"the very significant number of users" and "many (most) of us" - you have no evidence for these statements. It is a fact that most users are saying...
Another grammar faux pas is the improper use of "you". When sitting down down in a restaurant, for example, I get cringe when the waitress...
And NOW, folks, for Canonical's next trick...
Kubuntu is late.
Here's a pencil. Draw your own conclusions.
cf.:...
@kevinmchapman. The discussion here reflects the very significant number of users who really do like the traditional menu system and who wish to...
Er, no... It is an efficient means of finding the application/file/setting you need in one place. The icons are a simply a fallback for when you...
Isn't the provision of a text based search an admission by the developers that the mass of icons approach does not work? I don't need to use a...
"Unity and GNOME 3 both abandon the old text-based cascading menus in favour of a graphical icon-driven system."
Point truly missed. Both use a...
whs001 - Thank you, I'm glad you liked the article.
I absolutely agree with you on your first point. I should perhaps have made it clearer that...
If we allow corporate interest to dictate the way our government circumvents due process against foreign entities then we should accept the same...
I totally dislike pirating of works, I fear that artists will be deterred from creating works if they think that they are going to get ripped off....
How dare film makers, artists or anybody that invests in creativity stop us pirating their works for free. I want to be able to walk into my local...
@GrueMaster. I prefer horses for courses rather than one size fits all. I, and I suspect most other computer users, do not really wish to have...
The product that scares me every time I have to use it is the Office 2007 version of Excel.
The first bug that I found was applying the median...
Nice review and very informative. One thing I'd like to add (in reply to whs001's 1st question), the main reason to have the same interface from...
I'be been using Mint 12 since the RC came out, and I am far more happy with the Cinnamon, the Mate, and, yes (with extensions), theGnome 3...
Excellent article. One small correction, though--although a fresh installation of Linux Mint 12 will, indeed, provide the user with a version of...
In related news, the ISPs club together to get the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee (ya goofed on that part, ZDNet UK) copies of "The...
In related news, the ISPs club together to get the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee (ya goofed on that part, ZDNet UK) copies of "The...
For Gnome 2 die-hards, it is possible to add icons to the bottom panel (or top top panel, if you prefer) which provide the exact Gnome 2...
Your comments would seem pretty naive and immature. Your 'solution' appears to be, "gee, let's all just give in to the hackers and give them...
Talkback
I think it's silly.
How much easier would it be for companies to offer filtering services if the majority of sites used .XXX domain suffix. I feel the introduction of a root level domain suffix like this would so give more room of the internet for services and companies wishing to use normal .com suffixes currently occupied by porn sites using ligitimate domain names for this cause, and could make filtered web browsing safer for kids.
So what kind of start-up business type QVC kitchen product would require the currently occupied www.bumhole.com domain prey tell??
Horses for courses. And I bet you check.
Not only should the .xxx domain space be approved, but it should be REQUIRED for any form of pornography, with violaters being prosecuted worldwide. This would provide a possible way to avoid pornography if we so desire.
The denial of the creation of a .xxx TLD is a severe blow to the one policy that would get this problem somewhat under control; It would force others into compliance of a .xxx TLD regardless if they wanted it or not.
It sounds a lot to me like somebody has received a payoff to prevent the passage of this well needed piece of international legislation. What is the problem? Get this done!
Nobody is saying that smut does not have a home on the Net. It just says that I have a choice to not have it railroaded and force fed to my computer. If porn sniffers want porn, they will get it -- regardless if it is .xxx or not so don't hide behind that crutch of an excuse that it prevents or hinders business. I get spammed all day long for that garbage and I am not even looking for it.
ICANN = I CAN'T WHAT A USELESS ORGANIZATION
Your article seems to be written in a way that favors the creation of an .xxx TLD, without ever discussing the opposing opinion. Your opponents have very good arguments and you can't ignore them. What good would an .xxx TLD do? Without rules in place to force using it, what's to say providers are going to pick up and move, especially considering the high traffic their current names have? Considering that, how useful is it then to block .xxx for kids if no ones using it? I think a .kids TLD would be more effective in that regard. Just my 2 cents.
Overall I approve of the idea, however there might be problems defining what constitues porn and what constitues erotic art, stories, or whatever. You might end up with companies being accused of violating their dotcom status if there even a discussion relating to sex or whatever. I can usually tell the difference between dirty-mag type porn and artistic nudity that merely celebrates the human form, but how long before A N Religious group forces legitimate nudity or even just frank discussions of sex without any pictures under the 'depraved' .XXX banner, thus demeaning an non-pornographic site that even young teenagers should have the right to access to discuss their sexual questions or admire the artistic nude (ie not legs spread for a gynaelogical exam, but merely the curves of a man or woman as a legitimate celebration of nudity and human beauty). I can already hear the God-botherers screaming 'but that IS porn!' when it's not. After all if an Islamic woman in Saudi Arabia shows much more than her eyes she's accused of being immoral, should all images of women therefore fall under .XXX unless they wear the chadori or hijab? What about the face of a person during orgasm like at beautiful agony dotcom- is that porn? Or can something be erotic and arousing without being considered porn, like a steamy novel or a seductive pose? So my twopenneth is this: the .XXX domain is a good idea for things that an open-minded person would consider to be porn, but we must be careful not to allow it to become a hysterical witchhunt against sex and nudity in general on the internet.
Pornography exists in the internet - there is no way to deny it. So we might as well have a clear indication where it is to protect our children from it, and not being afraid of them going where they shouldn't go, by mistake.
I totally agree with anonymous ceo. They need to allow the .xxx domain and force the porn perveyors there. Prosecution for those not in compliance. This would be the easiest solution to filter smut from our children on the internet.