Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashback: Flesh, Porn, Smells

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the do-old-flames-turn-blue-in-a-coalmine? dept.

Slashback 177

Yahoo! says No! to Porn!; the iSmell fades away after lingering long; two books you might want to read (or think again about reading); and What Not To Do Should You Become A Corporate PR Flunky. All below, all in tonight's Slashback.

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."

cancel ×

177 comments

Re:Who says they didn't? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#287356)

What if we threw an indignant tantrum and nobody came? Pornography doesn't hurt anyone, and it is laughable in this culture of freedom and open-mindedness that we still have people saying they are protecting people who want no protection. If you want to live in a culture where people do not have the freedom to make, sell, and look at pictures of sex, please move. You should be ashamed of yourselves for abusing the clout of the moral minority to restrict the freedoms of others. The majority of people are not against pornography, and while democracy provides for protection of minority views, that does not extend to the minority stifling the majority when no harm is done to that minority.

Re:Who says they didn't? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#287357)

hey dipshit, women look at porn too. idiot.

Re:Rights? What are you talking about. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#287358)

This is all true, to be sure, but I think it would be nice to achieve the point in society (if we ever come to it) where people can just accept the fact that other people are different and have different interest then themselves, and not have them birth a bovine and start wreaking havoc all over the place just because others have access to things that they themselves would never view (because they are "moral" and decent citizens).

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...

Re:A victory for freedom (5)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#287361)

Another way to look at this is that one great travisty of democracy and capitolism, no matter how much we love them, is that a tiny, but vocal minority can influence the lives of the majority. Worse, the people who did this didn't stop Yahoo because the availability of porn harmed them, but rather because the freedom of others to buy it is an affront to their sensibilities. N. J. Fuzzy fuz@raisingcain.com

Re:Where does Yahoo! draw the line? (2)

jandrese (485) | more than 13 years ago | (#287362)

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.

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.

More like 20 years ... (1)

Stan Chesnutt (2253) | more than 13 years ago | (#287369)

... after all, twenty years ago was when John Waters' movie "Polyester" came out, in Smellovision ...

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0082926

Re:A few learned answers (2)

Jonathan (5011) | more than 13 years ago | (#287372)

Come on now. Who wants to live forever? Don't get me started on the religous argument against this.

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. (1)

TBone (5692) | more than 13 years ago | (#287373)

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".... (2)

TBone (5692) | more than 13 years ago | (#287374)

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....

It's a shame abouYahoo! pr0n... (2)

Kozz (7764) | more than 13 years ago | (#287378)

They really had something, especially when those videos were teamed up with my Fleshtonic video card [bbspot.com] . You just gotta get one.


Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

Yahoo's Porn "announcement" (2)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | more than 13 years ago | (#287381)

Yahoo didn't "publicly announce" that they were going to start selling porn. The LA Times "exposed" it.

I know that the /. editors don't read the comments (or even the links), but I'd think they could at least read their own summaries...

Freudian slip? (4)

woggo (11781) | more than 13 years ago | (#287382)

After last week's (somewhat) surprising pubic announcement

Ha! Wow, /. is clever and hilarious.

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (1)

Prince Caspian (13062) | more than 13 years ago | (#287383)

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:(Alcatel) So what's new? (2)

Raven667 (14867) | more than 13 years ago | (#287386)

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.

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

Re:Hypocratic public... (2)

weston (16146) | more than 13 years ago | (#287388)

Um. Maybe -- this might be too much of a stretch now, but it's possible -- these people didn't NOTICE yahoo was selling porn banner ads because they didn't type in any sexual terms.

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 (2)

weston (16146) | more than 13 years ago | (#287389)

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

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:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (2)

WasterDave (20047) | more than 13 years ago | (#287395)

he discovered that it was perfectly okay to like gay pornography. Now he works as an NT administrator.

Is it just me, or have the last couple of days been classics for trolling?

Dave

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (1)

ywwg (20925) | more than 13 years ago | (#287397)

ethics major, sociology major... same guy you say?

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (1)

elbobo (28495) | more than 13 years ago | (#287403)

probably something to do with the trolling bible [demon.co.uk] coming to public attention.

matt

Re:iSmell -The damn thing actually worked. (2)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#287408)

smell aids memory retention. Dont you want to remember blasting some guy with a nailgun?

Re:A victory for freedom (1)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#287409)

Thanks for forcing your ethics on everyone else. Too bad we don't have an America to ship your kind off to...

- - - - -

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (1)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#287410)

thics major, sociology major... same guy you say?

Don't forget "religion major"


- - - - -

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (4)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#287411)

Hmmm... just last week, you said that porn is wrong [slashdot.org] . Now, apparently, it's manna from heaven. How's the school experiment going?

- - - - -

Now all who dislike false display of morals boycot (2)

gotan (60103) | more than 13 years ago | (#287412)

Wow, so the morality you prefer is along the lines of "we do anything to make a buck, if it means dumping our plans to avoid bible fanatics raising a fuss then even that." or what? To sell porn films over the internet was a very straightforward business plan. Everyone knows sex sells on the internet, so why not on yahoo?

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 (2)

gotan (60103) | more than 13 years ago | (#287413)

What you demand is, that people tolerate other viewpoints. I don't have a problem with a statement like "I think porn is bad". I tolerate that viewpoint, and that it's expressed in a way that marks it as a personal opinion. Someone who thinks that way is free not to buy pornography all his life.
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? (3)

gotan (60103) | more than 13 years ago | (#287414)

It's no news, that customers are presented with corporate doublespeak to make even the worst blunders look like it's in fact even an advantage for them ("because you now get that extra special service ..."). These documents obviously have to have some revision history, most of it probably dealing with how big a lie the customers will accept without laughing out loud. So you have to read between the lines, and to figure out the facts by searching for what is left out in the text. Now someone blundered (nothing new there either) and we get to read the revision history filling in all those little omissions in the document text.

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 (1)

Master of Kode Fu (63421) | more than 13 years ago | (#287415)

1. Aren't a good number of FPS game scenarios set in sewers or full of some pretty rank-smelling demons? Might be a little too real for me.

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? (1)

PurpleBob (63566) | more than 13 years ago | (#287416)

That's a perfect idea. Those who don't like pornography can have the commitment and strength of will not to look at it. Meanwhile, everyone else will go on doing what they like.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.

And of course Lem's most famous work... (3)

zorgon (66258) | more than 13 years ago | (#287417)

Solaris! He should sue Sun, many similarities apply: Big as a planet, slow and ponderous, plays with your mind. All of those things apply to SunOS 5 as well as the planet in Lem's novel ...

Re:Hypocratic public... (1)

yesthatguy (69509) | more than 13 years ago | (#287420)

Well, it's a word that sounds similar to "Hippocratic," the adjective relating to Hippocrates, most often used in the phrase "Hippocratic Oath," the inaccurately attributed oath that aspiring medical practitioners take. This is clearly a call out to the M.D.s of the world, who have a deep grasp of human anatomy, and therefore enjoy a professional enlightenment brought about by good smut. I'm sure it was just a simple phonetic typo made by a rather rushed poster who didn't have the time or desire to preview.

Nothing more to see here. Move along.

Re:Narrowing readers' minds (1)

L-Train8 (70991) | more than 13 years ago | (#287421)

I heard an interview with Dr. Sunstein on the radio recently, and most callers expressed the same skepticism. The 'net makes it possible to get more detailed and diverse information, not less, they argued.

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 /. community is very good about tracking down the whole story. Most stories have very helpful links to the other side's view included in posts. But I think there is a certain kind of person who wants to hear people agree with him, and doesn't want to hear information that contradicts his opinions.

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. (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 13 years ago | (#287422)

*sigh*

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

Boycotting means not buying. Not censorship. (1)

Rares Marian (83629) | more than 13 years ago | (#287424)

No Text.

I push buttons to click to get something (1)

Rares Marian (83629) | more than 13 years ago | (#287425)

How does porn on a server affect anyone until it is seen?

I suppose you've gone deaf from trees falling which you couldn't hear.

Or to put it another way:

Porn is not on their server anyway they're just listing results to a search and the organizing it.

Freudian slip? (3)

Speare (84249) | more than 13 years ago | (#287427)

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? (3)

Speare (84249) | more than 13 years ago | (#287428)

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 (2)

downix (84795) | more than 13 years ago | (#287429)

Yahoo: We have material describing hatred, destruction and genocide: Good thing We have material showing off the naked female body: bad thing Does anyone else find this humerous?

No kidding (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 13 years ago | (#287431)

Pr0n is by far the most profitable business on the Internet today.

If you're a Yahoo shareholder, you should be thoroughly pissed off.

Typically taking it out of context AGAIN (Alcatel) (1)

sudog (101964) | more than 13 years ago | (#287434)

Don't you guys understand English? Look, just because the document contains the words "Why don't we provide this level of security to all our customers?" doesn't mean the guy is actually wondering why they don't provide that level of security!

It's a rhetorical question describing what the previous paragraph MIGHT CONVEY based on its previous language. The writer wants to get away from that to make it more generic.

Good lord poster! What's your reading level? Grade 3? (Is that timothy's comments or spatula's?)

Re:Alcaltel (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 13 years ago | (#287435)

How exactly was this found anyway? Do people really have that much time on thier hands to go downloading Word documents and checking the revision history? Now that I know stuff like that is out there I'm going to be looking for it. This seems to really resemble that thing where the US goverment released declassified documents in PDF format but left the orriginal text intact under the blackout lines,
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ =\=\=\=\

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (1)

DESADE (104626) | more than 13 years ago | (#287436)

Can't believe this got modded up up to +5 informative instead of funny. Have the moderaters so few brain cells left as to not see this as a classic troll? (albiet a funny one).

Come on folks, if you were not rolling in laughter at the gay porn lover turned NT administrator, you're taking life much too seriously.

Hypocratic public... (5)

DESADE (104626) | more than 13 years ago | (#287437)

I just love how people will complain that Yahoo started selling porn, but don't complain that they sell porn banner ads based on keyword searches for for sexual terms. If you're in the smut biz, your're in the smut biz. What's the difference?

Friggen hypocrites.

Didn't you get the memo? (1)

alexhmit01 (104757) | more than 13 years ago | (#287438)

You must have missed the memo, this violates Slashdot orthodoxy.

Yes, freedom is preached here. However, this isn't what Slashdot means by freedom.

Freedom = freedom from responsibility (there should be no consequences to your actions, harming others is okay if it is for exploration, disregard of the law if you find it inconvenient, and you shouldn't be held responsible for your affects on society if it is to make you happy)

Freedom to source code. This is the single most important thing. Free Speech is only useful because it provide an analogy for Free Software.

Freedom to server their interests. Nobody else matters. The DMCA is the single most pressing issue in America. Taxation, size of government, world hunger, these are not important, ALL that matters is fair use.

Oh, and Freedom only applies to poor people. Wealthy individuals/corporations have an obligation to do what Slashdot wants.

I hope that in your next post, you will remember that.

For violating Slashdot orthodoxy and providing a contrary opinion, I sentance you to -1, troll. I'll go look for someone who followed the rules and posts the same thing as everyone else, I need to save my points to mod those up as insightful... Plus 2 points in reserve to mark as funny inane comments that make fun of Microsoft.

Rights? What are you talking about. (4)

alexhmit01 (104757) | more than 13 years ago | (#287441)

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.

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 (2)

tokengeekgrrl (105602) | more than 13 years ago | (#287442)

When I read about Yahoo! selling porn, the first thing I thought, was wow, what a smart business decision Yahoo! made. The online porn industry has and will remain to be the most successful e-commerce industry that exists on the internet. Yahoo! deciding to discreetly sell legal porn shows that they are serious about maintaining the financial health of the company. If I had stock in them, I would be relieved. Of course, my relief wouldn't last long because by giving up selling legal porn, alot more of their staff are going to be handed pink slips and the company is going to struggle.

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:Alcaltel (1)

RoninM (105723) | more than 13 years ago | (#287443)

Without knowing for sure since I don't use the product in question, I would imagine that it is possible to configure the software to display document revision histories automatically. A business user might have such an option turned on. That seems to me to be the simplest explanation: someone opened the document with the revision history already visible. If that's not possible with Word, another option would be that there's some sort of display--whether on the status bar, a document information box, or menu options that are normally greyed out but were not in this case. In short, I don't think it'd require that someone went downloading every old Word document around, checking for revision histories all of the time. Of course, there very well might be people that go around doing that.

Re:A few learned answers (1)

RoninM (105723) | more than 13 years ago | (#287444)

In spite of millions of dollars spent, NO EVIDENCE has been found in the whole universe.

Wow, we've looked in the whole universe? We've processed all of the signal data that we've collected? Millions of dollars is enough to look for signs of life in the whole universe when it's taken billions to learn as much as we have about the Moon, and we still don't have all the answers? That we haven't seen it in the very narrow amount of time and very narrow amount of sky we're sweeping for signals with our very narrow computational bandwidth and with the very narrow place that Earth occupies in the entire Universe isn't indicative of anything but that we have a very daunting task if we're going to prove or disprove that non-Human sentient beings exist.

Re:Who says they didn't? (2)

RoninM (105723) | more than 13 years ago | (#287446)

They've already demonstrated their total lack of respect for women.

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? (2)

fractaltiger (110681) | more than 13 years ago | (#287448)

http://clubs.yahoo.com

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:Hypocratic public... (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 13 years ago | (#287449)

sorry, spelling check:

Hypocratic?

Did you mean:

Main Entry: Hippocratic
Pronunciation: "hi-p&-'kra-tik
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1620
: of or relating to Hippocrates or to the school of medicine that took his name

(possible, since porn loosely relates to the medical field :-)

or

Main Entry: hypocritical
Pronunciation: "hi-p&-'kri-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
Date: 1561
: characterized by hypocrisy; also : being a hypocrite
- hypocritically /-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Re:Didn't you get the memo? (1)

JTB (115442) | more than 13 years ago | (#287451)

This is the most insightful comment I have ever seen here.

You've given me new hope that there are people reading & posting who are not all part of the same herd.

-JTB

Re:i cant believe yahoo caved... (2)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 13 years ago | (#287452)

After two years of selling it, they let a little publicity scare them...

Selling Porn: As long as it's hidden, it's not an issue. But, under scrutiny, it's indefensible. No surprise here.

Not Yahoo anymore, now Google (1)

moogla (118134) | more than 13 years ago | (#287453)

And I don't miss the internet directory feature because it was never helpful. And google's got that too [google.com] for what it's worth.

Re:What's wrong with porn? (1)

donglekey (124433) | more than 13 years ago | (#287456)

preach it

Re:Porn = profits (1)

donglekey (124433) | more than 13 years ago | (#287457)

don't forget freddie printz junior, beasta-peda-necro-denro-phile midget amputee interracial porn doesn't offend me, but his movies do, they're just done in bad taste.

*sob* (1)

Lord Omlette (124579) | more than 13 years ago | (#287458)

2001-04-13 16:55:05 Yahoo Pulling X-Rated Products (articles,slashback) (rejected)

Lord, why have you forsaken me?

Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057

Re:A victory for freedom (2)

fluxrad (125130) | more than 13 years ago | (#287461)

Thanks.

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 (3)

yerricde (125198) | more than 13 years ago | (#287462)

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.

So they upgraded their Word? (1)

ClayJar (126217) | more than 13 years ago | (#287463)

So, according to the .doc files at the morons.org links about Alcatel, they also upgraded from Word 8.0 to Word 9.0? Does anyone have any collaborating evidence (like another copy of the alleged original)? It just seems a little too easy...

I'm not saying that the stuff was fabricated, but I'd definitely take it with a very large grain of salt. (And no, I wouldn't be dumb enough to use Word to post something on the web.) :)

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (1)

malahoo (128370) | more than 13 years ago | (#287464)

Now he works as an NT administrator.

Clearly a man of many perversities...


If you're not wasted, the day is.

What's wrong with porn? (2)

YIAAL (129110) | more than 13 years ago | (#287467)

It's the economic driver of the Internet. We should be thanking God that people can somehow get off from images on a small dim screen. Why else would He create us with such drives, if not to facilitate the early adoption of new technologies?

Where does Yahoo! draw the line? (2)

CleverNickName (129189) | more than 13 years ago | (#287468)

I wonder...what happens if enough people get together and complain that Yahoo! is selling, say, bibles. Or that they have religion oriented clubs. Will they stop carrying them, too?

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:A victory for freedom (1)

SlugLord (130081) | more than 13 years ago | (#287469)

You have good morals, but poor reasoning skills. I'll just go through line by line.
  • Yahoo's decision not to sell porn is a victory for freedom: consumers' freedom to boycott businesses whose moralities they do not share and [by] whose ethics they cannot abide. This is nothing of the sort. First of all, they always had the right to boycott, et cetera, but this, if it were in fact demonstrating your ideals, would be a demonstration of the effectiveness of boycott, not a "victory for freedom." Reserve strong language for strong content.
  • I succinctly explained ... First of all, get over yourself. Second, if I need 5 clicks of my scroll wheel, it's not succinct. The following pertains to the linked comment [slashdot.org] .
  • I'd thought that Yahoo learned their lesson with all those French and German lawsuits about Nazi memorabilia. Yes, it is a tragedy that the Nazis massacred a third of the Jewish population in Europe. It is also a tragedy that all the ignorant activists are running around telling people that they are evil for having anything to do with Nazi Germany. While we're out suppressing German history, why don't we ban everything Jesuit (the Jesuits killed several times the number of Jews that the Nazis did) and everything Spanish (they killed the vast majority of an entire continent, including no fewer than three highly advanced and civilized nations). Perhaps you should think about what your "ethics" are actually restricting before you adopt them.
  • Pornography is indistinguishable from rape. And the receiving of gifts is indistinguishable from theft.
  • [Pornography] runs women through a blender, converting their bodies into liquified youth. Interesting imagery, but you should stick to saying something that makes sense.
  • There is no such thing as consent in pornography, because every person involved is there because of dire economic need. Economists consider the current situation of the United States to be complete employment. Any woman can get a job in the worst case scenario at a fast food restaurant. Moreover, women do not turn to pornography because of "dire economic need." They turn to it because of dire economic greed. Anna Nicole Smith, exempli gratia, has in excess of 100 million dollars. 100 million dollars in a regular CD savings account would give, after taxes, 4 million dollars a year for the rest of eternity. Don't tell me 4 million dollars a year is dire economic need.
  • But we tolerate women's public humiliation and public rape, because men universally crave and devour pornography. Don't use superlatives when you don't mean something superlative. I can name off the top of my head several men (teenagers with rampant hormones, actually) who do not "crave and devour" -- or even choose to look at -- pornography.
  • How can Yahoo justify profiting from such exploitation? The bulk of the money in the internet comes from porn. Wake up.
  • Everyone who does not actively oppose this move is complicit in human suffering. Guess what? There are billions of people who are living in poverty or are beaten or are unable to speak freely. Let's weigh the suffering of a child of lower caste in India or Bangladesh against the "suffering" of a whore making money hand over fist for working 3 hours a day for an internet porn site. Perhaps the woman in China who is forced to abort her third child because it's the law will agree with you.
  • The Ten Commandments tell us, "Thou shalt not rape!" Don't use quotes when it's not a quote. The commandments say nothing of the sort. In "Old Testament" times, women were property. "Rape" was nonexistant, though men often forced themselves on their wives.
  • If we let Yahoo sell pornography like this, then it's a slippery slope down to having them sell videos of executions. Yeah and we wouldn't want to offend mass murderers and serial rapists, would we?
  • The free market cannot thrive unless we police it for criminal activity such as this, just as it cannot thrive unless we police the market square for pickpockets. Pornography is legal. The internet community HAS thrived on porn.
  • There is no victor here, except for the ugly head of capitalism. I see the light! WE must all be free-market communists! ..or should we be controlled-economy capitalists? All I know is that there's no such thing as a free-market capitalism!
As to the current post,
  • if we can unite our voices against the oppressions of racism, pornography, and ablism, such evils as these won't dare raise their heads. Yeah except we cannot do so. Vice will always be marketable. Feel free to rant about giving severely obese persons legal rights to work in physically demanding jobs (as per your comment on ablism).
  • Corporations have to respect the bottom line. We the people sign the bottom line. And we the people put our monies where our .. well you know. There wouldn't be an issue if there weren't a market. There is a market for pornography and there always will.
  • The Constitution left the power of regulating corporations not with the federal government nor with the state governments but with the people. So the FTC, SEC, and Sherman Antitrust act are all unconstitutional. I see. Which amendment was that? Oh, wait, that was in one of the original articles. Also, only use "nor" with "neither."

More importantly, though, you are trying to impose your morals on others. At the same time, your own morals are in conflict. You like freedom, but want to ban pornography because YOUR BIBLE tells you it is wrong. This country is based on the ideals of life liberty and property (though the last was changed to "pursuit of happiness). You have the right to sell what you want unless it presents a clear and present danger, which porn clearly does not.

Sorry about the long post, but ignorance irks me.

sure ya did (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 13 years ago | (#287470)

Ummm you're not supposed to give out the names of people who you council dumbass. But then again this is quite a clever troll.

Re:Alcatel/Closed Document Formats (2)

bellings (137948) | more than 13 years ago | (#287473)

Just goes to show the dangers of closed document formats.

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.

It's Really *This* Simple (1)

ekrout (139379) | more than 13 years ago | (#287474)

Yahoo offers scores of free services that are of the highest quality out there right now. If they would only start charging small fees for these various "gifts" that they donate to the millions of registered users, I doubt they would ever have to worry about beating the "[Wall] Street's" estimates ever again. And that's the truth.

Re:So they upgraded their Word? (1)

rmcgehee (142010) | more than 13 years ago | (#287478)

If you go to the Alcatel site http://www.alcatel.com/consumer/dsl/security.htm [alcatel.com] you see that the original Alcatel .doc file was posted April 12th (12/4/01), yet the Alcatel file downloaded from their site was modified April 16th (you can check this in the File -> Properties).

If Alcatel had not modified their .doc file as moron.com suggests, then why is the file modification date four days after the post date?

Bobby
http://wso.williams.edu/~rmcgehee [williams.edu]

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (1)

Judas96' (151194) | more than 13 years ago | (#287480)

I think it only reduces crime and insanity in Liberals. Staunch converatives, republicans, and religiously zealous types seem to end up frothing at the mouth and throwing the bible into the ring. I think should that should be criminal and is insane. If you don't like it, just don't look at it.

Alcatel/Closed Document Formats (1)

jck2000 (157192) | more than 13 years ago | (#287481)

Just goes to show the dangers of closed document formats. When you think about it, it is pretty reckless for a business to send out documents (here, a press release, but it could have been a draft term sheet or contract) without knowing what is contained in it -- I would bet that many firms have taken advantage of this feature in negotiations. Do you think that MS itself would peek at a potential counterparty's MS Word document?

(Stupid question: What is the standard way to make sure that no revision history is contained in a Word document?)

Re:What's wrong with paying? (1)

DaRkJaGuaR (161464) | more than 13 years ago | (#287482)

i just can't help taking the bait here first of all, redhat makes money on selling SERVICE surrounding the OS like support. Security through obscurity DOES NOT WORK ANY BETTER OR WORSE THAN OPEN SOURCE. Because the Source is open makes it easer not harded to tell if there is malicious code fool. And you can find/patch/get others to make patches for security holes much faster, lok at microsofts record ffs. Corel can repackage and sell redhat but they won't get anywhere coz they have to give the next person the same oppotunities anyway. 'Nuff said

i cant believe yahoo caved... (2)

b0r1s (170449) | more than 13 years ago | (#287483)

After two years of selling it, they let a little publicity scare them...

Alcaltel (2)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 13 years ago | (#287485)

Obviously such a snafu as allowing a document out with such damaging comments can be attributed to incompetency.

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 (2)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 13 years ago | (#287486)

. . . which has the effect of limiting knowledge and narrowing readers' minds. Does this customized news effect apply to /. ?

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:It's Really *This* Simple (1)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 13 years ago | (#287487)

I think the biggest fear on Yahoo's side concerning adding charges is that no one will pay and go else where. Take a look at the Free ISP's. They served up free connections til they coulnd't afford it any more and had to start charging. People left them.

"Kowtow" is the word. (3)

sulli (195030) | more than 13 years ago | (#287492)

They got 100K astroturf emails from the American Family Association and backed down. I think they made a big mistake, because now every Tom, Dick, and Harry that wants to influence Yahoo (e.g. the French government? who's next, China?) will just flood them with angry email.

Well, even Slashdot deleted OTIII rather than fight the Scientologists. So I guess corporations only stand up for their users' rights for so long.

Re:What's wrong with paying? (1)

ZeroConcept (196261) | more than 13 years ago | (#287493)

Troll alert!...don't feed!

iSmell -The damn thing actually worked. (2)

CapsaicinBoy (208973) | more than 13 years ago | (#287494)

The saddest part about the iSmell is that the damn thing actually worked. I've seen and smelled a working unit. They actually had a scented version of Quake at GDC. Their smell of hot brass was friggin amazing. It smelled *just* like spent casings.

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 (2)

tenzig_112 (213387) | more than 13 years ago | (#287496)

I swear it's true. In preparation for its switch to Yahoo's sexy new self, they had some logo alterations done. A logo job, if you will.

I saw it here. [ridiculopathy.com]

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (1)

mike260 (224212) | more than 13 years ago | (#287498)

Oh yeah. The Syrian guy [slashdot.org] was good, but the Bonobo lady [slashdot.org] last week was in another class altogether.

This is the true treasure of Slashdot; someone should start an archive.

-- "Fruity smells are what I like" - Debbie Gibson

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (1)

Cephas Keken (224723) | more than 13 years ago | (#287499)

with the tone of things today I am waiting for a
+5 Awe Inspring for this lovely troll

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (1)

Cephas Keken (224723) | more than 13 years ago | (#287500)

HOLY FUCKING SHIT, The moderators gave me almost what I requested. Guess they are giving back for tax day or somthing. Troll one Troll all. waiting to see a +5 Off Topic for a goatse.cx link

Do you Yahoo! ? (1)

kenthorvath (225950) | more than 13 years ago | (#287501)

Quite frankly I am disappointed in Yahoo's decision. Their selection was very comprehensive sorted by title, studio, rating, etc... and everything was reasonably priced. Sad to say it, but I could have spent a small fortune there. What a crying shame.

No, I don't Yahoo!

Re:A victory for freedom (1)

mother_superius (227373) | more than 13 years ago | (#287502)

Why boycott a company because they sell something you don't like? Why can not people with a higher libido watch porn in peace? Although I am not a porn aficianado, I don't really see anything wrong with it (except for when there are about 5 popup porn banner ads. Those are quite annoying.). Just because people are not vocal does not mean they do not exist. Just as the government should not consider nonvoters for policies, companies should remember those who are nonvocal. You may think it is morally wrong, but the man/woman posing is making his/her own choice. Perhaps if a company were selling a product that were affecting me (or others) in a way I did not like, as in CFCs or DDT, those should be banned. But porn? Nah.

A victory for freedom (1)

Anne Marie (239347) | more than 13 years ago | (#287503)

Yahoo's decision not to sell porn is a victory for freedom: consumers' freedom to boycott businesses whose moralities they do not share and whose ethics they cannot abide.

Last week I succinctly explained [slashdot.org] why Yahoo's initial plans were a blight upon the consciences of the public. And now that there's been a complete reversal, there's cause for celebration.

Never forget what power the individual consumer has in charting the path that corporations must take. Even multinational conglomerates answer to a buying public, and if we can unite our voices against the oppressions of racism, pornography, and ablism, then such evils as these won't dare raise their heads.

Corporations have to respect the bottom line. We the people sign the bottom line. The Constitution left the power of regulating corporations not with the federal government nor with the state governments but with the people. It is that constitutional grant that allows us to oppose pornography with such fervent power.

Re:So they upgraded their Word? (1)

Why Should I (247317) | more than 13 years ago | (#287505)

Just a thought..

Maybe the person who updated the document wasn't the person who wrote the original. And editor maybe, or a supervisor or a PR rep mking sure all was safe to say in public. And mybe the revisors version of word was different to the drafter's version of Word.

Or maybe the person who wrote the doc, wrote it on his laptop on the way to work (with older version of Word) and then made changes in the office on his desktop machine (newer version of Word).

All I'm saying is, the fact that the revision was made in a newer version of word neither strengthens nor weakens the possibility that it was a fraud or indeed the real thing. You can't tell anything by checking the version of Word cause the friggin program is everywhere in every possible incarnation.

Hypocrysy (2)

titrisol (248285) | more than 13 years ago | (#287506)

I'm not into porn, But I think porn is an option for the people who want to see it, thus it is a free option. I don't understand why in the US the nudity/sex theme is treated as a taboo, c'mon guys this is the 21st century. Live and let live, if you don't like porno don't buy porn.

Re:Rights? What are you talking about. (1)

Fat Casper (260409) | more than 13 years ago | (#287510)

Besides, OT III is doubly protected. It's a copyrighted trade secret.

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (1)

c_g12 (262068) | more than 13 years ago | (#287511)

If you don't care about "precious karma" then why did you post as an AC?

Re:Narrowing readers' minds (2)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 13 years ago | (#287512)

Sunstein argued back, I think convincingly, that a certain segment of the population will seek out like minds and ignore everything else.

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

Yahoo selling porn (1)

UF_Fan (264246) | more than 13 years ago | (#287513)

If anybody read the fine print, or for that matter the print it said that users must type in a credit card number so they could access the cite. (as part of a age verification process) Now my problem is people like Dr. Laura and conservitatives feel as though having any porn even if it is restricted to adults is morally WRONG. But sience Yahoo crumbled under the pressure other high level search engines will be doomed to the same failure.

Re:A victory for freedom (1)

Sarcasmooo! (267601) | more than 13 years ago | (#287515)

By the way, I base that on my opinion that it would take more than a few religious fanatics to convince Yahoo to drop plans that would pull them out of the gutter. If that somehow isn't the case then maybe I'm wrong, but since christian groups are very organized online (like a hive-mind), my guess is that yahoo got tons of complaints and very few people did anything but.

Consider that in the same way people are supposedly pushing their morals on you by taking porn off Yahoo, you are pushing your beliefs on them by demanding it be there. Personally, I think it's common sense that banning porn completely is wrong -- I also think that having porn in every store is wrong. In the end the only thing that matters is the peoples' choice, and if it's such a travesty for democracy you might've considered emailing your support to Yahoo beforehand.

Re:A victory for freedom (2)

Sarcasmooo! (267601) | more than 13 years ago | (#287517)

I don't get it, the people responding to argue seem a little hypocritical to me. Banning porn in the country, making it illegal -- that would be a reason for anger. I don't think Yahoo would've gone back on it if plenty of people hadn't said their piece, and I love the person who posted this for pointing out the importance of individuals over business. You can get porn in plenty of places, why is it so horrible that people who were active enough to voice their opinion won the day? Personally I do wish the country were a hundred times more open about sex, and I don't agree with equating porn to evil, but I think this is still an important thing [slashdot.org] (blatant self-promotion), as far as the power-struggle goes.

tadbits (2)

deran9ed (300694) | more than 13 years ago | (#287518)


<yahoo>
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.
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>
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."
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]

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (2)

ryants (310088) | more than 13 years ago | (#287522)

Now he works as an NT administrator. My counselling helped him greatly.

Uh... if that's what you call helping, remind me not to ask you for help :)

Ryan T. Sammartino

Timothy's writing sounds like a wannabe newsanchor (1)

KingAzzy (320268) | more than 13 years ago | (#287523)

Just think guys, we're a bulletpoint on somebody's resume!

Him and JonKatz are hoping to get their own cable show, undoubtedly.

CmdrTaco, however, I believe wants to be a reclusive ubergeek for life and is passionate about what he does.

Hemos.. Hemos mystifies me. Not quite sure where he is at, but its probably in his parent's basement and involves conspicuous amounts of marijuana and Quake 3.

Re:A victory for freedom (1)

targo (409974) | more than 13 years ago | (#287525)

Yahoo's decision not to sell porn is a victory for freedom: consumers' freedom to boycott businesses whose moralities they do not share and whose ethics they cannot abide.

Are you kidding? Who boycotted Yahoo? Certainly not me. Did millions of Yahoo customers suddenly start using alternative service providers? I don't think so. Yahoo didn't make this decision because people stopped using their services, Yahoo did so in fear of fanatical puritans who would have caused harm to the company otherwise. I am very disappointed by this decision. In a democracy, minorities can not enforce their will upon majority. And listen carefully - there are way more people out there who like or at least tolerate porn than those who hate it. Well, so much about the democracy in the US.

Corporations have to respect the bottom line. We the people sign the bottom line.

Gimme a break. Yahoo wanted to start selling porn because it would have been profitable. Market research was showing it. It is the fanatics like you whom everybody in the US is forced to respect and fear.

Re:Porn reduces crime and insanity. (1)

iron_weasel (415177) | more than 13 years ago | (#287528)

Who ever moderated this to a 5 is a scuz monkey. You can't see anything on TV without some pervert jack*** screaming for gay rights or the right to masterbate in public or some other puke. So then who needs some dipshit website like Yahoo to attempt to prop up their lame ass with porn sales??? Can't you freaked twittwats find enough in the rest of the basement to keep your 'bottom of the bell curve' brain occupied enought to quit snapping your carrot for 1 hour???

A few learned answers (1)

B.Assturd (416078) | more than 13 years ago | (#287529)


"Is final knowledge of the processes which led to the genesis of life on earth possible?
No. I sense a touch of hubris here...

Will science bring us immortality?
Come on now. Who wants to live forever? Don't get me started on the religous argument against this.

Are we alone in the Cosmos?
In spite of millions of dollars spent, NO EVIDENCE has been found in the whole universe. If this were a jury trial, the defendant would have been found "not guilty" long ago.

What are the odds of meeting an extraterrestrial civilization?
See above.

Is Nature an evolutionary monopolist?
I have a college education, and I don't even know what that means!

What do cloning and genetic engineering portend?
BIG MONEY for doctors, HMOs, and drug companies.

Will humans produce artificial intelligence?
An interesting question. Sometimes I think that my computer screen is staring back at me... I wonder what it is thinking!

What will be the consequences of the lightning-fast unfolding of communication technologies?"
BIG MONEY for the telecommunications industry. Still, it's an interesting question, considering the Dot-com slump that we've all been hearing about.

Where Has All The Porn Gone (1)

TheRealKennRoss (443630) | more than 13 years ago | (#287530)

So, Yahoo says it will start selling more pr0n and some people complained enough to cause Yahoo to retract their plans and dump their old porn sections. Something tells me these same people never even knew Yahoo dabbled in porn in the first place (I didn't, but I don't usually go to yahoo anyway). It comes to light, suddenly they become scared, shit themselves, and then begin firing off some "No, Please no little Jimmy uses Yahoo to find Sailor Moon pictures...Please rethink your plans or we'll boycott...blah blah.."! e-mails. All was fine until Yahoo said they would be taking it further (it must of been fine because why else would they announce plans to erect new plans to expand their porn section). Hmmm, I hate how a few goody--goods ruin it for the rest of us (even though I could care less if they or anyone else sold porn online).

Lem's "Inquest" as a movie? (1)

Yahnz (443775) | more than 13 years ago | (#287531)

I recall watching a film version of this story some years back - can anyone else confirm this?

Thx.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...