Besides which, what business is it of yours what people choose to say or do or watch or make in private?
None whatsoever. I don't have any problem with anyone doing anything sexual in private. But the production and distribution of hardcore porn is hardly a private arena.
The reason I made the "bold" statement that porn silences voices is because it perpetuates negative stereotypes which aren't in fact generally true. For example, rape porn reinforces masculinity through assault -- hardly a healthy concept.
of course, you're probably going to argue that not all porn is rape porn or bondage porn, or kiddie porn. I guess part of the problem is how you define porn. I have a pretty restrictive definition; I don't by any means want to eliminate any and all "erotic" or "explicit" content online or anywhere else. I'm really not a prude. I just don't think cultural objects (be they pictures, movies, stories) which perpetuate assault and degradation are O.K.
More to the point, I think these negative things are in a very different category from "open discussions of sexuality [online]."
Okay. I think the politicos are not the only ones guilty of this mistake. Katz does point out that they constantly confuse porn with open discussion of sexuality, but so do a lot of other people!
I'm all for an open discussion of sexuality in almost any venue, be it internet chat or "meatspace" coffee shops... whatever. But I don't approve of porn, because I think it's just a method of exploiting all involved and reinforcing negative gender/sex stereotypes which are responsible for *lots* of the problems in our society.
Now, hopefully we're still in agreement here. But probably not, because I've heard so much discussion about how not allowing access to porn "restricts rights." Personally, I don't think people necessarily should have the right to participate in such victimization, and I actually view it as unfortunate that this is covered by the first amendment. It's really too bad that Katz had to associate XXX with free speech in his headline. Hardcore porn keeps a lot of voices from being heard; it's not a liberation thing for the viewer or the viewed.
Let's keep the debate focused on the important aspects Katz brings out, like the opportunity to use AOL (for example) as a venue for anonymous, important discussion of "taboo" sexuality. This is not the same as "Asain closeup pix plz msg me."
Wow. I'm glad FOX capitulated. It's really great that proponents of non-( Mac | Win ) platforms finally hold enough sway to bring something like this about.
Now, let's all behave like the grownups we are: everyone who sent them an harrassing email after the "fox hates linux" story, send them a very nice email now thanking them for considering our suggestions.
Sorry, but I think patents on algorithms have been around for quite some time now. Like, the RSA algorithm is patented, right? And the patent is running out soon, right? So that means it was granted way before 1990, let alone filed before then.
Now, the issue becomes "What's the difference between an algorithm and software?" Well, everything and nothing: on one hand, a software program is nothing but an implementation of an algorithm, so they're the same, but on the other hand, an algorithm is present in every *possible* peice of software that implements it.
See why "software" (actually, algorithm) patents are so wicked? Because they don't just say "hey, we made up this [LZW, RSA, take your pick] program to encode data," it says, "we own the rights to all possible programs that also do this."
unfortunately, what matters is that it was filed some time ago, as the previous response indicates. And, once a patent is granted, it's enforcable retroactively to the time of filing!
Why doesn't that extend to times before the date of filing, you might ask? well, supposedly, because the technology didn't exist back then. This is a patent, remember; doubleclick invented this technology:) No one could possibly have been using it before they filed for a patent, right?
Well, of course someone was, because they didn't actually make it up. The problem is, we (someone) has to demonstrate this to invalidate the patent. If you can come up with a description of this phenomenon (ie, banner advertising in this case) which was *published* before the doubleclick patent was *filed*, then that counts as "existing in the prior art" and the patent is invalid.
That's the real problem, is that the patent clerks don't always know how to check for "prior art." Was there a book about banner advertising published before 1996? probably not; those were the early days of commercial web transactions. Was it published on a web page somewhere? probably. does that count as publication? maybe; i'm not a patent attourney. but the point is, the info has to be out there and the right people have to see it for ridiculous patents like this to be overturned.
Gee willakers! How come every site that gets a/. link goes the way of windows2000.com? i understand about segfault a few days ago, but the army and now the washingtonpost have gotten it. seems like these sites should be prepared for some high-volume traffic...
plus, are we/.ers really lemming enough to all follow the same link? It's an AP story; there's a copy at CNNfn and a copy at abcnews, too...
Slashdot Mirror
Wait. How do you use AOL CDs as "fodder" for your cdrw? They've never sent me a CDR...
None whatsoever. I don't have any problem with anyone doing anything sexual in private. But the production and distribution of hardcore porn is hardly a private arena.
The reason I made the "bold" statement that porn silences voices is because it perpetuates negative stereotypes which aren't in fact generally true. For example, rape porn reinforces masculinity through assault -- hardly a healthy concept.
of course, you're probably going to argue that not all porn is rape porn or bondage porn, or kiddie porn. I guess part of the problem is how you define porn. I have a pretty restrictive definition; I don't by any means want to eliminate any and all "erotic" or "explicit" content online or anywhere else. I'm really not a prude. I just don't think cultural objects (be they pictures, movies, stories) which perpetuate assault and degradation are O.K.
More to the point, I think these negative things are in a very different category from "open discussions of sexuality [online]."
Okay. I think the politicos are not the only ones guilty of this mistake. Katz does point out that they constantly confuse porn with open discussion of sexuality, but so do a lot of other people!
I'm all for an open discussion of sexuality in almost any venue, be it internet chat or "meatspace" coffee shops... whatever. But I don't approve of porn, because I think it's just a method of exploiting all involved and reinforcing negative gender/sex stereotypes which are responsible for *lots* of the problems in our society.
Now, hopefully we're still in agreement here. But probably not, because I've heard so much discussion about how not allowing access to porn "restricts rights." Personally, I don't think people necessarily should have the right to participate in such victimization, and I actually view it as unfortunate that this is covered by the first amendment. It's really too bad that Katz had to associate XXX with free speech in his headline. Hardcore porn keeps a lot of voices from being heard; it's not a liberation thing for the viewer or the viewed.
Let's keep the debate focused on the important aspects Katz brings out, like the opportunity to use AOL (for example) as a venue for anonymous, important discussion of "taboo" sexuality. This is not the same as "Asain closeup pix plz msg me."
Now, let's all behave like the grownups we are: everyone who sent them an harrassing email after the "fox hates linux" story, send them a very nice email now thanking them for considering our suggestions.
;)
Only you can prevent the /. effect.
There's a European mirror at http://foobar.starlab.net/~degaris/
Sorry, but I think patents on algorithms have been around for quite some time now. Like, the RSA algorithm is patented, right? And the patent is running out soon, right? So that means it was granted way before 1990, let alone filed before then.
Now, the issue becomes "What's the difference between an algorithm and software?" Well, everything and nothing: on one hand, a software program is nothing but an implementation of an algorithm, so they're the same, but on the other hand, an algorithm is present in every *possible* peice of software that implements it.
See why "software" (actually, algorithm) patents are so wicked? Because they don't just say "hey, we made up this [LZW, RSA, take your pick] program to encode data," it says, "we own the rights to all possible programs that also do this."
Scary stuff, I think.
unfortunately, what matters is that it was filed some time ago, as the previous response indicates. And, once a patent is granted, it's enforcable retroactively to the time of filing!
Why doesn't that extend to times before the date of filing, you might ask? well, supposedly, because the technology didn't exist back then. This is a patent, remember; doubleclick invented this technology :) No one could possibly have been using it before they filed for a patent, right?
Well, of course someone was, because they didn't actually make it up. The problem is, we (someone) has to demonstrate this to invalidate the patent. If you can come up with a description of this phenomenon (ie, banner advertising in this case) which was *published* before the doubleclick patent was *filed*, then that counts as "existing in the prior art" and the patent is invalid.
That's the real problem, is that the patent clerks don't always know how to check for "prior art." Was there a book about banner advertising published before 1996? probably not; those were the early days of commercial web transactions. Was it published on a web page somewhere? probably. does that count as publication? maybe; i'm not a patent attourney. but the point is, the info has to be out there and the right people have to see it for ridiculous patents like this to be overturned.
oh no, i guess i'll be getting sued next; i have some friends who have mp3s and i think i have their phone numbers written down somewhere!
jesus.
Gee willakers! How come every site that gets a /. link goes the way of windows2000.com? i understand about segfault a few days ago, but the army and now the washingtonpost have gotten it. seems like these sites should be prepared for some high-volume traffic...
plus, are we /.ers really lemming enough to all follow the same link? It's an AP story; there's a copy at CNNfn and a copy at abcnews, too...