So Google would block any.com with a corresponding.xxx domain? That'd sure suck for, say, dictionary.com when someone registers dictionary.xxx.
Why would new porn publishers would stop registering.com names? Typing ".com" is a reflex for most web surfers; they'd be idiots not to register that version along with their.xxx domain.
Sorry, but you'll have to come up with some actual advantages to consider before calling them "considerable advantages".
We're not talking about simply failing to achieve perfection. The problem is that this alleged solution would be almost perfect... perfectly unsuccessful. Saying this ill-thought-out proposal would be "less than 100%" effective is true... but only because "roughly 0%" is in fact "less than 100%".
The problem with.xxx is that - no matter how many times people thoughtlessly suppose otherwise - it would not remove a single pussy or cock shot from the.com namespace. The owner of xxxample.com isn't going to drop that domain; he'll just fork over the cash for xxxample.xxx and operate both.
The only way.xxx would accomplish anything is if its use were required by law. Even if the U.S. legislature did that, and it passed Constitutional review, all that would do is send the porn sites to incorporate and operate overseas... so not only would it be ineffective, we'd be exporting yet another industry out of the U.S.
It's a Well Known Fact that there are far more research grants for proving already-known scientific laws than there are for efforts to find out things we don't know. Plus, look at what the Nobel prizes are always for: the 2007 prize in Chemistry was for a demonstration that NaCL dissolves in H20, the one in Medicine was for a proof that the ankle bone is connected to the leg bone, and the prize in Economics was for a treatise on how buying low and selling high makes one wealthier. The key to fame and fortune in research science clearly lies in defending the status quo.
OK, but sarcasm aside, there is a tendency among those who teach science to put the Known Laws on an unassailable pedestal... largely in reaction to the rebellious students who refuse to believe anything they say.
If I were doing this myself, I'd ditch the whole idea of a "laptop" and bring something like ye olde Psion Series3a, which runs for weeks at a time on AA batteries, which can be purchased damn near anywhere on the planet. Beats trying to recharge off whatever the local AC generators are putting out. Older tech also stands a better chance of being fixed when/if you have problems with it. I remember having electrical problems with my Series3a when I was in the airport waiting for my flight from Boston to London, and I was able to fix it right there in the terminal with nothing more "high tech" than a Swiss Army knife and a gift-shop sewing kit. (Yeah, this was pre-9/11.)
For the record, I think Chavez is neither the devil nor a saint. I just call what he does, as I see it. If you didn't have your own head so firmly lodged up your own ass with your Bush-like binary logic, you might not jump to such knee-jerk conclusions about others.
Sure, contracts are allowed in libertarian systems. It's just that, without government enforcement, those contracts are essentially indistinguishable from toilet paper.
I think it was a good monster movie, and refreshing because it isn't the same goddamn monster movie that's been made over and over. It was more of a disaster movie, treating the menace like an earthquake or an iceberg would have been treated: as a plot device.
Showing only the man-on-the-street perspective was interesting, and helped replicate the anxiety of not knowing what's going on, which was the main point of the movie. I heard some morons behind me howl at how it ended, without a full accounting of what the monster was; I didn't notice if their mothers were there to hand-feed them their popcorn as well. The movie wasn't about the monster; it was about the people! Similarly, I've heard people saying they weren't going to see it, at least not until they knew what the monster was. What kind of person demands spoilers?
I appreciated that the film refrained from the cliche of the Hero and His Girlfriend surviving to look back upon the disaster. They even defied expectations by killing off the one character the audience "knew" had to survive until the end. The one-last-thrash by the monster in the helicopter scene was an unfortunate seen-it-a-thousand-times bit, however.
The shakycam work didn't bother me. It could have been a lot worse if they'd treated it realistically, and if they'd treated it less realistically it would have been distractingly fake. As it was, it was a fair compromise between reality (e.g. dude would not have kept the camera in hand while he climbed from one skyscraper to the other) and the need to show us what's going on. It didn't make me nauseous (I'm an old fart in his 40s who gets seasick sometimes).
I'm not going to rush out to see it again, or buy the DVD, but I feel I got a good movie for my eight bucks.
I bought an Atari 400 in high school, but didn't use it for typing papers. It was strictly a programming and game machine for me, and I did all my papers on a manual typewriter. The keyboard wasn't horrible for low volume typing, as long as you didn't try to use it like a typewriter; the trick was to slide your fingers along the surface and push instead of tapping. Kind of like using LCARS on ST:TNG (which uses voice input for anything that would otherwise require typing).
When I started college I bought a C64. For the superior typing keyboard.
CmdrTaco: "Somehow I don't expect any of the campaigns to ring me up."
Don't be so sure of that. I live in the neighborhood, and I got a robocall from Johnny Mac yesterday. And it's not because I'm on any targeted list his campaign might be using. He did very well in Michigan before, and he's eager to stop the son of former Gov. George Romney from winning here.
Marston's view of women as a lot more complicated than you seem to think. It certainly wasn't a simple case of liking to dominate women (a misconception that says more about the conceiver than it does about him). He actually believed that women were better than men, and wanted men to submit to their loving domination.
They aren't worried. This is typical of a "full disclosure" of risks that companies give to their investors. They imagine everything that could possibly go wrong, and tell that to the people whose money they took, to cover their asses in case it does go wrong. It doesn't mean they think it will go wrong, any more than Ford thinks you will believe the objects in the mirror are as far away as they appear, or the Coppertone people think you will take their sunscreen internally. They're just covering their asses in cases it happens.
Head-up-the-ass proposals like this one are also insulting. At the very least, do enough research to figure out what the negatives would be, before wasting everyone's time with crap that's obviously DOA.
I really don't think the U.S. is about to withdraw from the Berne Convention (which is what this would require) and put the overseas copyright protection of U.S.-created works in jeopardy.
They are a bit unfair to the U.S., however, in that they comment that other countries' judiciaries have recognized an implied limited right to privacy in their constitutions, but they don't mention that the U.S. Supremes have recognized one as well (it being the basis for Roe v. Wade, after all).
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of "ridiculous suppositions", ...
.com with a corresponding .xxx domain? That'd sure suck for, say, dictionary.com when someone registers dictionary.xxx.
.com names? Typing ".com" is a reflex for most web surfers; they'd be idiots not to register that version along with their .xxx domain.
So Google would block any
Why would new porn publishers would stop registering
Sorry, but you'll have to come up with some actual advantages to consider before calling them "considerable advantages".
We're not talking about simply failing to achieve perfection. The problem is that this alleged solution would be almost perfect... perfectly unsuccessful. Saying this ill-thought-out proposal would be "less than 100%" effective is true... but only because "roughly 0%" is in fact "less than 100%".
Or just implement RFC 3514. That would solve so many problems in addition to porn.
The problem with .xxx is that - no matter how many times people thoughtlessly suppose otherwise - it would not remove a single pussy or cock shot from the .com namespace. The owner of xxxample.com isn't going to drop that domain; he'll just fork over the cash for xxxample.xxx and operate both.
.xxx would accomplish anything is if its use were required by law. Even if the U.S. legislature did that, and it passed Constitutional review, all that would do is send the porn sites to incorporate and operate overseas... so not only would it be ineffective, we'd be exporting yet another industry out of the U.S.
The only way
It's a Well Known Fact that there are far more research grants for proving already-known scientific laws than there are for efforts to find out things we don't know. Plus, look at what the Nobel prizes are always for: the 2007 prize in Chemistry was for a demonstration that NaCL dissolves in H20, the one in Medicine was for a proof that the ankle bone is connected to the leg bone, and the prize in Economics was for a treatise on how buying low and selling high makes one wealthier. The key to fame and fortune in research science clearly lies in defending the status quo.
OK, but sarcasm aside, there is a tendency among those who teach science to put the Known Laws on an unassailable pedestal... largely in reaction to the rebellious students who refuse to believe anything they say.
If I were doing this myself, I'd ditch the whole idea of a "laptop" and bring something like ye olde Psion Series3a, which runs for weeks at a time on AA batteries, which can be purchased damn near anywhere on the planet. Beats trying to recharge off whatever the local AC generators are putting out. Older tech also stands a better chance of being fixed when/if you have problems with it. I remember having electrical problems with my Series3a when I was in the airport waiting for my flight from Boston to London, and I was able to fix it right there in the terminal with nothing more "high tech" than a Swiss Army knife and a gift-shop sewing kit. (Yeah, this was pre-9/11.)
For the record, I think Chavez is neither the devil nor a saint. I just call what he does, as I see it. If you didn't have your own head so firmly lodged up your own ass with your Bush-like binary logic, you might not jump to such knee-jerk conclusions about others.
Sure, contracts are allowed in libertarian systems. It's just that, without government enforcement, those contracts are essentially indistinguishable from toilet paper.
Translation: It wasn't shut down, the government just cut off its ability to reach most of its audience.
Turns out it was under the couch all this time.
$25 million is a low budget for a Hollywood feature. Especially for a monster movie.
I think it was a good monster movie, and refreshing because it isn't the same goddamn monster movie that's been made over and over. It was more of a disaster movie, treating the menace like an earthquake or an iceberg would have been treated: as a plot device.
Showing only the man-on-the-street perspective was interesting, and helped replicate the anxiety of not knowing what's going on, which was the main point of the movie. I heard some morons behind me howl at how it ended, without a full accounting of what the monster was; I didn't notice if their mothers were there to hand-feed them their popcorn as well. The movie wasn't about the monster; it was about the people! Similarly, I've heard people saying they weren't going to see it, at least not until they knew what the monster was. What kind of person demands spoilers?
I appreciated that the film refrained from the cliche of the Hero and His Girlfriend surviving to look back upon the disaster. They even defied expectations by killing off the one character the audience "knew" had to survive until the end. The one-last-thrash by the monster in the helicopter scene was an unfortunate seen-it-a-thousand-times bit, however.
The shakycam work didn't bother me. It could have been a lot worse if they'd treated it realistically, and if they'd treated it less realistically it would have been distractingly fake. As it was, it was a fair compromise between reality (e.g. dude would not have kept the camera in hand while he climbed from one skyscraper to the other) and the need to show us what's going on. It didn't make me nauseous (I'm an old fart in his 40s who gets seasick sometimes).
I'm not going to rush out to see it again, or buy the DVD, but I feel I got a good movie for my eight bucks.
Sometimes very badly? Just because the voters like it, doesn't make it a good idea.
I bought an Atari 400 in high school, but didn't use it for typing papers. It was strictly a programming and game machine for me, and I did all my papers on a manual typewriter. The keyboard wasn't horrible for low volume typing, as long as you didn't try to use it like a typewriter; the trick was to slide your fingers along the surface and push instead of tapping. Kind of like using LCARS on ST:TNG (which uses voice input for anything that would otherwise require typing).
When I started college I bought a C64. For the superior typing keyboard.
CmdrTaco: "Somehow I don't expect any of the campaigns to ring me up."
Don't be so sure of that. I live in the neighborhood, and I got a robocall from Johnny Mac yesterday. And it's not because I'm on any targeted list his campaign might be using. He did very well in Michigan before, and he's eager to stop the son of former Gov. George Romney from winning here.
Me... well, Dennis Kucinich is on the ballot.
Marston's view of women as a lot more complicated than you seem to think. It certainly wasn't a simple case of liking to dominate women (a misconception that says more about the conceiver than it does about him). He actually believed that women were better than men, and wanted men to submit to their loving domination.
They aren't worried. This is typical of a "full disclosure" of risks that companies give to their investors. They imagine everything that could possibly go wrong, and tell that to the people whose money they took, to cover their asses in case it does go wrong. It doesn't mean they think it will go wrong, any more than Ford thinks you will believe the objects in the mirror are as far away as they appear, or the Coppertone people think you will take their sunscreen internally. They're just covering their asses in cases it happens.
I really don't think the U.S. is about to withdraw from the Berne Convention (which is what this would require) and put the overseas copyright protection of U.S.-created works in jeopardy.
They are a bit unfair to the U.S., however, in that they comment that other countries' judiciaries have recognized an implied limited right to privacy in their constitutions, but they don't mention that the U.S. Supremes have recognized one as well (it being the basis for Roe v. Wade, after all).
The "A." stands for "Anno", Latin for "Year". "A.iP." stands for "Year of Our iPhone".
But at least that's not spilled Pepsi your feeting are sticking to; it's guano.