I saw this just as a student. The craziest thing about technology in the classroom is that it is seen as an end in itself, rather than a teaching tool. They get computers and either they are an impediment to learning and must be put away, or a distraction.
The most ideal use of computers in the classroom would be small, networked, and interchangable laptops entirely under the teacher's control with an amazing software package to help them quiz and present and guide practice only when it is difficult for a teacher to do so otherwise.
Technology can do a great deal to aid teachers in placing their attention virtually at every student's desk and getting instant feedback from every student in the classroom. They can help with practice problems by providing feedback for when they do things wrong on an individual basis. However, large, error-prone, and expensive computers that are difficult for teachers to control when students get on them are never going to help teachers actually teach.
The article switches over midway to saying that Intel will pretty much just copy transmeta, but with multiple cores, and an Itanium-stylu VLIW main processor. The argument is that software optimization as done in the Transmeta processor saves on branch prediction, and X86 decoding hardware, while extra cache and multiple cores gets rid of Transmeta's performance issue.
In fact in 1950 the average American family paid 2% in taxes. Today that average American family pays 27% in taxes to the federal government. Oddly enough the difference, 25%, is what the average second wage earner makes in America today.
The lawsuit thing is a big deal too. No one disciplines anyone for fear of a lawsuit. Maybe a patch on the problem would be for lawyers to serve subpeonas as "discipline". K-12 schools could have a lawyer on call, and serve a lawsuit to each parent whose kid got sent to the principal's office. All in all, without a more family friendly tax structure that allows one parent to stay at home, and severe tort reform to stop all the stupid lawsuits (severe punisment to the person suing if their lawsuit consists of "my kid was hurt because you made him sit down in class") this whole society will go down the toilet.
Last time I checked the Internet doesn't "flood [my] home" with ANY content.
That's the advantages of using Linux and/or Firefox.:-)
But seriously, for people using unupdated versions of Windows and IE, it's not hard to imagine a flood of popups over the internet. Also, for all the people who are not very computer savvy, it's easy to get floods of porn-spam and suffer from blind redirects to porn sites. The funny thing is, the.xxx domain won't affect any of this.
The only thing the.xxx domain won't solve, is porn existing on the internet. I think these groups would like to have an FCC-like organization to regulate internet communication like broadcast mediums, because they think of the internet as a broadcast medium. Since the internet works this way for things like internet radio, it's not difficult to see how this mistake could be made. What is not easy, however, is trying to browse the web and get email 100% porn-free. For people who desire this, there isn't a foolproof solution like there is with all other mediums. Why can't the internet solve this when television, radio, mail, phones, and stores already have?
One person's imposing is another person's polite behavior. It could be argued both ways:
1) It is imposing to regulate porn in areas accessible by minors because it causes an undue burden on the ISP and corporations producing/distributing the porn.
2) It is imposing to *not* regulate porn in areas accessible by minors because it causes an undue burden on parents who then have to remove their children from many areas of society to keep them from harm.
Of course, you probably don't think that kids having access to reams of hardcore porn is a bad thing. You might even think it's healthy, but then you would be imposing your values on those who disagree with you.
It's sad that there is so little understanding of the Bible in modern western culture. Anyway a quick overview of the "nakedness" part of Genesis:
1) Adam and Eve created, naked unashamed 2) Adam and Eve eat the fruit 3) Adam and Eve cover themselves with fig-leaves 4) God steps in, banishes them from the garden, and from eternal life 5) God covers Adam and Eve with hides from animals
Your postulate is that nakedness of the person was the issue, which means then that God wouldn't cover them, which He did right afterward. The sin wasn't that they were naked or that they were ashamed of their nakedness, or that they covered themselves. It wasn't even that they had eaten the fruit. The fruit just allowed them to sin. The sin was lust, which reflected not on the one who is naked, but the viewer.
The whole point of porn is not the person who gets naked. It is their effect on the viewer. The point of people not wanting it in full view of children is because of its desensitizing effects. It is in society's interest because each society depends on a family unit to provide new responsible members of the society.
The "right" way to do motion blur is the cartoon way. If something moves fast, deform the mesh to stretch across its field of movement. This is much more realistic than trying to render 1000fps, and won't leave gaps between frames for the "Player on drugs" effect. And before anyone asks, yes, the entire map will have to be deformed if the player turns quickly.
If you think this would be disorienting, remember that the mesh is being deformed for a movement for 1/30-1/60 of a second. See here for a paper on how to do this in real-time.
What makes the openSUSE project different from Fedora?
The openSUSE project explicitly looks beyond the technical community to the broader non-technical community of computer users interested in Linux. The openSUSE project creates--through an open and transparent development process--a stabilized, polished Linux distribution (SUSE Linux) that delivers everything a user needs to get started with Linux.
When compared specifically to Fedora, the openSUSE project embraces and develops several additional important open standards not included in Fedora, such as CIM (the Common Information Model), and YaST (a standard, open source configuration and management suite for Linux). Plus, the openSUSE project has a large desktop and usability effort, strengthened by many of the top open source GUI designers in the world.
So YaST is there and such, but it seems like they are discounting any need for more technical users. Isn't it the technical users that give something like this the boost it needs to get to be more usable? I thought the whole purpose of opening something up was for the technical users.
(2005-08-04) -- Entering the debate over the teaching of origins for the first time, President George Bush today said he sees "no evidence of intelligent design in America's public schools."
"A lot folks claim that the public school system is irreducibly complex, so there must have been an intelligent designer," said Mr. Bush, "But I believe our public schools advance by mutation and random chance. They have evolved into an unwieldy beast with an insatiable appetite."
The president, a professed Christian, said his only hope for a better future in American education rests on his faith in "the survival of the fittest."
Maybe you didn't read further than the quote you presented in your post so I'll put it here:
If public schools truly are to be entirely non-religious, then claims of meaning of life, all the way down to creation stories, no matter how scientific, should be banned from public schooling entirely.
What I believe public schools are teaching now is quasi-religion anyway, and one that is harmful to the psychological needs of the people. I don't see Christianity teachings in the schools as a good thing, I just see it as better than the vacant answers to inherently religious questions they are currently given as truth.
From your post:
If you want to teach your child about religion that is fine. Just do not teach my child about religion in school. That is my job as a parent, not anyone else's and especially not the states.
You and I are arguing the same thing, but you don't seem to believe that religion is currently being taught in the schools. The biggest threat in the schools to a person reasonably seeking out a faith is not Christian activists, but moralists and quasi religious proponents already preaching their beliefs in public schools. At least with Christianity, you know what you're getting.
I would prefer for public schooling to be removed altogether, since governments would be too tempted to use public education as a means of effective propogandizing to their citizens.
Well, I can postulate anything about what happens outside of the universe, but there is no way to prove one way or another what is really out there. The only thing that I can point out is that whatever ideas you have about what happens outside of the universe can't be known. Here, religion is the only way to get any idea, assuming at least one is correct, and that some being from outside of the universe tells us truthfully what goes on there.
To put it succinctly, what happens in the universe is governed by the laws of the universe (including causality), but what happens outside of the universe may not be.
The fact that there was a big bang makes the idea of a separate plane of existence outside of the universe plausible. Otherwise, there is no first cause in a universe governed by causality. Beyond that is pure speculation, or the possibility that some being in that plane at some time told us something about it, and some human wrote it down.
Cute, but what this debate is about is not about evolution or creationism or ID, but about popular culture and what is being taught as correct, and what is being taught as false in the public school system.
It's one thing for a view to be ignored in schools, but another thing for the view to be ridiculed. While most slashdotters ascribe to secularist agnositicism with the abiogenesis and evolutionist creation myth, and think that such should be taught as gospel truth in public schools, this is more attributed to their particular belief system than rock-solid scientific fact.
The fact is that philosophical and religious questions are being shoehorned into the biology classroom where the answers available are inadequate. You don't answer a child's question on the meaning of their lives with theories on primordial soup, and genetic mutation. You can't simply ignore the psychological needs that religion fills.
And as a side-note, all atheists I know believed that humanity was special because of human accomplishment and their lives were meaningful because they believed themselves to be smarter than most others (and when I was an atheist I proscribed to a similar philosophy). I believe that this philosophical egoistic substitute for the psychological needs that religion fills is being pushed on children in public schools through self-esteem programs, as evidenced by 80% of Americans believing that they are above average, and international tests showing while Americans aren't the smartest, they feel the best about their work.
I believe the popular religion substitute outlined above is much more harmful to the populace in general than a widespread public schooling in Christianity or other major religion. If public schools truly are to be entirely non-religious, then claims of meaning of life, all the way down to creation stories, no matter how scientific, should be banned from public schooling entirely.
Oh please. If something more complex than life on earth (i.e. God) can happen without an external cause, why can't life on earth itself happen without an external cause?
Because you have do deal with the universe as is.
If something happens in the universe, it must have a cause, follow laws of physics, etc. But if something happens outside the universe, then all bets are off.
Now postulating some being created the universe, then that being must necessarily not be within the universe in order to create it in the first place. So you're dealing with two entirely different planes of existence. Life on Earth happens within the universe, and God (or some creator) must happen outside the universe. Therefore while it is a legitimate argument to limit abiogenesis or evolution to causality, it is meaningless to extend causality outside of the universe itself--especially when we know time and space began at the big bang.
If all you had to do to beat a rating was release a game with a tiny patch needing to be added as well, then every sleezy porn producer would do that, and get their T rating.
Sounds like a business plan. I predict someone runs with the idea within the next couple of years.
Society does need some regulation of public behavior for public good though. A computer game you buy and play privately in your home is one thing, but broadcast television is in some way public behavior, because of its wide exposure. Wide release movies are similar as well. To ask parents to put their kids in a cocoon and never let them out (they may get exposed to something horrible outside of the house), is unreasonable. At some point you have to regulate some things everyone gets exposed to so that some of them don't have psychological trauma from the experience.
In the same way though, parents should keep an eye about what they purchase and bring into their homes.
Dubbed REFLEX Control, the design is a console controller for first-person shooters that replaces the right analog stick with a trackball. Instead of having to use an analog stick to aim, you're given full speed control and precision over movement, essentially incorporating mouse control into a game pad.
Consider a future device for individual use, which is a sort of
mechanized private file and library. It needs a name, and to coin
one at random, ``memex'' will do. A memex is a device in which an
individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and
which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed
and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory.
It consists of a desk, and while it can presumably be operated from a
distance, it is primarily the piece of furniture at which he works.
On the top are slanting translucent screens, on which material can be
projected for convenient reading. There is a keyboard, and sets of
buttons and levers. Otherwise it looks like an ordinary desk.
So far so good, but then he tries to put more concrete details in the working of this device:
In one end is the stored material. The matter of bulk is well taken
care of by improved microfilm. Only a small part of the interior of
the memex is devoted to storage, the rest to mechanism. Yet if the
user inserted 5000 pages of material a day it would take him hundreds
of years to fill the repository, so he can be profligate and enter
material freely.
It's a little strange, since he talked about how televisions would do much better than film earlier:
A scene itself can be just as well looked over line by line by the
photocell in this way as can a photograph of the scene. This whole
apparatus constitutes a camera, with the added feature, which can be
dispensed with if desired, of making its picture at a distance. It is
slow, and the picture is poor in detail. Still, it does give another
process of dry photography, in which the picture is finished as soon
as it is taken.
It would be a brave man who could predict that such a process will
always remain clumsy, slow, and faulty in detail. Television
equipment today transmits sixteen reasonably good images a second, and
it involves only two essential differences from the process described
above. For one, the record is made by a moving beam of electrons
rather than a moving pointer, for the reason that an electron beam can
sweep across the picture very rapidly indeed.
He also has a provision for entering data, but it becomes obvious since the system is a complex microfilm retrieval system:
On the top of the memex is a transparent platen. On this are
placed longhand notes, photographs, memoranda, all sort of things.
When one is in place, the depression of a lever causes it to be
photographed onto the next blank space in a section of the memex film,
dry photography being employed.
He also postulates a search engine of sorts, but how it interprets the keyword entry and retrieves the proper microfilm are never explained.
Re:This guy was a serious visionary
on
Sixty Years of Memex
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, from what it looks like, the extensions that he thought of he had already come in contact with through worlds fairs and such. His ideas might have been visionary, but the details of what he thought would make them happen were quite a bit off.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw this just as a student. The craziest thing about technology in the classroom is that it is seen as an end in itself, rather than a teaching tool. They get computers and either they are an impediment to learning and must be put away, or a distraction.
The most ideal use of computers in the classroom would be small, networked, and interchangable laptops entirely under the teacher's control with an amazing software package to help them quiz and present and guide practice only when it is difficult for a teacher to do so otherwise.
Technology can do a great deal to aid teachers in placing their attention virtually at every student's desk and getting instant feedback from every student in the classroom. They can help with practice problems by providing feedback for when they do things wrong on an individual basis. However, large, error-prone, and expensive computers that are difficult for teachers to control when students get on them are never going to help teachers actually teach.
The article switches over midway to saying that Intel will pretty much just copy transmeta, but with multiple cores, and an Itanium-stylu VLIW main processor. The argument is that software optimization as done in the Transmeta processor saves on branch prediction, and X86 decoding hardware, while extra cache and multiple cores gets rid of Transmeta's performance issue.
But it is all pure speculation.
from here
The lawsuit thing is a big deal too. No one disciplines anyone for fear of a lawsuit. Maybe a patch on the problem would be for lawyers to serve subpeonas as "discipline". K-12 schools could have a lawyer on call, and serve a lawsuit to each parent whose kid got sent to the principal's office. All in all, without a more family friendly tax structure that allows one parent to stay at home, and severe tort reform to stop all the stupid lawsuits (severe punisment to the person suing if their lawsuit consists of "my kid was hurt because you made him sit down in class") this whole society will go down the toilet.
Last time I checked the Internet doesn't "flood [my] home" with ANY content.
:-)
.xxx domain won't affect any of this.
.xxx domain won't solve, is porn existing on the internet. I think these groups would like to have an FCC-like organization to regulate internet communication like broadcast mediums, because they think of the internet as a broadcast medium. Since the internet works this way for things like internet radio, it's not difficult to see how this mistake could be made. What is not easy, however, is trying to browse the web and get email 100% porn-free. For people who desire this, there isn't a foolproof solution like there is with all other mediums. Why can't the internet solve this when television, radio, mail, phones, and stores already have?
That's the advantages of using Linux and/or Firefox.
But seriously, for people using unupdated versions of Windows and IE, it's not hard to imagine a flood of popups over the internet. Also, for all the people who are not very computer savvy, it's easy to get floods of porn-spam and suffer from blind redirects to porn sites. The funny thing is, the
The only thing the
One person's imposing is another person's polite behavior. It could be argued both ways:
1) It is imposing to regulate porn in areas accessible by minors because it causes an undue burden on the ISP and corporations producing/distributing the porn.
2) It is imposing to *not* regulate porn in areas accessible by minors because it causes an undue burden on parents who then have to remove their children from many areas of society to keep them from harm.
Of course, you probably don't think that kids having access to reams of hardcore porn is a bad thing. You might even think it's healthy, but then you would be imposing your values on those who disagree with you.
It's sad that there is so little understanding of the Bible in modern western culture. Anyway a quick overview of the "nakedness" part of Genesis:
1) Adam and Eve created, naked unashamed
2) Adam and Eve eat the fruit
3) Adam and Eve cover themselves with fig-leaves
4) God steps in, banishes them from the garden, and from eternal life
5) God covers Adam and Eve with hides from animals
Your postulate is that nakedness of the person was the issue, which means then that God wouldn't cover them, which He did right afterward. The sin wasn't that they were naked or that they were ashamed of their nakedness, or that they covered themselves. It wasn't even that they had eaten the fruit. The fruit just allowed them to sin. The sin was lust, which reflected not on the one who is naked, but the viewer.
The whole point of porn is not the person who gets naked. It is their effect on the viewer. The point of people not wanting it in full view of children is because of its desensitizing effects. It is in society's interest because each society depends on a family unit to provide new responsible members of the society.
The "right" way to do motion blur is the cartoon way. If something moves fast, deform the mesh to stretch across its field of movement. This is much more realistic than trying to render 1000fps, and won't leave gaps between frames for the "Player on drugs" effect. And before anyone asks, yes, the entire map will have to be deformed if the player turns quickly.
If you think this would be disorienting, remember that the mesh is being deformed for a movement for 1/30-1/60 of a second. See here for a paper on how to do this in real-time.
What makes the openSUSE project different from Fedora?
The openSUSE project explicitly looks beyond the technical community to the broader non-technical community of computer users interested in Linux. The openSUSE project creates--through an open and transparent development process--a stabilized, polished Linux distribution (SUSE Linux) that delivers everything a user needs to get started with Linux.
When compared specifically to Fedora, the openSUSE project embraces and develops several additional important open standards not included in Fedora, such as CIM (the Common Information Model), and YaST (a standard, open source configuration and management suite for Linux). Plus, the openSUSE project has a large desktop and usability effort, strengthened by many of the top open source GUI designers in the world.
So YaST is there and such, but it seems like they are discounting any need for more technical users. Isn't it the technical users that give something like this the boost it needs to get to be more usable? I thought the whole purpose of opening something up was for the technical users.
or even earlier than that
If they are just theives, can't they just steal one from their local retail outlet?
On the same subject is this article:
Bush: Schools Show No Evidence of Intelligent Design
by Scott Ott
(2005-08-04) -- Entering the debate over the teaching of origins for the first time, President George Bush today said he sees "no evidence of intelligent design in America's public schools."
"A lot folks claim that the public school system is irreducibly complex, so there must have been an intelligent designer," said Mr. Bush, "But I believe our public schools advance by mutation and random chance. They have evolved into an unwieldy beast with an insatiable appetite."
The president, a professed Christian, said his only hope for a better future in American education rests on his faith in "the survival of the fittest."
Maybe you didn't read further than the quote you presented in your post so I'll put it here:
If public schools truly are to be entirely non-religious, then claims of meaning of life, all the way down to creation stories, no matter how scientific, should be banned from public schooling entirely.
What I believe public schools are teaching now is quasi-religion anyway, and one that is harmful to the psychological needs of the people. I don't see Christianity teachings in the schools as a good thing, I just see it as better than the vacant answers to inherently religious questions they are currently given as truth.
From your post:
If you want to teach your child about religion that is fine. Just do not teach my child about religion in school. That is my job as a parent, not anyone else's and especially not the states.
You and I are arguing the same thing, but you don't seem to believe that religion is currently being taught in the schools. The biggest threat in the schools to a person reasonably seeking out a faith is not Christian activists, but moralists and quasi religious proponents already preaching their beliefs in public schools. At least with Christianity, you know what you're getting.
I would prefer for public schooling to be removed altogether, since governments would be too tempted to use public education as a means of effective propogandizing to their citizens.
Well, I can postulate anything about what happens outside of the universe, but there is no way to prove one way or another what is really out there. The only thing that I can point out is that whatever ideas you have about what happens outside of the universe can't be known. Here, religion is the only way to get any idea, assuming at least one is correct, and that some being from outside of the universe tells us truthfully what goes on there.
To put it succinctly, what happens in the universe is governed by the laws of the universe (including causality), but what happens outside of the universe may not be.
The fact that there was a big bang makes the idea of a separate plane of existence outside of the universe plausible. Otherwise, there is no first cause in a universe governed by causality. Beyond that is pure speculation, or the possibility that some being in that plane at some time told us something about it, and some human wrote it down.
Cute, but what this debate is about is not about evolution or creationism or ID, but about popular culture and what is being taught as correct, and what is being taught as false in the public school system.
It's one thing for a view to be ignored in schools, but another thing for the view to be ridiculed. While most slashdotters ascribe to secularist agnositicism with the abiogenesis and evolutionist creation myth, and think that such should be taught as gospel truth in public schools, this is more attributed to their particular belief system than rock-solid scientific fact.
The fact is that philosophical and religious questions are being shoehorned into the biology classroom where the answers available are inadequate. You don't answer a child's question on the meaning of their lives with theories on primordial soup, and genetic mutation. You can't simply ignore the psychological needs that religion fills.
And as a side-note, all atheists I know believed that humanity was special because of human accomplishment and their lives were meaningful because they believed themselves to be smarter than most others (and when I was an atheist I proscribed to a similar philosophy). I believe that this philosophical egoistic substitute for the psychological needs that religion fills is being pushed on children in public schools through self-esteem programs, as evidenced by 80% of Americans believing that they are above average, and international tests showing while Americans aren't the smartest, they feel the best about their work.
I believe the popular religion substitute outlined above is much more harmful to the populace in general than a widespread public schooling in Christianity or other major religion. If public schools truly are to be entirely non-religious, then claims of meaning of life, all the way down to creation stories, no matter how scientific, should be banned from public schooling entirely.
Oh please. If something more complex than life on earth (i.e. God) can happen without an external cause, why can't life on earth itself happen without an external cause?
Because you have do deal with the universe as is.
If something happens in the universe, it must have a cause, follow laws of physics, etc. But if something happens outside the universe, then all bets are off.
Now postulating some being created the universe, then that being must necessarily not be within the universe in order to create it in the first place. So you're dealing with two entirely different planes of existence. Life on Earth happens within the universe, and God (or some creator) must happen outside the universe. Therefore while it is a legitimate argument to limit abiogenesis or evolution to causality, it is meaningless to extend causality outside of the universe itself--especially when we know time and space began at the big bang.
Looks like NASA will have to send ground up to Discovery...
They mean "grounded except for Discovery" right? I think it's going to be pretty hard to ground as it's orbiting at the moment.
Is this eerie recording week in science news? First the recording of the tsunami of the Earth Ripping Apart and now this.
1) Not available now
2) $350 price tag
If all you had to do to beat a rating was release a game with a tiny patch needing to be added as well, then every sleezy porn producer would do that, and get their T rating.
Sounds like a business plan. I predict someone runs with the idea within the next couple of years.
Society does need some regulation of public behavior for public good though. A computer game you buy and play privately in your home is one thing, but broadcast television is in some way public behavior, because of its wide exposure. Wide release movies are similar as well. To ask parents to put their kids in a cocoon and never let them out (they may get exposed to something horrible outside of the house), is unreasonable. At some point you have to regulate some things everyone gets exposed to so that some of them don't have psychological trauma from the experience.
In the same way though, parents should keep an eye about what they purchase and bring into their homes.
Or you could do this
From the review:
Dubbed REFLEX Control, the design is a console controller for first-person shooters that replaces the right analog stick with a trackball. Instead of having to use an analog stick to aim, you're given full speed control and precision over movement, essentially incorporating mouse control into a game pad.
From the article:
Consider a future device for individual use, which is a sort of mechanized private file and library. It needs a name, and to coin one at random, ``memex'' will do. A memex is a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory.
It consists of a desk, and while it can presumably be operated from a distance, it is primarily the piece of furniture at which he works. On the top are slanting translucent screens, on which material can be projected for convenient reading. There is a keyboard, and sets of buttons and levers. Otherwise it looks like an ordinary desk.
So far so good, but then he tries to put more concrete details in the working of this device:
In one end is the stored material. The matter of bulk is well taken care of by improved microfilm. Only a small part of the interior of the memex is devoted to storage, the rest to mechanism. Yet if the user inserted 5000 pages of material a day it would take him hundreds of years to fill the repository, so he can be profligate and enter material freely.
It's a little strange, since he talked about how televisions would do much better than film earlier:
A scene itself can be just as well looked over line by line by the photocell in this way as can a photograph of the scene. This whole apparatus constitutes a camera, with the added feature, which can be dispensed with if desired, of making its picture at a distance. It is slow, and the picture is poor in detail. Still, it does give another process of dry photography, in which the picture is finished as soon as it is taken.
It would be a brave man who could predict that such a process will always remain clumsy, slow, and faulty in detail. Television equipment today transmits sixteen reasonably good images a second, and it involves only two essential differences from the process described above. For one, the record is made by a moving beam of electrons rather than a moving pointer, for the reason that an electron beam can sweep across the picture very rapidly indeed.
He also has a provision for entering data, but it becomes obvious since the system is a complex microfilm retrieval system:
On the top of the memex is a transparent platen. On this are placed longhand notes, photographs, memoranda, all sort of things. When one is in place, the depression of a lever causes it to be photographed onto the next blank space in a section of the memex film, dry photography being employed.
He also postulates a search engine of sorts, but how it interprets the keyword entry and retrieves the proper microfilm are never explained.
Well, from what it looks like, the extensions that he thought of he had already come in contact with through worlds fairs and such. His ideas might have been visionary, but the details of what he thought would make them happen were quite a bit off.
And to think that it would be most known for selling used crap on auctions and tons of porn...