As correct as I think you are, the problem this article is emphasizing is trust. People were told that the information they posted would only be available to the people they add to the "priavte" list. Facebook has now gone "hahaha, now EVERYONE can see this!".
Every time someone tries to get me to sign up for facebook, I tell tell them it has nothing to do with my social level, but my trust in a company that has time and time again shown absolutely NO concern for it's users except for when forced to by being found with their pants down.
I defy anyone to find a facebook privacy/security issue that was fixed before it made major news (as in almost every blog going balistic).
Very cool idea. Even better would be to actually have that machine running a multi-touch display of and/or gates or something. Then not only are they seeing the inside of a computer, but the inside of the computer they are actually using as another part of the exibit.
Where exactly did you get that quote?!? Just because something is not "specific" to restriction A does not mean that it now encompasses EVERYTHING inside and outside of restriction A. There are many OTHER restrictions still in place.
Wow, you seem to have taken every "think of the children" article posted in the last 6 months and tried to make it all relate...
I worked "pusing" badly, I meant "promoting, etc". Though that may go against free-speech, I believe it should be illegal when dealing with easily impressionable minors.
Which laws have never been enforced non-sensibly?
WTF are you trying to prove here? Are you saying that this law is no worse than any other?
you can't deprive other people of their freedom; in particular you can't force other people to have sex with you or make porn for you
This law is specifically trying to scope OUTSIDE of child-porn. This is like saying that a dangerous driving law is bad because it's scope is outside of speed alone!
No. As someone who has actually TAKEN a law class, precedent has been set that specifies that unless an ACTUAL child was involved, there was no crime. I guarantee the people being charged were charged for the 10% that DID involve real children and the other 90% (though not "legally" damning) were used as shock-inducement for the jury.
How is it a thoght crime? The crime involves the mental well-being of a minor. As much as slashdot thinks children are immune to any and all emotional abuse and harrassment, they are NOT.
As for parents being parents, that is all good and fine until the adult INITIATES the innapropriate conversation with their child and they have no recourse but to change the child's email and hope the person never finds the new one. No ammount of online monitoring is going to prevent your child's email address that he shared with his best friend at school from eventually finding it's way into the wrong hands.
A jury of your peers. I'm pretty sure a jury will not send you to jail for a casual conversation they themselves have had many times with children. If you get convicted of this from a casual conversation you SERIOUSLY need to find a better lawyer!
and How do you even find the people committing the crimes in the first place?
Same way you find people breaking the previous law, IT GETS REPORTED!
Does this conversation involve replying to comments left by minors?
Considering a conversation is techinically a 2-way exchange of information between humans, that sounds like a pretty dumb question.
Honestly this law is as much of a trap as setting the a low speed limit and not posting the speed.
I love people who don't know the law... If you enter a low-speed area via a path that does not have a sign posted, THE SPEED AREA DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU and you can successfully fight it in court (it's been done and proven)! Come on, this is basic driving school 101. There is a reason every cross-road into a school/park zone needs it's own sign.
If the internet is so dangerous then children shouldn't be on it in the first place.
Nobody said that, nice strawman by the way. This argument works as well as "If strangers are so dangerous, why are kids allowed to play hockey in the cul-de-sac?
Maybe THE PARENTS need to step up to the challenge and pusome fucking initiative in to monitoring their kids.
Finaly, something we (partially) agree on. Yes parents need to monitor their children online, but when an adult iniates (email, etc) an innapropriate conversation with their child, they need to be able to DO something about it. This laws enables that ability because they can now take this person to court. Without laws like this, the best you can do is delete the email, change your kid's address and hope they never find the new one.
Blanket laws like this arent used for anything but demonizing people suspected of crimes.
Just thinking about how this law will be abused makes me sick.
I really don't have a response to the copy-pasted "A new law has been made/changed that could possibly not be infalible" argument seen over a thousand times on slashdot.
Except they will never EVER entertain the idea of making 100% of the profit on the 3 channels you want when they can still make 10% of the profit on the 200 channels you need to buy through a 3rd party company in order to get those 3 channels.
Ever notice how the channels you want are never in the same package? Yeah, that's not a coincidence!
And then you go to slashdot and meet the "The government thinks everyone over 19 is evil." crowd. For god's sake, the government removes the "sex" and "attempt to meet" laws around online child abuse/harrasment and slashdot goes completely ape-shit. CALM THE #$(*@# DOWN PEOPLE!
Not it is NOT. The change is simply removing the "sexual" and "intention to meet" clauses that previously HAD to be involved for the crime to be considered a crime. This allows them to nab online adults who are using the internet pushing drugs, violence (not games, but seriously damaging stuff), emotional trauma and non-sexual abuse on minors. As far as I'm concerned, this is a step forward. There is a lot of damage you can do to a minor that does not involve sex, and it's about time adults were responsible to what they knowingly say to minors.
As for the paedophilia thing, that was settled a LONG time ago. There was a famous case where a man was found with a LOT of illustrated child sexual material and the courts found him not guilty because none of the images were real so no children were actually involved. That's right, of all the countries CANADA has already deemed such content to NOT be a thought-crime or any other crime at all.
If you are having conversations on ubuntu's forums that police would deem "Inapropriate conversation with a minor", you probably shouldn't be posting it there...
With access to arbitrary teleportation technology, why would you need a personal invisibility cloak? You'd be able to teleport in and out when invisibility would be required (unless you're cloaking infrastructure).
"Says you. You're omitting how many devices don't work on Linux due to a lack of drivers or simple inoperability with Linux. It's improving, but there's a long way to go."
And you are omitting how many devices work with only "one" version of Windows. I have a brand new laptop which linux runs PERFECTLY on, yet I had to spend 2 days searching just to get any sound or graphics support under XP.
Most hardware works under "A" version of windows. But the stuff that works under linux typically works under "ALL" versions of linux!
No, absolutely NOT. This fails the privilege elevation test.
Application can modify it's own runtime files (or global settings)
User using application now has ability to do so (wether through the app or otherwise)
User now has ability to modify runtime behaviour/settings of an aplication for other users
User now has ability to cause execution of malicious code as other users
Any malware (previously restricted to messing with one user's files) now has the ability to cause execution of malicious code as other users
Malware can now propagate between accounts (or system-wide if root runs the application)
Please repeat this with me: "No user should EVER be able to modify the runtime behaviour, configuration or settings of any application for any other user without superuser privileges!"
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be impressed if they manage to break the light waveform.
You've obviously never worked with kids...
As correct as I think you are, the problem this article is emphasizing is trust. People were told that the information they posted would only be available to the people they add to the "priavte" list. Facebook has now gone "hahaha, now EVERYONE can see this!".
Every time someone tries to get me to sign up for facebook, I tell tell them it has nothing to do with my social level, but my trust in a company that has time and time again shown absolutely NO concern for it's users except for when forced to by being found with their pants down.
I defy anyone to find a facebook privacy/security issue that was fixed before it made major news (as in almost every blog going balistic).
totally unbreakable.
famous last words
Very cool idea. Even better would be to actually have that machine running a multi-touch display of and/or gates or something. Then not only are they seeing the inside of a computer, but the inside of the computer they are actually using as another part of the exibit.
As opposed to?
No no no no, when you submit your password it will only appear as ***** to them.
Not if what you want to get to is only on that network...
Where exactly did you get that quote?!? Just because something is not "specific" to restriction A does not mean that it now encompasses EVERYTHING inside and outside of restriction A. There are many OTHER restrictions still in place.
I worked "pusing" badly, I meant "promoting, etc". Though that may go against free-speech, I believe it should be illegal when dealing with easily impressionable minors.
Which laws have never been enforced non-sensibly?
WTF are you trying to prove here? Are you saying that this law is no worse than any other?
you can't deprive other people of their freedom; in particular you can't force other people to have sex with you or make porn for you
This law is specifically trying to scope OUTSIDE of child-porn. This is like saying that a dangerous driving law is bad because it's scope is outside of speed alone!
No. As someone who has actually TAKEN a law class, precedent has been set that specifies that unless an ACTUAL child was involved, there was no crime. I guarantee the people being charged were charged for the 10% that DID involve real children and the other 90% (though not "legally" damning) were used as shock-inducement for the jury.
How is it a thoght crime? The crime involves the mental well-being of a minor. As much as slashdot thinks children are immune to any and all emotional abuse and harrassment, they are NOT.
As for parents being parents, that is all good and fine until the adult INITIATES the innapropriate conversation with their child and they have no recourse but to change the child's email and hope the person never finds the new one. No ammount of online monitoring is going to prevent your child's email address that he shared with his best friend at school from eventually finding it's way into the wrong hands.
And who decides what innapropiate?
A jury of your peers. I'm pretty sure a jury will not send you to jail for a casual conversation they themselves have had many times with children. If you get convicted of this from a casual conversation you SERIOUSLY need to find a better lawyer!
and How do you even find the people committing the crimes in the first place?
Same way you find people breaking the previous law, IT GETS REPORTED!
Does this conversation involve replying to comments left by minors?
Considering a conversation is techinically a 2-way exchange of information between humans, that sounds like a pretty dumb question.
Honestly this law is as much of a trap as setting the a low speed limit and not posting the speed.
I love people who don't know the law... If you enter a low-speed area via a path that does not have a sign posted, THE SPEED AREA DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU and you can successfully fight it in court (it's been done and proven)! Come on, this is basic driving school 101. There is a reason every cross-road into a school/park zone needs it's own sign.
If the internet is so dangerous then children shouldn't be on it in the first place.
Nobody said that, nice strawman by the way. This argument works as well as "If strangers are so dangerous, why are kids allowed to play hockey in the cul-de-sac?
Maybe THE PARENTS need to step up to the challenge and pusome fucking initiative in to monitoring their kids.
Finaly, something we (partially) agree on. Yes parents need to monitor their children online, but when an adult iniates (email, etc) an innapropriate conversation with their child, they need to be able to DO something about it. This laws enables that ability because they can now take this person to court. Without laws like this, the best you can do is delete the email, change your kid's address and hope they never find the new one.
Blanket laws like this arent used for anything but demonizing people suspected of crimes. Just thinking about how this law will be abused makes me sick.
I really don't have a response to the copy-pasted "A new law has been made/changed that could possibly not be infalible" argument seen over a thousand times on slashdot.
Opps, my bad :P
Except they will never EVER entertain the idea of making 100% of the profit on the 3 channels you want when they can still make 10% of the profit on the 200 channels you need to buy through a 3rd party company in order to get those 3 channels.
Ever notice how the channels you want are never in the same package? Yeah, that's not a coincidence!
And then you go to slashdot and meet the "The government thinks everyone over 19 is evil." crowd. For god's sake, the government removes the "sex" and "attempt to meet" laws around online child abuse/harrasment and slashdot goes completely ape-shit. CALM THE #$(*@# DOWN PEOPLE!
Yes there are, retailers are not allowed to sell to people below the age rating of the game.
Not it is NOT. The change is simply removing the "sexual" and "intention to meet" clauses that previously HAD to be involved for the crime to be considered a crime. This allows them to nab online adults who are using the internet pushing drugs, violence (not games, but seriously damaging stuff), emotional trauma and non-sexual abuse on minors. As far as I'm concerned, this is a step forward. There is a lot of damage you can do to a minor that does not involve sex, and it's about time adults were responsible to what they knowingly say to minors.
As for the paedophilia thing, that was settled a LONG time ago. There was a famous case where a man was found with a LOT of illustrated child sexual material and the courts found him not guilty because none of the images were real so no children were actually involved. That's right, of all the countries CANADA has already deemed such content to NOT be a thought-crime or any other crime at all.
If you are having conversations on ubuntu's forums that police would deem "Inapropriate conversation with a minor", you probably shouldn't be posting it there...
I think he just donned the wrong cloak.
and wizard hat.
Not if you cover it in mud!
With access to arbitrary teleportation technology, why would you need a personal invisibility cloak? You'd be able to teleport in and out when invisibility would be required (unless you're cloaking infrastructure).
You obviously need a bigger teleporter!
The eyehole part might work, but not the tee. A semi-silvered mirror would create a "dim" area where you are standing.
And make sure the stairs go UP!
"Says you. You're omitting how many devices don't work on Linux due to a lack of drivers or simple inoperability with Linux. It's improving, but there's a long way to go."
And you are omitting how many devices work with only "one" version of Windows. I have a brand new laptop which linux runs PERFECTLY on, yet I had to spend 2 days searching just to get any sound or graphics support under XP.
Most hardware works under "A" version of windows. But the stuff that works under linux typically works under "ALL" versions of linux!
Please repeat this with me: "No user should EVER be able to modify the runtime behaviour, configuration or settings of any application for any other user without superuser privileges!"