Slashdot Mirror


OLPC Used to Browse Porn

youthoftoday writes "The OLPC project to bring the internet to third world has worked well — too well, it seems. Yahoo reports that Nigerian Children are already using the OLPC to browse for porn." This is why as kids we couldn't look at National Geographic issues without being supervised. A rep from OLPC said, understandably, that the laptops would now be fitted with filters.

338 comments

  1. Then it is true by Broken+scope · · Score: 5, Funny

    We have finally brought the joys of the internet to those less fortunate.

    --
    You mad
    1. Re:Then it is true by Adambomb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fry: It's immense.

      Leela: It's got every piece of information anyone could ever want.

      [Fry sees the porn sites.]

      Fry: So I see!

      [He flies down to the porn sites and Bender and Hermes follow him.]

      Zoidberg: What? What's going on here?

      [He sees a sign advertising "Sardine-on-Mackerel Action", warbles and flies towards it.]

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    2. Re:Then it is true by acidrain · · Score: 1

      And now like the rest of us, they know why they are the less fortunate. (What did OLPC expect?!?)

      --
      -- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
    3. Re:Then it is true by Tribbin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes we HAD brought the joys of the internet to the less fortunate.
      It's not fair.
      These fortunate black males will now also see ads for penis enlargers. We will never be able to catch up with them... ever.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    4. Re:Then it is true by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just think... a generation of children in the third world will learn programming just in order to hack around the anti-porn filters.

    5. Re:Then it is true by Divebus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Next, they figure out how to use the camera to make and sell their own porn.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    6. Re:Then it is true by zlamma · · Score: 4, Funny

      Duuh... Anybody remembers what OLPC stood for? One Lapdance Per Child or something...

    7. Re:Then it is true by Joebert · · Score: 4, Funny

      Joys ?!
      They're recharged by hand, they have to crank one on just to crank one off !

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    8. Re:Then it is true by thc69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent up +5 Insightful. Just as porn and piracy have advanced technology development, they have also advanced personal development of so many here. Why shouldn't they do the same for the OLPC recipients?

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    9. Re:Then it is true by aastanna · · Score: 3, Funny

      Doesn't everyone know that the internet is for porn?

    10. Re:Then it is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      People that don't get laid shouldn't really comment on others sex lives.

    11. Re:Then it is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, all of Slashdot then?

    12. Re:Then it is true by thealsir · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's such a great share of intellectual stimulation these days. Maybe porn, not money, should become the new currency. Maybe they'll stop hopping from civil war to civil war and start hopping each other...or at least engage in a little self-lovin'.

      --
      Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
    13. Re:Then it is true by DavoMan · · Score: 1

      AHhahAHaHAhAHahahahaa!!

      --
      Whats the harm in yelling 'Computer, end program!'? You could be living in Star Trek! Go on.. give it a try.
  2. First page view? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    404 File Not Found
    The requested URL (hardware/07/07/21/1353241.shtml) was not found.

    If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.

    1. Re:First page view? by Qubit · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      yeah, that used to happen all the time to me as well. Because it would only happen when an articles was REALLY fresh -- no comments, nothing -- I figured it was some bug in Slash (the slashcode) that didn't atomically generate the page and the link to the page at the same time... or something.

      --

      coding is life /* the rest is */
  3. national geographic? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    cowboy neal has jungle fever!

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  4. Yeah right by HalAtWork · · Score: 4, Funny

    I really can't take the story's word for it without photographic evidence.

    1. Re:Yeah right by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Actually, this article sounds suspiciously like FUD to me. What better way to convince third world countries, who probably have backward muslim governments, to opt out of participation in OLPC than to make them think that letting their children have laptops will corrupt their morals?

      There's a significant number of the so-called "leaders" of industrialized countries that would just as soon keep a healthy portion of the world poor and uneducated. Otherwise, there won't be anyplace for them to build their shoe, clothing or consumer electronics factories.

      We may also soon hear of how a "young Nigerian boy" was found to have used his OLPC to "bully" someone, or to download music torrents, or God forbid, read about using condoms to prevent AIDS instead of "abstinence".

      So. Effing. What? We have a chance to give a large number of children who have very little something that might give them a small boost in terms of education and communication. If a couple of them see naked breasts does it really mean that there's something horrible about OLPC?

      There's been a surprising amount of articles about OLPC that seem a little "off" in terms of how critical they are of the program. I smell a Rat, or maybe a Redmond mole.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Yeah right by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yahoo
      NEWS ALERTS

      Get an alert when there are new stories about:

              ( ) Abuja
              ( ) explicit sexual materials


      Sign me up for those email news alerts on ABUJA! Oh yeah baby! Gimme that Abuuuuja!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  5. It's only fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Americans looked at naked Africans as kids, so African kids should be able to look at naked Americans now.

    1. Re:It's only fair... by Calydor · · Score: 2, Funny

      So the OLPC is a torture instrument?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  6. big deal by heptapod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd rather those Nigerian children would browse porn instead of sending out 419 emails.

    1. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'd rather those Nigerian children would browse porn instead of sending out 419 emails.

      Hello, this is MR. JOE EBOH, the Chariman of the "Pamela Anderson Association of Nigeria." It has been brought to my attention through an official at the NIGERIAN NATIONAL BANK that there are funds in excess of $3,000,000 THREE MILLION DOLLARS and 15 DVDs protraying Ms. Anderson in an account in our name, that cannot be released without your help.

    2. Re:big deal by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a big deal. If you think that Americans are conservatives and puritanians, you should take a look at some African countries (I am not sure about Nigeria though). If they see that most kids can access porn on their laptops they can very well consider this a big enough issue to completly withdraw from the program.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Americans, Puritans? what planet are you from?

  7. In other news by Deadplant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It has been reported that the sun has risen in Nigeria today.
    Analyst are in agreement that the sun will almost certainly rise again probably once each day for the next few weeks.

    Also: filters? get a fucking clue.
    How about instead we just use these internets to send the offending officials some biology texts so that can learn about human sexuality and stop trying to stifle it.

    1. Re:In other news by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Funny

      better yet, point them to goatse and tubgirl.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:In other news by laejoh · · Score: 0

      ... trying to stifle it.

      Now that's an interesting choice of words considering the subject!

    3. Re:In other news by glitch23 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How about instead we just use these internets to send the offending officials some biology texts so that can learn about human sexuality and stop trying to stifle it.

      Wow, you need a clue. By applying filters for porn sites, they are not trying to stifle education about human sexuality. You can't learn that from watching porn. Now you could argue the filters may get applied too strictly thus blocking medical websites but that has yet to be seen. So as it stands if you think someone can learn about human sexuality from watching porn I think you may need to see your local area psychologist. What is worse is if there is anyone who thinks anyone (especially kids) *should* learn human sexuality from watching porn. No one under 18 should want porn. It could be argued no one over 18 should watch it either.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    4. Re:In other news by Deadplant · · Score: 1

      So as it stands if you think someone can learn about human sexuality from watching porn I think you may need to see your local area psychologist. er, um.. what?
      That statement is just... wow. over-the-top ridiculous.
      I mean ... wow.

      I suppose you're either trolling or just delusional but I'll bite.

      Porn is a product of thousands of years of refinement by market forces to cater to the sexual desires of humans (or at least men). As such it is reasonable to conclude that it portrays the sexual desires of men reasonably accurately.
      Maybe we're talking about different things... when I refer to human sexuality I am talking about the observed sexual activities, desires and fantasies of humans. Are you perhaps confusing this with someone's idea of what human sexuality should be?
      I'd like to suggest that you need to visit your 'local area' scientist.

      anyone who thinks anyone (especially kids) *should* learn human sexuality from watching porn. Holy straw-man batman.
      not-banning something and using it to teach kids are rather different things don't you think? don't put words in my mouth.

      No one under 18 should want porn. It could be argued no one over 18 should watch it either. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that first sentence was a mistake.
      Otherwise there was no point responding at all as you must be taking your biology lessons from a priest.
      That being said, I totally disagree with the your idea that porn should be avoided. Why? well, I happen to think that people a beautiful when they're naked. I also think that sex and sexual touching are some of the most wonderful things in this world. People should feel free to watch, dream about and do as much of it as possible and I've never heard a convincing argument to the contrary.
    5. Re:In other news by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      That being said, I totally disagree with the your idea that porn should be avoided. Why? well, I happen to think that people a beautiful when they're naked. I also think that sex and sexual touching are some of the most wonderful things in this world. People should feel free to watch, dream about and do as much of it as possible and I've never heard a convincing argument to the contrary.

      There is nothing wrong with the body in and of itself. There *is* something wrong with exploiting it whether for monetary or some other gain. Porn does exactly that. It makes a business out of people, their method of reproduction, and what they use to express love for someone else. Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds more like you are talking about making love and not just sex. If so, I'll say that porn is just sex. For that reason it is not the best way to observe human sexual practices. It is the animal side of us. It isn't the human side. What is your goal when watching porn? I can't see any useful, non-self-satisfying reason for watching it because it isn't like you can take part in the emotion that the 2+ people experience that are in the porn video (assuming there was emotion to begin with).

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    6. Re:In other news by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with the body in and of itself. There *is* something wrong with exploiting it whether for monetary or some other gain. Porn does exactly that. It makes a business out of people, their method of reproduction, and what they use to express love for someone else.

      Heh. Let me try something for you:

      There is nothing wrong with the body in and of itself. There *is* something wrong with exploiting it whether for monetary or some other gain. Restaurants do exactly that. It makes a business out of people, their method of feeding, and what they use to delight their palette.

      What you said could basically be said for any service industry. But I suppose you mean that making love is special and precious, and shouldn't be wasted? Well, I agree, but that is up to each individual, not something that society should dictate.

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    7. Re:In other news by m50d · · Score: 1
      Wow, you need a clue. By applying filters for porn sites, they are not trying to stifle education about human sexuality.

      Learn to read. He didn't say they were stopping the kids from learning about human sexuality, merely that the officials needed to learn some themselves. Yes, most porn is pure fantasy. But that is an important part of human sexuality.

      --
      I am trolling
    8. Re:In other news by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      What you said could basically be said for any service industry. But I suppose you mean that making love is special and precious, and shouldn't be wasted? Well, I agree, but that is up to each individual, not something that society should dictate.

      Society already dictates many things for individuals. There are societal norms and in many cases the legal system reflects those norms. Examples include a minimum age for which someone can provide consent for having intercourse with an adult and the view that stealing is wrong as well as rape and murder. People oust others from society when they commit certain acts because they are outside of the societial norms. Why should society not dictate whether someone should be able to rot their mind (and in some cases ruin their marriage) because they watch porn? Those who are affected by societal norms are the only ones who normally defend the opinion that society should not be able to dictate what they should or should not do.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    9. Re:In other news by Deadplant · · Score: 1

      If so, I'll say that porn is just sex. For that reason it is not the best way to observe human sexual practices. Ok, you lost me there. Those two sentences are logically inconsistent.

      ...their method of reproduction, and what they use to express love... Those are certainly not the only reasons to have sex. In fact, they are probably not even the most common reasons to have sex.
      People have sex mostly because of how it makes them feel. (good)

      I can't see any useful, non-self-satisfying reason for watching it Again, your statements seem to be internally inconsistent.
      Are you suggesting that satisfying our desires is not useful? Fulfilling needs, satisfying desires is practically the definition of useful. I beginning to think we're using different dictionaries...

      because it isn't like you can take part in the emotion that the 2+ people experience that are in the porn video Again, there is much more to sex than reproduction, love and emotion. There is a significant amount of physical pleasure. Stimulating certain clusters of nerves produces physical pleasure usually building up and up to something called an orgasm which feels fantastic. I'll not go into the details in this post, I'll let you investigate that for yourself. Wikipedia probably has a thorough entry on the subject.
    10. Re:In other news by Deadplant · · Score: 1

      There are societal norms and in many cases the legal system reflects those norms. In modern western society rules are (for the most part) based on a few simple principles.
      1) You cannot do things that hurt other people.
      2) You cannot do things that unreasonably exploit the vulnerable. (children, mentally handicapped etc)

      Those are the principals that lead to rules restricting sexual intercourse with minors and rape/murder.

      Why should society not dictate whether someone should be able to rot their mind [...] because they watch porn? Because rotting one's own mind does not hurt other people or take undue advantage of the vulnerable.
      It is unreasonable and wholly unjustified for anyone to dictate how I should behave with the sole exception of how my behaviour may negatively affect other people in the community.
      If you live in a fee western society this is something you may have learned in civics class.

      As for the notion that watching people having sex will 'rot their mind' I really have to wonder what the heck you're talking about. I'll assume that you are not speaking literally... I take it that you are suggesting that watching sex will have a negative affect on my ability to think and make rational decisions. Is that what you mean? I'm really having a hard time with that statement as it does not seem to make any sense. Could you please explain?
  8. W3llcum 2 teh intarweb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Why don't OLPC do the decent thing and set goatse as the browser homepage?

  9. Porn first, by Michael+Koh · · Score: 1

    email next.

  10. Proxies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon these kids will learn how to walk through Torpark, and, as the OLPC distributors clog the the computers with even more filters and blocks, a new generation of extremely computer-able hackers will come of age.

  11. Porn is inevitable by Shabbs · · Score: 5, Funny

    No matter where you go on the 'net, chances are you're going to hit some kind of porn sooner or later whether you meant to or not. Since these were originally destined for children, I'm surprised they did NOT come equipped with filters from the start. A big oversight for sure.

    OLPC Project: "Here children, I give you THE INTERNET... totally unfiltered. Enjoy."

    [5 minutes later...]

    Children: "What is Goatse?"

    Sigh...

    Get those filters on!

    --
    Mark
    1. Re:Porn is inevitable by Eudial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Get those filters on!


      If they truly only blocked porn, then maybe it would be a matter of discussion, but certain filters' habit of censoring all sorts of irrelevant contents, political and otherwise really makes porn the lesser of the two evils.
      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    2. Re:Porn is inevitable by Tuoqui · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As much as I hate to say it. You're right.

      If you start blocking porn because of its content (porn) then the people who have the power will demand other things be blocked too which leads to the Great Firewall of China problem... Except this one would be in Nigeria.

      The internet was supposed to free everyone and allow them to think for themselves. Naturally those in power decide to try and force it into a tool for control just like everything else from Income Taxes to Drivers Licenses.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    3. Re:Porn is inevitable by rlp · · Score: 1

      Some time later:

      OLPC Project: The filters are in place.

      Children: Why is everything in Chinese?

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    4. Re:Porn is inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except here we're only talking about filtering software on the LAPTOPS.

      This isn't something controlled by the government, it's controlled by those supporting the OLPC project. Not very likely that it will be used as a political tool.

      And think about the demographic you're dealing with. Do the politician's even care right now?

    5. Re:Porn is inevitable by lbbros · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The internet was supposed to free everyone and allow them to think for themselves.

      You are making a fundamental assumption - that these children are able to think for themselves. Face it, they are not. They can be *influenced* by things, rather than influence them, either passively, or actively. This is (also obviously) because they aren't adults yet. Parents' education, school, etc. influences you in a way when you are little, as well.

      And for the other posts that mention that filters are "censorship"... you're misguided. If these computers are meant for schooling, they are meant for schooling, not for porn. Kind of like not using a cell phone in a class at school: it is a matter of education. But I forgot, education as a concept died in 1968 in favor of unrestricted (as in not thinking things out, doing stuff just because you're able to) "freedom"...

      --
      A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
    6. Re:Porn is inevitable by Eudial · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And think about the demographic you're dealing with. Do the politician's even care right now?


      I thought starting early was exactly how political indoctrination usually works. It's very hard to indoctrinate adults that have learned about whatever you want to keep from them, but if you get them while they are young and easy to affect, they won't know what they're missing out on.
      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    7. Re:Porn is inevitable by Belacgod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In China recently a censor let through a tribute to the June 4 martyrs because he didn't realize that was referring to Tianamen Square because he'd never heard of the massacre there. So yes, indoctrination works well on the young and unlearned.

    8. Re:Porn is inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [5 minutes later...]
      Children: "What is Goatse?"

      That, or a classroom of kids all waving their arms, chanting "badger badger badger badger badger ..."
    9. Re:Porn is inevitable by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      The internet was supposed to free everyone and allow them to think for themselves.

      No. The internet was meant to allow scientists to share information and computational resources.
    10. Re:Porn is inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      absolutely. Many chinese buy the government line on Tianamen hook-line-and-sinker.

    11. Re:Porn is inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The internet was supposed to free everyone and allow them to think for themselves.
      No. The internet was meant to allow scientists to share information and computational resources.

      No. The Internet was meant to allow the military to maintain reliable communication in the face of a devastating nuclear attack. The scientists-sharing-resources aspect is a side benefit in support of the military's main goal.

    12. Re:Porn is inevitable by westlake · · Score: 1
      The internet was supposed to free everyone and allow them to think for themselves.

      I call this the geek's version of "Intelligent Design."

      The Internet is not compelled to evolve as an expression of western values of free expression.

      China has a 3,000 year tradition of centralized power and bureaucratic rule. China has not been without significant intellectual and cultural achievement. One size does not fit all.

    13. Re:Porn is inevitable by grcumb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you start blocking porn because of its content (porn) then the people who have the power will demand other things be blocked too which leads to the Great Firewall of China problem... Except this one would be in Nigeria.

      I've been dealing with exactly this issue for the last 4 years. I work in the developing world, and one of the things I do is assist with the integration of computers into programmes of all kinds. I can tell you that one of the biggest fears (after malware) is the content that people will access.

      This may strike some of you as bizarre or even disgusting, but in cultures where sexuality - and women too - have historically been repressed, it's not unusual for a man to sit in his office and wank[*], not stopping when other staff members pass the door. Men can sometimes be surprisingly aggressive about their desire for porn. I remember being told a story about IT staff opening pop ups on a miscreant's computer, saying "We can see what you're doing. Stop it!" He just kept right on going. I myself have sat in the next office to one especially persistent guy, blocking domains the moment he accessed them. In the end I had to use back-channels to get the situation addressed.

      [*] Odds are really good that this is the only place he can access the Internet. There's no computer at home, and Internet cafés are too expensive. The compulsion simply becomes to strong to deny.

      Everybody asks me to install filters, and I do it, because in this country, pornography is against the law. But I explain to every manager who will listen that the technical measures are simply CYA: They exist so that you can argue in a court of law that you took reasonable measures to curb illegal activity. Ultimately, controlling what staff and/or project stakeholders see on their computers is a basic management issue. If people are properly supervised, they will not stray far. If they do, they must be disciplined.

      In short: There's no technical substitute for supervision.

      The internet was supposed to free everyone and allow them to think for themselves. Naturally those in power decide to try and force it into a tool for control just like everything else from Income Taxes to Drivers Licenses.

      I submit that this contention is just as flawed as the idea that a content filter is the right tool for the job. What you are describing is people allowing a political and social climate that permits this kind of behaviour. The challenge is not a technical one. The means already exist for a complete surveillance state, and we can't un-invent the tools. All we can do is ensure that they are used appropriately. And that problem doesn't have a technical solution. It comes down to human beings showing humanity to one another.

      I'll refrain from commenting on any current socio-political trends that might serve as examples. I'm sure we can all find suitable cases in our own back yards.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    14. Re:Porn is inevitable by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1
      "Trying to make bits not copyable is like trying to make water not wet." - Bruce Schneier

      It's not just about some western value system.

    15. Re:Porn is inevitable by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      In other words, to be able to reliably issue ICBM launch commands when the shit has really hit the fan.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    16. Re:Porn is inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Trying to make bits not copyable is like trying to make water not wet." - Bruce Schneier To geeks, this is both Gospel Truth and one of the basic Laws of Nature.

      At least, this is the case when geeks are talking about porn, MP3s, and TV shows... When we hear that the CIA is snooping on phone calls or Online-Mega-Mart is selling their customer database, then, quite suddenly, some of those bits are supposed to be less copyable than others.
    17. Re:Porn is inevitable by westlake · · Score: 1
      Trying to make bits not copyable is like trying to make water not wet." - Bruce Schneier
      To geeks, this is both Gospel Truth and one of the basic Laws of Nature.

      --- and to copy the bits you must first collect the bits. Not easy if the traffic is being blocked upstream - at the border. Not safe if anonymity or encryption sets off alarms.

      some of those bits are supposed to be less copyable than others

      "All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others."

    18. Re:Porn is inevitable by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is an opportunity for a good open source porn filter that uses moderated but user-generated content, if such a thing doesn't already exist. In other words, rely on regular users to report the porn sites, then add them if they truly are porn. The key is to make the list totally transparent, and have some sort of sensible grievance program in case something does get added (or a domain gets transferred) and the site's not really porn. It'd take a ramp-up period, but you'd probably block sites roughly in order of their visibility, which is about what you'd want.

      Open source can present a problem for locking it down, but it's nothing that appropriate use of permissions and perhaps a "heartbeat" report to parents (so that they know that it hasn't been shut down) won't largely solve.

      And, I'd suggest, as policy, no other types of inappropriate content should be added. Blocking anything other than stuff that's demonstrably porn or erotica will invariably end up blocking free speech. If you can at least block the porn and do it well, there are some (parents, if not government) who will use it in favor of something that also blocks free speech, even if that means letting some questionably age-appropriate content through.

      If you think about it, there's really a lot of social justification for such a thing, if only to present an alternative to using the bad kind that seem to operate on a politically conservative agenda and block sociopolitical speech.

    19. Re:Porn is inevitable by m50d · · Score: 1
      At least, this is the case when geeks are talking about porn, MP3s, and TV shows... When we hear that the CIA is snooping on phone calls or Online-Mega-Mart is selling their customer database, then, quite suddenly, some of those bits are supposed to be less copyable than others.

      No, people are supposed to use a little thing called ethics to decide which bits are reasonable to copy. Just like it's impossible to make a kitchen knife that can't kill people, but you should be reasonable about who you kill with one.

      --
      I am trolling
    20. Re:Porn is inevitable by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      The web actually was designed to allow scientists to share information and computational resources, though. According to the Wikipedia article, by the way, ARPANET had nothing to do with nuclear attack contingency planning:.

      A common semi-myth about the ARPANET states that it was designed to be resistant to nuclear attack. The Internet Society writes about the merger of technical ideas that produced the ARPANET in A Brief History of the Internet, and states in a note:

      It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated (sic) RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks.

      The ARPANET was designed to survive network losses, but the main reason was actually that the switching nodes and network links were not highly reliable, even without any nuclear attacks. Charles Herzfeld, ARPA director from 1965 to 1967, speaks about limited computer resources helping to spur ARPANET's creation:

      The ARPANET was not started to create a Command and Control System that would survive a nuclear attack, as many now claim. To build such a system was clearly a major military need, but it was not ARPA's mission to do this; in fact, we would have been severely criticized had we tried. Rather, the ARPAnet came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators who should have access to them were geographically separated from them.

      So no, the Internet was NOT meant to allow the military to maintain reliable communication in the face of a devastating nuclear attack. By the way, one of the founders of the Internet Society (the society whose account is quoted in the Wikipedia article) was a fellow by the name of Vint Cerf; I suspect that if the account were erroneous, he would have complained by now.

    21. Re:Porn is inevitable by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I've seen porn and I've seen Goatse. Maybe it's just me, but I don't regard Goatse as porn.

      --
    22. Re:Porn is inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, stick me on a rotisserie and call me a chicken!

      Thanks for clearing that up... I never questioned that particular myth, though I should have.

      Mod GP "misinformative" please!

    23. Re:Porn is inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fully support this, and will volunteer to help maintain the filter list. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

    24. Re:Porn is inevitable by kalirion · · Score: 1

      You are making a fundamental assumption - that these children are able to think for themselves. Face it, they are not. They can be *influenced* by things, rather than influence them, either passively, or actively. This is (also obviously) because they aren't adults yet.

      You are making a fundamental assumption - that when children become adults they start thinking for themselves.

    25. Re:Porn is inevitable by Shabbs · · Score: 1

      I think you may be confusing porn (pornography) with erotica. Goatse is most certainly a type of porn. Yes, it's shocking and it's gross, but it is an explicit representation of the human body. Hard to believe, but some people do get off on that stuff.

      Cheers.

      --
      Mark
    26. Re:Porn is inevitable by lbbros · · Score: 1

      That's at the basis of education: enabling you to think with your own mind. Of course if there's no education, how can people think for themselves when they grow up?

      --
      A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
    27. Re:Porn is inevitable by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I've seen explicit representations of the human body in scientific/medical articles and they're not considered porn.

      Maybe I'm not that open minded but it's pretty big stretch for me to think that goatse is porn ;).

      --
    28. Re:Porn is inevitable by kalirion · · Score: 1

      That's at the basis of education: enabling you to think with your own mind.

      It depends on the education. Quite often education is enabling you to think what the people in charge of the education want you to think. Especially when religion and/or nationalism are involved.

    29. Re:Porn is inevitable by lbbros · · Score: 1

      So what would you suggest? Nationalism and religion aren't bad per se (unlike what the Slashdot crowd thinks), but like everything, they can be exploited by ill wills towards the weakly minded. Good examples of effects of non-fanatical application of the above: a good and respectful behavior towards others, and civic sense (when you feel you too belong to a country as a citizen, rather than a "consumer" or a "taxpayer"). Of course there are also other ways (that don't base themselves over religion or anything else). In any case, I wouldn't dismiss as education as a way to control people. That's how the 1968 crowd thought it was... and I believe the ill effects of the "student revolution" are quite visible (and I'm not implying the situation "before" was any better).

      --
      A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
  12. No way! by Viraptor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously... who would've thought... Why was it reported at all? Maybe another title would be better - "Shocking revelation: Nigerian boys also want to see sex". I'm not surprised - are you? I'd say that great majority of males on the intertubes browsed porn sites at least once - keyword statistics from search engines seem to agree.

    1. Re:No way! by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Well duh, with all the money from General Mokunutsi that those boys in Nigeria have got to spend, it's ovbious they'll try anything at least once. I fully expect that sooner or later one of those kids is going to do something crazy like trying to give away millions to strangers over email.

  13. the question is why is this news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    obviously children are going to be naughty.. Looking at "naughty" pictures is inevitable. The question is why was this news out so early??

    • because the filter manufacturers nood more sales?
    • because the OLPC opponents think it'll help their cause?
    • because the church wants to control knowledge about sex?
    • or because the states it's going to want to control the kids access to news?


    what will OLPC do to protect free speech???
    1. Re:the question is why is this news by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

      Because a lot of countries are much more strict concerning pornography, and are likely to eschew the whole computing thing if the kids are seeing hooh-hahs and breastuses and weenies. I think censorware is more distasteful than pr0n, myself, but I understand where the OLPC people are coming from.

  14. in other news... by teknikl · · Score: 5, Funny

    latex balloon sales to Nigeria skyrocket overnight!

  15. Understandably? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A rep from OLPC said, understandably, that the laptops would now be fitted with filters.

    No, sorry, I do not understand. There's nothing evil about porn and those filter won't work anyway.

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

      It's all good unless it's with a relative?

    2. Re:understandably? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember, morality is relative

      Relative to what?

      Reality isn't very relative. A system of values ("morality") that's grounded in reality and reason is fairly straightforward. People can (and of course, do) certainly dream up philosophical frameworks based on all-powerful invisible friends that still dole out the occasional case of childhood cancer just to keep us all on our toes, and operate as if some magic representation of your firing synapses are going to keep echoing through time after the meat computer that allowed them to come up with that bit of whimsy in the first place is being eaten by worms... but certain moral decisions that are anchored in imaginary consequences (or the lack of them) aren't "relative" - they're wrong. They may frequently overlap with a framework based on reason and reality, but they're going to suffer the rot of mixed premises, and the symptoms of that are the attempts by their holders to act in accordance with contradictions... which can't exist, and which produce sometimes tragic results.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:understandably? by CdBee · · Score: 1, Troll

      If you're an American or Western European your morality's probably a hell of a lot more lenient than that imposed from within Nigeria - the country's spiritual ethic seems to be firmly under the control of either radical Islamists in some areas and the kind of Christian churchmen who even Genghis Khan would consider to be a bit right-wing (death to gays, no women prists, etc) everywhere else!

      A little big of filtering might save those kids from getting in very serious trouble with their local moral taleban

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    4. Re:understandably? by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

      Einstein would've probably taken offense to your statement that reality isn't relative, but I agree with your post. Also, I wouldn't necessarily call moral decisions wrong per se, but misguided. In truth, you could make a decision based on ethereal moral values which is a 'right' decision, even though you made have made the decision for the 'wrong' reasons -- though based on your previous statements I would venture to say you probably lean towards a deterministic philosophy (meat computer..) thus negating the ability to truly 'decide' anything and rather being determined based on the intrinsic flow of space and time through which we all find ourselves moving.

      Then again, this is only about pornography, which is my mind is a natural thing. Or is it?

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    5. Re:understandably? by smallfries · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well done you. You've described why your own view of reality is an objective fact that everyone could base their own morality on. You're in popular company there, with many dictatorships, religions and cults. But most people are capable of seeing that their own subjective view of objective reality differs from other peoples. Hence, morality being relative to the observer. Sure, for most of the big life and death questions most people's view of morality overlaps, but that doesn't make it an absolute.

      How is that autism working out for ya?

      PS The idea that morality is timeless and external to the human race pretty much died out with Kant.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    6. Re:Understandably? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well, if the children are free to mess with the filters, I see no bad :)

    7. Re:understandably? by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look, while different cultures have different opinions on what should be blocked, I think *every* culture agrees that the Internet as-is, unfiltered is not safe for minors, unless you're one of those laizze-faire parents that think all forms of age limits on movies, games, pornography and so on are bunk. For example I've seen raunchier pics that Janet Jackson's nipple on the front page of our national newspapers (not to mention the nipple itself enlarged when it was news) but that doesn't mean we think showing preteeners group sex orgies is ok. Probably neither does Nigeria.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:understandably? by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You've described why your own view of reality is an objective fact that everyone could base their own morality on.

      Nonsense. I've asserted that reality is what reality is, and it doesn't give a damn whether, or how well, or in what way I perceive it. The better one is equipped to grasp reality (through critical thinking, better tools like the scientific method, etc) the less that wishful/magical thinking tends to drive one's perceptions. I don't CARE if someone's born-of-ignorance (or foisted-on-them-by-supersitious-parents) misunderstanding of reality causes them to embrace the I'll-get-40-virgins-if-I-die-killing-YOU view of the world, or if someone thinks that the main reason not to rob their neighbor - rather than being the rational understanding that it's ultimately a self-destructive act - is because they're sure they'll burn in the classical Christian hell. I mean, I care in the sense that people with those world views impact my life, and their poorly-wrought decisions are something about which I may need to be aware... but I don't care, academically. That doesn't change reality. No matter how bent they are in their ability to grasp causal relationships, and no matter how fanciful/delusional they are about their pet mythology, the universe doesn't give a crap one way or the other.

      There is no pre-existing blanket-o'-morality waiting for you to see it and embrace it... there's just the universe, as it sits. It's utterly ambivilant and without regard for you, and only you can bring meaning to your own existence, or squander it, etc. BUT: a moral framework based on a misunderstanding (to say nothing of a willful denial) about the nature of reality is, by its nature, flawed. I don't really care about Kant, one way or the other. You don't need to make this that complicated. When you build some BS about the universe into your approach to carrying on within the universe, you're lying to yourself and producing a value system that is, to that same degree of BS-inclusion, a failure. Will you probably still do most macro-level things in the same way? You'd think so, but not everyone does.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:Understandably? by MontyApollo · · Score: 1

      >>There's nothing evil about porn

      These computers are for schooling. They can't learn as much if they are too busy whackin' it.

    10. Re:understandably? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Well the biological aspects aside (which are obvious to anyone in the northern hemisphere), sex with a relative used to be quite a common phenomenon and still is in certain societies. The classical example for this in our societies history is the classical inbreeding of the so called blue blood, which in the end resulted in a degenaration and inherited siknesses among our "beloved" former overlords. Moral values probably is one of the most diversive things on this planet.

    11. Re:understandably? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, while different cultures have different opinions on what should be blocked, I think *every* culture agrees that the Internet as-is, unfiltered is not safe for minors

      Safe? They're safer on the Internet than they are walking to school.

      Chat-room stalkers and sexual predators are a separate issue, but I don't think anyone ever died from looking at porn.

    12. Re:understandably? by westlake · · Score: 4, Informative
      So its understandable that we will start enforcing our concept of morality on others right off the bat?
      Remember, morality is relative.

      OLPC is a state-subsidized educational program for children.

      If you want OLPC to succeed you do not create problems in the classroom, you do not embarrass its local sponsors.

      Nigeria is a mix of Islam, evangelical Protestant, conservative Catholic, and tribal religion. Tolerance of pornography - and the exposure of children to pornography - doesn't figure prominently in any one of them.

      Porn on the Internet is framed in terms of the Western stereotypes of the dominant male and the subservient [often promiscuous] female. In the Nigerian setting, this comes at a price:

      Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa. It is a country on the brink of an AIDS disaster. And its dominant religions - traditional religion, Christianity, and Islam - all proclaim the superiority of males to females. These three aspects are closely linked.
      In traditional Nigerian society, there is no separation between the laws governing secular and spiritual spheres. What the gods say is sanctioned by society and forms the norms of the community. They cannot be challenged, especially by women. This divinely ordained male dominance forms the ultimate basis of patriarchal entrenchment in Nigerian culture.
      The siege of patriarchy encompasses all spheres in Nigerian society including practices like female genital mutilation, child marriage, widow inheritance, rape, and polygamy. Talk about sex is considered immoral; sexual issues are not open to discussion. This secrecy surrounding sexual relations, combined with the religious and cultural expectations that subjugate women, largely explains women's vulnerability to HIV/AIDS in the country. No effort to curb the spread of AIDS in Nigeria can afford to ignore the influence of religion and culture.
      Women in Nigeria: Religion, Culture, and AIDS [2002]

      On a fundamental level, Christians and Muslims in Nigeria have similar views on the why HIV continues to spread: both groups see promiscuous behavior as the root cause of the HIV crisis. Promiscuity is frowned upon heavily because of religious teachings and because of underlying cultural traditions within Nigerian society. Even before Christianity and Islam were introduced, Nigerian cultural tradition emphasized the importance of sexual discretion and believed that sex should be reserved for marriage. Leaders in both the Christian and Muslim communities discourage their followers from pre-marital and extra-marital sex, and teach that procreation is the main reason for sex. Religion and HIV/AIDS in Nigeria

    13. Re:understandably? by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Look, while different cultures have different opinions on what should be blocked, I think *every* culture agrees that the Internet as-is, unfiltered is not safe for minors, unless you're one of those laizze-faire parents that think all forms of age limits on movies, games, pornography and so on are bunk
      You're right. Because I'm sure cavemen and women all adjourned to a seperate caves to change furs, or engage in sexual activity. This prevented the caveyouth from seeing what surely would have corrupted their poor little caveminds.

      Genius opinion of the day: You all can have your own moral beliefs, just as long as they don't differ from the ones I feel really strongly about.
    14. Re:Understandably? by ydrol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sex and sexuality != Porn on websites

    15. Re:understandably? by ardor · · Score: 1

      Guy A says that stealing from the rich, selfish guy is OK, Guy B says stealing is always wrong, since it corrupts. There. Absolute morality?
      How about euthanasia? Or people looking for higher goals in life? Etc.

      Easy systems of values are always dangerous. Truth is: life is complex, life is confusing, and there is no easy system of values that handles everything well.

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    16. Re:understandably? by onemorechip · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nonsense. I've asserted that reality is what reality is, and it doesn't give a damn whether, or how well, or in what way I perceive it.

      I call double nonsense. Asserting a truism doesn't validate an argument, unless you are arguing for the truism, in which case you aren't really making an argument.

      Relativism simply means that our values are to be judged by how well they serve society. Absolutism means that those values are an integral part of external reality (independent of observers/participants in that reality), and therefore requires that people serve the value system instead of the other way around. Reality is what reality is, but that in no way implies that values are objective.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    17. Re:Understandably? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      No, sorry, I do not understand. There's nothing evil about porn and those filter won't work anyway.

      No, no, no the filters are an integral part of the education process. Just think about how much they will learn about computers, operating systems, networking, etc as they learn to defeat the filters!

      Its like putting mice in a maze, on the first run they get to the cheese, then we start putting obstacles in, and the mice become problem solvers as they learn to overcome them to reach their beloved cheese. ;)

    18. Re:understandably? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Guy A says that stealing from the rich, selfish guy is OK, Guy B says stealing is always wrong, since it corrupts

      Right. So, in reality, demonstrating to the rest of your fellow primates that you're willing to steal things from people means that you endorse stealing as a means of acquisition. You're waiving your right not to have the same thing happen to you. It's self-destructive, and simply not rational. You're looking to manufacture a gray area where there is none (at the level you chose to introduce the scenario). And more to the point, what someone "says" has nothing to do with how things actually ARE. Just because neither you, nor your guys A or B actually talked about stealing in a useful context doesn't make it right, or at least without the objective, rational (and moral) consequences: someone that shows a willingness to - outside of self defense - ignore someone else's claim to that person's life/property in turn gives up their own. Why go looking for a way to manufacture complexity where there it doesn't need to exist? What you DO about stealing, in practical terms, is another matter. But evaluating it from a moral point of view is a piece of cake.

      How about euthanasia?

      How about it? If you're not actually going to discuss it in moral terms - which are dictated by who wants it, to whom it's done, and under what circumstances, then you're just being sophomoric to buy a little argumentative wiggle room, and you know it. The more you actually describe the situation, the clearer the rational moral position on it becomes. You're avoiding precision in the discussion by being deliberately vague in trotting out the subject.

      Or people looking for higher goals in life?

      Which means what, exactly? Higher than what? I'd argue that confronting the actual, real world with reason and a thirst for an actual understanding of reality, and to enjoy your brief life all the more thusly enriched is as high a goal as you could want. Or, do you mean... scratching the compelling biological itch to reproduce, and to leave your kids with an important and useful legacy? What DO you mean? Do you mean that some people like to sit around and conjure up a fantasy world view in which magically ascending to a different state of existence that doesn't involve your brain - the very and only organ that contains "you" - would be out of a hobby if they took a deep breath and looked instead a reality? Fear of pain and death is what makes all of that other magical stuff so compelling... but the magical stuff isn't actually REAL, is it? So, building a moral framework around it is ... either simply foolish (if you don't realize or haven't come to terms with your mistake), or actually, arguably evil if you know it's all BS but you're selling it to other people as a tool of influence.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    19. Re:understandably? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      One word: Slavery.

      More words: If morality is relative, then we can't say that slavery in the US was wrong. After all, the people practicing it thought it was right.

    20. Re:understandably? by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's troll the happy happy field :

      If they're that puritan, how comes they get AIDS? Sex is the only way it could propagate that fast. Fucking a number of females won't give you AIDS if you're the only one they have sex with. Same for all other aspects enumarated in the parent, except obscurantism, and about that : sorry, I can't help people stupid enough to believe in God, especially when their religion makes them poor, sick, uneducated drones, who would kill anyone suggesting them to change their insane ways of life -because they'd get 72 virgins for doing so.

      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
    21. Re:understandably? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      So its understandable that we will start enforcing our concept of morality on others right off the bat?

      Why not? Shipping the computers in the first place is enforcing our concept of social structures and economic opportunity. (As well as the project enforcing it's biases and political views by refusing to sell them to schools within the US.)
    22. Re:Understandably? by svnt · · Score: 1

      I think everyone is missing the point. A couple of the brighter kids will quickly work to get around/through the filters, and the next generation of geeks will be born.

      We gave them computers, now this will give them motivation to figure out how they work. Porn is a pretty universal carrot.

    23. Re:understandably? by chazwurth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no pre-existing blanket-o'-morality waiting for you to see it and embrace it...

      That's true, but I don't think that supports your original assertion, namely:

      A system of values ("morality") that's grounded in reality and reason is fairly straightforward.

      Reason cannot ground a morality. Reason is a tool that doesn't provide goals. It gets us from point A to point B -- that is, it allows us to achieve the goals we've set for ourselves. It cannot tell us what those goals should be, and it's precisely this 'should' that grounds any moral system. So, for example, if my ethnically related compatriots and I want to kill our ethnically different neighbors -- because they make us uncomfortable, because we're short on land and water and they have plenty of both, because their beliefs offend us, whatever -- reason can tell us many things. It can tell us that we can't get away with what we want to do because someone with a big stick (another neighboring group, say) will come and kill us in turn; or that the people we want to kill are too strong for us to assault; or perhaps that nothing stands in our way of accomplishing our desire. If the latter, reason can tell us how to best go about killing our enemies -- what tactics to use, what timeline to follow to achieve the best results, how to hide our actions from outside observers until we've succeeded, etc.

      What reason cannot tell us is that we should not kill our neighbors in any absolute sense. It can tell us that we should not try to kill them because we cannot handle the consequences of trying. Or it can tell us that we should because we can get away with it. But it can never tell us that we shouldn't because it would be morally wrong to do so. Reason doesn't dictate what we should or shouldn't want -- only how to get where we want to be.

      Moral systems that invoke reason are thus also relative -- relative to our desires and to all of the assumptions we bring to the table. Whether reality itself is relative to anything, or an absolute framework in which we live, is more or less irrelevant. The benefit of classical systems of ethics -- what gives them their moral force -- is that they are based on unreasonable foundations, such as the sanctity of human life, which reason cannot in any sense provide. We can reject them because they do not, in our view, reflect reality; but we can't replace them with a tool that has no claim to absolute moral truth. If we're to be honest logicians, we must accept the consequences of our conclusions and live in a world that is ultimately far less comfortable and settled and straightforward than the world of our religious forebears.

      --
      The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. --Dan Kaminsky
    24. Re:understandably? by Tack · · Score: 1

      Relative to what?

      Morality is relative to society, and society and social norms evolve. Morality therefore isn't absolute, for this reason. Theists will likely disagree. (Based on your post I suspect we probably agree here, but I just wanted to point out that morality is relative to something.)

    25. Re:understandably? by smaddox · · Score: 1

      I'm going to use the same story I use every time someone makes a comment similar to yours.

      In 1607 when the colony of Jamestown was founded, several hundred people from mid to upper class status went to live there. Unfortunately, very few of them knew how to farm, and come the first winter, many starved to death.

      However, these people saw several red crustaceans crawling around on the beach. They were so ingrained in societies view of what was "moral" and appropriate, that they thought the lobsters where disgusting creatures, and stayed away from them. They continued to starve, while some were eventually saved by a local Indian tribe.

      Society has its own view of morals that develop for the benefit of some people, but not for others. Don't blindly believe what you are told.

    26. Re:understandably? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: Slavery.

      More words: If morality is relative, then we can't say that slavery in the US was wrong. After all, the people practicing it thought it was right.

      You're confusing the issues of whether morality is relative and whether it should be relative.

      Really, what better argument could you find that morality is relative in practice, than the fact that some people believed slavery was right, and others believed it was wrong?

    27. Re:understandably? by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 1

      As a Christian, I'd like to say that Christianity set's us all as equal as sinners and equally deserving of judgment. While there are parts of the Bible that deal with social structures, and having the man as the head of those structures, Christianity doesn't preach the superiority of men or the inferiority of women.

      -Ed

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
    28. Re:Understandably? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Filters don't just block naked pictures.

    29. Re:Understandably? by Reaperducer · · Score: 0

      There's nothing evil about porn
      Just keep telling yourself that. Repeat it over and over. Maybe if you wish hard enough someday it will be true. Until then, you're only justifying your behavior to yourself.
      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    30. Re:understandably? by westlake · · Score: 1
      Christianity doesn't preach the superiority of men or the inferiority of women.

      The problem is not what is preached but what is practiced. The nun does not have the authority or significance of the priest. That works to reinforce a male dominant tribal religion and culture.

    31. Re:understandably? by smallfries · · Score: 1

      A system of values ("morality") that's grounded in reality and reason is fairly straightforward.

      Nonsense. I've asserted that reality is what reality is, and it doesn't give a damn whether, or how well, or in what way I perceive it.

      If you can't see the contradiction between these two claims then your sense of reason is not as powerful as you believe it to be. In your second reply you've argued quite convincingly that reality is devoid of any moral interpretation. Fair enough, I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. But your first claim above does not back that up, or you didn't write what you intended to say. Unless you are using "grounded" to mean something different to its normal usage, then there is no such thing as a morality that is grounded in reality and reason. I think that somebody has already replied and explained why reason is not a solid basis for morality. If you think that morality is naturally (and straightforwardly) defined from reality (as most people would take grounded to mean) then you can't also believe that reality is morally void.

      So are you just backtracking quickly because people picked up the flaw in what you wrote and replied to it?
      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    32. Re:understandably? by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Right. So, in reality, demonstrating to the rest of your fellow primates that you're willing to steal things from people means that you endorse stealing as a means of acquisition. You're waiving your right not to have the same thing happen to you. It's self-destructive, and simply not rational.

      No. If the amount that you can steal is less than the expected return on your reputation then it's irrational. In a situation where the amount that you can steal is more than the expected return on your reputation then it's rational to steal. But morality is not simply rational behavior. It's a view of the correctness of actions relative to the perceived value system of the person whose morals you are discussing.
      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    33. Re:understandably? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      However, these people saw several red crustaceans crawling around on the beach. They were so ingrained in societies view of what was "moral" and appropriate, that they thought the lobsters where disgusting creatures, and stayed away from them. They continued to starve, while some were eventually saved by a local Indian tribe.

      And on whom, exactly, does that anecdote work? Having a small world view and no experience eating crustraceans, and not finding that source of food to be customary or even appealing enough to eat in the face of starvation... is NOT a moral issue. And to the extent that it might, even slightly be one in the context of this discussion, you're making MY point (thank you). Anyone (such as those religious-minded colonists) that MIGHT have considered, for religious reasons - rather than for rational, reality-based reasons - it to be "immoral" to stoop to eating big bugs to stay alive... well, they would be classic examples of exactly what I'm talking about: people with a poor grip on reality that allowed that mixed set of premises and ignorance to interfere with making sound value judgements. But guess what! Reality doesn't care if you starve or thrive. If you die because if mixed premises and superstitious or other spuriously formed value judgements, then... too bad!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    34. Re:understandably? by Alef · · Score: 1

      You are correct. However, reason in combination with a bias, such as Occam's razor, can get you somewhere if you already have assumed some basic moral rules and values.

      Taking your example about killing neighbours; suppose there is a specific ethnically different neighbour called Jane Doe that I happen to care about and don't want to see killed. Suppose also that I dislike nepotism. I might then argue that, given that I think it is wrong to kill Jane Doe, it should also be wrong to kill any other ethnically different neighbour. Differentiating between them would introduce additional and unwarranted complexity and result in a less succinct system of values.

      Of course, in a strict relativistic sense there is never anything preventing you from having completely different moral rules for each particular situation you are in (e.g. "Killing neighbours is morally right, unless their last name is Doe"). But such a system is quite useless, since it can never tell you how you should act, and it eliminates every possibility of even having discussion about morality.

      In fact, the exact same things could be said about science, a field which we generally associate strongly with reason and reality, since its foundation, empiricism, in itself is an arbitrary principle. Reason does not give us science, yet it is usually said that science is grounded in reason.

      Nontheless, to claim that either science or morality is straightforward is rather presumptuous, I would say.

    35. Re:understandably? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think *every* culture agrees that the Internet as-is, unfiltered is not safe for minors

      Are you an anthropologist? Is there any reason why this statements is anything more than handwaving or is there some actual fact in it somewhere? Here's some facts: The _world_ as-is, unfiltered is not safe for many minors _and_ adults. Many children around the world are forced to become soldiers, or watch their parents be killed, or die of starvation. Some titties, cocks and some fucking isn't even in the same order of magnitude. Do you realized that up to about 100 years ago it was common for an entire extended familty to share a single room in a city? Sex, hard language, violence and death were common occurrences. The internet, porn and all, isn't damaging in any real way, certainly not like an AK-47, malnutrition or unprotected sex are.
    36. Re:understandably? by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      And you have yourself stated a relative position by deciding that the good of society is a good thing. (And yes, I can make a damned strong argument that it isn't, given that society is presently busy risking the survival of the species.)

      Relativism doesn't work, because nothing that is subjective is real, merely opinion. That isn't to say that Objectivity holds true, but you need to either admit that there are certain logical standards (which does not imply that the rules don't change if the situation does, but that little tidbit relies on the fact that there is a *reason* behind the rules) or you need to admit that the entire thing is a load of BS that's used to promote survival/control/insanity.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    37. Re:understandably? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      So it's OK for people to die if they have different values from you?

      I think those idiot Puritans should have bothered knowing about the Pikuach Nefesh exemption, which states that it's OK to eat crustaceans (or indeed, anything edible) to save someone's life. But that comes from the Talmud, and I couldn't expect Puritans to consider it with anything other than contempt.

      But I don't go so far as to consider their tragic stupidity a good thing.

    38. Re:understandably? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Godwins law by extension.

      The example you gave is equivalent to the morality of Jewish extermination, just less extreme.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    39. Re:understandably? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1
      You seem like an intelligent person. I think you would do well to wiki "ethics" and learn about them.


      Ethics are like morals, only with Reason as their underpinning. I think you'll like it. It's not what you seem to think it is.

    40. Re:understandably? by exultavit · · Score: 1

      However, these people saw several red crustaceans crawling around on the beach. They were so ingrained in societies view of what was "moral" and appropriate, that they thought the lobsters where disgusting creatures, and stayed away from them. Charming story. However:

      1. Lobsters do not crawl around on beaches. You might see a dead one wash up, but even this is not common.

      2. Lobsters are not red, unless they have been cooked.
    41. Re:understandably? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So it's OK for people to die if they have different values from you?

      *sigh*

      It's OK with me if a person, in the face of plenty of workable information that could inform them otherwise, builds up a value system that - because it doesn't take reality properly into account (say, the sort of people that don't give their sick kid anti-biotics because they perceive it to be an insult to their all-powerful invisible friend who... um... by virtue of his running of the universe, would appear to be the person who made or allowed the child to be sick in the first place) - suffers some personal consequences. Ignorance of basic facts (hey! we CAN eat those sea bugs!) isn't the same as being presented with facts, and then tip-toeing around them in order to avoid the embarassment of admitting that their beliefs to the contrary appear to be X amount of nonsense) is one thing... but choosing to ignore reality or selectively embrace it because it threatens the underpinnings of your value system, which is based on fairy tales, is a willful thing. People who'd rather be weak from malnutrition than risk angering the gods by eating the "morally wrong" sort of hoofstock, and thereby be less able to tend to innocent children or the affairs of state - it's just absurd, and morally bankrupt because it's pointless hairsplitting with dire consequences.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    42. Re:understandably? by countach · · Score: 1

      The equivalent of a nun is a monk and they have the same significance.

    43. Re:understandably? by chazwurth · · Score: 1

      Actually, the precise meanings of the terms 'ethics' and 'morals' depend on which philosopher you're reading, and more broadly, which school of philosophy you're studying. The definition of ethics you've given may function within the broad discipline that's usually called 'Analytic Philosophy' (though even there the definition isn't consistent), but move much beyond that -- say, to the ethical systems of some 20th Century French and German philosophers -- and all bets are off. When Walter Kaufmann, for instance, uses the word 'ethics' in his translation of Martin Buber, he sure doesn't mean "like morals, only with Reason as their underpinning." He means, as Buber did, relations based on the irreducible sacredness of another human being.

      Whatever definitions you like to use, the central criticism remains. Almost all of modern Analytic ethics ignores the impossibility of establishing ethical/moral claims based on reason, much like most modern analytic philosophers ignore the fact that empiricism can't be epistemologically fundamental. That's why I tend to ignore the field.

      --
      The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. --Dan Kaminsky
    44. Re:understandably? by chazwurth · · Score: 1

      However, reason in combination with a bias, such as Occam's razor, can get you somewhere if you already have assumed some basic moral rules and values.

      Of course; but it's those assumptions of basic moral rules and values that are the problem! Where should we get them from? How should we settle debates when different groups have different sets of assumptions? Where's the common ground on which to have those discussions if we can't agree that our assumptions must stem from reason (a situation I've asserted is impossible)?

      Of course, in a strict relativistic sense there is never anything preventing you from having completely different moral rules for each particular situation you are in (e.g. "Killing neighbours is morally right, unless their last name is Doe"). But such a system is quite useless, since it can never tell you how you should act, and it eliminates every possibility of even having discussion about morality.

      I understand what you're saying, but it's important not to confuse arbitrariness with social construction. Societies' moral systems depend on the history, belief structures, and relationships of power within those societies. They may not be rational in the sense that reason isn't their foundation, but that' doesn't make them arbitrary. They often seem arbitrary to outsiders, but then, that moves both ways -- an outsider's system will seem just as arbitrary to a native. That's because the assumptions differ, because their roots -- social reality and history -- also differ. How do you decide between them? You can ask which system serves a society better, but even that is problematic, because what counts as 'better' will depend on subjective values just as much as the moral systems themselves.

      In fact, the exact same things could be said about science, a field which we generally associate strongly with reason and reality, since its foundation, empiricism, in itself is an arbitrary principle.

      Empiricism is not an arbitrary principle. It can't be established through deductive logic, but we choose it from a multitude of other epistemological methods for definite reasons. We don't just pull it out of a hat or use it because it won a lottery. Even Hume, after failing to ground inductive reasoning in anything other than a habit of the mind, would call you insane for ignoring the repeated occurrences of events in similar situations, because following the habit works. That isn't arbitrary; it isn't the case that there are two poles, 'grounded in logic' and 'arbitrary' and that all our systems and methods must fall out at one or the other of them.

      Reason does not give us science, yet it is usually said that science is grounded in reason.

      Science is grounded in reason insofar as it is a system of activity that is grounded in a set of consistent principles; and those principles have a place in the history of the development of logic. Science is reasonable when it doesn't exceed the epistemological 'reach' of those underlying principles -- that is, when it remembers (1) that empiricism is in some sense always logically provisional; (2) that nothing it produces is ever safe from revision based on further empirical endeavors; and (3) that it is always possible that other methods of investigating reality may produce truths, although those truths may look very different in form from empirical truths. (Of course, if you want to take a Kantian view, which I usually do, empiricism isn't really provisional; but that opens up a whole other can of worms. And even in that case, (2) and (3) still hold.)

      Nontheless, to claim that either science or morality is straightforward is rather presumptuous, I would say.

      That's for certain. ;)

      --
      The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. --Dan Kaminsky
    45. Re:understandably? by renoX · · Score: 1

      >Christianity doesn't preach the superiority of men or the inferiority of women.

      Of course, and if you believes this I have a bridge to sell..

      If memory serves, the catholics said that women didn't have a soul for a long time, and even now they don't allow women to be pope for example.

    46. Re:Understandably? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Since the filters won't work, it doesn't make any difference to the kids, and it means those officials don't object to the OLPC. Security theatre

      --
      I am trolling
    47. Re:understandably? by X-rated+Ouroboros · · Score: 1

      "Relativism simply means that our values are to be judged by how well they serve society. Absolutism means that those values are an integral part of external reality."

      You've poisoned the well by defining the measure of a value system as "how well they serve society". That itself is a value judgment and results in a circular justification.

      Accepting that there is an objective external reality and that evaluations of the function or dysfunction of a value system can be evaluated, also objectively, it would be possible to evaluate how well all possible value systems in user space function and say, without a glimmer of subjectivity, that THIS value system is more functional than THAT value system.
      This isn't absolutism, but merely the recognition that, since all value systems have to deal with the same reality, some value systems will simple work better at dealing with it than others.

      The failure of relativist thinking comes when they forget that, though a certain value system might function in a limited set of circumstances, it is not equal to objectively better (as determined above) systems. Once you fall prey to the myth of "equal, but different", you no longer feel justified in the effort to migrate users from dysfunctional value systems.

      --
      Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
    48. Re:understandably? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In forms when you ask a Christian to fill out his/her religion, there's a very high chance they'd fill in "Christian".

      In contrast most Catholics seem to fill in "Catholic" instead. Go figure.

    49. Re:understandably? by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the rationalization for the pope being a man is that Christ was a man, and is the head of the Spiritual church, and the pope, as head of the physical church, should also be a man.

      Also, while all Catholics are Christians (roughly), not all Christian's are Catholics. There's also the Orthodox, and Protestant variations too, so remember that Catholics aren't all of Christinanity.

      -Ed

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
    50. Re:understandably? by billster0808 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they were crabs?

    51. Re:understandably? by renoX · · Score: 1

      For the first part, it sounds to me as a stupid rationalisation, for the second part, I know, and I suspect that they are also sexist (in the sense that they don't allow exactly the same position for men or women) but as I know these variants less than catholics, I only commented on the catholics..

    52. Re:understandably? by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      Of course; but it's those assumptions of basic moral rules and values that are the problem! Where should we get them from? How should we settle debates when different groups have different sets of assumptions? Where's the common ground on which to have those discussions if we can't agree that our assumptions must stem from reason (a situation I've asserted is impossible)?

      Unless there's some branch of logic I'm aware of, there is always a set of axioms from which reasoning proceeds -- including the rules of reasoning themselves. Euclid's geometry founds itself on 7 postulates. What I don't understand is why one doesn't simply come up with an ethical axiom (or set thereof) and then proceed logically from that point. If one were to set up an ethical "axis mundi" as it were, one could then proceed. There's hardly anyone who disputes Calculus based on the non-acceptance of our numerical system. Why not establish an ethical system based on a unprovable but universally agreed upon premise?

      If I wanted to plant this axiom, I would simply say "suffering should be avoided" -- whatever suffering means to the person is fine. One could establish a utilitarian system based on that approach or one could justify Kant's categorical imperative -- these would require additional premises.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    53. Re:understandably? by fiddlesticks · · Score: 1

      'A system of values ("morality") that's grounded in reality and reason is fairly straightforward.'

      Fine. Please define this, taking into account historical and geographical differences - to *your* 'system of values'

    54. Re:understandably? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Fine. Please define this, taking into account historical and geographical differences - to *your* 'system of values'

      Oy.

      Why would reality and reason (as a tool for grappling WITH reality and exploring it) vary by geography? And in terms of history... what do past value systems based on ignorance and superstition, and the history wrought by such, have to do with whether or not one based on reality makes things simpler? I mean, it might be interesting to discuss the evolution of such value systems, or to stop for a moment and admire the changes that happened after the Dark Ages (or that are happening right now, in terms of cosmology, physics, biology, etc) - but why would reason vary over time or distance? And in keeping with that, why would a system of values that depends upon reason vary from place to place or over time?

      NEW information that completely alters what you know about reality might change something... but only if it goes in the OPPOSITE direction that new information is, and has been for a long time now, taking us: towards an understanding that we're not, actually, at the mercy of, or products of magical beings and mysterious personality-having forces of nature that like to screw with us for dramatic effect before trying to decide if we get to go to Valhalla and whatnot. And when you strip away the supersitions and mysticism that was filling in the spaces for thousands of years before science was properly armed to show us the nature of things, you also strip away any excuse for pretending that your values are driven by some magical heaven/hell tag team invisible referee crew with a handy owner's manual of rules. Rather, you have to actually derive a value system from the fact of your existence in a universe that, itself, wouldn't appear to have any mechanism in place for giving a damn about you one way or the other.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    55. Re:understandably? by Fatalis · · Score: 1

      ... the impossibility of establishing ethical/moral claims based on reason, ...


      OK, suppose having a reason based ethics really is impossible, what would be the alternatives? Whims? Mysticism?

      --
      Deus est fatalis
    56. Re:understandably? by chazwurth · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why one doesn't simply come up with an ethical axiom (or set thereof) and then proceed logically from that point.

      One can of course do this (though a single axiom probably wouldn't be enough to derive a functional system), and in fact many philosophers have (though they've often claimed that the axioms themselves are founded in reason, which is silly.). But there are many real problems with this approach. One problem -- very serious, but not at all the most serious -- is that ethical systems based on 'ethical axioms' tend not to fit very well with actual human life. That is to say, it's usually very easy to point out situations for which, when we apply the derived ethical system to them, we become very uncomfortable with the results. (Kant's categorical imperative is a perfect example in this regard -- life is far too varied and messy and situational to be dealt with effectively by such an uncompromising principle.)

      But the more serious problem is, for lack of a better term, meta-ethical. We aren't all going to agree on the axioms. The one you chose -- "suffering should be avoided" -- will be rejected by many people as soon as they realize that your axiom doesn't (for them) trump all sorts of other values they hold dear. Those who do not accept it outright will subordinate it to other axioms which they hold to be more important. Once that happens, how do we have productive discussions about ethics? Reason can't be the arbiter because it has nothing to say about which of the various foundational concepts should be employed.

      --
      The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. --Dan Kaminsky
    57. Re:understandably? by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      And you have yourself stated a relative position by deciding that the good of society is a good thing.

      As a relativist, it makes sense that I would take a relative position. But you're missing the point. "The good of society is a good thing" is not a relative position, and I did not take that position. "X is for the good of society" is a relative position, because it measures X against societal goals. But "The good of society is a good thing" measures "the good of society" against -- what???

      (And yes, I can make a damned strong argument that it isn't, given that society is presently busy risking the survival of the species.)

      A relativist statement if ever there was one!

      Relativism doesn't work, nothing that is subjective is real

      That's a non sequitur, because relativism isn't dependent on subjectivism (although they can coexist logically). But I also don't buy your premise that "nothing that is subjective is real". Everything that is subjective -- humor, sadness, and so on -- has measurable consequences in the real world (laughter, tears, etc.). Without subjectivity, a joke isn't funny; it's just a bunch of words.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    58. Re:understandably? by chazwurth · · Score: 1

      Ethics based on whims is an alternative, but we don't usually go there (at least not all the way there), because doing ethics that way fails. It doesn't 'grease the wheels' of human interaction effectively, so to speak. People who try to live that way don't get very far socially unless they are extremely crafty and also lucky. I imagine that an entire society that tried to practice an ethics based solely on whim would collapse almost immediately, but of course I don't know that for certain.

      Ethics based on mysticism is obviously a strong alternative, and often produces working results, for some definition of 'working.' Of course, any group or society that claims its ethics are based entirely on its mystical or religious principles is naive -- its ethics are invariably also based on the social and cultural history of the group and its interactions with outsiders, while simultaneously being informed by the mystical/religious doctrines and experiences of its members. And those doctrines and experiences also change over time.

      Are there other options? Yes. (See a divergent branch of this discussion for ideas about creating a somewhat-rational system of ethics by choosing one or several ethical axioms and then applying reason to them.) I'm not sure there are any good ones though -- and by 'good' I mean: options that allow people with different systems of ethics based on different foundations to come together and work out problems in a productive way through discussion.

      But it's damn important to remember that the lack of good alternatives doesn't prove that there can be an ethics based on reason. At best (if it's true that there aren't good alternatives) it proves that we're sort of screwed. This problem is similar to one that comes up often in discussions with people who derive ethics from God. Very religious people have often said to me that God must exist because as soon as God goes away, so do ethics. My response has not been, as they hoped, "Oh, well, there must be a God then, because we can't give up our ethics." Rather, my response has been, "Damn, you better get to work figuring out how to do ethics without God." The point being that the unfortunate consequences of a truth -- like the truth that ethics can't be based on reason, or that God doesn't exist -- don't somehow invalidate that truth.

      (For particularly sensitive readers: feel free to assume that I'm not actually claiming that God doesn't exist, except for the sake of demonstrating a point in the argument. Anyone who wants to argue about God can send me email, which is listed on my Slashdot user page.)

      --
      The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. --Dan Kaminsky
    59. Re:understandably? by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      Circular how? If society makes the determination, then the evaulation begins and ends with society. The reason many people see a problem with this, is that many societies will judge X to be good when X is, clearly (in some sense of the word "clearly"), bad. For example, let "society" == the old South, and X == slavery. Or let "society" == the Bush administration, and X == torture.

      Is this a real problem? Yes, it is a real problem, because relativism itself is real. Saying morality is absolute does nothing to change the fact that morality is not absolute. Relativism is an observation on morality. It's not a solution to moral problems or an attempt to accommodate differences; it's an acknowledgement that those differences are real, and as such, is a precondition to dealing with those differences.

      Absolutism is merely fantasy and is a poor choice for dealing with the real world.

      Once you fall prey to the myth of "equal, but different", you no longer feel justified in the effort to migrate users from dysfunctional value systems.

      That one cannot be a relativist without falling prey to such a myth, is itself a myth used by absolutists to justify their position.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    60. Re:understandably? by Fatalis · · Score: 1

      I just don't think it's true that you can't have ethics that's based on logic and sound judgment (which is what I mean by "reason"). I understand your argument to be that for a system of ethics to work, it needs to be based upon some absolute or metaphysical truths, and reason is ruled out because "empiricism can't be epistemologically fundamental." I suppose this is because all knowledge is mediated, not immediate, and what we think we know about reality is based on induction. I wish I had a good slam-dunk response to this, but I don't. I just intuitively feel that such relativism is self-contradictory, because you can't simultaneously claim that truth is unknowable and that what you claim is true. So, If I am right about it, then your main premise is wrong, and rational ethics is possible after all. After that, you can proceed to understand the basic, shared human constitutive principles (for example, through evolutionary psychology and neuroscience), and base your ethical system upon that.

      You also say that mysticism is "a strong alternative" for basing ethics on, probably because it claims to offer a shortcut to direct knowledge. I don't think it's right, for several reasons. One is that the "truths" you get that way are not really demonstrable or verifiable, and very likely not truths at all. Take any revealed religion, believers can't even agree about the nature of their magic-man within the religion itself, much less between different religions. They just trust or hope that the real Creator of the Universe chose to inspire their particular sect or religion out of all the thousands of religions ever seen on the face of Earth. This, of course, can be much better explained by human cognitive biases and anthropology than the Universe being haunted. Another reason is that moral precepts based on delusions are more likely to be divisive than useful and uniting. Even the one religion that's strongest in numbers today is very far from being in the majority (only 1/3rd of all humans are Christians), and the second largest religion has a very problematic theology and history. They are also split into conflicting sects, where the 'moderates' or the people who subscribe to a sufficiently watered-down liberal theology to be fully compatible with others are still in the minority.

      About your dancing around whether you said that God exists or not, I think it's just weak. If anyone's faith is so fragile that he can be offended by others questioning its veracity, it's obviously their own damn problem.

      --
      Deus est fatalis
    61. Re:understandably? by chazwurth · · Score: 1

      I've apparently been unclear about several things here, and I apologize for that. I'll try to clarify some things, though not in the order you complained about them.

      About your dancing around whether you said that God exists or not, I think it's just weak. If anyone's faith is so fragile that he can be offended by others questioning its veracity, it's obviously their own damn problem.

      I'm not trying to dance around anything or avoid offending anyone; I just don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion about the logical proofs for the existence of God in the middle of this discussion about ethics. I'm willing to have that debate elsewhere, though I've had it a hundred times before, hence my offer to go to email. If someone reading this thread wants to say "Oh, well, this argument is moot anyways because God exists," I'm willing to have that discussion, I'd just rather not do it here, because it's tangential to what we're talking about. My comment about 'sensitive readers' was tongue-in-cheek.

      You also say that mysticism is "a strong alternative" for basing ethics on, probably because it claims to offer a shortcut to direct knowledge.

      It's strong in one sense, but obviously weak in many others. It's strong in the sense that it provides what it claims are foundational principles of ethics, which in my opinion, reason can't even claim. Thus it provides a basis for action, which I think reason cannot do. But you're of course correct that the "truths" you get that way are not really demonstrable or verifiable. And as for your statement that This, of course, can be much better explained by human cognitive biases and anthropology, I believe I noted that the ethics of religious groups are invariably informed by the social/cultural situation of the groups. We're not in disagreement here.

      Another reason is that moral precepts based on delusions are more likely to be divisive than useful and uniting.

      Here we disagree, at least in part. I don't think that moral precepts based on delusions are necessarily any more or less likely to be divisive than moral precepts based on, say, biology, neuroscience, or "shared human constitutive principles." But I think that in some sense all moral systems are based on a delusion, namely that the moral precepts (whatever they're based on -- whim, mysticism, reason, biology, whathaveyou) can be universalized. Any moral system is divisive as soon as you run into someone or someones who don't accept whatever precepts you've decided are fundamental.

      I understand your argument to be that for a system of ethics to work, it needs to be based upon some absolute or metaphysical truths...

      No, my argument is that for a system of ethics to work in the specific sense of universality, it needs to be based on such truths. For a system to work in the specific sense that everyone in the whole world can get together and agree on a framework of discussion for ethics, and solve their problems through that discussion, then yes, such a system would need to draw on some kind of universal truth. But for systems to work in a more modest way, and on a more local scale, no such thing is required. Usually all that's required is that the people within a given system mostly accept that some precepts are universal and fundamental. That acceptance, that universality, will be called into question when the people who live by that system run into people who don't; but depending on what precepts are chosen, the system may be very effective in organizing human life within the local group.

      ...and reason is ruled out because "empiricism can't be epistemologically fundamental." I suppose this is because all knowledge is mediated, not immediate, and what we think we know about reality is based on induction.

      My comment about empiricism might as well be a red herring. I was giving the poster I responded to two reasons why I ignore the kind of philosophers he seemed to b

      --
      The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. --Dan Kaminsky
    62. Re:understandably? by smaddox · · Score: 1

      1. Really? Because I remember my father telling me years ago about lobsters crawling across the highway to reach a seperated body of water, and him picking them up and cooking them for dinner. Just because you don't see them crawling around beaches now that they are over-fished, doesn't mean they didn't back when no one ate them.

      2. True. Somewhat. They can sometimes be different colors. However, you are correct that the lobsters they would have seen would have been a deep blue.

  16. Time to end the OLPC project then by maynard · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean - think of the children!!!

    1. Re:Time to end the OLPC project then by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      I mean - think of the children!!!

      Yes every single one of those children, and most every child in the world is a result of fucking. Why again do we need to protect them from this knowledge? Aside from protecting the tender egos of the older men and women who are past thier sexual prime and hate to be reminded of that fact?

      --
      We are all just people.
  17. 419 training not going as expected? by grapeape · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm all for helping the poor and supporting 3rd world countries etc, but I can name at least 50 nations more deserving of the OLPC program than Nigeria and yes I know that not everyone in Nigeria is a scammer but why are we so eagar to help a country that does so little to help itself? The reason the 419 crap continues is because they have government that looks the other way, hold them accountable then give handouts.

    1. Re:419 training not going as expected? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but OLPC is being run as a business. Which means that if the Nigerian Ministry of Education comes up with the funds for the laptops, they get the laptops.

      If patronizing naivety could be harnessed as an energy source, the OLPC would be able to light up the eastern seaboard.

    2. Re:419 training not going as expected? by physicsnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can name at least 50 nations more deserving of the OLPC program than Nigeria More "deserving"? Why, of all people, should we hold the children accountable for what their government is doing?

      If anything, they are a better target for the OLPC, because these children can now get a better education to change their own government when their generation grows up.
    3. Re:419 training not going as expected? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      The reason the 419 crap continues is because they have government that looks the other way, hold them accountable then give handouts.

      And obviously those primary school children should be punished because you got some spam from some asshole in Lagos at an Internet cafe. Taking laptops away from rural children will send a message to those scammers all right.

    4. Re:419 training not going as expected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If anything, they are a better target for the OLPC, because these children can now get a better education to change their own government when their generation grows up.


      And get those porn filters removed!

  18. understandably? by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So its understandable that we will start enforcing our concept of morality on others right off the bat?

    Remember, morality is relative.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  19. ha ha ha oh wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because the filter manufacturers nood more sales?
    manufacturers nood more sales?
    nood more sales?
    nood

    That's one helluva Freudian slip there,chief!

    1. Re:ha ha ha oh wow by TheEmptySet · · Score: 1

      I recognise the grandparent's mistake. I bet he/she/it was using a Dvorak keyboard layout. It happons to mo all the timo.

  20. huh by nomadic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't know why the OLPC project is giving internet access anyway. If I were them I'd create a closed network with educational sites alone. They don't need access to the internet universe.

    1. Re:huh by Socguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the whole you may be right. However, I do remember that one of the goals was to allow farmers and independent business people to access the internet to market their products worldwide and gather information regarding their occupation. Besides, with all the negative comments I've just read on /. regarding censorship, how would an isolated network of approved information be any different than applying filters? Add to that any complaints that poor countries are being held back from the internet and a separate network may not be worth the effort.

    2. Re:huh by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      "If I were them I'd create a closed network with educational sites alone. "

      They don't call it "sex education" for nothing, you know ...

      I guess someone didn't get the email - the internet is for porn. (And for those kids in Nigeria using OLPCs, they'll just search for "pr0n", and br3asts - after all, look how they spell other words, like V14GR4).

      Real porn (as in obscene) to them will be seeing just how many obese people there are in the world. People who claim to be preaching th word of god, and want to end world hunger, but look like they personally caused at least one famine by eating everything in sight. Isn't gluttony a sin?

    3. Re:huh by blhack · · Score: 1

      One thing to keep in mind is that most of us have grown up with the internet. As in, we have grown up in parallel to the advancement of technology on the global interconnected telecommunications network. All of the way from back in the 90's when it took 10 minutes for a little tiny jpeg to load to now when entire DVD quality movies are encoded in flash and available for free. Most of the modern world is used to porn on the internet. THESE people, however, have probably never seen anything even remotely like what they are seeing now. What would be good in my opinion would be to set up a closed network for them (like parent suggested), give them access to tools that will easily allow them to develop their own websites etc..then slowly let the rest of the internet through. Don't censor anything on the inside, just keep them sheltered from it for a while. An approach like this would still give them the benefits of a big telecom network, without most of its problems. Its like when a kid turns 21 and overdoses on alcohol vs. a kid that has been fed wine and beer since they were an infant (i'm talking about some European parents who will feed their 4-5 yr olds heavily watered down wine with meals).

      my .02

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    4. Re:huh by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I don't know why the OLPC project is giving internet access anyway. If I were them I'd create a closed network with educational sites alone. They don't need access to the internet universe. They could get Time-Warner in on it and call it the "One AOL Per Child" project!
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:huh by westlake · · Score: 1
      I don't know why the OLPC project is giving internet access anyway. If I were them I'd create a closed network with educational sites alone. They don't need access to the internet universe.

      Modern Nigeria was awkwardly carved out of the British colonial empire.

      There are 500 tribal languages. 250 ethnic groups. Two major religions in Islam and Christianity, competing and occasionally merging with tribal beliefs.

      English is the official language - the language of the urban elite - with all the strengths and weaknesses that implies. Nigeria

      In such a complex and dangerous environment I don't see how you create a closed network that satisfies everyone. I don't see how you fund it.

    6. Re:huh by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      That is a really, really, really good point.

    7. Re:huh by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``I don't know why the OLPC project is giving internet access anyway. If I were them I'd create a closed network with educational sites alone. They don't need access to the internet universe.''

      Sure, they don't _need_ access to the Internet. But then, they don't _need_ laptops, either. Or anything else, besides food or water, really.

      As far as I know, however, the goal of OLPC is to narrow the digital divide. You can hardly do that without providing Internet access. In a very real sense, Internet access _is_ the digital divide. The Internet provides a nearly unimaginable amount of information. More information and services are added every day. Having Internet access not only gives you access to the information and services, but also lets you participate in their creation. Last but not least, the Internet allows you to communicate with other users and groups of users.

      Now, without Internet access, you are locked out of all these things. Even if you are on, let's say, a separate "Internet" (let's call it "the Intarweb"), you are locked out of the wealth that the Internet provides. The Intarweb might provide all of the same services, but, as long as the two networks are separate _none_ of the information and _none_ of the users on the Internet will be accessible to you. So the digital divide is still there.

      Incidentally, filters create a digital divide, too. After all, the entire purpose of filters is that some content or services not be accessible - thus creating a division between those who do and those who don't have access to these services or content. Depending on the filtering, this can be anywhere from convenient to draconian. I wouldn't particularly mind if a filter stopped all these dictionary attacks from reaching my SSH server. On the other hand, I would be severely anonyed if a filter restricted my Internet access to a handful of propaganda sites. The filtering mentioned in the story is in the "annoying" part of the spectrum (between "unnoticable" and "draconian"). This for the simple reason that access is determined _for_ the users, rather than _by_ the users.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  21. Think of the children!! by Cynical_Dude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't forget to export your morality with the laptops.

    1. Re:Think of the children!! by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      "insightful?" How is this post "insightful?"

      The very act of what they're doing is exporting their morality. The OLPC folks think it is morally wrong for some people to be so poor, they don't have access to things which, in today's day and age, are considered completely necessary for success. They have moral qualms with the disparity of knowledge, wealth, etc that their program seeks, as a moral imperitive, to lessen to some degree.

      So you don't want the OLPC program to exist at all?

    2. Re:Think of the children!! by merreborn · · Score: 1

      Many of the areas of the world these things are going to are generally *less* liberal about sex than we are -- e.g. several are predominantly Muslim.

    3. Re:Think of the children!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm. It's my understanding that Africa on the whole is very conservative on sex issues, and the political systems there are such that you can easily undo a world of good if you let a perceived threat stand. Sounds more like diplomacy than cultural imperialism.

    4. Re:Think of the children!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Many of the areas of the world these things are going to are generally *less* liberal about sex than we are -- e.g. several are predominantly Muslim.

      Then I'm all for shoving some of our morality down their throats. And my "our" I mean mine: sex is good, censorship is bad, and god does not exist.
    5. Re:Think of the children!! by goldspider · · Score: 1

      So poor little Hodgie finally has access to porn. I really feel this project is contributing to the uplifting of global society!

      I wonder if anyone is going to look back at this in 10 years and determine if charitable projects like this in the third world actually make any difference, or if it only makes rich people feel like they've done some good.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    6. Re:Think of the children!! by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

      Many of the areas of the world these things are going to are generally *less* liberal about sex than we are -- e.g. several are predominantly Muslim.

      Then I'm all for shoving some of our morality down their throats. And my "our" I mean mine: sex is good, censorship is bad, and god does not exist.

      How comes that was modded flamebait?

      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
    7. Re:Think of the children!! by westlake · · Score: 1
      Don't forget to export your morality with the laptops.

      The right question to ask is what moral values the techno-Geek will be allowed to export.

      The Islamic and evangelical Christian state of Nigeria isn't obligated to accept OLPC if the price of admission is tolerance of pornography in the home and classroom.

    8. Re:Think of the children!! by master_p · · Score: 1

      But please put it on a USB key so as that I can plug a different one* next time!

      (*) morality

  22. I almost did a spit-take by j0e_average · · Score: 1

    This is why as kids we couldn't look at National Geographic issues without being supervised.
    Ha! National Geographic IS porn for Nigerian kids!

    Oh Yeah! Look at the hangers on that one!

  23. "Nigerian Children" by nlitement · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why are "children" capitalized? Is "Nigerian Children" some kind of a scammer group? What a funny name..

  24. And in further news... by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    ...it will emerge that the pornographic material the kids were browsing was J. D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye," Titian's and Disney's "The Little Mermaid."

  25. Perhaps it was not their intent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone thought that perhaps they didn't seek out porn, but it's so common and easier to access than most legitimate content?

  26. Oops, should've pressed Preview by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    Sorry, Disney... I meant J. D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye," Titian'sVenus d'Urbino and Disney's "The Little Mermaid."

    1. Re:Oops, should've pressed Preview by tepples · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Disney Disney should be saying sorry to us. Not for the inadvertent dick on the cover and movie posters of The Little Mermaid, but for the Bono Act.
  27. Internet is for PORN!! by wwmedia · · Score: 1
  28. Thanks, thats exactly where this is heading by BibelBiber · · Score: 1

    Never trust anybody to meet your own morality standards. When you ship the internet to the third world, make sure they only see what _you_ want them to see.

  29. Therapy by Brian+Ribbon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "A rep from OLPC said, understandably, that the laptops would now be fitted with filters."

    I think they should also send out therapists. Those children will clearly be traumatised by viewing evil images of naked women.

    --
    "To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
    1. Re:Therapy by tokul · · Score: 1

      "A rep from OLPC said, understandably, that the laptops would now be fitted with filters."
      I think they should also send out therapists. Those children will clearly be traumatised by viewing evil images of naked women.
      Porn is not only images. Even if African children are accustomed in seeing naked people, they are not accustomed to the way naked people act in porn movies.
  30. Censorship in this case is wrong. by 3seas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is an AIDs issue to deal with here!

    A question to ask: Does porn help promote AIDS with viewers or help to demote it?

    Perhaps there is an age of threshold but that is something that should be determined by the current living environment.

    So what is an indicator of that threshold? What gave the kids the idea of looking for porn on the internet in the first place? Seems to me the threshold was already passed before they looked for it on the internet.

    I'm almost 50 years old and my email is filtered, not by my choice, such that I still get the porn promotion emails but the urls are changed to be random character strings. Whether or not I would access such sites is not the issue.

    The issue is of censorship of what is in fact a part of human nature.

    If you make something as natural as sex bad then you'll guarantee the typical rebellious teen age person will find a way. And maybe that way is such an act as to spread disease and unwanted pregnancies.

    What can porn teach? proper safe sex? It can perhaps remove some level of curiosity ...

    But porn or not, there is the natural human sex drive. Deny it and you'll have problems develop from ignorance and un-natural guilt. Such acts as rape included.

    And how about the history of porn? What can it teach? The dangers of AIDs and other STDs?

    If kids already know to look for porn on the internet, maybe its time the subject matter be properly addressed instead of being swept under the rug filter.

    The biggest problem, the biggest contributing factor with the spread of AIDs in Africa, is ignorance.

    Wait a minute, I live in Atlanta, I'm white...

    Forget everything I said above.....

    1. Re:Censorship in this case is wrong. by Adelle · · Score: 1

      ...Also, what if the "porn" being censored is actually a web site which explains how AIDS is spread. Filters have a lower IQ than the people recommending them.

    2. Re:Censorship in this case is wrong. by MontyApollo · · Score: 1

      Porn does teach you to ejaculate outside of the orifices, so I guess it could be good AIDs prevention in some way. Semen in the eye might be risky behavior though. A lot of porn does not encourage condom use though, and it often encourages anal sex.

      I don't know what effect porn has otherwise. Does jackin' it to porn satisfy their sexual urges, or does looking at porn make them want to go out and have sex more?

      I don't think a kid occasionaly coming across porn is that big of deal, but free and unfettered access to it by kids is probably not that good of an idea. If nothing else, it is a time management issue - and porn can be a big time-sink.

  31. obvious quote by FlashBuster3000 · · Score: 1

    [Fry, Prof. Farnsworth, etc. watching a documentory in the internet]
    Fry: In my days, the internet was used only for porn.
    Farnsworth: Yes, that's what it's like today.
    [Scientists in the documentory begin to undress]

    (translated out of memory)

  32. Making them faster, stronger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Filters and other barriers will just place a new pressure on the users who will adapt to avoid the filters. This will turn out to be a never ending struggle since as long as there is a will, there is a way. What a stupid waste of resources.

    I'm also pretty certain that this is not the first naked person these kids have seen, and I doubt its the first time they've seen someone have sex. I know that I saw both those things before I saw porn - so what exactly are we saving here?

    I am sure pornography viewing has ruined lives and caused people problems before, and I'm sure it will in the future, but I like to think it had a positive role in my development. I began my serious computer usage the evening that I was at a friends house who showed me you could download naked pictures from BBSs. When I went home I immediately dug out the 1200 baud modem that had been gathering dust in the basement. I spent the next few days figuring out how to operate the terminal programs and finding software to view these magical gifs and jpegs (I had an Amiga, so I had to work a little harder). This pursuit of naked girls eventually led me to the internet, and shell accounts (which I used to grab the newsgroups) - back in the early 90s. So I'd like to say thank you to the women who posed naked for a couple hundred bucks, if I could buy you all a round of beers I would.

  33. is that it ? by rs232 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is that all they can find to say about the OLPC. When was the last time you read a headline about schoolchildren viewing porn under MS Bisto? How about a story about an international news organization partnering up with US cable company's to deliver quality porn to cable and satellite subscribers. Here in Euroland we can always can rely on Murdochs Sky Adult channels.

    Comcast cashing in on porn

    AT&T porn channel challenged by religious investors

    All we need now is OLPC contributes to a) terrorism, b) money laundering and c) contributes to third world poverty. Scratch the last one, its the GPL that does that, according to Jonathan Schwartz.

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Good! by Tribbin · · Score: 2, Funny

    We will see a tremendous AIDS drop within a few decades.

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  36. Well, you made two vaid points by Flying+pig · · Score: 1

    First, it's very easy to link to pictures of naked women on the Internet. And second, any society that wants to prevent children from looking at Titians has something very, very wrong indeed with it. Don't get me wrong; I don't believe anybody ought to be allowed to profit from the depiction of sexual cruelty and violence. But the fuss that some factions in the US make about a bare nipple or two makes the US look ridiculous in most of the developed world. So don't apologise to Disney for accidentally linking them with a great picture. Apologise to the shade of Titian for accidentally linking him with Disney.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  37. Sexy Asian girls to the rescue! by coren2000 · · Score: 1

    Maybe the sexy Asian girls can now help the Nigerians get their money safely out of the country.

  38. And coming soon to Slashdot by dgun · · Score: 1

    OLPC Used to Pirate Music

    RIAA files suit against hundreds of third world OLPC children

    --
    FAQs are evil.
  39. they might as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    after all sending Email or IM from Nigeria is as good as useless thanks to their brethrens 419 attempts
    just about every corp i have worked with blocks ALL Nigerian originated email, no exceptions
    if you are a freemail provider iam suprised you just dont block all Nigerian web access as the legitimate users must be a tiny percentage of
    their userbase and every 419 sent from your service puts you deeper into the blackholes
    i already block Nigeria from all our web services due to abuse, its just not worth the hassle

    sad really, give them access to the world and the first thing they want to do is steal and scam instead of directing that thinking into opening a store or selling products/crafts/services legally

    there really is no helping people sometimes

  40. The Internets Is Like A Bunch Of Tubes by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 2, Funny

    Turgid, erect, throbbing, tubes...

    I guess old Senator what's his name was right, eh kiddies? ;-)

  41. Well duh! by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

    Opening new forms of communication is always going to result a wild rush of memes, propaganda and fetishes until the culture adapts, whether its porn, religion, radical hatred or lolcats.

  42. They're learning... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    ... about the mating rituals of the North American albino people!

    --
    The game.
  43. This indicates a larger problem by tlevine · · Score: 1

    Not completely on topic, but if looking at porn is a problem, maybe we should figure out why people are doing it rather than just punishing people who look at or restricting it. Alfie Kohn has written a lot on how rewards and punishments don't work.

    I'm sure the kids are doing other stuff with the computers too anyway--stuff that is more generally accepted.

    1. Re:This indicates a larger problem by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure the kids are doing other stuff with the computers too anyway--stuff that is more generally accepted."

      Like masturbation?

  44. porn advances the adoption of new technolgies by reversible+physicist · · Score: 1

    If all they do is watch porn, that's a problem. But if the existence of something they're very interested in (porn) on the Internet prompts them to learn how to make the computers work and to use search engines and to find out how to get around porn filters, etc., that's obviously motivating them to learn some useful skills! And while they're on that search engine, they may have some other questions that they're interested in...

    Is it only rich countries that are allowed to benefit from porn providing motivation for the adoption of new technologies?

  45. Actually, I don't understand by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Could someone explain to me, preferably without recourse to religious argument, what is wrong with these kids viewing porn? I mean, they're actively seeking it out, and so must already be interested, so you can't argue that the laptops are somehow corrupting them - they're already corrupt (by that definition)...

    1. Re:Actually, I don't understand by blindbat · · Score: 1

      However, some people when exposed to certain concepts have a greater tendency to want to act on them. Now, of course, I do not refer to sex simply or nudity. Some forms of pornography can involve violence and exposure to those might lead some, over time, to want to act out what they have seen and then fantasied about. So, really, there are some dangers for certain personality types in being exposed to extreme sexual ideas.

    2. Re:Actually, I don't understand by ydrol · · Score: 1

      Deep down we probably all want to goose the secretary and jump on her bones, but society teaches us to balance that with pretending to be interested in her character. Over exposure to porn with impressionable young minds makes this difficult balancing act even harder...

    3. Re:Actually, I don't understand by Mike1024 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could someone explain to me, preferably without recourse to religious argument, what is wrong with these kids viewing porn?

      Nothing inherently, but in the particular case of OLPC I can see why filtering might be reasonable:

      1. In a class room situation any web browsing could be disruptive to teaching, but pornography particularly so. It would be pretty weird if at work the guy opposite me in the office was looking at porn all the time!

      2. Parents may be reluctant to give children access to OLPC machines if the machines have a reputation as 'porn portals'. Non-adoption would obviously prevent the anticipated educational benefits of OLPC being realised. To put it another way, revolutionising religious views of pornography is not part of OLPC's core aims.

      3. Similarly, if looking for government funding in the US, it's probably useful not to have the stigma of pornography hanging over your head - what with all the religion involved in US politics etc.

      Just my $0.02

      --
      "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
    4. Re:Actually, I don't understand by grcumb · · Score: 1

      Could someone explain to me, preferably without recourse to religious argument, what is wrong with these kids viewing porn?

      As others have said, it's a question of context - of what's appropriate to their particular situation.

      I live in a place where this kind of thing can happen, and I'll tell you that when all the information men get about sex comes from pornography and whispers in the dark, they can get some very weird ideas about what's normal. I won't go into the details of the some of the behaviour that's arisen, because I don't have the stomach to think about it. Suffice it to say that it ranges from silly[*] to absurd to positively sickening.

      I'll grant you that this is not fundamentally a technological issue. Dealing with sexuality openly and in a respectful way has a number of prerequisites, not the least of which are equal rights for women and proper education. So while you and I might agree that open expressions of sexuality could conceivably be seen in a moderately benign light, the way to achieve this particular perception does not consist of letting young people roam free and unfettered on the Internet.

      -----

      [*] Okay, I guess I can manage silly: In a conversation about condom use and HIV/AIDS prevention I had one evening with some young men, one of them told me that he preferred to wear two condoms because (shy smirk) he really knew how to get things going and it's common knowledge that they're, uh, much bigger than the white people that condoms were made for. Everyone else in the group nodded earnestly. This was clearly a serious issue.

      Following this story, a friend of mine who does HIV/AIDS prevention for a living bought a carving of a HUGE penis (almost twice the width of a horse's) and subsequently used it in workshops to demonstrate how to put on a condom. It makes the point, and is a hilarious ice-breaker, too.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    5. Re:Actually, I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with the porn is that all the adults in Nigeria will be pissed off about it, and will cancel the OLPC program, unless it is blocked. Check the insightful post about how Nigeria is a mix of Islam, Catholicism, and other stuff, and all 4 major groups don't want kids seeing porn.

      http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=25354 3&cid=19939013

      Personally I have no problem with porn filters on EDUCATIONAL computers. And while I don't care if kids can find pictures of naked women, there is some stuff on the Internet that I don't really want to watch, and damn well don't want kids to watch.

  46. Really? by Aetuneo · · Score: 1

    I would be more surprised if it wasn't. And, besides the fact that it's about a cheap computer, how is this news? Every other type of computer in the world, over the last, say, 5 or 10 years, has been used by someone, somewhere, to browse porn. Would it be news if someone used a dell, or a mac, to browse porn?

    --
    Everything is subjective.
  47. Humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprise, Nigerians are human (and horny), too. What's wrong with that? The topic is brought up as if somehow these unfortunate people are "ungrateful" for their gift of technology.

  48. Re:They are not allowed to. by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A few years back I was watching a documentary on TV dealing with stone age peoples somewhere in the world. At one point it showed all the the women (white scientists and black natives) and their children in the river bathing. Breasts of all shapes and sizes were visible as they all frolicked in the water. That is, on the black women, on the white women their brests were digitally obscured.

  49. Re:They are not allowed to. by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

    That is, on the black women, on the white women their brests were digitally obscured.

    So whose fingers were being used to cover the breasts?

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  50. It's a good thing... by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, let those kids learn about unprotected ass-to-mouth sex. That'll keep the HIV rates down!

    Let them learn about every kind of sex, stop treating sex and masturbation like freakish taboo abnoramalities and let them have open honest dialogue about sex. That will bring HIV rates down. Alot of guys in porns wear condoms. Nobody every got AIDS from masturbating. If (while they actually stay monogamous) they can close their eyes and fantasize about some porn starlet and that fulfills their natural male desire for a variety of partners, then that too will help control the spread of STDs. Maybe some men there will learn to appreciate women who have orgasims, and the practice of female circumcision will stop. All in all this will probably be a good thing.

    --
    We are all just people.
    1. Re:It's a good thing... by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      That's the problem - because sex over there right now is NOT taboo or 'dirty' as it is over here, children aren't afraid of it and don't find the need to obsess over it every chance they get. Maybe we could take a hint from them, along with about 90% of the other countries in the world. Sex is natural, sex is fun. Sex is best when it's 1-on-1...or 2-on-1, maybe even a little 3-on-1 or 3-on-2 now and then.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  51. Stupid Liberals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to the world

  52. This is WRONG! by janrinok · · Score: 1

    I object to the inclusion of filters by the OLPC. What is required in this instance is that the children be educated as to what is expected of them, learning what is right and wrong, personal responsibility etc. Who decides what the filters should filter? The US? Does that mean that sites discussing evolution should now be denied to Nigerian children?. Or how about letting a strict Muslim nation choose? Then we can ban cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Or how about Russia or China? I'm sure that they will always want the world to see only the good side of the West. The filters can be applied only, in this instance, by the Nigerian Government as they are best able to decide what should be permitted on computers used by their school children. But the choice should not rest with the OLPC aid group otherwise the computers could easily become nothing more than a convenient method of disseminating one country's specific viewpoint rather than letting children learn for themselves. By all means provide the computers but no-one should dictate to the recipients what web sites they may visit and which ones are banned. Assist other countries, but don't tell them what they should do. After all, we don't like being told what to do by someone else, why should they?

    --
    Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  53. Dont blame the technology by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    Ignorance in the supervision is where the blame lies. It's the same as if you gave a child a blowtorch to light a barbecue and the kid burns down the garage in the process. Only an idiot blames the torch.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:Dont blame the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Only an idiot blames the torch."

      Jack Thompson blames Tomb Raider. There were torches in the game, and now pixelantes all over the world are burning down garages.

    2. Re:Dont blame the technology by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Oh no. If this had happened in US the following would have been done:
      1. The blow torch manufacturer would have been sued for reckless endargement of children, and fined $3.5 million.
      2. The barbeque manufacturer would have been sued and settled for $1.3 million
      3. The garage would have been rebuilt with marble from the money thus made.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  54. The end of 419 scams? by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe they'll chill out watching porn and stop sending all those email scams.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:The end of 419 scams? by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the ones sending the email scams actually already own computers. That's kind of how they do it.

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    2. Re:The end of 419 scams? by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      It's hard to think about what you're posting to slashdot when you're watching pr0n, I guess.

      *tilts face at GP author*

    3. Re:The end of 419 scams? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up, this is funny!

    4. Re:The end of 419 scams? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      What I've read on the subject tells me that these guys use Internet cafes to do most of their dirty work, since private connectivity is very hard to come by in Nigeria. My girlfriend is Nigerian and that's what she's been told too. Who knows though. That may just be the stupid ones that get caught.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:The end of 419 scams? by marafa · · Score: 0

      its kind of hard to imagine the post above while extremely obvious (and thus making it an oxymoron) was moderated insightful!

      --
      _ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
    6. Re:The end of 419 scams? by ColdGrits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but wtf?

      How does something being obvious make it an oxymoron?

      you do KNOW what an oxymoron is, right?

      'cos the post to which you refer is not an oxymoron by any standards. Unless you can explain exactly how it is self-contradictory?

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
  55. Man, this is teaching these kids coordination! by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    One hand to turn the crank, and the other to well, slide the rod... truly an amazing feat!

  56. exactly .... by ryanw · · Score: 1

    Why do children need laptops anyway? People think that technology is power. Knowledge is power. People think that technology is knowledge. So you hand these kids a laptop and expect them to then become knowledge able. Personally I think that education has gone down hill ever since technology has been allowed in the classrooms.

    When doing research in a library (with physical books) you'll probably stumble across 15 different topics and learn several things rather than just immediately finding that paragraph you need to quote about the topic you're researching.

    Sure, technology brings precision and ease. But the person driving doesn't learn anything. They just learn what questions to ask and where to find information. I suppose the argument could be made that if you know where to find it, then you know everything. I personally would feel like a moron if I couldn't answer any questions if my internet died.

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

      And how many libraries are there in, say rural Nigeria?

    2. Re:exactly .... by ryanw · · Score: 1

      How much bandwidth do they have in rural nigeria? How about Power? So what's a laptop going to do for this 'child'? Be something they could use to prop their legs up on and use for delivering children? That'd be at least useful.

      If they used the same money to build more weather resistant dictionaries, encyclopedias or instructional books, and shipped those all over, that might actually be something I'd stand behind. Give them real knowledge, real power, not just a reason to spend money to boost our own economies.

  57. Just give them a few weeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fry: "Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex!"

    1. Re:Just give them a few weeks by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 2, Funny

      And the AIDS epidemic is solved!

      --
      I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
    2. Re:Just give them a few weeks by UserGoogol · · Score: 1
      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
  58. DRM and now censorware by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    So not only is this project a major supporter of digital rights management, but now it's going to be supporting censorware, too? Am I the only one who sees how dangerous this project is on the whole?

  59. HAHA! by morari · · Score: 1

    Did they just equate Nigerian porn to those saggy, naked tribes in National Geographic?! XD

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  60. Here's your answer: by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could someone explain to me, preferably without recourse to religious argument, what is wrong with these kids viewing porn?
    Browsing porn distracts from OLPC's goal of using those computers for educational purposes.

    Pornography (hardcore, softcore or other) may be educational in the context of a sex-ed class, but otherwise it is outside the intent of the mission.

    That is the basic justification (not religious morality) for many of the restrictions placed upong kids in an educational environment... in a secular state at least.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  61. Inaccurate by crossmr · · Score: 5, Informative

    This wasn't done on OLPC laptops. Not only did digg have the story before you, it was correct.
    http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/booby-trap/kids-use-us+ donated-laptops-to-surf-the-porn-of-course-280715. php

    The OLPC manufacturers were just asked about what they'd do. That was there only relation to the story.

    1. Re:Inaccurate by Saurian_Overlord · · Score: 1

      Heh...um, yeah.
      From TFA mentioned here:

      "Although the laptops were not the celebrated OLPCs that will soon be manufactured for distribution throughout the developing world..."

      Note the word "NOT." Also note that TFA the OP links to says NOTHING about OLPCs.

    2. Re:Inaccurate by AEton · · Score: 1

      Actually, looking at other mainstream press coverage suggests that it was indeed a test set of the XO computers that are part of the OLPC project. I think the Gizmodo text is mistaken.

      Take a look at the most recent Reuters story, which is datelined in Nigerian capital Abuja. By inference, the "U.S. aid organization" being referred to in the lede is the OLPC nonprofit mentioned later. (Terribly ambiguous writing!)

      For a little more proof, take a look at this earlier coverage of the initial laptop donation to the Abuja school. This coverage says that the "News Agency of Nigeria" (which Reuters said reported Friday about porn on the laptops) reported on June 29 that a donation of 300 laptops had been received from the OLPC program. The reason it was a story then is that the school which received the donated laptops did not have power.

      An interesting question: why the negative spin? Why report that the school which got the laptops had no power; and why report that the laptops are being used to look at porn? Is there coverage of positive educational uses of the devices that the other media isn't picking up?

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    3. Re:Inaccurate by westlake · · Score: 1
      An interesting question: why the negative spin? Why report that the school which got the laptops had no power; and why report that the laptops are being used to look at porn?

      maybe because a school without electricity has more problems than a wind-up laptop can solve.

      maybe because the machines were distributed before teachers had the training and materials to make good use of them in class. a problem not unknown in the states.

    4. Re:Inaccurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What??? /. vs. Digg? Now it's personal ... Huh!

  62. Well I think by Dunbal · · Score: 1


          I think this is great news. Perhaps the amount of rapes (a HUGE problem in Africa) will decrease as these people find a different outlet for their sexual tension/frustrations.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  63. Filtering non-porn can be good ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Funny

    If they truly only blocked porn, then maybe it would be a matter of discussion, but certain filters' habit of censoring all sorts of irrelevant contents, political and otherwise really makes porn the lesser of the two evils.

    Blocking US Football Superbowls XXX through XXXIX and the movies "xXx" and "XXX: State of the Union" are hardly evils, and probably goods.

    1. Re:Filtering non-porn can be good ... by Longtime_Lurker_Aces · · Score: 1

      I don't think he meant accidental blocking of things that are false positives for porn like superbowl XXX.

      The concept is once you start blocking porn, you tend to start blocking other things. Because we don't want terrorism so we better block that website on how to make a bomb. And we don't want racism so we better block that site that we consider hate speech. And that website with {insert religious figure/icon} in the {offensive noun or verb} is clearly obscene so we better block that.

      Pretty soon, you've got something far far worse than a 10 year old seeing a boob.

    2. Re:Filtering non-porn can be good ... by OzoneLad · · Score: 1

      Pretty soon, you've got something far far worse than a 10 year old seeing a boob. I didn't know they wanted to block pictures of George Bush.
  64. It's not only the kids in Africa, you know... by I.+C.+Wiener · · Score: 1
  65. Porn will increase Nigerian scams by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    I'd rather those Nigerian children would browse porn instead of sending out 419 emails.

    You think they will stop at the free stuff? No, they will move on to the pay-for-access sites and develop a greater need for cash. After all, porn is more expensive than food. Expect a lot more scams and phishing coming nations benefiting from OLPC.

  66. OLPC by Joebert · · Score: 1

    One Labia Per Child

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  67. Parents by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, I'm one of the parents that feel its MY job to supervise what my child sees, not some corporate goon from another country.

    Its my right to teach my child what i feel is right and wrong, not his.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Parents by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's not the school's job to make sure the kids can or do see everything you want them to see. Since you can't stalk your kids 24/7, you need to make sure that when you leave them in the care of others or left to themselves, your policy is reasonably enforced. Since a OLPC is suppose to be the kid's laptop, you can be fairly certain it'll be used outside your supervision. Sure it might fit your parenting style better if you got to micromanage that policy, but for the basic question of "is my child fit to have an OLPC" I think it's easier to err on the side of caution.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Parents by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the ability of me to watch my kids 24/7, its still not the responsibility of some coporation or government to teach/enforce morality.

      Personally, I wouldnt let my kid have the olpc, if i wasnt in control of it.

      It also just so happens my kid does know right from wrong ( at least my view of right and wrong, YMMV ), as i instilled it in him from birth, but that is beside the point that its still my job and my responsibility, not anyone else's. Even if it comes with a shiny free PC attached..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:Parents by Ztream · · Score: 1

      Personally, I wouldnt let my kid have the olpc, if i wasnt in control of it.

      Yes, and this is exactly the problem: this will be the reaction of most parents in cultures where sexuality is much more taboo than in our culture. And many of us think this would be bad, because we *want* the kids to have these laptops.
      If the choice is between central authoritarian content filtering and the death of the whole OLPC concept, I favour the pragmatic approach of content filtering.

  68. Once again it is proven... by TheRistoman · · Score: 1

    Pornography is the #1 pioneer in major technological advances.

  69. Should I feel guilty? by elgee · · Score: 1

    For finding this funny? Nah....

  70. Request for urgent business relationship by QuasiEvil · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hello honest /. reader, I hope this finds you in good health. My late father was a wealthy 419 scammer, but when he passed away the government seized his assets, including some $5 million USD in cash and his collection of OLPCs that were used to run the scam. Since everything was seized, including my inheritance, I cannot afford the small processing fee that I need to get his assets out of the country. I need your help so that I may continue his profitable venture. If you could send a small (say, $50,000) processing fee, we would be able to liberate his wealth and computers, and you will be rewarded well for your assistance.

    In addition, the batch of OLPCs he had acquired for sending scam spam is now being used to show children online pornography. We must get them back to legitimate uses such as spamming - think of the children!

    Please write me back immediately so that we might begin this critical work.

  71. Those who fund OLPC decide on filters ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Who decides what the filters should filter?

    Those who fund OLPC. If you do not want governments, churches, corporations, etc attaching strings then don't take their money. If you take their money, expect them to exert some control. If you are so silly that you do not expect this then you have doomed your project through naive mismanagement. Harsh, but true.

    1. Re:Those who fund OLPC decide on filters ... by janrinok · · Score: 1

      So OLPC is nothing about charity, is not about bringing IT to children who might otherwise not have access to it? - "Our goal: To provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment and express themselves." (http://laptop.org/vision/index.shtml). It is, in your view, an opportunity for whomever is funding OLPC to exert their views on children around the world, probably in the hope that it will win them favour in years to come when those children are adults. If we provide aid to poorer nations it shouldn't be at a price, it should be because we wish to help someone who needs help. Those that believe it is right to use charity to gain influence have, in my view, become cynical individuals.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    2. Re:Those who fund OLPC decide on filters ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      "... If you do not want governments, churches, corporations, etc attaching strings then don't take their money. If you take their money, expect them to exert some control. If you are so silly that you do not expect this then you have doomed your project through naive mismanagement. Harsh, but true."

      So OLPC is nothing about charity, is not about bringing IT to children who might otherwise not have access to it? - "Our goal: To provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment and express themselves." (http://laptop.org/vision/index.shtml). It is, in your view, an opportunity for whomever is funding OLPC to exert their views on children around the world ...


      No. It is my view that a charity has to match its goals with its donors. Donors have power and it is naive to believe otherwise.

      ... probably in the hope that it will win them favour in years to come when those children are adults. If we provide aid to poorer nations it shouldn't be at a price, it should be because we wish to help someone who needs help. Those that believe it is right to use charity to gain influence have, in my view, become cynical individuals.

      What you naively fail to realize is that both those who organize a charity and those who fund a charity may both have noble goals and wish to help, but there is a power imbalance between those two groups favoring the later. You should also be careful tossing around the word "cynical", your assumption that donors wish to gain favor is a strong example of cynicism. You should consider that some donors legitimately believe that porn filters will further the goal of exploring the net by making it safer to do so. That this is the digital equivalent of putting plastic inserts into unused electrical sockets so that a child may more safely explore the home. Believing in filters and desiring to help children in developing nations are not incompatible ideas.

      Be careful not to let politics limit your interpretation of events. The world is a complicated place and motivations for the same action care vary quite widely from person to person.

    3. Re:Those who fund OLPC decide on filters ... by janrinok · · Score: 1

      Donors have power and it is naive to believe otherwise.

      Either the donors are donating as a charitable act or they are not. I am not being naive, I do not believe that charity should be tied to something in return.

      Be careful not to let politics limit your interpretation of events.

      This is nothing to do with politics, it is meant to be a charitable gesture to provide IT education those who otherwise would not have access to it. This is not the same as using plastic inserts in power sockets. Power sockets can kill - pornography (whatever that is) is unlikely to be fatal. But your idea of what constitutes pornography might differ significantly from another. Let the recipient decide what is acceptable, not the donor. I am not arguing against the Nigerian Government using filters, but I am arguing that it is not for anyone else to dictate that they should, or to define what content should be filtered. Censorship in any form has no place here. Charity that has a price tag, even if it is hidden, is not charity. If those that donate the funding believe that they have the right to dictate how other countries should behave then they are attempting to buy influence by their actions. That fits my understanding of a cynical act.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    4. Re:Those who fund OLPC decide on filters ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      "Donors have power and it is naive to believe otherwise."

      Either the donors are donating as a charitable act or they are not. I am not being naive, I do not believe that charity should be tied to something in return.


      You are still missing the point. "Power" in this case is not getting something in return, it is having a say in how the shared goal is attained. The shared goal may be to bring the net to children in the developing world, however whether or not to have porn filters is an implementation detail where the organization founders and the donors may have legitimate disagreements. My point is that the donors have more power when it comes to which way the decision should go, and secondarily that it is not necessarily wrong that donors have such power. It is their money being spent, they should have some say in how the shared goal is obtained.

      ... it is meant to be a charitable gesture to provide IT education those who otherwise would not have access to it.

      And donors asking for porn filters is not incompatible with this gesture. Those who create a charity should not have dictatorial control, they can be both well meaning and fallible. The donors provide an important check and balance.

      If those that donate the funding believe that they have the right to dictate how other countries should behave then they are attempting to buy influence by their actions.

      They have the right to make sure that their donations are being spent wisely and appropriately. There is no influence buying by requiring porn filters on donated computers. That is a quite bizarre conclusion you have.

    5. Re:Those who fund OLPC decide on filters ... by janrinok · · Score: 1

      I can see what you are saying but I don't think that the implementation will be as simple as you suggest. There is no .xxx domain nor are all porn sites are flagged by any specific sign or indicator so the filters cannot simply be a case of stopping all porn sites. Therefore, the obvious solution will be to ban sites that don't originate from within a list of specified domains perhaps with some other flags in a addition (i.e No Korean sites are permissable but US sites are acceptable unless there is a flag indicating pornography, in which case the site is banned. The flag can take many forms e.g. blacklist, protected by some adult checking mechanism etc). In which case the filters will work geographically and not strictly based on content. Who gets to choose the acceptable countries? Would a US donor think that Russia, China or Japan should be banned? Would Iran think that the US or the UK are good countries for their children to conduct their online research? They all produce pornography on the internet so, to be safe, perhaps we had better ban such sites originating from there. This is a form of censorship by the back door. To me the only people who should say what should be filtered are those in the Government of the country in which the computers will be used. The donors and charity workers might be making their decisions based on purely altruistic reasons but they should not be allowed to insist on any filter system which meets their ideals in preference to the requirements of those who are receiving the computers. Checking that their money is spent wisely is one thing, dictating which sites may be accessed is quite another. If the filters are used and the donors are allowed to specify which sites are acceptable and which are not, then the donors ARE influencing the education of the children who are using the computers. It is not a bizarre conclusion - it is as plain as day.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  72. Newsflash! Pictures at eleven! by goldspider · · Score: 1

    The generosity and charity of developed nations is often squandered by parasitic cultures that refuse to modernize regardless of how much aid we send them.

    This sort of thing is why I don't give to foreign territories; I know it's just going to be wasted.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  73. Fantasies and Facts by HerbieStone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pornography is all about sexual fantasies. Most people don't have sex like the do on a porno movie. An impressionable children might come to believe that having sex like seen on a porno movie is the normal way of having it.

    I'm not against nudity or teaching kids about sex, but it should be a balanced education about the facts and not just about some male fantasies.

    Greets
    MadMike

    1. Re:Fantasies and Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people don't have sex like the do on a porno movie
      Except of course for those people lucky enough to visit German brothels.
    2. Re:Fantasies and Facts by ZetSabre · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, we should all teach our children how disappointing sex really is

    3. Re:Fantasies and Facts by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      "Most people don't have sex like the [sic] do on a porno movie." You just shot down your own argument. I like the one about distracting kids from their classes OTHER than sex education much better.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    4. Re:Fantasies and Facts by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1
      Maybe you don't have sex like they do in porno movies, but you know, they get their ideas from somewhere.


      Perhaps if you watched more porn, you'd have a better sex life? I'm pretty sure you would.

    5. Re:Fantasies and Facts by master_p · · Score: 1

      You were modded insightful, but you don't say in what way sex is different in reality from a porno movie.

      I support the opposite view: excluding the most extreme porno, sex in films is the same as sex in reality. During intercourse, sex is governed by instincts, so it's not any different.

      In reality, real sex is more extreme than filmed one, and that is obvious if you go around and read various testimonies on sexual experiences. And that is certainly to be expected, because you can't show everything on the screen, there are limits, even in the most extreme and hardcore sex films. But there are no limits when there are no cameras.

    6. Re:Fantasies and Facts by ydrol · · Score: 1

      Yeah, how many girlfriends have you had that like you to pull out at the last minute and come on their face, cause thats what they ALL do in porn (except cream-pies), so that must be normal

    7. Re:Fantasies and Facts by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Disney films are all about adventure fantasies. Most people don't have adventure like the do in Disney cartoons. An impressionable children might come to believe that having an adventure like seen in a Disney film is the normal course of things.

      I'm not against exploration or teaching kids about adventure, but it should be a balanced education about the facts and not just about some childish fantasies.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    8. Re:Fantasies and Facts by master_p · · Score: 1

      not many, but it's not that rare. It's certainly not abnormal...

    9. Re:Fantasies and Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent as informative! :)

  74. Re:They are not allowed to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would guess that was down to the personal preferences of each of the women.

  75. Porn is not a substitute for sex ed by Foerstner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let them learn about every kind of sex, stop treating sex and masturbation like freakish taboo abnoramalities and let them have open honest dialogue about sex.

    I don't have a problem with porn, and I don't have a problem with children learning about sex, but I don't think porn is a healthy way for children to learn about sex. There's all sorts of porn out there, and a good deal of it presents unrealistic scenarios out of context. Particularly those that deal with how women should be treated.

      Porn should come after proper sex education, not in its stead.

    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
    1. Re:Porn is not a substitute for sex ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then show them femdom porn, now it all balances out.

      Next please!

    2. Re:Porn is not a substitute for sex ed by Deadplant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree completely.
      The entire spectrum of possible pornographic material is available on the internet. As with all the other learning kids do by reading/listening/watching things on the internet/elsewhere they need to be able to distinguish between the 'good' information, the 'mediocre' and the 'horrible' stuff.
      Sexual information is particularly tricky in part because of the strong feelings and emotions it can evoke in us when we see it. Strong emotions can certainly make good judgment more difficult.

      In some ways porn is actually a fair bit easier to judge than other kinds of info. I really just boils down to 'is everyone happy and treating each other nicely?' and the importance of treating each other nicely is a lesson that should come long, long before sexual desire starts.
      'bad' porn is really just the porn where someone is being hurt or treated disrespectfully and you don't need to know much about sex to recognize that.

      But, like I said in the first paragraph, little johnny seeing sex for the first time could easily be overwhelmed.
      I suggest we flood the Internet with 'good' porn. This will dilute the 'bad' stuff and reduce the chances that our little angels will get off on the wrong foot. (no pun intended)

    3. Re:Porn is not a substitute for sex ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing wrong with the body in and of itself. There *is* something wrong with exploiting it whether for monetary or some other gain. Porn does exactly that. It makes a business out of people, their method of reproduction, and what they use to express love for someone else.

      News flash: Every business exploits people for monetary or some other gain.

      Hollywood movies show people eating, talking, fighting, using the toilet... Hollywood movies use people in exactly the same way that porn does, they just include some bodily functions and interpersonal activities that are normally omitted. If you have no problem with Hollywood, then you should have no problem with porn.

    4. Re:Porn is not a substitute for sex ed by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      There's all sorts of porn out there, and a good deal of it presents unrealistic scenarios out of context.


      Other things that present unrealistic scenarios out of context:
      - ANY book (or Website) that deals with physical pleasure or stimulation that is meant for children like books on drugs and sex
      - Religious Bibles and teachings
      - Almost any non-porn movie or TV show I have ever watched

      Almost everything I see on the Internet and on TV, radio and all mass media is out of context. Anything can be a learning tool. What people need (and not just children) are critical thinking skills to evaluate the good from the bad. If we could get the politics and the religion out of governance and education then there might be hope for actually teaching critical thinking skills. Until that time anything natural like the need for pleasure or mental stimulation will be looked down upon by the powers that be like the fires of Prometheus.
  76. Finally, an answer... by ari_j · · Score: 1

    Regarding the National Geographic comment: Who watches the watchers? As it turns out, the watched have it covered.

  77. Re:Newsflash! Pictures at eleven! by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

    Right, becuase looking at porn online is so old-school.

  78. Spur on their tech... by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

    Well, thousands of Nigerian children busy learning the fine ins and outs of their OLPCs so they can figure out how to bypass the filters should do wonders for the Nigerian technology sector!

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  79. Freedom is the point of the internet by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 1

    Giving the kids internet access and then filtering it to keep them away from the dangerous porn is like giving them bikes and then removing the wheels.

    If they didnt want the children to have the freedom the internet offers, the shouldnt have equipped the computers with internet access. Soon the governments will also realize that wikipedia tells the children that their country kinda sucks, that there are all sorts of political views besides the ones their government approve of, and that there are some very simple ways to make powerful explosives.

    Now, it won't come as a surprise when these governments also want to filter out wikipedia and google and all those other sites that only bring harmful stuff. The problem is that once you filter out google, wikipedia and porn, the internet has very little to offer for these children. They certainly don't shop online. Once the internet becomes sort of pointless, or atleast uninteresting, so will the computers.

    At that point, no one will be satisfied with the results. The kids will not use the computers unless they're told to, and when they are, they will only do stuff they could have just as well done with a pen and paper. The leaders of the countries will se that their children are not learning any new skills with these computers, and OLPC themselves will see that the children are not using the computers the way they hoped.

    Many of the country leaders don't actually want their people's kids to have computers, they just think they do. Soon they will see their mistake, and this project will die. Just like similar projects have been quite unsuccessful in the industrialized parts of the world.

  80. Be happy by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

    That they are not sending the Nigerian 419 scam emails!

    --
    US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  81. Thank you. I'm going to be rich now. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 4, Funny

    That just gave me an idea that will make me richer than Bill Gates and cure the energy crisis at the same time.

    I'll build a device that goes on a man's cock and generates electricity by an up and down motion.

    1. Re:Thank you. I'm going to be rich now. by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 1

      I had this idea like 2 years ago.

    2. Re:Thank you. I'm going to be rich now. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      So, did you implement it?

    3. Re:Thank you. I'm going to be rich now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I did. Damn near zapped my balls off.

    4. Re:Thank you. I'm going to be rich now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take two, please.

    5. Re:Thank you. I'm going to be rich now. by tool462 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The generator part will be easy. The hard part is coming up with a battery that charges in 17 seconds...

    6. Re:Thank you. I'm going to be rich now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      by www.sorehands.com (142825)

      Wow, just wow!

    7. Re:Thank you. I'm going to be rich now. by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it was only damn near, Anonymous Coward ?

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  82. meanwhile at the ministry by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    At the ministry, they are adding tents outside for children to send e-mails saying that they are friends of a rich princes and need assistance in obtaining money.

  83. so what's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're trying to improve third-world countries. Nothing will give some of those young squires ambition like seeing a hot blond sprawled across the hood of a Lamborghini and thinking "Damn! I have to get rich so I can afford one of THOSE!"

    I know that all I have accomplished in my adult life started when I was 15... the provider instinct in young males is a powerful force.

  84. Re:Porn indicates freedom, freedom implies porn by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    Porn indicates freedom, freedom implies porn.

    Yes and not necessarily, respectively.

    I like porn as much as anyone else with a penis but I don't think it is a prerequisite for a free society. Sex often become less of a priority as people age and discover other interesting stuff like posting on Slashdot.

  85. From the desk of Captain Obvious by nickspoon · · Score: 1

    Well, [i]duh[/i].

  86. Lol.. by msimm · · Score: 1

    You've been out of the game too long. Porn is totally in. Life emulates ...art? Anyway, kids today are more sexually active and experimental then you probably think. Then look at the popularity of sites like I Shot Myself and you can see that porn and real-life are beginning to merge on some kind of middle ground.

    But I have to admit, the balloon popping porn still has me scratching my head.

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Lol.. by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      I think you prove the parent posters' point exactly; Why are kids today more sexual active and experimental? Because there is less of a taboo around sex for one (just zap through some channels on your tv for a minute) and young people, having watched porn, generally consider it as how sex should be and take it as a standard.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    2. Re:Lol.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever actually tried having sex with someone who isn't particularly experimental? It can be incredibly boring. Good sex is an acquired skill, but it's one that many people take pride in not acquiring.

      I figure anything that gets kids to be more experimental is a good thing. Modern pornography may not be the best teacher (ok, I'll admit I haven't tried it, but I still can't figure out what the deal is with cumshots), but as long as it gets people thinking that maybe you don't have to do the exact same thing every single time you have sex, it's having at least some benefit.

    3. Re:Lol.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern pornography may not be the best teacher (ok, I'll admit I haven't tried it, but I still can't figure out what the deal is with cumshots)

      Hear, hear!

      I like porn. I've watched a lot of it, and despite that, I've never ever ever had the urge to cum all over a woman's face.

    4. Re:Lol.. by duhjim · · Score: 1

      Every cumshot makes me feel more and more like Mr. Jones. Is there such a thing as a cumshot filter? Would it be easy to make one? (for macintosh too)? Ill pay a few bucks for one. Send the rest to Nigerea?

  87. Association with porn harms development goals by ttnb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is that this gets in the way of the project's ability to achieve its real goals:

    In every society there are people there are people with stricter-than-average standards of morality with regard to matters of sexuality and there are people with less strict standards. Here, with "standards of morality" I mean the pricinples according to which the people actually conduct their lives, I'm not talking about moral rules that people claim to uphold without actually living accordingly.

    It can not be denied that for long-term economic development the key group of people to reach are those which who have sufficiently high standards of morality that they are able to have stable families in which the children are supported and empowered so that there is a good chance of them making significant positive contributions to the future of their community, region and/or country.

    In every society, there is segmentation: Parents who work hard on empowering their children to be really successful will generally desire for their children to associate with the children of other parents who do the same. This is easy to understand economically. After all, in every society, knowing the right people is a key success factor.

    Now what you absolutely don't want to happen in a project with development goals is for the key segments of society (with the people whom you really need to reach) to become unenthusiastic about the project because it gets associated with blatant porn in ways which are considered totally unacceptable in those segments of society.

  88. Re:They are not allowed to. by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Funny

    As Henry Ford hath said: You can see whatever type of breasts that you like, so long as you like black.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  89. Yes... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    This was the most forseeable of outcomes. I didn't think that OLPC would transform the third world into a collection of educational powerhouses. This will bring the joys of big titty Asian girl on girl porn to the rest of the world.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  90. "evil" and "porn" by drDugan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "nothing evil about porn" That depends on what "porn" is, and what "evil" is. If you are talking about the pictures and movies, than I agree - information is never evil and no one should stop the free flow if true information. Filters on OLPC laptops is laughable and wrong to me. For me, the only "evil" starts from denial. All else falls into a moral sliding scale that is more of less acceptible behavior depending on circumstances and who you ask for judgment.

    However, much of the behavior of the people who make porn is evil. Most people who make US-oriented porn refuse to see that their actions degrade women and teach men unhealthy and ultimately unsatisfying habits for how to relate sexually to other people. Unfortuantely, electronic filters can't distinguish healthy behaviors in erotic material from unhealthy behaviors. It can't disinguish art from teaching domination or aggression.

    For these things you need healthy communities of people who talk to one another, face to face and teach by example the best ways to interact.

  91. Is it in yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    There's all sorts of porn out there, and a good deal of it presents unrealistic scenarios out of context. Particularly those that deal with how women should be treated.

    While I can appreciate the chick angle (you get a lot of tail with the good cop routine), I am much more concerned with the fact that porn teaches women that sex should last longer than two minutes and penetration can be perceived by a woman absent verbal confirmation.

  92. MOD PARENT FUNNY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this one made me lol

  93. The forbidden fruit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of the time Captain Kirk taught the natives of that one planet to kill, giving them their independence. The pr0n shall set them free! But seriously, after using the computer once I am no longer able to live without it, and now one of the few reasons why I work (and am a productive member of society) is to maintain my computer habits. I hope those develop those habits, too.

  94. So? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Let the look at porn and tire of it. The world will be a better place.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  95. Adult supervision? by superdude72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think kids younger than, say, 13, should have unrestricted access to the Internet any more than they should have unrestricted access to the rest of the world. Someone needs to keep an eye on them, provide guidance, and keep them from getting into too much trouble. So I'm not so concerned at the fact that OLPC computers can be used to access porn--that's just a side effect of having a real computer and real Internet access. I'm more concerned that there may be a lack of adult guidance. I know that the societies targeted by OLPC skew very young demographically, but is enough being done to support the adults, or are we simply providing laptops to children and expecting them to figure things out for themselves?

  96. Who cares? by Vexorian · · Score: 1

    Oh no! kids might use it for porn! the project is evil!

    --

    Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
  97. As the old song says... by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    The internet is for porn!
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=QgyI1RpPOdg

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  98. good to liberalize their society, to see theres th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to see theres things outside of islam and other nutty religions.
    as for pregnancy, the birth rate of these countries shows even without porn they have no problem doing that kinda stuff so no problem.

  99. Broader implications by A+Bookworm · · Score: 1

    While 3rd-world children browsing porn is a very sensational subject, it's only one small piece of a very big potential result of the OLPC project.

    Think about it. One poster quoted some publications that spoke about Nigerian culture, and the challenges it poses to anti-AIDS efforts. However, what do you think will happen when, for example, a Nigerian woman can look through the "Internet window" and see that women in America, or England, or Spain, or Germany, or even possibly Egypt (I'm not familiar with the current Egyptian culture, someone fill me in) is not subject to male domination? What do you think will happen when Nigerian children, educated by the OLPCs, can look through the "Internet window" and see the different cultures and different mores within those cultures (not just sexual mores, but all of them)? What do you think will happen when these same educated children (and some of their better-educated parents, courtesy of the OLPC) start challenging their culture's standards, with intelligent arguments and international examples to back those challenges up?

    I'll tell you what will happen: a huge, (relatively) rapid change in their culture. Education is one of the most culturally disruptive things that can happen to a people; exchange of ideas is another one. Put them together and you have an absolutely massive force for change that will build up within two decades (if not sooner). While I expect that change of sexual mores will be part of that, it will only be a relatively small part.

    I pray that such rapid change is not accompanied by violence ... but I have my doubts. It'll probably be worth it in the long run (the USA is arguably a better place to live as a result of the American Revolution) but that won't stop the suffering of people during the violence.

  100. I need a email... by rupert0 · · Score: 0

    I want to be the 1st one to send goatse,tubgirl,zombo,etc to the less fortunate :P

    --
    RUPERT! I TOLD YOU TO WATCH THE BAGS! You were looking at the boys again, WEREN'T YOU.
  101. Not OLPC by pixelfood · · Score: 2, Informative

    The "donated laptops" referenced in the article were not OLPCs, although I have no doubt that OLPCs will also be used to browse for porn...

  102. Re:They are not allowed to. by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget that Henry Ford was the absolute master of mass re^H^Hproduction.

  103. We have now created the next generation by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    of Nigerian hackers - since the first thing those kids will do is disable the filters.

    Filters for Nigerian kids - like the Nigerian kids are all Catholics or something...

    We gonna do the same thing in Thailand, where they happily rent out their kids to tourists for the US dollar?

    Morons.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  104. Banner in the background reads... by SnprBoB86 · · Score: 1

    Mission Accomplished!

    --
    http://brandonbloom.name
  105. Re:They are not allowed to. by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [only] on the white women their brests were digitally obscured.

    Perhaps they were respecting the preferences/culture of each group. Maybe they asked the natives if they wanted such to be done. You don't know the whole story and are jumping to conclusions.

  106. Re:They are not allowed to. (correction) by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I realized after the fact that you never gave a conclusion. My apologies.

  107. AIDS not AID spreads! by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1

    Like they needed to start even younger. Conspiracy theorists get your tinfoil hats a-ready, could this be a ploy to make more on drugs? But, hey, education is education and it is all beneficial even if we American's find T-n-A more offensive than gunplay and death. I'm just waiting for the first "noob" video on youtube from one, or REAL Nigerian scams from Nigeria. :)

    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  108. OPPS by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe we can come up with the One Penis Per Slashdotter program to fix that problem. Maybe it will run Linux. Maybe these things will end up as our new overlords. Maybe they'll get shut down after people realize they're being used for porn. I can't go on.

    1. Re:OPPS by The_Wilschon · · Score: 3, Funny

      I just imagined a Beowulf cluster of these things... Now I need brain bleach.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  109. Parent needs more modding up! by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

    Because GP forgot that rather important point!

    --
    molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  110. And who decides what OLPC's can view? by spacejunky · · Score: 1

    Surely this is a dangerous precedent? Who is going to decide what should be filtered?

    Some people find pornography offensive. Others find (choose your flavour) politics offensive, others find (choose your flavour) religion offensive.

    And so on ... it's the same old discussion about censorship all over again!

  111. Imposing our moral values. by WML+MUNSON · · Score: 1

    What a great way to teach kids how to use computers by trying to block access to the things they want most.

    This proposed addition of a porn filter is completely, though accidentally, genius. Now people will have to learn things about computers they normally wouldn't have had to know about just to circumvent these filters.

    Furthermore, who are we to impose our moral "values" on these people? What if their society doesn't believe that porn should be blocked? Did anyone ask them what they wanted?

  112. Great - Censor before they even connect by unity100 · · Score: 1

    For starters, ALL of the countries in africa have very different moral values than west. In many countries there is no concept of "obscenity" and sex is not a taboo. They dont even care if people go around naked in many parts.

    Such a filter is plainly and blatantly an imposition of moral values - nothing else. Noone has the right to do it.

  113. This is an important first step by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    1) This *will* eventually lead to development in technology. It is now inevidable.

    2) This *will* lead to "liberalization" of religious views. The catholic church has *nothing* on SERVER, and it's infinite supply of dirty pictures.

    3) Maybe, just maybe, this might help stave off overpopulation. I, for one, probably wouldn't have had my vasectomy had it not been for my porn fueled clearheaded thinking (thank you autopr0n!)...

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  114. Surveillance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that the discussion about kids using donated
    OLPC for porn surfing and possible filters are quite
    typical for the present time.

    But how did they find out that they surfed porn in
    the first place?

  115. Fixing Something that isn't broken by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

    Of course fitting laptops with filters will just teach children that pornography, and even sex, is bad and that it needs to be suppressed. And it will teach them that censorship is normal and good.

    It's very disturbing that people need to impose their own Western perversions on third world countries. I never hear these same hypocrites talk about banning or filtering religious Web sites.

  116. Uh, this is Africa. Africa folks... by crovira · · Score: 1

    The bushmen of the Kalahari run around starkers and so do the bush women.

    If you NEED the OLPC project, you probably have better things than clothes to spend your few bucks a week, or a month, on...

    You're not going to shock the children.

    You're going to make them homesick.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  117. What's wrong with that? by ceeam · · Score: 1

    Unless porn is banned (by school, parents, etc) it gets really, really boring rather quickly. 99.9% of it is lame-ass.

  118. Not necessarily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speak for yourself ;-)

  119. Re:They are not allowed to. by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    He stole that quote from Strom Thurmond's dad.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  120. Your Strange Ways Scare Me by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Seriously... who would've thought... Why was it reported at all? Maybe another title would be better - "Shocking revelation: Nigerian boys also want to see sex"

    It's reported because they "look different than us" and "live in a weird place" yet they seem to think like us. Wow, that's some crazy shit - who would have guessed that?

    You can learn a lot about a person by what they find surprising.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  121. Same old... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Pornography is all about sexual fantasies. Most people don't have sex like the do on a porno movie. An impressionable children might come to believe that having sex like seen on a porno movie is the normal way of having it.

    Did you ever see a Playboy as a kid? Did you then expect that all girls would look like centerfolds under their clothes? That would have been... a letdown.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  122. No need for moral relativism by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I think they should also send out therapists. Those children will clearly be traumatised by viewing evil images of naked women.

    I expect few people could absorb all that's out there and not be traumatized. There's some seriously messed-up material out there. *weird shuddering sound*

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  123. Audience Appropriate Content by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Sex and sexuality != Porn on websites

    You'll have to forgive some of the regulars on Slashdot for not understanding what you're talking about.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  124. A bad start... by Nephroth · · Score: 1

    If we start being "responsible" and go filtering the internet in developing countries, then we are off to a bad start. We, especially in the West, seem to like deferring the burden of reality as long as possible and it provides us with nothing but half-developed, immature adults. Childhood is a great thing, and I miss mine that's for sure, but the clarity of being an adult has its own pleasures. The fact of the matter is, pornography exists and teenage boys want to see it. You can filter the internet all you want, you can hide it under counters, hell you can even flat-out ban it, but you'll never overcome the creativity and the ingenuity of the horny teenage boy's mind and that's a fact.

    --
    Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
  125. actualy it might be a good thing by toyotabedzrock · · Score: 1

    Porn can be a substitute for the real thing, and if I'm not mistaken they have a serious problem with HIV.