Slashdot Mirror
New RFC Considers .sex TLD Dangerous
netcentric writes "A post on CircleID has reported about an RFC prepared by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd and Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com's Washington D.C. correspondent, analyzing proposals from various parties to mandate the use of special top level domain names (such as .sex or .xxx) or an IP address bit to flag 'adult' or 'unsafe' material or the like. The analysis explains why these ideas are dangerous and ill considered from legal, philosophical, and technical points of view. Here is the post to this report on CircleID along with some commentaries and link to the entire RFC 3675."
Bad code!
That should be
const char *main()
{
const char *gender;
gender = "male";
return gender;
}
.cx is the domain extention of christmas island, and some people thought it cleaver to combine it with goatse.
Putting all the porn under the .xxx or .sex domain is as necessary as adding the front button to pants. Did anybody question the person that invented the zipper????????
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 ("C9x") section 5.1.2.2 specifies that the function called at program startup shall be called "main"; furthermore, that function must return int. If you define a function called "main" in a program running on a conforming hosted environment, your function must return int.
Your code is undefined. HAND.
Seriously though, every time one mistypes a URL, one invariably winds up at a pr0n site. If porn had its own TLD, perhaps this might change.
(Pppffffttttt. Yeah right!) At least it might make it easier to find quality porn on the net ;)
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
Seems like a lot of government organizations in the US have forgotten their history... nothing new, there.
What are the *real* issues in this years election campaign again? I forget....
sigh.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
You do realize that that is one of the most breath-taking oxymorons I've ever seen uttered on Slashdot? If you're willing to label a culture "barbaric relative to any acceptable moral standards", then you are not a relativist. You believe that there are absolute standards applicable to all cultures and that there can therefore be cultures in violation of those standards.
Its this thing called a >joke The use of 'acceptable' here was deliberate. I did not say 'true'. There can be no absolute definition of 'acceptable', but there is certainly an intersubjective definition. The closest we get to an absolute standard would be a Rawlsian original position, although the term 'veil of ignorance' starts to take on an ironic meaning in this case.
The very worst aspect of Whahabi islam is the absolutism, the claim to absolute knowledge of what is right, everything else, the treatment of women, the lack of all basic political rights follows from that absolutism.
I think that like many right wing critics of cultural relativism you miss the point. Just because a moral code might have internal logical consistency does not mean that it is acceptable. The point is that the absolutist moral convictions of John Ashcroft are no more acceptable than Whahabi absolutism.
Once you accept the 'Open Society' position that George Sorros and Karl Popper advocate, that there is no absolute truth then there is no place for a Whahabi state or an Ashcroftian state.
What we could do is to join the two ideas. The big problem with the Rawlsian veil of ignorance argument is that it is untestable. But the situation we have in liberal society is pretty similar. The question becomes, would anyone accept an Ashcroftian or Whahabi state if they did not already live in one and if they did not know what role they would have in it?
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I guess pointing out spyware is now a troll.
oh, please. it wasn't the spyware stuff. look it up :