I am quite resolute that fantasy != intent. If we used your logic for a pretty average guy then you'd have to lock him up for intending to rape every other female he lays eyes on. As well, I would probably be in a mental institution to stop myself committing suicide.
So, how is the anti-liberty movement going? What's that? You're only after the bad people? Tell you what, you can go after the bad people if I can choose who they are.
Ha! I hate freedom and am out to destroy justice and all that is good and Ron Paul!...and you don't even seem to understand why society has laws. Laws are not viral... this is a specific law for a specific scenario for a reason. I can't stand this slippery slope idiocy.
I had to look up mens rea (lit: guilty mind), and I think you're taking it out of context. The intent of this phrase is to express that a defendant has not only physically committed a crime, but there was also intent. No actual harm (physical or psychological) has come to any minors here, so the mens rea is irrelevant.
I think it simply suggests that there is criminal intent, a guilty mind. The fact of the matter is that the perpetrator in this case created a sort of makeshift child pornography. He knew what he was doing when he applied a real child's image to a sexualized photograph of a woman.
This is really the core problem with your argument. You've got absolutely no evidence for this. I shoot virtual bullets at pictures of people in video games all the time. There are even games that simulate violence against specific individuals (Slap a Spice Girl was very popular in it's day). I have no intention of committing these acts in real life.
Okay, I understand this argument. If it were an illustration or perhaps even a video game featuring a nude child, it would be a different issue. I think the issue at hand was that an actual child was featured in this, which abstractly does mean the child was exploited for pornographic purposes.
Please explain. Exactly what about this incident could be considered aggravated?
That was going to be a conditional statement, but I was using IE 7 and I couldn't edit the comment again. It was hideous. I don't remember what I was going to write and don't care to look it up. The actual law I referenced was for aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor in the state of Tennessee.
If a jurisdiction decides to enact a law against any depiction, fictional or otherwise, of minors in a sexual context then that's their decision, but the statute you've quoted does not, in my reading, cover this. I believe that such laws have already been enacted in various places, although personally I find them hypocritical. If we take maximum prison sentences as a gauge of the seriousness of a crime in our society, murder is more serious than the sexualisation or abuse of a minor, but the fictionalised depiction of the latter can land you in prison while the fictionalised depiction of the former can make you a successful film producer.
Once more, I tend to agree, but I think the fact that some child got her picture included in this actually changes the issue.
If selective reasoning is ok then perhaps I can vote for a ban on religious practices next, not because I have anything against religion.. it's just I don't see why other people can make up shitty rules if I can't do the same.
This argument is irrelevant, this is an issue involving societal taboos and mores. It's just not the same cup of tea. The reasons society has for taking something like child pornography seriously is because of the inherent danger involved in adults who sexualize children.
There's no question here, a child's image was literally used in pornographic material, this isn't like the lolicon manga issue.
An actual real child's picture was used for this pornographic fantasy... the man chose a specific child to use for this example. There is malicious intent in that behavior.
Well, Slashdot clearly has a very pro-child pornography bias, so I should step lightly. Really, I am just trying to illustrate that this is different than a case where someone merely draws a child-like character in sexual activity. An actual child's photograph was used in a pornographic context. The inclusion of an actual child's image does change things, and puts this character in an interesting position.
Problem is, there's zero evidence to support the claim that viewing child pornography incites child abuse of any kind. And there's growing evidence that suggests that the actual effect might be the reverse - that viewing child pornography might actually be a substitute for actual sexual contact with children.
It certainly means the ideation is there, though. I don't think animated child pornography should be illegal as long as animated murder and other such violence remains legal. It seems to me be a weird disconnect, where the imagined world suddenly becomes legal. Think of all the virtual murder that occurs in our society.
However, I have to say I disagree with the assertion that child pornography is a substitute. Communities that practice this behavior legitimize it, if nothing else.
I think the key difference in this case is that he used a photograph of an actual child... her inclusion in this is a type of exploitation.
Well then, might as well throw the whole world in prison for "likely intending to rape" all those people they've fantasized about having sex with. It's the same thing, without actual proof of intent it's a thought crime.
I originally thought that I wrote it was a thought crime... but I posted the original message from a system with IE7, so there was no way to re-read my comment once I previewed it.:(
I can see the danger of such behavior, but I really don't like the implications of this being a crime.
If we're criminalising images out of fear of people getting off on them, and we're also worried about people aroused by children's faces... then why aren't we criminalising all photos of children's faces?
It's more basic than that. The child's face is used in a pornographic photo. It would arguably be part of the sexual context of the photo, also. If you take a photograph of a fully clothed child in a sexual context, it also counts as child pornography. There are ground rules set for what you're allowed to do with images of children, and the person here simply violated them.
You are both guessing. Who knows which one of you is right. However the law is not supposed to be about guesses but about facts. How would you like to be put in jail after having 5 or 6 drinks at home because "you might have gotten in your car and driven drunk"?
This would be more akin to taking 5 or 6 drinks and sitting in your car with the key in the ignition... the man actually put a child's face onto an adult body in order to simulate the child naked in a sexual context. It's not as much of a thought crime as we're making it out to be.
Whether or not the intent was to create child pornography, the child's face was used in a piece of pornography.
Once again, however, article (2) appears to be in direct contradiction to the 2002 SCOTUS decision, which ruled that simulated pornography is protected speech. So a conviction seems doubtful, especially if appealed.
Either I am reading this wrong, or this is a Tennessee law passed/revised in 2005. The 2002 SCOTUS decision would merely assert that this is not a federal offense. This is specifically a state crime in Tennessee.
There is certainly a mens rea of harm to a minor involved when someone has the faces of children pasted on adult bodies such as in this case. So, the actual reason we have child pornography laws in the first place (to protect minors) is served by this case. In fact, using the child's face even fits the actual crime of "exploitation" of a minor. It's even aggravated
However, this really is a crime. Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?
Well...
(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in: (1) Sexual activity; or (2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive. (b) A person violating subsection (a) may be charged in a separate count for each individual performance, image, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, videocassette tape, or other pictorial representation. (c) In a prosecution under this section, the trier of fact may consider the title, text, visual representation, Internet history, physical development of the person depicted, expert medical testimony, expert computer forensic testimony, and any other relevant evidence, in determining whether a person knowingly promoted, employed, used, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to participate in the performance of or in the production of acts or material for these purposes, or in determining whether the material or image otherwise represents or depicts that a participant is a minor. (d) A violation of this section is a Class B felony. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting prosecution for any other sexual offense under this chapter, nor shall a joint conviction under this section and any other related sexual offense, even if arising out of the same conduct, be construed as limiting any applicable punishment, including consecutive sentencing under  40-35-115, or the enhancement of sentence under  40-35-114. (e) In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor. (f) A person is subject to prosecution in this state under this section for any conduct that originates in this state, or for any conduct that originates by a person located outside this state, where the person promoted, employed, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to engage in the performance of, or production of, acts or material within this state.
I am not familiar with the architecture of X, but somebody smarter than I needs to sit down and think about the architecture of X, whether or not it can improve, and whether or not it needs to be rewritten from scratch. FOSS should not fall into the trap of rewriting everything as pointed out by somebody smarter than I (I think it was Jamie Zawinski, who has criticized the X project for quite awhile, perhaps not the best reference).
Yes, networked computing is very useful. My point is that the graphical subsystem doesn't have to be wringed through the filesystem sockets layer, the graphics need to be cut loose. Networked desktop is also possible through VNC and RDP...
The X protocol is not the only networked display system, it's just a particularly antiquated model built around systems where graphics were processed away from the rest of the system. It's just outdated and poorly designed. Even when X was created, it was outclassed by other networked display models like NeWS.
I am not trying to eliminate networked computing, just needless inefficiency and poor design... X fails as a graphical display system for *personal computers*. It has since the 80's.
It does seem that DIRECT direct access to the FB is a Bad Idea. First of all, there's no such thing as a contiguous rectangular region (unless your rectangle is full screen width), so offering even the piece including your window gives you the chance to mess up the screen without X being able to know it has to redraw. Secondly it deprives X of being able to know what resources you want to use so it can manage the sum total of graphics memory intelligently (maybe you don't want it to?). Thirdly, that assumes that the video hardware offers a DMA'ed FB, which if you're doing compositing may not be the case since you're accessing the card in a 3D mode (I don't really know how that's commonly implemented in hardware).
I am suggesting using DRI/DRM directly, so the windowing system would draw only in 3D mode, not through DirectFB. This would be ground-up compositing such as that described here:
In Windows, you have robust API's supporting a hardware accelerated stack top to bottom. Everything, even legacy GDI drawing commands, are accelerated by DirectX. So, the windowing system has direct hardware access but can use it securely because the video drivers run in User Mode.
And then there's GLX for 3D rendering, and XV for video, and newer extensions (EXA, which cairo uses by default) as the use-case arises.
Windows has all these features standardized under DirectX and has for a long time... it even has a standard way of accelerating video playback with the GPU that has been fully implemented and functional for years. You have to remember that nothing is quite as feature-rich as DirectX in this category. There is currently no equivalent.
There are still many GPU functions not implemented in DRI/DRM which prevent modern video cards from really reaching their full potential, anyway.
A rough example of the WDDM is available here, and I believe this links to the MSDN page:
I use Windows as an example of a proper display system because theirs is simply the fastest and most robust right now. Windows will consistently beat Linux and Mac OS X in video performance on the same harware, no question about it. You are welcome to benchmark any cross-platform graphics-heavy application to verify this.
When it all comes down to it, a desktop system should have fast and direct video acceleration top to bottom because most of the tasks conducted on it are visual.
X was designed originally with the idea that your CPU and graphics acceleration would be done on separate machines. This model still provides obfuscation, despite the fact that it has been unnecessary for any desktop system since the 386. This is why NeXT dropped X immediatetly when developing a graphically-rich unix-based workstation. Using X as a desktop system was not attempted again until the late 90's, and the results have been quite negative.
If Linux outperformed or even matched Windows in advanced graphics and gaming (or even web browsing and/or Flash), it would go a long way towards the proliferation of the platform.
I don't mean to nitpick on Linux's graphical failures, but my experience in the game industry has brought me to have extremely high standards for PC graphics performance. Windows really spoils you as a developer. You complain about it a lot until you try to do the same things on other platforms.
Please. Ranking software engineering alongside real engineering is exactly the sort of feel-good certificate-of-achievement bullshit that you think you're opposing.
I believe I was speaking against the hacker mentality. Software engineers should treat their work like actual engineering and should then be viewed as engineers, not technology rock stars.
I actually agree with these statements, but I don't see why it matters. Even if network transparency weren't a design goal (and I can almost agree that it shouldn't be), the mere virtue of having asynchronous calls means you get it almost for free. There will always be some applications or use-cases that don't work on the network (games, video come to mind), but being able to do the IPC over TCP vs. Unix sockets is such a non-issue. Is there an architecture you have in mind that precludes network transparency?
Well, I was under the impression that graphics were constrained behind file-system sockets, requiring more syscalls to tell the hardware to DMA... Windows offers very direct access to the hardware even on a windowing level, not unlike DRI, but with a more robust API that supports a wider graphical feature set. Now, DRI is not bad, by any means. I think it would be faster if GTK/Cairo were able to draw directly via DRI and circumvent the syscalls and latency that would otherwise occur with network transparency.
I don't think you can have fast direct graphics access and network transparency, so I think the Windows way where networking is on top of the windowing system is more efficient. The end goal is the best possible graphics performance in the windowing system.
I do think this is what Wayland is trying to accomplish.
I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but you do realize OpenGL itself is a "client/server/unixy mess", no? It's based on an asynchronous model that has the capacity to be (and under GLX, is) network transparent. Also, its SGI origins.
It seems inappropriate that Windows is able to reach similar ends with technologies like RDP while having solid and even advanced direct graphics access. It all breaks down to whether you want your desktop system to be a rich terminal or a fully accelerated media system.
SGI implemented the X protocol almost directly on their custom built hardware. I mean, SGI's X was X written for that specific hardware. It shares almost no lineage with Xfree86-based X.org, which is full of conflicting ideas about how to break through the wall and get to the graphics card.
You can have a successful and performant network-transparent raster-based graphics display layer. X isn't, but there's years of legacy and cruft that are to blame first and foremost before its fundamental architecture. DRM is a mess, certainly, one that is being PAINFULLY cleaned up currently, but I believe there's a lot of interesting and potentially successful directions it can take once that is done.
X was just not designed with personal computing in mind, it was designed to complement the mainframe model. The question is not how to achieve network-transparent GL but whether or not they should bother.
How is a network transparent graphics layer relevant to the majority of home users fooling with Ubuntu, for instance? What is wrong with them having a direct graphics first windowing system and running a Mac OS X-like headless X.org for the few corner cases where they require network transparent X?
The performance improvements and new simplicity in development for graphical applications (imagine easy to access GL and sane mouse/cursor behavior, etc.) would far outweigh the downside of the occasional user needing to run two windowing systems to recreate legacy functionality.
DRM/DRI is the basis for Wayland, as far as I can tell, so the work going into it can still be useful towards this end. I just feel like the current X implementation fails to do what Canonical is trying to do with Linux.
To say that people should work on X rather than Y is an interesting wish, but completely misunderstands the development model of open source. To make it work you need a different development model, like say, a company with product managers and paid developers.
I'm fairly certain most of the code going into X, the Linux kernel, and even AIGLX is written commercially. Linux has far more commercial leadership and paid developers than it pretends to. The true open source model seems to produce a lot more tiny micro-projects with limited scope and extensions/plugins for massive projects.
The companies who pay developers to work on these things need to take the basics more seriously. As far as I can tell, they are content in just maintaining things in their current semi-broken but passable state.
The graphics subsystem in Windows is a frame buffer graphics library poorly retrofitted for asynchronous calls. X was designed from the start for asynchronous client/server communications and operation in a separate "window server". X got it right 20 years ago. After two decades and several rewrites, both Microsoft and Apple have finally arrived at an X-like architecture.
...what? Microsoft put their networking on top of the display, not beneath it. Windows' display layer doesn't operate with a client/server framework as far as I understand... it's just simpler between the graphics card and display, where it really matters for desktop machines.
In fact, when has X ever surpassed Windows or Mac in the ability to actually draw windows and graphics... especially in the case of rich graphics? There's a good reason Flash will always run faster on Windows and Java FX came out on Windows and Mac long before anything X-based. Why, with the way modern X works with the DRI/Mesa GLX framework, they can never have a full GL stack because the DRM's way of handling graphics memory is flawed. They would have to rewrite the server to do what is and has been fairly simple in Windows, Mac, or BeOS in terms of direct graphics access.
I am not sure what you're talking about when you say X is "superior", but I am talking about desktop use... read: GRAPHICS. Not being a client/server/unixy mess. The average desktop user needs a fast, accurate, and consistent interface to their graphics card, not endless possibilities of socket magic that they can vomit all over the network... it's just not practical or accessible to regular users on desktop systems.
X is superior in one critical way. It has a butt-load more apps (especially commercial apps) than Wayland does. You might not care about this, but a heck of a lot of users and businesses do.
(Which isn't to say that X isn't bloaty. It just happens to win in the area where 99% of everyone gives a shit.)
I didn't think Wayland was going to break compatibility with the X protocol... so, as far as I understand it, it's going to move some of the networking behavior out of the core, but it's going to maintain compatibility otherwise. Compatibility needs to be present in any forward thinking solution without a doubt, even if it involves running X.org as a layer in the way Mac OS X handles it. X represents a level of cruft from a hardware perspective that the linux ecosystem would benefit to grow out of if it wants to thrive on the desktop....of course, if it does not, you are welcome to ignore me.
He's right... I absolutely hate that this guy is correct about this, but he is. I really hate to flash my social science background on slashdot, but here it goes:
There's been a trend in American society in the past couple decades towards "Helicopter parenting" and what could be considered a "participation trophy" society. We are a society that rewards mediocrity with enthusiasm and teaches every child to be a superstar. The downside to this is that we have a generation of workers who require constant affirmation and a high degree of reward for relatively small amounts of work.
Computer science is an engineering field, it does not require merely creativity and an artistic zeal but the steadiness of mind and capability of a traditional engineer, one who might design an engine, or build a bridge, even. It's not the technique of traditional engineering that computer science needs, but the character and demeanor. It would be one problem if only the students themselves thought of themselves as Larry Page's and Steve Jobs', but the employers are buying into it also. Companies like Google are swimming in talent but drowning in their own lack of discipline.
I must say, though, that the answer does not lie in outsourcing to foreign workers out in India... we have a country full of people who actually are employable. Why not hire some self-motivated community college students to do menial tasks, or perhaps start bringing in some of these unemployed IT workers? How about some people with battle scars from web 1.0, with the attention to detail necessary to keep commercial systems running? How about we bring in more old guys and expect more from our young talent? There are plenty of workers in America that deserve a fair shot, and we should not let the egos of some of our "rock star" graduates of fancy schools sink the reputation of the U.S. work ethic?
We have talent and I feel it's time our job market turn towards precision.
And while you're at it, learn to spell and how to express yourself with correct, clear, and concise language. Learning how to explain things clearly isn't the dreaded "marketing;" it's essential to getting people to use and like whatever it is that you've spent all your time and effort on.
I absolutely agree. Supposedly, good documentation exists in the Linux ecosystem, but it is hidden well behind the paid support contracts. I can't imagine it's quite Microsoft or even Apple grade, though.
So off I go to the forums.
That's exactly how Linux eventually shook me off. Your Linux installation's functionality is often only as good as your google skills.
A day later, my virtual ears ringing from a chorus of technical assholes who don't want me in their club, I just quit trying and go back to Windows or the Mac to get whatever it is I need to do, done.
Good technical documentation is unassuming, straightforward, and never condescending. It's important that users feel welcome on a system... not like their technical hitches are part of some sort of twisted hazing process. It's like a fraternity, but without the parties...
WTF? I got email. I got chat. I got flash. I got browsers. I got media players. Done.
Like I said, it's not missing features. It's polish and overall integration that is lacking. A great example of this is ALSA/PulseAudio, they provide ample functionality, but for every problem PulseAudio solves there is another one created. Besides this, there is no standard way to access these systems.
Last time I checked, Ubuntu uses everyone else's projects. None of which look to the NY Times for affirmation. That's a good thing and I hope it stays that way for a long, long time.
Actually, Ubuntu presents itself as a user friendly linux, so I imagine Canonical takes mainstream media and end user opinions seriously. By presenting components internally as "Archiver" and "Web Browser", they are bringing them under the Canonical Ubuntu branding. Linux distributions must take responsibility for all software in the Main "supported" repository.
I suspect you are the only one who cares what the NY Times has to say.
Really...? I mean, really?
Your list suggests you have some corner-case hardware or pipe dream you want someone else to write for you. Good luck with that.
OSS 4.1 is already written and ready to go and Wayland is in progress. There's nothing "corner case" about a purpose-built hardware-accelerated windowing system, considering this is present in both Windows and Mac OS X.
Uhhh. man pages? If the CLI is too frightening, then there's the gui-fied man pages that many desktops have. Most mainstream projects are well documented. I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Wait,do you mean that _one_ application that's not documented???
Overall, documentation for the ecosystem as a whole is lacking. Mac OS X and Windows are made up of many applications, but their documentation treats them as if it's one integrated product. Red Hat supposedly has this documentation, but it is not free. I can tell from your general attitude that you have never worked with end-user products. If you would like a primer, I recommend the Apple Human Interface Guide or the Microsoft User Experience Guide if you would like to see the sort of presentation end users expect from products labeled as "desktop."
Last I checked, Linux desktops were loaded with exciting new innovative features but failing on extremely basic tasks.
Perhaps the community should be asking whether it's more important that we add a fun new Swirl effect to switch to another desktop or if people would rather have a sane and complete GL API. Do we need the entire desktop to be rethought or should we simply settle for having a sane and unified sound solution?
I would have to agree in saying that the desktop linux community is getting way too ahead of itself if they think they're innovating themselves away from the mainstream. Read the NYTimes article on Ubuntu Linux and tell me whether or not they even mention innovation- They viewed it as a free but lower quality alternative to commercial systems that was very attractive but failed during basic maintenance tasks.
Why create an Earth-shattering new desktop-web interaction paradigm when users would probably rather have sane and cohesive documentation?
Here are some no-brainers, if you want to see linux improve:
* Now that OSS 4.1 is open source, drop ALSA. It is a proven failure. PulseAudio obfuscated the problem to the point of ruining audio in linux, specifically when low latency is required.
* Support forward-thinking projects like Wayland instead of putting another car on the fail-train that is X. X is architecturally inferior to WindowServer and Windows' display layer for desktop-oriented tasks. A simplified windowing system that puts graphics first and drops the cruft would go a long way in making linux seem modern and easy to maintain.
* Write documentation sometimes. Format it well an ship it with your projects!
Or, if you're really clever:
* Realize that open source != linux. Look at desktop-oriented free software sytstems like Haiku and imagine a world where Linux can be built into an excellent server (or mediocre workstation) and desktop users can have a system purpose built for their priorites! There is no rule that says that linux needs to be the only free system. With the magic of things like POSIX, we can write software that runs on either!
The strength of open source should be versatility, not futility.
Slashdot Mirror
I am quite resolute that fantasy != intent. If we used your logic for a pretty average guy then you'd have to lock him up for intending to rape every other female he lays eyes on. As well, I would probably be in a mental institution to stop myself committing suicide.
Great, the "slippery slope" returns.
So, how is the anti-liberty movement going? What's that? You're only after the bad people? Tell you what, you can go after the bad people if I can choose who they are.
Ha! I hate freedom and am out to destroy justice and all that is good and Ron Paul! ...and you don't even seem to understand why society has laws. Laws are not viral... this is a specific law for a specific scenario for a reason. I can't stand this slippery slope idiocy.
I had to look up mens rea (lit: guilty mind), and I think you're taking it out of context. The intent of this phrase is to express that a defendant has not only physically committed a crime, but there was also intent. No actual harm (physical or psychological) has come to any minors here, so the mens rea is irrelevant.
I think it simply suggests that there is criminal intent, a guilty mind. The fact of the matter is that the perpetrator in this case created a sort of makeshift child pornography. He knew what he was doing when he applied a real child's image to a sexualized photograph of a woman.
This is really the core problem with your argument. You've got absolutely no evidence for this. I shoot virtual bullets at pictures of people in video games all the time. There are even games that simulate violence against specific individuals (Slap a Spice Girl was very popular in it's day). I have no intention of committing these acts in real life.
Okay, I understand this argument. If it were an illustration or perhaps even a video game featuring a nude child, it would be a different issue. I think the issue at hand was that an actual child was featured in this, which abstractly does mean the child was exploited for pornographic purposes.
Please explain. Exactly what about this incident could be considered aggravated?
That was going to be a conditional statement, but I was using IE 7 and I couldn't edit the comment again. It was hideous. I don't remember what I was going to write and don't care to look it up. The actual law I referenced was for aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor in the state of Tennessee.
If a jurisdiction decides to enact a law against any depiction, fictional or otherwise, of minors in a sexual context then that's their decision, but the statute you've quoted does not, in my reading, cover this. I believe that such laws have already been enacted in various places, although personally I find them hypocritical. If we take maximum prison sentences as a gauge of the seriousness of a crime in our society, murder is more serious than the sexualisation or abuse of a minor, but the fictionalised depiction of the latter can land you in prison while the fictionalised depiction of the former can make you a successful film producer.
Once more, I tend to agree, but I think the fact that some child got her picture included in this actually changes the issue.
If selective reasoning is ok then perhaps I can vote for a ban on religious practices next, not because I have anything against religion.. it's just I don't see why other people can make up shitty rules if I can't do the same.
This argument is irrelevant, this is an issue involving societal taboos and mores. It's just not the same cup of tea. The reasons society has for taking something like child pornography seriously is because of the inherent danger involved in adults who sexualize children.
There's no question here, a child's image was literally used in pornographic material, this isn't like the lolicon manga issue.
An actual real child's picture was used for this pornographic fantasy... the man chose a specific child to use for this example. There is malicious intent in that behavior.
You actually support this stupid shit?!
Well, Slashdot clearly has a very pro-child pornography bias, so I should step lightly. Really, I am just trying to illustrate that this is different than a case where someone merely draws a child-like character in sexual activity. An actual child's photograph was used in a pornographic context. The inclusion of an actual child's image does change things, and puts this character in an interesting position.
Don't worry, I won't turn you in.
Problem is, there's zero evidence to support the claim that viewing child pornography incites child abuse of any kind. And there's growing evidence that suggests that the actual effect might be the reverse - that viewing child pornography might actually be a substitute for actual sexual contact with children.
It certainly means the ideation is there, though. I don't think animated child pornography should be illegal as long as animated murder and other such violence remains legal. It seems to me be a weird disconnect, where the imagined world suddenly becomes legal. Think of all the virtual murder that occurs in our society.
However, I have to say I disagree with the assertion that child pornography is a substitute. Communities that practice this behavior legitimize it, if nothing else.
I think the key difference in this case is that he used a photograph of an actual child... her inclusion in this is a type of exploitation.
Well then, might as well throw the whole world in prison for "likely intending to rape" all those people they've fantasized about having sex with. It's the same thing, without actual proof of intent it's a thought crime.
I originally thought that I wrote it was a thought crime... but I posted the original message from a system with IE7, so there was no way to re-read my comment once I previewed it. :(
I can see the danger of such behavior, but I really don't like the implications of this being a crime.
If we're criminalising images out of fear of people getting off on them, and we're also worried about people aroused by children's faces ... then why aren't we criminalising all photos of children's faces?
It's more basic than that. The child's face is used in a pornographic photo. It would arguably be part of the sexual context of the photo, also. If you take a photograph of a fully clothed child in a sexual context, it also counts as child pornography. There are ground rules set for what you're allowed to do with images of children, and the person here simply violated them.
You are both guessing. Who knows which one of you is right. However the law is not supposed to be about guesses but about facts. How would you like to be put in jail after having 5 or 6 drinks at home because "you might have gotten in your car and driven drunk"?
This would be more akin to taking 5 or 6 drinks and sitting in your car with the key in the ignition... the man actually put a child's face onto an adult body in order to simulate the child naked in a sexual context. It's not as much of a thought crime as we're making it out to be.
Whether or not the intent was to create child pornography, the child's face was used in a piece of pornography.
Once again, however, article (2) appears to be in direct contradiction to the 2002 SCOTUS decision, which ruled that simulated pornography is protected speech. So a conviction seems doubtful, especially if appealed.
Either I am reading this wrong, or this is a Tennessee law passed/revised in 2005. The 2002 SCOTUS decision would merely assert that this is not a federal offense. This is specifically a state crime in Tennessee.
If you're stimulated by pictures of mature secondary sexual characteristics, you aren't likely to be all that interested in little girls.
If you selected specific children's faces to characterize the sexual image, then you likely are.
Whether or not that's the case, it's the production of material featuring the simulated sexualization of an obvious minor.
There is certainly a mens rea of harm to a minor involved when someone has the faces of children pasted on adult bodies such as in this case. So, the actual reason we have child pornography laws in the first place (to protect minors) is served by this case. In fact, using the child's face even fits the actual crime of "exploitation" of a minor. It's even aggravated
However, this really is a crime. Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?
Well...
(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in:
(1) Sexual activity; or
(2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive.
(b) A person violating subsection (a) may be charged in a separate count for each individual performance, image, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, videocassette tape, or other pictorial representation.
(c) In a prosecution under this section, the trier of fact may consider the title, text, visual representation, Internet history, physical development of the person depicted, expert medical testimony, expert computer forensic testimony, and any other relevant evidence, in determining whether a person knowingly promoted, employed, used, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to participate in the performance of or in the production of acts or material for these purposes, or in determining whether the material or image otherwise represents or depicts that a participant is a minor.
(d) A violation of this section is a Class B felony. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting prosecution for any other sexual offense under this chapter, nor shall a joint conviction under this section and any other related sexual offense, even if arising out of the same conduct, be construed as limiting any applicable punishment, including consecutive sentencing under  40-35-115, or the enhancement of sentence under  40-35-114.
(e) In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor.
(f) A person is subject to prosecution in this state under this section for any conduct that originates in this state, or for any conduct that originates by a person located outside this state, where the person promoted, employed, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to engage in the performance of, or production of, acts or material within this state.
[Acts 1990, ch. 1092, Â 7; 2005, ch. 496, Â 4.]
Well, looks like we can!
I am not familiar with the architecture of X, but somebody smarter than I needs to sit down and think about the architecture of X, whether or not it can improve, and whether or not it needs to be rewritten from scratch. FOSS should not fall into the trap of rewriting everything as pointed out by somebody smarter than I (I think it was Jamie Zawinski, who has criticized the X project for quite awhile, perhaps not the best reference).
Yes, networked computing is very useful. My point is that the graphical subsystem doesn't have to be wringed through the filesystem sockets layer, the graphics need to be cut loose. Networked desktop is also possible through VNC and RDP...
The X protocol is not the only networked display system, it's just a particularly antiquated model built around systems where graphics were processed away from the rest of the system. It's just outdated and poorly designed. Even when X was created, it was outclassed by other networked display models like NeWS.
I am not trying to eliminate networked computing, just needless inefficiency and poor design... X fails as a graphical display system for *personal computers*. It has since the 80's.
It does seem that DIRECT direct access to the FB is a Bad Idea. First of all, there's no such thing as a contiguous rectangular region (unless your rectangle is full screen width), so offering even the piece including your window gives you the chance to mess up the screen without X being able to know it has to redraw. Secondly it deprives X of being able to know what resources you want to use so it can manage the sum total of graphics memory intelligently (maybe you don't want it to?). Thirdly, that assumes that the video hardware offers a DMA'ed FB, which if you're doing compositing may not be the case since you're accessing the card in a 3D mode (I don't really know how that's commonly implemented in hardware).
I am suggesting using DRI/DRM directly, so the windowing system would draw only in 3D mode, not through DirectFB. This would be ground-up compositing such as that described here:
http://groups.google.com/group/wayland-display-server?pli=1
In Windows, you have robust API's supporting a hardware accelerated stack top to bottom. Everything, even legacy GDI drawing commands, are accelerated by DirectX. So, the windowing system has direct hardware access but can use it securely because the video drivers run in User Mode.
And then there's GLX for 3D rendering, and XV for video, and newer extensions (EXA, which cairo uses by default) as the use-case arises.
Windows has all these features standardized under DirectX and has for a long time... it even has a standard way of accelerating video playback with the GPU that has been fully implemented and functional for years. You have to remember that nothing is quite as feature-rich as DirectX in this category. There is currently no equivalent.
There are still many GPU functions not implemented in DRI/DRM which prevent modern video cards from really reaching their full potential, anyway.
A rough example of the WDDM is available here, and I believe this links to the MSDN page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Display_Driver_Model
I use Windows as an example of a proper display system because theirs is simply the fastest and most robust right now. Windows will consistently beat Linux and Mac OS X in video performance on the same harware, no question about it. You are welcome to benchmark any cross-platform graphics-heavy application to verify this.
When it all comes down to it, a desktop system should have fast and direct video acceleration top to bottom because most of the tasks conducted on it are visual.
X was designed originally with the idea that your CPU and graphics acceleration would be done on separate machines. This model still provides obfuscation, despite the fact that it has been unnecessary for any desktop system since the 386. This is why NeXT dropped X immediatetly when developing a graphically-rich unix-based workstation. Using X as a desktop system was not attempted again until the late 90's, and the results have been quite negative.
If Linux outperformed or even matched Windows in advanced graphics and gaming (or even web browsing and/or Flash), it would go a long way towards the proliferation of the platform.
I don't mean to nitpick on Linux's graphical failures, but my experience in the game industry has brought me to have extremely high standards for PC graphics performance. Windows really spoils you as a developer. You complain about it a lot until you try to do the same things on other platforms.
Please. Ranking software engineering alongside real engineering is exactly the sort of feel-good certificate-of-achievement bullshit that you think you're opposing.
I believe I was speaking against the hacker mentality. Software engineers should treat their work like actual engineering and should then be viewed as engineers, not technology rock stars.
I actually agree with these statements, but I don't see why it matters. Even if network transparency weren't a design goal (and I can almost agree that it shouldn't be), the mere virtue of having asynchronous calls means you get it almost for free. There will always be some applications or use-cases that don't work on the network (games, video come to mind), but being able to do the IPC over TCP vs. Unix sockets is such a non-issue. Is there an architecture you have in mind that precludes network transparency?
Well, I was under the impression that graphics were constrained behind file-system sockets, requiring more syscalls to tell the hardware to DMA... Windows offers very direct access to the hardware even on a windowing level, not unlike DRI, but with a more robust API that supports a wider graphical feature set. Now, DRI is not bad, by any means. I think it would be faster if GTK/Cairo were able to draw directly via DRI and circumvent the syscalls and latency that would otherwise occur with network transparency.
I don't think you can have fast direct graphics access and network transparency, so I think the Windows way where networking is on top of the windowing system is more efficient. The end goal is the best possible graphics performance in the windowing system.
I do think this is what Wayland is trying to accomplish.
Go look at DRI2, KMS, Gallium3D, GEM, the new Wayland display server and then come back to talk.
You've come full circle. Read my original comment.
I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but you do realize OpenGL itself is a "client/server/unixy mess", no? It's based on an asynchronous model that has the capacity to be (and under GLX, is) network transparent. Also, its SGI origins.
It seems inappropriate that Windows is able to reach similar ends with technologies like RDP while having solid and even advanced direct graphics access. It all breaks down to whether you want your desktop system to be a rich terminal or a fully accelerated media system.
SGI implemented the X protocol almost directly on their custom built hardware. I mean, SGI's X was X written for that specific hardware. It shares almost no lineage with Xfree86-based X.org, which is full of conflicting ideas about how to break through the wall and get to the graphics card.
You can have a successful and performant network-transparent raster-based graphics display layer. X isn't, but there's years of legacy and cruft that are to blame first and foremost before its fundamental architecture. DRM is a mess, certainly, one that is being PAINFULLY cleaned up currently, but I believe there's a lot of interesting and potentially successful directions it can take once that is done.
X was just not designed with personal computing in mind, it was designed to complement the mainframe model. The question is not how to achieve network-transparent GL but whether or not they should bother.
How is a network transparent graphics layer relevant to the majority of home users fooling with Ubuntu, for instance? What is wrong with them having a direct graphics first windowing system and running a Mac OS X-like headless X.org for the few corner cases where they require network transparent X?
The performance improvements and new simplicity in development for graphical applications (imagine easy to access GL and sane mouse/cursor behavior, etc.) would far outweigh the downside of the occasional user needing to run two windowing systems to recreate legacy functionality.
DRM/DRI is the basis for Wayland, as far as I can tell, so the work going into it can still be useful towards this end. I just feel like the current X implementation fails to do what Canonical is trying to do with Linux.
To say that people should work on X rather than Y is an interesting wish, but completely misunderstands the development model of open source. To make it work you need a different development model, like say, a company with product managers and paid developers.
I'm fairly certain most of the code going into X, the Linux kernel, and even AIGLX is written commercially. Linux has far more commercial leadership and paid developers than it pretends to. The true open source model seems to produce a lot more tiny micro-projects with limited scope and extensions/plugins for massive projects.
The companies who pay developers to work on these things need to take the basics more seriously. As far as I can tell, they are content in just maintaining things in their current semi-broken but passable state.
The graphics subsystem in Windows is a frame buffer graphics library poorly retrofitted for asynchronous calls. X was designed from the start for asynchronous client/server communications and operation in a separate "window server". X got it right 20 years ago. After two decades and several rewrites, both Microsoft and Apple have finally arrived at an X-like architecture.
...what? Microsoft put their networking on top of the display, not beneath it. Windows' display layer doesn't operate with a client/server framework as far as I understand... it's just simpler between the graphics card and display, where it really matters for desktop machines.
In fact, when has X ever surpassed Windows or Mac in the ability to actually draw windows and graphics... especially in the case of rich graphics? There's a good reason Flash will always run faster on Windows and Java FX came out on Windows and Mac long before anything X-based. Why, with the way modern X works with the DRI/Mesa GLX framework, they can never have a full GL stack because the DRM's way of handling graphics memory is flawed. They would have to rewrite the server to do what is and has been fairly simple in Windows, Mac, or BeOS in terms of direct graphics access.
I am not sure what you're talking about when you say X is "superior", but I am talking about desktop use... read: GRAPHICS. Not being a client/server/unixy mess. The average desktop user needs a fast, accurate, and consistent interface to their graphics card, not endless possibilities of socket magic that they can vomit all over the network... it's just not practical or accessible to regular users on desktop systems.
X is superior in one critical way. It has a butt-load more apps (especially commercial apps) than Wayland does. You might not care about this, but a heck of a lot of users and businesses do.
(Which isn't to say that X isn't bloaty. It just happens to win in the area where 99% of everyone gives a shit.)
I didn't think Wayland was going to break compatibility with the X protocol... so, as far as I understand it, it's going to move some of the networking behavior out of the core, but it's going to maintain compatibility otherwise. Compatibility needs to be present in any forward thinking solution without a doubt, even if it involves running X.org as a layer in the way Mac OS X handles it. X represents a level of cruft from a hardware perspective that the linux ecosystem would benefit to grow out of if it wants to thrive on the desktop. ...of course, if it does not, you are welcome to ignore me.
He's right... I absolutely hate that this guy is correct about this, but he is. I really hate to flash my social science background on slashdot, but here it goes:
There's been a trend in American society in the past couple decades towards "Helicopter parenting" and what could be considered a "participation trophy" society. We are a society that rewards mediocrity with enthusiasm and teaches every child to be a superstar. The downside to this is that we have a generation of workers who require constant affirmation and a high degree of reward for relatively small amounts of work.
Computer science is an engineering field, it does not require merely creativity and an artistic zeal but the steadiness of mind and capability of a traditional engineer, one who might design an engine, or build a bridge, even. It's not the technique of traditional engineering that computer science needs, but the character and demeanor. It would be one problem if only the students themselves thought of themselves as Larry Page's and Steve Jobs', but the employers are buying into it also. Companies like Google are swimming in talent but drowning in their own lack of discipline.
I must say, though, that the answer does not lie in outsourcing to foreign workers out in India... we have a country full of people who actually are employable. Why not hire some self-motivated community college students to do menial tasks, or perhaps start bringing in some of these unemployed IT workers? How about some people with battle scars from web 1.0, with the attention to detail necessary to keep commercial systems running? How about we bring in more old guys and expect more from our young talent? There are plenty of workers in America that deserve a fair shot, and we should not let the egos of some of our "rock star" graduates of fancy schools sink the reputation of the U.S. work ethic?
We have talent and I feel it's time our job market turn towards precision.
And while you're at it, learn to spell and how to express yourself with correct, clear, and concise language. Learning how to explain things clearly isn't the dreaded "marketing;" it's essential to getting people to use and like whatever it is that you've spent all your time and effort on.
I absolutely agree. Supposedly, good documentation exists in the Linux ecosystem, but it is hidden well behind the paid support contracts. I can't imagine it's quite Microsoft or even Apple grade, though.
So off I go to the forums.
That's exactly how Linux eventually shook me off. Your Linux installation's functionality is often only as good as your google skills.
A day later, my virtual ears ringing from a chorus of technical assholes who don't want me in their club, I just quit trying and go back to Windows or the Mac to get whatever it is I need to do, done.
Good technical documentation is unassuming, straightforward, and never condescending. It's important that users feel welcome on a system... not like their technical hitches are part of some sort of twisted hazing process. It's like a fraternity, but without the parties...
WTF? I got email. I got chat. I got flash. I got browsers. I got media players. Done.
Like I said, it's not missing features. It's polish and overall integration that is lacking. A great example of this is ALSA/PulseAudio, they provide ample functionality, but for every problem PulseAudio solves there is another one created. Besides this, there is no standard way to access these systems.
Last time I checked, Ubuntu uses everyone else's projects. None of which look to the NY Times for affirmation. That's a good thing and I hope it stays that way for a long, long time.
Actually, Ubuntu presents itself as a user friendly linux, so I imagine Canonical takes mainstream media and end user opinions seriously. By presenting components internally as "Archiver" and "Web Browser", they are bringing them under the Canonical Ubuntu branding. Linux distributions must take responsibility for all software in the Main "supported" repository.
I suspect you are the only one who cares what the NY Times has to say.
Really...? I mean, really?
Your list suggests you have some corner-case hardware or pipe dream you want someone else to write for you. Good luck with that.
OSS 4.1 is already written and ready to go and Wayland is in progress. There's nothing "corner case" about a purpose-built hardware-accelerated windowing system, considering this is present in both Windows and Mac OS X.
Uhhh. man pages? If the CLI is too frightening, then there's the gui-fied man pages that many desktops have. Most mainstream projects are well documented. I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Wait,do you mean that _one_ application that's not documented???
Overall, documentation for the ecosystem as a whole is lacking. Mac OS X and Windows are made up of many applications, but their documentation treats them as if it's one integrated product. Red Hat supposedly has this documentation, but it is not free. I can tell from your general attitude that you have never worked with end-user products. If you would like a primer, I recommend the Apple Human Interface Guide or the Microsoft User Experience Guide if you would like to see the sort of presentation end users expect from products labeled as "desktop."
Last I checked, Linux desktops were loaded with exciting new innovative features but failing on extremely basic tasks.
Perhaps the community should be asking whether it's more important that we add a fun new Swirl effect to switch to another desktop or if people would rather have a sane and complete GL API. Do we need the entire desktop to be rethought or should we simply settle for having a sane and unified sound solution?
I would have to agree in saying that the desktop linux community is getting way too ahead of itself if they think they're innovating themselves away from the mainstream. Read the NYTimes article on Ubuntu Linux and tell me whether or not they even mention innovation- They viewed it as a free but lower quality alternative to commercial systems that was very attractive but failed during basic maintenance tasks.
Why create an Earth-shattering new desktop-web interaction paradigm when users would probably rather have sane and cohesive documentation?
Here are some no-brainers, if you want to see linux improve:
* Now that OSS 4.1 is open source, drop ALSA. It is a proven failure. PulseAudio obfuscated the problem to the point of ruining audio in linux, specifically when low latency is required.
* Support forward-thinking projects like Wayland instead of putting another car on the fail-train that is X. X is architecturally inferior to WindowServer and Windows' display layer for desktop-oriented tasks. A simplified windowing system that puts graphics first and drops the cruft would go a long way in making linux seem modern and easy to maintain.
* Write documentation sometimes. Format it well an ship it with your projects!
Or, if you're really clever:
* Realize that open source != linux. Look at desktop-oriented free software sytstems like Haiku and imagine a world where Linux can be built into an excellent server (or mediocre workstation) and desktop users can have a system purpose built for their priorites! There is no rule that says that linux needs to be the only free system. With the magic of things like POSIX, we can write software that runs on either!
The strength of open source should be versatility, not futility.
Dream big.