people go to see stars do their thing. They go to games/theater to see the action hero or the home run king do their thing. The business sees it as "advertising". The big paycheck makes people interested in them, makes the seats fill up and the business money.
Remember, the entertainment business has lots of people making $20k per year taking tickets, setting up lighting, running cameras, etc. everybody wants their "big score" so they work for less to get a chance to be near the stars.
You have a point. It should be possible now to plan a fly-by mission that would have people. We've sent ships to mars and returned them to earth, it just takes about 3 years. At that point you just have to get a ship off the ground to orbit then pick them up on the fly-by.
I think we need a moon base first as rockets launched would be cheaper, as well as Solar bases just outside Earth orbit but spaced 90 days apart. That way missions can link to those locations for emergencies and communications. Make it so that Earth visits the bases and acts as the resupply vehicle.
NASA is like the peak of the military-conservative-fascist pyramid. I doubt they even think of such things other than "deal with it". The current astronauts are really messed up (but brilliant). Nasa doesn't allow sex between mission mates, but keeps people away from their families for months at a time... the divorce rate for astronauts is huge. Witness the recent cheating/stalker incident, that's the result of NASA's "planning" for such things at home. I wouldn't expect a long term mission to be much better.
He's looking at it from the perspective of ants in a colony. There are plenty of people, but only a few get to discover new places to go for the whole human race. As long as each step was planned so nobody after you chickened out then each person could complete a year of work knowing it would help the next person(s) get a little farther each time. Much like an ant searches for food knowing that even if it gets stepped on, more ants will follow it's trail up and the colony will get the supplies.
I think if you had a series of 1 year missions (maybe extra supply trips unmanned) and sent only 1 or 2 people each time plus supplies you might not actually lose anybody even though they couldn't come home. In 5 or 10 years you could send enough supplies and robots to assemble a method home. But the idea is that it would be one-way for the first few years and some people WILL die simply from accident or sickness and having no way to help them even if they do manage to get supplies for the time.
really, how nice to let him keep $7500. Most divorced dads would like to keep that much money after they divorce but the state takes it... or how about that kid with the joint when they take the last $100 as "criminal proceeds" so he can't make bail.
Remember boys and girls.. steal BIG! Then you don't go to jail.
the difference is in how the kernel project uses the "GPL only" flag versus actual legality.
It's perfectly legal for NDIS to be GPL because all of the code they provide is open. That's the legal standard. That the USER loads non-GPL modules at runtime is a known loophole.
Lots of other projects use GPL for the same thing... Console emulators, word processing programs that read binary.docs, and so on. As NDIS doesn't DISTRIBUTE the program WITH the windows drivers (they don't own that code) it's perfectly fine for their "emulator" to be GPL same as an emulator for a Nintendo NES system.
Linus Uses the flag for people like Nvidia who it's NOT OK to use the GPL for their drivers because they own and distribute the binary code AND the wrapper in the same package. It's not legal for them to claim to be GPL. But in this case NDIS is only liable for the part they distribute and the user is responsible for how the program is used on the system. The license is fine it's just Linus is assuming that a "license flag" will cover all the programming options (so they can deny support) when that's not the case.
in that case perhaps the home DSL/router/wireless box needs to get smarter. It's still the one interface between networks. It's a small enough job one mini server could do it... say the size of an Apple TV (Core processor + ram). That could protect the DSL and Wireless from Intrusion, protect the upside network from machines at your house, and protect individual machines from each other. If you include quick and simple scanners for the clients connected, then you'd have a very good chance to stop botnets.
The issue with this situation is control. Who gets to be the boss of this box and who keeps them in line from using that position as gatekeeper to take extra profit. The telco would love to be in charge, but they'll limit what your home network can do between each other or on the internet just out of spite. The security company could be in charge of pushing updates to these, but again, both the customer and the ISP get mad if the security company doesn't follow their agenda. The customer doesn't know enough to maintain their own edge box in such a hostile environment... that's why they need them in the first place.
Technically you still need AV somewhere on the inbound pipe, otherwise you will "harbor" viruses. Sure you won't run them, but if you download something infected to the windows partition, it will still get the virus, and infect files it creates, even though moving the files to the Linux or Mac box won't cause trouble for you.
I learned my lesson the hard way when I was running a non-PC server that hosted windows files. If the volume is mounted in windows it can get infected files on it... if it's a server then it can re-infect your other machines after you clean them. Unless you have scanning on the files going in and out, you're wide open to problems.
Then the idiots would have gotten stronger solvent... What funnier is that the low-paid fix-it workers wouldn't recognize something like a famous halo character or question the autographs.
roads are a good example. Google and such were pushed out of local telco "towns" long ago and forced to stake a claim out along the interstate. Well now they are huge "cities" with lots of traffic because 100% of the people "driving" to Google don't live in Google town. That's huge amounts of congestion getting onto that interstate that isn't big enough to handle the traffic. Google is putting up money to maintain it's end quite well, the "towns" don't want to.. but want to charge people to drive on Google' part of the highway from their town.
What Sun is saying is that the "towns" where people live need to get Google to put branches in their town. Then they can use local roads to get to Google services. That reduces the need for massive pipes and evens out the traffic to manageable levels. The telcos pushed out compaines like Google to fend for themselves and now those pushed out have all the destinations... the telcos are stuck with cheap "bedroom" towns where nobody wants to pay for roads. They need to get big providers ON their internal networks so that traffic doesn't go outside and traffic comes in smaller amounts from other "towns" directly rather than the one big highway.
but if they host part of the big sites, then that "bandwidth" is just extra hardware.
The telcos have purposefully split the internet for years into "us"(customers) versus "them"(content) when the Internet is supposed to be a network of peers. They disable or eliminate nearly all content provision on their networks from little people and have driven corporate accounts away along time ago. Now they want to tax large content providers that already pay to put their stuff in the tubes once... because the telcos don't have an equal amount of stuff to share back to networks like Yahoo or Google.
Because they have nothing to "give" the rest of the Internet most telco based ISPs are 100% leachers. It breaks the bandwidth peering because they have chosen to not equip their networks to provide to the Internet an equal amount of content to what their users consume. Telcos are still trying to "pay per transaction" like with phone service instead of building out the networks to support a balanced Internet and providing the service of networking to BOTH sides. Ideally people should pay for speed of service to improve the equipment as you should be putting email and pictures in the tubes on one side.. and google putting results and web pages in from the other side and they should balance leaving everybody supporting their local hardware provider.
Microsoft & AT&T has also wanted this... that's how they'll "fix" things like spam, porn, competition, etc. What everybody really wants is a pay-per-connection system like the phone system. The commie geeks at MIT and DARPA pulled a big one over building a fault-resistant, uncontrolled, re-routeable open spec network in the name of "national security"... it's the last time corporations will let that happen.
unless you went back to having only registered copyrights with the really long term and automatic copyrights were for much shorter and couldn't be converted. Remember before 1976 you had to submit a work to the Library of Congress to get it officially copyrighted and pay some money.. perhaps we could go back to that.
I think he should check to see if there is kitten-auth for GDM login screens... she'd get a kick out of that.
I find the whole thing cute, this is obviously a young person posting... if younger sister is just 7, then the poster can't be more than 16 or so... what the Parents want, they'll get. The younger child is UNDER 7.. so yes, they need monitoring software if the machine is just for their use. Obviously, the younger sister has demonstrated that she uses good sense and if she's using Debian, the worry over unsolicited pop-ups, spy ware, etc. is greatly diminished so the parent-ware isn't really needed. I'm sure big brother (no pun intended) would have the root password to help her out with problems or if parents need in.
The same issue applies to older non-computer users as well as kids that abstract passwords are hard to guess.. it can't just be written down... or little kid will get in to her room, find the password, and mess with her stuff!! Little girls have priorities after all. So the question remains how to make a login scheme that doesn't use complex passwords but something else... and is it good enough for a kid to use.
That is valid innovation! What the system is all about. If you make widgets with 20 steps, and I can make the same widget in 10, I have improved the efficiency and should get my own patent! The trouble with Software is that the RESULT is patented (like making A pie, or driving to the grocery store) there are multiple ways to accomplish the same goal.
The best example of how the patent office should work are mousetraps. There are thousands of mouse catching devices of all shapes and sizes and methods patented. If it was software there would be just 1... "process to catch a mouse" and it would be broad and vague about catching a mouse with a spring or a box or bait and leaving it live or dead... Copyrighted software "binaries" added to a patent makes it just a "magic box" which is strictly not allowed under normal conditions. Patents like those for mousetraps vary by small amounts or wildly different. Something like "1-click" without firm examples of OS, network, machine, and UI is like patenting a brown cardboard box with a hole and saying it covers all mousse-catching purposes.
ordinary satellites are registered with astronomers so they don't mistake them for new objects. It's simply comparing the object you see to the object's orbit and if it's not on the list, it's probably "secret" and left OFF the list on purpose. The better idea would be to make sure all of them are on a list and published under non-interesting names. By trying to hide them, it just makes people look harder.
you have a point. IBM was targeted right after AT&T was successfully broken up. They pretty much had to let Microsoft have the PC industry or they would have been lost the anti-trust case. It's probably the thing that saved them as the industry changed and new kids were taking over the markets. The EU is starting to treat Microsoft like IBM was treated, but it's not the same.
I'd venture the company he stole info from didn't have proper security logs, didn't maintain them, etc. so they aren't presentable in court or they'd have thrown the book at him already. Like a bank that erased the security footage and let the cleaning crew polish away the fingerprints before counting the money to find it missing.... if the wronged party destroyed the evidence, however unknowingly, they just lost their own case.
exactly, although if they had a case against him for hacking, it would seem they would have used that already as a slam-dunk case. I think you have a situation where they "know" you stole money from the bank, but didn't have proper guards, or even accounting to PROVE you stole the money within a reasonable time... just that it came up missing and you happen to have it. If that happened at a bank the managers would be fried... in a company SOX is supposed to ensure you implement these policies for computer security... obviously they didn't do that or they'd have the evidence to convict him.. merely having the info isn't enough if they don't have logs, ect to prove when and where he hacked from.
First, "your standard is not the standard". To that I have to say that there is a "village" responsibility to not put certain stuff "in reach of children". We ban cigarette machines and card for alcohol because while it's legal, we want ADULTS to be held accountable not to let that get to kids... we all agree kids shouldn't do those things and it's not about adult's freedom.
The porn issue is like that. If more adults would be more responsible to keep it away from children then we wouldn't need to increase censorship on everybody. The adults need to be mature enough to put up well-mended fences. It's the old village idea that I told the shopkeeper my children shouldn't have said item, so as a community member I'd expect my wishes to be honored by ADULTS even if my kids were to sneak to the store for forbidden pleasures. In an automated, online world there need to be some fences. Of course, we also need to stop letting the other side demonize porn so that we don't have to worry about being "dirty" as consenting adults that want to partake.. any more than buying a drink at the bar doesn't make you a drunk driver.
The second part is that kids very young DO understand Sex quite well. They are not adults, they don't understand the complications and consequences, but they do have strong feelings of affection they don't know what to do with and they do want to adapt and mimic what they see around them. By the time I was a fifth grader (pre-internet, all we had was Sears, National Geographic, and encyclopedias) I was looking for any glimpse of T&A I could get to figure out how that stuff worked. Also what about all those girls that are 12 and look and dress like 16.. they can get in a lot of trouble dressing like Brittney in a dark alley, society needs to push to change that.
I think, like the parent, that we've reached a point where companies and the "public" should pay more attention to what things they push and that kids ARE in the audience when they put ED medications on prime time TV, or market "Brittney" style outfits at the junior girls' stores to 10 year olds. Somebody in high enough places at these businesses needs to say "we're not going to do that" and present something more appropriate. It's not censorship, it's professionalism. Realize that kids are out there copying what they see and show in the media how they want THEIR KIDS to act. I don't want "censorship" in terms of the government making laws and rules, but I do want to see companies reign in there marketing drones to be more professional, to maintain a proper public decorum. This is something they should "just do" as good citizens, not be made to do.
As a side note, I rarely have to filter my kids internet. They seem to be very mature about things like porn when the other boys start wanting to look at dirty stuff, they'll tell them to stop. I was impressed. That said, I have no "private" computers at my house, they are all "in the open" and shared, so it's easy to look across the room to see what the kids are saying on their myspace or what games they play. The "shame" of being caught in pubic is enough to keep them from lingering if they happen to stumble where they shouldn't be.
That is the kind of thing that gives porn sites a bad name. Google ranks by traffic and number links, etc. so porn is obviously in high demand, so it bubbles to the top. Unfortunately, it shows up where it's not really wanted. It's good business for the porn industry to want Google to do a better job keeping it OUT of the "honest" searches. It's really the SEO guys putting up "borrowed" pictures for ad revenue that's causing the problem. The honest porn businesses don't engage in SEO so they don't show up where the general public doesn't want them to.
That's their angle.. customer service... and customers don't want their product (porn) advertised to kids, even accidentally. Google is smart enough to weed out the "accidental" porn, but will they put their business in generating ad revenue (from the ad-filled amature sites) second to presenting a "clean" shop to the public.
our version of "copyright" is not the original. Originally, it was the king's Right to Copy works for people to read... the right to publish at all!!! The framers wanted something radical.. allow ANYBODY to publish, but still give them the "state's" protection for a few years to help them out. That was as radical as copyleft is now. The current situation of large corporations using this to restrict others from creating would trouble them.
Slashdot Mirror
people go to see stars do their thing. They go to games/theater to see the action hero or the home run king do their thing. The business sees it as "advertising". The big paycheck makes people interested in them, makes the seats fill up and the business money.
Remember, the entertainment business has lots of people making $20k per year taking tickets, setting up lighting, running cameras, etc. everybody wants their "big score" so they work for less to get a chance to be near the stars.
You have a point. It should be possible now to plan a fly-by mission that would have people. We've sent ships to mars and returned them to earth, it just takes about 3 years. At that point you just have to get a ship off the ground to orbit then pick them up on the fly-by.
I think we need a moon base first as rockets launched would be cheaper, as well as Solar bases just outside Earth orbit but spaced 90 days apart. That way missions can link to those locations for emergencies and communications. Make it so that Earth visits the bases and acts as the resupply vehicle.
NASA is like the peak of the military-conservative-fascist pyramid. I doubt they even think of such things other than "deal with it". The current astronauts are really messed up (but brilliant). Nasa doesn't allow sex between mission mates, but keeps people away from their families for months at a time... the divorce rate for astronauts is huge. Witness the recent cheating/stalker incident, that's the result of NASA's "planning" for such things at home. I wouldn't expect a long term mission to be much better.
What's Mars' IP address again? What's the WoW lag time?
He's looking at it from the perspective of ants in a colony. There are plenty of people, but only a few get to discover new places to go for the whole human race. As long as each step was planned so nobody after you chickened out then each person could complete a year of work knowing it would help the next person(s) get a little farther each time. Much like an ant searches for food knowing that even if it gets stepped on, more ants will follow it's trail up and the colony will get the supplies.
I think if you had a series of 1 year missions (maybe extra supply trips unmanned) and sent only 1 or 2 people each time plus supplies you might not actually lose anybody even though they couldn't come home. In 5 or 10 years you could send enough supplies and robots to assemble a method home. But the idea is that it would be one-way for the first few years and some people WILL die simply from accident or sickness and having no way to help them even if they do manage to get supplies for the time.
really, how nice to let him keep $7500. Most divorced dads would like to keep that much money after they divorce but the state takes it... or how about that kid with the joint when they take the last $100 as "criminal proceeds" so he can't make bail.
Remember boys and girls.. steal BIG! Then you don't go to jail.
the difference is in how the kernel project uses the "GPL only" flag versus actual legality.
.docs, and so on. As NDIS doesn't DISTRIBUTE the program WITH the windows drivers (they don't own that code) it's perfectly fine for their "emulator" to be GPL same as an emulator for a Nintendo NES system.
It's perfectly legal for NDIS to be GPL because all of the code they provide is open. That's the legal standard. That the USER loads non-GPL modules at runtime is a known loophole.
Lots of other projects use GPL for the same thing... Console emulators, word processing programs that read binary
Linus Uses the flag for people like Nvidia who it's NOT OK to use the GPL for their drivers because they own and distribute the binary code AND the wrapper in the same package. It's not legal for them to claim to be GPL. But in this case NDIS is only liable for the part they distribute and the user is responsible for how the program is used on the system. The license is fine it's just Linus is assuming that a "license flag" will cover all the programming options (so they can deny support) when that's not the case.
in that case perhaps the home DSL/router/wireless box needs to get smarter. It's still the one interface between networks. It's a small enough job one mini server could do it... say the size of an Apple TV (Core processor + ram). That could protect the DSL and Wireless from Intrusion, protect the upside network from machines at your house, and protect individual machines from each other. If you include quick and simple scanners for the clients connected, then you'd have a very good chance to stop botnets.
The issue with this situation is control. Who gets to be the boss of this box and who keeps them in line from using that position as gatekeeper to take extra profit. The telco would love to be in charge, but they'll limit what your home network can do between each other or on the internet just out of spite. The security company could be in charge of pushing updates to these, but again, both the customer and the ISP get mad if the security company doesn't follow their agenda. The customer doesn't know enough to maintain their own edge box in such a hostile environment... that's why they need them in the first place.
Technically you still need AV somewhere on the inbound pipe, otherwise you will "harbor" viruses. Sure you won't run them, but if you download something infected to the windows partition, it will still get the virus, and infect files it creates, even though moving the files to the Linux or Mac box won't cause trouble for you.
I learned my lesson the hard way when I was running a non-PC server that hosted windows files. If the volume is mounted in windows it can get infected files on it... if it's a server then it can re-infect your other machines after you clean them. Unless you have scanning on the files going in and out, you're wide open to problems.
You'd think she could have replaced the workers with robots. They eat less and don't complain.
ducks...
Then the idiots would have gotten stronger solvent... What funnier is that the low-paid fix-it workers wouldn't recognize something like a famous halo character or question the autographs.
roads are a good example. Google and such were pushed out of local telco "towns" long ago and forced to stake a claim out along the interstate. Well now they are huge "cities" with lots of traffic because 100% of the people "driving" to Google don't live in Google town. That's huge amounts of congestion getting onto that interstate that isn't big enough to handle the traffic. Google is putting up money to maintain it's end quite well, the "towns" don't want to.. but want to charge people to drive on Google' part of the highway from their town.
What Sun is saying is that the "towns" where people live need to get Google to put branches in their town. Then they can use local roads to get to Google services. That reduces the need for massive pipes and evens out the traffic to manageable levels. The telcos pushed out compaines like Google to fend for themselves and now those pushed out have all the destinations... the telcos are stuck with cheap "bedroom" towns where nobody wants to pay for roads. They need to get big providers ON their internal networks so that traffic doesn't go outside and traffic comes in smaller amounts from other "towns" directly rather than the one big highway.
but if they host part of the big sites, then that "bandwidth" is just extra hardware.
The telcos have purposefully split the internet for years into "us"(customers) versus "them"(content) when the Internet is supposed to be a network of peers. They disable or eliminate nearly all content provision on their networks from little people and have driven corporate accounts away along time ago. Now they want to tax large content providers that already pay to put their stuff in the tubes once... because the telcos don't have an equal amount of stuff to share back to networks like Yahoo or Google.
Because they have nothing to "give" the rest of the Internet most telco based ISPs are 100% leachers. It breaks the bandwidth peering because they have chosen to not equip their networks to provide to the Internet an equal amount of content to what their users consume. Telcos are still trying to "pay per transaction" like with phone service instead of building out the networks to support a balanced Internet and providing the service of networking to BOTH sides. Ideally people should pay for speed of service to improve the equipment as you should be putting email and pictures in the tubes on one side.. and google putting results and web pages in from the other side and they should balance leaving everybody supporting their local hardware provider.
Microsoft & AT&T has also wanted this... that's how they'll "fix" things like spam, porn, competition, etc. What everybody really wants is a pay-per-connection system like the phone system. The commie geeks at MIT and DARPA pulled a big one over building a fault-resistant, uncontrolled, re-routeable open spec network in the name of "national security"... it's the last time corporations will let that happen.
unless you went back to having only registered copyrights with the really long term and automatic copyrights were for much shorter and couldn't be converted. Remember before 1976 you had to submit a work to the Library of Congress to get it officially copyrighted and pay some money.. perhaps we could go back to that.
Where was this guy in the SCO case!
I think he should check to see if there is kitten-auth for GDM login screens... she'd get a kick out of that.
.. so yes, they need monitoring software if the machine is just for their use. Obviously, the younger sister has demonstrated that she uses good sense and if she's using Debian, the worry over unsolicited pop-ups, spy ware, etc. is greatly diminished so the parent-ware isn't really needed. I'm sure big brother (no pun intended) would have the root password to help her out with problems or if parents need in.
I find the whole thing cute, this is obviously a young person posting... if younger sister is just 7, then the poster can't be more than 16 or so... what the Parents want, they'll get. The younger child is UNDER 7
The same issue applies to older non-computer users as well as kids that abstract passwords are hard to guess.. it can't just be written down... or little kid will get in to her room, find the password, and mess with her stuff!! Little girls have priorities after all. So the question remains how to make a login scheme that doesn't use complex passwords but something else... and is it good enough for a kid to use.
That is valid innovation! What the system is all about. If you make widgets with 20 steps, and I can make the same widget in 10, I have improved the efficiency and should get my own patent! The trouble with Software is that the RESULT is patented (like making A pie, or driving to the grocery store) there are multiple ways to accomplish the same goal.
The best example of how the patent office should work are mousetraps. There are thousands of mouse catching devices of all shapes and sizes and methods patented. If it was software there would be just 1... "process to catch a mouse" and it would be broad and vague about catching a mouse with a spring or a box or bait and leaving it live or dead... Copyrighted software "binaries" added to a patent makes it just a "magic box" which is strictly not allowed under normal conditions. Patents like those for mousetraps vary by small amounts or wildly different. Something like "1-click" without firm examples of OS, network, machine, and UI is like patenting a brown cardboard box with a hole and saying it covers all mousse-catching purposes.
ordinary satellites are registered with astronomers so they don't mistake them for new objects. It's simply comparing the object you see to the object's orbit and if it's not on the list, it's probably "secret" and left OFF the list on purpose. The better idea would be to make sure all of them are on a list and published under non-interesting names. By trying to hide them, it just makes people look harder.
you have a point. IBM was targeted right after AT&T was successfully broken up. They pretty much had to let Microsoft have the PC industry or they would have been lost the anti-trust case. It's probably the thing that saved them as the industry changed and new kids were taking over the markets. The EU is starting to treat Microsoft like IBM was treated, but it's not the same.
I'd venture the company he stole info from didn't have proper security logs, didn't maintain them, etc. so they aren't presentable in court or they'd have thrown the book at him already. Like a bank that erased the security footage and let the cleaning crew polish away the fingerprints before counting the money to find it missing.... if the wronged party destroyed the evidence, however unknowingly, they just lost their own case.
exactly, although if they had a case against him for hacking, it would seem they would have used that already as a slam-dunk case. I think you have a situation where they "know" you stole money from the bank, but didn't have proper guards, or even accounting to PROVE you stole the money within a reasonable time... just that it came up missing and you happen to have it. If that happened at a bank the managers would be fried... in a company SOX is supposed to ensure you implement these policies for computer security... obviously they didn't do that or they'd have the evidence to convict him.. merely having the info isn't enough if they don't have logs, ect to prove when and where he hacked from.
two problems:
First, "your standard is not the standard". To that I have to say that there is a "village" responsibility to not put certain stuff "in reach of children". We ban cigarette machines and card for alcohol because while it's legal, we want ADULTS to be held accountable not to let that get to kids... we all agree kids shouldn't do those things and it's not about adult's freedom.
The porn issue is like that. If more adults would be more responsible to keep it away from children then we wouldn't need to increase censorship on everybody. The adults need to be mature enough to put up well-mended fences. It's the old village idea that I told the shopkeeper my children shouldn't have said item, so as a community member I'd expect my wishes to be honored by ADULTS even if my kids were to sneak to the store for forbidden pleasures. In an automated, online world there need to be some fences. Of course, we also need to stop letting the other side demonize porn so that we don't have to worry about being "dirty" as consenting adults that want to partake.. any more than buying a drink at the bar doesn't make you a drunk driver.
The second part is that kids very young DO understand Sex quite well. They are not adults, they don't understand the complications and consequences, but they do have strong feelings of affection they don't know what to do with and they do want to adapt and mimic what they see around them. By the time I was a fifth grader (pre-internet, all we had was Sears, National Geographic, and encyclopedias) I was looking for any glimpse of T&A I could get to figure out how that stuff worked. Also what about all those girls that are 12 and look and dress like 16.. they can get in a lot of trouble dressing like Brittney in a dark alley, society needs to push to change that.
I think, like the parent, that we've reached a point where companies and the "public" should pay more attention to what things they push and that kids ARE in the audience when they put ED medications on prime time TV, or market "Brittney" style outfits at the junior girls' stores to 10 year olds. Somebody in high enough places at these businesses needs to say "we're not going to do that" and present something more appropriate. It's not censorship, it's professionalism. Realize that kids are out there copying what they see and show in the media how they want THEIR KIDS to act. I don't want "censorship" in terms of the government making laws and rules, but I do want to see companies reign in there marketing drones to be more professional, to maintain a proper public decorum. This is something they should "just do" as good citizens, not be made to do.
As a side note, I rarely have to filter my kids internet. They seem to be very mature about things like porn when the other boys start wanting to look at dirty stuff, they'll tell them to stop. I was impressed. That said, I have no "private" computers at my house, they are all "in the open" and shared, so it's easy to look across the room to see what the kids are saying on their myspace or what games they play. The "shame" of being caught in pubic is enough to keep them from lingering if they happen to stumble where they shouldn't be.
That is the kind of thing that gives porn sites a bad name. Google ranks by traffic and number links, etc. so porn is obviously in high demand, so it bubbles to the top. Unfortunately, it shows up where it's not really wanted. It's good business for the porn industry to want Google to do a better job keeping it OUT of the "honest" searches. It's really the SEO guys putting up "borrowed" pictures for ad revenue that's causing the problem. The honest porn businesses don't engage in SEO so they don't show up where the general public doesn't want them to.
That's their angle.. customer service... and customers don't want their product (porn) advertised to kids, even accidentally. Google is smart enough to weed out the "accidental" porn, but will they put their business in generating ad revenue (from the ad-filled amature sites) second to presenting a "clean" shop to the public.
our version of "copyright" is not the original. Originally, it was the king's Right to Copy works for people to read... the right to publish at all!!! The framers wanted something radical.. allow ANYBODY to publish, but still give them the "state's" protection for a few years to help them out. That was as radical as copyleft is now. The current situation of large corporations using this to restrict others from creating would trouble them.