Active Topics
 |
GeneralAntilles |
2008-05-11
, 05:45
|
|
Posts: 5,478 |
Thanked: 5,222 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ St. Petersburg, FL
|
#51
|
Originally Posted by qwerty12
The google argument is pretty much invalid, as all one has to do is turn on censoring for google bots and the problem is solved.
 |
|
2008-05-11
, 05:47
|
|
Posts: 4,274 |
Thanked: 5,358 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Looking at y'all and sighing
|
#52
|
Originally Posted by GeneralAntilles
Ah, interesting.
The google argument is pretty much invalid, as all one has to do is turn on censoring for google bots and the problem is solved.
But who would have turned it off in the first place? I thought it's meant to stay on but we have an option to turn it off individually.
 |
|
2008-05-11
, 05:49
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#53
|
So we'd see $hit?
Last edited by Benson; 2008-05-11 at 05:51.
Code:
echo '$h!t' | sed 's/!/i/'
Last edited by Benson; 2008-05-11 at 05:51.
|
|
2008-05-11
, 05:51
|
|
Posts: 4,274 |
Thanked: 5,358 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Looking at y'all and sighing
|
#54
|
:P
Filter blocks s/i/! out too, I couldn't be bothered to change all of it :P
Filter blocks s/i/! out too, I couldn't be bothered to change all of it :P
 |
|
2008-05-11
, 12:31
|
|
Posts: 2,869 |
Thanked: 1,784 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Po' Bo'. PA
|
#55
|
I think I found what I had read awhile ago that I based my previous statement on...
>>> https://www.google.com/adsense/suppo...id=zGKN_IQm1A8
Site Content
While Google offers broad access to a variety of content in the search index, publishers in the AdSense program may only place Google ads on sites that adhere to our content guidelines, and ads must not be displayed on any page with content primarily in an unsupported language. View a list of supported languages.
Sites displaying Google ads may not include:
Violent content, racial intolerance, or advocacy against any individual, group, or organization
Pornography, adult, or mature content
Hacking/cracking content
Illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia
Excessive profanity
Gambling or casino-related content
Content regarding programs which compensate users for clicking on ads or offers, performing searches, surfing websites, or reading emails
Excessive, repetitive, or irrelevant keywords in the content or code of web pages
Deceptive or manipulative content or construction to improve your site's search engine ranking, e.g., your site's PageRank
Sales or promotion of weapons or ammunition (e.g., firearms, fighting knives, stun guns)
Sales or promotion of beer or hard alcohol
Sales or promotion of tobacco or tobacco-related products
Sales or promotion of prescription drugs
Sales or promotion of products that are replicas or imitations of designer goods
Sales or distribution of term papers or student essays
Any other content that is illegal, promotes illegal activity, or infringes on the legal rights of others
Originally Posted by YoDude
...In the end it's a revenue decision and not a moral one.
| The Following User Says Thank You to YoDude For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2008-05-11
, 15:27
|
|
Posts: 566 |
Thanked: 145 times |
Joined on Feb 2008
@ Tallahassee, FL
|
#56
|
Originally Posted by GeneralAntilles
Actually, my employer allows the browsing of sites, reading of forums, etc on our desktop machines (ie: recreational, personal internet usage), but does put limits on the type of content that can be accessed from their machines.
That's hardly my problem. If you feel you should be able to browse a certain website while at work, then you should take that up with your employer, not hoist censorship on the rest of us.
Originally Posted by GeneralAntilles
Even though your name isn't the one signing my paychecks, and I am in no way accountable to you for my work performance, I will tell you that I am one of the most productive employees in our office. ...and, no, we're not expected to work during lunch breaks, etc. Your implication is flawed; a similarly flawed implication is that you shouldn't be spending time reading/writing here, since you should either a) be in class, or b) be preparing for class; you're enrolled in a degree program at a university, and there is no curriculum that requires your participation here.
Shouldn't you be working at work, anyway?
Originally Posted by GeneralAntilles
I was using the generic, all-encompassing "you" when I wrote about the ability to express a point without profanity. I'll admit that I could have worded this point differently so that it didn't appear I was singling you out, individually. I've read several of your posts here, and I know you have the ability to adequately express yourself.
Where and when exactly has my communication here indicated that I'm incapable of expressing myself without the use of profanity? My intentions here have absolutely nothing to do with my own profanity usage and, quite honestly, I find it rather offensive that you believe my only purpose here is to gain the ability to drop uncensored f-bombs.
Originally Posted by GeneralAntilles
We (or, most of us, anyway) may not need to be treated like children, but we do need to be cognizant of the fact that younger readers do participate here, and as a courtesy to them, we should refrain from using profanity in these discussions. Automated moderation/censoring of potentially offending text by the software lessens the workload for the moderator(s) here, who strive to make this forum a "family friendly" site.
Quite simply, I'm morally opposed to censorship, and don't think we all need to be treated like children by default. If you want to enable the filter for yourself, then that's fine, but I don't see any reason it should be forced on people who find it both morally and practically irritating.
I'm opposed to censorship as well, and perhaps as fervently, as you are. I would agree that you and I probably do not need to be "treated as children" by default; I'm afraid this does not hold true for every member of this community, however.
|
|
2008-05-11
, 15:44
|
|
Posts: 662 |
Thanked: 238 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
|
#57
|
Why can't we simply put a nice, small, checkable box in the user profiles...
You may browse at work, the children need not stain their eyes with profanity, and we can say *****-x without confusing anyone
Code:
Profanity Filter? Y/N
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aisu For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2008-05-11
, 16:45
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#59
|
He said "***-bang"?
(UNIX pronunciation applied properly is amusing, in a juvenile way.
)
One (troublesome) detail about at-work filtration; client-side censoring won't help with that, unless done in a sufficiently complex and clever fashion. I can see how to do that, but it really ought to be server-side. Which is harder to add, I think.
BTW, Reggie; you really need to turn off that filter; you're gonna get more profanity from people cleverly dodging it than you ever would with it off.
(UNIX pronunciation applied properly is amusing, in a juvenile way.
)One (troublesome) detail about at-work filtration; client-side censoring won't help with that, unless done in a sufficiently complex and clever fashion. I can see how to do that, but it really ought to be server-side. Which is harder to add, I think.
BTW, Reggie; you really need to turn off that filter; you're gonna get more profanity from people cleverly dodging it than you ever would with it off.
|
|
2008-05-11
, 16:57
|
|
Posts: 662 |
Thanked: 238 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
|
#60
|
Client side censoring? That would take more work than anything... When the iTT server sends you the page, all it needs to do is see if you're username wants profanity on or off. Then it sends the page processed just as it should be, the profanity never, ever reaches the client, if they so please.
With **** like that, or **** like sh-it.
With **** like that, or **** like sh-it.
