I once had a professor, just for one class, who socially was the exact opposite of what you describe here. His name was Art Boucot and he's one of the world's leading paleontologists - an incredibly busy man who even at his advanced age hikes mountains in China to dig up new and interesting fossils.
The guy is incredibly busy, at the top of his field, and one of the most personable human beings on the planet. Despite the fact that I was taking his class just for kicks and had no intention of earning another degree (much less in paleontology) he spent hours shooting the shit with me in his office, showing me fossils and papers, going over all sorts of amazing things. He even let me roam through his files just for fun (I learned of the 'aquatic ape' theory that way - bizarre).
It's not as if he had the time for that. The man is *busy*. He's always being called in to render expert opinions on various fossil finds, when not actually in the field making new discoveries or giving lectures at symposiums. But I was interested, and he liked that, so he made the time.
Definitely the most impressive professor I've ever had. I'd only wish I'd met the guy when I was a freshman, back in my young and shiny days; I might have paid more attention to the dull college routine and gotten a degree in something useful.
Off-topic: you should see the guys office. A treasure-trove of papers, books, fossils, etc. You couls spend *years* reading through the material he has packed away in there. Walking into the room was, for me, like walking into a newly-discovered vault of treasure, Indian Jones style.
I'll never forget Boucot. But I'll also never forget that of all the professors I had in college he was the only one - the only one - even remotely like this.
In states that allow initiative petitions to enact Constitutional amendments (state Constitution, not federal, for non-Americans) you could indeed enumerate rights that could only be abrogated if the amendment were repealed - by popular vote (Oregon is one of the few states that allows this).
However, speaking from personal experience there are several things to take into consideration:
- lobbyists and extremists never give up. Oregon has had a state sales tax on the ballot EIGHT TIMES - and the people that want that tax still haven't gotten the message. They'll keep trying, and trying, and trying, until someday they get lucky.
- at times the legislature will simply ignore the state Constitution and even illegally suspend amendments until a court forces them to cut the crap. In Oregon the 'right to die' amendment had to be passed TWICE - because the first time the state refused to recognize the legality of it. The second time the courts had to order the state to abide by the amendment or it would've been ignored again.
- regardless of the actions of the people or the legislature, much of the power lies in the hands of career bureaucrats. These folks could give a shit about the law, and speak of the citizenry with open contempt. They will break the law at the drop of a hat in order to further their own goals, or those of their 'friends' (e.g., lobbyists). This can make legislation effectively worthless.
So yeah, it's technically possible, at least in some states, to short-circuit the RIAA/MPAA. But there are so many avenues of attack that you can never really put the matter to rest, ever, or get truly effective enforcement, until the RIAA and the MPAA are destroyed.
Remember, these are status-quo loving luddite organizations who hate change with a passion and would, if they could, press a Trek 'reset' button and send us all back to the mid-80's. Like all groups who've 'gotten theirs' and see change as a force for evil (i.e., something that could knock them off the top of the heap) they'll fight with whatever legal and illegal tactics they can come up with to maintain their position. They won't stop of their own accord - ever.
The only truly effective method of shutting them down is to 'kill' them. In this case, bankrupt them. Come up for a method of doing that and you've won the game. Anything else is a stalling tactic.
Seeing as he just signed into law a bill eliminating most of the gun laws in the state
Yet another point in his favor. Guess at least in this area he isn't a mysogynistic bastard who's just itching to deprive women of the right to self-protection, so that any man may beat/rape/murder them as the mood takes them.
It has yet to be determined that #2 is illegal, but it seems unethical at best.
No it isn't. One of the assumptions certain folks make is that the web, in some fashion, needs to mimic both the operation and the rules of the real world. It never has, never will, nor does it need to.
If you object to the practice of #2, the web isn't for you. Go use some other medium to push your business. Remember, you don't make the rules, and on the internet the majority doesn't count for dick. You can either abide by the practices (both practical and technical), or you can leave - there is no third option.
No guarantee was ever made that your web site would be represented in the fashion that you wish by third parties. To assume that this would occur is simply foolish.
I don't think popularity==validity. Just because something is popular, or widely believed, doesn't make it true.
This is exactly how language evolves, and words are defined - by popular usage. There is no 'authority' other than popular usage, no matter what some small, select group would like, or what meaning the word may have had in the past.
At one time 'gay' meant 'happy', and only that. The word has evolved and only the worst of word freaks would insist that 'gay' does *not* also mean 'homosexual'.
The word 'hacker' is a generic term with many different meanings, one of which is the popular non-geek definition. No amount of anal insistence to the contrary will change this.
In language, popular usage always = validity. Always.
I thought geeks did these sorts of things because they couldn't get laid....
Max
has everyone missed the point?
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Do you honestly think Congress gives a good goddamn about spam? Congressman don't have to deal with this shit; their lackeys do.
This issue isn't about killing spam - it's about using spam as an 'issue' to kill anonymity online. It's yet another attempt by the government to throttle what remains of our privacy, and spam is a very convenient complaint to base this sort of legislation on.
Thanks but no thanks. I'll take the spam in exchange for privacy. My privacy is far more important than any government attempt to curb unwanted email, especially when it's just a ruse to eliminate what few rights I have left.
Max
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Ooooh, now that's a nifty solution. Give the guv'mint the ability to *turn off* the internet whenever it wants to. Like, when the fucking geeks/losers/dissidents/traitors complain too much about the people currently in charge....
Or when Big Brother is involved in invading yet another luckless Third World backwater and doesn't want anyone in the U.S. hearing war crime stories committed by American soldiers....
Or when some goddamn liberty-loving First World country refuses to bend over and spread its ass cheeks by passing a local version of the DMCA....
I have a cell with unlimited free long distance and free in-region calling (Verizon), not to mention a free message service. Why the hell would I bother with IM when I can simply call someone up and *talk* to them - or leave a message if they don't have their cell on?
I fail to understand what the appeal is, unless the younger generation has an aversion to actually using the spoken word.
There is no such thing as 'intellectual property'. This is just a no-nothing buzz phrase invented by corporate America to justify the idea of 'theft' and 'piracy' where no act of theft or piracy is taking place.
There is copyright infringement. And there is copyright, as well as patent. But there is no intellectual property; the idea exists only to legitimize the creation of draconian laws to prosecute/persecute those who violate copyright and patent.
A price tag doesn't have to be attached to merit damages.
Example: I once wrote a series of articles for a magazine at no charge, as a favor to one of the editors. I retained the copyright but wasn't paid a dime for the articles, so one might conclude that the articles weren't worth anything at all.
However, another magazine, about a year later, published this same series of articles without my permission, expressly violating my copyright. Once I discovered this the magazine in question was *very* quick to accommodate me, because they knew that if I sued I could have put them out of business (most magazines run on a thin margin).
If the articles had truly been worth nothing, the second magazine could've thumbed their nose at me and carried on as usual. But the punitive damages involved in such a gross violation of copyright can be enormous, especially if you get the right jury. Much to the disappointment of certain lawyers, everything was settled amicably within 24 hours of my discovery.
And the Supreme Court has said, time and time again, that a right to privacy is inherent to the Constitution, without which other rights couldn't be fully exercised.
I'll take the word of the Supreme Court over yours any day of the week.
Everyone writing to their congressentity on the same day would make quite a bit of difference, especially if those letters are polite, concise, and well-thought-out.
Looks like someone just fell off the turnip truck.
In America, only two things really matter to a politician: power and money. Slashdotters don't have any of the first, but together they do have some of the second. Of course, there's no way these scumbags will buck their sugar daddies no matter what the provocation (skeletons, closets, connect the dots on your own), but you *could* use the money to back whoever is opposing the slimeballs in the next election.
That's your only real option. Sponsor someone less evil than the person currently in office and hope he doesn't bend over and invite MS/the RIAA/the MPAA to give him the shaft once he's in office and safe from your wrath.
Damn, it should be required that you boys and girls work for a congressman for a year, preferably while in high school. If the congress critter doesn't turn you off by trying to fuck you at every opportunity, his/her other activities will be more than enough to throw you off your feed for life. I *guarantee* you that.
Unless, of course, you want to be a sleazy criminal sell-out just like them. Or a drug-addict, alcoholic, deserter like our President....
The 'market share' here doesn't account for all of those folks who set their Opera to appear as IE to avoid problems with certain web sites. Like I do.
Fictional porn feeds the minds of people that can't get the real thing. This will lead to one of two things: they will be happy with the fake stuff or they will go get the real thing.
Bullshit. Prove it. Provide cites to scientific studies published in accredited, peer-reviewed journals that support your statement.
No substantive link has ever been established between pornography and any form of sexual violence. Fact is, sexually violent people are violent whether or not they have access to porn. That's a truism; rape, child or not, has been with us throughout human history, and long before the invention of pornography.
There has been no rise in sexual violence since the advent of porn. There is no link between the two. None. This is the party line of right-wing freaks who use arguments like these to force their narrow moralistic views on everyone else.
If we get the sickos off the addiction all together then we can hope to fight it.
The evidence to date suggests that the tendency towards sexual violence is actually biological in nature. The only successful treatment for such behavior is through drugs. Without drugs, the recidivism rate *even with extensive, ongoing therapy* is greater than 90%. This is no better than the rate *without therapy*.
Do you understand? Therapy does nothing precisely because this problem is biologically based - only drugs work. This is not an 'addiction', it's a basic brain malfunction that can only be treated - so far - by altering how the brain works on a chemical level.
Access to pornography is entirely irrelevant. Either you're a sicko or you aren't, and if you are your only hope lies in drug treatment. If you rape children, *you're defective*. If you don't rape children, no amount of pornography is going to alter your brain in some strange way to make you defective.
Really, dude, think of the children.
The argument of assholes. "Think of the chiiilllldren!" Christ, folks like you are a dime a dozen these days.
Apparently you lack the ability to wrap your tiny little brain around the argument I was making.
Fact: fictitious child porn harms no one. No children were used in the making of it. Prosecuting people for indulgence in fiction is prosecuting thought crimes.
Fact: some people, myself included, think that religion is inherently sick, the workings of a deluded mind. Whether you happen to subscribe to this belief is entirely irrelevant.
Fact: so long as these perversions - child porn or religion - are limited to 'thought crimes' no one gets harmed. It's only when they're forced into reality - the actual molestation of real children, the forced conversion or repression of non-believers through legislation - that they become harmful.
Is that easy enough for you to follow? Can you make the connection between point A and point B?
Thought crimes, no matter how distasteful I find them, are not *actual crimes*. Prosecuting them is just plain evil, a perversion of the legislative system to enforce a moral belief that has no bearing on reality. Trying to make others think like you do, or believe like you do, says far more about your character than it ever will about the people you're trying to punish.
I was once contracted to Symantec in the not-too-distant past, and this I can tell you for certain, having witnessed it on multiple occasions: Symantec in no small way creates many of the problems it then 'solves' with its software.
Here's just one example: Symantec used to offer a bounty for viruses. It's rather underpaid antivirus support staff, with access to all documented viruses as well as existing exploits in current software would, on their free time, craft viruses and then 'discover' them for the bounty. The trick was to do this through friends, often splitting the rewards, to avoid getting caught out.
Despite this, the management was well aware that its antivirus staff was creating much of the virus 'problem'. And they turned a blind eye to these activities, because it generated more business for them.
This is just one example of a number of rather reprehensible business practices I observed while working for Symantec. I found the company to be so sleazy I terminated my contract after five months, and refused to work with them again.
Nowadays I can't access my email without getting a half-dozen porn-o-grams a day, complete with pictures and with subject lines like "Traci wants to suck YOUR hard cock!!!"
No doubt this in and of itself is reason enough to fire me under some of these company policies....
The same goes for pictures "morphed" into something bad, but in a different way. This is not a sign of the morality police, but a way of preventing any kind of brain-food for perverts to get their fix. It's entirely questionable as to if this actually helps at all (some will have their addiction starve off and die, others will go looking harder) but it does have a logical purpose other than enforcing morality.
That's plain bullshit. Child porn laws were passed to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. 'Morphing', as you call it, creates fictitious porn in which no children were harmed in any way whatsoever.
Personally, I don't understand the mind that finds such things titillating. But I can clearly reason that fictitious porn harms no child, and therefore has no business being prosecuted under child porn laws - since no children were involved in the making of it.
So you might find it sick and twisted and perverted. That's nice, but no justification for a law when no harm is done. Fact is, I find religion sick, twisted and perverted in *any* form, but I don't go around demanding that laws be passed to prosecute the practitioners. So long as the religious perverts don't go about harming anyone, they can indulge in whatever sordid activities that they want, no matter how disturbing I find personally find them.
Slashdot Mirror
I once had a professor, just for one class, who socially was the exact opposite of what you describe here. His name was Art Boucot and he's one of the world's leading paleontologists - an incredibly busy man who even at his advanced age hikes mountains in China to dig up new and interesting fossils.
The guy is incredibly busy, at the top of his field, and one of the most personable human beings on the planet. Despite the fact that I was taking his class just for kicks and had no intention of earning another degree (much less in paleontology) he spent hours shooting the shit with me in his office, showing me fossils and papers, going over all sorts of amazing things. He even let me roam through his files just for fun (I learned of the 'aquatic ape' theory that way - bizarre).
It's not as if he had the time for that. The man is *busy*. He's always being called in to render expert opinions on various fossil finds, when not actually in the field making new discoveries or giving lectures at symposiums. But I was interested, and he liked that, so he made the time.
Definitely the most impressive professor I've ever had. I'd only wish I'd met the guy when I was a freshman, back in my young and shiny days; I might have paid more attention to the dull college routine and gotten a degree in something useful.
Off-topic: you should see the guys office. A treasure-trove of papers, books, fossils, etc. You couls spend *years* reading through the material he has packed away in there. Walking into the room was, for me, like walking into a newly-discovered vault of treasure, Indian Jones style.
I'll never forget Boucot. But I'll also never forget that of all the professors I had in college he was the only one - the only one - even remotely like this.
Max
And black people from California still can't get more than 30 miles past the border without getting pulled over,
It isn't black people from California - it's *all* people from California. Alas, too little, too late.
Max
In states that allow initiative petitions to enact Constitutional amendments (state Constitution, not federal, for non-Americans) you could indeed enumerate rights that could only be abrogated if the amendment were repealed - by popular vote (Oregon is one of the few states that allows this).
However, speaking from personal experience there are several things to take into consideration:
- lobbyists and extremists never give up. Oregon has had a state sales tax on the ballot EIGHT TIMES - and the people that want that tax still haven't gotten the message. They'll keep trying, and trying, and trying, until someday they get lucky.
- at times the legislature will simply ignore the state Constitution and even illegally suspend amendments until a court forces them to cut the crap. In Oregon the 'right to die' amendment had to be passed TWICE - because the first time the state refused to recognize the legality of it. The second time the courts had to order the state to abide by the amendment or it would've been ignored again.
- regardless of the actions of the people or the legislature, much of the power lies in the hands of career bureaucrats. These folks could give a shit about the law, and speak of the citizenry with open contempt. They will break the law at the drop of a hat in order to further their own goals, or those of their 'friends' (e.g., lobbyists). This can make legislation effectively worthless.
So yeah, it's technically possible, at least in some states, to short-circuit the RIAA/MPAA. But there are so many avenues of attack that you can never really put the matter to rest, ever, or get truly effective enforcement, until the RIAA and the MPAA are destroyed.
Remember, these are status-quo loving luddite organizations who hate change with a passion and would, if they could, press a Trek 'reset' button and send us all back to the mid-80's. Like all groups who've 'gotten theirs' and see change as a force for evil (i.e., something that could knock them off the top of the heap) they'll fight with whatever legal and illegal tactics they can come up with to maintain their position. They won't stop of their own accord - ever.
The only truly effective method of shutting them down is to 'kill' them. In this case, bankrupt them. Come up for a method of doing that and you've won the game. Anything else is a stalling tactic.
Max
Seeing as he just signed into law a bill eliminating most of the gun laws in the state
Yet another point in his favor. Guess at least in this area he isn't a mysogynistic bastard who's just itching to deprive women of the right to self-protection, so that any man may beat/rape/murder them as the mood takes them.
Max
Yet another blow to anonymity. Yet another government move to track what you do, when and where, and what you buy.
Just dandy.
Max
It has yet to be determined that #2 is illegal, but it seems unethical at best.
No it isn't. One of the assumptions certain folks make is that the web, in some fashion, needs to mimic both the operation and the rules of the real world. It never has, never will, nor does it need to.
If you object to the practice of #2, the web isn't for you. Go use some other medium to push your business. Remember, you don't make the rules, and on the internet the majority doesn't count for dick. You can either abide by the practices (both practical and technical), or you can leave - there is no third option.
No guarantee was ever made that your web site would be represented in the fashion that you wish by third parties. To assume that this would occur is simply foolish.
Max
I don't think popularity==validity. Just because something is popular, or widely believed, doesn't make it true.
This is exactly how language evolves, and words are defined - by popular usage. There is no 'authority' other than popular usage, no matter what some small, select group would like, or what meaning the word may have had in the past.
At one time 'gay' meant 'happy', and only that. The word has evolved and only the worst of word freaks would insist that 'gay' does *not* also mean 'homosexual'.
The word 'hacker' is a generic term with many different meanings, one of which is the popular non-geek definition. No amount of anal insistence to the contrary will change this.
In language, popular usage always = validity. Always.
Max
I thought geeks did these sorts of things because they couldn't get laid....
Max
Do you honestly think Congress gives a good goddamn about spam? Congressman don't have to deal with this shit; their lackeys do.
This issue isn't about killing spam - it's about using spam as an 'issue' to kill anonymity online. It's yet another attempt by the government to throttle what remains of our privacy, and spam is a very convenient complaint to base this sort of legislation on.
Thanks but no thanks. I'll take the spam in exchange for privacy. My privacy is far more important than any government attempt to curb unwanted email, especially when it's just a ruse to eliminate what few rights I have left.
Max
Ooooh, now that's a nifty solution. Give the guv'mint the ability to *turn off* the internet whenever it wants to. Like, when the fucking geeks/losers/dissidents/traitors complain too much about the people currently in charge....
Or when Big Brother is involved in invading yet another luckless Third World backwater and doesn't want anyone in the U.S. hearing war crime stories committed by American soldiers....
Or when some goddamn liberty-loving First World country refuses to bend over and spread its ass cheeks by passing a local version of the DMCA....
Hell yeah! I trust the government! Don't you?
Max
...there are still people out there who haven't blocked everything coming from @aol.com?
Max
I have a cell with unlimited free long distance and free in-region calling (Verizon), not to mention a free message service. Why the hell would I bother with IM when I can simply call someone up and *talk* to them - or leave a message if they don't have their cell on?
I fail to understand what the appeal is, unless the younger generation has an aversion to actually using the spoken word.
Max
There is no such thing as 'intellectual property'. This is just a no-nothing buzz phrase invented by corporate America to justify the idea of 'theft' and 'piracy' where no act of theft or piracy is taking place.
There is copyright infringement. And there is copyright, as well as patent. But there is no intellectual property; the idea exists only to legitimize the creation of draconian laws to prosecute/persecute those who violate copyright and patent.
Max
A price tag doesn't have to be attached to merit damages.
Example: I once wrote a series of articles for a magazine at no charge, as a favor to one of the editors. I retained the copyright but wasn't paid a dime for the articles, so one might conclude that the articles weren't worth anything at all.
However, another magazine, about a year later, published this same series of articles without my permission, expressly violating my copyright. Once I discovered this the magazine in question was *very* quick to accommodate me, because they knew that if I sued I could have put them out of business (most magazines run on a thin margin).
If the articles had truly been worth nothing, the second magazine could've thumbed their nose at me and carried on as usual. But the punitive damages involved in such a gross violation of copyright can be enormous, especially if you get the right jury. Much to the disappointment of certain lawyers, everything was settled amicably within 24 hours of my discovery.
Max
You don't have privacy, you have anonymity
And the Supreme Court has said, time and time again, that a right to privacy is inherent to the Constitution, without which other rights couldn't be fully exercised.
I'll take the word of the Supreme Court over yours any day of the week.
Max
Everyone writing to their congressentity on the same day would make quite a bit of difference, especially if those letters are polite, concise, and well-thought-out.
Looks like someone just fell off the turnip truck.
In America, only two things really matter to a politician: power and money. Slashdotters don't have any of the first, but together they do have some of the second. Of course, there's no way these scumbags will buck their sugar daddies no matter what the provocation (skeletons, closets, connect the dots on your own), but you *could* use the money to back whoever is opposing the slimeballs in the next election.
That's your only real option. Sponsor someone less evil than the person currently in office and hope he doesn't bend over and invite MS/the RIAA/the MPAA to give him the shaft once he's in office and safe from your wrath.
Damn, it should be required that you boys and girls work for a congressman for a year, preferably while in high school. If the congress critter doesn't turn you off by trying to fuck you at every opportunity, his/her other activities will be more than enough to throw you off your feed for life. I *guarantee* you that.
Unless, of course, you want to be a sleazy criminal sell-out just like them. Or a drug-addict, alcoholic, deserter like our President....
Max
the dominant browser drives website innovation
The dominant browser drives website *stagnation*. It's the maverick that drives innovation - in *any* area of human endeavor.
Max
Works fine for me. Looks like the problem is you and not Opera.
Max
The 'market share' here doesn't account for all of those folks who set their Opera to appear as IE to avoid problems with certain web sites. Like I do.
Max
Who cares if they can be found in Mozilla or not? This article isn't about Mozilla - it's about Opera.
In any event, Opera is still much, much faster than Mozilla, and it looks like it always will be.
The real question here is: what makes Mozilla more appealing than Opera? That it's free and open source? Big - fucking - deal.
Max
Fictional porn feeds the minds of people that can't get the real thing. This will lead to one of two things: they will be happy with the fake stuff or they will go get the real thing.
Bullshit. Prove it. Provide cites to scientific studies published in accredited, peer-reviewed journals that support your statement.
No substantive link has ever been established between pornography and any form of sexual violence. Fact is, sexually violent people are violent whether or not they have access to porn. That's a truism; rape, child or not, has been with us throughout human history, and long before the invention of pornography.
There has been no rise in sexual violence since the advent of porn. There is no link between the two. None. This is the party line of right-wing freaks who use arguments like these to force their narrow moralistic views on everyone else.
If we get the sickos off the addiction all together then we can hope to fight it.
The evidence to date suggests that the tendency towards sexual violence is actually biological in nature. The only successful treatment for such behavior is through drugs. Without drugs, the recidivism rate *even with extensive, ongoing therapy* is greater than 90%. This is no better than the rate *without therapy*.
Do you understand? Therapy does nothing precisely because this problem is biologically based - only drugs work. This is not an 'addiction', it's a basic brain malfunction that can only be treated - so far - by altering how the brain works on a chemical level.
Access to pornography is entirely irrelevant. Either you're a sicko or you aren't, and if you are your only hope lies in drug treatment. If you rape children, *you're defective*. If you don't rape children, no amount of pornography is going to alter your brain in some strange way to make you defective.
Really, dude, think of the children.
The argument of assholes. "Think of the chiiilllldren!" Christ, folks like you are a dime a dozen these days.
Max
Apparently you lack the ability to wrap your tiny little brain around the argument I was making.
Fact: fictitious child porn harms no one. No children were used in the making of it. Prosecuting people for indulgence in fiction is prosecuting thought crimes.
Fact: some people, myself included, think that religion is inherently sick, the workings of a deluded mind. Whether you happen to subscribe to this belief is entirely irrelevant.
Fact: so long as these perversions - child porn or religion - are limited to 'thought crimes' no one gets harmed. It's only when they're forced into reality - the actual molestation of real children, the forced conversion or repression of non-believers through legislation - that they become harmful.
Is that easy enough for you to follow? Can you make the connection between point A and point B?
Thought crimes, no matter how distasteful I find them, are not *actual crimes*. Prosecuting them is just plain evil, a perversion of the legislative system to enforce a moral belief that has no bearing on reality. Trying to make others think like you do, or believe like you do, says far more about your character than it ever will about the people you're trying to punish.
Max
I was once contracted to Symantec in the not-too-distant past, and this I can tell you for certain, having witnessed it on multiple occasions: Symantec in no small way creates many of the problems it then 'solves' with its software.
Here's just one example: Symantec used to offer a bounty for viruses. It's rather underpaid antivirus support staff, with access to all documented viruses as well as existing exploits in current software would, on their free time, craft viruses and then 'discover' them for the bounty. The trick was to do this through friends, often splitting the rewards, to avoid getting caught out.
Despite this, the management was well aware that its antivirus staff was creating much of the virus 'problem'. And they turned a blind eye to these activities, because it generated more business for them.
This is just one example of a number of rather reprehensible business practices I observed while working for Symantec. I found the company to be so sleazy I terminated my contract after five months, and refused to work with them again.
Max
Nowadays I can't access my email without getting a half-dozen porn-o-grams a day, complete with pictures and with subject lines like "Traci wants to suck YOUR hard cock!!!"
No doubt this in and of itself is reason enough to fire me under some of these company policies....
Max
The same goes for pictures "morphed" into something bad, but in a different way. This is not a sign of the morality police, but a way of preventing any kind of brain-food for perverts to get their fix. It's entirely questionable as to if this actually helps at all (some will have their addiction starve off and die, others will go looking harder) but it does have a logical purpose other than enforcing morality.
That's plain bullshit. Child porn laws were passed to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. 'Morphing', as you call it, creates fictitious porn in which no children were harmed in any way whatsoever.
Personally, I don't understand the mind that finds such things titillating. But I can clearly reason that fictitious porn harms no child, and therefore has no business being prosecuted under child porn laws - since no children were involved in the making of it.
So you might find it sick and twisted and perverted. That's nice, but no justification for a law when no harm is done. Fact is, I find religion sick, twisted and perverted in *any* form, but I don't go around demanding that laws be passed to prosecute the practitioners. So long as the religious perverts don't go about harming anyone, they can indulge in whatever sordid activities that they want, no matter how disturbing I find personally find them.
Max