The problem with censorware is not that you can no longer look at porn in public. I doubt sincerely that most people would advocate going into a public library and loading up www.bizar.nl or whatever floats your doughnut. I doubt sincerely that most people would do it even if they did advocate it.
The problem with censorware is that, to date, there are no filtering packages that
make their banlists open source
make their banlists accessible to the installers
don't contain some kind of agenda above and beyond blocking pornography
SurfWatch, in addition to blocking known pornographic sites, blocks the homepage to the National Organization of Women and most of the major gay/lesbian political groups. Most filtering packages carry not only blocks against sites showing [sic] nudidity, but sites that run contrary to the ideologies of the designers.
That's the real hitch. Suppose I want to go to the library and do some research online about GLAAD or the NGLITF? If they've installed SurfWatch, I can't, not because I'm trying to access smut, but because the people who wrote SurfWatch don't want anyone looking at accurate information about homosexuality.
The extreme version of this is the Scientologists' hacked filter that they mandate their members install. In addition to blocking anti-Scieno sites, it scans incoming packets and edits out any text string that contains the names of published Suppressive Persons or other forbidden information. Somewhere in the guts of www.xenu.net or one of its attached sites is the list of all banned phrases. Most filtering packages are nowhere near this severe, but SurfWatch is working on it, and its design company, Solid Oak, has done a lot of unsavory things to the people that tried to publish some of the odder sites in SurfWatch's banlist.
Ultimately, censorware in the libraries isn't about pornography. If pornography were really a concern, the offenders could likely be arrested under public indecency laws (the same laws that require adult magazines be sold in opaque wrappers if they put explicit material on the cover). Censorware is about who has the authority to tell you what you can and can't see.
I find it amusing that the AFA's pamphlet essentially encourages people to try to find porn on the internet in public libraries, the very act that they say shouldn't be permitted. Essentially, they're saying that in order to ensure that everyone else is being required to follow they law, they should break it to make sure the cops come get them. If this were an actual criminal offense, I doubt that a defense consisting of "we were just testing you" would work. I don't see why it should be tolerated here.
There's an unfortunately clear string of reasons why America has such a hard time getting anywhere with regard to sex and sexuality, online or off:
America has one of the largest active conservative Christian populations in the world (groups such as the Mormons, the Southern Baptist Convention, more extremist members of the Catholics, et cetera).
America has no mandatory-voting law, unlike many European nations.
This means that the only people who bother showing up to the polls on election day are the ones who really have feel strongly on the issues. The accuracy of telephone and other "random" polls are often questioned based on this very fact (that the only people who bother to respond are already several standard deviations towards the edges of the bell curve in their opinions), but nobody questions the accuracy of the polling booths. Taking these two together, you get this:
The religious extremist movement constitutes one of the most important voting blocs in American politics.
Most politicians know they can't afford to upset or alienate these voters, and so they act in accordance with what those who got them elected (not necessarily their consituents) want.
Basically, we have a political body that feels the need to cater to the whim of an extremist minority viewpoint and has a stronger desire to get re-elected than it does to do the right thing in office. We can't make intelligent laws about topics that these people don't want discussed, and sex is one of them. There are some states that outlaw oral sex.
Example: The Defense of Marriage Act passed in the Senate 84-16, with similar percentages in the House, two years before the possibility of a same-sex marriage ever existed, as an insurance plan against Hawai'i legalizing such things. President Clinton actively signed the bill into law, despite the fact that he actively campaigned in support of the gay community, and that their support contributed to his election in the first place. Why? His spokespeople came forward, after he signed, and said that they felt it would've been political suicide for him to veto, and just as bad for him to let it become law without his signature, because he couldn't afford to alienate the religious voters. Four percent of the population is gay, and less than half of them are registered to vote. Thirty-one percent of Americans describe themselves as "devoutly Christian", and I suspect well over half of them are registered voters. You tell me who has more political power.
There are some states that outlaw oral sex. Twenty-six states (at my last counting) still ban homosexual sex between consenting adults above the age of consent despite their admitted inability to enforce such laws. Montana tried recently (1995) to make homosexuals register on their "published state sex offenders" list, the registry that lets the public find out if a convicted rapist or pedophile has moved in next door. Adultery is a crime in some states, though not in all. Prostitution is legal in only one state, Nevada, and even then only outside of city limits. The laws regarding sex are such a painful mish-mash of misinformation and religious interference that it's a wonder some state hasn't yet mistakenly outlawed procreation.
Getting the internet involved only makes the matter worse. We couldn't get rational laws before the internet. This just adds one more level of insecurity and paranoia. The two big laws created so far to "protect decency online" were made, not after careful consideration, but as knee-jerk responses to the fears of a vocal minority that happens to be a large voting bloc.
Alright, I was mistaken there. I know the Burma-Shave one is correct because it's well-documented in their book, "The Verse by the Side of the Road". The point I made in my original post still stands: Microsoft erred in its advertizement. Taking advantage of that error is neither a crime nor a moral failure.
Most people have heard the phrase, "caveat emptor", usually translated as "let the buyer beware". What most don't realize is that the same applies equally to the seller.
Yes, a lot of people went out with the express purpose of taking advantage of Microsoft's slip-up. Consider, however, that it was Microsoft's slip-up. If you're going to sell something, and you ask a price far below the item's fair market value, and you wind up with six hundred people all demanding the right to buy it as advertized, it's too late for you to go back and fix the price. By advertizing, you've implicitly created a contract to sell at the stated price, and if you refuse to do so when a customer comes in with legal tender, you're breaking the law.
Microsoft had ample opportunity to check with legal experts in California and Oregon on whether or not they had the right to expect back their $400 should someone choose to sign up for MSN with the intent of cancelling it. Now, if they did check, and someone told them that yes, they couldn't get their money back, then it's the fault of the person that gave them incorrect advice. However; if they didn't check; or they checked, got told they could ask for their money back, and then worded the fine print as they did "just in case", it's their own fault that they got bilked.
Anyone remember the military jets that Pepsi had to give away? For those that don't, Pepsi had a promotional deal called PepsiPoints for a while, with the slogan, "Buy Pepsi, Get Stuff". While this ran, they aired a television commercial showing off several items that one could get free from Pepsi by cashing in a certain number of points. One of the items shown was, I believe, an F-16, listed as "700 Million Points". Two trading conglomerates immediately began buying PepsiPoints and accepting donations in order to acquire the jets. Ultimately, Pepsi had to contract with McDonald Douglas to build non-security-violating versions of the aircraft in order to legally uphold their end of the bargain when one of the trading groups actually succeeded in accumulating the 700 million PepsiPoints.
A similar incident occured when Burma-Shave, many many years ago, advertized on the side of the road, "Free! Free!/A Trip To Mars!/For 900/Empty Jars!/Burma-Shave". One dedicated couple actually acquired 900 empty jars and took them to Burma-Shave for their trip to the Red Planet. It was only then that the company realized it had to honor its side of the bargain. In the end, they agreed to send the couple on a trip to Mars, Germany, I believe, but they did have to honor their implicit contract.
Microsoft made a mistake when it advertized what it did, yes. I don't dispute that. This does not mean that the people who showed up to take advantage of Microsoft's error are in the wrong for so doing. The mistake is Microsoft's, not that of those who managed to get a good deal.
I've had an account with USABancShares.com now for approximately two months, and if it weren't for the fact that I have a car loan with my local credit union that I can't quite yet afford to pay off in a lump sum, I'd close down my local accounts and move everything there. They offer a 5% interest checking account (not as high as others mentioned here but certainly higher than I've seen at any mortar-and-brick institution), competitive rates for CDs, reimbursement of some ATM transaction fees and free bill-paying. There are some costs for wire transfers out of an account but none for transfers into one, so they don't charge for direct deposit (not that I think anyone does).
In addition, they have an associated investment company, www.usaforce.com, and they provide the option of opening an investment account such that you can simply sweep money into your USABancShares account when you sell stock and use money in your account to make stock purchases, rather than make money not currently invested sit in a holding fund earning less interest than I could get at a regular bank.
While the notion of a Christian Doom-clone strikes me at first glance as funnier than a Jack Chick comic book, the potential ramifications of such a game strikes me as worrying.
LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR FROM THE OUTSET! I am an agnostic, essentially an atheist (as well as a Discordian, a SubGenius, a Kibologist and several brands of heretic-of-the-week), but I have a number of Christian friends of all denominations. I am NOT posting this to bash religion. There is a sharp line between those who believe in God and those who feel that their beliefs should be foisted onto other people by any means necessary. I am speaking of the latter, not the former.
Extremists already claim that Doom and other games of the same type inspire ostracised teens to take up arms and massacre other living human beings, but if one looks through history, some of the nastiest and most horrific atrocities have been committed in the name of religious ideals. A game that claims, either implicitly or explicitly, that being a demon is the path to destruction and beating up demons is the fastest way to heaven is, IMO, a dangerous inspiration to kids who have people such as Rev. Paul Hill and Rev. Fred Phelps as their role models.
For the moment, take the supposition that the extremists are right: games that graphically depict violence inspire people to act more violent towards each other. Now, introduce into this a game that apparently carries the message that violence in the name of God against enemies of the faith is not only acceptable but laudable. If this game/does/ inspire people to commit acts of brutality (and zealots don't need much encouragement), will the religious extremists condemn them as fast as they condemned the Columbine killers, or will we hear more calls of "I don't condone their actions, but religious outrage against such perversion and filth is only to be expected" like we get when people firebomb an abortion clinic?
If they're wrong and violence and FPSes aren't related, then this is just panic-mongering, but I still find it troublesome. Religious extremists seem to carry the message that any and everything is acceptable as long as it comes with a Seal of Approval from the local church, no matter how gruesome the contents may be. Rock and Roll is a danger, but Carman is alright because it's Christian Rock. Role Playing Games are satanic, but In Nomine is ok because you're playing angels (if you play demons, though, you're going to Hell, do not pass Purgatory, do not collect $200). Doom is evil, but a first-person-shoot-em-up that has you playing an angel beating up demons is ok because it's religiously-inspired and if you try to be a bad-guy then you're obviously corrupt anyway.
At any rate, it will be interesting to see what happens when this game hits the shelves. I'll be curious to see if it receives the same level of condemnation that Doom, a game that has a marine beating up on the Forces of Darkness(tm), received.
I think the problem here is not so much the inclusion of metaphor so much as it is the gross distortions and inaccuracies that find their ways into movies (and other forms of media) whenever technical or heavily-detailed subjects come up.
Disney, for example, is famous for taking a good story and distorting it horribly in order to make it into a children's movie. To them, it doesn't matter that the Hunchback dies, or that Hera was the cause of 99% of Heracles' problems, or that the Little Mermaid becomes sea foam at the end of the originals. What matters to them is that the kids get a happy ending, and so the original data gets massaged into forms that those familiar with the originals almost can't recognise. I have friends who refuse to watch Hercules because of what Disney did to the myths.
Similarly, movies that focus on technical things often distort and misrepresent the actual facts in an attempt to make a good story, and those of us that know how the originals work often find the movies based on them appalling if not downright offensive in their lack of accuracy. I could handle flashing lights and the like if there were some attempt made at preserving technical correctness, but Hollywood likes to treat computers and the Internet as a magic prop: they do whatever you need them to do and require no explanation.
"Independence Day" has the heroes upload a virus into the alien computer system and disable the shields. The hoi palloi sees this and says "oh, right, ok" and never thinks twice about the sheer absurdity of this proposal. That we could have acquired the level of knowledge that they'd have to have about the alien computer technology in order to do this inside the time alloted is rediculous, to say nothing of the prospect of uploading the same using a Mac Powerbook.:)
Now, just to show that it isn't ALL bad, there are movies like "Sneakers". It does a very good job of balancing technical detail and user viewability. There're several scenes of encrypted screens of data being magically resolved into meaningful text by connecting a decoder-chip on the fly. No reboots, no hardware manipulation, just attach the leads and voila! The explanation as to what the chip is and how data encryption works, however, is accurate if somewhat oversimplified.
I think that one could dump all this back into the study of "suspension of disbelief". The typical moviewatcher is not likely to have a high level of detailed technical knowledge, and so on heavily scientific matters, writers make little effort to be technically accurate because it doesn't pay off. This means that, unless the movie is a rare one, those who DO have in-depth knowledge of what's being distorted will find the holes much faster than those who don't. This is true of any field, not just computers.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Transmeta's FAQ, they're planning on releasing the source code for Mobile Linux.
The problem with censorware is not that you can no longer look at porn in public. I doubt sincerely that most people would advocate going into a public library and loading up www.bizar.nl or whatever floats your doughnut. I doubt sincerely that most people would do it even if they did advocate it.
The problem with censorware is that, to date, there are no filtering packages that
SurfWatch, in addition to blocking known pornographic sites, blocks the homepage to the National Organization of Women and most of the major gay/lesbian political groups. Most filtering packages carry not only blocks against sites showing [sic] nudidity, but sites that run contrary to the ideologies of the designers.
That's the real hitch. Suppose I want to go to the library and do some research online about GLAAD or the NGLITF? If they've installed SurfWatch, I can't, not because I'm trying to access smut, but because the people who wrote SurfWatch don't want anyone looking at accurate information about homosexuality.
The extreme version of this is the Scientologists' hacked filter that they mandate their members install. In addition to blocking anti-Scieno sites, it scans incoming packets and edits out any text string that contains the names of published Suppressive Persons or other forbidden information. Somewhere in the guts of www.xenu.net or one of its attached sites is the list of all banned phrases. Most filtering packages are nowhere near this severe, but SurfWatch is working on it, and its design company, Solid Oak, has done a lot of unsavory things to the people that tried to publish some of the odder sites in SurfWatch's banlist.
Ultimately, censorware in the libraries isn't about pornography. If pornography were really a concern, the offenders could likely be arrested under public indecency laws (the same laws that require adult magazines be sold in opaque wrappers if they put explicit material on the cover). Censorware is about who has the authority to tell you what you can and can't see.
I find it amusing that the AFA's pamphlet essentially encourages people to try to find porn on the internet in public libraries, the very act that they say shouldn't be permitted. Essentially, they're saying that in order to ensure that everyone else is being required to follow they law, they should break it to make sure the cops come get them. If this were an actual criminal offense, I doubt that a defense consisting of "we were just testing you" would work. I don't see why it should be tolerated here.
This means that the only people who bother showing up to the polls on election day are the ones who really have feel strongly on the issues. The accuracy of telephone and other "random" polls are often questioned based on this very fact (that the only people who bother to respond are already several standard deviations towards the edges of the bell curve in their opinions), but nobody questions the accuracy of the polling booths. Taking these two together, you get this:
Most politicians know they can't afford to upset or alienate these voters, and so they act in accordance with what those who got them elected (not necessarily their consituents) want.
Basically, we have a political body that feels the need to cater to the whim of an extremist minority viewpoint and has a stronger desire to get re-elected than it does to do the right thing in office. We can't make intelligent laws about topics that these people don't want discussed, and sex is one of them. There are some states that outlaw oral sex.
Example: The Defense of Marriage Act passed in the Senate 84-16, with similar percentages in the House, two years before the possibility of a same-sex marriage ever existed, as an insurance plan against Hawai'i legalizing such things. President Clinton actively signed the bill into law, despite the fact that he actively campaigned in support of the gay community, and that their support contributed to his election in the first place. Why? His spokespeople came forward, after he signed, and said that they felt it would've been political suicide for him to veto, and just as bad for him to let it become law without his signature, because he couldn't afford to alienate the religious voters. Four percent of the population is gay, and less than half of them are registered to vote. Thirty-one percent of Americans describe themselves as "devoutly Christian", and I suspect well over half of them are registered voters. You tell me who has more political power.
There are some states that outlaw oral sex. Twenty-six states (at my last counting) still ban homosexual sex between consenting adults above the age of consent despite their admitted inability to enforce such laws. Montana tried recently (1995) to make homosexuals register on their "published state sex offenders" list, the registry that lets the public find out if a convicted rapist or pedophile has moved in next door. Adultery is a crime in some states, though not in all. Prostitution is legal in only one state, Nevada, and even then only outside of city limits. The laws regarding sex are such a painful mish-mash of misinformation and religious interference that it's a wonder some state hasn't yet mistakenly outlawed procreation.
Getting the internet involved only makes the matter worse. We couldn't get rational laws before the internet. This just adds one more level of insecurity and paranoia. The two big laws created so far to "protect decency online" were made, not after careful consideration, but as knee-jerk responses to the fears of a vocal minority that happens to be a large voting bloc.
Alright, I was mistaken there. I know the Burma-Shave one is correct because it's well-documented in their book, "The Verse by the Side of the Road". The point I made in my original post still stands: Microsoft erred in its advertizement. Taking advantage of that error is neither a crime nor a moral failure.
Most people have heard the phrase, "caveat emptor", usually translated as "let the buyer beware". What most don't realize is that the same applies equally to the seller.
Yes, a lot of people went out with the express purpose of taking advantage of Microsoft's slip-up. Consider, however, that it was Microsoft's slip-up. If you're going to sell something, and you ask a price far below the item's fair market value, and you wind up with six hundred people all demanding the right to buy it as advertized, it's too late for you to go back and fix the price. By advertizing, you've implicitly created a contract to sell at the stated price, and if you refuse to do so when a customer comes in with legal tender, you're breaking the law.
Microsoft had ample opportunity to check with legal experts in California and Oregon on whether or not they had the right to expect back their $400 should someone choose to sign up for MSN with the intent of cancelling it. Now, if they did check, and someone told them that yes, they couldn't get their money back, then it's the fault of the person that gave them incorrect advice. However; if they didn't check; or they checked, got told they could ask for their money back, and then worded the fine print as they did "just in case", it's their own fault that they got bilked.
Anyone remember the military jets that Pepsi had to give away? For those that don't, Pepsi had a promotional deal called PepsiPoints for a while, with the slogan, "Buy Pepsi, Get Stuff". While this ran, they aired a television commercial showing off several items that one could get free from Pepsi by cashing in a certain number of points. One of the items shown was, I believe, an F-16, listed as "700 Million Points". Two trading conglomerates immediately began buying PepsiPoints and accepting donations in order to acquire the jets. Ultimately, Pepsi had to contract with McDonald Douglas to build non-security-violating versions of the aircraft in order to legally uphold their end of the bargain when one of the trading groups actually succeeded in accumulating the 700 million PepsiPoints.
A similar incident occured when Burma-Shave, many many years ago, advertized on the side of the road, "Free! Free!/A Trip To Mars!/For 900/Empty Jars!/Burma-Shave". One dedicated couple actually acquired 900 empty jars and took them to Burma-Shave for their trip to the Red Planet. It was only then that the company realized it had to honor its side of the bargain. In the end, they agreed to send the couple on a trip to Mars, Germany, I believe, but they did have to honor their implicit contract.
Microsoft made a mistake when it advertized what it did, yes. I don't dispute that. This does not mean that the people who showed up to take advantage of Microsoft's error are in the wrong for so doing. The mistake is Microsoft's, not that of those who managed to get a good deal.
I've had an account with USABancShares.com now for approximately two months, and if it weren't for the fact that I have a car loan with my local credit union that I can't quite yet afford to pay off in a lump sum, I'd close down my local accounts and move everything there. They offer a 5% interest checking account (not as high as others mentioned here but certainly higher than I've seen at any mortar-and-brick institution), competitive rates for CDs, reimbursement of some ATM transaction fees and free bill-paying. There are some costs for wire transfers out of an account but none for transfers into one, so they don't charge for direct deposit (not that I think anyone does).
In addition, they have an associated investment company, www.usaforce.com, and they provide the option of opening an investment account such that you can simply sweep money into your USABancShares account when you sell stock and use money in your account to make stock purchases, rather than make money not currently invested sit in a holding fund earning less interest than I could get at a regular bank.
While the notion of a Christian Doom-clone strikes me at first glance as funnier than a Jack Chick comic book, the potential ramifications of such a game strikes me as worrying.
/does/ inspire people to commit acts of brutality (and zealots don't need much encouragement), will the religious extremists condemn them as fast as they condemned the Columbine killers, or will we hear more calls of "I don't condone their actions, but religious outrage against such perversion and filth is only to be expected" like we get when people firebomb an abortion clinic?
LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR FROM THE OUTSET! I am an agnostic, essentially an atheist (as well as a Discordian, a SubGenius, a Kibologist and several brands of heretic-of-the-week), but I have a number of Christian friends of all denominations. I am NOT posting this to bash religion. There is a sharp line between those who believe in God and those who feel that their beliefs should be foisted onto other people by any means necessary. I am speaking of the latter, not the former.
Extremists already claim that Doom and other games of the same type inspire ostracised teens to take up arms and massacre other living human beings, but if one looks through history, some of the nastiest and most horrific atrocities have been committed in the name of religious ideals. A game that claims, either implicitly or explicitly, that being a demon is the path to destruction and beating up demons is the fastest way to heaven is, IMO, a dangerous inspiration to kids who have people such as Rev. Paul Hill and Rev. Fred Phelps as their role models.
For the moment, take the supposition that the extremists are right: games that graphically depict violence inspire people to act more violent towards each other. Now, introduce into this a game that apparently carries the message that violence in the name of God against enemies of the faith is not only acceptable but laudable. If this game
If they're wrong and violence and FPSes aren't related, then this is just panic-mongering, but I still find it troublesome. Religious extremists seem to carry the message that any and everything is acceptable as long as it comes with a Seal of Approval from the local church, no matter how gruesome the contents may be. Rock and Roll is a danger, but Carman is alright because it's Christian Rock. Role Playing Games are satanic, but In Nomine is ok because you're playing angels (if you play demons, though, you're going to Hell, do not pass Purgatory, do not collect $200). Doom is evil, but a first-person-shoot-em-up that has you playing an angel beating up demons is ok because it's religiously-inspired and if you try to be a bad-guy then you're obviously corrupt anyway.
At any rate, it will be interesting to see what happens when this game hits the shelves. I'll be curious to see if it receives the same level of condemnation that Doom, a game that has a marine beating up on the Forces of Darkness(tm), received.
I think the problem here is not so much the inclusion of metaphor so much as it is the gross distortions and inaccuracies that find their ways into movies (and other forms of media) whenever technical or heavily-detailed subjects come up.
:)
Disney, for example, is famous for taking a good story and distorting it horribly in order to make it into a children's movie. To them, it doesn't matter that the Hunchback dies, or that Hera was the cause of 99% of Heracles' problems, or that the Little Mermaid becomes sea foam at the end of the originals. What matters to them is that the kids get a happy ending, and so the original data gets massaged into forms that those familiar with the originals almost can't recognise. I have friends who refuse to watch Hercules because of what Disney did to the myths.
Similarly, movies that focus on technical things often distort and misrepresent the actual facts in an attempt to make a good story, and those of us that know how the originals work often find the movies based on them appalling if not downright offensive in their lack of accuracy. I could handle flashing lights and the like if there were some attempt made at preserving technical correctness, but Hollywood likes to treat computers and the Internet as a magic prop: they do whatever you need them to do and require no explanation.
"Independence Day" has the heroes upload a virus into the alien computer system and disable the shields. The hoi palloi sees this and says "oh, right, ok" and never thinks twice about the sheer absurdity of this proposal. That we could have acquired the level of knowledge that they'd have to have about the alien computer technology in order to do this inside the time alloted is rediculous, to say nothing of the prospect of uploading the same using a Mac Powerbook.
Now, just to show that it isn't ALL bad, there are movies like "Sneakers". It does a very good job of balancing technical detail and user viewability. There're several scenes of encrypted screens of data being magically resolved into meaningful text by connecting a decoder-chip on the fly. No reboots, no hardware manipulation, just attach the leads and voila! The explanation as to what the chip is and how data encryption works, however, is accurate if somewhat oversimplified.
I think that one could dump all this back into the study of "suspension of disbelief". The typical moviewatcher is not likely to have a high level of detailed technical knowledge, and so on heavily scientific matters, writers make little effort to be technically accurate because it doesn't pay off. This means that, unless the movie is a rare one, those who DO have in-depth knowledge of what's being distorted will find the holes much faster than those who don't. This is true of any field, not just computers.