Because a ".safe" domain is about controlling one's own behavior. A ".xxx" domain is about controlling other people's behavior.
And some people simply can't live with not being able to control other people's behavior.
Finally, someone who gets it! Every time this issue comes up I see so many people giving a whole boat load of bullshit reasons why a.xxx domain needs to be created and I when I point out all the reasons why it won't work they throw back the "think of the children" argument. If it was really the children they were thinking about then they would be working on locking the children in a domain for children and not locking adults out of a domain for adults.
Yeah, but what's considered.safe? What's considered.porn? If any "morality" legislation is imposed, many groups who consider themselves morally superior will just need to be in on the process. Will a.safe encyclopedia provide articles on evolution or homosexuality? Will these articles be biased? Would a site like somethingawful.com be labeled.porn?
No, all I'm saying is let the people who want censorship censor themselves.
When asked, my 6-year-old daughter strongly endorsed the idea of a separate space on the Internet for pornography.
Of course, that's not quite how I put it to her. I said some people wanted a place on the Web where only adults could go.
"And a place where only kids could go, like pbskids.org?" she asked, leaping to a conclusion I hadn't considered. "That's a great idea."
My question is why are there so many people who refuse to consider the much more logical course of creating ".safe" domains? It just makes much more sense then trying to force or coerce objectionable material into a single domain and would be much more effective for those who want to censor.
Besides all the rude people talking on phones, kicking my seat, kids crying through the R rated film, etc. DVD's make more sense on the wallet too.
Actually, DVDs make more sense for all the rude people too. They can pause the movie when the phone rings, stretch their legs when they feel the need, and quiet their crying kids without annoying shushes.
Hello, McFly, anybody home? At $8.00+ a pop per person for a ticket and about another $15 to $20 for food and drinks only to have to sit in a crowded room with idiots on their cell phones, large groups of annoying teenagers, retards who bring their crying infants and old women explaining things scene by scene to their deaf husbands, do you wonder why consumers are increasingly staying home?
Yes, once theaters start forcing all those non-consuming rude people to buy DVDs and stay at home so they can pause the movie to talk on the phone, explain things scene by scene to their deaf husbands, quiet their crying babies, and not buy tickets for their annoying teenagers their sales will most certainly pick up.
When I originally left hotmail I went to yahoo since their spam filters seemed a lot more powerful (you could teach it what you thought was spam) however then yahoo started to charge for their better filtering service and the spam situation there become unmanagable.
I know what you mean. I just use my account as a spamtrap anymore.
"You have 1812 unread messages:"
Thanks for reminding to do my monthly yahoo mailbox cleanup, btw.
so, great, this is the future of the internet, only the geek elite will be allowed to use it and everyone who is scared, suspicious or even somewhat ignorant will have to make do with two polystyrene cups and a bit of string for their communications... or give their cash to microsoft.
Did you actually read the series of emails? The CentOS devs repeatedly explained to him what was the most likely cause of his problem and went out of their way to solve it for him when he would not listen despite his continuous biligerent accusations that they had hacked his computers.
Hmm... well. if there was such a case, hoping there is not, then id disagree because then that's imposing their culture on other country.
Whether it be cannibalism, slavery, or beliefs, people imposing their cultures on others has been a constant throughout history.
But if we take that example in retrospect and try to apply it to the current topic, I dont see how it fits in this context.
The current topic is cultural relativism, I suppose, and I was presenting the case of ones beliefs affecting another.
Muslims dont try to impose their way of life on us.
Muslims do, however, impose their way of life on children born to Muslims the same as most religions including Christianity.
Putting Osama aside here, the muslim as a civilization dont care so much about us so long as we let them be. (Not saying they agree with everything we do either)
I'm not talking about any particular culture or religion, I'm speaking in the abstract here. Certainly, like you, I think that people should be free to follow their beliefs. What I have a problem with is people forcing their beliefs on others. The raped woman who was killed to preserve her family's honor was never asked if she wanted to be part of a culture that allowed such a thing to happen, the ritual was imposed on her by happenstance of birth.
And to answer your question, I'll answer the same thing, while i dont agree with cannibalism, if this is how they live...this is how they live. In your example, it could be part of a ritual where if you don't do it, it is your neighbor who will eat you.
By neighbors I meant those who were not part of their culture, another nation perhaps. If their cannibalism effects those who are not cannibals do you believe it should be accepted behaviour?
I really have a discrepency with the fact that an author is attempting to profit off sales of an Ubuntu book..
I've never really understood why there are some who have a problem with this.
I, like the majority of people in the world, grew up being both educated and entertained by books and personally still find them much more convenient, enjoyable, and easier to read than electronic texts despite having used computers for over thirty years now.
Besides, trees are renewable resource unlike the petroleum products that are used to build many computer parts, plus paper manufacturing and book publishing create employment and can even provide a source of revenue for open source projects.
Of course, I think hanging a rape victim because it dishonors the family is a crime, but in a country were honor as actually less value than money, who am i to judge what honor is worth.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, their existed a country whose custom was to consume the flesh of their neighbors as a daily religious ritual. Should the practice be allowed to continue for the sake of preserving their cultural identity or will you at least agree that there exists some behaviours that can be deemed as universally unacceptable.
Absolutely. Keeping terrorists busy by providing them convenient targets in "their" terroritory was the real purpose behind the invasion of Iraq, wasn't it?
Was it not because of breaches to the no-fly zones and other agressive behaviour?
Which is the one of the main reasons why some who despise Bush actually supported the invasion of Iraq, that and there is a strategic logic in keepimg those wanting to hurt the US busy banging their heads against armored targets. Personally though I still think placing a million troops in Saudi Arabia would have been much more effective.
The creation of a domain for pornographic material does nothing more than define a location for pornographic material to be hosted. Whether or not pornographic material is *actually* hosted there is up to the owners of the content and/or local laws.
What exactly *consistutes* pornography certain varies from place to place - but that's irrelevant to this.
I beg your pardon but what constitutes pornography is abslolutely relevant to the creation of a domain whose purpose is to segregate pornographic material.
If the purpose of the website is to get you sexually excited over an ankle, then yes, it would get moved to the.xxx domain.
Hmmm...that would mean a site displaying images to educate women on best method for performing felatio would stay in.com because it's purpose is to instruct, not excite.
Porn is imagery whose primary purpose is sexual arousal./I.
Who decides the primary purpose of an image? Michaelangelo may have planned on "David" exciting you while doing nothing for me. Is it porn or is it not?
The FCC already has guidelines that it uses to determine the rating of tv content. The same guidelines could be used for internet content.
Please explain how FCC guidelines apply to the rest of the world?
I want my children to be safe from this stuff in my own home.
Safe from what stuff exactly, and is the stuff you want to keep them safe from exactly the same stuff I would want to keep my kids safe from? The only way you will ever be able to ensure your kids see only what you want them to see is to see everything they might see before they see it.
A website that depicts people in a sexual manner for the clear purpose of sexual excitement of the viewer.
I get sexually excited at the turn of well turned ankle so are you going to ban every site depicting women's feet?
Simply have anyone signing up for non.xxx domain names be forced to agree to a user agreement that their website isn't hosting, selling or giving away pornography.
3.) Require all new domain owners agree that sexual content that fits the definition of pornography to register a.XXX domain name.
In some parts of the world a woman's bare breasts are the norm, in others her uncovered head is considered obscene. So who is it who gets to define what is pornography and what is not? You? Me? Congress? Saudi Arbia? Finland? The UN? Somebody somewhere is going to find something objectable about something.
DRM is the act of a producer to make reproduction of their creation difficult. I don't see a problem with this any more than by putting a lock on my front door.
You really don't see a problem with someone putting a lock on your front door and keeping the key for themselves?
Slashdot Mirror
Because a ".safe" domain is about controlling one's own behavior. A ".xxx" domain is about controlling other people's behavior.
And some people simply can't live with not being able to control other people's behavior.
Finally, someone who gets it! Every time this issue comes up I see so many people giving a whole boat load of bullshit reasons why a
Yeah, but what's considered
No, all I'm saying is let the people who want censorship censor themselves.
When asked, my 6-year-old daughter strongly endorsed the idea of a separate space on the Internet for pornography.
Of course, that's not quite how I put it to her. I said some people wanted a place on the Web where only adults could go.
"And a place where only kids could go, like pbskids.org?" she asked, leaping to a conclusion I hadn't considered. "That's a great idea."
My question is why are there so many people who refuse to consider the much more logical course of creating ".safe" domains? It just makes much more sense then trying to force or coerce objectionable material into a single domain and would be much more effective for those who want to censor.
Besides all the rude people talking on phones, kicking my seat, kids crying through the R rated film, etc. DVD's make more sense on the wallet too.
Actually, DVDs make more sense for all the rude people too. They can pause the movie when the phone rings, stretch their legs when they feel the need, and quiet their crying kids without annoying shushes.
Hello, McFly, anybody home? At $8.00+ a pop per person for a ticket and about another $15 to $20 for food and drinks only to have to sit in a crowded room with idiots on their cell phones, large groups of annoying teenagers, retards who bring their crying infants and old women explaining things scene by scene to their deaf husbands, do you wonder why consumers are increasingly staying home?
Yes, once theaters start forcing all those non-consuming rude people to buy DVDs and stay at home so they can pause the movie to talk on the phone, explain things scene by scene to their deaf husbands, quiet their crying babies, and not buy tickets for their annoying teenagers their sales will most certainly pick up.
When I originally left hotmail I went to yahoo since their spam filters seemed a lot more powerful (you could teach it what you thought was spam) however then yahoo started to charge for their better filtering service and the spam situation there become unmanagable.
I know what you mean. I just use my account as a spamtrap anymore.
"You have 1812 unread messages:"
Thanks for reminding to do my monthly yahoo mailbox cleanup, btw.
so, great, this is the future of the internet, only the geek elite will be allowed to use it and everyone who is scared, suspicious or even somewhat ignorant will have to make do with two polystyrene cups and a bit of string for their communications
Did you actually read the series of emails? The CentOS devs repeatedly explained to him what was the most likely cause of his problem and went out of their way to solve it for him when he would not listen despite his continuous biligerent accusations that they had hacked his computers.
Hmm... well. if there was such a case, hoping there is not, then id disagree because then that's imposing their culture on other country.
Whether it be cannibalism, slavery, or beliefs, people imposing their cultures on others has been a constant throughout history.
But if we take that example in retrospect and try to apply it to the current topic, I dont see how it fits in this context.
The current topic is cultural relativism, I suppose, and I was presenting the case of ones beliefs affecting another.
Muslims dont try to impose their way of life on us.
Muslims do, however, impose their way of life on children born to Muslims the same as most religions including Christianity.
Putting Osama aside here, the muslim as a civilization dont care so much about us so long as we let them be. (Not saying they agree with everything we do either)
I'm not talking about any particular culture or religion, I'm speaking in the abstract here. Certainly, like you, I think that people should be free to follow their beliefs. What I have a problem with is people forcing their beliefs on others. The raped woman who was killed to preserve her family's honor was never asked if she wanted to be part of a culture that allowed such a thing to happen, the ritual was imposed on her by happenstance of birth.
And to answer your question, I'll answer the same thing, while i dont agree with cannibalism, if this is how they live...this is how they live. In your example, it could be part of a ritual where if you don't do it, it is your neighbor who will eat you.
By neighbors I meant those who were not part of their culture, another nation perhaps. If their cannibalism effects those who are not cannibals do you believe it should be accepted behaviour?
I really have a discrepency with the fact that an author is attempting to profit off sales of an Ubuntu book..
I've never really understood why there are some who have a problem with this.
I, like the majority of people in the world, grew up being both educated and entertained by books and personally still find them much more convenient, enjoyable, and easier to read than electronic texts despite having used computers for over thirty years now.
Besides, trees are renewable resource unlike the petroleum products that are used to build many computer parts, plus paper manufacturing and book publishing create employment and can even provide a source of revenue for open source projects.
Of course, I think hanging a rape victim because it dishonors the family is a crime, but in a country were honor as actually less value than money, who am i to judge what honor is worth.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, their existed a country whose custom was to consume the flesh of their neighbors as a daily religious ritual. Should the practice be allowed to continue for the sake of preserving their cultural identity or will you at least agree that there exists some behaviours that can be deemed as universally unacceptable.
At what? Creating more terrorist attacks?
Absolutely. Keeping terrorists busy by providing them convenient targets in "their" terroritory was the real purpose behind the invasion of Iraq, wasn't it?
Was it not because of breaches to the no-fly zones and other agressive behaviour?
Which is the one of the main reasons why some who despise Bush actually supported the invasion of Iraq, that and there is a strategic logic in keepimg those wanting to hurt the US busy banging their heads against armored targets. Personally though I still think placing a million troops in Saudi Arabia would have been much more effective.
The creation of a domain for pornographic material does nothing more than define a location for pornographic material to be hosted. Whether or not pornographic material is *actually* hosted there is up to the owners of the content and/or local laws.
So what then is the point of
What exactly *consistutes* pornography certain varies from place to place - but that's irrelevant to this.
I beg your pardon but what constitutes pornography is abslolutely relevant to the creation of a domain whose purpose is to segregate pornographic material.
If the purpose of the website is to get you sexually excited over an ankle, then yes, it would get moved to the
Hmmm...that would mean a site displaying images to educate women on best method for performing felatio would stay in
Porn is imagery whose primary purpose is sexual arousal.
Who decides the primary purpose of an image? Michaelangelo may have planned on "David" exciting you while doing nothing for me. Is it porn or is it not?
The FCC already has guidelines that it uses to determine the rating of tv content. The same guidelines could be used for internet content.
Please explain how FCC guidelines apply to the rest of the world?
I want my children to be safe from this stuff in my own home.
Safe from what stuff exactly, and is the stuff you want to keep them safe from exactly the same stuff I would want to keep my kids safe from? The only way you will ever be able to ensure your kids see only what you want them to see is to see everything they might see before they see it.
This is a GLOBAL DNS. If the US decides to outlaw porn it will not be easy to do, nor relevant to the rest of the world.
So how will the US deciding on instituting a
Please, please don't use "grandfather" and "porn" in the same sentence again.
But "grandmothers" and "porn" on the other hand B-)
Yes. This is why it's the best solution for *everyone*, except for those too-far-gone whackos who can't even handle acknowledging that porn exists.
Perhaps us "too-far-gone whackos" will acknowledge that porn exists when there is a universal, not USAversal, definition of just exactly what is porn.
A website that depicts people in a sexual manner for the clear purpose of sexual excitement of the viewer.
I get sexually excited at the turn of well turned ankle so are you going to ban every site depicting women's feet?
Simply have anyone signing up for non
Who's army is going to enforce this?
3.) Require all new domain owners agree that sexual content that fits the definition of pornography to register a
In some parts of the world a woman's bare breasts are the norm, in others her uncovered head is considered obscene. So who is it who gets to define what is pornography and what is not? You? Me? Congress? Saudi Arbia? Finland? The UN? Somebody somewhere is going to find something objectable about something.
IOW, the Bible reports the occurance of such specific events but it did not set such a law.
The Bible reports occurances of lawmakers, Kings, Pharoes, and God himself making laws to kill first born children.
DRM is the act of a producer to make reproduction of their creation difficult. I don't see a problem with this any more than by putting a lock on my front door.
You really don't see a problem with someone putting a lock on your front door and keeping the key for themselves?