BSA represents that the information in this notification is accurate and states, under penalty of perjury, that it is authorized to act in this matter on behalf of the copyright owners listed above. (emphasis mine)
They're only stating that they're authorized to act. They are not asserting that their accusations of piracy are correct. They probably really are authorized to act.
The music industry is in a tailspin with global sales of CDs expected to fall six percent in 2003, its fourth consecutive annual decline. A major culprit, industry watchers say, is online piracy.
And all this time, I thought it was because that most of the music that is pumped into the market these days sucked. What was I thinking? I mean, when you think about it, it couldn't be the product that's the problem! That's simply not possible!
Is the money going to distributed for the affected customers.? Do u think they will get their share of the "goodies" ?? when they are the ones who were most affected!!!!
I hate AOL as much as the next guy. But don't forget the bandwidth costs, server storage space, administrative costs, etc associated with having 25% of the incoming email to your system being spam-related.
Who's more affected at that point? Joe Customer or AOL?
Now, having said all that, I have to add: The bobblehead thing would have had me sending out resumes in a heartbeat.
Really? It would have had me shoving its plastic head up its plastic ass and mailing it to the CEO with a note that said something to the effect of-
Dear Mr. CEO:
You got the design all wrong. *This* is more accurate. Please make a note of it for next year. It's these kinds of mistakes that can cost the company its image. As a professional organization, we comport ourselves to the highest level of standards.
I've been reading the comments about this, most of which I agree with. "Flasy this, animated that, the size is annoying" blah blah blah. Comments like "I might actually buy the product if the ad wasn't so big and annoying."
When you think about it it really all boils down to this:
It's not the size that matters. It's how you use it.;-)
No, gang, please - keep this is mind, nobody is trying to cause trouble. You see, there are hundreds of thousands of businesses throughout the world and they all have lots of great purchasing opportunities. As a volunteer group, we just want him to be aware of those purchase opportunties, that's all. We apologize for the inconvenience, but we simply want him to be a well informed, fully 'opted in' consumer.
And to think we provided this useful service to him out of the kindness of our hearts! And now the ingrate has the nerve to piss and moan about this wonderful service we've provided him. You just can't please some people.
Because most of us here love Linux so much that they want to have sex with the penguin and hate Windows/Bill Gates to much that they want to see them f**ked by a penguin, I'm likely going to get flamed or ignored or whatever, but here goes...
The reason is simple. Windows is clearly the most widely used end-user-based O/S. We continue to use Windows on our end-user systems because that's what everyone uses -- especially in the workplace. Linux is not user-friendly so it doesn't make sense to deploy it or any other *nix based system across the workplace because supporting it would be a nightmare to say the least.
Every O/S has its place. Windows belongs on the desktops of the typical users, because that's what typical users can understand (not to mention much more idiot-proof than something more powerful is). It also belongs on our desktops because we need to support those users, communicate with them effectively, develop on them, etc, etc. Pick your flavor of unix/linux and that belongs on the back-end. I wouldn't want to run Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD/whatever on the user's desk any more than I would want to use my Windows Server to power my huge DB that serves 10,000+ users worldwide. It is that need to keep Windows on the desks of users that keeps Windows on my desk.
Personally, I have my windows machines, and I also have a FreeBSD box sitting on my desk (I use both O/S's at home, too). But most of my time is spent on my Windows machines because that's where my work is done.
Don't expect there to be too many of the hottest and coolest games showing up on linux anytime soon, either. There's no market for it -- because only geeky types like us give a rat's rump.
Flame me up -- but you know it's the truth. If you're still unwilling to admit it, I have a stuffed penguin you can perform unspeakable acts on.
But on the other hand, I still find it amusing that these (often drunken fools) tend to find hilarious ways to clense the so-called gene pool.
I say this, remembering the guy who won one year for replacing a blown fuse in his truck with a bullet. Seems to me the bullet got hot and subsequently ignited the gunpowder inside, firing a searing hot piece of lead into his balls, causing him to swerve off a bridge.
I'm not sure I'd call this sort of thing pushing the human experience. I can't imagine that any intelligent non-insane red-blooded male with an I.Q. above sub-terranian levels would try that one out, drunk or sober.
While I hate to see anyone pay the ultimate price due to complete idiocy, that story still makes me laugh my ass off. And it's been a few years.
I would be one of those friendly IT guys who tried to make an equitable purchase of a couple of NAI products.
Granted, we were relatively small (only looking for 600 seats immediate and 1000 seats total in 2 years), but if you do the math, it's still a good chunk of money they eventually lost out on because of their unwillingness to sell their products.
NAI isn't the only company that I've seen try to use these selling tactics. As an IT Director, I've repeatedly tried to work with vendors to get them to sell me a product at a good price while buying in bulk. Few will even budge a little when I try to negotiate a good deal with them.
It makes me wonder where/when they forgot that keeping customers happy is what sells products. In both cases, I ended up saving a ton of money for the company I was working for by going with an open source solution. Suddenly "We don't *do* site licensing. Ever." was no longer a problem.
Whoever came up with the idea of not selling your product when someone is offering to buy it equaling large profits is a total dumbass.
Another instance where NAI lost out is when I was consulting for a company -- was planning on buying 15,000 seats of it's TVD suite over the course of 2 years. They would not negotiate. Therefore, we found another solution.
However, I know many who were never taught the fine art of finding a job.
I think an additional topic that would be of great benefit to highlight would be "How to negotiate your total offer package (i.e. salary, benefits, stock options, joy ride in the company lear jet, etc)" or something to that affect.
But then, I suppose, folks like me, who are studying for their M.B.A. would have to take classes on, "tips and tricks to counter-offer everyone who took RealWorld 101 when they were a freshman."
While I agree with all of the valid points that have already been made (i.e. waste of taxpayer money (given it's a public-funded rather than private funded institution), subdomains should be used (such as law.yourfavoriteuniversity.edu as opposed to www.yourfavoriteuniversitylaw.edu), attempts at protecting trademarks, etc, etc), I think the actual cost should be pointed out.
I know there are less-expensive registering systems out there than the one I use, but I'll use mine as an example. $17/year for each domian. The school owns 300 domains.
$17 * 300 domains = $5100/year that the school shells out to keep it's albeit excessive collection of domains.
I did a quick check of the drexel.edu website and couldn't find any information on student enrollment (but I'll admit, I didn't look that hard). But let's say, just for the sake of arguement, that it's a small school and only has 10,000 students enrolled.
$5,100 / 10,000 students = 51 cents per student per year. divide that by 2 semesters/year (does drexel use the semester or quarter system?) and it works out to just over 25 cents per student per semester (if the students were the ones footing 100% of the bill -- funds most certainly come from other sources such as donations, taxes, etc).
That's a darn small chunk of your tuition. Granted, I can think of a LOT better things to spend $5100/year on.
What if you are an artist and become colour blind?
What if you are a pilot and develop mild epilepsy?
Hell, what if you are a sailor and develop severe sea sickness?
It's bad luck. Life sucks somtimes. You have to get on a deal with it. These days people think the world owes them something, that they have some kind of right to be compensated for really bad things happening.
Is it bad luck if the artist went blind due to paint thinner being splashed into her eyes at work? What if the employer did not supply the artist with appropriate safety supplies to keep it from happening in the first place? Is the artist then a lazy ass because she goes after the employer under the ADA?
Surely the pilot isn't going to develop mild epilepsy due to flying a plane -- unless he experiences an injury while doing so.
The point you fail to see is the injury is due to excessive typing -- doing a work-related task, probably *at* work or at least *doing* work for the company with whom she was employed. While I don't think I have enough information to determine whether or not she's "substantially limited" I do believe that given the information I do have, it *did* seem a little excessive for them to terminate her.
Either way, just because she can't do what she is experienced in any longer doesn't mean she is a lazy oaff for not wanting to change careers. Not only is there a factor of not WANTING to change careers, but most people who are 40+ years old, i would think, would have a hard time finding a new career to sustain themselves.
Try a little sympathy for the person's situation. You're probably in the computer industry, like most of us are. Heaven forbid if you're one of the unlucky of us that gets incredibly crippling carpal tunnel. Maybe if that happens, we can all visit you at McDonald's to tell you how much life sucks.
But then, we probably wouldn't understand.
This is straight out of an Andrea Dworkin book. Can you provide hard data for any of it? Ed Meese couldn't, and he spent years trying.
I've never read Dworkin and haven't heard of Ed Meese. I can, however, give you evidence found from my own research -- which goes beyond a simple google search.
The works cited below are a fraction of works that I have a list of.
1 Allan, K., & Coltrane, S. (1996). Gender displaying television commercials: A comparative study of television commercials in the 1950s and 1980s. Sex roles, 35 (3/4), 185-203.
2 Zillman, D., & Bryant, J. (1984). Effects of massive exposure to pornography. In N. M. Malamuth, & E. Donnerstein (Eds), Pornography and Sexual Aggression (pp. 115-142). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
3 Allen, M., Emmers, T., Gebhardt, L., & Giery, M.A. (1995). Exposure to pornography and acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Communication, 45 (1), 5-26; Saunders, R.M., & Naus, P.J. (1993). The impact of social content and audience factors on responses to sexually explicit vieos. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19 (2), 117-131.
4 Malamuth & McIlwraith (1988). Fantasies and exposure to sexually explicit magazines. Communication Research, 15 (6), 753-771.
5 Garcia, L.T. (1986). Exposures to pornography and attitude about women and rape: A correlative study. AG 22 (1853) 382-383.
6 Zillman & Bryant, (1984). Effects of massive exposure to pornography. In N.M. Malamuth, & E. Donnerstein (Eds), Pornography and Sexual Aggression (pp. 115-142). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
7 National Law Center for Children and Families (1997). NLC summary of "SOB land use" studies.
8 New York Times, 1988.
9 McGaugh, J.L. (1983, February). Preserving the presence of the past. American Psychologist.
Also, to cite Dr. Victor Cline, clinical psychologist at the University of Utah. He identified four stages of viewing pornography following initial exposure are:
Addiction - The desire and need to keep coming back for pornographic images. Escalation - The need for more explicit, rougher, and more deviant images for the same sexual effect. Desensitization - Material once viewed as shocking or taboo is seen as acceptable or commonplace. Acting out - The tendency to perform the behaviors viewed, including exhibitionism, sadistic/masochistic sex, group sex, rape, or sex with minor children.
(Cline, V. (1988). Pornography effects: Empirical and clinical evidence. University of Utah Department of Psychology)
It is the fourth stage at which Cline describes that causes the 5 examples of which i spoke in my original post.
The statistics I've read show that 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 7 boys will be sexually molested before age 18. The typical serial child molester will abuse more than 360 victims over the course of his lifetime, according to Dr. Gene Abel of Emory University.
To cite more specific examples to back my claims:
1 - The way it facilitates child molestation
The LAPD Sexually Exploited Child Unit examined the relationship between extrafamilial (outside the family) child sexual abuse and pornography in their cases over a ten-year period from 1980-89. Pornography was directoy involved in 62% of the cases and actually recovered in 55% of the total cases. As the study's author concludes "Clearly, pornography, wehther it be adult or child pornography is an insidious tool in the hands of pedophilic population... The study merely confirms what detectives have long known: that pornography is a strong factor in the sexual victimization of children." (Ralph W. Bennett, "The Relationship Between Pornography and Extrafamilial Child Sexual Abuse," The bolice Chief, Feb. 1991).
2 - Its relationship to rape and sexual violence
A study by Dr. Marshall of adult sex offenders found that 86% of convicted rapists said they were regular users of pornography, with 57% admitting direct imitation of pornographic scenes they enjoyed in the commission of their rapes (W. Marshall, Use of Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters, and Non-Offenders, 25 Journal of Sex Research 267, 1988.)
The Uniform Crime report of 1990 showed that in the 50yeard period that Oklahoma City eliminated 150 sexually oriented businesses, the rape rate declined over 27%.
3 - Its compulsive or "addictive" nature for many men (and to a lesser extent, women)
(see my afore-mentioned citings of Dr. Victor Cline of the University of Utah)
Also, according to R. Hazlewood, "The Men Who Murdered," in the August 1985 edition of FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, an FBI survey of serial killers found that 81% said that hard-core porn was their "highest sexual interest."
4 - Its direct role in the transmission and encouragement of sexually transmitted diseases by promoting promiscuous sex
I don't think there can be any argument by educated individuals that this claim isn't true -- but there are some sexually oriented businesses that have private booths with "glory holes" in them through which patrons can enjoy anonymous sexual acts with each other. A study conducted in New York (I don't have the material in front of me, so I can't cite the author) shows that such booths are plastered with bodily fluids. Talk about a health risk!
5 - The way it shapes attitudes and values
The institution of the family is undoubtedly the most important institution in the world. It is one of the central pillars in our society. Both families and children (except, of course, in kiddie porn) are nonexistent in the world of porn. Marriage is continually attacked, with the assumption of unfaithfulness with multiple partners. Women are ridiculed, except as objects for sex.
Pornography is an overwhelming public health and safety issue. The link between the use of pornography and child molestation, rape, addiction, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and degrading attitudes and values has been demonstrated in every way possible by law enforcers, clinical experiments, social scientists and real-life experience.
This is perhaps the most appalling of all mis conceptions about pornography. It is an insult to this nation's founding fathers to imply that obscenity and child pornography were included in their efforts to ensure free speech to this country's citizens.
The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect our right to express ourselves freely. Those who eroticize violence and promote pornography have twisted this noble intention to meet their self-serving monetary needs and the sexual appetites of consumers. After analyzing the legal ramifications of pornography, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1957 (Roth v. U.S., 354 U.S. 476) that obscenity was "outside the protection intended for speech and press at the time during which the First Amendment was written."
The First Amendment does not protect slander, false advertising, or perjury. It also does not protect obscenity and child pornography. Obscenity was illegal under libel laws in nearly every state when the First Amendment was ratified.
As far as what classifies XXX? What classifies "porno?"
In the Supreme Court case of Miller v. California, a clear, concise definition of obscenity is given. In layman's terms, obscenity is:
1.Graphic material that is obsessed with sex and/or sexual violence; 2.Material that is obviously offensive; and 3.Material that is lacking in serious value.
Another poster also said "There has NEVER been any evidence to show that pornography actually harms children." (I'm paraphrasing). I say tell that to the 360+ children abused by the average child molester, who has nearly always been influenced by pornography.
The harm of pornography can be seen clearly in five primary areas:
1.The way it facilitates child molestation 2.Its relationship to rape and sexual violence 3.Its compulsive or "addictive" nature for many men (and to a lesser extent, women) 4.Its direct role in the transmission and encouragement of sexually transmitted diseases by promoting promiscuous sex 5.The way it shapes attitudes and values
Other arguments I've read on here include "Pornography is harmless."
Dr. Victor Cline, a clinical psychologist and psychology professor at the University of Utah, has extensively studied pornography users. He has observed a four-step pattern in the development of pornography users.
Actualization, of course, means doing -- acting out. In other words, the pornography user....
1.Becomes addicted, 2.Uses more and more, which is worse and worse, 3.Becomes indifferent to other people, 4.Finally, copies what he has seen.
This may lead to rape and other violent crimes. Pornography consumption is a common character trait among serial murderers and rapists. Violent crimes are more common near pornography areas, and some cities that close pornography outlets have experienced a decrease in rape.
I've also seen people try to say "Pornography is exciting because it is illegal. Allow it and stop the taboo, and people will become bored." Kudos to JonKatz's fallacy.
Thirty years ago, it was possible for people to believe that there would be less demand for pornography if it were legalized. But we now have thirty years experience in many cities with de facto legalization -- not enforcing the laws.
Look at the results.
1.Men (and to a lesser extent, women) become addicted to the material, demanding more and more. 2.The child sexual abuse and rape rates have risen dramatically in the last two decades, as some of these men act out their desires on real victims. 3."Red Light" districts are havens for violence and crime. 4.When pornography addicts become "bored" with one type of pornography, they move on to worse material.
While I agree with another popular argument that "Parents should be responsible for protecting their children," unfortunately while most parents can hardly program their own VCR, their children are quite computer savvy and Internet literate. It's very important to educate parents on the technology age. Unfortunately, most parents can hardly find the time (and resources to spend time with their children, to say the least of learning new things. Ideally this is no excuse, but in today's society, many parents are stuck working multiple jobs just to make ends meet -- and have no time to learn computers.
The safety of home computers can be enhanced with new blocking software packages but even with the software, computer adept parents can't guarantee that their children will always be safe on-line. A child can still be exposed to illegal material at another child's home, at school, or at the local public library.
While I agree that we, the people, must use extreme caution in allowing the government to limit certain content in any sense, it is my humble opinion that there has *-got-* to be point at which those of us who would like to see pornography go aawy and those of you who want it to stay can reach a "happy medium."
How can we possibly reach each other half-way? That would take more legislation, and more people becoming responsible for protecting not just the children, but society as it stands today. I think it will take much brainpower, cooperation, and many many ideas and thoughts to be tossed around to finally come to an agreement. The entire world can't be policied simply by the nature of the Internet. Not every nation will agree with and/or enforce any international legislation ideas. At that point, do we leave it up to our governments to police the isp's, and leave it up to the ISP to make sure content is blocked/limited/whatever?
While I, personally, would like to see it go away 100% -- I don't think it's as easy as "all yes to porn" or "all no to porn." I think it's much more complicated than that. If nothing else, I think there should be some sort of enforcable regulation to make sure children, or anyone else who does not want to "accidentally" come across the material does not have to be subjected to such filth.
At any rate, no ultimate decision would please everyone -- but hopefully a solution can be found to please most of us. It is my hope that we can reach a compromise without compromising our values.
I warn you now that this is quite lengthy, and sites court cases.
As a religious man, as a citizen of a normal community, and as an all-around human being, I am forced to make my own comment on the issue. Will I be flamed? Probably. Do I care? Doubtful. Fortunately, I have some research behind me to substantiate my claim that advocators of pornagraphy merely hide behind the First Amendment and use the word "art" as an excuse for their tendencies, perversions, addictions, or however one might want to describe the situations of those who would choose to frequent such medium (be it on the Internet or otherwise).
If you're religious, the ultimate judge of all people is God. Whatever He says, goes. So, you pick up the Bible, and you see clearly stated in numerous places throuought the Bible that sexual promiscuity is against the will of the Almighty. My specific religion states that sexual romiscuity is a crime above that even of murder. Pornography, to you, promotes such promiscuity and harms the spirit inside all humans. It should be cast off as sin and fought against for the good of all people.
If you're not religious, simply saying "God doesn't approve" is not an explanation that is good enough. Your biggest fears may be the possibility of government officials poking their nose where it doesn't belong. You must turn to the worldly judges to decide what is and isn't acceptable -- and you'll be damned if anyone is going to take away your rights. And to a certain extent, I agree with you.
To go back to the courts? On Obscenity- In the 1973 case of Miller v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that "obscenity" is not protected by the Constitution and may be made illegal by the states or federal government if it meets three tests:
1.The average person, applying contemporary community standards finds the material as a whole is directed toward an unhealthy, abnormal, obsessive, morbid or shameful interest in sex; and 2.The material depicts sexual conduct (ultimate sex acts, masturbation, torture, bondage, sex with animals, excretory functions or lewd exhibition of the genitals) in a patently offensive manner substantially throughout the material. ("Patently" means plainly or obviously.) 3.The material, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
On Child Pornography- The legal status of child pornography is straightforward - visual depictions of children under 18 engaged in sexual conduct are illegal. Congress and all states have passed laws dealing with child pornography, and the Supreme Court upheld them in New York v. Ferber, (1982) and Osborne v. Ohio (1990).
Pornography that is not illegal for sale to adults may be illegal when sold to minors (children under 18). This is called "material harmful to minors" or "variable obscenity."
Indecency- In Ginsberg v. New York, (1988) the U.S. Supreme Court modified its three-part obscenity test to apply to minors.
1.The average person applying contemporary community standards would find that it has a predominate tendency to appeal to the unhealthy or shameful interest of minors in sex. 2.The average person applying contemporary standards would find it patently offensive to adults to make this sexually explicit material available for minors. 3.It lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.
Similar in effect to harmful to minors laws, indecency laws aim to protect children from the harmful effects of pornography. Indecency involves the use of the telephone, radio or broadcast TV to transmit materials inappropriate for children over the airwaves. Indecency has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as "any language or material that depicts or describes in terms patently offensive as measured by [national] contemporary community standards for the [telephone or] broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs." F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation (1978).
While my last example targets specifically radio and TV, I believe it still has merit because porn is even more accessable via the Internet.
I can go on and on citing studies and display much research as to why pornography in any of its forms is bad -- even for the non-religious person. But I figure if you've read this far in my post you're probably bored beyond belief. Perhaps I'll save that for a rebuttal for any flames I might receive . I will say this, however: there have many studies performed, and much reserch put in to the effects of pornagraphy. The vast majority of sex offenders, murderers, etc are known to have frequented pornagraphy. Other studies have shown (which I can site by name upon request) that there is a direct coorilation between pornagraphy and violent crime.
The original message concerning this thread accuses anyone who doesn't want pornagraphy as being uneducated (at least, that is how his point came across to me - be my perception accurate or inaccurate). On the contrary, those of us who would like to see pornography done away with have our reasons. And those reasons are not always easily described. It may be as simple as being against our religion, simply offensive to us, or it might be a little more complex and difficult to talk about. Perhaps one who is an advocate of anti-porn is against it because they once harbored an addiction of porn, and it ultimately destroyed their family (I've known numerous counselors who have described more than one such situation that stemmed *directly* from pornagraphy). The advocacy of sex is more than just taboo -- pornagraphy, promiscuity, and other sexually-explicit monacres are downright offensive to most people. Is the Internet changing that? Probably. Is that bad? I think so.
Slashdot Mirror
HTTP was originally developed between 1989-1991, but didn't take off until there was a useful browser which could display inline images.
Well, DUH. ASCII porn isn't NEARLY as cool as the full-color stuff.
Umm... guys. I think you're reading this wrong:
BSA represents that the information in this notification is accurate and states, under penalty of perjury, that it is authorized to act in this matter on behalf of the copyright owners listed above. (emphasis mine)
They're only stating that they're authorized to act. They are not asserting that their accusations of piracy are correct. They probably really are authorized to act.
The music industry is in a tailspin with global sales of CDs expected to fall six percent in 2003, its fourth consecutive annual decline. A major culprit, industry watchers say, is online piracy.
And all this time, I thought it was because that most of the music that is pumped into the market these days sucked. What was I thinking? I mean, when you think about it, it couldn't be the product that's the problem! That's simply not possible!
Is the money going to distributed for the affected customers.? Do u think they will get their share of the "goodies" ?? when they are the ones who were most affected!!!!
I hate AOL as much as the next guy. But don't forget the bandwidth costs, server storage space, administrative costs, etc associated with having 25% of the incoming email to your system being spam-related.
Who's more affected at that point? Joe Customer or AOL?
Now, having said all that, I have to add: The bobblehead thing would have had me sending out resumes in a heartbeat.
Really? It would have had me shoving its plastic head up its plastic ass and mailing it to the CEO with a note that said something to the effect of-
Dear Mr. CEO:
You got the design all wrong. *This* is more accurate. Please make a note of it for next year. It's these kinds of mistakes that can cost the company its image. As a professional organization, we comport ourselves to the highest level of standards.
Love,
fwoomer.
You don't understand. When you get the KY jelly, you know your about to be fscked.
Your ex-company gave you KY!?!? Lucky bastard. I neither got that kind of warning, nor the added comfort from my fscking.
and the pink slip wasn't even pink. cheap bastards.
God Bless SquidGuard.
I've been reading the comments about this, most of which I agree with. "Flasy this, animated that, the size is annoying" blah blah blah. Comments like "I might actually buy the product if the ad wasn't so big and annoying."
;-)
When you think about it it really all boils down to this:
It's not the size that matters. It's how you use it.
whee!
Now wouldn't it be ironic if all this information was gained from one of his "FIND OUT ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE" messages. ;-)
No, gang, please - keep this is mind, nobody is trying to cause trouble. You see, there are hundreds of thousands of businesses throughout the world and they all have lots of great purchasing opportunities. As a volunteer group, we just want him to be aware of those purchase opportunties, that's all. We apologize for the inconvenience, but we simply want him to be a well informed, fully 'opted in' consumer.
And to think we provided this useful service to him out of the kindness of our hearts! And now the ingrate has the nerve to piss and moan about this wonderful service we've provided him. You just can't please some people.
Tee Hee.
Because most of us here love Linux so much that they want to have sex with the penguin and hate Windows/Bill Gates to much that they want to see them f**ked by a penguin, I'm likely going to get flamed or ignored or whatever, but here goes...
The reason is simple. Windows is clearly the most widely used end-user-based O/S. We continue to use Windows on our end-user systems because that's what everyone uses -- especially in the workplace. Linux is not user-friendly so it doesn't make sense to deploy it or any other *nix based system across the workplace because supporting it would be a nightmare to say the least.
Every O/S has its place. Windows belongs on the desktops of the typical users, because that's what typical users can understand (not to mention much more idiot-proof than something more powerful is). It also belongs on our desktops because we need to support those users, communicate with them effectively, develop on them, etc, etc. Pick your flavor of unix/linux and that belongs on the back-end. I wouldn't want to run Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD/whatever on the user's desk any more than I would want to use my Windows Server to power my huge DB that serves 10,000+ users worldwide. It is that need to keep Windows on the desks of users that keeps Windows on my desk.
Personally, I have my windows machines, and I also have a FreeBSD box sitting on my desk (I use both O/S's at home, too). But most of my time is spent on my Windows machines because that's where my work is done.
Don't expect there to be too many of the hottest and coolest games showing up on linux anytime soon, either. There's no market for it -- because only geeky types like us give a rat's rump.
Flame me up -- but you know it's the truth. If you're still unwilling to admit it, I have a stuffed penguin you can perform unspeakable acts on.
Well said, and I agree with you.
But on the other hand, I still find it amusing that these (often drunken fools) tend to find hilarious ways to clense the so-called gene pool.
I say this, remembering the guy who won one year for replacing a blown fuse in his truck with a bullet. Seems to me the bullet got hot and subsequently ignited the gunpowder inside, firing a searing hot piece of lead into his balls, causing him to swerve off a bridge.
I'm not sure I'd call this sort of thing pushing the human experience. I can't imagine that any intelligent non-insane red-blooded male with an I.Q. above sub-terranian levels would try that one out, drunk or sober.
While I hate to see anyone pay the ultimate price due to complete idiocy, that story still makes me laugh my ass off. And it's been a few years.
except that you forgot to mention that dying because of overindulgance in a Big Mac is a lot more fun than dying due to exposure to anthrax.
And it takes a lot longer. 8oI
-- My sore attempt at humor.
Agreed.
It "cracks" me up so much, I cough so badly I think I'm going to "hack" up a lung.
:-P
My quick two cents:
I would be one of those friendly IT guys who tried to make an equitable purchase of a couple of NAI products.
Granted, we were relatively small (only looking for 600 seats immediate and 1000 seats total in 2 years), but if you do the math, it's still a good chunk of money they eventually lost out on because of their unwillingness to sell their products.
NAI isn't the only company that I've seen try to use these selling tactics. As an IT Director, I've repeatedly tried to work with vendors to get them to sell me a product at a good price while buying in bulk. Few will even budge a little when I try to negotiate a good deal with them.
It makes me wonder where/when they forgot that keeping customers happy is what sells products. In both cases, I ended up saving a ton of money for the company I was working for by going with an open source solution. Suddenly "We don't *do* site licensing. Ever." was no longer a problem.
Whoever came up with the idea of not selling your product when someone is offering to buy it equaling large profits is a total dumbass.
Another instance where NAI lost out is when I was consulting for a company -- was planning on buying 15,000 seats of it's TVD suite over the course of 2 years. They would not negotiate. Therefore, we found another solution.
Stupid asses.
I learned that sort of thing in high school.
However, I know many who were never taught the fine art of finding a job.
I think an additional topic that would be of great benefit to highlight would be "How to negotiate your total offer package (i.e. salary, benefits, stock options, joy ride in the company lear jet, etc)" or something to that affect.
But then, I suppose, folks like me, who are studying for their M.B.A. would have to take classes on, "tips and tricks to counter-offer everyone who took RealWorld 101 when they were a freshman."
.... Which is why I said that I can think of a LOT better things to spend $5100 on. ;-)
While I agree with all of the valid points that have already been made (i.e. waste of taxpayer money (given it's a public-funded rather than private funded institution), subdomains should be used (such as law.yourfavoriteuniversity.edu as opposed to www.yourfavoriteuniversitylaw.edu), attempts at protecting trademarks, etc, etc), I think the actual cost should be pointed out.
I know there are less-expensive registering systems out there than the one I use, but I'll use mine as an example. $17/year for each domian. The school owns 300 domains.
$17 * 300 domains = $5100/year that the school shells out to keep it's albeit excessive collection of domains.
I did a quick check of the drexel.edu website and couldn't find any information on student enrollment (but I'll admit, I didn't look that hard). But let's say, just for the sake of arguement, that it's a small school and only has 10,000 students enrolled.
$5,100 / 10,000 students = 51 cents per student per year. divide that by 2 semesters/year (does drexel use the semester or quarter system?) and it works out to just over 25 cents per student per semester (if the students were the ones footing 100% of the bill -- funds most certainly come from other sources such as donations, taxes, etc).
That's a darn small chunk of your tuition. Granted, I can think of a LOT better things to spend $5100/year on.
Of course, MS will want in on it, too. MSDog(tm) Will have had some "Accesibility Options" added to it and create a seeing-eye dog.
I can see the headlines now. "Blind Man Hit By Bus When Robot Companion 'crashed' While Crossing Street."
In addition, in the spirit of smart tags, MSDog will lead its humble owners into microsoft-funded businesses.
What if you are an artist and become colour blind? What if you are a pilot and develop mild epilepsy? Hell, what if you are a sailor and develop severe sea sickness? It's bad luck. Life sucks somtimes. You have to get on a deal with it. These days people think the world owes them something, that they have some kind of right to be compensated for really bad things happening. Is it bad luck if the artist went blind due to paint thinner being splashed into her eyes at work? What if the employer did not supply the artist with appropriate safety supplies to keep it from happening in the first place? Is the artist then a lazy ass because she goes after the employer under the ADA? Surely the pilot isn't going to develop mild epilepsy due to flying a plane -- unless he experiences an injury while doing so. The point you fail to see is the injury is due to excessive typing -- doing a work-related task, probably *at* work or at least *doing* work for the company with whom she was employed. While I don't think I have enough information to determine whether or not she's "substantially limited" I do believe that given the information I do have, it *did* seem a little excessive for them to terminate her. Either way, just because she can't do what she is experienced in any longer doesn't mean she is a lazy oaff for not wanting to change careers. Not only is there a factor of not WANTING to change careers, but most people who are 40+ years old, i would think, would have a hard time finding a new career to sustain themselves. Try a little sympathy for the person's situation. You're probably in the computer industry, like most of us are. Heaven forbid if you're one of the unlucky of us that gets incredibly crippling carpal tunnel. Maybe if that happens, we can all visit you at McDonald's to tell you how much life sucks. But then, we probably wouldn't understand.
This is straight out of an Andrea Dworkin book. Can you provide hard data for any of it? Ed Meese couldn't, and he spent years trying.
I've never read Dworkin and haven't heard of Ed Meese. I can, however, give you evidence found from my own research -- which goes beyond a simple google search.
The works cited below are a fraction of works that I have a list of.
1 Allan, K., & Coltrane, S. (1996). Gender displaying television commercials: A comparative study of television commercials in the 1950s and 1980s. Sex roles, 35 (3/4), 185-203.
2 Zillman, D., & Bryant, J. (1984). Effects of massive exposure to pornography. In N. M. Malamuth, & E. Donnerstein (Eds), Pornography and Sexual Aggression (pp. 115-142). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
3 Allen, M., Emmers, T., Gebhardt, L., & Giery, M.A. (1995). Exposure to pornography and
acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Communication, 45 (1), 5-26; Saunders, R.M., & Naus, P.J. (1993). The impact of social content and audience factors on responses to sexually explicit vieos. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19 (2), 117-131.
4 Malamuth & McIlwraith (1988). Fantasies and exposure to sexually explicit magazines. Communication Research, 15 (6), 753-771.
5 Garcia, L.T. (1986). Exposures to pornography and attitude about women and rape: A correlative
study. AG 22 (1853) 382-383.
6 Zillman & Bryant, (1984). Effects of massive exposure to pornography. In N.M. Malamuth, & E.
Donnerstein (Eds), Pornography and Sexual Aggression (pp. 115-142). Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
7 National Law Center for Children and Families (1997). NLC summary of "SOB land use" studies.
8 New York Times, 1988.
9 McGaugh, J.L. (1983, February). Preserving the presence of the past. American Psychologist.
Also, to cite Dr. Victor Cline, clinical psychologist at the University of Utah. He identified four stages of viewing pornography following initial exposure are:
Addiction - The desire and need to keep coming back for pornographic images.
Escalation - The need for more explicit, rougher, and more deviant images for the same sexual effect.
Desensitization - Material once viewed as shocking or taboo is seen as acceptable or commonplace.
Acting out - The tendency to perform the behaviors viewed, including exhibitionism, sadistic/masochistic sex, group sex, rape, or sex with minor children.
(Cline, V. (1988). Pornography effects: Empirical and clinical evidence. University of Utah Department of Psychology)
It is the fourth stage at which Cline describes that causes the 5 examples of which i spoke in my original post.
The statistics I've read show that 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 7 boys will be sexually molested before age 18. The typical serial child molester will abuse more than 360 victims over the course of his lifetime, according to Dr. Gene Abel of Emory University.
To cite more specific examples to back my claims:
1 - The way it facilitates child molestation
The LAPD Sexually Exploited Child Unit examined the relationship between extrafamilial (outside the family) child sexual abuse and pornography in their cases over a ten-year period from 1980-89. Pornography was directoy involved in 62% of the cases and actually recovered in 55% of the total cases. As the study's author concludes "Clearly, pornography, wehther it be adult or child pornography is an insidious tool in the hands of pedophilic population... The study merely confirms what detectives have long known: that pornography is a strong factor in the sexual victimization of children." (Ralph W. Bennett, "The Relationship Between Pornography and Extrafamilial Child Sexual Abuse," The bolice Chief, Feb. 1991).
2 - Its relationship to rape and sexual violence
A study by Dr. Marshall of adult sex offenders found that 86% of convicted rapists said they were regular users of pornography, with 57% admitting direct imitation of pornographic scenes they enjoyed in the commission of their rapes (W. Marshall, Use of Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters, and Non-Offenders, 25 Journal of Sex Research 267, 1988.)
The Uniform Crime report of 1990 showed that in the 50yeard period that Oklahoma City eliminated 150 sexually oriented businesses, the rape rate declined over 27%.
3 - Its compulsive or "addictive" nature for many men (and to a lesser extent, women)
(see my afore-mentioned citings of Dr. Victor Cline of the University of Utah)
Also, according to R. Hazlewood, "The Men Who Murdered," in the August 1985 edition of FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, an FBI survey of serial killers found that 81% said that hard-core porn was their "highest sexual interest."
4 - Its direct role in the transmission and encouragement of sexually transmitted diseases by promoting promiscuous sex
I don't think there can be any argument by educated individuals that this claim isn't true -- but there are some sexually oriented businesses that have private booths with "glory holes" in them through which patrons can enjoy anonymous sexual acts with each other. A study conducted in New York (I don't have the material in front of me, so I can't cite the author) shows that such booths are plastered with bodily fluids. Talk about a health risk!
5 - The way it shapes attitudes and values
The institution of the family is undoubtedly the most important institution in the world. It is one of the central pillars in our society. Both families and children (except, of course, in kiddie porn) are nonexistent in the world of porn. Marriage is continually attacked, with the assumption of unfaithfulness with multiple partners. Women are ridiculed, except as objects for sex.
Pornography is an overwhelming public health and safety issue. The link between the use of
pornography and child molestation, rape, addiction, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and degrading attitudes and values has been demonstrated in every way possible by law enforcers, clinical experiments, social scientists and real-life experience.
This is perhaps the most appalling of all mis conceptions about pornography. It is an insult to this nation's founding fathers to imply that obscenity and child pornography were included in their efforts to ensure free speech to this country's citizens.
The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect our right to express ourselves freely. Those who eroticize violence and promote pornography have twisted this noble intention to meet their self-serving monetary needs and the sexual appetites of consumers. After analyzing the legal ramifications of pornography, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1957 (Roth v. U.S., 354 U.S. 476) that obscenity was "outside the protection intended for speech and press at the time during which the First Amendment was written."
The First Amendment does not protect slander, false advertising, or perjury. It also does not protect obscenity and child pornography. Obscenity was illegal under libel laws in nearly every state when the First Amendment was ratified.
As far as what classifies XXX? What classifies "porno?"
In the Supreme Court case of Miller v. California, a clear, concise definition of obscenity is given. In layman's terms, obscenity is:
1.Graphic material that is obsessed with sex and/or sexual violence;
2.Material that is obviously offensive; and
3.Material that is lacking in serious value.
Another poster also said "There has NEVER been any evidence to show that pornography actually harms children." (I'm paraphrasing). I say tell that to the 360+ children abused by the average child molester, who has nearly always been influenced by pornography.
The harm of pornography can be seen clearly in five primary areas:
1.The way it facilitates child molestation
2.Its relationship to rape and sexual violence
3.Its compulsive or "addictive" nature for many men (and to a lesser extent, women)
4.Its direct role in the transmission and encouragement of sexually transmitted diseases by promoting promiscuous sex
5.The way it shapes attitudes and values
Other arguments I've read on here include "Pornography is harmless."
Dr. Victor Cline, a clinical psychologist and psychology professor at the University of Utah, has extensively studied pornography users. He has observed a four-step pattern in the development of pornography users.
1.Addiction
2.Escalation
3.Desensitization
4.Actualization
Actualization, of course, means doing -- acting out. In other words, the pornography user....
1.Becomes addicted,
2.Uses more and more, which is worse and worse,
3.Becomes indifferent to other people,
4.Finally, copies what he has seen.
This may lead to rape and other violent crimes. Pornography consumption is a common character trait among serial murderers and rapists. Violent crimes are more common near pornography areas, and some cities that close pornography outlets have experienced a decrease in rape.
I've also seen people try to say "Pornography is exciting because it is illegal. Allow it and stop the taboo, and people will become bored." Kudos to JonKatz's fallacy.
Thirty years ago, it was possible for people to believe that there would be less demand for pornography if it were legalized. But we now have thirty years experience in many cities with de facto legalization -- not enforcing the laws.
Look at the results.
1.Men (and to a lesser extent, women) become addicted to the material, demanding more and more.
2.The child sexual abuse and rape rates have risen dramatically in the last two decades, as some of these men act out
their desires on real victims.
3."Red Light" districts are havens for violence and crime.
4.When pornography addicts become "bored" with one type of pornography, they move on to worse material.
While I agree with another popular argument that "Parents should be responsible for protecting their children," unfortunately while most parents can hardly program their own VCR, their children are quite computer savvy and Internet literate. It's very important to educate parents on the technology age. Unfortunately, most parents can hardly find the time (and resources to spend time with their children, to say the least of learning new things. Ideally this is no excuse, but in today's society, many parents are stuck working multiple jobs just to make ends meet -- and have no time to learn computers.
The safety of home computers can be enhanced with new blocking software packages but even with the software, computer adept parents can't guarantee that their children will always be safe on-line. A child can still be exposed to illegal material at another child's home, at school, or at the local public library.
While I agree that we, the people, must use extreme caution in allowing the government to limit certain content in any sense, it is my humble opinion that there has *-got-* to be point at which those of us who would like to see pornography go aawy and those of you who want it to stay can reach a "happy medium."
How can we possibly reach each other half-way? That would take more legislation, and more people becoming responsible for protecting not just the children, but society as it stands today. I think it will take much brainpower, cooperation, and many many ideas and thoughts to be tossed around to finally come to an agreement. The entire world can't be policied simply by the nature of the Internet. Not every nation will agree with and/or enforce any international legislation ideas. At that point, do we leave it up to our governments to police the isp's, and leave it up to the ISP to make sure content is blocked/limited/whatever?
While I, personally, would like to see it go away 100% -- I don't think it's as easy as "all yes to porn" or "all no to porn." I think it's much more complicated than that. If nothing else, I think there should be some sort of enforcable regulation to make sure children, or anyone else who does not want to "accidentally" come across the material does not have to be subjected to such filth.
At any rate, no ultimate decision would please everyone -- but hopefully a solution can be found to please most of us. It is my hope that we can reach a compromise without compromising our values.
I warn you now that this is quite lengthy, and sites court cases.
As a religious man, as a citizen of a normal community, and as an all-around human being, I am forced to make my own comment on the issue. Will I be flamed? Probably. Do I care? Doubtful. Fortunately, I have some research behind me to substantiate my claim that advocators of pornagraphy merely hide behind the First Amendment
and use the word "art" as an excuse for their tendencies, perversions, addictions, or however one might want to describe the situations of those who would choose to frequent such medium (be it on the Internet or otherwise).
If you're religious, the ultimate judge of all people is God. Whatever He says, goes. So, you pick up the Bible, and you see clearly stated in numerous places throuought the Bible that sexual promiscuity is against the will of the Almighty. My specific religion states that sexual romiscuity is a crime above that even of murder. Pornography, to you, promotes such promiscuity and harms the spirit inside all humans. It should be cast off as sin and fought against for the good of all people.
If you're not religious, simply saying "God doesn't approve" is not an explanation that is good enough. Your biggest fears may be the possibility of government officials poking their nose where it doesn't belong. You must turn to the worldly judges to decide what is and isn't acceptable -- and you'll be damned if anyone is going to take away your rights. And to a certain
extent, I agree with you.
To go back to the courts?
On Obscenity-
In the 1973 case of Miller v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that "obscenity" is not protected by the Constitution and may be made illegal by the states or federal government if it meets three tests:
1.The average person, applying contemporary community standards finds the material as a
whole is directed toward an unhealthy, abnormal, obsessive, morbid or shameful interest in
sex; and
2.The material depicts sexual conduct (ultimate sex acts, masturbation, torture, bondage, sex with animals, excretory functions or lewd exhibition of the genitals) in a patently offensive manner substantially throughout the material. ("Patently" means plainly or obviously.)
3.The material, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
On Child Pornography-
The legal status of child pornography is straightforward - visual depictions of children under 18 engaged in sexual conduct are illegal. Congress and all states have passed laws dealing with child pornography, and the Supreme Court upheld them in New York v. Ferber, (1982) and Osborne v. Ohio (1990).
Pornography that is not illegal for sale to adults may be illegal when sold to minors (children under 18). This is called "material harmful to minors" or "variable obscenity."
Indecency-
In Ginsberg v. New York, (1988) the U.S. Supreme Court modified its three-part obscenity test to apply to minors.
1.The average person applying contemporary community standards would find that it has a predominate tendency to appeal to the unhealthy or shameful interest of minors in sex.
2.The average person applying contemporary standards would find it patently offensive to adults to make this sexually explicit material available for minors.
3.It lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.
Similar in effect to harmful to minors laws, indecency laws aim to protect children from the harmful effects of pornography. Indecency involves the use of the telephone, radio or broadcast TV to transmit materials inappropriate for children over the airwaves. Indecency has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as "any language or material that depicts or describes in terms patently offensive as measured by [national] contemporary community standards for the [telephone or] broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs." F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation (1978).
While my last example targets specifically radio and TV, I believe it still has merit because porn is even more accessable via the Internet.
I can go on and on citing studies and display much research as to why pornography in any of its forms is bad -- even for the non-religious person. But I figure if you've read this far in my post you're probably bored beyond belief. Perhaps I'll save
that for a rebuttal for any flames I might receive . I will say this, however: there have many studies performed, and much reserch put in to the effects of pornagraphy. The vast majority of sex offenders, murderers, etc are known to have frequented pornagraphy. Other studies have shown (which I can site by name upon request) that there is a direct coorilation between pornagraphy and violent crime.
The original message concerning this thread accuses anyone who doesn't want pornagraphy as being uneducated (at least, that is how his point came across to me - be my perception accurate or inaccurate). On the contrary, those of us who would like to see pornography done away with have our reasons. And those reasons are not always easily described. It may be as simple as being against our religion, simply offensive to us, or it might be a little more complex and difficult to talk about. Perhaps one who is an advocate of anti-porn is against it because they once harbored an addiction of porn, and it ultimately destroyed
their family (I've known numerous counselors who have described more than one such situation that stemmed *directly* from pornagraphy). The advocacy of sex is more than just taboo -- pornagraphy, promiscuity, and other sexually-explicit monacres
are downright offensive to most people. Is the Internet changing that? Probably. Is that bad? I think so.