Slashdot Log In
Sex.com Returned to Original Owner
Posted by
michael
on Thu Apr 05, 2001 03:41 AM
from the sheriff-fights-off-claim-jumpers dept.
from the sheriff-fights-off-claim-jumpers dept.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I hope this doesn't set too much of a trend (Score:2)
If legitimate but similar names start being subject to this kind of monetary damage ($65M, from the article), I fear for the future. Let's hope this stays well in hand.
--
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:2)
--
Re:Well.. yeah.. (Score:2)
See how easy that jump is (for a clueless judge)?
--
Straw Man? (Score:2)
I'm no hardcore Bible-thumper, but you've certainly taken a few passages out of context... read them with the surrounding lines, and you'll get the full picture. 1 Corinthians 7:1-12 [gospelcom.net] in its full context is better understood when one should and should not marry.
More power to you if you can build a strong argument for your case, whatever that might be. I always look forward to intelligent discourse. But you stooped rather low to get your point across.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
So where does this leave NetSol? (Score:2)
sue Network Solutions and ICANN too (Score:2)
name ownership and IP bindings.
Other organzizations names have been stolen too,
but more as short term hacks.
They should *always* send a change notification &
verification to the original address, much like
banks do.
Re:I'm glad it's over, but I doubt he'll ever see (Score:2)
Re:The whole DNS system should be redesigned (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be ".mil.us"?
--
Re:Presidential pardon material here... (Score:2)
--
Never gonna get paid.. (Score:2)
Gotta catch him first before anyone gets paid..
--jordan
Re:The whole DNS system should be redesigned (Score:2)
The
The
Admitedly it will take more than a simple
What are you talking about? (Score:2)
The guy 100% *stole* the domain, using forged transfer documents... and it took 6 years for the courts to give it back....
what I want to know is why couldn't he get it back way before that?
Wrong. (Score:2)
Well.. yeah.. (Score:2)
That's like saying "I'm glad they punished that mass murderer, but I hope it doesn't lead to punishing innocent schoolchildren because they disobeyed their teachers."
Porn is not immoral, it's just mostly bad quality (Score:2)
I thought you didn't watch porn (you said in your earlier response) - or are you going to use the old "it was part of the movie" line?
Sex is there for the purposes of procreation and between two people married with God's blessing. Pornography is quite simply the antithesis of this idea, in that it encourages promiscuity without responsibility, a dangerous idea for any society that wishes to hold itself to any kind of moral values.
I don't think you can make grand sweeping statements like this. It's gross generalisation and clearly massive speculation that promiscuity is encouraged by pornography. Throughout history pornography was more of an art form to celebrate the beauty of god's creation ; it's merely with advanced technology that it's become what it is today, which is different.
But aside from that, it is arguable as to whether Catholicism is even really a Christian denomination, given the fact that Catholics do not solely worship God.
Now this is a very bad comment to make. It's arguable whether you know what Christianity actually is, after reading this statement. Are you saying Catholics, as opposed to Protestants, worship multiple gods? Elaborate......
Because sex is not something to be used to satiate the urges of weaker people. That is pure and simply immoral.
Hmmm, but maybe it can be used to do that, to treat sex offenders, etc., . You seem overtly concerned with maintaining a high moral code and never once mentioning the more significant problems, such as abuse, etc., . Above all, remember that you should never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right.
I won't defend the porn industry, but likewise I think your argument against it was ill-founded and from the wrong point-of-view, as you seemed more concerned with yourself, and your own beliefs, than a far more due concern about the women who feel compelled to work in the industry, by choice or not.
If you lost the high-and-mighty attitude, maybe people would listen to you, as yes, there are thousands of women forced to work in the sex industry; articles are regularly in papers concerning illegal immigrants, etc., and being forced into prostitution.
Re:The whole DNS system should be redesigned (Score:2)
Problem is that
*.ky.us -- Would first be under state law of Kentucky, then under Fedral law of USA.
*.melbourne.au -- First under local Melbourne law, then under national law of Australia.
*.atlanta.ga.us -- First under Atlanta city law, then under Georgia state law, then under US Federal.
I simply can't think of a better system to use to allow for local laws and regulations to be enforced, and yet allow for national corporations to have a world-wide presence.
This already the way the
I beileve this is the type of system that should have been implemented from he beginning, but at the time no one had the foresight to see that the internet and the web would become what it has today...
Plenty of people have though of it, in some parts of the world things were even done that way. However at some point things went seriously wrong, probably the point at which names began to be seen as land/mineral rights rather than addresses/telephone numbers.
Re:The whole DNS system should be redesigned (Score:2)
But most DNS names relate to physical entities. Very few commercial entities are even capable of operating globally. Typically they are restricted by geography (or currency).
Even supposed abstracts such as books, music, TV and films tend to be made avaliable in a way which follows geography.
Re:Pass the crack pipe (Score:2)
The problem is that a great many of these might actually be better off with geographical suffixes. If their area of interest is geospecific
Re:The whole DNS system should be redesigned (Score:2)
Also there are plenty of companies, especially in large countries, such as US, Canada, Australia, Russia, etc, who's operations are strictly sub national.
Another point is that US cities shouldn't be able to hijack the domain names of other nations, just because they don't like
The
The same reasoning can probably be applied to
Re:The whole DNS system should be redesigned (Score:2)
Which is part of the problem. Also even if a
Re:How? (Score:2)
--
Presidential pardon material here... (Score:2)
Maybe he could hire a Bush's brother-in-law to lobby for him.
Julian Jaynes (Score:2)
- - - - -
Studies (Score:3)
------------
CitizenC
Re:good old days of yore (Score:2)
--
Re:Right (Score:2)
If they have a habit, they need the chance to get rehab. If they weren't doing porn for a fix do you think they'd just quit "cold turkey"? Of course not.
Taking advantage of people in need isn't limited to the porn industry you know.
Re:Natural act? (Score:2)
So many faults, so little time:
1. Sodomy is a natural act because it occurs "naturally". For example, most mammals will happily bugger each other. They don't do it because they're too stupid to find the right hole (well, some of them might), they do it because they have a "natural" desire to fqck things (normally other creatures of the same species).
2. Sodomy is not "extremely dangerous" as long as you have an modicum of common sense.
3. Sodomy is not always painful. Lots of people actually like it. Gosh! isn't it an awful world outside!
Any more fundy illusions you want shattered?
Re:Porn is *not* art (Score:2)
Director D obtains goatse.cx style pictures of actress A1 and actor A2. D blackmails A1 and A2 into doing his next film F. Film F is widely acclaimed as the finest peice of cinema ever made, and even the public love it. All agree that it is a fantastic piece of art. When details of the blackmailing emerge, all are shocked. However, all agree that the artistic merits of the film are unchanged. All apart from Jon Erikson that is, who holds that because of the blackmail, the quality of the film is now lower, and the film is now cr4p.
Move over logic, here comes the revisionism!
Re:A blow for pornographers and thieves (Score:2)
For the second, you write if a man views porn regularly, he gets a very distorted view, where you mean some men. Now maybe you can claim that porn is so dangerous that the effect it has on these people means it should be made illegal, but that's a whole new arguement. The same one can be made for alcohol (some people get addicted), cars (some people drive badly), and having children (some people are bad parents)...
Re:Natural act? (Score:2)
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. For the "buggerer", anal sex counts as a fqck as much as vaginal sex. Therefore they can both want to fqck things, and bugger. There is no contradiction.
- they don't make a conscious choice between the two, they just go for it.
They don't make a conscious choice at all because they aren't concious.
Lot's of people really like to eat other people,
No they don't. Very few people like to eat other people. So, other than being completely wrong, thanks for playing
Re:A blow for pornographers and thieves (Score:3)
Regarding the post, I think it's clearly a troll becasuse he states pornography is used for "the gratification of men unable to find themselves a loving wife." implies that anyone "using" porn is unable to find a "loving wife". Given the widespread "usage" of porn, that's clearly flamebait IMO. Also "pornography is nothing more than a perversion of His [gods] vision for us". Stating such contentious beliefs (porn not used by men with a loving partner, the existance of god) as facts can only be a troll; anyone else would have put "I beleive", "IMHO", or somthing else along those lines in there.
As far as exploitation of women in porn goes, I wish people would realise that there are two issues here: exploitation AND porn:
Some people drive too fast in their cars. The cars aren't wrong, it's people driving too fast.
Some people steal because they want to be rich. It isn't wanting to be rich that's wrong, it's stealing.
Some women are exploited in the porn industry. It's not porn that's wrong, it's the people who exploit women.
0.02
Re:Wrong (Score:3)
What a small mind you must have. Perhaps some people like both? Perhaps some people have wives that whilst loving the man, are unwilling or unable to have sex with them (for example after abuse, rape or physical disability)? Perhaps the couple are physically seperated for a period of time? Perhaps the man doesn't have bizarre hangups about it? Perhaps his wife likes it? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
The point is that your premise, that any married man can get as much sexual gratification from his wife as he needs and therefore doesn't need porn is both wrong, and (ironically) disrespectful to women.
Onanism is quite obviously a tool designed by the Devil to turn one's thoughts away from salvation towards more earthly pleasures.
[You get +1 troll point] If I never think of salvation when I'm having sex, does that mean that "obviously" sex must be a tool of the devil designed to turn my thoughts away from salvation? In fact I hardly ever think about salvation, so obviously almost everything is designed by the devil (he should have patented some of it).
Bzzt! Wrong! The porn industry by definition exploits women
I'm wrong
If I was offered $1 million for playgirl style photos of myself, I might or might not do it, but I certainly don't think I'd feel "exploited" if I did. Why do you think women are any different? Perhaps the answer is in this comment "from exploiting women's naivety and greed all the way up to the use of force and drugs to ensure cooperation" You seem incapable of seeing the fact that women, as well as men have minds of their own. Some people will have sex in front of a camera for money. They might be greedy, or they might not share your particular moral code. Being different to you isn't the same as being abused.
Re:Natural act? (Score:2)
It occurs in nature, therefore it is a natural act.
Domain name worth more than the business? (Score:3)
Hmm... admittedly, for a lot of dot-coms that's actually literally true - or at least they probably *paid* more for the domain than they ever earned back. So hey, sure, why not codify that into case law as well? And what a business plan: "Sure, I'll license you to use the name ThisDomain.com next year - in exchange for 105% of the revenues you earn from it. Sound fair?" What a screwed up system.
Re:Right (Score:4)
As well as in the real estate industry, politics and law enforcement. Exploitation isn't a symptom of pornography, its a symptom of humanity. Pornography just makes a great target due to the bizarre irony in our culture that everyone is either having sex or wanting to have sex, yet sex is taboo. Christ, even kids who haven't learned a damn thing about the world start getting horny and staring at fine members of the opposite sex, or same sex for some. That's the curse we bear for being human. In the words of George Carlin, "There are far worse things that you can to do another person than giving them an orgasm."
To those of you unfortunate enough to grow up in a climate of repression and hate: don't worry, sex won't destroy the world, burn down the rain forests and upset Baby Jeebus(tm); it'll just make you a bit happier and a bit sleepier if you just have the courage to let it.
Deosyne
Not a good idea (Score:2)
Why base the net on geographic location? I think the original idea of basing TLDs on content is the best way to go. We need to enforce the content restrictions (.com for business, .org for organization etc) and we need to make sure registrants have good security.
Geographically based domains will make finding websites difficult, if not impossible, will make it possible to over tax businesses (as already mentioned) and any possible ways of making money on the web will disappear. I'm not a fan of e-commerce at all but I think that if there weren't any at all that the internet wouldn't be near what it is today (of course we'd probably have intellegent people on it too but that's a different angle :)
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
microsoft.com returned to rightful owner (Score:2)
Obviously the
Thank God (Score:5)
What kind of 'studying' was this? (Score:2)
They have to have a STUDY tell them that?
Re:Domain name worth more than the business? (Score:2)
-b
Only a portal? Won't violate any obscenity laws? (Score:2)
Oh, did I mention that this dosn't attempt to disuade minors from entering?
---
Legal Precedent (Score:4)
goatporn gets the recognition it deserves... (Score:4)
"We're working on a deal (for content on)
You don't normally see women orientated stuff on sex sites? No wonder all those large-pink-area filters don't work - they shouldn've been scanning for goatporn all along.
Posted early enough for the karma rich first few minutes, mentioning goatporn for a clear demotion under grounds of karmawhoring.
Re:A blow for pornographers and thieves (Score:5)
Ok, you might want to take a look at this story on sexuality [kuro5hin.org] over at Kuro5hin. It's a fascinating read, one of the best things I've seen there in a while. Chock full of hard facts about the intrinsic need for sexual release in human beings.
You're not worth arguing with. You'll just apply the word "liberal" to any evidence to any argument you don't like, just like you have in all three of your posts so far.
Furthermore, your argument seems to be based on a particular pseudo-literalist reading of the Bible, so it's not like the discussion would go anywhere.
Expedited discussion with this troll:
1. I'm going to have a little fun, and quote 1 Corinthians 7:1 "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry", the standard justification for primacy of celibacy over marriage, and tell you that if you really wanted to take the word of God to heart you would forsake all physical pleasure, even with your wife. I'll further support my claim with Luke 14:25-27: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate
2. You're going to writhe and scream and complain and try and explain I'm distorting the passage. You might quote me Shakespeare, and say that "the devil has the power to quote scripture" thinking you have a biblical comeback. You might quote 1 Corinth 7:2-5 as a better retort.
3. Then I'll say Christ makes clear in 7:6-7 that permanent non-marriage is a preferable state.
4. Then you'll invent a new complaint to justify ignoring the passages of the bible you dislike. Of course, by disregarging only one passage, you've kind of shot your argument that we should blindly use the Bible as a set of rules without thinking - if it's wrong there, why isn't it wrong about pornography? (Of course, the bible never mentions pornography, you can borrow the inferential references which conservative theologians find to justify anti-pornographic positions.)
5. I'll be sick of the discussion and won't reply because you will ignore any other facts I introduce into the discussion or attach the word "liberal" to them, as if I should run in terror at being called such a horrible word.
There, we condensed in all down into one post. Wait I think I got a patent idea... Expedited troll conversations via prediction of troller/trollee responses.
Re:Natural act? (Score:3)
Natural is not the same as moral or good.
Take, for example, a tiger attacking a deer. It cannot cause conception, is extremely dangerous for the animal on the receiving end and causes pain. It is perfectly natural.
So what is a "natural act"? Animals (apes, elephants, rodents) engage in sodomy. Surely that's natural?
Sex is not just for procreation. If it was, we would, like most animals, only have sex when fertile. This is not the case. It is also for bonding.
I see nothing wrong with sodomy, as long as everyone involved is consenting. "Brutal sodomy" with it's implication of non-consent I would definitely count as wrong.
Re:Right (Score:5)
But there are people out there firmly conviced that liberal attitudes about sex are perfectly healthy, and that pornography is in some way "expressive" and "naturual". Please tell me, what is natural about some woman being brutally sodomized by several men on camera?
Well, first off, I'd recommend calling brutal sodomy "morally reprehensible", as it is arguably a perfectly natural act (though, again, generally held as morally reprehensible.)
There are people out there firmly entrenched in the belief that conservative attitudes about sex are both healthier and morally higher, and that pornography is somehow "deviant" and "unnatural". These same people generally feel perfectly justified in pointing towards the most deviant, reprehensible acts of violent, aberrant behavior as prime examples of what pornography is. This is unfair.
It'd be somewhat akin to me calling Christianity a horrible, disgusting cult which has mercilessly slaughtered countless women and children over centuries in the name of appeasing an unseen deity. I'd be ignoring the fact that some of the world's greatest and most generous groups and individuals have acted out of their love of the Christian god. There is no "so, which is it, then?" It's both. Should we outlaw Christianity or claim that it's the most wonderfullest thing ever? Neither. It has both good and bad elements, people who respect it and people who abuse it.
The same holds true for pornography. While you are quick to point out that having people abused into pornography and tortured in front of a camera is (surprise) bad, the same moral compass cannot be used to denounce, say, a video made willingly (and happily) by a married couple for distribution in adult video stores. What is so unnatural (or rather, morally reprehensible) about that?
good old days of yore (Score:5)
Re:Natural act? (Score:3)
This argument assumes whoever you're arguing with believe in the christian God, and care about the silly procreation argument.
It also assumes that there exists no pornography depicting the joys of procreation in a marriage.
The first is a belief that certainly has no proof, and which a great deal of humanity simply rejects.
The argument that sex is only for procreation assigns a purpose to nature, which either implies that nature is sentient, or implies a creator, which brings us back to the first argument - it's just as disputed, and certainly not proven in any way. For those of us who prefer evolution, sex is there because it works as a driving force to get living beings to procreate. And it gives pleasure because that makes it more likely that we'll procreate. But neither assigns any purpose to it. Unless you believe in a deity, sex is just a process, and have no more purpose than the oceans or the stars.
If you want to argue that since sex allows us to procreate, then procreation is it's purpose, even if it wasn't conceived by someone who assigned for a purpose, then you can just as well argue that since sex give us pleasure, then pleasure is also one of the purposes of sex. Seeings as sex is a driving force behind much of the work of man, it can even be said to be a very important purpose.
This argument can just as well be applied in the case of the existence of a "God" as well: If this God fellow didn't intend for people to have sex for fun he must be a complete idiot for making it so much fun. If sex has procreation as its purpose because procreation is one of its functions, then sex can just as well have pleasure as a purpose because pleasure is one of its functions.
You also assume that promiscuous behaviour is "dangerous idea for any society that wishes to hold itself to any kind of moral values". But that is simply wrong. It may be dangerous for a society that wishes to hold iself to any kind of christian moral values, but you are making the assumption that anyone else will share your view of what "any kind of moral values" is.
You go on to criticize even porn made willingly and happly by a married couple:
Because sex is not something to be used to satiate the urges of weaker people. That is pure and simply immoral.
Again you're assuming everyone else share your views about what is moral. You are not explaining what is unnatural or morally reprehensible, as the previous poster asks you to, instead you're just giving the blanked response that it's bad because it violates your morals.
Assuming that we agree with you that people who like porn are "weaker people" (weaker than who? The couple making the video? Presumably if they're happily making porn they like porn themselves), that still leaves us with the question of why it is bad to "willingly (and happlily)" (to quote the previous poster) do something to satiate the urges of those "weaker people"?
Unless you claim that seeing people have sex is somehow harmful?
But back to the "weaker people" part. Presumable this comes from some illution that people who watch porn are lost souls who don't believe in God.
In my eyes, if they've "lost" their faith, that makes them stronger, not weaker: They've managed to break free from the indoctrination of dogma, and to stop relying on a book of mutually inconsistent and ridiculous stories to find meaning in their lives.
Thus, that argument too breaks down if people don't agree with you from the start.
If you want to convince anyone who doesn't already share your beliefs, you better try some arguments that doesn't depend on conservative christian beliefs from the outset...
Re:A blow for pornographers and thieves (Score:3)
What happens is that if a man views porn regularly, he gets a very distorted view of sex and women, which can cause two things. First he will treat women that do allow him to become close to them in ways that are (for many women) highly inappropriate, which is abuse of those women, and damaging to an otherwise good relationship. And secondly he will be approaching all women with this distorted view, which will cause him to find it more difficult to form relationships with women, and lead back, via frustration, to yet more porn. Its a negative feedback loop, and one that some men find very hard to see their way clear from. This is potentially harmful and dangerous to these men and the women around them.
Can you please point us to ANY credible research that shows that this is the case, please?
This is an old argument, and I have yet to see any evidence for it. Several researches have concluded the opposite: That pornography serve as a healthy way of getting fantasies "out of your system", to prevent them from affecting your daily life.
Note also one of the classic mistakes made in much of the research of this issue: Many reports have described high usage of porn by rapists, and equate that with porn causing or contributing to the rape.
But those numbers are also consistent with the suggestion above that pornography serve as a way of getting fantasies out - if that is correct, then it would be natural to also find a high consumption of pornography by people who have used it to try to stay under control, but that have failed.
For a study to present credible evidence on any connection as mentioned above, the very least they would have to do would be to find a random sample of people that do use porn and a random sample of people who dont use porn, and let parts of the group that does use porn stop using it, and parts of the group that does not use porn start using it, and follow the resulting four groups over a prolonged period of time to see whether members of any of the groups are more or less likely to get abusive or to get problems handling relationships.
This page [libertus.net] presents some research (mostly supportive of porn). If you have any specifics criticism of the research presented there, or any credible research showing different results, I'd like to see references to it, to take a look at it.
You are also making the typical mistake and assuming that porn is only consumed by men, when the major market for mainstream porn videos is couples, and videos for use by couples are typically chosen and bought by the woman.
The major reasons couples cite for watching porn together? To inject fantasies and excitement into their relationship, and to explore sides of each other they do not yet know well. In other words: To get closer. How that is detrimental to a relationship, I fail to see. I can however agree that that some couples choose to do so does not mean it's right for everyone.
Network Solutions SUCKS TOO (Score:3)
Personally I think Network Solutions should be paying some money out to Kremen also. Why? Because these bastards have been the source of a bunch of dns mess-ups. They don't give a shit about your registration. If they lose it or gives it to someone else, oh well... that's that. NetSol needs to be slapped hard to teach them a lesson well overdue.
---------
Did you just fart? Or do you always smell like that?