Report it to the Federal Trade Commission. Send a copy of unwanted or deceptive messages to uce@ftc.gov. The FTC uses the unsolicited emails stored in this database to pursue law enforcement actions against people who send deceptive spam email.
Let the FTC know if a "remove me" request is not honored. If you want to complain about a removal link that doesn't work or not being able to unsubcribe from a list, you can fill out the FTC's online complaint form at www.ftc.gov. Your complaint will be added to the FTC's Consumer Sentinel database and made available to hundreds of law enforcement and consumer protection agencies.
Whenever you complain about spam, it's important to include the full email header. The information in the header makes it possible for consumer protection agencies to follow up on your complaint.
Send a copy of the spam to your ISP's abuse desk. Often the email address is abuse@yourispname.com or postmaster@yourispname.com. By doing this, you can let the ISP know about the spam problem on their system and help them to stop it in the future. Make sure to include a copy of the spam, along with the full email header. At the top of the message, state that you're complaining about being spammed.
Complain to the sender's ISP. Most ISPs want to cut off spammers who abuse their system. Again, make sure to include a copy of the message and header information and state that you're complaining about spam.
Yes, but Star Trek is high on a legislators radar, open source software writers are not.
What do I mean by this? Your average legislator (or even man on the street) knows about Star Trek. How many people know what Open Source software is? not many people know how programs run anyway!
Thus this is low on legislators radar. Not a good situation, but I feel it's reality.
If they are so anally retentive about user experience then they really aught to go back to OS 9.x days. These worked fine.
I have to support users on OS X. It's a nightmare. While it's never been easy to get users around even an OS 9 desktop, getting an end user to get around in OS X is unbeleivably hard.
Ever tried getting someones printer to share in OS X? don't start trying, lest you knock yourself out from banging your head on the wall.
Actually, I was more disagreeing with the argument of the poster. He used the Bible to prove his point, I felt that he wasn't giving the fully story. I wasn't trying to "prove" God. I think that some people will accept God and others will reject God. I just interpret and expound the Bible as best I can.
Are you really interested in the answers or do you have a large axe to grind?
Well, a great book on the "Big Picture" of the Old Testament in made by Graham Goldsworthy. It's called Gospel and Kingdom and it goes through what he beleives the OT is all about. I can highly recommend this book.
You make a very good point. What I probably should have stated was that I beleive that sex was made to be enjoyed within the context of a loving relationship between husband and wife.
It's good to see some constructive criticism on slashdot!
Well, I haven't read the Hebrew as I don't understand the language, but are you referring to the second commandment in Exodus 20?
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."
I think that this goes with the first commandment also, which states:
"You shall have no other gods before me."
I don't think that it says that says you shouldn't look at any graven images, I think that that says you should "make for yourself an idol" or bow down to them in worship. That's very different to looking at a graven image.
The context of the verse is to clearly lay before the people how they are meant to respond to God's sovereignty and gracious mercy in rescuing them from their enemies (after all they just got out of Egypt!).
So I would disagree with you on this point, unless you could point out to me another passage that supported your argument.
Also, when you state that there is nothing forbidding the objectification of women, I also can't agree with you on this point. Jesus says,
""You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28).
He's referencing Exodus 20:14.
As for the Hebrew notion of adultery is the violation of property, I'm not sure I agree with that either. Granted, some Hebrews may have gotten this notion, but they would have gotten the notion wrong. Again, I have to go back to Genesis 2:20b-25,
"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Woman was taken from man, they are united together. In some ways however you are correct in your assertion that the wife belongs to the husband, but it is equally true that the husband belongs to the wife.
A good explanation of this is in 1 Corinthians 7:3-4,
"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife."
"Love? We're talking about sex, and sex has not neccessarily something to do with love. They go together often, but that's all."
Here we disagree. I beleive that marital love and sex go together. I beleive that God created man and woman to be in perfect unity together.
I base this on Genesis 2:20-24:
"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
"Why and how?"
Because monogamy is the only way, intimacy requires trust and love requires lack of self-centeredness. I beleive that pornography does not allow for either of these things.
"What is wrong in picturing the most beautiful thing one or more consentig adults can do together?"
Nothing! in the context of marriage sex is a beautiful thing. When it is taken outside of marriage I beleive it is corrupt.
"btw, who's administering your censoring proxy? Your local reverend, strong in his faith?:)"
If you think that the Christian idea of suffering is that it's good then you don't have a clear grasp of Christianity.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that suffering is good. Suffering came about in the world because humanity decided to reject God, and when they rejected God they rejected all the good things that God had given them. When humanity rejected God, God gave humanity over to our sinful desires. This is all expounded in the book of Romans.
Humanity is the cause of the problem, not the solution. I'm glad that you agree that we have a problem though.
Might I suggest that you have a read of Romans chapter 1, verses 18 to 32? If you do read this, however, might I also highly recommend that you read Romans 3:21-26? I'm sure if you read these passages you may get a better understanding of Christianity.
As to "the Christian romantic ideal" may I ask you to clarify what you mean by this? As far as I can tell, this really could mean anything to anyone reading this post.
Incidently, sexual abstinence is the sole domain of sex outside of marriage. Paul writes about it in 1 Corinthians 7:5 - "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
"I would love for my future children to be the Nobel prize winners of the world; but should they end up making porn flicks, there's worse things they could be doing."
Why should you stop looking at porn? It may seem like a strange thing to you, but consider this: every time you look at porn you are objectifying the participants and gratifying your lust at the expense of the person's humanity. Basically, when you look at porn you are looking at it for your own gratification and you aren't considering the other person at all.
I believe that porn is quite damaging - both to the party being objectified and to the party doing the objectifying.
I also believe that porn isn't real, it's just a poor imitation of intimacy and love. You will never get any intimacy and you endanger your intimacy with those you love if you are a regular viewer of pornography.
Christians beleive that pornography is wrong. Jesus states that "Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are good, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are bad, your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness" in Luke 11:33-35. Many Christians wish to obey Jesus and so they try to not look at images that cause them to be full of darkness. Pornography is one of those things.
Also, many Christians find that they are hooked on pornography (and I suspect that it's not just Christians too!). They might find this tool very useful - in fact many Christians are already in groups where they voluntarily become accountable to group members. This software would help assist in their accountability.
For the record, I'm a Christian, and also at the place I am living at the moment we've installed a caching proxy that filters on various things. I don't administer it, it's too tempting.
Re:Mass guilt: Favorite of Stalin, A.H., Dubya
on
Peer Pressure Porn Filter
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Oh, hello? Salem? come on off it! you don't have to install this software and nobody can MAKE you install the software.
1. Shame, well that's one aspect of it. You know, the reason people are installing the software is because they are ashamed of viewing pornography, they aren't ashamed that someone is catching out them in the act. And remember, you install this software voluntarily.
2. You submit the logs of sites to people you choose, not to people you don't know and don't trust. Authority by majority... did you even read how the software is used?
3. Your post is pressure based on raging fears and mass histeria. "Welcome to Salem, MA 1692".
You're daughter HAS to be on the Internet to learn about breast cancer? If she is concerned, then there are plenty of pamphlets you can get from her doctor's practice.
Plenty of people get by everyday without actually needing to use the Internet!
Hello? the filters are placed on bestiality, rape and other violent and non-appropriate content. They aren't going to filter the "naked tit" as you have so lucidly put it.
I don't know about you, but I think that most of Australia doesn't want extreme sexual material getting through to our youngsters.
Perhaps you aught to look at the SMH's editorial on Internet pornography:
From the SMH, http://www.smh.com.au (rest of article follows)
If the Federal Government is fair dinkum about weeding out X- and R-rated material and content refused classification, it must first acknowledge its technological impotence as gatekeeper. This does not mean all options are useless. They just need to be practical. Indeed, the Prime Minister, John Howard, yesterday indicated a willingness to review the Government's 1999 introduction of internet regulation. The Communications Department is due soon to release its report on the online content scheme. Against the backdrop of the first survey of Australian teenagers' exposure to pornography, these developments at least suggest the Government's head is not in the sand.
The Australia Institute study found that 84 per cent of boys and 60 per cent of girls aged 16 and 17 have happened upon internet sex sites. Two in five boys said they went looking for pornography. Meanwhile, just 17 per cent of households with internet connections had installed approved filters and many of these have proved useless. Critics of porn availability are dismissed as wowsers, a criticism that ignores the character of the worst hardcore. Centrefold pin-ups are one thing; bestiality, incest, rape and other sexual violence are another. Yet these are available.
A fairly good argument, don't you think?
Rest of article follows:
The internet as porn shop
March 5 2003
Public agitation at easy internet access to hardcore pornography is trapped between two realities. So easy are the means of access that a youngster can sight thousands of pictures and videos of demeaning content by simply following a few links. Turning off this tap, however, is often technically impossible. Even where filtering has an effect, it often blocks out the good with the bad, denying internet customers useful information unrelated to pornography. Like antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the technology of delivery is way ahead of the mechanisms of judicious denial.
If the Federal Government is fair dinkum about weeding out X- and R-rated material and content refused classification, it must first acknowledge its technological impotence as gatekeeper. This does not mean all options are useless. They just need to be practical. Indeed, the Prime Minister, John Howard, yesterday indicated a willingness to review the Government's 1999 introduction of internet regulation. The Communications Department is due soon to release its report on the online content scheme. Against the backdrop of the first survey of Australian teenagers' exposure to pornography, these developments at least suggest the Government's head is not in the sand.
The Australia Institute study found that 84 per cent of boys and 60 per cent of girls aged 16 and 17 have happened upon internet sex sites. Two in five boys said they went looking for pornography. Meanwhile, just 17 per cent of households with internet connections had installed approved filters and many of these have proved useless. Critics of porn availability are dismissed as wowsers, a criticism that ignores the character of the worst hardcore. Centrefold pin-ups are one thing; bestiality, incest, rape and other sexual violence are another. Yet these are available.
The Communications Minister, Richard Alston, was drawn into internet regulation four years ago by the proliferation of online gambling. Internet porn also became a hot issue, partly because of the importance to the Government of the Senate vote of the Independent Brian Harradine, a morals campaigner who this week concluded: "Government policy in this area is obviously not working."
Part of the difficulty is that no search technology can sift out images. Filtering out offensive language would also block worthy sites related, for instance, to health issues or the arts. Clumsy censorship is not an answer. Because of the obvious ethical impediments, there has been little research on hardcore pornography's effects on the young. Some adults with intense and prolonged exposure to hardcore pornography, however, have demonstrated an increased propensity to sexual violence. Youngsters might overwhelmingly regard pornography as titillating fun. But until its long-term effects are better understood, a safety-first approach seems prudent.
Parents are entitled to be angry that the home computer, an item of such utility and educational value, comes with the potential to introduce to their children material the parents would never dream of exposing them to. In time, technology will put computer users more in control and better able to refuse uninvited material. Until then, the best course is openness. When pornography is discussed frankly and maturely at home and at school, children will be best able to be their own gatekeepers.
Actually, the very nature of text is great for configuration purposes. Not much can go wrong with a text editor (how many times have you had your vi session corrupt a file? I've never had this problem!!!). Now think about the complexity of using a database... yep, then you've got the Windows registry.
As for your assertion that XML is just creating data that both machines and humans have to strain to understand, I disagree. I can understand XML without a problem and the xml2 libraries that are available don't appear to have a problem either!
Another thing - constrained devices should use what is best for a constrained space. This does not necessarily mean that this is the best way for all devices!
Slashdot Mirror
From the FTC website:
Just a thought.
Yes, but Star Trek is high on a legislators radar, open source software writers are not.
What do I mean by this? Your average legislator (or even man on the street) knows about Star Trek. How many people know what Open Source software is? not many people know how programs run anyway!
Thus this is low on legislators radar. Not a good situation, but I feel it's reality.
This is where GNOME comes in...
Incidently, all those C++ coders should have a look at gtkmm and gnomemm - have a search on slashdot
If they are so anally retentive about user experience then they really aught to go back to OS 9.x days. These worked fine.
I have to support users on OS X. It's a nightmare. While it's never been easy to get users around even an OS 9 desktop, getting an end user to get around in OS X is unbeleivably hard.
Ever tried getting someones printer to share in OS X? don't start trying, lest you knock yourself out from banging your head on the wall.
Is NT4 a cooperative multitasking O/S (uh... no it's not)? or is that last line a part of your sig?
Er, how does that link relate to the story? I realise you don't like the war, but how does it affect open-source licensing/purchasing?
Wow, how ironic.
If they are just concerned about the "content" then why even bother using XML at all? why not put the file into a straight ascii text file?
Whoa. "wasn't giving the fully story"? where did that "y" come from?
Oops.
Actually, I was more disagreeing with the argument of the poster. He used the Bible to prove his point, I felt that he wasn't giving the fully story. I wasn't trying to "prove" God. I think that some people will accept God and others will reject God. I just interpret and expound the Bible as best I can.
Then you and I would fundamentally disagree!
Are you really interested in the answers or do you have a large axe to grind?
Well, a great book on the "Big Picture" of the Old Testament in made by Graham Goldsworthy. It's called Gospel and Kingdom and it goes through what he beleives the OT is all about. I can highly recommend this book.
Don't you think that morals could be based on objective truth? if not, why not?
How did you draw that conclusion from what he said?
You make a very good point. What I probably should have stated was that I beleive that sex was made to be enjoyed within the context of a loving relationship between husband and wife.
It's good to see some constructive criticism on slashdot!
Well, I haven't read the Hebrew as I don't understand the language, but are you referring to the second commandment in Exodus 20?
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."
I think that this goes with the first commandment also, which states:
"You shall have no other gods before me."
I don't think that it says that says you shouldn't look at any graven images, I think that that says you should "make for yourself an idol" or bow down to them in worship. That's very different to looking at a graven image.
The context of the verse is to clearly lay before the people how they are meant to respond to God's sovereignty and gracious mercy in rescuing them from their enemies (after all they just got out of Egypt!).
So I would disagree with you on this point, unless you could point out to me another passage that supported your argument.
Also, when you state that there is nothing forbidding the objectification of women, I also can't agree with you on this point. Jesus says,
""You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28).
He's referencing Exodus 20:14.
As for the Hebrew notion of adultery is the violation of property, I'm not sure I agree with that either. Granted, some Hebrews may have gotten this notion, but they would have gotten the notion wrong. Again, I have to go back to Genesis 2:20b-25,
"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Woman was taken from man, they are united together. In some ways however you are correct in your assertion that the wife belongs to the husband, but it is equally true that the husband belongs to the wife.
A good explanation of this is in 1 Corinthians 7:3-4,
"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife."
"Love? We're talking about sex, and sex has not neccessarily something to do with love. They go together often, but that's all."
:)"
Here we disagree. I beleive that marital love and sex go together. I beleive that God created man and woman to be in perfect unity together.
I base this on Genesis 2:20-24:
"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
"Why and how?"
Because monogamy is the only way, intimacy requires trust and love requires lack of self-centeredness. I beleive that pornography does not allow for either of these things.
"What is wrong in picturing the most beautiful thing one or more consentig adults can do together?"
Nothing! in the context of marriage sex is a beautiful thing. When it is taken outside of marriage I beleive it is corrupt.
"btw, who's administering your censoring proxy? Your local reverend, strong in his faith?
My flatmate, because I asked him to.
If you think that the Christian idea of suffering is that it's good then you don't have a clear grasp of Christianity.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that suffering is good. Suffering came about in the world because humanity decided to reject God, and when they rejected God they rejected all the good things that God had given them. When humanity rejected God, God gave humanity over to our sinful desires. This is all expounded in the book of Romans.
Humanity is the cause of the problem, not the solution. I'm glad that you agree that we have a problem though.
Might I suggest that you have a read of Romans chapter 1, verses 18 to 32? If you do read this, however, might I also highly recommend that you read Romans 3:21-26? I'm sure if you read these passages you may get a better understanding of Christianity.
As to "the Christian romantic ideal" may I ask you to clarify what you mean by this? As far as I can tell, this really could mean anything to anyone reading this post.
Incidently, sexual abstinence is the sole domain of sex outside of marriage. Paul writes about it in 1 Corinthians 7:5 - "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
"I would love for my future children to be the Nobel prize winners of the world; but should they end up making porn flicks, there's worse things they could be doing."
Like what??
Why should you stop looking at porn? It may seem like a strange thing to you, but consider this: every time you look at porn you are objectifying the participants and gratifying your lust at the expense of the person's humanity. Basically, when you look at porn you are looking at it for your own gratification and you aren't considering the other person at all.
I believe that porn is quite damaging - both to the party being objectified and to the party doing the objectifying.
I also believe that porn isn't real, it's just a poor imitation of intimacy and love. You will never get any intimacy and you endanger your intimacy with those you love if you are a regular viewer of pornography.
Christians beleive that pornography is wrong. Jesus states that "Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are good, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are bad, your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness" in Luke 11:33-35. Many Christians wish to obey Jesus and so they try to not look at images that cause them to be full of darkness. Pornography is one of those things.
Also, many Christians find that they are hooked on pornography (and I suspect that it's not just Christians too!). They might find this tool very useful - in fact many Christians are already in groups where they voluntarily become accountable to group members. This software would help assist in their accountability.
For the record, I'm a Christian, and also at the place I am living at the moment we've installed a caching proxy that filters on various things. I don't administer it, it's too tempting.
Oh, hello? Salem? come on off it! you don't have to install this software and nobody can MAKE you install the software.
1. Shame, well that's one aspect of it. You know, the reason people are installing the software is because they are ashamed of viewing pornography, they aren't ashamed that someone is catching out them in the act. And remember, you install this software voluntarily.
2. You submit the logs of sites to people you choose, not to people you don't know and don't trust. Authority by majority... did you even read how the software is used?
3. Your post is pressure based on raging fears and mass histeria. "Welcome to Salem, MA 1692".
Actually, my crowning acheivement was running a 2.2.19 linux install running as a:
* dial-up gateway (thus ran the firewall)
* dhcp server
* cacheing DNS server
I ran a Pentium 166 with 16MB RAM. Never skipped a beat. That is until I attempted to upgrade it to RedHat 7.2 and literally smoked it.
You're daughter HAS to be on the Internet to learn about breast cancer? If she is concerned, then there are plenty of pamphlets you can get from her doctor's practice.
Plenty of people get by everyday without actually needing to use the Internet!
I don't know about you, but I think that most of Australia doesn't want extreme sexual material getting through to our youngsters.
Perhaps you aught to look at the SMH's editorial on Internet pornography:
From the SMH, http://www.smh.com.au (rest of article follows)
A fairly good argument, don't you think?
Rest of article follows:
Actually, the very nature of text is great for configuration purposes. Not much can go wrong with a text editor (how many times have you had your vi session corrupt a file? I've never had this problem!!!). Now think about the complexity of using a database... yep, then you've got the Windows registry.
As for your assertion that XML is just creating data that both machines and humans have to strain to understand, I disagree. I can understand XML without a problem and the xml2 libraries that are available don't appear to have a problem either!
Another thing - constrained devices should use what is best for a constrained space. This does not necessarily mean that this is the best way for all devices!