If the definition requires that a site "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors," many (myself included) might argue that most pr0n sites should be held exempt.
I refuse to believe that viewing naked bodies (solo or action) is inherently 'harmful to minors,' especially when 'minors' includes such pr0n-consuming demographics as 17-year-old boys.
Oh yes, wonderful Outlook. It has been a beacon of email security since... Well, since never. Business people that use Outlook are either forced to, or aren't savvy at all.
You obviously have little experience with history. The fact is, almost every historical event is disputed by someone. It is very conducive, if one wants to discover the probable truth of an issue, to see the two sides duking it out intellectually, in conjunction to whatever they agree upon. Wikipedia supports this, with its discussion tabs, far more than a 'shallow google search' ever could. I think you are just one of these wiki-haters.
As an amateur historian, I adore Wikipedia. I have learned so much - and in my opinion there are few places that can even come close to the -contemporaneousness- of the open encyclopedia.
Why do I say this? Because I have recently begun compiling a looooong index of history for every country that exists on the planet, and some of the information of my other sources, while the same as what I remember from my high school lectures, is completely contrary to what is actually believed at this point by most historians. Case in point? The Hyksos 'invasion' of Egypt.
I love it, and I think it's wonderfully neutral. I adore reading the 'discussion' tabs on controversial articles. And if you want to see a really neat article, go to 'neoconservatives in america' and some of the supplementals (if you like politics, that is). Very good read!/struggling student, gave $5. You can afford to give some too!
I guess I don't use RSS feeds in the traditional way. Google has a 'customized google homepage' that you can turn on - I have mine on, and customized. It has several sections: search history (on google), GMail, RSS feeds of many different international news sites, and stupid stuff like quotes of the day and stuff like that turned on for fun. As I open Firefox about 504040404 times per day, and my homepage comes up for me every time (umm, of course), it's very convenient for me.
Slashdot Mirror
If the definition requires that a site "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors," many (myself included) might argue that most pr0n sites should be held exempt. I refuse to believe that viewing naked bodies (solo or action) is inherently 'harmful to minors,' especially when 'minors' includes such pr0n-consuming demographics as 17-year-old boys.
Can you honestly say it's the -only- religion founded in such a way? Jesus loved to get his drink on, and who -knows- what Judas dared him to do.
Yeah, because that 'give us 10%% of all you make' is for the parishioner's salvation. Or is it God that is the extortionist?
Rocket surgery
Hahaha.
Mediocracy? Isn't that the government system currently in power in the USA? ] /Rule by the mediocre
Because Santa is an ID-proponent, and refuses to allow such blasphemy to be conducted on his pristine icy shores.
Oh yes, wonderful Outlook. It has been a beacon of email security since... Well, since never. Business people that use Outlook are either forced to, or aren't savvy at all.
You obviously have little experience with history. The fact is, almost every historical event is disputed by someone. It is very conducive, if one wants to discover the probable truth of an issue, to see the two sides duking it out intellectually, in conjunction to whatever they agree upon. Wikipedia supports this, with its discussion tabs, far more than a 'shallow google search' ever could. I think you are just one of these wiki-haters.
As an amateur historian, I adore Wikipedia. I have learned so much - and in my opinion there are few places that can even come close to the -contemporaneousness- of the open encyclopedia. Why do I say this? Because I have recently begun compiling a looooong index of history for every country that exists on the planet, and some of the information of my other sources, while the same as what I remember from my high school lectures, is completely contrary to what is actually believed at this point by most historians. Case in point? The Hyksos 'invasion' of Egypt. I love it, and I think it's wonderfully neutral. I adore reading the 'discussion' tabs on controversial articles. And if you want to see a really neat article, go to 'neoconservatives in america' and some of the supplementals (if you like politics, that is). Very good read! /struggling student, gave $5. You can afford to give some too!
I guess I don't use RSS feeds in the traditional way. Google has a 'customized google homepage' that you can turn on - I have mine on, and customized. It has several sections: search history (on google), GMail, RSS feeds of many different international news sites, and stupid stuff like quotes of the day and stuff like that turned on for fun. As I open Firefox about 504040404 times per day, and my homepage comes up for me every time (umm, of course), it's very convenient for me.
www.froogle.com