It's worse than that...a sufficiently talented hacker would be able to frame somebody else as the author in a believable way. Effectively, you could author a virus, frame somebody else for it, turn them in, and make a quarter mil on the deal. Triple-plus ungood.
All of which I agree with completely. I was making a specific point, which is that hindsight sometimes reveals that some things have hidden benefits, and that patentability is an extremely iffy issue as it relates to viruses.
Here's a scenario...suppose that (and I have no idea if this is true) in the past, everybody routinely got this virus and cancer rates were pretty low.
Suppose, then, that hygiene started to improve, and the recurrence of viral infection by this particular pathogen dropped off, and cancer rates began to rise.
Suppose, then, that some company figured out that this common, essentially non-harmful virus, killed cancer cells and did little else. Does that mean that the company deserves a patent?
Can the bacteria in my gut be patented as a digestive aid? What if antibiotics are killing some pathogen that prevents alzheimers...if we discover that such a pathogen exists, can we patent that, too?
I agree that this stuff is far from simple, but I don't think that leans things any more towards the patentability of a virus or its use as medicine.
How about "The GPL can't force you to GPL your code because you could always not USE GPLed code in your code". That sounds suspiciously like "another option".
The option to avoid the situation completely is always present. When it comes to deciding whether or not the GPL is enforcable, the issues are whether the terms of the license are fair to competition...hard to see how they're not, since everyone with access to the code gets access to any changes...helps keep the playing field pretty level.
The agreement (GPL) is biased towards individuals and groups who wish to develop software openly and share innovations with others. For a company or individual to use GPL software in a product, and then bitch about the terms of the GPL is highly disingenuous, and if said company has a decent lawyer, they should know damn well what the terms of the GPL are...it's not a long document.
Actually, that would be a simile (comparison of two different things using "like" or "as"). A bad analogy (in this case) would be like saying "The moon has not had its right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater taken away from it", since it is very hard to relate this to a discussion about the GPL without excessive explanation.
Analogous items implies that they are analogues ("That which is analogous to, or corresponds with, some other thing."). Since I didn't see the two situations as corresponding with one another, I noted that it was a bad analogy. Yes, it's my opinion, but hey, this *is* slashdot...I noticed that you seem to have an opinion, too (and I somehow refrained from using the dreaded "t" word).
So I suppose my right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre hasn't been taken from me, I simply agree not to incite a panic in exchange for not getting jail time?
Umm...I doubt many people would stand a chance of being trampled to death because of a GPL violation. At least come up with a good analogy...
The GPL is a legal 'try-on' and seeks to enforce, contractually, a situation by which 3rd parties would be disadvantaged. It's a clever attempt to extend the scope of an original contract (between the original developer(s) and the first adapting developer) to all subsequent developers of that code.
Insightful, except that it doesn't do that. It is an application of copyright law that lets others use copyrighted material in exchange for something. That something, in this case, is the return of improvements to the material to the copyright holder. It's not "piggy-backing" any more than an arrangement where others are required to pay a fee to the copyright holder in order to make use of the material.
Spouting off about the "viral" nature of GLP'ed software may be in vogue, but that doesn't make it correct...several generations of programmers are not locked into anything with the original developer...they are free to develop other software that does exactly the same thing as long as they don't infringe on the original author's copyright. They can even look at the code, see how it works, pick it apart, and use it for ideas to create something better, provided they don't steal from it.
It seems a waste to mod an AC posting as troll, but it seems appropriate here.
Nothing about those rules are bizarre, antiquated, or wacky. The world's main religions have quite a bit of overlap and share many concepts. Why because learned over time what made a healthy society. What is happening across the globe, and particularly in Western society is not healthy in any way shape or form.
Plenty of them are antiquated. You ever have bacon or sausage?
Many of the worlds religions do have overlap, and many seem to stem from a single source. The fact that a number of religious rules that promote public health are a tribute to intelligent leadership of the time, and they have survived because they work. What has happened over the past 100 years is a rapid advancement in medical technology that has allowed the physically safe circumvention of many of these rules...someday that statement will probably read "all of these rules".
A person should *not* be allowed to do whatever they want, and I'll agree that a lot of people seem to have that opinion. I find it hard to understand how you would even *define* a victimless crime...if there's no victim, what is the crime? Isn't a crime an offense against a person or group of people aside from yourself that harms them, or deprives them of something that belongs to them?
We *are* smarter than our predecessors of 100 years ago and 1000 years ago, in terms of what we know about disease and its causes. You may be right that our overestimation of this knowledge could cause our downfall, but then again, it could just as well change the rules by which we may safely live.
I've just decided for certain that I'm going to friend you...I thought about it after your last post, but now I'm certain.
That's a fair counter-claim. Not one I subscribe to, but fair, nonetheless. Both positions are leaps of faith, I make the assumption that Good is defined as the Will of God (and as Christian, I further assert that Jesus Christ is the revelation of that Will), while your statement above makes the assumption that morality is a shared agreement. That former is the standard religious claim and the latter is the standard humanistic claim. Both have reasonable logic but flow from very different assumptions.
An interesting note here is that even your assumption that good is defined as the will of god is based on a shared agreement...there are a number of different shared agreements on that very topic, as I'm sure you know. My basic beliefs (aside from some sex/nudity-related issues and a specific one about alcohol and marijuana) are pretty much in line with all of the major religions that I'm aware of. I think that generally speaking, people have views on good and bad that are basically the same, regardless of their religious background or upbringing (although some do bad things anyway).
I won't hold you getting irritated against you (hey, I've been there), and I'm glad to be getting to know you.
Seconded...if you want to simplify it a lot, just use Coyote Linux (although it's not nearly as flexible as a modern LEAF distro like Bering, it's really easy to make go). LEAF is good.
Whether or not you do something doesn't make it immoral or moral, but it could be argued that what a *majority* of people do without guilty conscience is moral...that's where morals come from, when not suggested or demanded by one's spiritual beliefs or parents.
Your stance on porn, history of watching it, and prudish or non-prudish tendencies don't change the fact that your comments have a particular *feel* to them, and you speak well enough to understand how they must appear to others reading here, regardless of whether their interpretation is technically correct.
I think I've demonstrated (a few posts back) that I won't try to put words in your mouth, and will correct myself when it's pointed out that I have done so, but I want to quibble on one statement you just made.
Yes, there is an element of immorality to watching people harm, endanger, or otherwise devalue themselves for pleasure in any context.
Had that read "Yes, I think there is...", I wouldn't have a problem with that statement (and I almost feel that you argue a little bit the same way I do...sometimes for the sake of bringing a logical alternative to a popular viewpoint).
So, Tom...I don't believe you are a prudish twit, but you are getting a bit more irritated than I would expect from someone as seemingly well-spoken and thoughtful as you appear to be.
What's your point? Success is defined in comparison to those near you, so most people in capitalist America feel average...some feel screwed, some feel well-off. Most of us are *still* better off than large percentages of the population in other countries.
I'm not a young, tall, white guy, and I have probably less talent for acting sincere about something when I'm not, but I do all right. He makes money off of making people think they can do better by having a good attitude (please...come ON), and I make mine by being reasonably smart and dicking around with computers.
People fail to understand that without some sort of ability, talent, or skill at something, herculean effort seldom means success in a monetary sense. Looking good isn't what I consider an ability, but apparently, it works for a lot of people, so does being good with numbers, computers, cars, or scalpels.
Rags to riches stories almost always include some brilliant or overlooked idea that the individual in question capitalized on. The reason they get told is that people like to hear that it's possible, even if they know deep down that they're not going to be the ones in the next story.
Maybe not a monopoly, but if they have a 15% stake in a company that they "happen" to redirect tyops to via some "service", that looks like unfair competition to me. Does sound like an attempted end-run around the part of what they did that could realistically hurt them, though...this is WAY too sudden to be conincidence. Oh, yeah "IANAL".
Given that they saw fireballs (not level 1 baddies), I think they were asking why the levels all look the same...If I was used to going someplace new after I won part of a game, I might not understand why I ended up back at the same place again...
I guess I made an assumption that you thought pornography was immoral, and I incorrectly made a second assumption that it had something to do with the "tool of pleasure" comment (hence my question about it's enjoyability making it immoral).
That said, I disagree with your view that pornography does anything at the expense of others. I can understand that based on that view you think that pornography is morally wrong. My view is that pornography is a form of entertainment that involves sex and/or nudity. I don't see that viewing sexual acts or nudity of others is done at their expense any more than viewing a movie of a more mainstream sort is done at the expense of the actors.
The individuals taking part in the pornography are typically either professionals or exhibitionists, and in neither case do I feel that me seeing them "get it on" is morally wrong. If they want me to be able to see it for kicks or for money, then I don't feel the objectification involved is wrong. In the case of porn where people are involved unwillingly, there is a crime being committed, and it has little to do with whether porn is moral or not...forcing someone to do something against their will is typically wrong.
I'm not deluding myself any more than you are, I just see things slightly differently.
It may not be about "treating the other person like a tool for your pleasure", but I read it a lot different than you. I inferred that the poster had enjoyable sex with his partner, and she did as well. Sex is supposed to be enjoyable, right? Pornography is no more immoral than a documentary about growing trees. People have sex. They do it different ways. Many (most?) people enjoy watching it to a certain extent. Is it immoral because it's enjoyable, or for some other reason?
Ahh, the old "this is a fact, dumb ass" argument. I concede. Wookies *always* win.
We are talking about censorship, and the issue here is where the responsibility for protecting our children lies. I was always taught that parents teach their kids right and wrong. The government of the United States of America is *not* and never will be my children's parents. There are ample technological solutions that everyone can put into place (like the lock I have on my 2 and 4 year olds' PC that limits them to sites on disney.go.com), many of which come built-in. I decided to limit what my kids saw based on *my* rules.
My arguments about right and wrong and damage, etc. were not to demonstrate a point of view that I think my kids should be watching hot sex at age 4, but that I am perfectly capable of keeping them from doing so (and telling them *why*) myself.
If you're not of age, you can't get a hold of porn? I thank my teenage years gone by that's not true. You can't get it directly, but you can still get it.
What kind of relationship problems do they have? For that matter, how does sex relate to relating? What is the age at which such material is non-harmful?
Here's a comparison of two situations involving the same three people, one sexual, and one violent:
Kid sees his dad having sex with his mom
Kid sees his dad beating his mom
The only thing I changed was the act involved, but the likely effect upon the child is different, and one would seem to be (to me, at least) much worse to the child's mind than the other.
I hope that by the time my children are old enough to search for "straw sucking", I have given them enough information to decide whether clicking on the less relevant results is a good idea.
Do you really think that 40 years ago, when the FCC actually (correctly) enforced the spirit instead of the letter of their guidelines and regulations, that we had this same issue? History tells us that this was not the case. (For instance, we know that the average age at which young people lost their virginity was a lot higher, even in the 60's.) So obviously, there is a benefit to having laws and obligations which are properly and sanely written and enforced.
What age did the average person lose their virginity at in the 1860's? Why is a higher average age a goal to strive for? What age are we trying to reach?
We live in a society where pervasive and inscapable media actively undermines the values that a lot of parents are trying to instill in their children, and our incompetent legislators are bumbling about with asinine pieces of legislation like COPPA. So we need whatever small protections we can get.
Well, maybe more like a media that constantly panders to the demonstrated desires of its consumers. It's not the media that's to blame for what you see on TV, it's those who watch said media (you and me) who vote with our remote controls and wallets for crap like "Temptation Island". I have nothing against the bikinis, but the social depravity of the people on those shows is pretty bad. Some of them obviously don't know how to behave around other human beings. I suppose it's kind of like watching a train wreck, and the ghastliness of it all just sucks people in.
Do you really think that *not* restricting things like pop-ups that say "anal sluts fucking dogs live" (complete with pictures of barely covered genitilia) is a good idea because the daytime soap stars can't seem to keep their pants on? I hardly think they're in the same category, as unhealthy a role model as a soap star may be.
I think that restricting *all* pop-ups is a good idea, and I think that "anal sluts fucking dogs live" is probably bad, because there's no way to know if the dog really consents (plus, I'm old fashioned, and I think people should only have sex with other people or inanimate objects). The characters that most soap stars play generally have so many social defects that they would get the crap beat out of them on a daily basis (or end up in jail) in real life. As far as behavior that I want my children emulating, I find both generally unacceptable.
Is there a legitimate reason to provide sexually explicit pornography to adults(in your opinion)? The reason that it's against the law offline is that America has strong puritan roots, and most of us think that it should be bad for kids to observe people having sex, for some reason.
My daughter walked in on me and my wife, once, and I'm pretty sure she didn't see anything, but I was embarrased...I just can't articulate an actual *reason* as to why. She's 4, and at most would have asked what we were doing...an easily answered question, if you don't have a reason to be embarrased.
The question here is why do we think this is bad? I get outraged like everyone else at 14-year olds having babies, and then I (sometimes) remember that 14-year-old brides were not uncommon 100 years ago.
I can remember going to great lengths to see porn when I was a kid (12 or so) with my brother right beside me...looking at the scrambled playboy channel through the wavy lines on the TV...borrowing my uncle's magazines. Today, I know where my kids will go to see the same stuff that I looked for (and still look for, sometimes...boobies). They'll be sneaky and successful, and they'll be the latest in a long line of such perpetrators.
There doesn't have to be a legitimate reason for anything (otherwise, there would never have been a "hamster dance" page), there just has to be a reason for not wanting somebody to see it that makes sense.
No, I am not going to be around my kids every single time they're at the computer, and that's not a problem for me. They understand what their parents find objectionable, and they know that if they get caught looking at something that falls into that category, they'll be in trouble. I don't want government-mandated whatever-sounds-potentially-harmful-today filters or laws because I want myself *and* my kids to have a choice.
A 9-year-old looking at people having sex (yes, even kinky sex) is less disturbing to me than that same 9-year old looking at people killing each other, for example. As far as I know, there are no restrictions on violent content online comparable to those on sexually-explicit material. They're kind of opposites. Sex creates people (and enjoyment, for those involved), and killing does the opposite. Before you rant, know that I'm a Desert Storm veteran who spent 10 years in the Army, and I'm not a pacifist, I just don't want my kids to think that killing a prostitute in GTA is "cool".
If you don't trust your kids enough to let them go to their friends' house and behave, maybe you should put more effort into parenting. They'll find ways to see stuff you don't want them to, and to *do* things you don't want them to (didn't you?). If you do a good job with them, you won't need to worry that seeing a hundred pairs of bouncing naked breasts is going to ruin their lives (although it might dirty some linens).
Slashdot Mirror
It's worse than that...a sufficiently talented hacker would be able to frame somebody else as the author in a believable way. Effectively, you could author a virus, frame somebody else for it, turn them in, and make a quarter mil on the deal. Triple-plus ungood.
All of which I agree with completely. I was making a specific point, which is that hindsight sometimes reveals that some things have hidden benefits, and that patentability is an extremely iffy issue as it relates to viruses.
Suppose, then, that hygiene started to improve, and the recurrence of viral infection by this particular pathogen dropped off, and cancer rates began to rise.
Suppose, then, that some company figured out that this common, essentially non-harmful virus, killed cancer cells and did little else. Does that mean that the company deserves a patent?
Can the bacteria in my gut be patented as a digestive aid? What if antibiotics are killing some pathogen that prevents alzheimers...if we discover that such a pathogen exists, can we patent that, too?
I agree that this stuff is far from simple, but I don't think that leans things any more towards the patentability of a virus or its use as medicine.
So, if I post directions on how to find and ingest reovirus-laden puddles as a way to cure cancer, can I be sued for patent violations?
You forgot "I *like* solar flares, you insensitive clod!"
makes me wonder whether any environmentalists have a sense of humor. Let's see...nope. Doesn't look like it.
The option to avoid the situation completely is always present. When it comes to deciding whether or not the GPL is enforcable, the issues are whether the terms of the license are fair to competition...hard to see how they're not, since everyone with access to the code gets access to any changes...helps keep the playing field pretty level.
The agreement (GPL) is biased towards individuals and groups who wish to develop software openly and share innovations with others. For a company or individual to use GPL software in a product, and then bitch about the terms of the GPL is highly disingenuous, and if said company has a decent lawyer, they should know damn well what the terms of the GPL are...it's not a long document.
Analogous items implies that they are analogues ("That which is analogous to, or corresponds with, some other thing."). Since I didn't see the two situations as corresponding with one another, I noted that it was a bad analogy. Yes, it's my opinion, but hey, this *is* slashdot...I noticed that you seem to have an opinion, too (and I somehow refrained from using the dreaded "t" word).
Umm...I doubt many people would stand a chance of being trampled to death because of a GPL violation. At least come up with a good analogy...
Insightful, except that it doesn't do that. It is an application of copyright law that lets others use copyrighted material in exchange for something. That something, in this case, is the return of improvements to the material to the copyright holder. It's not "piggy-backing" any more than an arrangement where others are required to pay a fee to the copyright holder in order to make use of the material.
Spouting off about the "viral" nature of GLP'ed software may be in vogue, but that doesn't make it correct...several generations of programmers are not locked into anything with the original developer...they are free to develop other software that does exactly the same thing as long as they don't infringe on the original author's copyright. They can even look at the code, see how it works, pick it apart, and use it for ideas to create something better, provided they don't steal from it.
It seems a waste to mod an AC posting as troll, but it seems appropriate here.
Plenty of them are antiquated. You ever have bacon or sausage?
Many of the worlds religions do have overlap, and many seem to stem from a single source. The fact that a number of religious rules that promote public health are a tribute to intelligent leadership of the time, and they have survived because they work. What has happened over the past 100 years is a rapid advancement in medical technology that has allowed the physically safe circumvention of many of these rules...someday that statement will probably read "all of these rules".
A person should *not* be allowed to do whatever they want, and I'll agree that a lot of people seem to have that opinion. I find it hard to understand how you would even *define* a victimless crime...if there's no victim, what is the crime? Isn't a crime an offense against a person or group of people aside from yourself that harms them, or deprives them of something that belongs to them?
We *are* smarter than our predecessors of 100 years ago and 1000 years ago, in terms of what we know about disease and its causes. You may be right that our overestimation of this knowledge could cause our downfall, but then again, it could just as well change the rules by which we may safely live.
That's a fair counter-claim. Not one I subscribe to, but fair, nonetheless. Both positions are leaps of faith, I make the assumption that Good is defined as the Will of God (and as Christian, I further assert that Jesus Christ is the revelation of that Will), while your statement above makes the assumption that morality is a shared agreement. That former is the standard religious claim and the latter is the standard humanistic claim. Both have reasonable logic but flow from very different assumptions.
An interesting note here is that even your assumption that good is defined as the will of god is based on a shared agreement...there are a number of different shared agreements on that very topic, as I'm sure you know. My basic beliefs (aside from some sex/nudity-related issues and a specific one about alcohol and marijuana) are pretty much in line with all of the major religions that I'm aware of. I think that generally speaking, people have views on good and bad that are basically the same, regardless of their religious background or upbringing (although some do bad things anyway).
I won't hold you getting irritated against you (hey, I've been there), and I'm glad to be getting to know you.
Still nothing...posted the content of the parent post to google's groups to see if anybody there cares.
Seconded...if you want to simplify it a lot, just use Coyote Linux (although it's not nearly as flexible as a modern LEAF distro like Bering, it's really easy to make go). LEAF is good.
Whether or not you do something doesn't make it immoral or moral, but it could be argued that what a *majority* of people do without guilty conscience is moral...that's where morals come from, when not suggested or demanded by one's spiritual beliefs or parents.
Your stance on porn, history of watching it, and prudish or non-prudish tendencies don't change the fact that your comments have a particular *feel* to them, and you speak well enough to understand how they must appear to others reading here, regardless of whether their interpretation is technically correct.
I think I've demonstrated (a few posts back) that I won't try to put words in your mouth, and will correct myself when it's pointed out that I have done so, but I want to quibble on one statement you just made.
Yes, there is an element of immorality to watching people harm, endanger, or otherwise devalue themselves for pleasure in any context.
Had that read "Yes, I think there is...", I wouldn't have a problem with that statement (and I almost feel that you argue a little bit the same way I do...sometimes for the sake of bringing a logical alternative to a popular viewpoint).
So, Tom...I don't believe you are a prudish twit, but you are getting a bit more irritated than I would expect from someone as seemingly well-spoken and thoughtful as you appear to be.
I'm not a young, tall, white guy, and I have probably less talent for acting sincere about something when I'm not, but I do all right. He makes money off of making people think they can do better by having a good attitude (please...come ON), and I make mine by being reasonably smart and dicking around with computers.
People fail to understand that without some sort of ability, talent, or skill at something, herculean effort seldom means success in a monetary sense. Looking good isn't what I consider an ability, but apparently, it works for a lot of people, so does being good with numbers, computers, cars, or scalpels.
Rags to riches stories almost always include some brilliant or overlooked idea that the individual in question capitalized on. The reason they get told is that people like to hear that it's possible, even if they know deep down that they're not going to be the ones in the next story.
Maybe not a monopoly, but if they have a 15% stake in a company that they "happen" to redirect tyops to via some "service", that looks like unfair competition to me. Does sound like an attempted end-run around the part of what they did that could realistically hurt them, though...this is WAY too sudden to be conincidence. Oh, yeah "IANAL".
Given that they saw fireballs (not level 1 baddies), I think they were asking why the levels all look the same...If I was used to going someplace new after I won part of a game, I might not understand why I ended up back at the same place again...
That said, I disagree with your view that pornography does anything at the expense of others. I can understand that based on that view you think that pornography is morally wrong. My view is that pornography is a form of entertainment that involves sex and/or nudity. I don't see that viewing sexual acts or nudity of others is done at their expense any more than viewing a movie of a more mainstream sort is done at the expense of the actors.
The individuals taking part in the pornography are typically either professionals or exhibitionists, and in neither case do I feel that me seeing them "get it on" is morally wrong. If they want me to be able to see it for kicks or for money, then I don't feel the objectification involved is wrong. In the case of porn where people are involved unwillingly, there is a crime being committed, and it has little to do with whether porn is moral or not...forcing someone to do something against their will is typically wrong.
I'm not deluding myself any more than you are, I just see things slightly differently.
It may not be about "treating the other person like a tool for your pleasure", but I read it a lot different than you. I inferred that the poster had enjoyable sex with his partner, and she did as well. Sex is supposed to be enjoyable, right? Pornography is no more immoral than a documentary about growing trees. People have sex. They do it different ways. Many (most?) people enjoy watching it to a certain extent. Is it immoral because it's enjoyable, or for some other reason?
We are talking about censorship, and the issue here is where the responsibility for protecting our children lies. I was always taught that parents teach their kids right and wrong. The government of the United States of America is *not* and never will be my children's parents. There are ample technological solutions that everyone can put into place (like the lock I have on my 2 and 4 year olds' PC that limits them to sites on disney.go.com), many of which come built-in. I decided to limit what my kids saw based on *my* rules.
My arguments about right and wrong and damage, etc. were not to demonstrate a point of view that I think my kids should be watching hot sex at age 4, but that I am perfectly capable of keeping them from doing so (and telling them *why*) myself.
If you're not of age, you can't get a hold of porn? I thank my teenage years gone by that's not true. You can't get it directly, but you can still get it.
Here's a comparison of two situations involving the same three people, one sexual, and one violent:
The only thing I changed was the act involved, but the likely effect upon the child is different, and one would seem to be (to me, at least) much worse to the child's mind than the other.
I hope that by the time my children are old enough to search for "straw sucking", I have given them enough information to decide whether clicking on the less relevant results is a good idea.
What age did the average person lose their virginity at in the 1860's? Why is a higher average age a goal to strive for? What age are we trying to reach?
We live in a society where pervasive and inscapable media actively undermines the values that a lot of parents are trying to instill in their children, and our incompetent legislators are bumbling about with asinine pieces of legislation like COPPA. So we need whatever small protections we can get.
Well, maybe more like a media that constantly panders to the demonstrated desires of its consumers. It's not the media that's to blame for what you see on TV, it's those who watch said media (you and me) who vote with our remote controls and wallets for crap like "Temptation Island". I have nothing against the bikinis, but the social depravity of the people on those shows is pretty bad. Some of them obviously don't know how to behave around other human beings. I suppose it's kind of like watching a train wreck, and the ghastliness of it all just sucks people in.
Do you really think that *not* restricting things like pop-ups that say "anal sluts fucking dogs live" (complete with pictures of barely covered genitilia) is a good idea because the daytime soap stars can't seem to keep their pants on? I hardly think they're in the same category, as unhealthy a role model as a soap star may be.
I think that restricting *all* pop-ups is a good idea, and I think that "anal sluts fucking dogs live" is probably bad, because there's no way to know if the dog really consents (plus, I'm old fashioned, and I think people should only have sex with other people or inanimate objects). The characters that most soap stars play generally have so many social defects that they would get the crap beat out of them on a daily basis (or end up in jail) in real life. As far as behavior that I want my children emulating, I find both generally unacceptable.
My daughter walked in on me and my wife, once, and I'm pretty sure she didn't see anything, but I was embarrased...I just can't articulate an actual *reason* as to why. She's 4, and at most would have asked what we were doing...an easily answered question, if you don't have a reason to be embarrased.
The question here is why do we think this is bad? I get outraged like everyone else at 14-year olds having babies, and then I (sometimes) remember that 14-year-old brides were not uncommon 100 years ago.
I can remember going to great lengths to see porn when I was a kid (12 or so) with my brother right beside me...looking at the scrambled playboy channel through the wavy lines on the TV...borrowing my uncle's magazines. Today, I know where my kids will go to see the same stuff that I looked for (and still look for, sometimes...boobies). They'll be sneaky and successful, and they'll be the latest in a long line of such perpetrators.
There doesn't have to be a legitimate reason for anything (otherwise, there would never have been a "hamster dance" page), there just has to be a reason for not wanting somebody to see it that makes sense.
A 9-year-old looking at people having sex (yes, even kinky sex) is less disturbing to me than that same 9-year old looking at people killing each other, for example. As far as I know, there are no restrictions on violent content online comparable to those on sexually-explicit material. They're kind of opposites. Sex creates people (and enjoyment, for those involved), and killing does the opposite. Before you rant, know that I'm a Desert Storm veteran who spent 10 years in the Army, and I'm not a pacifist, I just don't want my kids to think that killing a prostitute in GTA is "cool".
If you don't trust your kids enough to let them go to their friends' house and behave, maybe you should put more effort into parenting. They'll find ways to see stuff you don't want them to, and to *do* things you don't want them to (didn't you?). If you do a good job with them, you won't need to worry that seeing a hundred pairs of bouncing naked breasts is going to ruin their lives (although it might dirty some linens).