But as far as I know, obscenity laws are completely different from the law/s against child pornography. The difference being that obscenity laws do not regulate possession, only distribution. You can't be prosecuted for owning something that is obscene, only for distributing it.
In the U.S. they are different. But this statute is trying to link them, and I'm not sure that would stand up to a Constitutional test.
One thing our Supreme Court established long ago is that government cannot establish what is obscene by statute. It must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Look up the Miller Test.
And that is why they worded it this way. They aren't making artificial depictions of child pornography illegal; they're simply making them illegal *IF* they fail the Miller Test. But that's redundant, because things that fail the Miller Test are already, by definition, obscene.
So it's a law with no apparent purpose except grandstanding. Unless its purpose was to change the punishment for this particular obscene material.
I am not defending child pornography. But any responsible statute has to balance the good it does with the potential harm (because there is almost always some of both). Freedom of speech is an area in which legislators are obliged to tread very carefully.
Seriously. Even if it's not obscene, however that works, you still risk being called a pedophile given that trials are on the record, right?
This kind of argument deserves to be taken out behind the woodshed and shot dead.
The question here wasn't what someone is willing to risk. It was about what is LEGAL. And to answer your question: YES, as long as something I do is LEGAL, I am not going to cower in a corner and be afraid of the damage false prosecution would do to my perceived character. To do so would be abject cowardice.
Having said that, I do not intentionally involve myself in any way with ANY kind of depictions of child pornography, real or fake, simply because I find it morally objectionable. But in a free and rational society, morality informs the law, not the other way around. They are two very different things.
YES, they ARE! It's a search engine. Changing the order of the search results changes EVERYTHING.
And by their own admission, they're doing based on [A] payment, and [B] their subjective perception of whether the content is real.
I repeat: that *IS* modifying search results, and they're doing it for money.
When I search, I'm not searching for the highest bidder.
This is why I am using Google less and less now. I have actually started using Bing (which in some ways isn't much better), and I'm giving DuckDuckGo a serious try.
Just FYI, the rule against illegal cartoons exists in the USA too. The Supreme Court struck down attempts to use CP laws in this way as being obvious nonsense, so Congress just went ahead and amended the law to make it explicitly illegal as opposed to implicitly illegal.
I do not believe this is true. I was aware of the SCOTUS decision but I've not even heard of this statute. Can you provide a reference?
No, I don't think so. According to Wikipedia, UK child porn laws only ban indecent images of children under 18, where "image" can apparently be a drawing, as well as a photo.
It should probably be pointed out that this is the primary difference between UK and US in this regard.
Some years back -- maybe 6 or 8 years ago, I guessing, I don't really remember -- they U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for something to be "child pornography" it had to be recordings of real children (i.e., picture or video) and it had to be real pornography.
Now, IANAL either, but I believe States can regulate something like that as "obscene" material, but not child pornography. And they would risk the state law getting overturned by SCOTUS again.
McDonald's did it's motion efficiency studies decades and decades ago, and hasn't kept up the work.
You can say the same thing about Microsoft. If they were still doing human-interface-efficiency work, they wouldn't have tried to make a "flat" interface. (Or for that matter, copied by so many others.) "Flat" is nothing more than a fad, and a destructive one; it throws away valuable feedback cues.
Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is that Haseltine is wrong about at least one thing. Not in principle, but in practice:
So the total amount of labor is always going to be the same, for a fixed number of ice bags.
This isn't a "wrong" statement, it's just irrelevant. What you have to consider, when you move the lines faster, is not the total amount of labor, but the amount of labor per time.
If the line moves 4 times faster, for 1/4 the time, then you need 4 times the laborers... for 1/4 the time. You don't get to multiply people the same way you can speed.
Yes, they are. According to OP, they'll be putting what THEY deem to be "legitimate" sites at the top. And asking for pay to be listed as "legitimate".
If that isn't "modifying search results" for money, I don't know what is.
It's the wrong strain, though. Also I'm not sure why the US government would own a Canadian patent.
In reply to this and the other person above:
That was my whole point. The U.S. government can't hold patents, under most circumstances, by U.S. law. Which is, apparently, very different from Canada.
But I know of no law that says it can't hold patents in other countries. I am very skeptical of the ethics of it, though.
He turned off Spotlight suggestions for Spotlight, not Spotlight suggestions in Safari.
I see. What you said was similar enough to TFA that a brief reading made me think you were saying the same things.
So I stand corrected.
Still, this one should be tested. Does it send a string when Spotlight Suggestions are turned off in Safari as well? We won't know until somebody tries it.
You haven't actually seen the screen yet have you.
I don't have to. I can do the math.
I don't dispute that they're beautiful displays. I was only questioning their practicality.
What's certainly true is it will be far better than the setup you describe as having at the moment. You just don't realise it.
No, it's not "certainly true" at all. I must have a certain amount of screen real-estate for my work, not extra pixel density, to get my work done. Beyond a certain reasonable limit, pixel density does nothing for me at all.
In fact, a 27" monitor, at ANY pixel density, would represent at least a 60% reduction in my usable screen space.
So don't be too quick to judge. It may be perfect for some people, but for work it's not very practical. At least if you do the kind of work I do. It would indeed be a gross waste of money.
BUT... I agree that it depends on what you want or need. There are people who may not feel that way.
Interesting but beside the point I was making. It wasn't about what VMWare can do, it was about how well the OS supports it and vice versa.
Those are interesting links, but they just reinforce the point I was making: in VMWare, on OS X, there is a simple one-click option to set up a Bootcamp partition as a virtual machine.
Unlike the examples at those links, it does not require technical knowledge or a lot of configuration. AND, Apple's own VMWare bootcamp drivers assure that you get (approximately) the same operation from your peripherals in your OS and your VM.
So yeah: Apple is still doing it better. These don't refute the point, they're examples.
Because you complained about modding like a twat, modbomb on the way to as many posts of yours as I can, once I get me one of them piles of 15 I get regularly.
I mentioned a problem with inappropriate modding. I did not "complain about modding like a twat".
Slashdot members are supposed to be responsible adults. That includes modding appropriately, not just marking down because "I Disagree" or because you don't like somebody's personality.
If you modbomb me, it will only reflect on yourself. Sometimes it really is too bad that modders aren't listed when they mod.
I didn't see an actual link to the study anywhere, but TFA at least appears to assume correlation = causation. I am very skeptical.
People who consume lots of soda are also (at least in my experience) prone to other bad dietary habits as well. So the causative factor could easily be something else.
They said they compared against (but did not say they specifically corrected for) "age, race, income and education level", but there are a great many other factors that could be involved.
For just one example: if you drink one or more sodas a day, I'd be willing to bet you are also likely to eat more fast-food hamburgers.
It looks very interesting, but it appears to be an old system. It only directly supports a few dynamic languages via CGI. If you're doing anything else it's unsupported and you're SOL.
Too bad, because otherwise it looks very attractive.
Apple's current 5k screens are way too small. A 27" display properly goes at the opposite side of your desk, but it only takes about half that distance for pixels at this density to be, practically speaking, invisible.
A 5k screen should be at least 32", and even that is pressing it. I'd say 36".
I'm currently running 2 WUXGA monitors, giving me 3840 x 1200, at the far side of my desk. This is about the ideal placement, and while the pixels aren't quite invisible, they are small enough (for me) as makes no difference.
A 5k screen at 27" is, in my opinion, a huge waste of money.
Slashdot Mirror
But as far as I know, obscenity laws are completely different from the law/s against child pornography. The difference being that obscenity laws do not regulate possession, only distribution. You can't be prosecuted for owning something that is obscene, only for distributing it.
In the U.S. they are different. But this statute is trying to link them, and I'm not sure that would stand up to a Constitutional test.
One thing our Supreme Court established long ago is that government cannot establish what is obscene by statute. It must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Look up the Miller Test.
And that is why they worded it this way. They aren't making artificial depictions of child pornography illegal; they're simply making them illegal *IF* they fail the Miller Test. But that's redundant, because things that fail the Miller Test are already, by definition, obscene.
So it's a law with no apparent purpose except grandstanding. Unless its purpose was to change the punishment for this particular obscene material.
I am not defending child pornography. But any responsible statute has to balance the good it does with the potential harm (because there is almost always some of both). Freedom of speech is an area in which legislators are obliged to tread very carefully.
Seriously. Even if it's not obscene, however that works, you still risk being called a pedophile given that trials are on the record, right?
This kind of argument deserves to be taken out behind the woodshed and shot dead.
The question here wasn't what someone is willing to risk. It was about what is LEGAL. And to answer your question: YES, as long as something I do is LEGAL, I am not going to cower in a corner and be afraid of the damage false prosecution would do to my perceived character. To do so would be abject cowardice.
Having said that, I do not intentionally involve myself in any way with ANY kind of depictions of child pornography, real or fake, simply because I find it morally objectionable. But in a free and rational society, morality informs the law, not the other way around. They are two very different things.
Google doesn't really change anything.
YES, they ARE! It's a search engine. Changing the order of the search results changes EVERYTHING.
And by their own admission, they're doing based on [A] payment, and [B] their subjective perception of whether the content is real.
I repeat: that *IS* modifying search results, and they're doing it for money.
When I search, I'm not searching for the highest bidder.
This is why I am using Google less and less now. I have actually started using Bing (which in some ways isn't much better), and I'm giving DuckDuckGo a serious try.
Because there's no wh*re like an old wh*re.
I think the vast majority of the votes are in by now, and "Surveillance For The Purpose Of Targeted Ads" was voted just plain evil.
Just FYI, the rule against illegal cartoons exists in the USA too. The Supreme Court struck down attempts to use CP laws in this way as being obvious nonsense, so Congress just went ahead and amended the law to make it explicitly illegal as opposed to implicitly illegal.
I do not believe this is true. I was aware of the SCOTUS decision but I've not even heard of this statute. Can you provide a reference?
s/Haseltine/Haselton damn you autocorrect
No, I don't think so. According to Wikipedia, UK child porn laws only ban indecent images of children under 18, where "image" can apparently be a drawing, as well as a photo.
It should probably be pointed out that this is the primary difference between UK and US in this regard.
Some years back -- maybe 6 or 8 years ago, I guessing, I don't really remember -- they U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for something to be "child pornography" it had to be recordings of real children (i.e., picture or video) and it had to be real pornography.
Now, IANAL either, but I believe States can regulate something like that as "obscene" material, but not child pornography. And they would risk the state law getting overturned by SCOTUS again.
McDonald's did it's motion efficiency studies decades and decades ago, and hasn't kept up the work.
You can say the same thing about Microsoft. If they were still doing human-interface-efficiency work, they wouldn't have tried to make a "flat" interface. (Or for that matter, copied by so many others.) "Flat" is nothing more than a fad, and a destructive one; it throws away valuable feedback cues.
Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is that Haseltine is wrong about at least one thing. Not in principle, but in practice:
So the total amount of labor is always going to be the same, for a fixed number of ice bags.
This isn't a "wrong" statement, it's just irrelevant. What you have to consider, when you move the lines faster, is not the total amount of labor, but the amount of labor per time.
If the line moves 4 times faster, for 1/4 the time, then you need 4 times the laborers... for 1/4 the time. You don't get to multiply people the same way you can speed.
Google isn't modifying their search results.
Yes, they are. According to OP, they'll be putting what THEY deem to be "legitimate" sites at the top. And asking for pay to be listed as "legitimate".
If that isn't "modifying search results" for money, I don't know what is.
Google just found a new way to be evil.
I see. Thanks!
I'm tempted to take your word for it, but I prefer evidence. Who tested this, how, and when?
I find it interesting how the article talks about how the Canadian government owns the IP yet you discuss the US and its rules.
I am tempted to write WHOOSH! here, but I will politely refrain from meaning it seriously. For now.
I did not make a mistake. I was purposefully bringing attention to that difference between those governments.
It's the wrong strain, though. Also I'm not sure why the US government would own a Canadian patent.
In reply to this and the other person above:
That was my whole point. The U.S. government can't hold patents, under most circumstances, by U.S. law. Which is, apparently, very different from Canada.
But I know of no law that says it can't hold patents in other countries. I am very skeptical of the ethics of it, though.
He turned off Spotlight suggestions for Spotlight, not Spotlight suggestions in Safari.
I see. What you said was similar enough to TFA that a brief reading made me think you were saying the same things.
So I stand corrected.
Still, this one should be tested. Does it send a string when Spotlight Suggestions are turned off in Safari as well? We won't know until somebody tries it.
Also, the s_vi issue is very troubling.
No, actually every version of the article I've seen bends over backwards to end off by saying "correlation does not equal causation".
Well then, you must not have read the one linked in OP, because it doesn't. And in fact the HEADLINES in both OP
Soda Pop Damages Your Cells' Telomeres
and TFA
Drinking pop daily can shorten your life: Study
directly claim that this correlation IS causation.
So don't try to tell me it doesn't happen, when we have two examples right here in our faces where it did.
Actually you don't SEEM to have read it, since TFA says even with Spotlight suggestions disabled, it still sends the data to Apple.
You haven't actually seen the screen yet have you.
I don't have to. I can do the math.
I don't dispute that they're beautiful displays. I was only questioning their practicality.
What's certainly true is it will be far better than the setup you describe as having at the moment. You just don't realise it.
No, it's not "certainly true" at all. I must have a certain amount of screen real-estate for my work, not extra pixel density, to get my work done. Beyond a certain reasonable limit, pixel density does nothing for me at all.
In fact, a 27" monitor, at ANY pixel density, would represent at least a 60% reduction in my usable screen space.
So don't be too quick to judge. It may be perfect for some people, but for work it's not very practical. At least if you do the kind of work I do. It would indeed be a gross waste of money.
BUT... I agree that it depends on what you want or need. There are people who may not feel that way.
Interesting but beside the point I was making. It wasn't about what VMWare can do, it was about how well the OS supports it and vice versa.
Those are interesting links, but they just reinforce the point I was making: in VMWare, on OS X, there is a simple one-click option to set up a Bootcamp partition as a virtual machine.
Unlike the examples at those links, it does not require technical knowledge or a lot of configuration. AND, Apple's own VMWare bootcamp drivers assure that you get (approximately) the same operation from your peripherals in your OS and your VM.
So yeah: Apple is still doing it better. These don't refute the point, they're examples.
Because you complained about modding like a twat, modbomb on the way to as many posts of yours as I can, once I get me one of them piles of 15 I get regularly.
I mentioned a problem with inappropriate modding. I did not "complain about modding like a twat".
Slashdot members are supposed to be responsible adults. That includes modding appropriately, not just marking down because "I Disagree" or because you don't like somebody's personality.
If you modbomb me, it will only reflect on yourself. Sometimes it really is too bad that modders aren't listed when they mod.
I didn't see an actual link to the study anywhere, but TFA at least appears to assume correlation = causation. I am very skeptical.
People who consume lots of soda are also (at least in my experience) prone to other bad dietary habits as well. So the causative factor could easily be something else.
They said they compared against (but did not say they specifically corrected for) "age, race, income and education level", but there are a great many other factors that could be involved.
For just one example: if you drink one or more sodas a day, I'd be willing to bet you are also likely to eat more fast-food hamburgers.
Oops. I'll correct myself. Those weren't comets, just meteorites.
Brain fart, as the saying goes.
That's 10 times closer than any comet on record has ever come to Earth.
No, it's not. We have on record (relatively small) comets actually striking Earth, which is about as close as it gets.
It looks very interesting, but it appears to be an old system. It only directly supports a few dynamic languages via CGI. If you're doing anything else it's unsupported and you're SOL.
Too bad, because otherwise it looks very attractive.
5K screens
... which are a ridiculous extravagance.
Apple's current 5k screens are way too small. A 27" display properly goes at the opposite side of your desk, but it only takes about half that distance for pixels at this density to be, practically speaking, invisible.
A 5k screen should be at least 32", and even that is pressing it. I'd say 36".
I'm currently running 2 WUXGA monitors, giving me 3840 x 1200, at the far side of my desk. This is about the ideal placement, and while the pixels aren't quite invisible, they are small enough (for me) as makes no difference.
A 5k screen at 27" is, in my opinion, a huge waste of money.
No. Who's on first.
But I don't know, it always seems to come down to third base.
Then we get to see the homers.
D'oh!