Why should there be a TLD for porn, and not one for violence, hate speech, or any of a dozen other potentially offensive aspects of speech? Because there's a lot more porn on the web than there is violence, etc. Enough even, IMHO, to justify a separate TLD. I haven't actually surveyed, but my guess is that the internet hosts a lot more porn pages than are described by many of the TLDs in use. (OK, maybe I surveyed a little... But I didn't enjoy it...)
Also, at least in the US, for some reason porn is considered more offensive than just about anything else. We're pretty desensitized to violence and hate speech, although definitely present, seems to be a lot more sparse than the other examples. So, justifying a.xxx TLD to the public is just easier than the other cases.
Filtering is easy to do now using the PICS system. I haven't had any need to do it, but I believe you. But, a.xxx TLD is more visible and easier to understand for your Average Joe. I consider that important because it removes what could be a perceived hurdle between parents who are not technically-savvy and a properly protected internet connection. An intimidated parent may more quickly pick up on "XXX" than "meta-tag flagging this site as potentially containing material inappropriate for children". They'll still need to do something to filter out the rest of the garbage, but just telling them that software's available to keep out the XXX's may help them take the first step.
I welcome an answer to this from anyone who knows - My children are still young enough that I don't bother to filter at all at home yet (computer use is done while sitting immediately next to me - I am the filter). I know that sites come and go all the time. How efficient is the PICS system at keeping up and properly flagging new content?
*WHO* decides what "must" go in.xxx. We may be straying a bit off-topic here but, IMHO, there's no reason to force anything onto the.xxx domain. Just make it available so that "legitimate" pornographers can opt-in. Then, those who are offended by such content can filter it easily and ignore it. And, it would be easier for concerned parties to focus on sites that remain on the.com side that are acting irresponsibly (failure to do age verification / illegal content / etc.)
Yep - We see government censorship used to oppress folks all over the world every day. "Won't somebody think of the children" is not an acceptable way to get your foot in the door.
If only someone could come up with a better way to control content like this... Has anyone suggested the possibility of adding a.xxx domain suffix?
Google "roving bug"... Not to be a dick, but I can think of at least a couple of more useful methods of making a reference than just telling somebody to Google something...
Anytime you see social statistics on a sample size of many thousands or hundreds being represented in simple ratio of persons as 1:5 , assume that to be wildly inaccurate. Actually, F one-of TAs, the study actually said:
"Almost one in five (19 percent)...received an unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year." The 1:5 is just an approximation from the study because it sounds better. I'm not defending it as legit, I'm just saying...
Your kids are no worse off on the Internet than they are out on the public streets. That's why I'm surprised that the numbers quoted are so low. By the definitions they're giving ("...requests to engage in... sexual talk or give personal sexual information..."), almost any sexual discussion could be considered "solicitation". Who went all the way from age 10 to 17 without ever discussing sex? The only caveats in there are the "unwanted or... made by an adult", but some of my peers in high school were technically adults and, being adolescent males, you bet we discussed sex. And, when I was 17, the sexual advances between myself and a couple of fondly remembered older girls were initiated by me. By their definitions, any of these events would qualify as me receiving a "sexual solicitation or approach" if it had happened online instead if in person.
Solution: Ban real-life contact and restrict our kids to online interaction only.
The Japanese have long called the Koreans garlic eaters as a derogatory name. (There's no love lost between the Koreans and the Japanese. Their mutual animosity goes back at least a thousand years.) That's true. But, from what I've seen, the Japanese call most people who are not Japanese derogatory names...
As for inappropriate language, people that use it in real life will use it on the internet. Actually, I'd guess that it's a lot more prevalent online. I very rarely swear at work because, in my work environment, it would look very unprofessional. I very rarely swear at home because (besides almost never finding an occasion that would warrant it), I don't want to get phone calls from my youngsters' school that would require me to explain my stances on profanity to some uptight principal.
DoD doesn't do research aimed at "applications", if by "application" you mean "something that might make your life better". Know how long it takes to fly across the globe in a prop-plane?
Well, it's DoD and DoE, so you can assume that it is aimed at an application as opposed to being purely ethereal (not that they've never explored the latter). Is that what you meant?
No, it's no military stuff. It's just directed at understanding something usable instead of strict academic masturbation.
And 0.06% of the population will have to switch...
on
Netscape Finally Put Down
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I loved Netscape back in its day, but this really isn't going to be overly painful for the world in general.
I'm happy to pay them *not* to crap up my windshield. I assume that you either haven't spent much time in a large city or just give in to these folks, but that's the standard scheme. You pay the guy before he squirts your windshield so that it doesn't get crudded up. It's more blackmail/mugging than providing a service.
I understand entirely. I'm involved in a project that involves several players from both the DoD and the DoE. We only have one effective channel of communication so, when the folks on the east coast want to talk with the folks here in NM, the poor guy in Albq has to receive the communication, print it out, and then key it in manually on our side. When we want to respond, he does the same thing in reverse.
On the down side, his time is extremely expensive and it's being paid by our tax dollars. On the up side, it's (always IMHO) a very worth-while project and a security breach would be abysmal. But, it would be nice to cut some red tape and tie the IT infrastructure together a little better.
You don't want to hear the plan for when we actually deliver the software... God help us if it ever needs a patch or update...
Actually, I can think of at least a couple of applications for a keyboard like this where additional key resistance wouldn't be a big deal:
* A public terminal at the U.N. or other international agency. You wouldn't expect (or encourage) long use-times at public terminals and venues like the U.N. could really make use of a keyboard that can change character sets quickly and easily.
* Gaming. Now, most of my gaming experience is with FPSs and real-time strategy, but the keyboard use (although important) was much slower than coding, e-mailing, or posting to/. . And, graphical keys could be a real plus - Especially if you regularly switch back and forth between several games
Maybe not - That's another debate entirely that I don't care to weigh in on. But, it is an application that demands a lot of processing and that will almost certainly be one of the many applications that SNL and ORNL will be using this system for. An AC below who claims to work at SNL points out that SNL has also done asteroid impacts modeling and says that SNL makes a lot of its resources available for outside research.
So basically, Sandia wants to run better games... No. Weapons modeling is actually fairly dull. But, since the kind of weapons that the DoE cares about can no longer be tested, detailed and computationally hungry simulations are the only way to predict performance.
The trouble is that I don't want anyone else to have it. So, don't volunteer. Personally, I figure that the convenience of having my records available anywhere I happen to be traveling outweighs any paranoia over somebody hacking Google's security. If you don't want Google making your information available, don't volunteer it...
that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress How does a court decide whether or not a reasonable person would suffer distress? Or whether that distress would be substantial enough to prosecute?
This sounds an awful lot like the moronic pornography law. "We'll know it when we see it."
Are we spending sufficient of our anti-terror effort on things that the enemy have not drawn our attention toward? Only a little bit. That's what's so frustrating for me. I'm funded full-time working counter-terror. In an area where we're vulnerable and in an area where the terrorists have shown a lot of interest. But, it's an area where we've never seen an attack. So... I have to work in, IMHO, an underfunded security area while watching $$ that could be well spent go to short-sighted initiatives.
I swear I'm not trolling here, just venting, but this post may earn me a couple of/. Freaks. The nonsensical shit behind some of these security decisions almost makes me want a dictator who can make sensible decisions based on the country's needs instead of a bunch of pandering vote-whores who only care about sound-bites. I'm behind democracy and I hate what W has done with his almighty pen, so I'll oppose the shift toward totalitarianism at every turn. But it's stuff like this that makes me pissed off at Americans in general.
if planes scare Americans then that's what they're going to lock down Unfortunately, that's the actual motivation. I was just hoping for something rational on a society-wide level rather than a everyone-watches-out-for-themselves level. Anyone got anything? I almost thought that I was flamebaiting/trolling with the GP post and was sure somebody would set me straight...
I think this kinda misses the point of a big part of airport security: the airport itself. Exactly - And it goes further. On 9/11, our planes were a soft target and useful weapons. Now, they're a significantly harder target (of course far from perfect - we've all got schemes that could defeat the security measures - but... harder.) Planes at this point would be very difficult to hijack and fly into buildings, so why would anyone bother trying? If you bomb a plane, you kill a bunch of people, make headlines, and scare the nation/world. But, there are a lot more cost-effective and better risk/benefit alternatives out there for the black-hats. If we want to throw our $$ at preventing attacks on our soil, is there any rational reason (besides placating the tax-paying/voting masses who buy into media-sponsored post-9/11 fear-mongering) for the huge focus on the damned planes?
Put the door to the cockpit on the OUTSIDE of the plane. I'm not sure that's a concern. The equipment needed to get through that door would be much tougher to sneak through security than a bomb and, after 9/11, there's no way a pilot's opening that door even if the entire service crew and all of the passengers are slaughtered. After all, at this point it's not unlikely that we'd just shoot down a hijacked plane rather than let it be used as a weapon.
But, I'm not against having an armed Air Marshal on every plane. That would be a better use of $$ than some of the stuff we're paying for.
Wow - you just topped me and solved the problem preemptively. By strategically placing your used rubbers on the floor around the bed, you make sure that you're never stuck in a situation in which you may sleep with the kind of woman that would object to used rubbers. Pure genius.
Buy a pack of six and rotate my man! I think it may spoil the mood when you tell your partner, "Hold on, baby, I just need to get something out of my used-condom drawer."
No 150k, unfortunately. Not remotely close... And yes, I do work for The Man. But, in addition to my modest salary, I get to feel self-important and tell myself that I'm doing something good for the world (you know - when I'm not posting to/.). At this point, I've actually got myself convinced. So, I'm willing make some sacrifices to keep doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, at least in the US, for some reason porn is considered more offensive than just about anything else. We're pretty desensitized to violence and hate speech, although definitely present, seems to be a lot more sparse than the other examples. So, justifying a
I welcome an answer to this from anyone who knows - My children are still young enough that I don't bother to filter at all at home yet (computer use is done while sitting immediately next to me - I am the filter). I know that sites come and go all the time. How efficient is the PICS system at keeping up and properly flagging new content?
Yep - We see government censorship used to oppress folks all over the world every day. "Won't somebody think of the children" is not an acceptable way to get your foot in the door.
.xxx domain suffix?
If only someone could come up with a better way to control content like this... Has anyone suggested the possibility of adding a
Solution: Ban real-life contact and restrict our kids to online interaction only.
But, on
Well, it's DoD and DoE, so you can assume that it is aimed at an application as opposed to being purely ethereal (not that they've never explored the latter). Is that what you meant?
No, it's no military stuff. It's just directed at understanding something usable instead of strict academic masturbation.
I loved Netscape back in its day, but this really isn't going to be overly painful for the world in general.
I understand entirely. I'm involved in a project that involves several players from both the DoD and the DoE. We only have one effective channel of communication so, when the folks on the east coast want to talk with the folks here in NM, the poor guy in Albq has to receive the communication, print it out, and then key it in manually on our side. When we want to respond, he does the same thing in reverse.
On the down side, his time is extremely expensive and it's being paid by our tax dollars. On the up side, it's (always IMHO) a very worth-while project and a security breach would be abysmal. But, it would be nice to cut some red tape and tie the IT infrastructure together a little better.
You don't want to hear the plan for when we actually deliver the software... God help us if it ever needs a patch or update...
Actually, I can think of at least a couple of applications for a keyboard like this where additional key resistance wouldn't be a big deal:
/. . And, graphical keys could be a real plus - Especially if you regularly switch back and forth between several games
* A public terminal at the U.N. or other international agency. You wouldn't expect (or encourage) long use-times at public terminals and venues like the U.N. could really make use of a keyboard that can change character sets quickly and easily.
* Gaming. Now, most of my gaming experience is with FPSs and real-time strategy, but the keyboard use (although important) was much slower than coding, e-mailing, or posting to
Maybe not - That's another debate entirely that I don't care to weigh in on. But, it is an application that demands a lot of processing and that will almost certainly be one of the many applications that SNL and ORNL will be using this system for. An AC below who claims to work at SNL points out that SNL has also done asteroid impacts modeling and says that SNL makes a lot of its resources available for outside research.
This sounds an awful lot like the moronic pornography law. "We'll know it when we see it."
I swear I'm not trolling here, just venting, but this post may earn me a couple of
But, I'm not against having an armed Air Marshal on every plane. That would be a better use of $$ than some of the stuff we're paying for.
Wow - you just topped me and solved the problem preemptively. By strategically placing your used rubbers on the floor around the bed, you make sure that you're never stuck in a situation in which you may sleep with the kind of woman that would object to used rubbers. Pure genius.
No 150k, unfortunately. Not remotely close... And yes, I do work for The Man. But, in addition to my modest salary, I get to feel self-important and tell myself that I'm doing something good for the world (you know - when I'm not posting to /.). At this point, I've actually got myself convinced. So, I'm willing make some sacrifices to keep doing it.