with pubsub in place, an implementation of e.g. XEP-0154 [1] could easily be used to make privacy-enabled decentralized online social networking possible. the privacy fetishists could have all data on their own server and for the uninformed masses, well some web 2.0 crackpot could surely provide a web frontend...
after mitch [1] held a lecture about "making cool things with microcontrollers" [2], he started a workshop, where you could build your own tv-b-gone.
well, on the other side of the street there was a Media Markt (big, sells tech stuff) and some people had real fun [3]. soon, people got banned from Media Markt [4]. when one person shut off an 80.000 plasma screen, the employees even called the police.
even with open source software on the voting machines, there is now way for anyone to tell what the machine exactly does. even computer scientists can only hope that the machine right in front of them has the right software on it. also, if manipulations happen, there can be no recount.
also, the argument actually is about that those machines can be easily manipulated. a public counting process is only to ensure that there is no manipulation, therefore ensuring government legitimacy.
the problem is nothing that has to do with signed code. signing code "only" authenticates it and does not say that there are no security holes.
it has, however, something to do with specific precations not being taken: with selinux or apparmor for example this probably wouldn't have happended simply because they handle application privileges in a different (OMHO: better) way - through profiles.
For example, German ZDF [1] uses flash only for its front page (due to ill-advised web design) and utilizes windows media player, quicktime or vlc browser plugins for video content. so much for actual solution (one guy of the streaming company even said they would probably also offer theora the moment software patents are legal in europe).
German ZDF [1] uses flash only for its front page due to ill-advised web design and utilizes windows media player, quicktime or vlc browser plugins for video content. so much for actual consumer friendly solutions.
From a short-term practical standpoint, i don't see a problem with teaching e.g. GIMP instead of an old Photoshop version - as long as you don't require features the free alternative doesn't have (GIMP has no HDR) you should be fine. Additionally, kids can also use the software at home and when they have completed the course, which is a big benefit - I am required to learn Maple [1] and didn't pay up for the draconian license which would require me to wipe it off disk as soon as i am no longer an university student. Also, old Photoshop knowledge most certainly won't help them in the job.
Ethically speaking, as a good teacher you should absolutely abstain from proprietary concepts: Your obligation is to teach them something useful for society, not to teach them something useful for Adobe. Proprietary software essentially says that research into the functions and cooperation between people is forbidden, while free software actually encourages sharing knowledge and cooperation for a mutual goal. Read Stallman's essay on the topic [2] and decide what would be the ethically correct alternative.
How would that work instead of a fixed age of consent? Would you have Sex Licences tests for teenagers, analogous to Driving Licenses?
you are certainly misunderstanding me (maybe on purpose ?): i was arguing for intellectual maturity. sexual maturity is easy - if they have these urges and act upon it, they are sexually mature. it is a matter of fact, therefore no license necessary. sex ed is taught here in school, it was part of the curriculum of biology when i was in secondary school. see, no problem.
guess you guys need the law to act as program and the police to act like automata.
actually laws should be as clear as possible. whenever a law is undefined, it goes against the idea of the modern constitunional state ("Rechtsstaat", as we call it in Germany), as it opens the door to selective enforcement (you describe it, even), ergo discrimination and tyranny (which certainly is bad). due process can only be guaranteed if laws are as clear as possible. this is why minimum and maximum sentences are codified into law.
you know that in Germany "hacker tools" were banned ? the problem is, "hacker tools" were not defined in the law. now every security reasearcher, student of informational technology, even users of GNU in Germany have a big problem: they don't know if their deeds are legal or not. this leads to widespread confusion, inefficiency and opens the door up to selective enforcement against critics (of the government or a corporation). in an unclear legal climate this is certainly possible - with clearly worded laws it is not.
Adults can have sex with whoever they want, children cannot because they are not mature enough to understand the consequences of them.
you keep saying this, that full intellectual maturity is required to have sex and understand the consequences. i suggest it isn't that hard: when i was 12, i had grasped the concept of teenage pregnancies ruining lifes due to sex ed in school and most classmates had no problem grasping this. ask several 10-year-olds if having a child of their own might be a good idea, then consider your words again.
Why do you have such an interest in it being legal to have sex with children by the way?
i don't think government or anyone should limit any persons who understand what they are doing, regardless of age - except if one affected person does not agree. to make it clear, i do not think German cannibal Armin Meiwes [1] did anything wrong: if media reports are correct, the person he ate wanted to be eaten, even urged Meiwes to bite his penis off ! according to the media, Meiwes videotaped everything (no one knows why, though). so in the end Meiwes didn't just kill a person, he actively searched for one who consented. if all this is true, i don't think he would be a threat to society, therefore doesn't need to be punished.
Abolishing the age of consent as you seem to be proposing would not improve this though, it would probably make things far worse.
Germany has an age of consent of 14. Great Britain has an age of consent of 16.
Germany has a teen pregnancy birth rate of 13.1 per 1000 women aged 15 to 19. [2] Germany has a teen pregnancy abortion rate of 5.3 per 1000 women aged 15 to 19. [2]
Great Britain has a teen pregnancy birth rate of 30.8 per 1000 women aged 15 to 19. [2] Great Britain has a teen pregnancy abortion rate of 21.3 per 1000 women aged 15 to 19. [2]
so there seem to be almost 3 times teens giving birth and 4 times teen aborting their unborn children in Great Britain than in Germany despite the age of consent being lower. empirical facts seem to contradict your speculation that a lower age of consent would make the situation regarding teen pregnancies worse.
as laymans, we can not explain this. maybe it's due to the some aspects of sex ed or the social system in Germany. seve
So the jist of your objection is that because there is variation between people we should have no limits?
certainly arbitrary limits based on age are bullshit. limits based on actual skill (driver's license) are perfectly acceptable.
Early developers would need to wait for a year to have a sexual relationship unless they wanted their partner to go to break the law but I don't see a problem with that.
but i see one. you are arguing that because the law is unjust only to "few", it is acceptable. while this may sound appealing to many, it is wrong, for laws should not be intentionally unjust. with the same reasoning ("only bad for a minority") one could defend "extraordinary renditions".
also, if the police needs to be "sensible", the law is made of crap and fail.
you didn't provide an answer for why "old guys" shouldn't date 15 year olds. you and i certainly know that some wise 15 year olds are out there. and we know for sure that some very dumb 30 year olds are out there.
i live in a state where homosexuals can marry and joe sixpack is free to fuck jane doe into the ass if she is okay with it. all of this because my sex-life is no bizness of the state or any one else as long as it's consentual. you seem to think otherwise. why ?
first, here in germany, 14 would be legal - it's the age of consent. second, you sister's sex life is none of your bizness, srsly. third, you, kind sir, are probably a control freak.
My little sister listed her age on Myspace as 17 when she was 14. Need I say more? After seeing that, I'm all for this legislation. I'd even like to see the children themselves held responsible: they don't seem to be held accountable for their own actions at all these days.
God I feel old saying that. I'm only 30, I swear!
so let me recount: because an underage person may give false information to look somehow more "adult", "underage information" should be banned ?
and people should be held accountable when they lie - big deal. tell that to bush, blair [1] and "comical ali" [1].
also, why is this modded "insightful" and not "funny" or "troll" ?
this argumentation is doomed to fail, an arbitrary limit for maturity is stupid. actually, i know a sizeable number of people who would not fit into this scheme - for example, roughly a third of my former classmates.
== first, sexual maturity ==
i know girls who were sexual before being 12 (even before having their period). not all of them fully knew what they were doing - to hear "you can always put it out" from a slightly stupid girl is probably a huge turn-off for a young boy with some knowledge in biology - but they were able to articulate their sexual needs and act upon them, so they clearly were sexual mature.
a solution would be more sex ed. really, on what grounds should one forbid two persons who know what they are doing some act, if it is consentual? non-consentual sex is already prohibited (rape, anyone ?). also, teen pregnancy is no argument with proper sex-ed (sorry, radical christfags).
== second, intellectual maturity ==
i went to a boarding school for "gifted" pupils, so i know quite a number of people who are seen (and see themselves) as "brighter" than the average person. we had to take a test at eigth grade to get there. after some time i came to the conclusion that you usually cannot compare "real-world" intellect at all. nearly all of them were somehow good at tests, yet many lacked "real world" skills and could not solve unusual problems (the real world is not your textbook example) due to lack of imagination.
on the other side, i know people who can keep up with daily tasks, are definitely not mentally retarded, but just stupid and / or disinterested. my little brother, for example, killed the microwave due to profound lack of skill and didn't even notice it due to watching TV. when my little sister (5 years old at that incident) woke everyone up (smoke + sleeping people => bad) we headed for the garden. my sister wanted to know why that happened, my brother didn't want to know.
wait, my brother is 16 years old. my sister was 5 and could recall the outlines of "how a microwave works" half a year later (in before shitty explaination). to top that, there is this "gifted" girl i know, nearly the same age as my brother, but indefinitely more intelligent and also, wise - she probably was smarter than him when she was 15. should he have more rights based on age? hint: my brother did apparently not become more intelligent or knowledgeable in the last two years and probably never will.
a solution to this problem could be mandatory tests for everyone to get certain "dangerous" rights. nearly every country has this for driving a car - you must proove you understood the rules, regardless of age. so... why are people allowed to vote even if they don't know shit about the voting system ? clearly, this has something to do with abuse of power - maybe you could cut that out if this kind of knowledge would be teached free of cost and you could apply for the "voting maturity" test an infinite amount of times.
here in Germany, we have the "Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung" (translate as something like "federal central for political education"), which has the job to teach citizens on how the state works (it certainly isn't government propaganda) - you can order the German Constitution and many informational texts on local and global political issues at low cost (like shipping only), for example. in my opinion, every citizen should know how stuff works(TM); is imperative for a society with the goal of its citizens being free individuals.
== third, emotional maturity ==
this is by far the easiest to answer. i know people who were emotionally stable in a very young age. also i know people who are absolutely not stable. when i talked to emotionally unstable persons, many of them (6 or so), cried at
this was only the first display of anonymous' power, i suggest.
my prediction: in a few years moot & the anonymous army of/b/ take will have taken over several other countries. and then those who break rules 1 and 2 will be the first to the wa- OH SHIT.
"informational self-determation" - a term coined by the german federal constitutional court - is not censorship. it means that you can decide which informations about yourself is given to other entities. the "right to privacy" is actually a subset of informational self-determination.
of course, the government isn't you and therefore should not decide which information can be (or cannot be) out there.
consider this: in traditional crypto Andy wants to send Bobby a message. Evey wants to decipher it, therefore she needs some kind of key. now in DRM, Bobby and Evey are the same person. BUSTED.
yeah, it's copypasta, i know. but it had to be said.
Slashdot Mirror
once i met this guy who encapsulated xmpp into http-requests because his data-flatrate somehow was http-only.
you are right, pidgin is utter crap as a jabber client.
web == world wide web == you fail (in not-so-epic proportions)
with pubsub in place, an implementation of e.g. XEP-0154 [1] could easily be used to make privacy-enabled decentralized online social networking possible. the privacy fetishists could have all data on their own server and for the uninformed masses, well some web 2.0 crackpot could surely provide a web frontend ...
[1] http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0154.html
after mitch [1] held a lecture about "making cool things with microcontrollers" [2], he started a workshop, where you could build your own tv-b-gone.
well, on the other side of the street there was a Media Markt (big, sells tech stuff) and some people had real fun [3]. soon, people got banned from Media Markt [4]. when one person shut off an 80.000 plasma screen, the employees even called the police.
[1] http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=mitch+altman
[2] http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3953188/24c3-2214-en-make_cool_things_with_microcontrollers.mkv
[3] http://www.flickr.com/photos/kap4001/2147812954/
[4] http://flickr.com/photos/yarnivore/2167068196/
this problem is even more evident in the european union, look at the "relative influence" table on the right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_Parliament
just look at german "freifunk" [1], they even develop routing protocols [2,3].
[1] http://start.freifunk.net/ (german)
[2] http://olsr.org/
[3] https://www.open-mesh.net/batman
even with open source software on the voting machines, there is now way for anyone to tell what the machine exactly does. even computer scientists can only hope that the machine right in front of them has the right software on it. also, if manipulations happen, there can be no recount.
also, the argument actually is about that those machines can be easily manipulated. a public counting process is only to ensure that there is no manipulation, therefore ensuring government legitimacy.
you are wrong.
the problem is nothing that has to do with signed code. signing code "only" authenticates it and does not say that there are no security holes.
it has, however, something to do with specific precations not being taken: with selinux or apparmor for example this probably wouldn't have happended simply because they handle application privileges in a different (OMHO: better) way - through profiles.
on the 24th chaos communication congress there were two interesting lectures:
one about electronic voting in the netherlands (english): http://outpost.h3q.com/fnord/24c3-torrents/24c3-2342-en-it_was_a_bad_idea_anyway.mkv.torrent
another about electronic voting vulnerabilities and the status in germany (german): http://outpost.h3q.com/fnord/24c3-torrents/24c3-2380-de-nedap_wahlcomputer_in_deutschland.mkv.torrent
For example, German ZDF [1] uses flash only for its front page (due to ill-advised web design) and utilizes windows media player, quicktime or vlc browser plugins for video content. so much for actual solution (one guy of the streaming company even said they would probably also offer theora the moment software patents are legal in europe).
[1] http://mediathek.zdf.de/
German ZDF [1] uses flash only for its front page due to ill-advised web design and utilizes windows media player, quicktime or vlc browser plugins for video content. so much for actual consumer friendly solutions.
[1] http://mediathek.zdf.de/
From a short-term practical standpoint, i don't see a problem with teaching e.g. GIMP instead of an old Photoshop version - as long as you don't require features the free alternative doesn't have (GIMP has no HDR) you should be fine. Additionally, kids can also use the software at home and when they have completed the course, which is a big benefit - I am required to learn Maple [1] and didn't pay up for the draconian license which would require me to wipe it off disk as soon as i am no longer an university student. Also, old Photoshop knowledge most certainly won't help them in the job.
Ethically speaking, as a good teacher you should absolutely abstain from proprietary concepts: Your obligation is to teach them something useful for society, not to teach them something useful for Adobe. Proprietary software essentially says that research into the functions and cooperation between people is forbidden, while free software actually encourages sharing knowledge and cooperation for a mutual goal. Read Stallman's essay on the topic [2] and decide what would be the ethically correct alternative.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_(software)
[2] http://www.linux.com/articles/32587
parent post is mine. also read http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=369821&cid=21474179
you are certainly misunderstanding me (maybe on purpose ?): i was arguing for intellectual maturity. sexual maturity is easy - if they have these urges and act upon it, they are sexually mature. it is a matter of fact, therefore no license necessary. sex ed is taught here in school, it was part of the curriculum of biology when i was in secondary school. see, no problem.
actually laws should be as clear as possible. whenever a law is undefined, it goes against the idea of the modern constitunional state ("Rechtsstaat", as we call it in Germany), as it opens the door to selective enforcement (you describe it, even), ergo discrimination and tyranny (which certainly is bad). due process can only be guaranteed if laws are as clear as possible. this is why minimum and maximum sentences are codified into law.
you know that in Germany "hacker tools" were banned ? the problem is, "hacker tools" were not defined in the law. now every security reasearcher, student of informational technology, even users of GNU in Germany have a big problem: they don't know if their deeds are legal or not. this leads to widespread confusion, inefficiency and opens the door up to selective enforcement against critics (of the government or a corporation). in an unclear legal climate this is certainly possible - with clearly worded laws it is not.
you keep saying this, that full intellectual maturity is required to have sex and understand the consequences. i suggest it isn't that hard: when i was 12, i had grasped the concept of teenage pregnancies ruining lifes due to sex ed in school and most classmates had no problem grasping this. ask several 10-year-olds if having a child of their own might be a good idea, then consider your words again.
i don't think government or anyone should limit any persons who understand what they are doing, regardless of age - except if one affected person does not agree. to make it clear, i do not think German cannibal Armin Meiwes [1] did anything wrong: if media reports are correct, the person he ate wanted to be eaten, even urged Meiwes to bite his penis off ! according to the media, Meiwes videotaped everything (no one knows why, though). so in the end Meiwes didn't just kill a person, he actively searched for one who consented. if all this is true, i don't think he would be a threat to society, therefore doesn't need to be punished.
Germany has an age of consent of 14.
Great Britain has an age of consent of 16.
Germany has a teen pregnancy birth rate of 13.1 per 1000 women aged 15 to 19. [2]
Germany has a teen pregnancy abortion rate of 5.3 per 1000 women aged 15 to 19. [2]
Great Britain has a teen pregnancy birth rate of 30.8 per 1000 women aged 15 to 19. [2]
Great Britain has a teen pregnancy abortion rate of 21.3 per 1000 women aged 15 to 19. [2]
so there seem to be almost 3 times teens giving birth and 4 times teen aborting their unborn children in Great Britain than in Germany despite the age of consent being lower. empirical facts seem to contradict your speculation that a lower age of consent would make the situation regarding teen pregnancies worse.
as laymans, we can not explain this. maybe it's due to the some aspects of sex ed or the social system in Germany. seve
certainly arbitrary limits based on age are bullshit. limits based on actual skill (driver's license) are perfectly acceptable.
but i see one. you are arguing that because the law is unjust only to "few", it is acceptable.
while this may sound appealing to many, it is wrong, for laws should not be intentionally unjust.
with the same reasoning ("only bad for a minority") one could defend "extraordinary renditions".
also, if the police needs to be "sensible", the law is made of crap and fail.
you didn't provide an answer for why "old guys" shouldn't date 15 year olds.
you and i certainly know that some wise 15 year olds are out there.
and we know for sure that some very dumb 30 year olds are out there.
i live in a state where homosexuals can marry and joe sixpack is free to fuck jane doe into the ass if she is okay with it.
all of this because my sex-life is no bizness of the state or any one else as long as it's consentual. you seem to think otherwise. why ?
first, here in germany, 14 would be legal - it's the age of consent.
second, you sister's sex life is none of your bizness, srsly.
third, you, kind sir, are probably a control freak.
also, i cannot be sued for illegal downloading because i simply have no money to buy this amount of movies (by your logic, not the MAFIAA's).
also, why is this modded "insightful" and not "funny" or "troll" ?
[1] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+blair+lies+iraq+war&btnG=Search
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comical_ali
this argumentation is doomed to fail, an arbitrary limit for maturity is stupid. actually, i know a sizeable number of people who would not fit into this scheme - for example, roughly a third of my former classmates.
... why are people allowed to vote even if they don't know shit about the voting system ? clearly, this has something to do with abuse of power - maybe you could cut that out if this kind of knowledge would be teached free of cost and you could apply for the "voting maturity" test an infinite amount of times.
== first, sexual maturity ==
i know girls who were sexual before being 12 (even before having their period). not all of them fully knew what they were doing - to hear "you can always put it out" from a slightly stupid girl is probably a huge turn-off for a young boy with some knowledge in biology - but they were able to articulate their sexual needs and act upon them, so they clearly were sexual mature.
a solution would be more sex ed. really, on what grounds should one forbid two persons who know what they are doing some act, if it is consentual? non-consentual sex is already prohibited (rape, anyone ?). also, teen pregnancy is no argument with proper sex-ed (sorry, radical christfags).
== second, intellectual maturity ==
i went to a boarding school for "gifted" pupils, so i know quite a number of people who are seen (and see themselves) as "brighter" than the average person. we had to take a test at eigth grade to get there. after some time i came to the conclusion that you usually cannot compare "real-world" intellect at all. nearly all of them were somehow good at tests, yet many lacked "real world" skills and could not solve unusual problems (the real world is not your textbook example) due to lack of imagination.
on the other side, i know people who can keep up with daily tasks, are definitely not mentally retarded, but just stupid and / or disinterested. my little brother, for example, killed the microwave due to profound lack of skill and didn't even notice it due to watching TV. when my little sister (5 years old at that incident) woke everyone up (smoke + sleeping people => bad) we headed for the garden. my sister wanted to know why that happened, my brother didn't want to know.
wait, my brother is 16 years old. my sister was 5 and could recall the outlines of "how a microwave works" half a year later (in before shitty explaination). to top that, there is this "gifted" girl i know, nearly the same age as my brother, but indefinitely more intelligent and also, wise - she probably was smarter than him when she was 15. should he have more rights based on age? hint: my brother did apparently not become more intelligent or knowledgeable in the last two years and probably never will.
a solution to this problem could be mandatory tests for everyone to get certain "dangerous" rights. nearly every country has this for driving a car - you must proove you understood the rules, regardless of age. so
here in Germany, we have the "Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung" (translate as something like "federal central for political education"), which has the job to teach citizens on how the state works (it certainly isn't government propaganda) - you can order the German Constitution and many informational texts on local and global political issues at low cost (like shipping only), for example. in my opinion, every citizen should know how stuff works(TM); is imperative for a society with the goal of its citizens being free individuals.
== third, emotional maturity ==
this is by far the easiest to answer. i know people who were emotionally stable in a very young age. also i know people who are absolutely not stable. when i talked to emotionally unstable persons, many of them (6 or so), cried at
this was only the first display of anonymous' power, i suggest.
/b/ take will have taken over several other countries. and then those who break rules 1 and 2 will be the first to the wa- OH SHIT.
my prediction: in a few years moot & the anonymous army of
read my post at http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=369821&cid=21468323 .
"informational self-determation" - a term coined by the german federal constitutional court - is not censorship. it means that you can decide which informations about yourself is given to other entities. the "right to privacy" is actually a subset of informational self-determination.
of course, the government isn't you and therefore should not decide which information can be (or cannot be) out there.
i bet ati WONTFIX your issues. and every one else CANNOT.
... and there won't ever be.
consider this: in traditional crypto Andy wants to send Bobby a message. Evey wants to decipher it, therefore she needs some kind of key. now in DRM, Bobby and Evey are the same person. BUSTED.
yeah, it's copypasta, i know. but it had to be said.