And I went on to tell him that when he
went home to Costa Rica, he couldn't use any of the DVD's he
bought there in his DVD player, because they had put a special
code in the DVD's in Costa Rica so they wouldn't work, and he
had to buy another DVD player when he went back there. If he
tried to get around the code, he would be a criminal, because of
a new law.
Remember that US laws do not apply in Costa Rica. I haven't checked, but I assume that Costa Rica does not have an equivalent to the DMCA. John could probably gain back some freedom by returning to Costa Rica.
Why does it matter? If you disagree with their distinctions, you
don't have to do anything. You would be able to access porn
sites just as easily as you would Slashdot.
But if it's been labelled porn when it's really not, then you may not be able to access it because of parental, ISP, or government restrictions.
That being said, I think the distinction should be drawn with the
dictionary definition: material designed or presented with the
intent to stimulate sexually.
That's a more useful definition than the "intercourse or genitalia" that was proposed earlier. But under the dictionary definition, goatse.cx wouldn't be in ".xxx" since I'm pretty sure it's intended to sicken rather than stimulate sexually.
I still don't want my
children exposed to such pornographic material. Why shouldn't
I, as the parent and legal guardian of a developing minor, have
the right to control what my child is exposed to?
Because you can't control every moment of your child's life. You can't be there in your child's classroom with your hands over her ears when one of her peers says "pussy" and sneers. You can't be at all your child's slumber parties to protect him from the pornography that a friend brought. And,.xxx domain or not, you can't stop your child from seeing pornography on the Web if he really wants to see it.
Why should
your freedom to sell pornography indescriminately impose on my
freedom to raise my child the way I choose
Why should entire sections of the Internet be censored just because a curious child might see a nipple?
.xxx domains would still be available to those
who wanted them
What about those who don't want them? Maybe they already have a.com (or even a free country-specific domain) and they don't want to pay for an extra domain. Maybe they don't consider their content to be "XXX" even though you do.
Who, exactly, would be forcing these other countries to filter out
the porn TLD? This is just labelling that makes it easier for
individuals to self-censor.
Who gets to decide what is worthy of the ".xxx" label? And what country's moral system does this person/group represent?
//quote
You cannot establish a situation in which content must be
labeled. It leads directly to censorship, period. Its ONLY purpose
is censorship. //end quote
So the movie rating system in place around the globe is for
censorship?
Yes. The South Park movie had significant changes made to appease the censors and avoid an NC-17 rating that would have brought financial suicide since so many theatres would have refused to show it.
But what about parents who don't have a clue about anything
technical, but who don't want their kids to be exposed to porn?
Should the parent completely throw out the computer and deny
the child access to the technology that is vital to his or her
future?
The parent should consider talking to his or her child so that the child is able to deal with the bad things to which he or she will eventually be exposed (Internet or not).
A seperation between the internet and the pornnet
can be made
Only if the world can decide what is and isn't porn, and that's just not possible. What's pornographic to someone in Afghanistan may not be pornographic to someone in the United States, and what's pornographic to someone in the United States may not be pornographic to someone in the Netherlands.
Not everyone wants Internet content to be restricted by your or
some politician's idea of "bad stuff".
But the thing is it is not restricted. It's still there, just clearly
labeled as *.xxx.
Who decides what should and shouldn't be labelled as *.xxx?
If I have a personal home page under a.com or.org domain, who do I ask to review my content before publication to ensure that it does not belong in the.xxx domain?
I think it would be great if.xxx worked so that public places
would not risk showing objectionable material.
You can't restrict objectionable material to.xxx, even if porn were the only kind of material that society deemed objectionable.
If Joe has a Web site at joesomebody.com, and Joe wants to put up a picture of his topless girlfriend (with her permission, of course), should Joe really have to get a.xxx domain just to put up one legal picture? By telling Joe what he can and can't do at joesomebody.com, you're restricting his freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
What motivation is there for setting up goatse.cx? Abuse of.kids would happen, whether it gives profits to the abuser or not. Some people get a kick out of fucking with others.
As a webhoster, I personally condemn them for not accepting.porn/.xxx. It would make filtering SO easy, SO universal. I
would in half a heartbeat be happy to not allow porn sites on my
system unless they ended in.porn/.xxx. What would consistitute
porn? I would look for an existing policy, or write my own.
Yes, there are problems with that, but thats my choice. Dont like
it, go to another hosting comapny. But I would wager to bet that
PLENTY would do just about the same thing.
And that pretty much sums up the argument against.xxx as well. Not everyone wants Internet content to be restricted by your or some politician's idea of "bad stuff".
If a filter is coming (and they have been!), then we need to find
a filter that DOESNT prevent legit info (free tibet, GOP.ORG,etc.)
from being filtered.
With the.xxx domain, and voluntary compliance, filters need
only remove that info.
Aren't there other things that politicians want to protect other people's children from? Will we also have.drugs,.guns,.bomb-making-recipes, and.gay-agenda? If not, then your.xxx justification doesn't work since non-.xxx sites will still need filtering (in the caring eyes of politicians).
i wear the shirt to school and everyone looks at me funny.:)
Are you sure that's because of the shirt? I also wear the Copyleft DeCSS shirts to school, and people do look at me funny, but they seem to do that no matter what I wear.
Most laptops let you use a USB mouse, but IMO mice are overrated. I much prefer my laptop's touchpad to a "proper mouse". With a touchpad, my hand doesn't have to stray as far from the keyboard, and when my hand tires I can switch to the other hand more easily and comfortably than with a mouse.
Why would I want to use an AIM
program where I had to type each letter on an
onscreen keyboard?
You don't need an onscreen keyboard. Useful handhelds have real keyboards; check out Blackberry, which users claim is easier and faster to enter input on than a Palm Pilot.
Why would I use a web browser
that had a maximum screenres of 180x100 (or
thereabouts)?
Because maybe you want information instead of some Web designer's idea of the pixel-perfect layout. You don't need much resolution to check stock quotes, check the weather, buy a book, or read news. Other than pr0n, there's nothing wrong with a small resolution.
Re:What if I don't have root on the server?
on
Web Site "Lock-In"
·
· Score: 2
The correct way is to send a 301 or 302 HTTP response
How do I do this with XOOM.com, Geocities, or Tripod?
XOOM.com, Geocities, and Tripod don't allow user-friendly Web sites. But you don't need root access to be able to send 301 or 302 HTTP responses; most non-free Web space providers allow it.
To the article submitter who referred to "Those boys at Stanford", have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, some of those Stanford researchers might not be boys?
Now the project link appears to be slashdotted, so I can't actually confirm that the project doesn't feature all "boys", but I suspect that this is not the case. And even if it is, I think it would be better not to emphasize this in light of some of the recent Slashdot articles about gender issues.
Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'd like to see the day when more than 5% of my Computer Science class is female, and I don't think girls hearing about "Those boys at Stanford" will help that.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that US laws do not apply in Costa Rica. I haven't checked, but I assume that Costa Rica does not have an equivalent to the DMCA. John could probably gain back some freedom by returning to Costa Rica.
But if it's been labelled porn when it's really not, then you may not be able to access it because of parental, ISP, or government restrictions.
That's a more useful definition than the "intercourse or genitalia" that was proposed earlier. But under the dictionary definition, goatse.cx wouldn't be in ".xxx" since I'm pretty sure it's intended to sicken rather than stimulate sexually.
Because you can't control every moment of your child's life. You can't be there in your child's classroom with your hands over her ears when one of her peers says "pussy" and sneers. You can't be at all your child's slumber parties to protect him from the pornography that a friend brought. And, .xxx domain or not, you can't stop your child from seeing pornography on the Web if he really wants to see it.
Why should entire sections of the Internet be censored just because a curious child might see a nipple?
What about those who don't want them? Maybe they already have a .com (or even a free country-specific domain) and they don't want to pay for an extra domain. Maybe they don't consider their content to be "XXX" even though you do.
Who gets to decide what is worthy of the ".xxx" label? And what country's moral system does this person/group represent?
Yes. The South Park movie had significant changes made to appease the censors and avoid an NC-17 rating that would have brought financial suicide since so many theatres would have refused to show it.
The parent should consider talking to his or her child so that the child is able to deal with the bad things to which he or she will eventually be exposed (Internet or not).
Only if the world can decide what is and isn't porn, and that's just not possible. What's pornographic to someone in Afghanistan may not be pornographic to someone in the United States, and what's pornographic to someone in the United States may not be pornographic to someone in the Netherlands.
(Um, nude people have genitalia.)
What about sex education sites? They may include drawings of intercourse, possibly even pictures. Pornographic?
What about STD or pro-abstinence sites that show pictures of infected genitalia? Pornographic?
What about sites concerning circumcision? Pictures of genitalia would be appropriate for such sites. Pornographic?
We await your judgment.
Who decides what should and shouldn't be labelled as *.xxx?
If I have a personal home page under a .com or .org domain, who do I ask to review my content before publication to ensure that it does not belong in the .xxx domain?
Who decides what is "explicit"?
Americans can't even find a way to pick a president. How will the entire world decide what's considered "explicit"?
You can't restrict objectionable material to .xxx, even if porn were the only kind of material that society deemed objectionable.
If Joe has a Web site at joesomebody.com, and Joe wants to put up a picture of his topless girlfriend (with her permission, of course), should Joe really have to get a .xxx domain just to put up one legal picture? By telling Joe what he can and can't do at joesomebody.com, you're restricting his freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
What motivation is there for setting up goatse.cx? Abuse of .kids would happen, whether it gives profits to the abuser or not. Some people get a kick out of fucking with others.
And that pretty much sums up the argument against .xxx as well. Not everyone wants Internet content to be restricted by your or some politician's idea of "bad stuff".
Aren't there other things that politicians want to protect other people's children from? Will we also have .drugs, .guns, .bomb-making-recipes, and .gay-agenda? If not, then your .xxx justification doesn't work since non-.xxx sites will still need filtering (in the caring eyes of politicians).
slashcode's long-line breaker seems to be screwing up links after previewing... So let's try that again without a preview:
I hope not, considering that the Canadian federal election is November 27.
I hope not, considering that the Canadian federal election is November 27.
The "Got DeCSS?" shirt contains the keys on the back.
Are you sure that's because of the shirt? I also wear the Copyleft DeCSS shirts to school, and people do look at me funny, but they seem to do that no matter what I wear.
No cron job needed; apmd takes care of it automatically.
Not really, since I'm not running telnetd. But the thought of someone using telnet instead of ssh does worry me enormously.
Most laptops let you use a USB mouse, but IMO mice are overrated. I much prefer my laptop's touchpad to a "proper mouse". With a touchpad, my hand doesn't have to stray as far from the keyboard, and when my hand tires I can switch to the other hand more easily and comfortably than with a mouse.
Funny thing about my Sony VAIO Z505S: Resuming from a suspend in Linux takes one second. Resuming from a suspend in Windows takes 90 seconds.
Yes, the "Designed for Windows 98" sticker did peel off quite easily.
Have a look at Linux on Laptops. They link to Linux reports on just about every notebook model you'll find.
nic.cx says it's for Christmas Island.
You don't need an onscreen keyboard. Useful handhelds have real keyboards; check out Blackberry, which users claim is easier and faster to enter input on than a Palm Pilot.
Because maybe you want information instead of some Web designer's idea of the pixel-perfect layout. You don't need much resolution to check stock quotes, check the weather, buy a book, or read news. Other than pr0n, there's nothing wrong with a small resolution.
XOOM.com, Geocities, and Tripod don't allow user-friendly Web sites. But you don't need root access to be able to send 301 or 302 HTTP responses; most non-free Web space providers allow it.
To the article submitter who referred to "Those boys at Stanford", have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, some of those Stanford researchers might not be boys?
Now the project link appears to be slashdotted, so I can't actually confirm that the project doesn't feature all "boys", but I suspect that this is not the case. And even if it is, I think it would be better not to emphasize this in light of some of the recent Slashdot articles about gender issues.
Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'd like to see the day when more than 5% of my Computer Science class is female, and I don't think girls hearing about "Those boys at Stanford" will help that.