natural, and even healthy to some extent, but he is convinced it makes him perverted and seeks to avoid all temptation.

      I just don't get it, nor do I want to.

    8. Re:This is an excellent idea by eddy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Then you really don't understand Christianity at all I'm afraid...

      Oh, I understand it very well, as far as any collective delusion can be understood. I tasted it, educated myself, and then walked away.

      Suppose you are married man. You are supposed to love your wife.

      Yes?

      Now imagine that instead of being with and spending time with your wife, you spend time looking looking at pornography.

      You can replace pornography with anything above. The key is moderation. I've already acknowledged in my original post that there'll always be a small small percentage that cannot handle $some_random_topic. If you recall, I made the point that a) This isn't very likely to help those who have a real problem and b) This isn't directed at those who have a _real_ problem, this is directed at every "man" out there.

      Are you telling me you don't even smell a whiff or moral betrayal? That it is perfectly ok to bring sexual images of other people into your home?

      YES! Sheesh. The logical conclusion is that fantasies (you know, the things in your head) are "moral betrayal". If you see a beautiful woman and think of her sexually, then you should feel shame, is that your position? I'm sorry, but I don't understand why it would be "moral betrayal" -- that's just typical moralistic bullshit of the kind one usually get from people whose mind are infected with religion.

      Are you saying that your wife should be perfectly fine with the idea of you viewing pornography,

      I'm saying that if she isn't fine with it, then that is her problem. Her problem is your problem, so you work it out. You deal. Maybe you don't like it when she goes to church, so you decide that you don't get porn and she doesn't get church.

      Personally, I couldn't live with a person who didn't at least understand my need for graphic sexuality, and in fact I would much prefer it if she too liked it! Sex and fantasies are so much better when you have someone to share them with :-)

      I'm a sexual animal, and I like it. I don't feel ashamed of it at all, and I strongly recent the implication that this is my problem.

      and that any objection she may have is because she is "programmed" to feel that way?

      I was talking of the person watching porn and then feeling bad about it. Why does he/she feel bad? Why, because he/she has _learned_ that they _should_ feel bad!

      I don't think you have really thought about the ramifications of allowing pornography in a relationship

      I don't think you've even presented any evidence at all that there are some special ramifications to expect, other than one or two people enjoying something in a sexual context. Ohh, sex is BAD?! Oh, I get it... more of that religious moralistic hogwash.

      but the fact is that it is something that can really damage a relationship.

      I know something else which can damage a relationship; lying and hiding things for each other, pushing guilt and not giving your partner a personal life.

      I think you're seeing the world through glasses with a deep shade of cultural bias.

      Here, let me help you; Everything you feel is bad with porn, think "practice religion" instead, and you have something close to my view. Now, do you still feel that, if my partner had that problem, _she_ should be the one to change? If not, then I suggest you're a hypocrite, unless you can provide some very strong evidence that porn is different from other percieved problems.

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    9. Re:This is an excellent idea by TClevenger · · Score: 2, Funny
      Looking at pornography is a subtle form of adultery, whether you'd like to admit it or not.

      Wow, so when my wife and I are watching pornography together and have sex during the show, does that mean we're having a threesome?

    10. Re:This is an excellent idea by Tikiman · · Score: 1

      Ok, you need to take of your anti-religion blinders for a moment...

      First of all, I'm not judging you. You are behaving exactly as I would in your situation.

      Second, you have already admitted to the addictivness of pornography, so I really don't see why you are calling my statements "moral hogwash". If you are saying it's addictive, then you're implying that addition to pornography can be a problem, which is my point. It can be a problem, and the service described in the original article is designed to help people break this problematic addiction. No need to overanalize this.

    11. Re:This is an excellent idea by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      Looking at pornography is a subtle form of adultery, whether you'd like to admit it or not.

      That's argument by assertion. Some would argue that betrayal is the key point of adultery; then the question revolves around whether the spouse feels betrayed. Others would argue that sex is the key point of adultery; in which case, masturbation would be adultery, and looking at pornography in and of itself would not be adultery. Some would argue that lust is the key point of adultery, in which case pornography is but one part of the almost continous act of adultery most males commit.

      In any case, this is all a definition game; you want to pin the tag "adultery" on pornography for the same reason illegal copying is called "pirating" - it makes it sound bad. It's not that we don't admit it; it's that we don't agree with the fundamental premise of the statement.

    12. Re:This is an excellent idea by Tikiman · · Score: 1
      Some would argue that lust is the key point of adultery, in which case pornography is but one part of the almost continous act of adultery most males commit.

      This is the Christian view of adultery. A lot of what Jesus talked about was the fact the following the letter of the law "Thou shalt not commit adultery" wasn't really good enough, and that people really should come face to face with their inner sinful natures. This "inner adultery" happens to have a name (lust), though this holds true for any sin. Your observation that this is a "continuous act" of males is a bit overstated, but essentially true. It is an impossible standard to maintain.

      In any case, this is all a definition game; you want to pin the tag "adultery" on pornography for the same reason illegal copying is called "pirating" - it makes it sound bad. It's not that we don't admit it; it's that we don't agree with the fundamental premise of the statement.

      I never asked anyone to agree with anything, I was simply stating the Christian point of view, and why Christian men find pornography dangerous. In fact, Jesus spent a lot of time hammering away on legalistic defintions of terms like "adultery". Its not a definition game at all - whether or not you are an adulterer depends not on some arbitrary legal criteria, but what is in your heart.

    13. Re:This is an excellent idea by Tikiman · · Score: 1
      I'm quite sure he is serious. My brother is so evangelical he talks about being tortured by thoughts about sex. I tried to explain that this is natural, and even healthy to some extent, but he is convinced it makes him perverted and seeks to avoid all temptation.

      If this is true, then there is probably a theological disconnect. Christians have nothing against sex. In fact, Christians think sex is a great thing. However, obsession with sex is bad no matter what. Now "tortured by thought about sex" is rather vague description of the problem, so if you give a little more infomration perhaps I could add some insight that could help your brother, and maybe help you understand him a little more.

  96. It will work by scrotch · · Score: 1

    It will work for the people it targets. It will work because they want it to - they've got to volunteer for it more or less.

    It will work the weight-watchers, alcoholics anonymous and group thereapy work. It will provide a little encouragement and the threat of shame.

    It won't work if you wouldn't be ashamed or if you don't want to stop looking at porn, but then you won't be signing up, will you? Just as you didn't sign up for weight-watchers - which would never make Me loose weight, cause I'm proud to eat what I want and I'm underweight.

  97. blah blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude1: I wish I could stop looking at porn.

    Dude2: You should stop. God will punish you.

    Dude1: I can't stop. And if God is going to punish me, why doesn't He?

    Dude2: You must have faith. But just to be safe, *I'll* punish you, in His name. I just mailed your surfing habits to your wife.

    Dude1: Thank you for the healing gift of religion.

  98. Re:literotica by Woil · · Score: 1

    thx, I'll check it out.

  99. Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by wodelltech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a sad day for me, as a fan of slashdot. The comments here belittle one man's attempt to improve himself. His actions are to be commended, if anything.

    I myself meet on a regular basis with other men who share a similar code-of-ethics - we hold each other accountable, voluntarily, as a check on our own behavior. In case no one's noticed, we human's don't do so well with the self control thing. The internet can consume much of our time, and I'm somewhat relieved to see others making an effort to cognatively assess and control the impact it has on their lives.

    Feel free to lament the things which bind you (hey, I don't like MS either...), but some of you really need to figure out what - if anything - you stand for. I would expect this crowd to at least be capable of supporting an individual's right to overcome adversity they face.

    By the way...accountability works. Yes, it's hard to admit to shameful things. And it's harder still to recognize (and admit to) repeating patterns of destructive behavior in one's life. There are a lot of worthwhile things that are hard.

    --
    Your monitor is staring at you.
    1. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's something most christians don't seem to understand. Believing porn is evil and immoral is a fringe belief now. I see all these posts from people who are so shocked that so many people are lampooning this site. You can still have your fringe belief and believe everyone else is wrong, and your small group is right (it worked for Galileo and Newton for instance), but you shouldn't be at all surprised when everyone else laughs at you. Please try to get some perspective outside of your christian community.

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by starling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The comments here belittle one man's attempt to improve himself.

      To the tune of $3.95 a month.

      The guy's trying to profit from other people's "weaknesses" and deserves all the contempt which is thrown at him.

    3. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by Kirin3 · · Score: 1

      Feel free to lament the things which bind you (hey, I don't like MS either...), but some of you really need to figure out what - if anything - you stand for. I would expect this crowd to at least be capable of supporting an individual's right to overcome adversity they face.

      I agree that this article has provoked a lot of spouting off before thinking, but if anything, Slashdot and every other public forum-style service, as well the users of these services, owe it to themselves and the spirit of open debate, to express the view that they may have on the issue.

      While many would argue there should only be central, debate or point-counterpoint system in place for forums, Slashdot already uses several mechanisms for "weeding out" posts that you don't want to see, the only remaining issue exists is that moderators moderate, whether liberal or conservative.

      The computer industry seems (to me) to breed 3 liberal thinkers for every conservative (and perhaps just as much, political leanings dictate careers or job functions). Slashdot is bound to have more liberals, as is almost any computer related forum.

      I agree with your point that this man created a workable self-censoring system, and that it is the users' own decision to run it. In defence of the rampant criticism though, as I find of my own posts here on Slashdot, that they don't always "say" what I meant them to, sometimes even after previewing it. The same may be true for a good percentage of posts. After all, most users are trying to get their opinions in before the thread gets pushed down the list and forgotten.

      One must have a truly impressive grasp of the English language to manipulate it successfully in such a dry, emotionless atmosphere such as an online, yet live, forum. Language can both inflame and diffuse any situation, language can hurt and heal.

      Let's face it, anybody posting to an online forum has to be "literate", but they needn't be so literate as to be a diplomat or a poet. I never read Slashdot or any other open forum without the largest grain of salt imaginable.

    4. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quoth the poster: In case no one's noticed, we human's don't do so well with the self control thing.

      Speak for yourself. I, for one, am way too uptight. I have trouble easing off on the rigid self-control. It doesn't matter if I'm totally alone or if I'm in a social situation that encourages relaxation. I think quite a few geeks may have this problem -- it helps you deal with situations where others fault you for your behavior without cause. (READ: merciless high school teasing and bullying.) If you yourself are aware that your own behavior is acceptable under social norms, that makes it easier to see attacks rooted in primate dominance rituals as the bullshit they are.

      Then you grow up and are no longer in that sort of environment, but the internal awareness of your own behavior is still there, and you are left constantly monitoring your own actions for potential folly . . . searching out any weakness that might leave you open to an attack, linguistic or otherwise. And even if you're aware of your defensive self-awareness, that doesn't make it any easier to ease off the damn restrictions and let go for a bit. So you wind up being a "nice guy" who never does anything socially unacceptable. You don't take risks. You become everybody's friend and nobody's lover. You become a good neighbor, an upright citizen, a model of decency, and a sad, lonely little man hiding under a shell of socially acceptable good cheer. And then you die.

      Not all of us suffer from the same problems, mister, and not all of us will find the same solutions. Your morality might be my oppression. So kindly keep it to yourself!

    5. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he is improving himself? riiiiight. more like brainwashing himself. I improve myself by trying out as many hot women as possible until i find the right one. in between the women, i improve myself by enjoying porn at home. i have a healthy libido, and porn is a safe natural release.

      you religous zealots are so blind it hurts.

    6. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      Would you then heap contempt upon someone forming a shelter for physically assulted / raped / abused woman?

      Would you sling disdane towards a charity reaching out to alcoholics by offering alcohol free housing?

      Looks like selective opinions.

      robi

    7. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by starling · · Score: 1

      If they were charging more than the running costs then yes. That would be immoral.

      What this guy's doing is worse, because first he's convincing gullible people that they have a problem (when in fact they probably don't), and once they fall for that line then he's trying to milk them for cash. I find that repugnant.

    8. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by lasublime · · Score: 1

      It is a not for profit organization...read the website

    9. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by starling · · Score: 1

      read the website

      I did. I don't believe them - wanna bet the operating expenses include a Mercedez-Benz (STR).

    10. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by Quantum+Skyline · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if I agree with you, but there are two things I really want to point out:

      There's something most christians don't seem to understand.

      Most Christians are non-practising Christians - they were baptized, did the First Communion and the Confirmation thing, but they don't actually practise the religion. Consider this: Most Christians don't go to Mass on Sunday. The Christians that get noticed are those who do and tell the world that they do. There's nothing wrong with that, but the amount of Christians that get noticed approaches zero when compared to the amount of Christians there are.

      So, saying most Christians don't understand is actually a misnomer. Most practising Christians don't understand.

      For those who will point out that I actually subbed in Roman Catholic for Christian, its only because I am a practising Roman Catholic.

      Believing porn is evil and immoral is a fringe belief now.

      Therefore it is morally acceptable?

      Replace 'porn' with 'speeding'. Or 'piracy' (of any form). Or 'divorce'. Or 'contraception'.

      I'm not going to get into a debate on if it those things are wrong, but keep something in mind: Morals are static. Values are not. Morals, therefore, cannot change. Values change with society, because values are what the society 'values' as its priorities or what the society will accept.

      Think about it: values changed in the 60s. Values regarding these topics were more or less static until then and then they changed because someone decided they were wrong? Morals have remained the same. They always will be. That's why they're morals.

    11. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Morality by popularity is ridicuous. Something is either right ro it is wrong. That doesn't change. By your logic, if a majority believe that rape is right, then suddenly it is. Or if we have two sets of people with different value systems and one invades the other, suddenly the whole idea of morality changes.

      Relative morality which changes based on circumstance is a joke. It means that nothing is ever truely right and nothing is ever truly wrong. If a majority of people believe that another group deserves to die, then it's perfectly moral. Suddenly, genocide is okay. Yet the people who adhere to a relative morality will no doubt say that the Holocaus was absolutely evil. There are a lot of people who are quite hypocritical about this, saying that taking an absolute morality system such as in the Bible is stupid, yet stating as a fact that God is evil, porn is good, abortion is right, etc.

      And then there's the whole evangelical isue. Apparently there's something evil about a Christian sharing his views with somone and wanting them to change theirs, yet it's it's perfectly justified for an atheists to espouse their views, call Christianity stupid and atempt to convert them to atheism. Double standards.

      But having pointed this out, I'll no doubt be modded down by the very people I've just described. Frauds never like to be revelaed.

    12. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by lasublime · · Score: 1

      dude get real....$3.95 a month can't buy anything! the article said that the founder sold a couple of companies so he probably does not need the money.... not all not for profit organizations are out to make some scratch. e-mail them and ask before speaking that Benz talk. late

    13. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by starling · · Score: 1

      Wrong is wrong - it's not the amount, it's the principle.

    14. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by lasublime · · Score: 1

      nice try---Again... have a great one late

    15. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      By what logic? Where? This is just another strawman argument. This is sad really. You can't attack me on what I said, so you make up something that you think I said that you can argue with. Please stick with things I actually said, and don't try to manufacture words. I guess it's doubly ironic, since what I originally was responding to was someone who was putting words in slashdots mouth.

      --
      AccountKiller
    16. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by anon*127.0.0.1 · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's cheaper then your average porn site.

      --
      I am NOT a man!
      I am a free number!
    17. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by alienmole · · Score: 1
      I'm not going to get into a debate on if it those things are wrong, but keep something in mind: Morals are static. Values are not. Morals, therefore, cannot change.

      Huh? Where on earth do you get this from? Sorry, but it's makes no sense. I've written more in this post.

    18. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by AnonymousCohort · · Score: 1

      After reading the last two posts I think slashdot is being colonized by Crunchy Cons.

      -There is no problem that can not be solved by lowering your expectations.

    19. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      I very much got the impression form your post that when you said "Believing porn is evil and immoral is a fringe belief now." you meant that while it might have been wrong in the past it is right now to view porn. Even if this isn't applicable to you, it's applicable to other people here on slashdot. Under moral relativism, right and wrong, good and evil, lose all real meaning.

    20. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by qute · · Score: 1

      He's not trying to improve himself. He's trying to make his life worse by not watching porn.

      I'd call him sick, he's suffering of delucions. He thinks a being no-one can see commands him to do things that go against human nature.

      Crasy people are some times made fun of. That's life.

      --
      -- Make software not war
    21. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by Tikiman · · Score: 1
      The short answer is yes, the slashdot crowd is anti-morality. But this is a subset of a quite larger issue, that people in general are anti-authority. In other words, the most people have no problem with a concept such as "honesty", but they want it only on their own terms. This manifests itself in the average comment in a RIAA discussion:

      "Yes I download music, its too expensive. But if I like it, I go ahead and buy it! Heck, I've probably spent more money than I would have otherwise!"

      Thus the poster is willing to be honest, but not before blame shifting, outright theft and a little bit of justification at the end. This kind of "honesty" is not morality at all, but a subtle form of exerting control over someone/something else.

      The fact is that people don't want to be controlled, either by God or anyone. Thus the very thought that someone might be placing some kind of absolute moral constraint on anything is abhorrent! People would rather cling to a stubborn independence, which in the end is simply vanity. People fail to realize that Jesus said that all morality is derived from just two things - loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. How wonderful would the world be if everyone took this to heart! But alas, this is not so. People don't love their neighbor. I am deeply ashamed of this entire slashdot discussion over the amount of abuse heaped on people who are simply trying as hard as they can to love other people as much as possible.

      I ask this if anyone wishes to respond this, please do so with kindness and an open mind. The opposite viewpoint is already quite well repsented on this board.

    22. Re:Is the Slashdot crowd anti-morality? by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      I guess that's you're own personal bias speaking then. You're implying meaning based upon very little evidence, trying to extrapolate based upon... Umm.. I don't know, the traditional arguments of others? This is a dangerous way of reasoning, and can easily lead to false impressions.

      --
      AccountKiller
  100. Problem and solution by Raul654 · · Score: 1

    I think that this article answers the greatest moral question of our age, are we raising a generation of porn slackers?

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Problem and solution by unicron · · Score: 4, Funny

      Porn slacker my ass. These kids nowadays got the internet. Back in my day we spanked it to scrambled porn while listening paranoid and scared for someone to come through the front door. We earned every second of our porn.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    2. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol that article is more accurate than Id like to admit..

      The challenge.. the danger.. the sin!
      The poor dead kittens..

    3. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes! and damn those bald guys

    4. Re:Problem and solution by buckthorn · · Score: 5, Funny

      I remembering having to cat together messages then run them thru uudecoding and finally FTP them to a Mac before I could get to see it proper. I thought Free Agent was a miracle.

    5. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You had it good. I had to hold borrowed 8mm film strips up to the light because no one I knew had a projector. Take a second and imagine how wide 8mm is, and the skill of holding it steady while doing other deeds.

    6. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You had 8mm film? In _my_ day we had to find a black and white magazine in a foreign country and hide it in our sock while we walked out of the store because we didn't realize it was legal to buy pr0n in Europe at 12 years old.

      Or maybe that was just me.

    7. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Black and White magazines! You were lucky. All we had to look at was poorly drawn naughty pictures on the wall in the boys bathroom.

    8. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, newsgroups are the shit. I still chuckle thinking there are kids out there on google typing "warez+0 day" in the search box.

    9. Re:Problem and solution by roolmarty · · Score: 1

      Poorly drawn naughty pictures on the wall in the boys bathroom! You had it easy! In my day, we had to paint our porn on the walls of our caves using crushed rocks and chewed leaves for pigment. That Wooly Mammoth Porn was some good stuff!!!

    10. Re:Problem and solution by plugger · · Score: 1

      As teenagers in the UK, sometimes we would find porn mags in bushes or under hedges. I'm wondering, is this an international phenomenon, or has it only been observed in the British Isles?

    11. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Happens in the US too. My introduction to porn was a Hustler magazine I found in a dugout.

    12. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't underestimate the power of porn. I sat down and learned MVS shell, ftp, and NNTP commands in a single weekend to get to the newsgroups (this was pre-internet, no easy browsable references for me to look anything up - I was using a SUN manual I got out of the trash.) Lest ye think this was an easy process, this was back when I dialing up to the local university mainframe, and had to zterm my goodies, and you had to know what bitnet meant if you wanted to e-mail someone at a different university...

    13. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop your whinning! I remember back before god made women. We had to, uh, hmm... actually, I guess I had it pretty good. huh

    14. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only poor dead kittens because somebody screwed it up when they said it. It should in fact be said like so:

      Every time you kill a kitten, god masturbates

      I guess when you've seen that much pr0n tho, you need weird stuff like that...

    15. Re:Problem and solution by kid_icarus75 · · Score: 1

      try reading pornographic stories with lynx and then having to hit alt-f2 to switch to a new terminal when your mom walks in!

    16. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh what we wouldn't give for crushed rock and chewed leaves! In my day, we had to work 36 hours hunting and gathering, and then come home and stare at the stars at night and imagine the porn.

    17. Re:Problem and solution by xbytor · · Score: 1
      >> I remembering having to cat together messages then run them thru uudecoding

      I had a lisp in emacs that automated this. It was at thus point that emacs won the war with vi. :-)

    18. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not an isolated phenomenon. My primary source of pr0n growing up was the discarded (presumably by the older neighborhood boys) mags out in the woods around our house in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

      LB

    19. Re:Problem and solution by WNight · · Score: 1

      Pre-WWW you mean. Usenet was sent over the internet.

      Easy mistake to make though, these days when talking to people we usually use internet to mean web because it's all the common user sees.

    20. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well back in the days i didnt have an ISP, i remember pressing the space key several times in the "red light disctrict" on Duke Nukem 3d. I thought the internet was a miracle!

  101. I'm using the occult by LM741N · · Score: 1

    To find out what the devil doesn't want me to view. So far, its just been a bunch of boring religious sites.

  102. Wish it was free... by anti_logik · · Score: 0

    and I wish they had it for linux... If you're looking for good council for defeating this addiction, go to www.porn-free.org . I did it, and I've been porn free for | 14 | hours and counting...

  103. well by tetro · · Score: 1

    "It puts a little more power back in the user's hands,"

    Here's my solution: Don't do it!
    Why jump through all these hoops to not look at questionable sites. If you're too young to understand that a website is bad, then you shouldn't be web browsing w/o your parent or guardian in the first place.

    --
    .smell my feet.
  104. Re:Big Difference by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1
    Just because Christians *claim* it's objective doesn't mean it is.

    I didn't claim anything of the sort. I'm talking about people who have picked some sort of standard, whatever that may be, and are trying to stick to it. It is an objective standard for them to live by because it doesn't, or at least shouldn't, depend on how they feel from moment to moment.

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
  105. Interesting Idea, but -REALLY-???!!!???!!! by Lukano · · Score: 1

    Unless your some fanatical religuous zealot, what good reason do you have to be stopping yourself or your peers from browsing "objectional content" including Porn sites?

    I can see filters for stopping kids from getting porn spam, or viewing porn sites, but once your of a consulting age, why not tell everyone to bugger off and mind their own business?

    Sheesh... some people! :)

  106. confused by ginormous · · Score: 1

    So now you can track people. Guilt keeps them from porn. For religious groups? What about, oh say ... TRUST?

  107. I pity the people who use this sort of thing by Weenis-X · · Score: 1

    I find sharp echoes in this from Shakespeare's Measure for Measure. For those who aren't familiar with it, the Puritan Angelo is given governing power due to his impeccable conscience and aversion to sin. It doesn't take him long, however, to fall in love with another man's woman. There's a particularly relevant passage somewhere in the middle of the play (don't remember act, scene) where he expresses his anguish and self-loathing for having fallen victim to adulterous lusts. If that type of scathing self-scrutiny is what motivates people to use this sort of thing, I pity them deeply - no person should have to live with themselves as their greatest enemy.

    1. Re:I pity the people who use this sort of thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shakespeare? You pervert.

  108. I love porn filters! by Niomosy · · Score: 1

    I have mine set to filter most NON pr0n. I don't need all that other stuff! Just give me lots of pr0n and I'm a happy camper. Of course, at this point, Car & Driver, Fry's ads, Sam Ash catalogs and a few other things seem to qualify as porn according to the wife.

  109. dumbass by munkinut · · Score: 1

    That's gotta be the dumbest thing since Homer Simpson.

    --
    re-invent wheels ... you never know
  110. Well.. by ChrisNowinski · · Score: 1

    I hear Ron Jeremy is selling his history session on ebay...

  111. My thoughts exactly by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    After all, it was peer pressure that got me started on pr0n in the first place!

  112. Kinda reminds me of a joke: by taliver · · Score: 2, Funny

    When you go fishing, why do you have to take 2 mormons?

    Because if you only take one, he'll drink all your beer.

    --

    I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!

  113. Calm down everyone. by Qender · · Score: 2, Funny

    Robert K. Bowfinger: We're finished! It's over between us!
    Daisy: But why?
    Robert K. Bowfinger: You slept with Jiff.
    Daisy: So?
    Robert K. Bowfinger: You know, I never thought about it that way.
    Daisy: So I'll see you tonight?
    Robert K. Bowfinger: What time?

  114. One significant problem! by Kaz+Riprock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Heaven help you if while using this service you are looking to catch a bus to visit some relatives. You mistakenly type www.greyhond.com (POPUP WARNING)....instead of www.greyhound.com.

    My, what your friend or loved one will think of you...

    --
    Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
  115. my solution to pr0n filters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never understood the big deal in stopping minors or others from viewing pr0n. All pr0n should be published on port 69. To access port 69 you need to verify age via credit card. Port 80 is reserved for all other content.

  116. perfectly ok because of who it effects by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    this is the most insipid, moronic neighbors-spying-on-neighbors idea i have ever seen.

    but... it is opt in, and only applies to the insipid morons who think it's a good idea.

    end result? let them go on with their bad selves! they will reap what they sow: psychosexual dissonance.

    and most importantly, i would rather have them torturing each other with this bullshit than using their energies to torture all of us instead. ;-P

    turning the acid idiocy of the reactionary fundamentalist beast upon itself is wonderful jujitsu-style self-destruction ;-P

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  117. And another thing ... by bizitch · · Score: 1

    What about people like me who get all their pr0n from KazzaLite? You know, all those totally free high quality video clips that anyone can get?

    What am I supposed to do if I want my privacy invaded? You know ... for religous reasons ..

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
  118. ...and all the good little "Nazis"... by Biljrat · · Score: 1

    will report on their "friends" activities.

    Why are there so many busy-bodies in the world?

  119. Re:Big Difference by Tikiman · · Score: 1, Insightful
    The great thing about objective standards is that there's so many to choose from. Do you want the Fred Phelps brand of biblical objectivity, the Jerry Farwell brand of biblical objectivity, or the liberal brand of bibilical objectivity that allows for gay ministers?

    You are looking at "human objectivity"... in nearly all areas, the Bible is quite clear. With regard to pornography, how many ways can you contrue Matthew 5:28 - "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart"? Most "brands" as you say are derived from some interpretation from the Bible that is very clearly incorrect. Like it or not, the Bible provides an excellent moral standard.

  120. Triage by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just join a club to form a

    1. whitelist - stuff that's definitely OK to see
    2. blacklist - stuff that's definitely not OK to see
    3. graylist - stuff that's outside the known universe
    to define your own internet experience. Sounds like a great idea to me.

    Think of the possibilities, too. The anti-matter folks and the matter folks can help each other with their respective lists.

    Some of the pr0n viewing crowd can join the Moral Majority Virtual web but just set (white=black and black=white) and everyone wins.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  121. this only works if your partner puts in the time by deisher · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How much time can they expect a person to spend going over all their friends' usage logs? Seems like it would eventually become tedious and people would lose interest.

  122. Re:don't get me started.... by non-plus · · Score: 0

    Boo-ya!

  123. Use the Library by The_K4 · · Score: 1

    So if I'm tring to clean up my act and REALLY need to look at p0rn i guess i would just have to use the free access at the library that doens't report to my "sponsor". HE HE HE

    1. Re:Use the Library by Library+Spoff · · Score: 1

      yeah but me and all my colleagues will report ya!
      the shaking of the desk is a *real* giveaway.

      we used to get asked for pens n paper, now it's kleenex and a cigarette...

      --
      Acid House saves Souls
  124. WOW!!! by Loosewire · · Score: 0

    Ill just rush and sign up to tell my friends which sites i visit..........

    --
    Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  125. What's the old joke? by mbourgon · · Score: 1

    When you go fishing with a Baptist, how do you keep him from drinking all your beer?

    Invite along another Baptist.

    *ba* *dum* *bum*

    --
    "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
    1. Re:What's the old joke? by jacobcaz · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, you sir would be modded UP!!

    2. Re:What's the old joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That joke would make sense if it were about Catholics.

      Baptists could almost be mistaken as prohibitionists. We don't have alcohol at weddings or parties. Walk into a party of Baptists carrying a case of beer, and they'll look at you like you've completely lost your mind.

  126. My friends... by NineNine · · Score: 1

    ...are my friends because we have things in common... like porn! Any friend who belittles me for checking out porn isn't a friend worth keeping. I personally think that this is a stupid fucking idea.

  127. Dumbest thing ... but it works ... by urbazewski · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Actually, this is just an online variant of a critical element of 12 step programs --- having a 'sponsor' who checks in with you every day to help you stay on track. I don't have any (first-hand) experience with addiction myself, but the idea that someone else is watching does seem to have a powerful effect on behavior.

    I found this out when I was teaching intermediate macroeconomics at Vanderbilt University. Being an expensive private university, the adminstration has made a real fetish out of teaching evaluations. Several times I noticed in the "anonymous" but handwritten evaluations that students who had poor attendance indicated that my lectures were disgorganized. (Yeah, I see the causality problem, but I really didn't think the lectures were disorganized, but they do build on each other.) So I decided to take attendance at every class, by passing around a sign up sheet. Attendance did not count towards the students' grades, but just the fact that I kept a record increased attendance. I asked a few students about this, and without prompting from me, they said that just knowing that it was written down somewhere that they hadn't been to class made them more likely to come.

    & it did seem to improve my evaluations as well. I know that college students are supposed to be adults, and shouldn't need this kind of psychological trick, blah-blah-blah, but it worked, and in academia the moral high ground is occupied exclusively by tenured professors.

    Interestingly enough, years later I read a great book on business management written a Buddhist monk who worked in the diamond industry (The Diamond Cutter by Geshe Michael Roach) that suggests simply keeping track of errors, with no actual or implied punishments, will reduce the number of errors dramatically. The book is very interesting --- I reccommend it highly.

    --
    foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
    1. Re:Dumbest thing ... but it works ... by Gunzour · · Score: 1

      Accountability is useful, but skipping class is not an addiction. For many people, viewing pr0n is. Third-party accountability alone is not going to have any long-term impact on overcoming an addiction. Being accountable to yourself is a lot harder but much more effective.

      "Why did you come to class today?"

      reason 1) "Because if I didn't, there would be a record of that."

      reason 2) "Because I enjoy going to class and learning"

      Guess which one is a better motivator?

      "Why did you choose not to look at pr0n today?"

      reason 1) "Because my accountability partner would find out if I did"

      reason 2) "Because I would rather enjoy real life instead of sitting in front of a computer watching other people (pretend to) enjoy it."

      The reason that comes from within will always be more effective in the long run.

    2. Re:Dumbest thing ... but it works ... by urbazewski · · Score: 1
      Being accountable to yourself is a lot harder but much more effective.

      I agree with you about self-motivation being the key element of change. However many, if not most, people struggle with achieving their goals in some area of their life. Addiction is the most extreme situation. I don't think that third party accountability can do it alone either, but once a person has made a decision that they would like to change having support from another person who's been there and who will remind them of their commitment seems to be a tremendous help.

      The technique I mentioned from The Diamond Cutter relies exclusively on self-accountability --- the author recommends a Tibetan tracking system called tundruk or "six times a day" which involves taking stock of and making notes on how you are doing with regards to your goals every two hours. He includes a long description of the specific technique but two points he emphasizes are being specific in your comments and spreading the comments out over the day. It's not about judgement or feeling guilty --- the process of keeping track leads you to change your behavior.

      --
      foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
  128. Of course... by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    ...if he were really religious, he'd know that G-d is watching him at all times.

    The fact that he needs his peers to review his web browsing makes me question his faith. However, since he practices a faith that allows you to commit any sin you want, and then say "Oops, Jeezus, I sinned. Forgive me" I don't see what he's worried about.

    1. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is definatly NOT flamebait. AFIAK it's the truth.

    2. Re:Of course... by superyooser · · Score: 1
      since he practices a faith that allows you to commit any sin you want

      (assuming you are Orthodox Jewish from your use of "G-d")

      When you say "a faith," do you mean Christianity as a whole, or just a personal, home-brewed (corrupted) Christian faith? You would be correct in saying that some people have a kind of "faith in Jesus" that allows them to commit any sin they want. But that is not in keeping with the calling of Messiah or the New Testament scripture.

      Christianity doesn't allow sin any more than Judaism does. Both have to make allowances for sin, because the evil inclination is in the Adamic nature of every person. If Judaism didn't "allow" sin, you'd be up the creek without a paddle. Of course, that's not the case. See what David prayed in Tehillim/Psalms 86:5.

      Admittedly, there has been a major imbalance in much of Christendom regarding the amount of teaching devoted to proclaiming grace compared to that imploring obedience. It is terrible that many supposed followers of Messiah do abuse His grace by making no effort to repent of sin.

      Your comment should not have been moderated flamebait. Your post should be an alarm bell to Christians that we should continually examine our actions, attitudes, relationships, and every aspect of our lives in light of how Christ taught us to live. As an outsider of the church, you can only comment on what you see, and what you see is a lot of unrighteous living and phony religion.

      I think that the emphasis on grace and forgiveness is more prevalent in Christianity, because Messiah Yeshua personally commissioned His talmidim to reach out to the goyim/gentiles who, unlike Jews, had (or still have) no tradition of thinking of themselves as part of HaShem's family. It is necessary to keep harping on the fact that one's sin and former disassociation with God will not prevent that person from being loved by Him or from having His Holy Spirit live within him/her.

    3. Re:Of course... by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 1
      Well, I was trying to be sarcastic. Not against Chr-stians, but against the person who made that software. I appreciate your efforts to bring Jews and Chr-stians together (though your use of Hebrew terminology for J-sus is disturbing, and is frequently a method used by missionaries to get their "foot in the door" with Jews.)

      If his faith was pure, he would know that he was always being watched, and wouldn't need his friends to see what he was browsing on the Internet.

      His software would help, however, in treating a true addiction to internet Porn.

    4. Re:Of course... by superyooser · · Score: 1
      I agree with your points about being accountable to an omniscient God, and also, other people being helpful to deal with a genuine addiction.

      On a tangent: Why do you write "J-sus" as you do "G-d"? To a Christian, it looks like you're giving equal reverence to Jesus and God, and thus, implying belief in the Tri-Unity of God. I assume it has to do with the command not to speak the names of other people's gods.

      I appreciate your efforts to bring Jews and Chr-stians together

      I'm just trying to do my part to undo 1,700 years of Greek and Vatican confusion, ignorance, and hostility that has separated us. We were meant to be one in the Olive Tree.

      though your use of Hebrew terminology for J-sus is disturbing

      To me, the church's use of Greek terminology for Yeshua is disturbing. Alas, the dominance of Jesus and the relative obscurity of Yeshua in the Gentile world obligates me to usually use the former term.

      Like it or not, Jesus of Natzeret was Hebrew. He was a Jew of the Galil and taught Torah as a s'mikeh rabbi. His Jewish mother surely didn't give Him a pagan name! Jesus comes from the Greek Iêsous, which was a poor attempt by 4th century Greeks at pronouncing Yeshua'.

      "She (Miryam) will bear a Son; and you (Yosef) shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." - Mattityahu/Matthew 1:21 (New American Standard Bible)
      Why in the world would HaShem give specific instructions to Miryam to call the Mashiach "Jesus"?! Saving people from sins is no more reason for calling someone Iêsous (Jesus) than Jimmy or Miguel. Since "salvation is from the Jews" (Yochanan/John 4:22), HaShem forbid that Israel's Mashiach should be given a Greek goyish name!

      The truth is: He was not named Jesus. The Savior was named Yeshua' (Y'shua'), or Y'hoshua', which is a contraction of YHVH and yoshia ("he will save"), resulting in the meaning "YHVH saves." Only now, using Jesus' authentic Hebraic name, does Matt. 1:21 make sense. The purpose of the Messiah was to save us from our sins, and that's exactly what He did. Yeshua is also the masculine form of yeshu'ah, which means "salvation."

      Now I'll explain the interchangeable use of Christ and Messiah, in case you were disturbed by that, too. Christ comes from the Greek christos, which has exactly the same literal meaning as mashiach. Mashiach was transliterated into Greek as messias and came into English as messiah. All these terms mean the same thing. Some will argue that "Christ" has an anti-Semitic connotation, but that's in the eye of the beholder and is a matter I'll leave for a later discussion.

  129. Re:Stupid idiots!!!!!! (More astroturfing) by Stomatopod+Punches! · · Score: 1

    Right awn brothah!!! One thing I'm extrordinarily tired of is the right-wingers' propensity towards mindless automaton-like adherence to the Republican ideal... where the hell are the "moderate" Republicans? Do ANY exist at all? All you loser right-wingers are just falling in line behind the President and his march toward war. Let's not even begin to think about what this all might start - WWIII is what I see coming! And you know what? The worst thing about it is that WE will ahve been the ones to have started it! When was the last time you can think of a war on foreign soil that we started? Hmmm? Can you think of one? I can't. My history, however, is admittedly not my strong suit. However, it is quite imperative that we be seen around the world as the good guys, not fucking cowboys! The very worst thing about all this is that fucker George W. flat out doesn't listen to the American public! There's a HUGE amount of protest against this damn war. And those of us who don't agree are fucking powerless. Funny how a goddamn Republic president is in place to do his typical Republican war-mongering behavior just in time for 911. So strange that it all occurs just when the American public is beginning to realize his policies aren't working... that he's a complete moron. Interesting the engineering that went on in getting him into the Whitehouse... Bah! End of my incoherent rant!

  130. What about illegal stuff by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So my friend is having such a hard time kicking his bad surfing habbit that he asks me to monitor his activity. Does this make me a criminal if he goes to an under-age pr0n site? Or some other illegal stuff? Remember, this is someone who couldn't kick it on his own. Does this get me in trouble because I didn't report him?

    Not that I know anyone into THAT stuff (except maybe a priest), but I might know some hardware tinkerers that may have ordered a mod chip at some point.

  131. Re:Big Difference by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
    I'm talking about people who have picked some sort of standard,
    ...
    It is an objective standard for them to live by

    That word you keep using... I don't think it means what you think it means.

    --
    You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
    -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  132. Somehow I think one might lose friends by phorm · · Score: 1

    If you're often foolish enough to click the goatse link on /. - it just looks bad.

    Of course, if the first one doesn't clue you in enough that you're careful about what links you click, then perhaps you deserve to be shunned.

    1. Re:Somehow I think one might lose friends by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      Sure you would loose "friends" in the way that friend is defined as an acquaintance with whom you occasionally do stuff.

      If friend is defined as someon you share all your life, someone that knows you, your concerns, your furture plans, etc . . . then you won't loose them. They would want to help you.

      Those "friends" that are too good to associate with someone that would have a problem (alcohol, drugs, internet) are not friends at all.

      robi

  133. Re:Big Difference by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    see, Mathew practically tells us it's ok to look at a man lustfully... no wait.

    it's a joke, laugh. or don't.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  134. David Brin's Transparent Society by Elentar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    David Brin is a big proponent of a "transparent society" in which everyone is watched by someone else. Although it has its pros and cons, this sort of software is a great tool for such a society. Amusingly, it's being used by conservatives while at the same time creating a society proposed by a liberal idealist.

    As many posters have suggested, adult entertainment is not a problem in itself. But it is when a teenager steals a credit card and runs up many tens of thousands of dollays in debt! This kind of software is good because you get to pick someone that you trust (maybe an aunt, an uncle or a friend) and allow them to offer a second perspective on things that you do. Too many people are isolated from others and never learn to question their own actions.

    If everyone's actions were known to someone else, our country would operate a lot more smoothly. Imagine making a small change to this software: Your actions are summarized for someone else to view, but anonymously. They can opt to suggest to you that you might benefit from help if they think that what you are doing is unusual. You can ignore it, but a reality check might help a lot of people, even if it's just a link to finding free porn instead of paying a ton of cash for it.

    -Elentar

    --
    The wheel it turns, around and around, with an ancient rumbling sound.
  135. Sabatoge by use_compress · · Score: 1

    It sounds like a great way to sabotage someone's marriage/career/political appointment... open up trailerparkswappers.com on their computer a few times. This looks service looks like a bad idea on many different levels..

  136. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Like it or not, the Bible provides an excellent moral >standard.

    So excellent in fact that it cannot be attained.

    This is why the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross was needed. The only way to live up to the standard set in the Bible is to accept that you cannot and allow Jesus' blood to cover your sins.

  137. Ye know not when the master of the house cometh by scotay · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the Shawshank Redemption when the evil warden has Dufrane's cell tossed. The warden notes his bible and asks, "What's your favorite passage?" Dufrane responds "Watch ye therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh." (Mark 13:35) When the warden hands back the bible he says "Salvation lies within." We later learn the bible contains the rock hammer Andy uses to tunnel out of prison.

    Sounds like the kind of Christian that needs a tool like this is the same as that hypocrite, religious blowhard of a warden.

    The ones that scream the loudest on the downfall of virtue speak from personal experience.

  138. Blockwart by Zadok_Allan · · Score: 1

    Yeah, we had more or less this stuff in germany, some 70 years ago. You know what a Blockwart is ?

  139. Good idea- but where are implementation details? by jensend · · Score: 1

    This is a good idea. This is for people who really don't want to get involved with pornography or want to get rid of an existing habit (guess which one is harder?). Curiosity, simple base impulses, etc can lead to situations people really didn't want to be in, and pornography can scar for life.

    However, it's surprising how "rationally" we make decisions even in our most "irrational" moments and desires. It's one of the most surprising things in an intro to econ class- a good illustration is how economists correctly predicted that the implementation of safety features in cars Nader pushed for with "Unsafe at Any Speed" would cause an increase in the number of accidents, since the percieved costs of behavior which leads to accidents would drop. The knowledge that your actions can be known by others can make all the difference in these kinds of situations.

    Unfortunately, their homepage doesn't seem to give any implementation details. This would have to be difficult to disable (if you could turn it off whenever you visited a bad site and then turn it back on, it might make you think twice but probably wouldn't) as well as be very good at analyzing the data (nobody wants to have to run through huge connection logs and try to guess if sites are pornographic or no, and nobody wants to have to convince people, as noted in another post, that Freshmeat isn't some sort of site for sadomasochists).

  140. Dissappointing by eVarmint · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So here is a story about a guy who is interested using technology to help him live his personal morals while remaining connected to the internet.

    This could be a great opportunity for understanding and discussion. Istead, the slashdot community has latched on to the combined theme of religion and pornography and has used the opportunity to heap derision and ridicule on a group of people simply because they think differently.

    It seems rather hypocritical to demand tolerance for your own personal views and then in turn refuse to tolerate views other than your own.

    Now for an actual comment on the story: I would say this idea boils down to obtaining self-control by making all of your private actions public. I think such an approach can be viewed as only a means to an end, because as a final solution it is fundamentally flawed. This is because true self-control is the thing that is manifested when nobody else is looking. True self-control must ultimately come from within.

    1. Re:Dissappointing by Fizzol · · Score: 1

      Seems more like it's a guy who is too weak willed to maintain control over his own life and wants to foist the responsibility off on someone else. Anyone who really needs a watchdog to natter at them about what websites they visit is in need of a lot more than religion.

    2. Re:Dissappointing by jimmy_dean · · Score: 1

      I agree with you in terms of the slashdot community. Very hypocritical indeed. However I would disagree about this method being fundamentally flawed in that the idea is that sin, and I mean any sin, is terrible in the sight of God. God judges all sin as equal in the end according to Christianity. But different sin affects people on different levels and pornography has been shown to have a very negative effect on a person's mind and general demeanor. So the idea is to get rid of this sin in any fashion possible. The idea of this particular way is to get rid of it with the help of a trusted friend or family member which in time will form a new habit. And then hopefully there comes a point in time when self control is possible by this person who once struggled with a pornography addiction. If tempted in the future to view some explicit material, that person would be able and willing to listen to God in this decision and choose to not look at this material. To say that someone could get over this addiction by themself is not realistic. The fact that most people keep this problem hidden from other people is the source of many many problems. Internet pornography is the worst thing to happen to this world in a long long time. And sadly enough, it makes up the majority of all websites on the entire Internet. That's my $0.02 though, not meaning to bash you comment though. I just seem to be coming at it from a little bit of a different angle.

      --
      -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
    3. Re:Dissappointing by Patersmith · · Score: 1


      This could be a great opportunity for understanding and discussion. Istead, the slashdot community has latched on to the combined theme of religion and pornography and has used the opportunity to heap derision and ridicule on a group of people simply because they think differently.

      I believe it is. The comments I've read so far have been reflective of widely varied opinions. I don't read comments hoping to find all opinions on one side or another. I come here to read all sides of the issue and hopefully have my own opinions and views challenged. It's called healthy discussion. And if slashdot comments only reflected one side of the debate, I'd probably stop visiting altogether. Nobody's demanding tolerance or compliance with one set of views or another.

      Note that your submission got a +4, and there are plenty of like-minded contributors who got +5's. So, down off the pulpit, please ;)

  141. Re:Big Difference by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree! Just ask the Catholic Church, the multitudes of Protestant denominations, Branch Dividians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Rastafarians, KKK, gay Christians, Charismatics, etc.

    What a standard :)

  142. Huh? by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

    If I am reading it correctly, you quote actually has the nerve to claim that pr0n is bad. Where are you getting this alleged "excellent moral standard" out of?:)

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  143. Totally contradictory by exley · · Score: 5, Funny

    "... Brandon Cotter is urging moralistic Web surfers to take matters into their own hands"

    Isn't "taking matters into their own hands" the problem that they're trying to solve?

  144. We're anti-idiocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We belittle the mans attempt not to improve himself, but his attempt to suggest that the rest of the world need this to improve. That's just typical Christian hybris. If he cannot control himself not to look at porn then he might have a real problem, but the problem isn't really with porn, or even the world wide web, the problem is much more _fundamental_ than that, if you get my drift.

    Stuff like what you put in the subject is exactly what we oppose, the belief that there is some sort of absolute morality and that those who look at porn and can handle it (and enjoy it!) are actually _bad_, when in fact they are not.

    1. Re:We're anti-idiocy by Pasc · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. Here's how the equation stacks up to me...

      1.
      - believe something is completely acceptable
      - do it
      = reasons: normal
      = common examples: breathing, eating

      2.
      - believe something is bad/wrong
      - do it anyways
      - don't think is a big deal
      = reasons: lazy
      = common examples: speeding, eating too much

      3.
      - believe something is bad/wrong
      - do it anyways
      - think it's a big deal
      = reasons: weak-willed
      = "common" examples: adultery, theft

      For me, porn sits somewhere between #1 and #2. (Actually, almost everything is between #1 and #2.) Most of us engaged these type of acts every day. How often do we speed or gossip or something like that? We know it is somewhat "wrong" but to us it is a minor transgression, no big deal.

      On the other hand, I think we all try to avoid #3. Most of us see things like adultry or theft to be a big deal. For some people porn fits in #3. For those people who believe porn is immoral and that it is a big deal and still look at it... that sucks. I don't know what to say... shame on them.

      (On a side note, sharing/downloading copyrighted mp3s is between #1 and #2 for me... and most people. The (RI|MP)AA needs to realize that we don't see it as a #3 and stop trying to treat it that way.)

  145. A Note. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There was a study done a while back, and I'm... aha, found it. Avedon Carol, in "nudes, prudes and attitudes", references a study.

    "When Goldstein found that *all* of the rapists in his study sample had been punished for looking at pornography, while a mere 7 per cent of his cohort sample had been, that set off alarm bells for anyone who really cared about the causes of sexual violence."

    Religion is a much bigger threat to women than porn ever could be, on many, many levels.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:A Note. by Raafje · · Score: 1

      Or it could be the punishing.

      Unless those people were under 10 (when most children have no idea what sex is, beside that you get babies when doing it right, or wrong) when punished I think someone wasn't up to date in his/her ways of raising children/adolescents

      There's nothing wrong with sexual lust, whatever churches and other idiots try to make you believe!

      --
      Slashdot: News for stuff, Nerds that matter!
    2. Re:A Note. by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Religion is a much bigger threat to women than porn ever could be, on many, many levels.

      Are you suggesting that those rapists must have been punished for religious reasons, since all atheists condone pornography?

      Or are you suggesting that people who believe in certain moral guidelines are more likely to violate those guidelines than people who don't believe in them? Can someone explain how that makes sense?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    3. Re:A Note. by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      it doesn't but

      if someone is a memeber of a "faith" (i am agnostic and hence i have no faith, good or bad.) and they are found to be "sinning" in many many parts of the world they would be "purged" of their sins by being beaten, raped etc ....

      and do not be mistaken this takes place in the USA, western Europe etc .... surely not as often as in the old days, but it still happens. (as an aside/example: all of these children who have been abused by catholic priests will more likely than not cause harm to someone else. or suffer mental issues in dealing with what was done to them.)

      the parent of this thread is exactly whats wrong with alot of things surrounding sex. one should not feel "dirty" or "shamed" when you do something, and if you do it is most likely your parents/gaurdians fault than your own. they more likely than not raised you to belive that if you actually liked sex you were immoral, or if you jerked off you would go blind etc ....

      anyone who is a member of the "moral moronity" known has organized religion need not comment.

      this type of system promotes intolerance. and should not be used for a damn thing. it is actually one of the worst things that could be done in this type of situation, if you wanna break out the "plastic man", or do the "five knuckle shuffle" while looking at pr0n so be it.... it is what it is and no more, some people would have you belive that what i just said was a "sin" but since we were created in "gods image" and AFAIK the "good book" doesn't say anything about a wife you can bet your ass he can "shuffle" with the best ! the man probably owns jenna jamison's entire collection !

      take that you haughty taughty @#$%!@%$ !!

      (most of the above was a joke, if it offends you please reply so i can offend you more !)

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    4. Re:A Note. by plugger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think he is saying that to teach someone that a natural expression of their desires is wrong might cause behavioral/psychological problems later.

      On a side note, the first time I remember masturbation being mentioned was at a bible study, where we were taught that God disapproved of the practice. The idea had never entered my head before then (I was probably aged about 9 or 10).

    5. Re:A Note. by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that those rapists must have been punished for religious reasons, since all atheists condone pornography?

      Honestly, how many atheists care about pornography? There's a small group of atheist feminists that believe it's wrong because it's exploative, but the vast majority don't care. But I've dealt with many, many Christians who believe that pornography is evil.

      Or are you suggesting that people who believe in certain moral guidelines are more likely to violate those guidelines than people who don't believe in them?

      How is punishing someone for viewing pornography a violation of Christan moral guidelines? "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is a viewpoint most associated with Christianity.

    6. Re:A Note. by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Your argument, then, is that the presence of punishment is the causual factor for the creation of rapists, not the porn itself?

      Not knowing the incidence of habitual porn viewing among those not convicted of rapes and porn viewing is obviously a missing link--but I think one could just as easily conclude that it would be the consumption of porn to the degree, or of the nature, that warrants punishment, that would be the causual factor in the creation of rapists. To leap to the blame of religion as a "threat to women", um, simply doesn't make a lot of sense.

      To satisfy your argument, you would need non-rapists who had viewed porn in the same quantity and quality as those convicted of rapes, but had not been punished for doing so. And your quote simply lacks that data, and so your conclusion is, frankly, off-base. Call me a jesus freak, which I ain't, but it still won't explain the lack of logic.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    7. Re:A Note. by hayden · · Score: 1
      Or are you suggesting that people who believe in certain moral guidelines are more likely to violate those guidelines than people who don't believe in them?
      Or possibly that those very guidelines were written by men who have a vested interest in preventing women from ever being equal.
      --
      Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
    8. Re:A Note. by johnwroach · · Score: 1
      Honestly, how many atheists care about pornography? There's a small group of atheist feminists that believe it's wrong because it's exploative, but the vast majority don't care. But I've dealt with many, many Christians who believe that pornography is evil.

      Bollocks. Non-religious people have morals, too, and pornography is a moral issue. It's basically the same as stealing music: Most people who can, do.

      Pornography is wrong (I mean the business, not looking at it here) and by viewing pornography, you're contributing to it, however slightly.

      But saying that pornography is mostly a religious issue is downright dumb.

      No offense. I'm not saying you're dumb. Probably, you've just never thought it.

    9. Re:A Note. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pornography is wrong???? Where did you get that insane idea? Some kind of church?

    10. Re:A Note. by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      No offense. I'm not saying you're dumb. Probably, you've just never thought it.

      I do take offense; I have thought about it, and your answer doesn't persuade in the least.

      Non-religious people have morals, too, and pornography is a moral issue.

      So is the eating of unclean animals, but most non-religious people continue to eat unclean animals. Everything is a moral issue to someone, but while that person or group may take issue with it, doesn't mean the larger world, or any subset thereof, takes issue with it.

      Pornography is wrong (I mean the business, not looking at it here) and by viewing pornography, you're contributing to it, however slightly.

      You can make that argument, but that doesn't mean that most atheists agree with it. Most of us would lump it (what part of it is true and not antedotal stores taken out of context) in with the sweatshops involved in the making of clothes and the racist, tyrannical regiemes involved in the making of gasoline, mumble something about man's inhumanity to man, and go on with our lives. And most of us would also argue that it's not endemic to the system, but just something that happens. If someone forces his wife to be a porn star, do you think she would be any better off if he didn't have that outlet?

      But saying that pornography is mostly a religious issue is downright dumb.

      The only friends of mine who have Playboy centerfolds hanging on the wall are Unitarian, and I understand tend towards pantheism when the question comes up. My highly Christian friends turn off wrestling when they start the lingere matches. [Cut other examples that I might share in personal discussion, but not here.] No matter what any one person believes, in my experiance, strong anti-pornography opinions are much more common in church going Christians.

    11. Re:A Note. by johnwroach · · Score: 1
      strong anti-pornography opinions are much more common in church going Christians.

      Absolutely. However, they are common amongst others, as well. For instance, university. Most women on a college campus (at least, in my experience) are very anti-porn, regardless of religious beliefs. I'd say it's a feminist issue rather than a religous issue, or least, better articulated as a feminist issue.

      Generally, american men have bad views of women, and I say that it is because of pornography. The problem is that most men who view porn start at a very young age, so it's hard to see how their attitudes towards women change because of it, but I tend to think that America, at least, would be better off without pornography.

      BTW, I re-read my original post, and it wasn't well said at all, so I'm not suprised that you're not persuaded.

      And just because they write it off to "man's inhumanity" doesn't mean that they don't think that it is, on some level, wrong, it just means that they don't care about it. There's a lot of things we can't do much about, and we're probably better off making sure our sons and daughters don't wind up in some 12 second clip on Kazaa.

      If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you're dumb.

    12. Re:A Note. by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's a feminist issue rather than a religous issue,[...]american men have bad views of women, and I say that it is because of pornography.

      I group these two together, because I think it shows a fundamental flaw in your thinking. It's not a feminist issue rather then a religious issue; it is both. I find it ludicrous, but a similar simplification, to say that something so superficial in our society has such a deep effect on male-female relations. It is but one part in a much, much larger chain of connections.

      most men who view porn start at a very young age, so it's hard to see how their attitudes towards women change because of it

      Even given that argument, you can still compare parts of society, and I don't think that the parts of society that deplore pornography would come up on top. Many, many obfusicating factors, but I think it clearly rules against pornography being the factor.

      And just because they write it off to "man's inhumanity" doesn't mean that they don't think that it is, on some level, wrong,

      Note that when I said "man's inhumanity" in was in reference to the some parts of the current production system; I doubt most of them find it fundamentally wrong.

      we're probably better off making sure our sons and daughters don't wind up in some 12 second clip on Kazaa.

      I would love for my future children to be the Nobel prize winners of the world; but should they end up making porn flicks, there's worse things they could be doing.

    13. Re:A Note. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most women on a college campus (at least, in my experience) are very anti-porn, regardless of religious beliefs.

      That's strange, because when I was in a hotel room with my European girlfriend in Holland, she wanted to watch porn, but I didn't, because of my Christian background. Even though I'm not a Christian anymore, those "moral" views I learned still affected me. So, are you saying most women on American campuses are very anti-porn and could that be because they were "taught" to be anti-porn?

      Also, after walking down the red light district of Amsterdam and learning about the strong porn policies here to protect prostitutes it made me wonder why other countries don't help them out as well. Instead of complaining about the porn industry and calling it evil, why don't we start protecting the people who work in it?

    14. Re:A Note. by bigchris · · Score: 1

      "I would love for my future children to be the Nobel prize winners of the world; but should they end up making porn flicks, there's worse things they could be doing."

      Like what??

    15. Re:A Note. by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      ...anyone who is a member of the "moral moronity" known has organized religion need not comment.

      this type of system promotes intolerance.


      Ouch. Gotta be some whiplash involved there. Did that hurt?

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    16. Re:A Note. by JonK · · Score: 1

      Bombing Iraqi women and children, for starters </flamebait>

      --
      Cheers

      Jon
    17. Re:A Note. by JimFromJersey · · Score: 1

      > I'd say it's a feminist issue rather than a religous issue, or least, better articulated as a feminist issue.

      Why? a lot of porn involves MEN and women? Oh but I forgot, feminists can't see beyond their tits.

      > Generally, american men have bad views of women

      Where is your proof the American men have this view? What constitues a bad view? Are you one of those freaks that think looking at a women and thinking "I'd love to f**k her" constitues rape? Do you read much Newton?

      > and I say that it is because of pornography.

      I am assuming you've run a double-blind, peer-reviewed study? Of course you haven't, you don't need to, right? No your a good, caring, liberal, who understands that men are evil and women are good. Therefore you are right in everything you say, your intuition is 100% correct, and anyone who disagrees with you is a women hating neanderthal.

      > we're probably better off making sure our sons and daughters don't wind up in some 12 second clip on Kazaa

      Are you insinuating that looking at Playboy leads to kity pr0n? I think you are.

      > If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you're dumb.

      What makes you think anyone cares about how you feel or what you think. Oh that's right, you're in touch with your feminine side, therefore people should care what you think.

      What about women who view gay/lesbian porn? Particulary feminist women? Why do I ask, cause I know one.

      --
      between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
    18. Re:A Note. by johnwroach · · Score: 1
      Are you insinuating that looking at Playboy leads to kity pr0n? I think you are

      Actually, I was referring to adult sons and daughters. "Kity" pr0n was all your idea.

    19. Re:A Note. by cburley · · Score: 1
      Bombing Iraqi women and children, for starters

      So, you're saying that being the 42nd President of the United States would be worse than being a porn star?

      Hmmm...worth thinking about.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    20. Re:A Note. by JimFromJersey · · Score: 1

      yeah, whatever. Here is a clue Mr. Mom, if your kids are adults, they can do whatever they please.

      --
      between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
    21. Re:A Note. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > if someone is a memeber of a "faith"...they would be "purged" of their
      > sins by being beaten, raped etc

      And if someone has asshole parents who don't have this nasty "faith" business, they'll find some other reason to justify just as many beatings and rapes.

      Despite your prejudices, "faith" doesn't turn good people bad. Hell, religious people in the US, at least, donate much more time and energy to charity - both religious and secular - than non-religious people do (per capita; yes, there was a study done, and I can pull up the statistics if you like. IIRC, the margin was about 3-to-1).

      That's not to say faith is necessarily good, either, merely that you have no basis for casting aspersions on it (other than the whole "I have no faith, so people who are different must be inferior" bullshit that underlies all discrimination).

      > all of these children who have been abused by catholic priests will
      > more likely than not cause harm to someone else

      Wrong again, and again there's strong science belying your biases. Recent studies have shown that men abused as children have much lower chances of abusing others later in life than was originally thought. google.news was carrying this about a month ago, although I can't find a cite now.

      > one should not feel "dirty" or "shamed" when you do something

      One _should_ feel "dirty" or "shamed" when one does something that's _wrong_. That's called "having a conscience".

      The question is "what's wrong?" I would agree that far too much of sex is thrown under the "wrong" category in the US, but I would disagree with the idea that spewing your own vitriol right back is going to do a damn thing to help.

      The only way in the world to convince someone is with calm patience.

      Some people believe sex is bad. Some people believe sex is not bad. Neither group will listen to the other's screams and rants, but calm speech gets through.

      If you want to geekify it, it's like Dune - the slow blade passes.

    22. Re:A Note. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have *any* evidence to back *any* of your claims up? I frankly doubt it, given how little your "most men" pronouncements sound like reality:

      > Generally, american men have bad views of women

      Based on? Most of the men I know have quite good views of women; i.e., we're all just people.

      > The problem is that most men who view porn start at a very young age

      Based on? Most of the men whose porn habits I know anything about started viewing porn relatively late (little porn before university 'net connections).

      Don't think for a moment that the world conforms to your opinions. Unless your conform your opinions to reality, you'll just spout nonsense.

    23. Re:A Note. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Or possibly that those very guidelines were written by men who have a
      > vested interest in preventing women from ever being equal.

      Or the guidelines were written by ALIENS!!

      Yes, I do think that's every bit as reasonable as your veiled assertion that men want to prevent women from being equal. Some tiny fraction of men may want that; some tiny fraction of women murder their children - don't judge the whole by the part.

    24. Re:A Note. by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      My highly Christian friends turn off wrestling when they start the lingere matches.

      And that's where things seem truly screwed up.. the rediculous priorities. Violence is just fine, but if there's an attractive human body, must.. avert.. eyes!

  146. Re:Good idea- but where are implementation details by jensend · · Score: 1

    Just replying to myself- my post kind of looks like I'm disparaging Nader's safety crusade. I'm not- though the number of accidents increased by a fair bit, the number of deaths in accidents dropped by enough to compensate. It's just an example.

  147. Re:Big Difference by Taldo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Yup. Just ask the Canaanites. Or the Sodomites. Or the city fathers of Gamorrah. Or Jericho.

    A moral system that glorifies a sociopathic, genocidal tyrant that's all too willing to use orbital bombardment on two bronze age cities, saving only the family that was willing to grovel to him sufficiently.... and that is also willing to drown an entire PLANET simply because the inhabitants of said planet weren't grovelling to him sufficiently... is beneath my contempt.

    Grow UP humans!

  148. pr0n is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pr0n is the only decent thing about the piece of shit we call the internet

  149. Re:Big Difference by smallpaul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in nearly all areas, the Bible is quite clear. Like it or not, the Bible provides an excellent moral standard.

    Dear Dr. Laura:

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When people try to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them:

    a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9).The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24).The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    d) Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

    e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev.11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

    g) Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    i) I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

  150. the battle to end lust starts at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe if your priests jacked off to porn more often they wouldn't feel the need to rape little boys.

    1. Re:the battle to end lust starts at home by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

      Maybe if your priests jacked off to porn more often they wouldn't feel the need to rape little boys.

      Or perhaps if they got married, the way God intended...

  151. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross was needed. The only way to live up to the standard set in the Bible is to accept that you cannot and allow Jesus' blood to cover your sins.

    I'm sorry but that's the biggest crock of shit I ever heard. You are merely regurgitating the same bullshit you have been hearing your entire life. Did you ever stop to think about how little sense that actually makes?

  152. Better than blocking - show everyone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what I've been looking for but more on an internal basis. There are lots of companies, it seems, that offer to block access to particular websites based on some overall criteria. I've always thought that the better measure is to allow everyone to see what sites are being visited and by whom.

    On best case there may be websites accessed by people within a business that would be of interest to others for personal or business reasons and this is a way to discover those sites and make better use of them.

    On the other hand it should work to discourage people from frequenting sites that really should not be visited from the workplace. Peer pressure should work well when people gather around the water cooler and start talking about all those porn sites that someone has been visiting. (Unless your company's business just happens to be PORN).

  153. Parents imposing it on Children by crow · · Score: 1

    This looks like something many parents would impose on their children, especially if they got fed up with problems with traditional censorware.

  154. WELL, SHEEPS ARE PRETTY FUNNY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  155. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That has got to be the best slashdot post I have seen in a long time. I can't wait to hear the response!

  156. Re:OT: Does this post have a gray dot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and why has the above post got a Score:1, and not a score:-1, offtopic??

  157. no more pr0n in school. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like this is the end of looking at pr0n from high school computer labs.

    I'll bet the #1 place that this is going to have success is in public schools.

    1. Re:no more pr0n in school. by Loosewire · · Score: 0

      no one at the school would have time to look through the records and if it were sent to the parents its unlikely they would have the time either

      --
      Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  158. what about kids by greenrom · · Score: 1

    It seems to me like they're missing a bigger potential market here. There's probably a lot of parents who would pay a few bucks a month to get an organized report of the kinds of sites their kids are visiting. This is a lot better than using an inaccurate web filter to "protect" your kids from the web. If kids know their parents are going to find out what sites they're visiting, they probably aren't going to look at sites they shouldn't.

  159. Re:Big Difference by chrisseaton · · Score: 1

    The correct quote is:

    "That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means."

  160. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Law of Moses, i.e. every single scripture that you cited, was fulfilled with the coming of Christ. Jesus replaced the "eye for an eye" Old Testiment doctrine with the "Love thy neighbor as thyself" doctrine.

    In short, your post makes no sense.

  161. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I substitute pig's blood?

  162. Why...? by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

    I don't understand the reasoning here. I understand that it's something voluntarily installed, and that no one forces it... I don't mind that. What I don't get is *why* anyone would want it. As the text led me to believe, let's pretend I'm an extremely pious who thinks that porn is the work of the devil. I never visit porn sites. So why would I want to install software to tell people this?

    If people want to do this, so be it. But I really don't get the logic. I don't visit 'objectionable' sites, and have nothing to hide. But that doesn't mean that I'd voluntarily show a list of every site I've visited to people? Again, they have every right to do this if they want, but can someone please explain WHY someone would want to use this? (As a sidenote... If the 'peer pressure' aspect is really the reason... I think I'd find some new peers. I don't think people have the right to hound you constantly to prove that you're not visiting porn sites? Are your friends that distrusting? Mine wouldn't even care...?)

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  163. LAME! by makoffee · · Score: 1

    Simple solution to the internet porn deal. If you don't want it don't look for it. If you see it don't click on it. C'MON PEOPLE GET IT TOGETHER!

    "...but my kids!"

    Your kids are eventualy going to see a picture of people fisting, if they havn't already. I say give it up.

    --
    -makoffee
  164. Oh, jesus by osgeek · · Score: 1

    You really have to wonder at the types of people who feel the need to install this software onto their computers so they can prove to their little church friends that they're not perverts.

    Too funny.

    1. Re:Oh, jesus by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      That isn't even close to the reason to run this software. It is not designed to proove something to anyone. It is to allow someone else the means to help out their friend. If you don't have porn issues, or if you do but don't want to deal with it, or if you do but don't see a problem with it then this sw isn't for you.

      robi

  165. Yeah religious peer pressure works all the time .. by RembrandtX · · Score: 1

    I mean .. teen pregnancies hardly EVER occour anymore, Folks don't steal, rob, or beat people anymore.

    Preists in certain religions certainly have stopped abusing small boys.

    hell, maybe its just me, but the idea that you need to have other folks WATCH you to keep you from looking at pr0n should be a REAL BIG INDICATOR that you have a problem.

    I once new a lady .. who was very religious, and told me once : 'Every day I am afraid that I will Sin, before I do anything, I ask myself if it will cause me to sin in the eyes of the Lord.'

    Anyone here who rides motorcycles can tell you what happens if you stare at that rock in the middle of the road .. no matter HOW far away it is.

    It doesn't bother me when folks are religious. It doesn't bother me when folks have faith. It DOES bother me when organized religion PREYS (a little play on words there :P) on people who are SOO damn weak willed, that they cant seem to NOT go to www.hotyoungsluts.com no matter what they try.

    My wife's cousins tithe 10% of their income to their church (and they make less than 40k combined) because their church makes everyone do it. the peer pressure there is if you are not 'holy' enough to give your tithe .. your not worthey of God .. WTF is that ??

    It goes back to preying on the poor/underprivelaged/uneducated. Imagine if boss said "In order for you to keep your job, you need to give me 10% of your salery monthly." How quickly would *HE* be out on his ass ?

    --

    --Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
  166. WWJC? by nule.org · · Score: 1
    What would Jesus click?

    Seriously - get some self control. Sounds like a guilt trip catholic thing (I'm a recovering christian myself - 13 years in catholic school *shudder*). You have to be comfortable with who you are. If you hate pornography, hate it for its exploitive nature and for all the people it has hurt (families via communicable diseases, "objectifying" women, etc.).

    (Offtopic warning...) This illustrates exactly my beef with christianity (and probably lots of other religions) - that it's all about the intrinsically selfish and hypocritical desire to live forever in paradise. "I won't do X because I will go to hell," or "I won't surf pr0n because mom will catch me." That's akin to saying "I won't rob a person because I will go to jail." Does that make you a good person? You are still a thief, but the fear of retribution makes you appear good. That's good for society (as Marx said, religion is the opiate of the masses), but let's not fool ourselves. (Note that I am not saying all or even most religious people are bad. I have wonderful friends that are religious and we agree to disagree.)

    How about forgetting all that crap and be a good person and help others. If there is a god and he/she/it is the type of god I would be willing to believe in then belief won't matter as much as living a good life. If being a christian versus a buddhist versus whatever matters to an all powerful entity then they can go screw themselves, and I'll go pack my shorts and suntan lotion now.

    Yeah, this is off-topic, but I couldn't figure out what the point of this story was... I'll admit to not even R'ingTFA. It's been a while since I've had a good religion rant, so thanks for bearing with me. I'm seriously interested in hearing what other people think about my rant. Do I just not get religion? Inform me.

    1. Re:WWJC? by lasublime · · Score: 1

      You are a recovering "cathoholic". Just kidding..no ill intent meant..i have some very good friends that are catholic..just some humor.. Seriously, I spent 13 years as well in catholic schools and i know what you mean. It took me personally another 16 years to find Christ "for the first time." Do not look at this software as a "christian do gooder thing." Granted, the website says it run by Christian men and it is a not for profit ministry, but there are many men who want to stop looking at porn for whatever reason (religious or not) and this could help them tremendously. out

  167. There's a pretty good book on the subject as well- by deadfishhotmail.com · · Score: 0

    It's called "Every man's battle" by Stephen Arterburn and Fred Stooeker (self proclaimed porn addict). I has some really good methods for staying away from lust. Like: "bouncing your eyes" off somthing objectionable. And actually turning off the TV rather than saying wow this really is bad- who would watch this. It's geared for christians (what we have problems with lust and porn too?!) but I would recommend it for anyone who recognizes their problem.

    --


    Who is this "Poster" guy and why does he own all of my comments?!?
  168. Nation of snitches? by redelm · · Score: 1
    The problem with this mointoring scheme [as with most] is the watcher. Who are you going to give that power to? Will they even exercise it properly, let alone abusing it?

    I'd also wonder about the morals and ethics of the watcher. Why are they doing it? What is there justification for peeking over someone's shoulder? I know I'd only do it for a friend at specific request to help overcome an internet addiction. And maybe not even then. Otherwise, no way! I'm not going to become a snitch -- that was responsible for terrible repression in Germany and Russia both pre-WW2 and since.

  169. YES!! I am *all over* this thing! by AssFace · · Score: 0, Troll

    I didn't go to the link yet, but please oh please oh please say that you don't have to know the person that keeps track of what you look at.

    If that is the case - that some total stranger has to browse through what you have been looking at - then I am TOTALLY signing up and then I'm just going to constantly look at the most disgusting and wrong things.

    I will keep in contact with them and act as if I really want to "get better" and that I sure wish I could stop.
    And then immediately go and start looking at donkey porn again.
    Occsaionally I will try to lie to them or deny looking at the stuff, and then break down and admit that I did.

    Oh wow - if this is with total strangers, then this will frickin ROCK!!!!

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  170. Patial morality? Is that what you mean? by wodelltech · · Score: 1

    I'd be curious to see what 'partial moraility' looks like. It sounds like each person just makes up their own rules, based upon random criterion (since, of course, nothing is absolute). Is that how it's done?

    --
    Your monitor is staring at you.
  171. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I've seen these before so he probably ripped them off a site. Anyway. these are the most outrageous ones. There are plenty more where these came from, some of which are much worse on a moral level.

  172. Re:Big Difference by ichimunki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To be fair, the original poster quoted a verse from Matthew, which is in the "new testament". Your copy of "Dear Dr. Laura" refers only to "old testament" verses. Even I know that the rules in the OT don't apply in the NT age, in fact, that's part of why "Dear Dr. Laura" was written.

    Now, to present my side of this argument: Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, was using a number of rhetorical devices which when taken in the context of the whole speech clearly indicate, not a rigid hierarchy of right and wrong, but that what is important for humans is that they simply trust in God. Sadly, some of those statements, when deprived of both context and the nuance of delivery, appear to be some new set of even stricter rules-- the very thing Jesus was arguing against!!

    --
    I do not have a signature
  173. This is a great idea... by KidSock · · Score: 1

    especially if the report indicates how long the user spent on the site. And there needs to be a ratings system indicating the quality of the graphics and how lustful the site made the user feel.

    1. Re:This is a great idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like an application for the versatile dongle

  174. Really? by Johnny+Mozzarella · · Score: 1
    Why does slashdot have an option for posting as an "Anonymous Coward"?

    Is it so psychologically bizzarre to think that someone might actually behave differntly in public? No. Everybody has inhabitions that keeps them from doing everything they want when they are being observed.
    Do you pick your nose in public?
    Do you pick your nose in private?

    This is no different than someone who recognizes that they have a drinking problem asking his friends for help.

    Perhaps you don't see pr0n as a vice.
    Perhaps you have achieved a level of moral dissonance and self control far beyond us mere mortals.

    What is equally distrubing is that these are probably the same people that think the rest of us have the same problem and must be saved from ourselves. They lobby to get laws passed because "someone must watch over us" to protect us from ourselves.

    His concept is all about the individual choosing to change their own behavior. You choose to use the product. You choose who sees your log files.

  175. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The Law of Moses, i.e. every single scripture that you cited, was fulfilled with the coming of Christ. Jesus replaced the "eye for an eye" Old Testiment doctrine with the "Love thy neighbor as thyself" doctrine.

    Every single one? So are you saying that burned bull no longer smells pleasing to the Lord? Have you got a cite for that?

  176. Awesome - Finally a Non-censorship Solution by noah_sandalman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Dudes - I think this rocks. I mean think of all the problems in the Catholic Church - Enron - etc. Accountability is just a basic ingredient for integrity. Chuck Swindoll is one of the most sincere and "real" ministers out there. He's not preachy - was a marine years ago - seems to really care about helping people. Just great to see a solution that uses friendships and a non-censorship approach. Life is short - integrity is something we all strive for.

    1. Re:Awesome - Finally a Non-censorship Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree. Looking at porn is short-lived... and always takes more and more intense stuff to get that "high"... Maybe this will help.

    2. Re:Awesome - Finally a Non-censorship Solution by lasublime · · Score: 1

      I agree! For those of you who think this is a bad idea, this software is not for you. But, there are many men who want to stop looking at porn for whatever reason (religious or not) and this could help them tremendously. What's wrong with that? It is up to the user to decide to use the software and to pick an accountability partner. Where is big brother? Out to Surf.....

    3. Re:Awesome - Finally a Non-censorship Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that Christian men have to resort to something like this not to look at porn just proves how weak and spineless their "faith" has made them. They're so used to the vicious cycle of "sin" and "forgiveness" that they assume (since all men a sinners) they're too weak to ever stop. As long as they're willing to parade their sins in front of others asking Jebus for forgiveness, they can use their God-given mortal weakness to keep on sinning guilt-free.

      I bet these jokers go to porn sites even with the filter in place cause they know God will forgive them - just like he does when they beat their wife and feel-up their daughters.

  177. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh ok, so I guess God just changed his mind on what is moral and what isn't.

    If you expect me to follow some moral law, at least be consistent. Jeez.

  178. The way I look at it by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    Getting voluntarily into a Big Bro survelliance system may be a form of sadomasochism. So by default, anyone using it would be a pervert and a siner!

    Living like there's no tomorrow since 1978
    Chord!

  179. great. by sstory · · Score: 1

    Some religious doofuses want to show everyone they don't go to porn sites? GREAT! More porn bandwidth for me. Suckas.

  180. How is porn destructive? by swb · · Score: 1

    How is porn destructive? Presumably you aren't talking about 'destructive to those forced into performing', since most people would grant you that's destructive and more than rape.

    But viewing? How does it harm?

    1. Re:How is porn destructive? by mark-t · · Score: 1, Interesting
      In the past few years, I've seen several marriages fail. To some that is no big thing, but to people with certain religious convictions, it is. In the past 5 years alone, two of the marriages I've seen fall apart involved a circumstance of the husband looking at porn via the internet. In both cases, the couples had separated within a year of the wife discovering the "indiscretion". Further, neither of these women left their husband for that reason. In one of the cases, the husband actually left his wife, and the other case the woman left her husband because he was starting to become physically abusive.

      So, do you have to ask "Where's the harm"?

      I know that looking at porn doesn't cause marriages to fail, granted, but it is a symptom of something that *DOES*. And at the very least, if you eliminate that particular symptom, you do stand to slow down the deterioration process a bit, and maybe the couple can get help before they end up duking it out in court over which parent's house the kids end up living at most of the time.

    2. Re:How is porn destructive? by TClevenger · · Score: 2, Interesting
      In the past few years, I've seen several marriages fail. To some that is no big thing, but to people with certain religious convictions, it is. In the past 5 years alone, two of the marriages I've seen fall apart involved a circumstance of the husband looking at porn via the internet. In both cases, the couples had separated within a year of the wife discovering the "indiscretion". Further, neither of these women left their husband for that reason. In one of the cases, the husband actually left his wife, and the other case the woman left her husband because he was starting to become physically abusive.

      Okay, so if the "indiscretion" (emphasis yours) wasn't the actual cause of the breakup, then what was? Was the pornography the cause or just a symptom? Did the wife stop offering sex? Was the abuser exposed to abuse as a child? Did the abuse start after the pornography, or before?

      Viewing pornography to the exclusion of other life activities is unhealthy, just as watching television, running model trains or going to the gym to the exclusion of normal life activities is unhealthy.

      So, do you have to ask "Where's the harm?"

      Hey, I know of five marriages that broke up in the past couple of years. Two of those cases involved the circumstance of the men breathing. I think the conclusion that breathing contributed to the issue cannot be denied.

      I know that looking at porn doesn't cause marriages to fail, granted, but it is a symptom of something that *DOES*. And at the very least, if you eliminate that particular symptom, you do stand to slow down the deterioration process a bit, and maybe the couple can get help before they end up duking it out in court over which parent's house the kids end up living at most of the time.

      I'm sure that just taking cough syrup can get rid of that annoying symptom of pneumonia, too. Excessive pornography (if more than the "norm" that 90% of men subscribe to) is, like you said, a symptom, and forcing a man to abandon that only outlet instead of treating the problem might make the decline happen much more quickly.

    3. Re:How is porn destructive? by Swaffs · · Score: 1

      So because you know of two people who ended up getting divorced after the husband was caught looking at porn, although for other reasons, you've come to the conlcusion that there is a correlation? I bet you could find all kinds of things in common with those two husbands.

      Did it ever occur to you that there's probably plenty of husbands who look at porn that never get divorced?

      You might be right that porn is a sign that something is wrong, but your evidence sucks.

      Furthermore, if porn really is a sign that something else is wrong, then cutting out porn doesn't exactly cure that other problem, now does it?

      --

      --
      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

    4. Re:How is porn destructive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great idea. Slow down the deterioration process. Hopefully we can get these struggling couples a few more kids to fight over. :)

      You're right about pornography just being a symptom. The underlying cause is the simple lack of trust that comes from the feelings of betrayal. Those feelings arise solely because their attitudes towards sexuality are, to put it bluntly, fucked up.

    5. Re:How is porn destructive? by swb · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you're describing a weak correlation at best ("contributing factors").

      Furthermore, you're implying that these are people who have (had?) strong religious convictions. I'd argue that people with strong religious convinctions generally have an unhealthily unrealistic attitude towards sexuality -- only for procreation, recreational sex is "wrong" (even with spouses), etc.

      It may actually be that the husband's viewing of pornography was more akin to the popping of a sexual safety valve -- the personal perspectives on sexuality were so warped by their religious training that something had to give, and the husband used pornography as an outlet otherwise unavailable.

      I'd probably begrudgingly grant you that pornography as a substitute for a more typical intimate relationship will have a negative impact on someone's perspective on sexuality, I'd also argue that it's no more destructive and perhaps less so than many religious sects forms of sexual repression.

    6. Re:How is porn destructive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how the occasional look at some porn is going to ruin a marriage.

      I look at porn. Whenever my wife mentions it I remind her that I would ALWAYS rather see her naked or have her touch me than to see someone else naked and to touch myself. ALWAYS. And I mean it.

      (I can see how if this wasn't the case it would be not good. But that sounds like a symptom of some other problems.)

      If she said to me "come fool around with me instead of looking at porn", I would do it EVERY time. But she and I both know that we have different sex drives and that that this would not last for long.

      Of course, many people would say that I should just ignore my horny feelings if my wife isn't in the mood to satisfy them. I can see their point. I do not have a good response to that point.

    7. Re:How is porn destructive? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Nobody's forcing anyone though... this thing is *VOLUNTARY*. Nobody's pushing it down anyone else's throat but their own. Or are you saying that if a person happens to have a different set of values than you do, then they are just plain wrong and should just grow up and think like you do?

    8. Re:How is porn destructive? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      True... but in both of the cases of which I am personally aware, this was not the problem. In fact, the husbands were the ones being less than amourous, even when the wife wanted to be.

      Now if the spouse is unwilling or unable to satisfy the sexual needs of the other partner then I can see a point -- but I've never been privy to a case where that's actually happened.

    9. Re:How is porn destructive? by TClevenger · · Score: 1
      Nobody's forcing anyone though... this thing is *VOLUNTARY*. Nobody's pushing it down anyone else's throat but their own. Or are you saying that if a person happens to have a different set of values than you do, then they are just plain wrong and should just grow up and think like you do?

      Are you sure nobody's forcing anybody? When a couple goes in for religious marriage counseling and the religious leader tells the man "obviously your pornography is the problem," that he's not going to be overwhelmingly coerced into not viewing the pornography, most likely to the further detriment of the marriage?

      Here's the thing: like drinking, golfing, watching TV and eating junk food, pornography is NOT DESTRUCTIVE IF DONE IN MODERATION. And excessive pornography is a symptom of a bigger problem (just like overeating or sitting in front of the TV 20 hours a day) and should be treated as such.

  181. Hardcore Hardcopy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like this sort of system could have the opposite effect. You can't surf random sites full of stolen images anymore 'cause you'll get "caught". So what do you do? Go back to the old days, buy porno mag's and shove them under your pillow at night. And what has this done? Taken away the free outlet for someone's pr0n needs and replaced it with one that they have to pay for, one that lines the pockets of the adult entertainment industry. Not what the originator was going for, I'm sure. ;)

    It does sound like a solid system, though, for someone who genuinely doesn't want to look at such stuff and needs a little extra kick in the butt.

    Anonymous Porn-surfing Coward

    1. Re:Hardcore Hardcopy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? This means
      Sugger searching the web is no longer an option,
      Newsgroups here I cum!

  182. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't God make some more changes when he talked to that Mormon guy and wrote a new book?

  183. Hmmm by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    Sure...as a voluntary form of self-nudging, it's probably great.

    What happens, though, when your church decides that you should have it installed just because?

    Or your very religous spouse?

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    1. Re:Hmmm by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      If you have a religious spouse and you don't see eye to eye enough that this is even an issue to begin with, then you have bigger problems besides just surfing habbits . . . like communication and the choice of marriage to someone so different from you.

      robi

    2. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, I'm a Wiccan, my g/f (living together now for three years) is Orthodox Christain, multi-faith relationships work, as long as you RESPECT each other and respect each others religon.

    3. Re:Hmmm by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Actually, I mean more like this:

      Pastor (in a Rev. Lovejoy sort of voice) All of yew should install this softwayre, to keep yewrselves from going astray.

      Husband: Oh, well, I don't surf porn, so I don't need to install the software.

      Wife: What are you trying to hide?

      Husband: Nothing. I just don't see the need to install this software.

      Wife: If you had nothing to hide, you'd install it, and let me see the logs.

      Husband: What, you've already convicted me!

      In other words, aye, in the form the article describes the software; that is, completely voluntary, it's great. But somebody, somewhere, is going to try to inflict it on people.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:Hmmm by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      If your situation is as you say, then your g/f does not practice what she says she believes and is not what she says she is.

      That is to say you cannot claim to be of a faith (any faith or non-faith) and yet live in open and willfull contradiction to the tennants of that faith.

      For example, a vegetarian cannot claim to be one and yet eat any type of meat any time she/he wants. If they do, then they don't really fall under that belief system.

      That is not to say that to be of a faith you have to follow all the "rules/regulations/ideas" of that faith, unless the belief of that faith is that anything less than 100% compliance is unacceptable. You just cannot continually and willfully disregard selected principles of that faith and only keep the ones you want. If that person does so, then they fall under their own catagory or branch of that faith.

      For example a pacifist cannot believe it is ok to kill someone in special circumstances. They either believe the precept or not.

      Bringing it back to your example; A Christian does not have to keep all the precepts of that faith to be called one. Far from it, because no one can. They must only continually strive to do so, and not live in open contradiction to those ideas.
      robi

    5. Re:Hmmm by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      Someone somewhere will always try to guilt someone else into doing things they want, for their advantage or their own adgenda. If everyone lived by looking out for the best interests of others (golder rule) then we wouldn't have to worry about this possibility.

      robi

  184. Re:Big Difference by sstory · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Dr. Laura is Jewish. In her mind, the NT doesn't apply. Those OT verses do. So Dear Dr. Laura is valid.

  185. Re:MOD parent UP, it's funny as hell :-) by arf_barf · · Score: 1

    Now THIS was very funny. Did you write it yourself?

  186. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, so what you're saying is God changed his mind? What, he didn't get it right the first time? God wasn't universal enough the first time? You make it sound like he doesn't know what he's doing.

    Either way, even though the OT has more outrageous examples, both the OT and NT have their fair share of things that are below my moral standards. If you think murder and slavery are wrong, then you would agree too.

  187. Re:Big Difference by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1
    That word you keep using... I don't think it means what you think it means.

    Ok, I'll bite. See definition 3a here. It reads:

    Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic

    These people have picked a standard. In this case, it is "Viewing pornography is not moral." They are now holding themselves to that standard regardless of the emotions or desires they may have from time to time.

    I think my usage of the word works just fine.

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
  188. How do I do something similar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My main desktop computer in my house is also my firewall between the laptops in the house and the cable modem. (It's running Red Hat 8.0)

    How can I produce similar reports for myself using standard firewalling software or with iptables itself? I'm considering allowing my neighbors to use my wireless hub, but I want to make sure they don't do any surfing which would make me look bad. :) (I would obviously warn them about the logging ahead of time... since the cable connection is in my name, though, I don't want them trading kiddie porn or something and incriminating me. :)

  189. Re:Big Difference by ichimunki · · Score: 1

    Fine, then why even bring her into the discussion?

    --
    I do not have a signature
  190. In a Christian Marriage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God is the One that decides the parameters of the contract...

    1. Re:In a Christian Marriage... by mofolotopo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      News flash...not all marriages are between Christians, and even Christians disagree on what god says. He's a notoriously unreliable source, and clearly says contradicting things to different people.

    2. Re:In a Christian Marriage... by jpatters · · Score: 1

      God is the One that decides the parameters of the contract...

      And you would presume to speak for God?

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    3. Re:In a Christian Marriage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News Flash... that's because he doesn't really exist.

  191. Re:Big Difference by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > I agree! Just ask the Catholic Church, the multitudes of Protestant denominations, Branch Dividians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Rastafarians, KKK, gay Christians, Charismatics, etc.
    >
    > What a standard :)

    What about the Discordians and the Church of the SubGenius?

    It's like IEEE and ANSI. The best thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!

  192. Right by Hecubas · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a great idea on paper, and then you get the users involved. They'll probably check each other's logs one or two times, then they'll forget about it.

    Who the fsck wants to have the job of keeping tabs on your neighbor web sites? It's already bad enough in business environments... nobody wants to add another item for somebody to manage. It's about as pointless as being a jizzmopper.

    Just set a policy and make do when it becomes a problem. Or install Websense or some other filter at the firewall.

    --
    hecubas

    --
    Hecubas
    1. Re:Right by mrkurt · · Score: 1

      What you may not understand is that Christian rightists live in a different world from you and I. For them, it's not 2003, it's 1692 or sometime in the Victorian era. If you saw The Salem Witch Trials, that's the kind of world they want, so watching over another's shoulder is acceptable conduct.

      If you are aware that the Christian rightists are the biggest boosters of GW Bush and Ashcroft, it explains a lot of things.

      BTW...Kirstie Alley as Goodie Putnam is totally ludicrous.

      --
      Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
  193. Re:Big Difference by arf_barf · · Score: 1

    So wait a second, you are trying to say that one day the church said: "Look, nobody follows the old testament, lets re-write it in a more relaxed version" and thus, it doesnt apply? What happend to all your legacy customers that still use the old version?

  194. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh ok, so I guess God just changed his mind on what is moral and what isn't.

    Credit to him for seeing what a mess he'd made of it and having another go.

  195. Re:Big Difference by v_1_r_u_5 · · Score: 1

    We are no longer under old testament law. You only need to look at the words to understand what's going on. There are two words: "Old" and "Testament". Old means that it's something outdated. It's the old way of doing things. It's old fashioned. It means it's not the way we do things any more. The other word is testament. Testament is an old word for contract. In ancient times they didn't have papers drawn up when a deal was made; they called for people to witness the transaction so they could testify in court that it happened. They called it a testament because there were those who could tesitfy that the deal was made. Today we call that a contract. So God had a contract with people under the Old Testament. It was a govermental contract with the Jewish people. The New Testament is a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ available to any who will believe. The Old Testament law was governmental law. Many of the laws they had are still governmental laws today. Things like murder, theft, liability, self defense, health codes etc. are all in the Old Testament. We would have a difficult time doing them today. For example: it says under their governmental law, that a person caught having an affair should be executed by the people who catch them. You'd get in big trouble for that today... something like twenty to life.

    So your next question, then, is "If the Old Testament means nothing to us then why is it in the Bible?"

    I'm going to confuse you now when I say that the Old Testament means as much to me as the New Testament. The New Testament says, "All those things (written in the Old Testament) were written for our edification (to help us)." The Old Testament shows us alot about the character and will of God. The New Testament has few "commands" in it. When it does it is commands to "Seek God" or to "Be worthy of your calling." The Old Testament was God telling people how to act so that they might have a life pleasing to Him. The New Testament (this new contract that God made with people) tells us how to get life so we'll act pleasing to Him. The Old Testament emphsises doing while the new emphasises being. You face up to what's true so that you become what God wants you to become so that you do what God wants you to do. The differences can be described as OT (Old Testament) was God's people (the Jews) under Law, New Testament is God's people (all true christians) under grace. The OT was about what we should do to please God, the New Testament is God pouring His goodness into our lives as we receive Him, so we can be the kind of people who are pleasing to Him in all we do.

    http://www.harborside.com/~ljglazner/qot.htm

  196. exchange by sstory · · Score: 2, Funny

    Someone I know in the future: "Hey Steve why don't you install this software so we can all monitor each other and make sure we don't sin?!"
    Me: "Why don't you (^%^@($#)*#&*&#(&# my *#*#^&#$^$*&*$*$ you #*^@%#$*$(*#(&#."

  197. What are people objecting to, really? by altoz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From what I can gather, the objecting post to this story are one of the following:

    1. Cynical that it will work
    2. Believe that the guilt caused by pr0n is wrong
    3. Think this could be very bad if forced on someone via peer pressure or possibly some big-brother enforced government regulation.

    To the people that object based on reasoning #1, I say, that's fine, but something that's got 10,000 people signing up for 4 bucks a month must do SOMETHING for them. The very fact that so many people in the /. community seem to think it's a good idea also gives credence to it working for at least some people.

    To the people that object to the guilt brought on by pr0n, that's a matter of opinion. Vegetarians obviously are going feel guilty for eating meat. Conservative Christians are going to feel the same way about pr0n. Whatever your view is, you must allow each person the freedom to be conditioned to have that response if it is their choice.

    Personally, I think the third category of objections is most legitimate. Is it possible that people will use this as a way to force something on others? Probably. But just because it can be used in an evil manner does not mean that it is evil in of itself. One computer may be used to make a virus, another to solve a traffic problem. The problem isn't the computer, it's the person who uses it. I think it's the same case here.

  198. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I knew, the OT was still a part of the Bible. Are you saying it should just be ignored, because it's wrong?

  199. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the other rule changes God made when he wrote the Mormom book? Did he re instate any of the old rules?

  200. Re:Big Difference by sstory · · Score: 1

    Because it's YAOMS--yet another objective moral standard. The pertinent question is really, why even have discussions with religious people?

  201. Re:MOD parent UP, it's funny as hell :-) by smallpaul · · Score: 1

    I didn't write it. I think the attribution is lost in the mists of time.

  202. Re:Yeah religious peer pressure works all the time by jimmy_dean · · Score: 1

    Yes, some religious people and some religious organizations like churches, homeless shelters, etc... are like what you describe. But you forget that they are still people. When one believes in God (in Christianity at least), they do not become like God being incapable of doing something evil. Christianity teaches that they will know what choice is wrong and what choice is right. And I've found that to be true for myself all of the time. But Christians can still choose to sin and every last one of them does for the rest of their lives.
    The majority of churches do not pressure people into anything. It's all about free will. They obviously do make suggestions of what is right and wrong. Try visiting some different churches some time with an open mind (not saying you don't have an open mind, just suggesting that you try with an open mind again). And some of the most educated people go to church. I myself plan on getting a pHD someday and I attend church. I think for myself, act on my own and thoroughly enjoy my church on Sundays and volunteering during the week.

    --
    -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
  203. Matthew says you're wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Matthew 5:17-18:

    Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.


    That's pretty damn clear if you ask me. Don't bother sacrificing your oxen and goats, though; unless you're at the temple in Jerusalem (destroyed by Romans almost 2000 years ago, never rebuilt), God just doesn't care.
    1. Re:Matthew says you're wrong by mjh · · Score: 1
      That, I think, is a misunderstanding of that passage. The law is still the standard to which all of humanity will be judged. But it's been fulfilled by Jesus. If you align yourself with Jesus, then you will come under his protection w.r.t. the law since he has fulfilled it, and you will be judged by Christ's fulfillment of the law. If you don't align yourself with Christ, then you will be judged by your own fulfillment of the law (or more accurately, lack of fulfillment of the law).

      The problem is that we can't uphold the law. We can't. CS Lewis recommends to anyone who seriously wants to be good, to try to do it all the time. Try to be good 100% of the time. Not 99.999% of the time. 100% of the time. Commit yourself to it for 6 weeks. You'll find, I think, that you can't do it. I certainly couldn't.

      So what are we to do about the fact that we can't uphold the law, and yet are required to be judged by it? In the history of the world, there has been only one person who upheld the law. That person was Jesus Christ. He upheld the law fully. He, unlike anyone else in the history of the world, can claim his own righteousness. Yet what happened? He was sentanced to an execution, and not just any execution. An excruciatingly painful one. A crucifixion.

      Why? Because the penalty for sin, for being unable to uphold the law, is death. That's what the law itself says. So you and I and everyone deserves death, since you and I and everyone has sinned.

      That's where Christ comes in. The penalty for sin is death. And that penalty must be paid. Christ's death was the paid penalty for our sins. He lived a sinless life and yet paid the worst kind of sinners penalty imagineable. Because it was a perfect sacrifice (i.e. because Christ was sinless) his death is the paid penalty for all sinners throughout all history. His life will be the life which is judged by the law. But in order to be under the judgement of his life, you must align yourself with him. If you don't, you will be judged by your own life's measurement against the law.

      There's much more to this than my over simplified summary. The book of Romans has much to say about it. But it's probably hard to understand out of the context of the entire scripture. I'd recommend, if you're interested, to read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    2. Re:Matthew says you're wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, I think, is a misunderstanding of that passage.

      The Bible can be misunderstood? Who'da thunk it!

    3. Re:Matthew says you're wrong by kid_icarus75 · · Score: 1

      i know this may sound metaphysical, but what is "trying to be good?" is it the utilitarian bounds of promoting overall hapiness of humanity or more kantian based as promoting good will? or could it even be more virtue theroy based on the individual?

      morality is impossible to define. no one can be judged on if they are 100% moral because the lines of morality are skewed inbetween viewpoints. would christ lie if he knew that it would save the life of a friend? isn't lying morally wrong? what if he could have killed one innocent child to save 1000? isn't murder a non-moral act accross all cultures?

      how can we judge christ (and humanity) as moral beings if we cannot define morality?

    4. Re:Matthew says you're wrong by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 1

      i know this may sound metaphysical, but what is "trying to be good?"

      We've already covered that, it's not eating shellfish, it's not cutting the hair at the sides of your head, it's stoning to death blasphemers etc. As mjh was saying, that's the law that governs how good we are in the eyes of his god, but nobody can live up to it (whether because it's obviously silly or because the person has a conscience, you're bound to get caught out on one law or another). To make up for this, his god had a son who got crucified, which makes up for you wearing clothes made from different types of thread PROVIDED that you believe that it does. Understand now?

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    5. Re:Matthew says you're wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

      Why do you believe this? Because someone told you to believe that. Who told them? Someone else who was told to believe that.

      How fundamentally stupid are you to live your life by a book written by human hand hundreds of years after everything supposedly occured?

      What do you bet some scribe was thinking, "Hmm, I'll include something about not eating pork. I wonder if they'll stupidly follow that rule too..."

    6. Re:Matthew says you're wrong by freestyle-fiend · · Score: 1

      We cannot reach a consensus about what morality is. However, there is an objective truth of morality, about which our beliefs may be correct or incorrect.

      The post to which you reply is right that we cannot be 100% well behaved. Whether virute should be calculated by biblical rules, Kantian categorical imperative, or maximum utility, our actions cannot be perfect. However, we can exercise Kant's 'good will' (sincere intention to do good things) all of the time.

      I think that Kant's 'good will' is among the few correct parts of his moral philosophy, and it applies to other accounts of duty as well as his own (utilitarians could value the mere intention to maximize utility, or Jews, Christians and Muslims could value the mere intention to follow their respective holy books).

    7. Re:Matthew says you're wrong by mjh · · Score: 1
      Why do you believe this? Because someone told you to believe that.

      Yes and no. Yes I believe this because someone told me to believe it. But not the someone you think. I believe this because I believe in God and I believe that God told me to trust his word, the Bible.

      Now we can argue all day about whether or not its reasonable for me to believe in God, or if I'm just halucinating the existance of God. I'm certainly not going to try and prove to you that he exists. But my inability to prove this to you doesn't imply that I don't believe it. There are a hundred things that I can't prove to you that I still believe. I can't prove to you that I got up at 7:15am. But my experiences (looking at the clock) demand that I believe it even though I can't prove it to you.

      That's how it is with God. I believe that he exists even though I can't prove it to you. My experiences with him simply compell me to believe in him regardless of whether or not I can prove it. And those same experiences compell me to believe him when he says to trust in his word. Yes, it was penned by men, but God says that they did a good job of conveying exactly what he wanted to say, and I trust him.

      Of course, I can't prove this to you. I don't intend to try. I only want to answer your question of why I believe in the truth of the Bible.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    8. Re:Matthew says you're wrong by mjh · · Score: 1

      I think you're probably right that morality is impossible to define. But that's mostly because we expect to find a fine line between right and wrong, and we don't. Still even if that's true, there are some things that are clearly right and some things that are clearly wrong. And, interestinly enough, we find little disagreement to these things in just about every civilization on the planet.

      For example, no one contends, so far as I'm aware, that wantonly killing someone is right. There are circumstances around which we allow for taking another persons life (e.g. self defense) but no one would say that randomly taking someone's life without provocation is a good thing. Similarly, no one would contend that lieing is good thing. There are circumstances which might make a lie understandable (e.g. a known child molestor asks the location of your children). But randomly lieing for no reason is generally frowned upon by pretty much everyone.

      Now, given that there are some things that we clearly know are wrong. How effective are you at avoiding behaviors that you clearly know are wrong. Have you ever lied just to see if you could get away with it? Have you lied to protect yourself from the consequence of something you know you did, or to pan the responsibility on someone else? Have you ever bit some unsuspecting person's head off because of a bad day at work? Have you ever been lazy and not done work that you know should have been done, but you just didn't feel like it? Put another way, have you ever truly felt sorry for something you did prompting you to apologize to someone?

      There are tons of things that pretty much everyone agrees are wrong. Have you done any of them? If so, then you've lived a life that doesn't meet even your own standards.

      The question is this: what are you going to do about it? And a completely reasonable answer is: nothing. That answer works just fine right up until you bump into God. You may never bump into God, you may have already done so. But when it happens, it becomes immediately apparent that doing nothing about your unfufilled morality simply won't suffice. I suspect that you already have a sense of this if you've ever said to yourself "I want to live a better life than I'm leading." That's God, in a very subtle way, bumping into you. But still you may not have ever encountered what I'm talking about.

      In one sense, I hope that never happens to you. I hope that you get to live blissfully ignorant of how poorly you're doing at meeting your own standards. I hope you get to live your life content and happy. But in another sense, I know that contentment and happiness are impossible if you don't ever become fully aware of your failings. You will spend your entire life trying to justify yourself to others who are trying to justify themselves. You'll spend your entire life bickering about whether or not your life is worthwhile to others who only care about their own lives. You'll spend your entire life stuck in the middle of the worst kind of backstabbing politics that you can imagine. And I do NOT wish this upon you. (For a great picture of this read "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis.)

      So in a real sense, I hope (and pray) that you will be blessed to know your own failings sooner than later. Because that's when you can find the path to getting them fixed. And THEN you can start to see real happiness and real contentment.

      This is my challenge to you: forget about the blurry morality. Focus entirely on the obvious right and wrongs. Write down a list of things that are obviously wrong. Write down a list of things that you think are wrong, even if it's not necessarily obvious. Write down a list of things that you think are right. And write down a list of things that are obviously right. Now go out for the next 6 weeks and do the things that are right, and avoid the things that are wrong. No lies. No laziness. No killing. (Hopefully the last one is easy for you.) Pursue kindness, generosity, and and compassion. Try to be perfect based on these standards for 6 weeks and see how you do.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
  204. Re:Big Difference by smallpaul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The overall point is that the idea that the "Bible is quite clear" is merely wishful thinking. The Bible is massively open to interpreration. EVEN if you believe that it is literally true AND written by the people it claims it was written by (both of which are questionable).

  205. Re:Big Difference by sstory · · Score: 1

    That is in fact what they're saying. God used to be evil, but now he's good, see, he straightens his act up around halfway through. Before that it was slaughter these people, slaughter those people, but now he's nice. He likes you now that he got his son killed. And as long as you recognize that, he won't torture you for eternity.
    Isn't he so full of love and wonderfulness? Just like Hitler was.

  206. Why hasn't this been done before? by godblessthenet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe I'm missing something, but I think this is a great idea, and I'm surprised it hasn't been done before. I constantly hear people complain about filters, especially about how they do not filter as reasonably as a human would. Well, this solves that problem. We're always telling parents that they need to look after their children and what they are watching, and this is a perfect tool to do that. Its other use, using it to make yourself accountable as opposed to children, seems a little weird, but I can see where it could be useful. And besides, it's opt-in, so what's the big problem? Sounds like a great product. Not that I'll be signing up for it anytime soon. . . .

  207. Doesn't PATRIOT do this already? by MojoReisen · · Score: 0

    Just send the list to Ashcroft, he'd be happy to look them over for inappropriate content or activity. Oh wait, that's already happening.
    D'oh!

    --
    "Nothing is impossible for the man who refuses to listen to reason"
  208. No good against malicious pop-ups. by rdmiller3 · · Score: 1
    So Dad and Son become "peers", because Son doesn't get to use the computer otherwise.

    Then Dad accidentally types "lashdot" instead of "slashdot" and has to hard-reset to get rid of the slew of pornographic pop-up windows that result from his typo.

    Son now has something to laugh about while he surfs for porn on his buddy's old laptop or at the public library.

  209. why not .porn as a solution? by Home�rew · · Score: 1

    why don't they just change everything to .porn; that way people with kids could simply block .porn ..... and whoever owns a site now would simply change it to .porn .... sex.com owner would get sex.porn etc ....

    we have .org, .tv, why not .porn?

    --
    Pablo Piccaso was never called an asshole. Not like you.
    1. Re:why not .porn as a solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .tv is a country code, fucking prick, learn your TLDs

      Whats to stop jo blogs from setting up a biggles.com/hottotty? Which many already exist.

      Then you have illegal sites, I'm quite sure the .gov will not like ittlekiddy.porn, thus it will end up ittlekiddyporn.[whoever will see it].

      And finally, on of the free tlds have .sex, no one uses it thou

  210. stupid idea by ethanms · · Score: 0, Troll

    Anyone ever had a porn banner pop up if you mis-spell a common URL?

    Now what? My boss see's that I visited hotmonkeylove.com and get's pissed off at me. Plus the page will still pop up if this is used in place of a standard blocking filter.

    Also... anyone who needs filters/content-tattler's for/from their spouse desperately needs a new spouse, not a new anti-porn technology.

  211. So....how does this work again? by DohDamit · · Score: 1

    I get an email about Brother Jeb's activities. There's a site on there that I don't know. (Persian kittens? I didn't know he liked cats.) I visit it, and lo and behold, the next time someone looks at my list, I'm a big ol' dirty pervert! This sounds like ripe ground for a goats.ex prank. Just sayin'.

  212. OT: Religious Peer Pressure by robi2106 · · Score: 1

    "My wife's cousins tithe 10% of their income to their church (and they make less than 40k combined) because their church makes everyone do it. the peer pressure there is if you are not 'holy' enough to give your tithe .. your not worthey of God .. WTF is that ??"

    Well then that church has much bigger doctrine problems than just peer pressure (the term itself is missused in this article).

    When a professing christian church pressures people to do anything that they say you need to do in order to become holy enough for God, then they don't believe in God by that very statement. Tell them to read about the thing called "GRACE".

    Honestly, that just pisses me off when professing churches warp things to fit their financial needs. People logically come away thinking the members of that sect are stupid for believing that. And they are! Contrary statements like that just stand out as false.
    -end rant-

    robi

  213. Attribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.h tm

  214. We ARE still under Old Testament law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Matthew 5:17-18 explicitly says so. The old law is still in effect, to the very last word.

  215. Re:Patial morality? Is that what you mean? by stor · · Score: 1

    > I'd be curious to see what 'partial moraility' looks like. It sounds like each person just makes up their own rules, based upon random criterion (since, of course, nothing is absolute). Is that how it's done?

    No, that's called "religion".

    Stor

    --
    "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  216. what are you all afraid of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading all the comments has brought a thought to mind. Why are you all so critical of what some people think is a good idea? Most of the comments fall into about three categories.

    1. Those who think it is a good idea due to religious reasons.
    2. Those who think the religious supports are idiots and then go on to spout a bunch of stuff out of the old testament.
    3. Those who read the article, get a guilty conscience and then proceed to spue a bunch of 'pr0n is fine for me, so it should be fine for everyone else'.

    Personally I think the people in the third group need to get a grip (on life).

    Accountability is one of the strongest influences in someone's life. If you are accountable and you 'screw up' by browing some porn, they can bring it to your attention. Thinking that you can hide your pr0n from your family members whose life it affects is ludicrous. They'll find out eventually, so why not put and end to it before it becomes a problem.

    This software is designed for those people who want a truely moral life (religious influence aside). It is not designed for those who think that there is no right/wrong decisions in life.

    It is also designed for parents to monitor their young teenagers habits. There are a lot of things besides porn that kids should be protected from. This gives parents the control they need without giving up the freedom of choice.

  217. Re:Big Difference by plalonde2 · · Score: 1

    I didn't realize George W. Bush was intending to flood the world in this conflict...oops sorry - I forgot about the greenhouse stuff.

  218. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  219. Re:Big Difference by Cplus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hmmmmmmm, I'm not generally a stickler about things I don't care much about, but you started it and were wrong.

    "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" - The Princess Bride

    --
    "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
  220. Big Brother? Where? by lasublime · · Score: 1

    For those of you who think this is a bad idea, this software is not for you. But, there are many men who want to stop looking at porn for whatever reason (religious or not) and this could help them tremendously. What's wrong with that? It is up to the user to decide to use the software and to pick an accountability partner. Where is big brother? Out

  221. hehehe... by fok · · Score: 1

    i will be a goog peer2peer bookmark sharing tool!

    --
    \m/
  222. Re:Big Difference by bear_phillips · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about that stuff in the Koran or the book of Morman? Isn't that God's laws too?

    --
    http://www.windmeadow.com/
  223. Re:Big Difference by Taldo · · Score: 1

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that......

  224. Bingo! by robi2106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem isn't P2P sw, it is the users making illegal use of it.

    The problem isn't gun owners, it is the hoods that murder the 7-11 worker to get the cash using guns.

    The problem isn't Democracy, it is the politicians that abuse the system, take bribes (soft money), pass biased legislation.

    The problem isn't booze, it is getting drunk and driving.

    The problem isn't sex, it is addiction to sex/porn with 15 year old drug addicted sex slaves in china.

    This community points out so many of these contradictions it makes you wonder if anybody else gets it.

    robi

  225. hmmm... seems like a business opportunity to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets see. If I make a utility to detect & bypass this thing, I'm sure it will sell pretty well to the "I'm just installing this f*ing spyware 'cause they guilted me into it crowd". That's usually the largest component of any mind-controlled group.

  226. pity by thatdamnkid · · Score: 1

    I feel bad for the simpletons who have nothing better to do but fight a war like trying to kill pr0n, that they can never win. get a hobby

  227. Re:yeah, but, but YEAH... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are such a bigot to call someone who has called someone a bigot a bigot.

    That is a real sentence.

  228. Pot | Kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Black!

    1. Re:Pot | Kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are a retard.

  229. It's just a technology with an application. by stienman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Look at it this way.

    As a parent, I allow my children to use the computer. I do, however, place it in the house where there is a lot of traffic and I can keep an eye on what they are doing without interrupting them.

    This is a Good Thing(TM). Accountability, in general, is a good thing.

    You may not agree with the application of this technology, but why disparage it here? If you feel pornography is a good thing then you can enjoy it yourself.

    I, however, feel that pornography has many bad consequences. I know this from personal experience. Who are you to disparage my personal experience, my morals, convictions, values and beliefs? Pornography, just like gambling, drinking, drugs, computer hardware, computer games, MMORPGs, etc can be addictive. These addictions can change you and your life significantly. If you like those changes, or it doesn't change you, or you don't notice the change, then good for you. But don't hate the technology or the people who use it for themselves.

    -Adam

    An idea is a precious and fragile thing. Don't hate ideas. Hate people.

  230. Back it up by Midajo · · Score: 1

    If either of you can support your claims, please do so. I'm sure many here at /. would find the details interesting.

  231. commentary on the Wired article by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 1

    The funniest part of that Wired article for me was the last sentence:

    A Google search on the terms "accountability," "Internet" and "pornography" brought up dozens of links, mostly to religious sites.

    OK, yeah? And?

    I mean, its one thing for the reporter to use Google to do a little research, but it's funny (and a bit shocking) to see one A) admit it publicly, and B) to lazily avoid actually doing the reporter's job of synthesizing the resulting material into something usefully informative for the reader.

    --LP

  232. Re:Big Difference by sstory · · Score: 1

    Man, that's flat out evil. That's as evil as almost anything in the bible.

  233. Why try to get rid of porn?! by DumbWhiteGuy777 · · Score: 1

    Why try to get rid of it, when it's leading us one step closer to world peace?! Check it out. Not a porn site, mind you.

    1. Re:Why try to get rid of porn?! by DumbWhiteGuy777 · · Score: 1

      Oops, forgot the link. Sorry about that.
      http://www.masterbateforpeace.com

  234. renaming conventions by pyrrho · · Score: 1

    sounds as if it's possibly time to rename the Old Testament the "Older Testament" so we can call the New Testament the "Old Testament", since it's no longer in effect either.

    --

    -pyrrho

  235. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, you should think of them as "Newer Testament" and "Latest Testament", respectively. Both supersede the "New Testament" which is now thoroughly outdated. For the next verion He's hoping to switch to a naming convention more along the lines of Testament 2005 to minimise further confusion.

  236. Re:Big Difference by Tikiman · · Score: 1

    The overall point is that the idea that the "Bible is quite clear" is merely wishful thinking. The Bible is massively open to interpreration.


    With all due respect, this beleive is pretty much an urban legend. There are some long, impressive looking lists on the Internet floating around that have lots of supposed contradictions, but they tend to be quite shallow and created by people with a huge axe to grind. It is at least something worth investigating for yourself.

  237. Re:Big Difference by coolmacdude · · Score: 1

    You might feel differently in eternity.

    --

    -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
  238. Then why bother "bundling" the Old Testament? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean if it's outdated and no longer has rules that apply, why do christians include it in their version of the bible?

    Seems a little too convenient being allowed to "cherry pick" what you personally feel are the "relevant" rules in the old books. "Homos" are evil, but working on Sunday is no big deal. How do you figure? How about a little consistency in your dogma?

    But then from media reports over the years (and centuries of church history) picking cherries seems to be a favorite pasttime of many a priest or pastor... Good thing they were abstaining from temptation. Otherwise something bad might have happened to someone....

  239. How stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    99% of men look at porn. Why this is considered such an obscene thing is beyond me. *wank wank*

  240. Re:Stupid idiots!!!!!! (More astroturfing) by Faeton · · Score: 1
    I wouldn't call 55% a minority. Yet that's the percent that supports Bush on this issue. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/politics/11POLL .html, registration needed).

    As for the last war that you guys started, I believe it was the war of 1812, when you guys invaded Canada.

  241. Re:Typical Brainwashed Religous Rationalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    appreciation for monogamus life? HAHAHAA

    monognany is a good rationalization for those who cant attract a female. just latch on to the first one that will give you the time of day. what a joke.

    it is no suprise that 30% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women. as in the animal kingdom, women want alpha males and alpha males (actually all males) are geneticly engineered to want multiple mates.

    you can go home to your boring monotonous (err i mean monogonous) relationship, while im out picking up women you only can masturbate to while thinking about them.

  242. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They still use Judaism 2.5.1. Judaism 2.5.1 has a number of security holes, most notably, one major weakness to a backdoor invader named Hitler. (Oops, killed the thread, didn't I? Sorry.)

    Hitler still tried to attack those using Christianity 4.1.2, but his attacks were largely rebuffed. Older versions of Christianity, such as Christianity 1.x and 2.x were untouched by Hitler, and in some cases allowed their hardware to be used as zombies in Hitler's attacks.

    This virus is extinct.

  243. Do it yourself, that's be best way. by Visaris · · Score: 1

    What ever happened do doing something for yourself by yourself? Let me ask you this. How would you feel about yourself if you quit smoking on your own? You just laid off the cigs a bit and then quit when you knew you had a handle on things. I bet you'd feel like a million bucks and be a lot more likely to try to improve yourself in the future! Now, how would you feel if you quit because someone was watching you over your shoulder? Good, but not as good. They made you quit; you didn't do it on your own. The smoking is gone, but the root of the problem is not solved or improved.

    I may have an attitude about this, but concerning most self improvement, if you have too much help, it defeats the whole purpose. Grow a spine you limp-ass noodle! If you can't stop looking at a little pr0n on your own, you need to go to some classes on self control, some therapy, or talk some things out with a good friend. Now that is getting some needed help. The pr0n isn't the problem. The fact that you're a pussy is the problem. If you can't stop you have a problem that is not going to be solved by having someone watch you over your shoulder.

    This software will be used to help people? I doubt it. It will be used to further Joe's issues. After all, why grow the balls to quit when you can be a pussy and have someone else make you? And when they are gone? What are you going to do? Start looking at the pr0n. You haven't learned a god-damned thing.

    This is what is wrong with parents these days. Don't clean up their mess for them. Fucking smack them upside the head when they deserve it. It doesn't hurt them. It helps them.

    Now, don't get me wrong. Heroin and coke addics can't just grow bigger balls. The addiction is bigger than their balls alone will ever be. That's when a person needs help. And yes, I'll apologize to the 100 or so people in the world who have a real pr0n addiction -- sorry.

    Gah, the point is this. You claim that this will be used to help people. The people it will be used to "help" are actually getting fucked up worse. So I guess that whole "help" thing is out. Now what happens when this get abused? Jane: Joe! You better install that! We want you to quit right? Joe: (thinks: not really. I'm fine with it. We didn't have any problems until you found out.. what's the big deal? It doesn't change anything. I've been beating it to some pr0n ever since we've been dating!) Yeah honey! (thinks: I love you so much I'll give it up for you if i have to.. but damn... this stupid program! fuck you program, things would have been fine!)

    Ok, ok, that's a little crazy... but it could happen. This program isn't wrong. It shouldn't be illeagal or anything. I know it's volitary... Just I think it will only be abused.

    --

    I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
  244. Point Loma Nazarene College... by bitrott · · Score: 3, Insightful

    my *shudder* alama mater. A private Christian university. We had required chapel days, where the entire student body was required to meet for a religious seminar. Don't ask. Anyway, one day a member of the student body gets up and gives a rambling testimonial about how his roommate caught him jerking it to porn. the guy felt so 'dirty' and 'sinful' that he felt it necessary to confess it in front of a couple thousand of his peers. It was the most inane, embarassing display of public humiliation I've ever seen. What supporters of this opt-in idea are missing is the rest of the picture. This boy was made to feel dirty. Sinful. For something completely normal. You think he just invented the guilt on his own? No, it was instilled in him by a sexually repressed religion. I realize that this program would work nicely in libraries or schools. Those are places to learn, not self love. Ethics and morality mean more than just following along... modern Christianity needs to stop pretending it is a good subsitiute for therapy and common sense. Men and women will only be made to continue to feel worthless for what SHOULD BE safe, sane, and healthy. Sex addicts? Sure they exist, addicts need to be taught moderation... soemthing they didn't 'get' the first time around.

  245. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The "Dear Dr. Laura" post wasn't original (as I'm sure you've guessed) - it's a response to an episode of her show in which she quoted Leviticus as the reason homosexuality is wrong. Whether it's relevant to this discussion (due to the Old Testament/New Testament differences; most Christians ignore the "law" portions of the OT) is left up to the reader.

  246. Re:yeah, but... *slightly OT* by Kadagan+AU · · Score: 1

    Ok, admitedly I didn't read the second half of your post... it started to bore me, but the first part reminded me of a story I thought was funny... hehe...

    my mother wanted to by my little 8 year old brother some shin pads for soccer from Dick's Sporting Goods (a big chain around here... not sure how far it spreads). She wasn't thinking anything bad at all when she innocently went to http://www.dicks.com to look for shin pads... The gay p0rn flowed freely to her unsuspecting eyes. Luckily myself and my little brother weren't around, so we missed this all, but from what I'm told, there seemed a limitless amount of new pop ups every time she closed a window, so she ended up rebooting. What fun online shopping can be!

    ~Jon~

    by the way, I'm not just a little kid, like I'm sure lots of you are thinking, I'm a professional sys admin, done with college and all... I just happen to have a young brother. =D

    --
    This space for rent, inquire within.
  247. Cotter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work with B. Cotter, the man is a porn hound. I think this is a program for his personal use, to collect all the best sites.

    This is not a troll, it's the truth.

  248. Social engineering. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting


    > To me the problem is it seems kinda creepy that you'd need the threat of shame from your friends or family to not do something you consider morally abhorent.

    It's no surprise that so many sects with tight moral constraints and/or inflexible doctrine are based on strong personal associations between their adherents, including (but not limited to) regular assemblies of the group's members.

    What I wonder is whether that kind of social engineering was designed in by those groups' founders, or whether it is simply the outcome of "survival of the fittest" - i.e., whether the groups that didn't practice social engineering were more likely to disintegrate over the centuries.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Social engineering. by hayden · · Score: 1
      ... or whether it is simply the outcome of "survival of the fittest"
      Ironic that the current survival of religions can be described by a theory that religions pretty much universally denounce.
      --
      Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
  249. Re:Big Difference by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

    I was specifically referring to groups that use the Bible (English/Old English/Greek/Hebrew translations, Word of God, Holy Scripture, the Logos, Old/New Testament, etc) as either the sole basis for thier moral ruleset or as part of that basis (i.e. throw in Book of Mormon, Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls or something else for additional rules and good times).

    The Principia Discordia and teachings of Bob are in a class by themselves ;-)

  250. For example ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    White list:

    "Cry Yuma"

    "The Wackiest Covered Wagon in the West"

    "Gladys The Groovy Mule"

    Black list:

    "Meet Joe Blow"

    "The Erotic Adventures of Hercules"

    "Gladys The Groovy Mule"

    Grey list:

    "Smoke Yourself Thin"

    "Mommy, What's Wrong With That Man's Face?"

    >"Gladys The Groovy Mule"

  251. I will install a web cam in my house by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

    Just to show you all I don't play with myself. I've been telling all folks for years and they don't believe me. This will prove it.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  252. Re:YES!! YES!! YES!! by killbill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This sounds like an honest question, so I will answer it honestly.

    Accountability rocks. The trick is to find commited like minded friends that genuinely care about you, and you invest in each others lives.

    I can tell them "I want to spend more time with my children, I know that I am missing out on a huge part of life and will regret it when they grow up, but I am really struggling with making the time to spend time with them, and need your help doing it"

    These people, if they really are good accountability partners, will ask you every week how you are doing. They will probe and try to understand the real reasons you might be struggling with it, help you track your progress, give you outside perspectives, give you suggestions based on their own experience that would help, lots of real help to making real progress on important issues. They will refer you to professional help if it looks like that is necessary, or just help remind you of what you know is important when you don't feel like you have the energy to do it.

    So thats the accountability component of it. Ask any recovering alchoholic. God / AA based programs have like an 8 times higher success rates then non God non accountable programs. These things really work.

    The reason people might consider porn bad is a different question I will address seperately...

    First of all, it is not a big stretch to assume it requires the exploitation of women. It is generally legal and it is a free country where people can do stupid things to themselves whenever they want, so it *would* be a stretch to say it should be illegal. But there are a lot of legal things that are distasteful, that people may decide they don't want to support it or be a part of. That does not mean they aren't tempted by it or don't want it, it means they believe it does more damage then good (to themselves and others) in the long run.

    Porn is something that gives you momentary and intense stimulation of a pleasure center... it hits like a drug, just monitor the body responses of somebody that is not sensitized to it when they see it. Heart rate goes through the roof, skin flushes, things swell ;) brain activity goes nuts. Also note that the more porn you see, the "harder" porn you need to get that same response... Sound familiar? So for a non-trivial number of people, Porn is a effectively a drug that they abuse. Just like alcohol, or pot, or other moderatly powerful drugs (drugs that are psychologically addictive and not necessarily chemically addictive).

    (footnote... that gives me a laugh, I remember from high school health class circa 1983 that they described cocaine as "non addictive" because it lacked some of the chemical ramifications of heroin and morphene... What total and utter bullsh*t... just look at the effect crack (concentrated and cheap cocaine) has had on the inner cities, and you tell me it is not addictive)....

    Anyway, another reason porn is destructive is obvious if you think about it. Imagine you are having sex with your favorite supermodel. It would be great, right? OK, now imagine you are having sex with someone who is totally unattractive to you, both in looks, in personality, they smell bad, they say rude things, they insult you and abuse you and disrespect you in every way. The physical sensations are not a lot different between the two scenarios, but there is a HUGE difference in the way your brain translates those sensations to actual perceptions of pleasure.

    So there is a HUGE psychological component to the degree to which you enjoy sex. And pornography (as well as premarital, or non monogamous sex) wreaks havoc with that whole mechanisim, it really pollutes it and messes up the whole system. When I was in college, I could not find a person that would agree with me. Now, at the age of 37, I can't find a person that would disagree with me. Ignore me at your peril.

    And as for this particular product, it has it's place. I could bypass it in about a minute, but even among the technical friends I have, not many could unless I told them a couple tricks.

    And internet porn is a bigger problem then other porn. It is in my house, waiting for me at 2 in the morning when I had a fight with my wife, or a terrible day at work, or one too many beers. The AA guys have a great acronym... HALT (hungry angry lonely tired). If you are any two of these things, your risk of abuse of a self destructive behaviour goes through the roof! I don't have to get dressed, go out in the car, and go somewhere and buy it and bring it back... it is totally anonymous, and there is effectively NO obstacle between me and internet porn. Maybe 20 keystrokes, thats it.

    I doubt anyone will read this, but there is an honest answer to the question.

    If black, Jews, or Asians were treated with the same bigotry and contempt that Christians are treated here on Slashdot....... But I told myself I was not going to go there... where is that (bite my toungue emoticon :) ).

    --
    Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
  253. Re:Big Difference by jbolden · · Score: 1

    Actually most of the bible doesn't even indicate who it was written by. The "who" part is often extra biblical tradition. Worse yet it sometimes conflicts with the written bible where these books came from.

  254. Re:Big Difference by unitron · · Score: 1
    "What about the other rule changes God made when he wrote the Mormom book? Did he re instate any of the old rules?"

    You mean besides that multiple wives thing? Oh, wait. The Mormons who wanted the benefits of statehood decided that He really didn't mean it after all.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  255. Re:Big Difference by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually Jesus was setting out a rigid hierarchy of right in wrong. So rigid that t is impossible for us to achieve - these are God's standards and without being perfect, we can't hope to achieve them. the point is that we can't trust in ourselves for salvation - we have to trust in God, ask forgiveness from him. As a loving God, he offers forgiveness to everyone. Mother Teressa needs it as much as Hitler did and God would be just as willing to forgive Hitler as her. Or me. Or you.

  256. Has anyone here worked on CARNIVORE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone here worked on CARNIVORE?

  257. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Even I know that the rules in the OT don't apply in the NT age,

    This is my favorite part, the bit that when God says so and so forever, his forever isn't very long. Once you realize that he usually doesn't mean what he says, and will forget the part he does mean in a few years, it all becomes a lot lighter-hearted!

    Morale: Senile dictators are more fun than healthy ones.

  258. Re:Big Difference by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
    God didn't change his mind. The Ot covers the time before Jesus came. He hadn't died on the cross yet to pay for sins, therefore salvation came by following the Law. The OT shows just how impossible it is to follow the Law completely, bringing in the necessity of sacrifices to pay the price instead. A lot of the OT laws are about this, or about emphasising that the jews have been chosen to be set apart as God's people to show others what Gods Law is.

    With Jesus' death and resurrection in the OT, people are no longer bound by the Law and the Jews are no longer set aside as the keepers of God's Law. Everyone needs, can ask for and receive forgiveness. That is what achieves salvation, not following the Law. The Law should be followed because it is good, however we won't follow it perfectly, therefore it is asking for forgiveness that saves, rather than following the Law.

  259. Re:Big Difference by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

    And their "morality" is objective, not influenced by emotions or personal predjudices? I wonder...

    --
    You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
    -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  260. Par for the course for religious groups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is pretty much in th tradition of religious groups world over: keep people under tight control lest they stray, and the religious powers-that-be lose the privileges they enjoy from their despicable brainwashing activities.

    1. Re:Par for the course for religious groups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude - go to the site - looks like friends helping friends - not oversight by religion - I think you missed the point. Is this site just about throwing stones. What if this helps people - why must we all attack... Hope is worth the risk...

    2. Re:Par for the course for religious groups by Xeger · · Score: 1

      In early colonial America, townsfolk would often decide that their friends needed a helping hand, and they had their own helping devices. They were called stocks and pillories. The point of the punishment was not to inflict pain or leave a lasting mark (though they were quite uncomfortable and sometimes resulted in death), but to thoroughly humiliate the unlawful one in front of his community, who naturally were only interested in helping him see the error of his ways.

      How precisely will it help anyone to have his friends and neighbors looking over his shoulder and monitoring the websites he visits? If he feels inclined to visit a pornographic website, why should he be chastised for doing so? Is there something inherently wrong with pornographic material?

      Far from friends helping friends, the site looks to me like friends using each other to reinforce the dogmatic, injurious principles of their myopic system of belief. The religion doesn't need to expend resources on oversight of its subjects, when they are willing to police themselves so efficiently.

      But, hey, that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree as vocally as you want, and to believe anything you want. It's a free country after all, and any knots you tie in your psyche, or ulcers you burn into your stomach, whilst worrying about what's acceptable behavior in the eyes of God, are your own damned fault.

  261. Re:Stupid idiots!!!!!! (More astroturfing) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bingo. Somebody give this man a cigar!!!

  262. If people use this, and it works... by Midajo · · Score: 1


    ...what the hell are they going to look at while they masterbate?

    1. Re:If people use this, and it works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I.Q. check-up is in order. How about a comment that requires some intelligence.

    2. Re:If people use this, and it works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, they'll look at pictures of Jesus, of course. I always whack off to a picture of the crucifixion. What more pious way to show your love for our lord and savior, than to include Him in your most personal moments?

      Of course, if sadism isn't your thing, there are plenty of other biblicallly-inspired works of art to fulfill your prurient bishop-polishing needs. May I suggest Da Vinci's The Last Supper (for the food fetishist in you), or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

      If you're going to beat your meat to the latter, I recommend buying a quality reproduction rather than choking the chicken while you're viewing the real thing in the Sistine chapel. I heard that Catholic clergy frown on other people getting it on in their churches. Only they are allowed to do that, and only under specific circumstances (such as when the altar boy drops something and bends over to pick it up).

  263. Re:Big Difference by xombo · · Score: 1

    Just like Windows NT/OT, we don't support OT anymore because it sucks and is outdated.

  264. What a Novel Idea by TitanBL · · Score: 1

    Why not just have your browsing history sent straight to the chruch office = then compile everyone's weekly data - and sell it for 2 dollars on Sunday. The funds generated by this public decleration of piety can be used to send your youth group to Mexico so they can convert some poor mexican childern, teach them some english, and learn how blessed they are to not live in Mexico.

    Oh ya, Baptists, I hope you realize this is a joke.

  265. Three Words by mad.frog · · Score: 1

    "Just Say No"

  266. Re:Big Difference by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    These people have picked a standard. In this case, it is "Viewing pornography is not moral."

    Anything based on morals is inherently subjective.

  267. Libertarian by jbolden · · Score: 1

    I think the /. crowd is being fairly consistent with their morality.

    1) They are approving of the fact that this is voluntery and commercial rather than mandatory and government
    2) They are concerned about its possible uses on kids, employees, etc...
    3) They think the issue it addresses is stupid; but that people are entitled to do stupid and silly things.

    I'm not sure where you see inconsistency with Libertarian philosophy.

    In general this totally consistent with most /. posting on Christianity.

    1) They strongly support freedom of religion.
    2) They don't like the way Christians raise their kids and push for restrictive laws in society.
    3) They think the religion is nonsense.

    I would expect this crowd to at least be capable of supporting an individual's right to overcome adversity they face.

    Finally on this comment. I don't see how any /. reader could benefit from this service. You can't tell me you can't bypass this simple of a filter in 2 seconds on a home machine (i.e. one you have administrative access to and physical access to). I'm not sure it would even work for the semi-computer literate because the bypasses are so easy much less the computer literate.

  268. Re:Big Difference by etcpasswd · · Score: 1

    Hmm.. No, the point is simply to show that quoting from Bible doesn't make it right or automatically justified. We have something called Law that is different from Religion, and for a good reason they are separated. (Ofcourse, our legal system isn't perfect, but that's a flaw in implementation)

  269. Mass guilt: Favorite of Stalin, A.H., Dubya by Rares+Marian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is just as bad as peer pressure to get into drugs.

    It prioritizes mass harrassment over reason.It turns the conflict (much of it natural at a certain age) internally on a person with the added weight of others who are contemptible in choosing to subject others under such pressure because:

    1. It is dishones; the "right to look your accuser in the face" is taken away. Anyone looking their accusers in the face will be shamed. Any honest (willing to accept convincing evidence) dialogue is silenced and utterly impossible.

    2. It is authority by majority, no accountability of the accusers is taken.

    3. It is pressure based on raging fears and mass hysteria. 'Nuff said.

    Welcome to Salem, MA 1692.

    --
    The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    1. Re:Mass guilt: Favorite of Stalin, A.H., Dubya by bigchris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, hello? Salem? come on off it! you don't have to install this software and nobody can MAKE you install the software.

      1. Shame, well that's one aspect of it. You know, the reason people are installing the software is because they are ashamed of viewing pornography, they aren't ashamed that someone is catching out them in the act. And remember, you install this software voluntarily.

      2. You submit the logs of sites to people you choose, not to people you don't know and don't trust. Authority by majority... did you even read how the software is used?

      3. Your post is pressure based on raging fears and mass histeria. "Welcome to Salem, MA 1692".

    2. Re:Mass guilt: Favorite of Stalin, A.H., Dubya by noah_sandalman · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. I think history (and Stalin) would lead to a different conclusion: this seems to be simply a way for friends to help each other - I signed up - the system does not force accountability partners - you choose a friend... I think it is much better than filters...

  270. Heh... by Iscariot_ · · Score: 1

    Right, and next time I run a red-light I'm going to pull over and call the police.

  271. This Reminds Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me of that old joke, "Why do you always take TWO Morons fishing with you? If you take just one, he'll drink all your beer and smoke all your cigarettes!"

    Same shit with p0rn.

  272. Re:Big Difference by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying that the initial definition or acceptance of their morality isn't influenced by emotions or personal predjudices, I'm saying that whatever standard they have chosen can be treated objectively at that point, regardless of how they feel from then on.

    Or I could just be blowing lots of hot smoke.... :-)

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
  273. F/F Indicator by robi2106 · · Score: 1

    Interesting . . . this topic is helping to enter many people into my friend / foe list.

    Thanks for the topic!

    robi

  274. In a battle between God and anonymizer.com ... by Xeger · · Score: 1

    The presumption here is that porn is sinful and evil, and will send you to HELL. By watching over your shoulder and disapproving of any porn site you visit, your loved ones are making sure you don't stray from the path of righteousness.

    Proxies, redirectors and other services such as anonymizer.com will surely foil this system, because a visit to www.persiankitty.com via anonymizer will simply show up as anonymizer.com in the logs.

    Therefore...proxies and redirectors are tools of the devil! BURN THEM! BURN THEM ALL!!!

    1. Re:In a battle between God and anonymizer.com ... by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      There are always ways to get around accountability.

      -Lie about money (subscription porn mags kept else where)
      -Lie about time (strip club on the way home)
      -Lie about surfing (Anonymizers)

      Notice a pattern. Accountability only works with the truth.

      robi

  275. Re:Big Difference by yanestra · · Score: 1
    system that glorifies a sociopathic, genocidal tyrant that's all too willing to use orbital bombardment on two bronze age cities, saving only the family that was willing to grovel to him sufficiently
    I am sorry, you are talking about the Bush family?
  276. How can you trust religions ? by Ploum · · Score: 1

    I read a lot of comment here... It's terrific !

    Say that you believe in a god or not, it's your problem, please keep it for you.

    But how can you accept that a religion, created by others humans, can say what you have to do with your life ! ! !

    Please, do what you want with your life and don't try to do it with life of other people !

    Believe what you want, think what you want (but accept all the consequences). But never let other people choose for you !

    Bible, Coran are just book and only book ! You don't have to do thing because it's in a book ! You can't know what really happen for Jesus, Mohamed or Richard Stallman... Believe what you want about this. But be a little more septical !

    Please !

    Porn is a personnal matter. If you want porn, pay for it ! If you don't want it, don't pay for it ! But let people choosing what they want.

    You think that porn is bad ? What is bad, what is good ? Good and bad it's just a matter of education.. Think it ! If I say that porn is good because a "sexual deviant" will not rape a girl since he has what he wants at home with internet ?

    it's just an example. Nothing is really black, nothing is really white.

    I say always : "Believe what you want but respect the others. We don't have to thing the same to be friends".

    To all who cite bible or coran or what-you-want by heart... Never forget it's a book ! And you have a much better tool : your brain ! Use it. so few people really use it...

    1. Re:How can you trust religions ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great question. Lee Stroebel has a great book: The Case For Christ. Very logical - this guy basically set out to disprove the existence of God. He is a world-class reporter and he traveled to talk to leading experts in archeology, history, religion, etc. to prove Christ couldn't have existed. He ended up proving the opposite.

      Basically, your logic is facinating and I believe representative of people of our time (in western post modern world)... "believe what is right for you, etc."

      Problem is - laws of gravity apply to all. Those who have studied science - and I've studied lots of science come to a logical conclusion that there really is an "intelligent design" to the universe pointing to the need for an "intelligent designer"

      I believe in God. Further, I believe absolute truth exists - but not by blind faith.

      What if God is real. What if what they say is true.

      There are some scrolls that have been discovered at Mt. Sinai recently that date back to Christ. There are more than 4000 scrolls that add archeological and historical proof of the Bible.

      If God is real - his character is displayed in his creation: universe, people, animals, elements.

      The theory of anthalpy really speaks to the nature of the universe. The odds of randomly creating a double helix (Watson & Cricks) are beyond comprehension - beyond impossible. No, things are in decline, not accidental order... Thus, evolution has holes...big holes. Ever read about Darwin on his death bed - he refuted his own works siting his inability to overcome the evidence in an intelligent design...

      Absolute truth is real. Read Augustine, Newton, Einstein, Bonhoeffer, Schaeffer, Soren Kirkegard...

      This all relates to pornography because we realize that if there is absolute truth - then high standards are desirable. Otherwise, all people would act in their own self-interest - fooling themselves into believing their own beliefs didn't hurt anyone else. If all acted this way - chaos and pandemonium would prevail - more proof in an intelligent Creator and enthalpy in post modern world.

      Pornography is not victimless - what man would want his child to engage in that type of behavior. None. Why? Because we intrinsically want to protect innocence - why? Because it is sacred. Why? It's a natural human belief that we protect innocence in life... Interesting - sounds absolute, and intelligent.

      Pornography is an issue and is becoming a bigger issue. Unwin was a British philosopher who studied the rise and fall of civilizations. He was friend of Freud and wanted to validate Freud's views with empirical evidence. He studied 86 civilations and he realized that where sexual freedom outside of marriage prevailed - the civilizations fell within three generations.

      Freud influenced Alfred Kinsey - the guy who created the bogus "sexual repression" reports in 1953 in the US. Kinsey admitted later that his reports were based on prostitutes and prisoners and not a true sample of Americans as he had proposed.

      Kinsey mentored a guy named Hugh Hefner. All makes since - and shows the influence and enthalpy theory validated again.

      Facts lead to logic and give evidence to an intelligent designer Creator.

      Oh, the folly of youth. We all realize that Pornography is bad. Just admit it. You don't have to online - here everyone wants to feel comfortable - hoping if others think it's okay - then it's okay. Deep down, we all know it's not good.

      Enjoy.

  277. Re:Big Difference by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

    I think it is interesting to note that there is a reaction here on Slashdot, and in society in general to the use of the words "moral" and "objective" in the same sentence. It's almost as reflexive as being tapped on the knee. Obviously, the choice of morality would be subjective, but is it so hard to see that the accountability of such morality can be objective?

    For instance, if I say "Lying is immoral". You can make the argument that saying that is "subjective". That's fine. But if I say "I am the President of the United States", can you objectively determine whether or not I have broken the stated morality of "lying is immoral"? Yes, that is something you can objectively determine.

    So do you see know why your comment is incorrect? You can, in fact, use the idea of morality and objectivity together. Not in the way you were thinking, but in the way I described above.

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
  278. Quality Control? by Cruciform · · Score: 1

    So the crappy, low quality sites will get filtered out as your friends chastise you... leaving only the optimum viewing experience for your guilty pleasure. hmmmm

  279. Northwest Nazarene college by axjms · · Score: 2, Interesting

    my alma matter *spits on ground* We had to go to sex ed seminars where former students (now in what appeared to be sexless marriages) told us to "save" ourselves. I mean we were 20 year olds for Christ's sake! Instead of practical, realistic discussion we were exhorted never to get "horizontal" or go on non group dates. It just seemed so pathetic and stupid. And judging by my peer's pregnancy rates woefully ineffective. I think schemes like the one shown here will be just about as effective.

    Sorry about the rant. I guess I was just commiserating with you.

    --
    It is not enough to succeed, others must fail. - Gore Vidal
  280. I'm done... by xixax · · Score: 1

    ssh proxy
    su -
    cd /etc/samba/
    vi smb.conf

    [shame]
    comment =
    path = /var/log/squid/
    read only = Yes
    guest ok = Yes :wq

    Now to export it to our web server....

    Xix.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  281. Re:Big Difference by Taldo · · Score: 1
    No I'm not.

    Bush doesn't have anything that can manage orbital....

  282. The other side of the coin... by etcpasswd · · Score: 1

    "This Joe hasn't been to a porn site for 3 months! Wonder if he has a fucking dick at all!!!"

    1. Re:The other side of the coin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very funny. too bad i'm out of mod point.

  283. The world needs more public humiliation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, repeatedly damaging your self esteam for the purient gratification of the people "helping" you is the answer to viewing porn? Sounds greate, where do I sign up. By the way, can I wear a big sign saying "I'm so worthless, I masturbated today" as well. Can I can I.

  284. Re:Big Difference by eniu!uine · · Score: 1

    Well, he did specifically say that he was not here to change a single word of the law.

  285. they should put porn on lickme.{*.pr0n} by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by filtering the whole .pr0n domain, the problem would be solved by simply blocking out .pr0n. The isp could easily do this for users who want this blocked, the isp's would make money blocking the domain. Make the penalities stiff for having pr0n on .com's, .edu's, .net's .org's etc...

  286. Re:Big Difference by hayden · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Has it every occurred to you that God might be a committee?

    - Robert Heinlein, 1907-1988

    --
    Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
  287. Unrealistic Expectations by cadallin451 · · Score: 1
    You fail to acknowledge that the women had unrealistic expectations of marriage. THAT is a huge problem with marriage today. The Christian romantic ideal is unrealistic, and ultimately, based on the idea that suffering is good. (this is reflected in many ways, abstinence and it's odd permutations are some of those) It's not, it leads to f'ed up miserable people.

    A healthy marriage is one in which the people involved mutually agree on what they expect of each other and follow through.

    Two people lying together because they BOTH want to is the most healthy natural thing in the world. A very strong argument can be made that the Christian ideals you hold lead to insecure women with no confidence in themselves and an inability to enjoy sex; and men whose frustrations and feelings of guilt turn into violence and ultimately rape.

    Christianity is the cause of the problems, not the solution.

    1. Re:Unrealistic Expectations by bigchris · · Score: 1

      If you think that the Christian idea of suffering is that it's good then you don't have a clear grasp of Christianity.

      Nowhere in the Bible does it say that suffering is good. Suffering came about in the world because humanity decided to reject God, and when they rejected God they rejected all the good things that God had given them. When humanity rejected God, God gave humanity over to our sinful desires. This is all expounded in the book of Romans.

      Humanity is the cause of the problem, not the solution. I'm glad that you agree that we have a problem though.

      Might I suggest that you have a read of Romans chapter 1, verses 18 to 32? If you do read this, however, might I also highly recommend that you read Romans 3:21-26? I'm sure if you read these passages you may get a better understanding of Christianity.

      As to "the Christian romantic ideal" may I ask you to clarify what you mean by this? As far as I can tell, this really could mean anything to anyone reading this post.

      Incidently, sexual abstinence is the sole domain of sex outside of marriage. Paul writes about it in 1 Corinthians 7:5 - "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

    2. Re:Unrealistic Expectations by jpatters · · Score: 1

      Nowhere in the Bible does it say that suffering is good. Suffering came about in the world because humanity decided to reject God, and when they rejected God they rejected all the good things that God had given them. When humanity rejected God, God gave humanity over to our sinful desires.

      In my view, the words to which you refer were writen by man, and attributed to God in an attempt to justify repression.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    3. Re:Unrealistic Expectations by bigchris · · Score: 1

      Then you and I would fundamentally disagree!

    4. Re:Unrealistic Expectations by cadallin451 · · Score: 1
      By "Christian Romantic ideal" I'm referring to what has grown out of the concept of courtly love in the middle ages. It's based around abstinence, self-denial and guilt.

      You can claim all you want about Christianity not being against sex, but historically it just isn't true. But as a real Neo-Pagan (One who has actually read Graves' "The White Goddess") I would be willing to argue that such behavior is intrinsic to patriarchal religions that demonize women. And don't even try to claim that Christianity doesn't do that.

      Point: Who gets blamed for man getting booted from the Garden of Eden?

      Point: Who was Lillith? What happened to her? Why?

      And thats just the first few pages of genesis.

      But anyway, I believe, although I am not by any means certain, that the problem is societal, not endemic to the human condition. And I believe it is related to the flawed economics of patriarchy and patriarchal succession. (This opinion probably just lost me all people willing to agree.) To do a rediculously large oversimplification, Christianity is a basically a fairly innocuous rehash of the Cult of Dionysus, but bogged down with a huge stash of Hebrew political history and treatise that people keep trying to interpret in a religious light. (When in reality, it has the same relation to religion that Henry II claiming he acted by divine right did) Its too bad really, that the Cult of Mithras didn't become the dominant Dionysian cult in the early first millenium, it tended to be far nicer.

    5. Re:Unrealistic Expectations by cadallin451 · · Score: 1
      I will freely admit that my above post is a troll, but it is so only in the sense that I was and am pointing out unpleasant facts that no one wants to notice.

      I'll clarify what I said about flawed economics: The real reason why abstinence before marriage and marital fidelity is important to Christianity and Patriarchal religions is that they are economically important. The only way a man can be sure the children he is paying to raise are his is if his wife is a virgin when they are married and is faithful to him. Male marital fidelity is mostly something that is demanded by women out of a desire for fairness. So despite all their high "moral" talk the real reason behind it all is money. Patrilineal systems reduce male-female relationships to cold economic transactions. Matrilineal ones, however leave said relationships to be separate and important in their own right. Consider: What if husbands are not part of a family through marriage? Then a family consists of a woman, her children, her brothers, her mother, and her uncles (her mother's brothers). This arrangement takes money out of the bedroom.

  288. Brilliant solution to a non-existent problem. by leereyno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Porn is a problem...for people who are opposed to it. If someone is opposed to it then what use is something like this to them when they're not going to be looking at it anyway?

    It seems to me that you'll just have a big group of people who will all be watching each other not look at porn. The thing is, they wouldn't be looking at porn in the first place. Oh well, if this will occupy their time and keep them out of everyone else's business then perhaps in the end it will be a positive thing. The more that sexually repressed people and groups are distracted and preoccupied, the happier the rest of the world will be.

    I think it is truly sad that anyone even CARES about porn. It is irrelevant to anyone who isn't a pervert, whether you're talking about the perverts who are obsessed with looking at it, or the ones who are obsessed with repressing their own sexual desires (if only they would do it right and stop breeding...). For the rest of us porn is an occasionally interesting distraction and nothing more. I've seen my share of porn and the vast majority of it is completely pointless. I get more out of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue and a Victoria's Secret catalog than I've ever gotten out of porn. Porn is for adolescent males and males who never grew past adolesence. Even so, that doesn't make it a social problem or something in need of remedy. Unless of course you mean that it needs to be better than it is.

    This scheme does nothing but prove that technology gives people new ways to express their stupidity.

    Lee

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    1. Re:Brilliant solution to a non-existent problem. by dentar · · Score: 1

      ...however, pr0n does become a problem when people who aren't consenting adults are made to be participants (e.g. kids, minors, animals, inebriated people, etc...)

      --
      -- I am. Therefore, I think!
    2. Re:Brilliant solution to a non-existent problem. by praksys · · Score: 1

      Oh well, if this will occupy their time and keep them out of everyone else's business then perhaps in the end it will be a positive thing. The more that sexually repressed people and groups are distracted and preoccupied, the happier the rest of the world will be.

      Actually this comes closer to the mark than you might think. For a lot of the people who fuss about porn the problem of controling their own behavior is what concerns them most. If you have some time to waste then try watching some religious TV. About half of it has to do with money, and the other half has to do with self-discipline and resisting temptation.

      Just goes to show that the puritan spirit is still alive and well in the US.

  289. Re:Big Difference by robi2106 · · Score: 1

    Read it and decide for yourself. If it looks like a tangled mess of contrary statements, then don't believe it.

    If it holds water, then believe it.

    If you can't tell, or are confused (as many philosophy writings tend to do) then ask what someone else thinks about it.

    robi

  290. Best. Episode. Ever. by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    monorail. Monorail. MONORAIL. What you need is a Monorail!

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  291. Re:Big Difference by Fesh · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's more like:

    "You keep using dhat whord. I do no think eet means what you think eet means."

    Hey, if you're going to be pedantic, it better be phonetic. *chuckle*

    --
    --Fesh
    Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
  292. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Heh, for I second I thought this was gonna be another George Dubya rant.

  293. All I could think of when I read this was by bbc22405 · · Score: 1

    "I never asked for the anal probe." Bonus points if you know the origin of the quote... :-)

  294. strange word definitions. by Vellmont · · Score: 1

    I don't consider people who don't actually practice a religion to be members of it. Sorry, but christianity is a belief, not a mystical hidden marker placed upon someone at being baptised. Your definition is confusing, and misleading. The purpose of words is to communicate, and your definition is confusing to the majority of the populace. I submit that your definition is therefore wrong.

    Secondly, I actually never said that because the majority believes it, it's morally acceptable. Where do you see me saying that? I do happen to believe that porn is morally acceptable, but not because there's some majority backing me up. .

    I don't know what kind of semantic argument you're trying to make with morality vs values. Your main argument seems to be "morals don't change, because that's what morals are". My only guess is you believe morals are something handed down from god, and therefore can't change. That's all well and good for you, you can certainly believe that, but all us non-believers define the word differently, and recognize that what people have believed as right and wrong HAS changed through the centuries.

    --
    AccountKiller
  295. MODUP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    insightful

  296. Re:Big Difference by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

    It's good to be a Buddhist.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  297. Funny? by lommer · · Score: 1

    Mods, I think that was meant to be insightful, not funny....

  298. Been there, done that by MoreDruid · · Score: 1

    Gee.... this story is sort of a dupe.
    $$$$$exyGal does this already ^_~

    --
    The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
  299. s/sexual preference/gender by gooberguy · · Score: 1

    I think all the parties involved (including your boyfriend) would be happier if I did not call your gender into question.

    *smacks head into wall*

    D/\ Gooberguy

    --


    Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
    1. Re:s/sexual preference/gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Gender" is a linguistic term; it applies to words. It's only applied to people (or animals) by speakers who are too prudish to use the word "sex".

    2. Re:s/sexual preference/gender by DickBreath · · Score: 1
      Now I'm really confused?

      Which would be called into question? Gender or sexual preference?

      Let's recap... I said...
      • I'm not female
      • I avoid them
      • I have a boyfriend
      By deductive reasoning....

      Now if there is a joke here, I missed it. And I hate to miss a joke. I would have been amused.
      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  300. the weak by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    these people are the same people who we could be better off without. GO OUT! get drunk! have fun with your life! waste your time! keep chatting on slashdot! keep ircing and icqing your life away! oh you victims you people without willpower, you weaklings! we are ready to live without you, and we are no longer waiting for you to keep up with us. Enjoy the last moments of your life because otherwise you'll bring us all down. we do not need and should not help these people. modern medicine and hospitals are useful for the strong - they can make use of technology to heal people who want to be healed - but those who want just to be sick throughout their days, and waste their time gambling, looking at pornograpy, shooting up, or drinking - these people don't want to be helped, if they wanted to stop whatever it is that they are doing, they would stop. cold turkey. but obviously they don't truly want to stop. so instead of willpower they manifest themselves in decedance? LET THEM DECAY! spare not your time worrying about them. make yourself strong. you are better off without their influence.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  301. Reminds me.... by nursedave · · Score: 1

    "Where's your father?"

    "Upstairs, masturbating to gay porn again."

    --

    The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!

  302. many /.ers believe that religion is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for the weak-willed and/or the weak-minded.

  303. May be I has read it before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  304. Re:YES!! YES!! YES!! by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

    Sorry if I came off as 'anti-Catholic' in my post. (I'm Catholic myself.) I do agree about their treatment on Slashdot, but am somewhat concerned that you seem to consider me one of them.

    My question wasn't really "What's wrong with porn," but rather "Why would anyone want to share information on where they go (even if they don't go anywhere they shouldn't) with others?" (You answered both pretty convincingly.)

    Thanks for the reply. I'm not about to install it myself, but I can see the logic now.

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  305. Re:Big Difference by CeruleanSilver · · Score: 1

    the accountability of such morality can be objective

    That is certainly true, but was not your original statement. Instead you claimed that the standard itself was objective, not the accountability of it. For reference, your original words:

    It is an objective standard for them to live by

    Perhaps this is just a case of your words not communicating your meaning properly, but it's easy to see why everyone is arguing with you.

  306. won't work by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

    how about popup ads? false links? and the html spam that one gets in their inbox? there are many ways of going to a pr0n site without going to a pr0n site, because they all come to you instead.

    and sharing your entire log is like giving up your house so a friend can look for condoms.

  307. An Employer's Replacement for Spyware? by querencia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As an employer, I don't filter or spy, and I probably won't do this either. But, for employers that are tempted, isn't this a great alternative? If you're married, a report of your web activities will be mailed to your spouse. No filters that will screw up and keep out legitimate sites; no employer spyware.

    The only problem (as identified by my wife): "What if you wanted to buy me a present online?"

  308. To solve the problem once and for all.. by Coleco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..We could TLDs to seperate the porn.. i.e. .XXX or something, from everything else.. and .KIDS for G rated material. Isn't this what the IANA is for anyway? I personally don't have any moral problem with forcing the porn industry to use specific TLDs, that way filtering is totally trivial, but isn't censored.

    That's kind of off topic anyway because I'm not sure exactly what the point of this article is. On the one hand we have the church guilt machine, on the other hand we have porn addicts. Do either of these groups (prudish christians.. hello, that's _so_ victorian era, can anyone say 'sexual revolution happened in the '60s, we're not scared of naked bodies any more' -- or porn addicts) actually install filter software to protect _themselves_? That's kind of mind bogling. Those people have some serious self denile issues.

  309. No, it's not the religion. by zabieru · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are people with addictions to pornography. For most of us, it's just the occasional urge, the same way you might buy a lottery ticket or go to Vegas. But for some people, it is a serious psychological problem much like gambling addiction. This could be used as a tool to help those people. On the other hand, I share your abhorrence of its stated purpose.

  310. a better filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my prof just finished his dissertation, it is a serch enguine that learns what a type of page looks like and then when you say "war news" it will look on google for news pages that talk about news. rather than looking just at content, it looks at the structure of the page and returns the results. you can make it more knowledgeable by adding more pages to its db so it can identify pages better. the code that does the type checks would be great for porn filters as it would filter out porn pages based on the structure of the page and not the content in the page so medical information will not be blocked!!!

  311. back in the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it was "persian kitty" that was the most comprehensive?

    AFAIK, www.uh-oh.com gives a regularly updated "asian pr0n" list if that's your flavor...

    stileproject for the weirdos ;^)

    ahem. yeah. just for the record...

  312. Morality by popularity by alienmole · · Score: 1
    Morality by popularity is ridicuous. Something is either right ro it is wrong. That doesn't change. By your logic, if a majority believe that rape is right, then suddenly it is.

    Sounds like you need a lesson in moral relativism. Of course morals change. Morals in the Old Testament era were different than they are today. Ditto the New Testament. Morals aren't necessarily set by popularity, but they can be, and in fact have been to some extent in many western nations. Religious leaders may set morals. The morals of conservative religious groups, whether Islam, Judaism, or Christian, are very different from the morals in more mainstream religious groups. And in fact, since one's membership in those groups is, at least in part, by one's own choice, there's an element of popularity there too. If no-one wanted to be an Orthodox Jew, for example, there just wouldn't be any. Simple as that.

    If you believe morals have some absolute basis, you have to say where that comes from. God? Whose conception of god? The Pope? Saddam Hussein? Jesse Jackson? Joseph Smith? L. Ron Hubbard? The Bible? Which book? Which passages? How do you know which passages to accept, and which to ignore?

    Certainly, within each religion, there are well-defined answers to most of these questions, but they don't all agree with each other. What's considered perfectly acceptable by a Christian westerner is a moral crime against Allah in some Islamic states. For that matter, this happens within different branches of the same religion.

    So what was that about morality by popularity again? Face it: you could almost say there is no other morality than popular morality. Even if there is a god, gods, or a big turtle holding the Earth up, you cannot know what to believe in, except by faith. But everyone's faith is different. And the morality of our societies is determined by the popular faiths.

    1. Re:Morality by popularity by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      I'm saying the moral relativism has no value. If you change what is right and what is wrong, depending on how you feel, then the words lose all meaning. Something which is 'right' for you can be 'wrong' for someone else. You cannot definitevely say "This action is wrong." You cannot condemn the actions of Hitler when he ordered genocide because to him it was the 'right' thing to do. And yet people here on slashdot would say that it was wrong.

      Yes, the general public idea of what is moral and what is not, has changed over the centuries. That doesn't make people right. It doesn't mean that the changes are valid ones. Do you think it would be right for everyone to decide toorrow that genoicde was okay? Or rape? Or murder? Because under moral relativism, if a majority deicded it was okay, that would be fine. You wouldn't be able to tell them they're wrong, even if you tihnk they are. morality collapses without absolutes.

      I believe very fimrly in absolutes. Men are very subjective, very flawed beings, so I would never consider taking my morality from a mere man. If God exists, morality as defned by him, is the only morality that has any validity (before you argue against this, I'm taking the hypothetical situation, which I consider to be true, that God exists. Going up to him on judgement day and saying "I'm sorry, but you've got this whole morality business wrong," isn't going to do you any good). The Bible records what God has told us about morality. Having come to the conclusion that the Bible is trustworthy, I therefore take my morality from there, using every book and every passage in context. Your question about which ones to agree with is a false dilema. They are all compatible.

      As for the matter of religions agreeing with each other, I really dont care what other religions say because I consider them all to be wrong. Jesus said "The only way to the father is through me." If it's not christianity, it's not true and has no more validity as a moral system than secular values which are all made up as well.

      So, in conclusion, no I couldn't almost say that there is no morality other than popuar morality. In fact popular morality doesn't even deserve to be called a moral system since it lacks any consistency between people or time. It has no source. There is n way to tell whether something that somebody claims to be right is actually right because by relativism, anybody is right in themselves. It's a whole big contradictory mess.

      Morality requires absolutes to have any value. If God exists, he provides absolutes wich can be trusted. People can lie about what he says, or misunderstand, but that doesn't change the fact that the absolutes exist and determine the only valid and useful definition of what is moral and what isnt. They are the vales by which we will all one day be judged. I deserve to be judged and found wanting, but thankfully Jesus died on the cross and rose again, so I can be forgiven and have nothing to fear come that. That offer is open to everyone.

    2. Re:Morality by popularity by alienmole · · Score: 1
      As for the matter of religions agreeing with each other, I really dont care what other religions say because I consider them all to be wrong.

      Um... but how is it that you know that you're right about this? I hope you realize that in this respect, you're out of step with most major religions, including the larger branches of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and even Buddhism, all of which have reached conclusions, which are part of their respective doctrines, about their relationship to other churches. And it's nowhere near as close-minded as your "consider them all to be wrong".

      The absolutism you describe is *morally* indefensible. One simple reason is, you might be wrong in what you think - as you said, "People can lie about what he says, or misunderstand" - and this might lead you to take wrong actions. In fact, it's exactly the sort of absolutism you're demonstrating that has led to wars and atrocities in the name of religion. If you act as an unthinking "soldier of God", only following orders - which may be from a faulty source, i.e. not directly and personally from God herself - then you're almost bound to be wrong.

      For this reason, the major religions tend to take positions in their doctrines - e.g. the Catholic Catechism - in which the role of your own conscience is described as being crucial. It specifically tells you to not necessarily listen to authority - to listen also to your conscience. But it also talks about how your conscience is not just "whatever you think" - if anything, thinking "I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong" is a warning sign that you are being misled. It talks about these exact issues, and certainly doesn't espouse the kind of simplistic, "I know what is right" absolutism that you do.

      Of course, you're probably not Catholic - but unless you belong to a fundamentalist religion, with rules taken unchanged from a couple of hundred years ago - when morals were different! - then your religion probably has similar exhortations, and you're simply demonstrating that you have not, in fact, studied your own religion in sufficient depth to be making the kind of pronouncements you're making.

      Going up to [God] on judgement day and saying "I'm sorry, but you've got this whole morality business wrong," isn't going to do you any good

      Going up to God and saying "But I thought I was supposed to do such and such" isn't going to do you any good either, if you're wrong.

      Morality requires absolutes to have any value.

      The very existence of the human race for the past 5,000 odd years that we have history for contradicts this. You have personally judged entire religions to be wrong - but how do you know that your God is not more tolerant and loving than you are?

      If God exists, he provides absolutes wich can be trusted. People can lie about what he says, or misunderstand

      So how then do you know what the absolutes are? How do you know you're not misunderstanding?

      but that doesn't change the fact that the absolutes exist and determine the only valid and useful definition of what is moral and what isnt.

      Where do you personally get these absolutes from? From your church? If so, that's an example of the "popularity" I'm talking about. Your church wouldn't exist if it wasn't popular.

      They are the vales by which we will all one day be judged. I deserve to be judged and found wanting, but thankfully Jesus died on the cross and rose again, so I can be forgiven and have nothing to fear come that.

      That's not a good enough excuse for not thinking deeply about your faith. I suggest you study your own religion in more depth, and with more humility.

    3. Re:Morality by popularity by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1
      Um... but how is it that you know that you're right about this? I hope you realize that in this respect, you're out of step with most major religions, including the larger branches of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and even Buddhism, all of which have reached conclusions, which are part of their respective doctrines, about their relationship to other churches. And it's nowhere near as close-minded as your "consider them all to be wrong".

      Where did you pull that from? Islam claims to be the one true religion, Judaism says there is only one God and the Jews are his chosen people and Christianity says that the only way to God is through Jesus. It's been that way fro the last couple of millenia. As for close-mindedness, you're being close-minded by refusing to admit the possibility that only one religion might be right. You're saying that the view that all religions are right (which doesn't work because they contradict each other) is the only valid view. If God says that there's only one way to get to him, I'm going to believe him, rather than trying to be 'open-minded' and looking for ways that don't exist and would in fact lead me away from him. If you're in a burning building and you see a sign saying 'Fire exit this way' would you say "That's awfully close-minded. There must be one in the opposite direction," then turn round and walk away? If so, you'd end up more than a little singed.

      The absolutism you describe is *morally* indefensible.

      How so? You're saying as an absolute fact that absolutism is wrong? Think about that for a moment.

      One simple reason is, you might be wrong in what you think - as you said, "People can lie about what he says, or misunderstand" - and this might lead you to take wrong actions.

      What you're saying is that I might have made a mistake, therefore I must be completely wrong and my stance is indefensible. That's completely illogical. Please do tel me why there is absolutely no possibility that I am right.

      In fact, it's exactly the sort of absolutism you're demonstrating that has led to wars and atrocities in the name of religion.

      I'm taking an absolute, unchangable position that no matter what the circumstance, we should love God and love each other, our enemies included. We should return love in place of hate. We should seek to serve each other. This applies to everyone at every time, regardless of the situation they are in. And this has, according to you, been the cause of wars and atrocities. I'm curious about how you're going to explain that because I'm a little confused as to how a moral system focused on love could lead to war.

      The key phrase in your erroneous statement is 'in the name of religion'. Many things have been done in the name of religion which are in fact in direct opposition to its teaching. Perhaps you'd like to go and tell all Muslims that they're terrorists because of 9/11. Or all Hindus that they're going to join murderous mobs because of the riots in India, or all Buddhists that they're happy to sit back and watch people suffer horrible deaths because of what happened in Cambodia, or all Jews that they want to beat Palestinians into a bloody pulp because Ariel Sharon is a prat or all atheists that they consider a million deaths to be a statistic because Stalin was a tyrant. I could get up and go on a killing spree in your name, but that doesn't mean you ordered it, condone it, or even have knowledge of it. Just because people do things in God's name, doesn't mean he is happy about it. In fact, I'd say he's pretty angry about a lot of the stuff people have done in his name. Wars are started by proud and greedy people who use religion as an excuse to try and get other people on their side.

      If you act as an unthinking "soldier of God", only following orders - which may be from a faulty source, i.e. not directly and personally from God herself - then you're almost bound to be wrong.

      Again with the fallacy. You assume that because there is a chance I might be wrong, then I almost certainly must be. I have spent years studying the Bible. There's not a day that goes past without me thinking about God and his word. I am not unthinking. I follow the Bible because I believe it to be true after critical thought and inspection.

      For this reason, the major religions tend to take positions in their doctrines - e.g. the Catholic Catechism - in which the role of your own conscience is described as being crucial. It specifically tells you to not necessarily listen to authority - to listen also to your conscience. But it also talks about how your conscience is not just "whatever you think" - if anything, thinking "I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong" is a warning sign that you are being misled. It talks about these exact issues, and certainly doesn't espouse the kind of simplistic, "I know what is right" absolutism that you do.

      They also state is a simple truth that the Bible is right, which is what I have been saying is my absolute all along. The bible explicitly states that the only way to God is through Jesus, therefore if the Bible is right, then that statement is correct and I am correct ins saying it. The "I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong" occurs with moral relativism where everyone makes up their own rules of morality for themselves, picking and choosing whatever is convenient.

      Of course, you're probably not Catholic - but unless you belong to a fundamentalist religion, with rules taken unchanged from a couple of hundred years ago - when morals were different! - then your religion probably has similar exhortations, and you're simply demonstrating that you have not, in fact, studied your own religion in sufficient depth to be making the kind of pronouncements you're making.

      If something is moral, then it is is always moral. God is unchanging, therefore there is no reason for morality to change. I don;'t care what society decides is moral and whether or not that changes because there is no reason to trust society when it comes to deciding on morality. The only one to trust is God as he is the source of morality. I believe in the same unchanging God that is described in the Bible, so no, my morals are no different from what they were 2000 years ago. I believe the Bible can be trusted as the Word of God, which makes me a fundamentalist and proud of it. And I'm certainly better informed about Christianity than you appear to be.

      Going up to God and saying "But I thought I was supposed to do such and such" isn't going to do you any good either, if you're wrong.

      Fortunately though, he's given us some fairly explicit instructions as to what to do in the Bible. running around, not deciding on anything because there's a chance it might be long will lead you nowhere and look like a pretty weak excuse some day.

      The very existence of the human race for the past 5,000 odd years that we have history for contradicts this.

      Uh, how do you get that? I fail to see the link between the human race existing and the human race having got morality right. We continue to exist, despite being immoral, because God is loving and is waiting until everyone has had a chance to ask for forgiveness before he comes back and judges us.

      You have personally judged entire religions to be wrong - but how do you know that your God is not more tolerant and loving than you are?

      I've said that God is more loving than I am. He is, rightly, totally intolerant of sin. If you're created to glorify him, then run off, ignore him, ignore the sacrifice he makes, curse his name, go against his commands, why shouldn't he treat you as a sinner? And I'm not the one who has judged entire religions to be wrong - God has and I think he's in a pretty good position to decide. You yourself are an atheist, are you not, therefore you've judged every religion to be wrong. Why are you making me out not a bad guy for this, when you've done exactly the same thing. If you are instead an agnostic, ignore that last sentence.

      So how then do you know what the absolutes are? How do you know you're not misunderstanding?

      Because there is strong historical evidence for the authenticity of the Gospels, which means I have good reason to believe Jesus, which means I have good reason to believe the rest of the Bible. Am I 100% certain? No. But if I had to be before doing anything, I would never get out of bed in the morning.

      Where do you personally get these absolutes from? From your church? If so, that's an example of the "popularity" I'm talking about. Your church wouldn't exist if it wasn't popular.

      The morality presented by the church is generally quite unpopular, but my current church, St. Ebbe's, thrives anyway because it preaches the word of God. As I have said before, I get my absolutes from the Bible. The teaching at Ebbe's is very good because it comes straight from the Bible and I can easily verify whether or not their teaching can be trusted by looking at the Bible. I go to this church specifically because they are very Bible-centred.

      That's not a good enough excuse for not thinking deeply about your faith. I suggest you study your own religion in more depth, and with more humility.

      That's an incredibly presumptuous and arrogant thing for you to say. There is always more for me to learn and greater humility to be attained, as can be said of any Christian. However, I have considerably better knowledge and understanding of Christianity than you do. I suggest you examine your system of moral relatives in light of what both you and I have said and see how well it stands up to scrutiny. See how much accountability it has.

    4. Re:Morality by popularity by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Let me cut to the chase and say that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The most important point is not that I think that your position is absolutely wrong - but that you have to consider the possibility that you might be wrong in some ways, and act accordingly, and thoughtfully. Acting in the certain belief that you, and your religion are the only ones who know what is right are what leads to problems.

    5. Re:Morality by popularity by alienmole · · Score: 1
      I've said that God is more loving than I am. ... And I'm not the one who has judged entire religions to be wrong - God has and I think he's in a pretty good position to decide.

      He may be, but *you* are not. How do you know that God has judged entire religions to be wrong? I suppose you're going to tell me it's based on your selective reading of the Bible.

      That's an incredibly presumptuous and arrogant thing for you to say.

      I'm responding to what I see as your incredible presumption and arrogance to be able to put words in God's mouth. You speak of love, but you don't seem to want to share God with anyone else unless it's on your own terms. I know many Christians - you do not seem like one to me.

  313. I'll help you understand by theo2520 · · Score: 0

    Darn, this probably won't be seen by many, but here goes...

    I myself use the aforementioned software. It is actually very effective, does not rely on the history, and even tracks Netscape and Mozilla and Opera seamlessly (believe me, I've tried to get around it). The only thing that it cannot effectively monitor is P2P sharing, and this even is identifiable by the long strings of IP addresses.

    As to how addictive porn is: you will be astounded. Try going without it for, say, two weeks. Or how about this; track the time you waste on it. Or the money you spend. Or the SPAM that you subject yourself to. And what do you gain? A pleasent burning in your groin, and a rush of chemicals to your brain.

    Compare this to any addictive drug. You can't quit it. It produces only a quick chemical response, nothing more. All because you don't have the guts to actually go after a girl. Get a life, and try building some healthy relationships instead of just concentrating on the body.

    This accountability system has done wonders for me. Really, it deserves some looking into. Just remember it when you want to kick the habit...

  314. At $3.95 per month, it's a scam by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If this were free software, created by someone who wished to help those of a similar religious persuasion, that would be fine. But as a commercial operation, it's just a moneymaker for somebody. And their terms are awful.

    Their privacy policy:
    We will never share personal information about you or your surfing habits unless our withholding of this information would violate a specific request by a local, state, or federal authority.

    So anybody with a governmental letterhead can get your info.

    How they do it:
    The only requirement is that the network administrator open the firewall port 41974, for outbound connections.

    You'd think they could just send a mail message once in a while, but no...

    Their terms and conditions:
    NetAccountability may, in its sole discretion, change, modify, add or remove portions of the NetAccountability application and the services available with respect to the NetAccountability application or this license at any time without notice.

    Coming soon, adware, spyware, what?

  315. Re:Big Difference by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

    I appreciate you pointing that out to me. What I meant by "objective standard" was that it was a standard that could be objectively met. But I see how they could have read it differently.

    Thanks.

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
  316. Inconclusive. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Oh, it's not conclusive, but it certainly bears further investigation, and, more importantly, casts doubt on claims that porn is, in and of itself, a major cause of violence against women.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  317. Peer Pressure Mind Control by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
    ...One of the most effective tools of religious manipulation! Christianity has adopted every technique of history's most successful cults.

    When I was thirteen, I stood in front of my congregation and swore an oath renouncing the ways of the Devil, which of course includes drugs, booze, and sex. I did it because all my friends were doing it. It was the culmination of years of religious training.

    It took me nearly a decade to fully recover, but now I can enjoy pr0n nightly and feel no guilt whatsoever. Free your minds, folks! Human nature is not sin! Join me in the unholy sacrament:

    autopr0n
    PicHunter
    Sito Smax
    Bijin's "homu"

  318. Found it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article is here. Basically TubGirl explains how this doesn't "prevent anything but common sense". You may disagree with her but her reasons are interesting.

  319. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The law of the Old Testament (which is where all your references were taken from) was to pick up on our failings as humans

    ".. it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous" (Rom. 2:13),

    and our inability or opposition to serve the living God, who made us

    "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).

    That law was written for God's people, the nation of Israel, but like all of us, they could not life a life honouring God. That is why Jesus was sent to die

    "For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16),

    "For Christ died for our sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." (1 Peter 3:18).

    While we were dead under the law, God saved us through His son. In this way, if we trust in Christ Jesus for our salvation and take Him on as being in charge of our lives, then we are no longer dead under the law! Living a godly life is still important but trusting, following and having a relationship with God with your heart is what saves you, NOT by following just the law, with an empty, apathetic, religious, 1-hour-a-week-on-Sundays approach to God.
  320. Re:YES!! YES!! YES!! by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

    Okay, this clarified some disconnect thoughts in my own head, and for that I thank you, but... I really wonder about this porn being the exploitation of women. Girl gets paid $500 to be filmed engaged in sex. Guy later pays $50 to see said act. Exactly who is exploiting whom?

  321. Sounds counter-productive to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The stuff you'd find on my logs wouldn't be the kind of stuff you'd talk about in public. Which is the whole point of that type of material.

    Must be a bunch of nude, hippy, tree-huggers who feel comfortable talking about sexual fantasies in public.

  322. reminds me of... by evil_mojo_jojo · · Score: 1

    "The Scarlet Letter" Gee Jim, you keep checking out the p0rn sites, we're going to have to bitch-slap ya... Of course, what idiot is going to use a monitored computer.

  323. Re:Big Difference by colorblind · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow. You're a shameless Karma whore, and a gigantic fucking plagiarist.

    That's awesome, dude.

  324. There's another difference by fiartruck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    thats being ignored in this discussion so far (at least I haven't seen it in any of the highly moderated posts) and that is the difference between "guilt" and "accountability". Guilt or shame is something that most Christians I know would discourage, because it is self-dustructive. There's no use in obsessing over your sin. Even so, if we are honest with ourselves, we realise that each of us ar flawed (i.e. we have room for improvement, we have "fallen short" of the perfect mark). And that is perfectly reasonable because we are all human after all, but do we kick back and say, "well that's life" or do we strive for something better?

    Accountability is not about guilt. Its almost the opposite, as a matter of fact, because guilt makes people hide -- accountability is about finding someone you can trust who will be your confident so you don't have to hide anymore. You can have someone, a real live human -- better if its someone you know well, not just a box or a screen or a program with some mysterious listener bihind -- who can share your struggle and help encourage to strive for that something better.

    It is very painful for me to read some of these posts that say, "if you don't like it then just stop" because its just not that easy. And then they say, well if you can't stop then just accept that its ok. To which I must say for extended periods I pretty much did accept it as ok and the result was a life-wasting habit that ate up to 7 hours of each day (almost as bad as slashdot). To which they reply, "well you have to learn self-control buddy". But ask every person I know, self-control is not one of my major flaws in any other area. And porn was never a problem for me until I crossed that threshold a year ago. I can only say, from experience mind you -- not because some preacher said so, or because my mammy made a face when billy used a word when I was five -- that for me this is something I want to rid myself of, that this is not something I can do myself, and that methods like this help immensly if they are done right. Accountability is about building positive relationships and that, I think, is the intent of this program.

  325. Working with Porn at school by Alan+Q · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work at a high school as a sys admin. Anyway, we occasionally have kids who arent too smart, dont disable proxy logging, and then decide to go surfing the net for pr0n. The most effective tool we have ever had for eliminating porn use is something very simple and maybe partially legal. We find the log, call the student end and give them two options. They can either be suspended for a week for intentionally looking at pornography, or they can call their mother and tell them what they were looking at. They must call them, tell them they were doing bad stuff, then list off the sites that they visited and were poking around. Yeah, it really works. Really really well.

    1. Re:Working with Porn at school by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      This doesn't seem illegal at all. Where is the parent's authority countermanded? No where. No privacy laws are broken. The student is given the choice of punishment. Where else do you get that sort of choice in punishments. Not in the legal system (Judge: Do you want the death penalty or 5 life terms? Convicted mass murdurer: I'll take the life sentences.)

      What would seem illegal is to willingly let it happen with no consequence. Ot even worse, acquiesce to a parent that demanded that the restrictions on viewing porn be removed.

      robi

  326. Re:Big Difference by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

    Well said Brother Taldo! But Brother Bob said it better...

    [Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
    Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
    God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
    God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
    The next time you see me comin' you better run"
    Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
    God says, "Out on Highway 61."]

    -Bob Dylan 'Highway 61 revisited'

  327. Next week.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In order to keep married couples from performing sinful sexual acts, all members of our church are now required to have sex in the pastor's office under his supervision.

    Tapes will be made available for memebers of the flock to review as a system of check and balances.

  328. folks against porn by buckminsterinsd · · Score: 1



    Under our constitutional form of government it seems what really defines a free society is choice and freedom of expression. Even unpopular ideas, porno and "hate speech" must be allowed.

    If ya don't like it, don't do it or look at it.

    That's your choice.

    Please don't try to limit my choice in reading material or what I'm allowed to watch on video or the net. That's unpatriotic and unacceptable to most Americans.

    I thing what ol' Norm said on the topic was on the mark"

    "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

    - Noam Chomsky


    best regards,

    buck

  329. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might feel different tomorrow, your point being?

  330. they can have my list of internet usage for free by phrantic · · Score: 2, Funny

    it's here

    --
    --My sig is bigger than your sig--
  331. Re:Big Difference by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

    A moral system that glorifies a sociopathic, genocidal tyrant that's all too willing to use orbital bombardment on two bronze age cities, saving only the family that was willing to grovel to him sufficiently.... and that is also willing to drown an entire PLANET simply because the inhabitants of said planet weren't grovelling to him sufficiently... is beneath my contempt.

    He's the creator. He can do anything He wants. ;-) Especially if it teaches those ignorant humans a lesson... Call it vengeance of God, or karma, it doesn't matter.

    I wouldn't read the bible to get accurate information about it though..

  332. Won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who am I to say that porn is wrong? If someone wants to download porn, let them. Prohibition will not work, as is obvious. You think anyone is going to stop looking at porn just because you block a few sites? Please, don't be so naive.

  333. Succinct by Dusabre · · Score: 1

    Whitelist, blacklist and greylist for your internet experience?

    The first two lists I get but is the third for Greys? Sheez... mixing porn, religion, science, race and UFO's in one short post. That's Slashdot for you :-)

  334. BAN INTERNET PORN!??!!!!?!?!? by lambchop · · Score: 1

    WHY THE HELL WOULD SOMEONE WANT TO DO THAT!?!?!?!!!???!?! Shit... next thing you know these puritanical freaks are going to start going after the beer in my fridge, and the smokes on my desk. What's next... the " improper " thoughts in my head?

    --
    "...[treat] every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?"
    1. Re:BAN INTERNET PORN!??!!!!?!?!? by lambchop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All joking aside, I am not held accountable to anyone in regards to my internet browsing... Just as I am not held accountable in regards to the books I read, or the thoughts I think. There really is no difference between the books that I read, the internet sites that I read/visit, or the thoughts I think. These I refuse to submit to a "peer review process" they are mine, and mine alone.

      --
      "...[treat] every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?"
  335. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, dude.

    If heaven is only full of people like you I'd much prefer to be in hell. I'd miss my friends so much if I were stuck in your shitty heaven.

  336. Mod parent up! by Kosi · · Score: 1

    Please someone mod the parent up, very "Insightful"!

    Kosi

  337. Revealing useful links by PurpleWizard · · Score: 1
    I put the following idea to the powers at be in the company I work for about two years ago

    1/ Lots of us browse useful sites with lots of intersesting and generally work related stuff on.

    2/ People do browse embarassing, unacceptable (within work) things.

    By making the whole web traffic into a visible list (perhaps ordered on popularity or other criteria) people get access to lots of interesting sites at the same time as self censorship to avoid embarassment or innapropriate use.

    It's a good approach in my opinion.

    burp!

  338. Teasing and Orgasm Denial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i suppose this could be useful for Teasing and Orgasm Denial by a Superior Female Mistress, wouldn't it. Your Mistress could follow your nasty browsing habits and force you to confess!

    it's erotic!

  339. religion and Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    insert other "religion" here but I can only personally come from Christianity. This post here is just a reminder of how easy many people fall into the groupthink that loosely covers itself in various causes, rhetoric and tenets. Religious following is no more immune to this than are the groups of rioters, looters and other mindless protestors through history (all fall under the superset of terrorism but just that some go a "bit" farther than others).

    Christ would definitely never be for a system that sets up a stigma type of enviornment forcing through peer pressure to share your records of internet surfing any more than it would be acceptable to force others to share their daily thoughts and activities without the internet. Besides the obvious hypocricy here, the real danger lies more in the fact that such a tactic is merely the tool of guilt. Guilt is merely another tool of ego, pride and conceit. This is where you often (mostly about political events) hear the phrase, "If you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to fear." There will inevitably be those that will (in congregations that attempt to use this) refuse to go through with this and will immediately be labled as guilty. Politically this is much like those that will wisely fight governmental measures to legislate morality (e.g. enforcing a draconian PC conformance movement or other "feel good measure") regardless of whether they are for or against such actions/methods or even regardless of whether they themselves take part in it. History has shown that such measures we seek to employ against our neighbors will merely empower them to have power over us.

  340. self-righteousness by pngwen · · Score: 1

    I am not a Christian. However, I have read the bible several times and in several different langauges.

    I know you have these list of 10 things you shall not do. (10 commandments if you will, but that's a rough translation of the hebrew)

    Now, my delimma is this. Looking at any image that is a representation of anything that is in earth or heaven would be forbidden if you took the time to read up on your faith.

    Think about it. You can't have artificial images of any kind according to the 10 commandments. You cannot watch telivision (think of it as a graven-image-o-matic, spewing 30 graven images per second)...

    Plus there is nothing forbidding the objectizing of women. In fact in the bible it is encouraged. The hebrew notion of adultry is that of the violation of property. In order to commit adultry you have to have sex with someone else's wife. Now, if these women you objectize and use aren't married, it's simply fornication. The only thing the bible has to say about that is that when you knock the woman up, you pay for the child.

    --
    I am the penguin that codes in the night.
    1. Re:self-righteousness by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      I am not a Christian. However, I have read the bible several times and in several different langauges.

      I am not a lawyer but I saw Perry Mason dubbed in Japanese and therefore am a qualified authority on what the law says....

      I know you have these list of 10 things you shall not do.

      Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - not a negative (shall not).

      Looking at any image that is a representation of anything that is in earth or heaven would be forbidden if you took the time to read up on your faith.

      Reading up on the 'faith' would yield insight as to what a graven image represented. Not just a picture, but an idol.

      The hebrew notion of adultry is that of the violation of property. In order to commit adultry you have to have sex with someone else's wife. Now, if these women you objectize and use aren't married, it's simply fornication.

      The difference in terms is not one of value, but state. It's like the difference in Mrs. and Miss. That is not to say there is no truth in your comment regarding property within the culture at the time, but you are overreaching with your conclusion.

      The only thing the bible has to say about that is that when you knock the woman up, you pay for the child.

      I'm pretty familiar with the text, but I don't recall seeing that passage. Can you substantiate your claim for me?

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    2. Re:self-righteousness by bigchris · · Score: 1

      Well, I haven't read the Hebrew as I don't understand the language, but are you referring to the second commandment in Exodus 20?

      "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."

      I think that this goes with the first commandment also, which states:

      "You shall have no other gods before me."

      I don't think that it says that says you shouldn't look at any graven images, I think that that says you should "make for yourself an idol" or bow down to them in worship. That's very different to looking at a graven image.

      The context of the verse is to clearly lay before the people how they are meant to respond to God's sovereignty and gracious mercy in rescuing them from their enemies (after all they just got out of Egypt!).

      So I would disagree with you on this point, unless you could point out to me another passage that supported your argument.

      Also, when you state that there is nothing forbidding the objectification of women, I also can't agree with you on this point. Jesus says,

      ""You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28).

      He's referencing Exodus 20:14.

      As for the Hebrew notion of adultery is the violation of property, I'm not sure I agree with that either. Granted, some Hebrews may have gotten this notion, but they would have gotten the notion wrong. Again, I have to go back to Genesis 2:20b-25,

      "But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said,

      "This is now bone of my bones
      and flesh of my flesh;
      she shall be called 'woman,'
      for she was taken out of man."

      For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

      Woman was taken from man, they are united together. In some ways however you are correct in your assertion that the wife belongs to the husband, but it is equally true that the husband belongs to the wife.

      A good explanation of this is in 1 Corinthians 7:3-4,

      "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife."

    3. Re:self-righteousness by Tassach · · Score: 1
      Sorry, you've succumbed to one of the classical logical fallacies: appeal to authority (with a side order of appeal.

      Quoting the Bible does not demonstrate anything in reality other than how you interpret the meaning of a particular ~400-year-old English translation of selected scrolls recording a long-dead rabbi's memory of some ancient oral legends he had been taught (since we're talking old testament here). You assert the KJV Bible is the unadulterated and literal Word of God? I say prove it, without resorting to any other logical fallacies.

      There are N religions that each make the mutual exclusive claim that they and they alone hold the keys to eternal salvation. At most, only one of them can be correct. The risk of chosing the the wrong holy book (or the wrong intrepretation of a particuar book) is so extremely high (eternal damnnation) that nothing less than the most stringent proof is acceptable.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    4. Re:self-righteousness by bigchris · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was more disagreeing with the argument of the poster. He used the Bible to prove his point, I felt that he wasn't giving the fully story. I wasn't trying to "prove" God. I think that some people will accept God and others will reject God. I just interpret and expound the Bible as best I can.

    5. Re:self-righteousness by bigchris · · Score: 1

      Whoa. "wasn't giving the fully story"? where did that "y" come from?

      Oops.

  341. Re:Big Difference by bigchris · · Score: 1

    Don't you think that morals could be based on objective truth? if not, why not?

  342. Re:Big Difference by bigchris · · Score: 1

    Are you really interested in the answers or do you have a large axe to grind?

    Well, a great book on the "Big Picture" of the Old Testament in made by Graham Goldsworthy. It's called Gospel and Kingdom and it goes through what he beleives the OT is all about. I can highly recommend this book.

  343. Re:Big Difference by I+am+Jack's+username · · Score: 1
    To be fair, the original poster quoted a verse from Matthew, which is in the "new testament". Your copy of "Dear Dr. Laura" refers only to "old testament" verses.
    "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:17-19, The Bible, King James version.

    Nine verses later we get a nice on topic bit:
    "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
    And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." - Matthew 5:28-29, The Bible, King James version.

  344. I signed up. It works. I like it. by noah_sandalman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    NetAccountability works. I picked a buddy - downloaded the app on a couple machines (no additional fee). My wife and I talked about this - she can see my reports as well. (accountability partners are free) Good stuff. I talked with the ministry - they have 24/7 counseling and a vision for really helping protect families. Very family-oriented. Customer support is good. No linux or MAC version... I'll share more as I experience it... Noah

  345. my short life working for a porn site by LifesABeach · · Score: 0



    i never knew how vanilla i was till i worked for a porn site.

    i lasted two weeks before my wife said to quit.

    to this day i still laugh at the memories.

  346. Re:Big Difference by Taldo · · Score: 1
    It's actually rather frightening how many times I've heard that exact rationalization from fundamentalists.... then when I switch it around and say 'He's the Fuherer.... he can do anything he wants' they either splutter and rationalize a lot or they get all pissy and claim 'but THAT'S different!!!!'

    :p

  347. References by alienmole · · Score: 1
    Where did you pull that from? Islam claims to be the one true religion, Judaism says there is only one God and the Jews are his chosen people and Christianity says that the only way to God is through Jesus. It's been that way fro the last couple of millenia.

    Well, for example, here's The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible", from the Vatican. I can dig up other similar things from other religions, if you're interested.

    You mentioned the way it's been for millenia. There's a reasonable historic overview in Christianity in its relation to Judaism, which also talks about the Islamic point of view. Islam considers the Jewish and Christian prophets to be true prophets, and recognizes the high moral qualities of Christians. It's amazingly small-minded to simply close yourself off to a thousand-year history of tolerance and understanding between the deepest thinkers and framers of the faiths of the major religions, and simply say "everyone is wrong but me and my religion". You place yourself squarely amongst the ignorant majority by doing so.

  348. Re:Big Difference by clarkc3 · · Score: 1
    i) I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    take the gloves off - its just leather that got a nickname for the way it looked.

  349. Dabru Emet: Jewish Statement on Christianity by alienmole · · Score: 1
    The Dabru Emet is "A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity".

    I'll stop with the messages now. I hope you learn something from the references I've given.

  350. but...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some of it is really a non-issue. No one would sell their child into slavery based on the the golden rule put forth in Matthew 22:39

  351. bible passage by IndependentVik · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty familiar with the text, but I don't recall seeing that passage. Can you substantiate your claim for me?

    The guy you were talking to misquoted (I think). I believe what he meant to say was that if a man sleeps with an umarried woman and then refuses to marry her he must pay her dowry price (ie, the price her father would get from marrying her off).

    If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
    Exodus 22:15-17 (KJV)

    --
    I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
  352. with regards to the pissing match by zorander · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's easy to see that this story is goign to make for more religious debate. Let me make something clear. (And these are my beliefs and not neccesarily yours and thats ok)

    The purpose of Christian life is to bring glory to God.

    I know no Christians who'd disagree with me on that...even some of the more fringe groups...Without quoting verses on this and that that seem to specifically address this issue, does viewing porn bring glory to God? not if it's done lustily--if it's done out of appreciation for the female body or whatever (that's a fine line, and one i'd rather not approach) then that could be different, but lust=bad (according to the Bible which I believe in and you may not neccesarily and that's ok). Generally a litmus test is whether you're masturbating in conjunction with the porn. If you are, it's probably (though not neccesarily) lust oriented.

    This isn't to keep your kids off of porn. This is for people who desire to stop viewing it and need help--This is a filter for your own computer. It's not a bad thing to help people who want to develop self control develop it.

    I'm not suggesting that y'all change your lives to think like me. For the record there was no indoctrination in my case--My parents do not believe what I do. I was not brought up in faith, but found it later (how I believe it should be found--one appreciates where they are more when they had to get there on their own) after THINKING OBJECTIVELY...something many Christians regrettably do not know how to do.

    Okay. back to the pissing match. I hate it when that happens.

    Brian

  353. Re:Big Difference by tkg · · Score: 1

    Has it every occurred to you that God might be a committee?

    He is. Ever hear of the Trinity?

  354. Re:Big Difference by autophile · · Score: 1

    Why the heck wasn't this moderated as Funny? I was LMAO!

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  355. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's Führer für dich, Schweinhund.

  356. Knoppix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't keep everything in RAM, and only write encrypted to HD space, thus saving you from people sniffing your HD - or am I wrong about that?

    That's what I'm looking for, everything inlcuding downloads goes to RAM, and writes out to encrypted files - preferably able to operate on non-humungous chunks of RAM. That'll save me from the corporate industrial psychologists.

    1. Re:Knoppix by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Knoppix doesn't write anything to the harddrive so there is nothing to sniff.

      As for writing encrypted, you could just mount an encrypted filesystem on your harddrive there is a zillion ways to do this for example

  357. Re:Patial morality? Is that what you mean? by robi2106 · · Score: 1

    The "partial morality" concept could be (speculation) the belief that there is a moral level of right and wrong, but that level is different for each person.

    Or it could be that partial morality acknowledges the absolute, while discounting it is "not for them."

    It is to grasp the concept of partial morality, when in science there is nothing but absolutes. There is e=mc2 except on Thursdays, or when you feel like it does. Everything obeys absolute laws with many exceptions based also on other laws. But laws none the less.

    robi

  358. Re:Big Difference by Taldo · · Score: 1

    Eh.... callate, no hablo alemano, tonto. ;)

  359. Late but usefull by robi2106 · · Score: 1

    (I am not affiliated in any way with cvnt.net)

    In case a duplicate post in a deep thread is not visible, there is a similar software developed called Covenant Eyes that loggs all sites and then ranks them. That way you or your accountability partner, can see some sites which they may not determine as high ranking, but you and your partner know to be high ranking. This is in contrast to the NetAccountability software with is at their discretion to determine (with your input).

    This sw also keeps time stamps to show cumulative time spent at a site. So this could be used for general internet addiction (mostly to http only, but could be applied to other protocols).

    Also of note is the fact that the SW cannot be un installed unless a emailed code is used. That isn't to say that you have to get permission from anyone to un install the app. It is an automated system that just send out the code. What it does is log when the code was sent out and how long until the app was re-installed.

    Nothing prevents you from using the internet in any way. Just like accountability is supposed to be.

    robi

  360. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    Alan Cox wrote:
    >> On any procmail new enough not to be full of security holes you set
    >Brain on, Imeant majordomo of course 8)
    You got me worried there for a brief (very brief) moment :-).
    -- Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless)

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...