Slashback: Flesh, Porn, Smells 177
But quality movies like "Ishtar" are still available. After last week's (somewhat) surprising public announcement that Yahoo! would straightforwardly feature a section of pornographic movies in its online store, it seems that quite a few readers were disappointed enough to send in news that it was not to be.
phunk, for instance, writes: "Swamped with thousands of complaints from users, Yahoo! Inc. said Friday it will stop selling X-rated videos and other pornographic material on its Web pages. The flap comes at a difficult time for Yahoo, which had been one of the biggest Internet success stories but is now struggling to make money and just announced layoffs."
I'm surprised they didn't simply rebrand that part of their site and quietly subsidize the rest of the company with it.
When you practice to deceive, plain text is a good format. Spatula writes "Hidden in the bowels of their media update on the security vulnerability in their DSL modems, Alcatel makes some very revealing statements.
Alcatel recently came under fire over a security vulnerability in one of their DSL modem products that could potentially allow a hacker to gain full control over a user's Internet experience. Many were shocked by Alcatel's subsequent remarks, especially that the company had no plan to release a patch for the flaw, suggesting only that users run firewall software.
In a "media update" MS Word document, one can view the changes that were made before the document was released to the public, which includes some interesting remarks, such as "What are you doing to provide a legitimate fix?" and "Why don't we provide this level of security for all our customers?" morons.org has all the details."
Printed because printed matter matters. Mark Harrison writes: "The Central Europe Review has an interesting review of Stanislaw Lem's newest book, Okamgnienie (A Blink of an Eye). Lem has been writing interesting and provocative works for the past 50 years. Many slashdotters should be familiar with his works such as the Cyberiad, which narrates the adventures of constructor robots Trurl and Klapaucius, and which inspired Sim City. According to the back cover of this newest book, it addresses questions such as "Is final knowledge of the processes which led to the genesis of life on earth possible? Will science bring us immortality? Are we alone in the Cosmos? What are the odds of meeting an extraterrestrial civilization? Is Nature an evolutionary monopolist? What do cloning and genetic engineering portend? Will humans produce artificial intelligence? What will be the consequences of the lightning-fast unfolding of communication technologies?""
And fishbonez points out this NY Times " book review of "Republic.com" by Cass R. Sunstein. In his book, the Sunstein argues that the Internet makes it possible to customize media experiences, which has the effect of limiting knowledge and narrowing readers' minds. Does this customized news effect apply to /.? Or does the ability to read numerous viewpoints overcome it? As a side bar, it would be interesting to know which filters are the most popular."
That stinks. An Anonymous Coward writes: "Remember when it was the iSmell that /. was asking for one-liners for?
Well it looks like they are going to have to go back to using good old-fashioned soap and water.
No more money and they where oh so close to shipping."
Re:Who says they didn't? (Score:1)
Re:Who says they didn't? (Score:1)
Re:Rights? What are you talking about. (Score:1)
It is like they are protesting freedom of thought that they want to limit the world to their tint on life. And these are the decent people, who would on a whim deprive others the ability to choose for themselves? Is it their goal to make it harder for these people to find what they seek? Well guess what, being Christian doesn't mean you are any better then anyone, and in fact most Christians don't practice many of the ideals of there religion in the first place.
I myself am Christian, but I don't see it as my mission to wipe out all alternate beliefs. And what if, for some strange reason, a person would be better off with another religion or belief? Are you, in order to keep face of your religion (which isn't at risk in the first place as far as that goes), going to sacrifice that person for the sake of your religion? Do you have so little faith in your religion that everyone must know and practice it thus reinforcing your views? I understand that some of you actually enjoy your religion, and would like to share it with others in good faith so to speak, but shoving it down others throats who aren't willing seems like an act of desperation.
I am shoving my belief down your throat, but my belief is that you should believe what you want, and leave the dissemination of the data stream for others to analyze.
And I know this post wasn't about religion, but religion is the biggest factor for people trying to take away other's ability to judge and analyze for themselves. For example, these Christian movie review sites that talk about movies with violence, sex, and blasphemy. They say that you shouldn't watch them because they are evil or such, so are we supposed to not have an opinion of our own?
And no, I am not dim of the fact that access to this material is easy for children, I just believe that this is not the way to solve the problem. I think that the parents are the solutions, but I could be wrong...
Yahoo Selling Porn.. (Score:1)
have you tried the hof? (Score:1)
Re:A victory for freedom (Score:5)
Re:Where does Yahoo! draw the line? (Score:2)
Like porn? Although I'd have a tough time calling porn unpopular...
Still, this is a dangerous way of thinking, perhaps even more dangerous than the people who seem to think I'm not qualified to run my own life. You can't protect everything. If you don't choose your battles wisely you risk losing your voice entirely (when you become one of those people who are always protesting, no matter what the cause is). Personally I'd prefer it if people focused their energies on copyright law reform and repeal of the DMCA rather than yet another porn store online. Hint: they aren't hard to find, Yahoo links to a lot of them.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I wanted iSmell! (Score:2)
Motivation: Dogs spend all day alone, and they are bored and don't have anything to do except be lonely and pee on stuff.
Goal: Keep dogs occupied in some mindless way -- like video games, except that dogs have less brains, so it has to be a really stupid video game.
Problem: Dogs don't seem to enjoy TV much, and they don't even have thumbs.
Solution: Give dogs what they really want -- not visual stimulation, but olfactory stimulation. Using whatever the heck iSmell was going to use, you create a machine that puts out strange and interesting smells. Maybe the dog would have to scratch at it, or maybe a sound would go off and it would emit a smell for a short while. Just give the dogs interesting smells, and just enough other stimulous to keep the smells from getting old.
You could sell little smell cartridges with different smells -- dead animal smells, a variety of urine packs, doggy treats from around the world, etc. -- ensuring future income (as well as variety for the dogs). The smells would all be subtle and difficult for humans to detect.
I think there's money to be made there. Well, at least it's a better business plan than iSmell had.
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
Well, from a Christian point of view participating in pornography _does_ harm others, as well as yourself.
First of all, if I want to do something that you think is causing harm to me, THAT'S MY OWN DAMN BUSINESS AND NONE OF YOURS! If I want to star in a porn movie, that's my own decision. If I want to buy a porn movie, that's also my own decision. I don't go around trying to keep people from adhering to certain religions even though I think that many of them (christianity included) can be quite harmful to people. It's an individual's decision. As long as nobody is forcing someone to do something they don't want to do, I don't have a problem with it.
I criticize intolerance, because the "tolerance" crowd is often incapable of seeing any point of view but their own, and quite often the "tolerance" crowd is anything but.
The "tolerant crowd" would be advocating minding your own business. Quit trying to get legislation passed to prevent consenting adults from engaging in this or that activity that you don't approve of. The "tolerant crowd" isn't trying to outlaw religion. They're trying to prevent religion from encroaching on the lives of people who don't want to have anything to do with those religions.
For example, isn't it ironic that when the Boy Scouts want to exclude openly gay leaders from their organization (as protected by the First Amendment) it's called "unfairly imposing their morality on others", but when pro-homosexual people demand that they "tolerate" people who openly engage in behavior that is believed to be immoral, it's called tolerance.
I don't think that private organizations should be compelled to include anyone that they don't want to include. As long as the organization doesn't receive any public funding or other benefits, then they can do as they like as far as I'm concerned. But since gay people pay taxes just like everyone else, I'd be pretty ticked if a publicly funded organization tried to exclude them.
When is the last time you saw a movie or TV show that promoted chastity or modesty?
Nobody forces me to watch crap like that. Nobody forces you to watch something you don't like either.
When was the last time you heard a politician claim that we need to protect the rights of heterosexual people who want to live their lives a certain way (not to suggest that's needed)
As you say, it's not needed. Nobody hassles heterosexuals for being heterosexual. They don't need to have their rights protected any more than they already are. We happen to need extra protection for gay people because their rights are quite likely to be trampled all over simply because someone's religion says that homosexuality is bad.
when was the last time you heard someone say that if you don't want AIDS, don't have promiscuous sex, rather than perpetuating the myth that condoms, which do a really poor job of preventing pregnancy overall, are any better at prevent the transmission of disease?
I hear this all the time. I think it is only one possible solution. Perhaps it's one of the most effective, but it is also not likely to be useful to many people. For many people, it's like saying that if you don't want to get sick, you should encase yourself in a sterile plastic bubble. It's just not practical. You believe your religion is The Truth. This religion says that premarital sex is bad. That's fine for you. Many other people don't believe it. Nor have they seen any good evidence either. It's called "faith" for a reason. So, these people deal with live their lives as best they can. They have human needs and urges. Sometimes they may decide to supress them if they feel they might endanger themselves. Other times they feel that the risk is not that great. Some people just aren't educated about such decisions in the first place. They don't understand the risks. They should be educated rather than preached at. Unfortunately many christians seem to see AIDS as as an opportunity to enforce their morals on others rather than a disease that requires caution and education to prevent.
See? The intolerance and moralizing go both ways. It's amusing how many people fail to see that.
What's amazing to me is that you fail to see the difference between allowing people to do what they want as long as they aren't harming others, and forcing people by law or coercion to conform to your morals and beliefs.
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
Pornography certainly falls into that category, whether it's the thousands of people exploited by the industry or the millions of customers who would rather see other human beings as a series of moist orifices rather than people. It's this attitude that (some) people are just meat for our entertainment that is harmful.
I don't know who you think you're representing with those words, but it's not anyone that I know. Those are real people who pose nude or have sex in front of a camera. I don't think of them as anything but real people. In fact, if I didn't see them as such, I probably wouldn't have any interest in porn. Maybe you find it convenient to portray people who enjoy seeing people's bodies or watching them have sex as just seeing those people as "a series of moist orifices", but I find it to be a straw man that should be left out of the discussion. You obviously have absolutely no idea what I think about the people I see in porn movies or pictures. You have simply decided that this is what I think in order to give yourself an easier time attacking me for it. The sad thing is that a lot of people will fall for this. The ironic thing is that you will probably continue to make that kind of statement in the future, regardless of whether it's accurate or not.
I understand perfectly what his _point_ was. His _point_ was that he thinks Christians are idiots and their views are stupid because he disagrees with them.
Whoa. Bigtime wrong answer there. That's not what I think at all. I certainly don't think that all Christians are idiots. I know many who aren't. While I might not agree with their views sometimes, I don't believe their views are stupid. Let me explain what I DO think. I think that Christians should be allowed to believe what they like and live according to those beliefs. I think that we all live in a world where people around us do things that we don't agree with. I think that we should all live our own lives and make our own decisions, as long as those decisions don't have as a substantial effect the harming of others or the removal of their freedoms.
I understand that your beef with this statement is that people have different ideas about what harms others.
Pornography certainly falls into that category, whether it's the thousands of people exploited by the industry or the millions of customers who would rather see other human beings as a series of moist orifices rather than people. It's this attitude that (some) people are just meat for our entertainment that is harmful.
As I stated earlier, it seems that only Christians (or others who are against sex or porn) believe that people watching porn see the people they are watching as "meat." I find that somewhat disturbing. I also don't think that the porn industry exploits people any more than most other industries. Hell, organized religion has exploited people for centuries! That's the way most of the world works.
It would be nice if it wasn't that way, but even if you could end the exploitation, there would still be many many people who want make or watch porn. Go to any number of amateur (i mean real amateur, not corporate-owned amateur) sex websites. There are people making their own movies in their own bedrooms to sell to others. You could kill the "adult film industry" tomorrow, and it would simply pop right back up again. People like sex. People like having sex. People like watching sex. Many people sometimes like to be watched when they're having sex. That's all it takes. Human nature.
Gee, I thought a community that prides itself on holding sacred the free exchange of information would practive what they preach.
If /.ers didn't believe in such things, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Your post would have been deleted and your point of view erased from existance here. Perhaps you are confusing disagreement with censorship. Understandable since many prominent Christians seem to think those things are equivalent. If they disagree with something, they believe it should be censored so that nobody has access to it.
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
Again, you are "dictating" the morality that everone should leave everyone else alone, unless they are causing harm to others. Now there's nothing wrong with that as long as you realize that it is morally equivalent to some Bible-thumper (or me) "dictating" that you should use pornography. What's the difference here?
I see your point. My participation in this thread was a result of weston claiming that people interested in porn somehow lacked integrity. Then you claimed that one of the posts responding to weston was anti-Christian. Thus began my argument that the idea of leaving others alone unless they are harming someone else is a better one than the idea of basing our laws on religious beliefs. I don't have a problem if some laws happen to correspond with certain religious beliefs. Outlawing murder is something that I can get behind for purely secular reasons.
It seems that the real problem I have is with people advocating laws based on their religious beliefs and seeming to believe that I should readily understand that something is bad because *insert deity* says it is bad. We are supposed to have freedom of religion in this country, so it seems to me that if one religion manages to get enough influence in our government to change the law to reflect its own beliefs, it renders freedom of religion a meaningless right. I'm not trying to bash Christians or anyone else. It just happens to work out that way since Christians are by far the most numerous and vocal religious group in this country and seem to have a real determination to make the laws of this country match those of their religion. Witness the various Christian organizations that are very heavily involved in politics and constantly push for new censorship and decency laws and such.
Sorry for the confusion.
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
However, I think your perception of Christians is based (as is our perceptions of most groups) on a vocal minority that doesn't necessarily represent the group as a whole (or even any significant faction thereof).
This is a good point. I don't really mean to imply that all Christians are the same. I know too many that aren't. My mom happens to be a devout Christian. Her particular group doesn't want to have anything to do with politics though. I wish more Christians were like that ;) I know other Christians who actually are the "live and let live" type. So I'm sorry if I seem to be characterizing all Christians this way. However, if you listen to some of these groups that are quite vocal, they often claim (or at the very least imply) that they speak for all Christians rather than their group. I also know that a lot of Christians buy into this or at least let them continue to make such claims. But in the end, it's the vocal groups that I have the real problem with, not Christians in general.
Similarly, if you consider the effects of laws called for by these people (decency laws, etc) are merely attempts to codify laws to protect people just like laws against pollution, murder, etc, then you will see that they are not trying to take over your lives (well, some might be...) but ratehr trying to look out for society's well being.
True, it may be well-intentioned, but I still think it's wrong. Not wrong that they are proposing laws, but the tactics they use to get them passed. They don't seem to want to live with people who don't believe in their religion. They turn it into a Christians vs. heathens battle every time. I've seen this quite recently in my own town. There was a topless strip club here that some people decided was too close to their church. It was in compliance with city zoning laws, so they decided to change the law. This place was not an eyesore. It looked like any other club or nice bar really. Clean and nothing offensive about the exterior or even the name of the club. Yet they claimed that they needed to shut the place down to protect their children from the "filth" that takes place in the club. They picketed outside with signs that said as much. How the heck is that? What would children be doing in there anyway? How would they get in? It's not like you can just walk into a place like that without being carded at the door. It's ridiculous, but they use the tactic to manipulate people. They eventually succeeded in getting a zoning change that made it illegal for that club to sell liquor. Thankfully the club owners didn't take this persecution lying down. They simply changed from a topless club that sells alcohol to a completely nude club that is BYOB. The church members were not amused, and are now trying to get more changes made to the law to drive the club out of business.
This isn't even a very egregious example. (the vocal minority of)Christians often decry others as being "tools of the devil" (another great line from the picket signs) or cache all their grievances in "for the children" manipulative nonsense, as if every place in town should be a suitable place for children. How does one make a rational defense for themselves in the face of other people's unflappable devotion to their religion? I don't believe in their religion, so why should I be subjected to the same rules? They often seem arbitrary and silly. Nudity is bad? According to the Bible, humans were created nude. Lived that way until they got tossed out of the garden. We are born nude. Many people don't have a problem with it. Some religions even embrace it. Yet Christians (using my town as an example) seem to want to shut down any place that allows people to see nudity. They try to shut down strip clubs. They try to shut down adult video stores. They go after any place that sells adult magazines, even from behind the counter. The bad thing is that they succede sometimes. Not every time, but they are nothing if not persistent. I sometimes wish God would have given them something useful to do with their time rather than try to make the rest of the world conform to their beliefs.
I know you're thinking that it's just their view of how the world should be vs. my view, but I still think there is an important difference. I don't advocate trying to take away the places and things that they enjoy. I don't advocate tearing down the bible book store. I don't advocate the paving-over of churches. I don't attack the things they want to have. If I don't like what is said or done in churches, I simply won't go there. Unfortunately there seems to be no room for compromise with them. As far as they are concerned it's their way or the highway. Why can't they understand that not everbody believes what they believe and simply leave us alone as well? Perhaps you can't answer that unless you are such a person in the first place, in which case you probably wouldn't answer it anyway. While I believe you're right that it is a vocal minority that causes people to bash Christians in general, I wonder why Christians don't make it known that these groups don't speak for all Christians. Otherwise, like anything else, Christians in general will take heat due to guilt by association. If I were a Christian, I'd probably be quite annoyed with some of these groups and make that known to them and everyone else. I haven't really seen that happen, which is probably why I assumed that Christians in general must agree with these vocal groups.
Career Morons? (Score:1)
More like 20 years ... (Score:1)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0082926
OT: Goat Sex (Score:1)
http://www.cpu.lu/gka/erpan.htm [www.cpu.lu]
We return you to your usual slashback...
Re:Alcatel/Closed Document Formats (Score:1)
Re:A few learned answers (Score:2)
Well, assuming that the mind as well as the body is preserved, I certainly would want to live forever! Why would anyone *not* want to, unless they have been brainwashed to think that this is an evil thing to want?
You're still an idiot. (Score:1)
And stop modding this troll up!!!!!
<RANT>
Your offended sense of morality has now deprived me and my wife of our right to buy films featuring naked women getting pounded by men who have units too large to fit into their pants. While you cry "Success for Free Market" and blather on with your rablming post, I now have lost a new place to expand my purchasing power, and obtain Yahoo! Points in the process, giving me the opportunity to eventually get a free T-Shirt.
</RANT>
But seriously, why is it that the Religious Right decries things such as this, because god forbid we let our kids be exposed to it (um, watch your kids on the internet and talk to them about Penises without turning all red and stuttering and stuff, and maybe they'll respect your opinion); these free markets of sin and depravity are becoming the death of our society. But let them force someplace under, and all of a sudden it's "Up with Free Market! Hooray, this is what our country was founded on!", forgetting that the same right that allows them to protest said place of business also gives that place of business every right to remain open, regardless of what their morality tells them. If you don't like it, don't patronize them, and let the people who do like it enjoy the same freedoms that let you keep your children locked up in a box for the first 16 years of their life, only to have them break out and shoot 100 kids in their high school because they have lost every expressive outlet that kids for the last 100 years had.
OMG, I missed "ablism".... (Score:2)
Did you say ablism?
YOU PEOPLE NEED TO GET OVER IT!!!!
It's a disability. Or a handicap. Or someone is retarted. And so, we discriminate against people who are disabled, handicapped, or retarted. We don't need to make up words to hide the fact that someone is disabled, or handicapped, or retarted.
This is the same mentality that keeps our children from being exposed to anything even slightly outside of the "norm". No Geek Clubs in high school (Integrate, integrate, integrate!). No drawings showing that pain-in-the-ass teacher hanging by a rope (Murderous tendencies must be squashed!). No sex on TV (*gasp* Perverts!). Then, when they've spent 18 years in their little bubble, and something pops it, they have no coping mechanisms in place, because Mommy and Daddy always made sure that nothing would offend "widdle Johnny". So he grabs a gun and kills 10 people. Or drives Daddy's new Range Rover into a McDonalds. Or jumps off of a bridge. All because his girlfriend broke up with him or something equally stupid.
You can't solve the world's problems by imposing your moral values on everyone and keeping them away from society until they're old enough to make their own decisions. Because when they can, they will rebel even more than they would have out of curiosity, and in 10 years, we're gonna see a generation of kids who may as well stay in a closet, because they won't socalize normally, interact normally, communicate normally, deal with stress normally, and won't react to external stimulii (sex, violence, people) normally. Good job, keep it up, thanks for your good work....
Re:Rights? What are you talking about. (Score:2)
Besides, any post pointing out that many errors of grammar and usage is bound to contain at least one of its own (and probably misspelled at that), which of course would be blindingly obvious the picosecond after I clicked "Submit".
Nice post.
Maybe not (Score:2)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/15881 .html [theregister.co.uk]
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
It's a shame abouYahoo! pr0n... (Score:2)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Re:A victory for freedom (Score:2)
Actually, troll, I believe the moderation you received wasn't "succint", it was "funny".
Which is all you really are; a funny example of post-Nazi fascism.
You're not even a very good troll.
-
Re:A victory for freedom (Score:2)
1) Remember, if you reply, you can't moderate.
2) "overrated" lowers the post, but doesn't lower your karma in pro-troll metamoderation.
3) "overrated" also doesn't change the "category" of the moderation, so if you can catch it when it's on "funny" you can get "-1 funny" with enough moderations.
Also, I shouldn't have to say this, but evidently I do; Anne Marie is a troll. "she" probably isn't even a she, and "she" probably surfs porn in between these diatribes. "she" is trying to get you to post lengthy replies, and laughing when you do. Stop taking "her" seriously and "she"'ll go away.
-
Yahoo's Porn "announcement" (Score:2)
I know that the
Freudian slip? (Score:4)
Ha! Wow, /. is clever and hilarious.
Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (Score:1)
Since I am currently studying for my Social Psychology exam that deals with such issues, I must ask: Where is the evidence for the claims you make? We were taught to be very critical of one person experiences like the one you relate, and look for true scientific evidence.
What you are saying sounds much like the theory of catharsis which was originally proposed by the Greeks and popularized by Freud. It's the old argument that watching violence is a release that reduces violent actions. Unfortunately, my textbook describes study after study that prove that violence breeds violence -- even if it was just something passively seen.
Now, I completely realize the studies I am talking about deal with violence and not pornography. More experiments need to be done to see if long term pornography use leads to damaged male-female relationships, derregation of women, and/or violence toward women. There are studies that show violent pornography does increase violence to women, and even non-violent pornography can lead to the objectification of women.
If you're interested, I can provide references for some of these studies. But maybe not until after my exam!
Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (Score:1)
Remember correlation is not causation!!
Good point, but many of the studies I was referring to were not corelational studies but true experiments involving the random assignment of subjects to porn and no-porn conditions.
Re:Didn't you get the memo? (Score:1)
And where does this legend about pro-microsoft people getting modded down come from? Far, far too many of the highly modded posts are just (well written) pro-microsoft trolls.
And let's not forget the whole group who always say, "this post will be modded down" so that they don't get modded down.
Of course, posts like this one, which point out that, do get modded down.
It almost is enough to make one think that there really is a conspiracy among the trolls.
Of course, the editors around here don't help, with their near-constant falling into trolling themselves (their remarks usually seemed to be designed to elicit comments from people such as you remarking on the
Slashdot is going to hell, but it isn't the
If we had a real set of editors, rather than the arrested-in-tenth-grade guys we have now, slashdot might be what it once was.
Re:(Alcatel) So what's new? (Score:2)
Even though this is exactally what is going on, I doubt you will ever see it written that way, even in internal documents. In my limited experience most times decisions like this get made the person is not actively trying to be evil, they are just looking out for Number One. I would bet that if you took your (IMHO correct) interpretation of this document to the author they wouldn't believe it. People who do stupid evil things many times use doublethink and rationalizations to justify their actions with logic that defies all explination.
Just my $0.02
FREEDOM!! (Sometimes) (Score:1)
Hands up if you're a hypocrite!
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
It would require integrity, but it just might be possible that some people don't use the internet for porn at all, you know....
--
Re:A victory for freedom (Score:2)
You mean, the freedom of someone to say "I think porn is bad" and the freedom of someone to say "We value your patronage. We won't sell porn" should be curtailed?
Perhaps I shouldn't be able to express my ideas about pornography?
Perhaps yahoo should be REQUIRED to carry porn?
Some people expressed their viewpoint -- legally and probably ethically. Yahoo responded as they saw fit -- legally and probably ethically. You're welcome to express your viewpoint to Yahoo, too.
because of some all-too-deeply entrenched american belief that the human body is a disgrace, and that human sexuality is even worse.
Not everyone who thinks that porn may be a negative thing thinks that the body or sexuality are bad. There's room for a viewpoints other than that stereotype/strawman.
--
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
BTW, what is a "Hypocratic public"? Perhaps one commited to universal health care? You'd best look in Canada or Europe for some such thing.
--
Re:Tolerating intolerance (Score:2)
But just in case you're serious....
What alternatives are you actually suggesting? The only way to change the situation in question that I can think of:
1) require that people cannot express their views to Yahoo
2) require Yahoo to carry porn, regardless of how they feel about it ethically, or as a business move, or from an image standpoint
If you can think of anything else, great, but I can't see how doing EITHER 1 or 2 wouldn't be a greater travesty of justice than missing out on some porn.
"When you're hungry, do you go and stare at a picture of a steak?" -- Bill Cosby
--
Re:Tolerating intolerance (Score:2)
One-click patent boycotts?
Any boycott?
These people thought something was wrong, they voiced their opinion and their plans. That's what a boycott is Yahoo responded. Nothing wrong here any more than boycotting Amazon or Nike. The problem seems to be that you don't agree with their idea of wrong. So call up Yahoo and let them know they messed up and you want to see porn back on the site, and what harm did it ever do anyone anyway. But don't expect other people to stop expressing their views, and don't expect Yahoo to have to agree with yours.
Anne Marie's post, btw, was obviously a troll, so I don't blame you for getting riled up.
BTW, The federal government is perfectly within its rights to offer/deny any funding it has based on conditions it sets. Whether or not they have the right to COLLECT the money from us is what I'm more concerned about. Especially this time of year.
--
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
My. We're not advocating censorship, are we?
Arrogant, moralistic, self-righteous bastard. I
wish people like you would leave the rest of us the hell alone. If I want to buy porn and other people want to be paid for making it and starring in it, then who the hell are you to say that we lack integrity?!
I didn't mean to imply that you or even anyone else who views porn lacks integrity. I simply meant that if the people who our top level poster called the "hypocratic [sic] republic" had integrity, they probably never would have noticed the porn banners. And thus weren't hypocrites at all. See my other post [slashdot.org] for further such clarifications.
I could say you lack intelligence for believing in a bunch of religious tripe.
I could say that you assumed you knew my background and what I had to say before you read carefully and therefore missed my actual point and got incensed about nothing at all. I would probably be more correct in that assertion than you are in yours by several orders of magnitude.
But do I go around doing that? No.
Um, well, actually, you just did "that."
I leave you the hell alone and would appreciate it if you would do the same.
Your post consists of exactly the same level of invasiveness into my life that mine did to yours. I think we're both OK.
Unless I've been trolled....
--
Re:Alcatel/Closed Document Formats (Score:1)
<Ctrl-A>
<Ctrl-C>
<Ctrl-N>
<Ctrl-V>
<Ctrl-S>
filename
<Enter>
<Alt-F4>
<Alt-F4>
Who says you need a mouse in Windows?
This is also good for fixing strange formatting errors that you just can't seem to get rid of.
Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (Score:2)
Is it just me, or have the last couple of days been classics for trolling?
Dave
Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (Score:2)
Fuck yes! And I quote: "Moderation Totals:Flamebait=3, Troll=4, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=2, Funny=9, Overrated=3, Total=23.". I mean, Insightful? Where does he buy crack?
Oh, but I exceed myself for the Bonobo lady. I can't help but feel what we're missing here is some new part of slashcode. It should be possible to issue a query for total moderations every half hour or so and do a slashbox on the front page. Something along the lines of:
Hottest Trolls:
Bonobos are more than that; they're people too (27)
Red Hat, the only serious distribution (23)
And so on. Hmmm. How to do this remotely. You're right about the archive.
Dave
Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (Score:1)
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
I understand perfectly what his _point_ was. His _point_ was that he thinks Christians are idiots and their views are stupid because he disagrees with them. He's entitled to his opinion, and so am I.
If you actually knew anything about Christianity, you would realize that it is not inconsistent with your 'each to his own' philosophy, but rather disagrees with what "negatively affects" other's live. Pornography certainly falls into that category, whether it's the thousands of people exploited by the industry or the millions of customers who would rather see other human beings as a series of moist orifices rather than people. It's this attitude that (some) people are just meat for our entertainment that is harmful.
I am extremely tired of the fact that people on Slashdot can pontificate until they are blue in the face, but when someone else does the same thing, he or she is put down as being "intolerant" or "self-righteous" and are worthy of scorn. Gee, I thought a community that prides itself on holding sacred the free exchange of information would practive what they preach. But then it's clear most of the posters here (and I'm not referring to anyone in particular) are a bunch of snot-nosed, self-absorbed but clueless college students who have no clue about what the real world is like. As former snot-nosed, self-absorbed, but clueless college student, I can recognize the signs.
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
For example, isn't it ironic that when the Boy Scouts want to exclude openly gay leaders from their organization (as protected by the First Amendment) it's called "unfairly imposing their morality on others", but when pro-homosexual people demand that they "tolerate" people who openly engage in behavior that is believed to be immoral, it's called tolerance. As a Christian, I would say I have more of a claim to being tired of non-Christian values being foisted upon be because they are so pervasive. When is the last time you saw a movie or TV show that promoted chastity or modesty? When was the last time you heard a politician claim that we need to protect the rights of heterosexual people who want to live their lives a certain way (not to suggest that's needed), when was the last time you heard someone say that if you don't want AIDS, don't have promiscuous sex, rather than perpetuating the myth that condoms, which do a really poor job of preventing pregnancy overall, are any better at prevent the transmission of disease?
See? The intolerance and moralizing go both ways. It's amusing how many people fail to see that.
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
The fact of the matter is that ALL law is forcing people to conform to a certain set of morals or beliefs. It's just that the morality imposed (at least in the U.S. and other democracies) is a subset of morality as espoused by the major religions that is generally accepted by the population at large. If outlawing pornography is forcing your morals on someone, isn't outlawing murder also? Let's set aside for the second that you consider pornography to have no negative impact on society... I bet you could find the extreme case of a person who would argue that murder does not have a negative impact on society. Oh, wait, that's not so extreme after all when you consider the abortion supporters.
In any event, I just want people to see that communicating how you think the world should work is no more an attack when you are espousing that homosexulaity is wrong than when you are espousing that "Information wants to be free". It's all just words, and since we live in a democratic republic (at least in the U.S., et al), if a majority of people want to create new laws, we must rely on the wisdom of the legislators and the protections of the U.S. Constitution (U.S.-centric views here, sorry) to make sure those laws respect our rights. Now this is often a very grey area, but no matter how secular a government is (and the U.S.'s is codified to not favor any religion over another), you cannot escape the fact that all law is based on morality and there is no stronger influence on morality throughout history than religion. You might want to pull down copies of the Ten Commandments from the courtroom walls, but you cannot discount the profound and far-reaching effect they (as well as many other religious tenets) have had on modern law.
Again, I have never argued with your statement about "anything you want as long as you don't harm others"... in fact I support it. However, we disagree on what harms others, and since no one lives in a vacuum, harming yourself always has an indirect effect on others, and I would argue that it can't be good. It may be a subtle distinction, but I think it is important.
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:2)
However, as an example, if you take the given (and I know many people don't, but bear with me) that abortion is killing an innocent human being, then calling for an end to legal abortion is as morally justified as calling for an end to slavery was 140 years ago. Similarly, if you consider the effects of laws called for by these people (decency laws, etc) are merely attempts to codify laws to protect people just like laws against pollution, murder, etc, then you will see that they are not trying to take over your lives (well, some might be...) but ratehr trying to look out for society's well being. Just because you think someone is wrong doesn't mean you should see that person as bad. I wish more people would understand that.
A lot of people will bash the Christians for doing the same kinds of things they (the bashers) are doing, simply because they don't agree with them, and don't realize the double standard they are applying. It gets tiring after a while, but that's what happens when the level of public discourse, as evidenced by many politicians and many other vocal citizens is reduced to the intellectual level of a peanut butter commercial ("Choosy voters vote for Senator Bedfellow!"). It is great that there are forums like Slashdot where people can converse in more depth.
Rick
Diversity of ideas includes those ideas that are _not_ unpopular or prejudiced against.
Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (Score:1)
matt
DigiScents... (Score:2)
---
My opinions are mine.
Morons.org are living up to their name (Score:3)
They actually don't know why the alcatel modems would ship without firewalling for non-home users.
Of course, you can imagine how happy your average network admin would be if his/her shiny new 6Mb/s DSL line was filtering packets without any input from them
No, they are doing the right thing for the various markets. I would argue that a detailed discussion of the security risks involved should also be shipped to their corporate customers, but that would be a bit more faith in customer cluefullness than any hardware vendor has.
Re:Freudian slip? (Score:1)
uh
And as the scotsman said, "Aye laddie, it depends on the saize iv yer perch!"
timothy
Re:Rights? What are you talking about. (Score:1)
Just an FYI,
KM
Re:iSmell -The damn thing actually worked. (Score:2)
Re:A victory for freedom (Score:1)
- - - - -
Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (Score:1)
Don't forget "religion major"
- - - - -
Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (Score:4)
- - - - -
Now all who dislike false display of morals boycot (Score:2)
Now let's quote some of your other article (modded 5 Funny) to get some taste your kind of moral:
"Pornography is indistinguishable from rape."
"If we let Yahoo sell pornography like this, then it's a slippery slope down to having them sell videos of executions."
"... criminal activity such as this
"Pornography kills women's souls. Pornography burns men's souls."
"... men universally crave and devour pornography." (Lets ask those men from Sirius)
All this is intermixed with some stuff about the bible and the ten commandments. The morals behind this? If we look away it (pornography) doesn't happen? Sex (outside marriage) is bad? Everyone has to live the way i do? Men are swine all over the universe?
Tolerating intolerance (Score:2)
What i have a problem with (and aparently i'm not the only one) are people applying their personal opinions on other peoples lifes. Demanding that pornography shouldn't be sold is intolerance. Anne Marie obviously doesn't tolerate people with other morals than her own and fluxrad is happy there are places which aren't affected by such intolerance. Now you demand we have to tolerate Anne Maries intolerance (please read her other article for more intolerant statements).
Well, i think intolerance is not to be tolerated.
(Alcatel) So what's new? (Score:3)
I find the whole story only mildly funny (the blunder part) and not shocking at all. The sad part here is, that everyone already knows he's lied to and still buys the stuff. The people even expect to be lied to. The truth would be really shocking here, something along the lines of: "Well, all we want is your money anyways. Since you already bought our product we only want you to be quiet about it's shortcomings and the cheapest way to buy some time here is obviously a pressstatement. And please understand we treat businesses different, because they might pay some lawyer and really raise a fuss". Now that would've been some story.
Two questions about iSmell (Score:1)
2. Porn + iSmell might be pretty cool, but I can already see somebody coming up with an appropriate scent for the obligatory goatse.cx link.
3. Don't you think that it'll all devolve into a smell-script kiddie contest to make the worst smell ever?
Re:Who says they didn't? (Score:1)
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
And of course Lem's most famous work... (Score:3)
Firewall MUST BE IN Alcatel 1000 or else. (Score:1)
Not unless there is some special firewall router box has TWO DSL ports in which one can drop between the CO and the crappy Alcatel 1000, you're better off replacing the whole thing.
It's not Efficient, if it isn't from Efficient [efficient.com]. Excuse me for the sappy plugin, but as a security specialist, this is one of the better ones.
Must be those French mentality mindset. Moron n'importe qui? [altavista.com].
Re:Rights? What are you talking about. (Score:2)
--
Re:Hypocratic public... (Score:1)
Nothing more to see here. Move along.
Re:Narrowing readers' minds (Score:1)
Sunstein argued back, I think convincingly, that a certain segment of the population will seek out like minds and ignore everything else. This seems to be especially true of white supremecists, conspiracy theorists, and other close-minded fringe dwellers. I agree that the
Sunstein argued that there are two points to consider: is this a problem, and if it is, should we or can we do anything about it. He thinks the answers are yes and yes. I'm more inclined to yes and no. His solution involves mandatory linking to opposing viewpoints on news websites. This solution seems to me to have a host of problems, such as who decides what is an opposing view, and who decides what is a "news" website. It is an interesting idea at least.
A victory for a vocal minority. (Score:2)
If you ask any ISP administrator what the single-most-popular activity is on the net, it's porn. Why? It's because _people like it_ in spite of what some holier-than-thou fascist academics/activists/whatever seem to think is somehow anti-woman, misogynistic, neanderthal behaviour.
Some people like it. Big woop. Live and let live. Why should a vocal minority have power over what a store/website sells? There's no victory here, except for the people who can't seem to untwist their undies. Their problem, though is that this won't satisfy their thirst to get everyone thinking in their little narrow myopic ways.
Some of the more educated female friends of mine happen to be big fans of "good porn". We trade "the good stuff, here, check it out". I find this give-and-take gives me a much deeper perspective on the female psyche than I would have if we had never done this.
The reason for porn's existence is that it's *human* to like sex. The absolutely horrid example set by the anal-retentive (Gotta love Freud) among us in society as to how we should treat our fellow human beings just floors me. People are brought up to think that sex is dirty, evil, whatever, only (if they're lucky) to find that it was all lies, all of it. All the guilt, heaped upon someone's soul for feeling *human* for no purpose at all except to satisfy someone else's twisted/perverted views on sex is enough to drive some people nuts (I've seen this first hand).
It's about power folks. It's about the power to make someone else feel like crap because they have human urges/desires. Once you can do that, you have power over other facets of their lives. It's the power to make a company do something completely opposite of what their real customers want, simply because it's not "politically correct". What a travesty.
--
BMO
Freudian slip? (Score:3)
Timothy: After last week's (somewhat) surprising pubic announcement that Yahoo! would straightforwardly feature a section of pornographic movies in its online store, ...
"A Freudian slip is when you say one thing, and mean your mother." --Anonymous
Re:Freudian slip? (Score:3)
Freudian slip? (Score:3)
by woggo (slashdot@woggo.org) on Mon 16 Apr 07:01PM EST (#1)
Doh. I can't believe a First Post was on topic and actually read the whole writeup beyond the 'fold' on the front page!
hmm (Score:2)
No kidding (Score:2)
If you're a Yahoo shareholder, you should be thoroughly pissed off.
Women? (Score:2)
Hypocratic public... (Score:5)
Friggen hypocrites.
Re:Didn't you get the memo? (Score:2)
I posted in with my name on it, my company name, etc., hardly trolling. However, have no fear, the moderaters took it as such and knocked it down.
However, I was amused in writing it, even if my typos and grammatical errors made it a bit gross.
I don't really want to discuss the merits of trolling, but I thought that I'd comment on my take of the Slashdot viewpoint as of late.
Alex
Re:Rights? What are you talking about. (Score:2)
They should redirect all the traffic they want and do it under another name. The Yahoo brand has value.
Anecdotal evidence: My girlfriend is reasonably intelligent, pretty savvy Internet user. She was looking for some specific hair gel or whatever online, and saw one of them was a Yahoo store. She figured that it seemed reputable because of Yahoo's name. I laughed and explained what Yahoo store was.
However, she made a purchase because Yahoo being in the name lent it credibility. They shouldn't try to leverage the name in the pornography business.
America is a very religious, Christian country. I myself are neither extremely religious, nor a Christian. However, I understand and respect that a large portion of this country is in this group.
Doing something that would tarnish your name to this crew is silly.
My other point, I hit Yahoo maybe 2-3 times a week, it is occaisionally useful for finding corporate sites quicker than google. I bet that I hit Yahoo a LOT more often then most Slashdot users.
This is NOT the core demographic. This group will never use Yahoo, and certainly won't buy porn there (I guarantee that most users that traffic in porn here find free stuff via IRC or use hacked password lists). Yahoo pleasing this crowd is silly, as it is extremely unlikely to put its money where it's mouth is. Indeed, even companies that FULLY support Linux (VMWare) feel the wrath of the open source community that wants to rewrite their product and give it away. There is no way to extract money from this crowd. Even hardware is a tough sell, as they are convinced they can pricewatch it cheaper.
I think that Yahoo made the right decision.
Rights? What are you talking about. (Score:4)
These are not rights.
Yes, this was astroturf, and they should know better.
BTW: for those who aren't political junkies, a layman's def. of astroturf. Well, when people act, it is grass-roots, right? So grass-roots lobbying involves inflaming people to get them involved and cause fear. You generate a genuine interest, perhaps enough to shift opinion polls 5-10 points. This terrifies politicians, because that is a margin of victory. Astroturf = fake grass roots. Nobody actually cares, but a handful of people make a lot of noise and TRY to pretend to have grassroots support. They make no change in the numbers or the poll results, but they generate a lot of letters/emails.
However, I think that we should support the AFA's right to freedom of expression. The AFA is entitled to its opinion, as are the members of it (actual people, not conceptual people, they just don't share your views).
Yahoo realized (correctly, IMO), that porn sales through Yahoo may or may not make a lot of money. However, tarnishing their brand would not be worth it. Yahoo is seen as the nice way to reach the Internet. If this group and others like it boycott Yahoo, etc., then Yahoo is in trouble.
Quick show of hands, of all you libertarian, "open-minded", anti-religion Slashdotters, how many of you go to Yahoo?
In middle America, G-d-fearing country, these are Yahoo's users. Offending their target market to please people that won't use their products? Not a good plan.
Now, I would argue that Yahoo gets a LOT of searches for sex from the unknowing, and they need to profit off that. However, tarnishing their brand is wrong. While the same people might protest the sex site and use it, you don't offend those people by attaching your brand to sex.
Keep it separate.
Porn = profits (Score:2)
Selling porn can be both a legal and very profitable business regardless of how anyone feels about it, myself included. I think porn is boring and contrived so I don't look at it or buy it but I don't see why my lack of interest in or distaste for porn should have any influence on a company's business decisions.
I really hate Steven Segal movies so does that mean Yahoo! shouldn't sell them either?
- tokengeekgrrl
Re:Who says they didn't? (Score:2)
Says you. I like people who take "logical leaps" and come to such conclusions. Ask the women that appear in pornography whether they feel like they're being disrespected. They chose to join the profession -- it's not as if they had no other choice and it's not as if they're being forced into it. They're choosing to enter the profession. The only person showing a lack of respect for women is you: you are arguing that these women are incapable of making such decisions by themselves and that they need your protection. You're arguing for nothing less than the disempowerment of women on the grounds that you know better about what they should do, than they know.
If you're going to be preaching a Christian fundamentalist male-dominated society -- and you are -- at least have the decency not to lie to everyone and pass it off as you protecting women.
What about Yahoo clubs pr0n? (Score:2)
Has a very interesting phenomenon going on: Some of the clubs that are in it are supposedly going to be shut down because of their content, not for child pornography, but the legal kind of pr0n. The interesting part is that the Sex and Romance section has deleted the links to their picture exchange sites, and the club search tool seems to be under heavy renovation while Yahoo seems to be preparing their servers for (??). Actually, you can't search for clubs at all unless you use the indexed links, so deleting those links has presumably kept new users from entering p0rn clubs because they can't *find* them.
Looks like the guys at Yahoo were thinking of slashing back the *free* Yahoo pr0n to promote their for-pay material.
Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (Score:2)
Re:i cant believe yahoo caved... (Score:2)
Selling Porn: As long as it's hidden, it's not an issue. But, under scrutiny, it's indefensible. No surprise here.
smell you smell me (Score:2)
Re:A victory for freedom (Score:2)
It's nice to know i can go to certain places without the fear of seeing someone with your moral vigilantism(sp) present.
you know, places like Barnes&Noble, 7-11, Border's Books, and, of course, any video store other than Blockbuster (of course, they also contain some soft-core, so i doubt someone with an asshole-pucker factor as large as yours would be caught there).
The only freedom that was excercised here was the freedom of a vocal minority to bully a company into arresting themselves and their law abiding consumers because of some all-too-deeply entrenched american belief that the human body is a disgrace, and that human sexuality is even worse.
you call it freedom, i call it part of what's wrong with america. I'd give you the rest of the rant about minding your business, but it's obvious that you're too busy minding everyone else's.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
A little background for this Slashback (Score:3)
Here's a little background for this Slashback: Yahoo! selling porn [slashdot.org] | Alcatel DSL holes [slashdot.org] | iSmell one-liner contest [slashdot.org]
I couldn't find anything for the book reviews though.
What's wrong with porn? (Score:2)
Where does Yahoo! draw the line? (Score:2)
Remember this, kids: we don't have to protect the popular things from censorship and removal. It's the unpopularthings that we need to stand up for, because sooner or later, they're going to come gunning for something that you care about.
Re:Alcatel/Closed Document Formats (Score:2)
Nah, this doesn't just happen with closed document formats. It happens anytime people confuse the representation of the document on the screen for the document itself. For example, it seems like a high-profile misunderstanding of PDF happens every few months, too. And I'm sure we've all found "interesting" stuff commented out of websites, even though HTML is about as transparent as you can get, short of plain text.
What is the standard way to make sure that no revision history is contained in a Word document?
I would be suprised if there was one. It wasn't that long ago that Word documents routinely included whatever splooge happened to be on the sectors of your hard drive before Word allocated them. The program is quite good at what it's good for, but painfully bad as a document interchange format. It's a damn shame it gets used as a document interchange format.
i cant believe yahoo caved... (Score:2)
Alcaltel (Score:2)
But there is also the possibilities that someone who did know better let it out in the vulnerable format, knowing that someone would discover the hidden comments.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Narrowing readers' minds (Score:2)
I can't say that I have ever seen this. Slash dot readers go out of their way to be fully informed and to achieve a thorough and comprehensive understanding even of viewpoints and organizations that they disagree with.
As noted: "Professor Sunstein began to theorize that a communications system granting ordinary individuals unlimited power to filter information threatens to excessively fragment and polarize citizens -- a poisonous condition for democratic self government."
I can't say that I have seen anything remotely coming close to this over even the past month or so.
;-)
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Rights? What are you talking about. (Score:2)
You have zero right to go to Yahoo and purchase pornography. Nobody had ANY right to post OT III, a copyrighted document, to Slashdot's site. Bull. You've got every right if it's available. And as for OT III, it's out there, period. Perhaps I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the document is available to anyone interested in potentially joining the 'Church' of Scientology - which is, by the way, crap. I can understand Christianity and Jewdaism (hope is spelled that right) as they have some history or at least a claim to it for those who don't believe in it. But 'worshipping' crap somebody made up isn't really a religion. Heck, the whole Scientology thing sounds like the the story line from StarCraft.
I'm not protesting Yahoo!'s decision, I'm protesting the morons that think they have some right to control people's private lives. Ant last of all, consider that it's legal to have sex at any age, but illegal to see pictures of it until you're at least 18. Stupid, isn't it?
/.ers only have a karma of 49...
REAL
"Kowtow" is the word. (Score:3)
Well, even Slashdot deleted OTIII rather than fight the Scientologists. So I guess corporations only stand up for their users' rights for so long.
iSmell -The damn thing actually worked. (Score:2)
If the bubble had lasted another 6 months, this product would be on the market and we'd have smellovision. But instead, I'm afraid that investors will look at the DigiScents story and mistakenly blame the product and the idea, rather than the market, for its failure.
It may take another 15 years for someone to try, but I'm sure I will see this sort of product in my lifetime.
Yahoo! Adds boobies to its logo (Score:2)
I saw it here. [ridiculopathy.com]
Hypocrysy (Score:2)
Re:Narrowing readers' minds (Score:2)
He is a bit late here and his proposed solution is a non starter. The hate sites don't want to hear other views and there is no way to force them.
Hate sites are not devoid of all links to opposing material, it is just that the links they provide are chosen to reinforce their case. There is no way to disprove a case of someone who is prepared to manufacture as much 'evidence' as they need.
In fact the sustein remedy would force the mainstream to link to the hate group sites. The society for the advancement of science would be forced to link to every crackpot creationist site. The ACLU would be forced to the Phelps anti gay bigotry site. The anti defamation league to the neo-nazi league.
The problem with the sustein inanity is that there are simply too many ways to argue against the meme. You can argue against his stupid premise or his equally loopy solution.
The underlying falacy behind Susteins whacky scheme is the belief that this type of people respond to reasoned argument. The fact is that the whackos in the extreemist movements simply don't have either a belief system rooted in reality or care about rational argument. In fact that is what makes them extreemist whackos in the first place.
Sustein's scheme is not new by the way, it is exactly what Chairman Mao's 're-education' was meant to be, returning disident believers to the mainstream. Well sometimes the mainstream belief is wrong - segregation in the US south, any dictatorship you care to name, sexism, anti-gay bigotry.
Need a divorce? Go to http://www.a-fool-and-his-alimony-are-soon-parted. com
Re:A victory for freedom (Score:2)
tadbits (Score:2)
<yahoo> Odd that Yahoo even with the complaints stopped from going forward. One thing I would think is, most of these complaints came from people in the US, since Europe has lighter views on nudity, porn, etc., maybe what they should have done is gone with softcore porn. (Wasn't there an arguement between college students, and faculty about the right to search for xxx related articles?) To each their own, and IMHO, Yahoo should've proceeded with their plan, by creating an adult section restricted (points and laughs) to minors.
</yahoo>
<ismell> Its about time VC's started focusing on real advantages of spending money on tech that could actually make a difference for a change. Its a shame that companies with the most moronic ideas screwed things up for other companies with real insights and ideas.
I'm glad iSmell went out, personally I wouldn't want someone I pissed off sending me data that smelled liked shit.
</ismell>
packet rape [antioffline.com]
Long Live Porn (Score:2)
Weak-minded people will always be moronic and the morones should never rule the world.
-----
Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (Score:2)
Uh... if that's what you call helping, remind me not to ask you for help :)
Ryan T. Sammartino