You should add "they know about" to the end of that headline.
Of what I heard about it, it seems that a lot of this child porn is made in places outside the US. That means the producers are outside of US jurisdiction (and somehow in this case it seems the FBI cares about that little detail), making it very hard to go after them. So instead they go after the offenders they can go after: Americans on US soil that actively seek out those images, thus helping in sustaining the market.
Many of these sites are paid-for sites: the operators run them in order to make money.
The access logs (if they exist in the first place) won't give originating IP addresses - information of which could then be used to find home addresses through ISP records, and get search warrants and the like. The most reasonable way to find people accessing these sites, is through payment details. See who pays for it - and go after them. It also instantly negates the "I got there accidentally, saw those images, it's not what I want, left the site immediately" argument that offenders may use in there defence. Showing all images as broking isn't making anyone pay for it.
Then there is of course the moral issue of the government taking part in the crime. I see it as a necessary evil in this case (assuming the money made from the site's continued operation doesn't go into the child porn production coffers, and that it actually can be proven to help cracking down on the whole issue), and quite similar to the police taking over an agreed-for drug sale to see who shows up to pay and pick up the goods. The main difference with the digital world is of course that you can't stop the offender from taking delivery that easily, you can't arrest them the moment they finish the transaction.
I've heard about this US$0.99/year after the first year.
I'm a WhatsApp user for several years now. I never paid anything for it, nor did it bug me for payment.
Even if everyone would pay that $0.99 fee, I can't imagine the service to be financially viable. It's just too cheap. Also makes me wonder who paid WhatsApp's bills over the past years.
It sounds like the CPS should be sued for mistreating children. In general it has to be pretty bad at home for a child to be better off taken away from its parents.
My 9yo often enough comes home from school by himself. Walks down to the train station with other kids, then takes the train one stop, and walks the 15 minutes back home. Good for him, this way he can get a bit of self confidence and independence. It's also pretty safe, two roads to cross, both with pedestrian lights which he knows to wait for.
Really sad that in the US children are treated this bad.
Indeed... except for the fact that now you have to walk to the supermarket around the corner, which may or may not be doable for the average overweight American, but how are you ever going to get to that airport?
If the roads are that bad, only stupid drivers even attempt to go out in the first place. And when a snow storm happens (these things are usually predicted in advance nowadays) there is usually enough time to find a safe place to shelter before it gets to this kind of conditions.
If you say driving at 20 km/h is dangerous - when the vehicle does so due to stopping distance and risk of slipping so I assume you mean "dangerous as it's much slower than other traffic" - driving at any higher speed would be even more dangerous. That other drivers attempt to do that, says more about their poor driving skills than the qualities of the AI operating the autonomous vehicle.
I think there is a reason these auto makers go for a "coast to coast" first. It's all highways, and easy driving.
Your problem is a much harder one: improperly mapped surroundings, lots of moving obstacles (ranging from people to dumpsters placed haphazardly), etc.
I'll be impressed when this car can do what you describe. Or navigate from one end of a big city to the other - without using the city's ring roads, but really going through city traffic, dealing with traffic lights, cyclists, detours, and all the other unexpected obstacles thrown at city drivers.
Why should they wait for "laws to be ready"? If every innovator would do that, we'd be still riding around on horses. When the car was invented, there for sure were no vehicle liability insurances. I'm sure that got sorted out soon enough after the first accidents though. Here the same. Let it happen. Of course the auto makers will do their utmost best for no accidents to happen (it's part of their business model after all), but it will happen, and then we'll see.
Things will be sorted out soon enough. First figure out who is liable for the accident - I bet most of the times it is not the autonomous car. But if it is the autonomous car, it will be up to the courts to find liability, and it's going to be insurer from one side versus manufacturer on the other side. The courts will hand down a judgement, maybe a few more such incidents, and there's precedent. Laws may be updated or amended it the court ruling goes against what the public wants, and that's it.
How about: browsers do not accept clicks on items with less than 100% opacity? Or at least something like 50% opacity? I can't think of a legitimate reason to make user click on something invisible, so there's no reason to make anything invisible clickable.
Given enough time and effort, a digital lock could become perfect: no bugs left. Of course that's a lot of effort, yet it is what we should always aim for in software, and OpenBSD is doing a great job in that respect. It's as good as unbreakable.
Even perfectly constructed mechanical locks requiring a mechanical key can be picked. Or otherwise broking using force. It may be hard to pick, it may need a lot of force, but they can be broken. This as mechanical locks are always approached physically.
A perfect digital lock can only be broken by brute forcing the cryptographic key: trying again and again, trillions of times if needed. The digital lock of course can easily rate limit this to prevent even that attack, leaving it truly unbreakable. This unless the digital lock is approached physically, but that's not the question here, we're talking about remote access. Furthermore, stumbling upon the key to one of these locks leaves all others still locked - again assuming perfect design where all keys are truly random and different.
Software like Flash should not even be compared to a lock, but to a prison cell. No way out. Perfect brick walls, extending all around you in all directions, no doors or windows or even the drain pipe of a loo. The problem now is of course that the wall Flash built has some bricks missing, and that's where there may be a way through that wall. Telling everyone which bricks are missing shouldn't be a crime - taking advantage of that information however may very well be.
I think this is because video is just one of the many uses of Flash. It would break, for example, the menus of many sites - albeit far less than it used to be nearly a decade ago when I first installed FlashBlock, there still are some around.
Facebook also has such "privacy settings". Don't trust them. Only put stuff on Twitter/Facebook that you want the world to know, no matter how strict the "privacy settings". After all, everyone that reads it can retweet your messages and it's out in the open anyway. Twitter's privacy settings may have bugs that allow others to see your stuff after all. Foreign law enforcement (specifically the NSA of the US Government) may have a direct back door into Twitter, and be reading your messages regardless of your "privacy settings".
Even better for AM would be of those users would get their spouse to sign up as well, and in the process get a somewhat more balanced gender ratio - after all it seems they are mostly after heterosexual encounters - and have even more chance to grow. They just may have to change their language and transform from being a cheaters site to a swingers site.
Well, even with all the extras taken into account, it seems you end up with a nation wide credit card debt of $5,000 per household on average. Still a serious number, as it's well over one month's median household income (yes I'm conveniently mixing average and median here).
Even if the UI part is the same, that still leaves you with the programming language itself (Java with specific Android extensions for Android, Obj C or some others for iOS, etc), the platform-specific libraries (you won't be able to use the exact same code that accesses the GPS in Android on iOS), the database system used, and there will be other fundamental differences as well.
So even with QT you're still probably best off to just write a separate app for each platform.
Because the charger should have overload protection in the first place.
There is no reason a 500 mA rated charger should be allowed to deliver anything beyond that - and explode or overheat and melt or whatever. Instead of relying on the phone to listen to what it says and play nicely and not try to draw more (or the user accidentally short-circuit the charging lines) it should just limit it's output itself. Much safer!
Better is of course both ways, but you should NEVER rely on someone else doing your overload safety. Of course it's cheaper, but it's also what will cause problems.
What's to prevent people from voting en-masse for lunatic ideas that might be proposed after an event like 9-11, without any check on their power, with little debate?
The US politicians didn't need "continuous voting" or anything fancy to do just that: making lunatic ideas into laws undermining democracy without any check on their power and with little debate. They just gave it a fancy name, PATRIOT Act is the best known, PRISM Is just one other symptom of that.
Or will ABP leverage this to extract gobs of cash from the ad industry to allow a lot of ads through, rendering it relatively useless?
ABP has a very thin line to walk there, as the moment they go too far in allowing ads through people will jump ship and move to another blocker. They may be the most popular, but they for sure aren't the only ones out there.
For me the main reason to use ABP (and FlashBlock) is to get rid of floaters, popup/unders, moving/flashing images, ads with sound, and other such annoyances. I don't mind ads as such. I still buy paper newspapers even though at least a quarter of the page area is advertising - all static images that don't distract me, it's so hard to read text when there are a few ads flashing next to the article (the web site of the Dutch paper "De Volksrant" is a prime example of this horror - at least it was last time it triggered me to install ABP/FlashBlock).
My ABP allows "acceptable ads" and until a few days ago when I checked while reading another/. discussion I didn't realise this. I'm obviously not bothered by them. Maybe it's also that the "acceptable ads" are far and few between.
That should be one of the rules, but hard to enforce: how about all the other content that comes from CDNs instead of directly from the site? Many also use separate domains to host static images and the like. Even with ABP enabled I see lots of sites download stuff from other domains than their own.
Slashdot Mirror
You should add "they know about" to the end of that headline.
Of what I heard about it, it seems that a lot of this child porn is made in places outside the US. That means the producers are outside of US jurisdiction (and somehow in this case it seems the FBI cares about that little detail), making it very hard to go after them. So instead they go after the offenders they can go after: Americans on US soil that actively seek out those images, thus helping in sustaining the market.
Many of these sites are paid-for sites: the operators run them in order to make money.
The access logs (if they exist in the first place) won't give originating IP addresses - information of which could then be used to find home addresses through ISP records, and get search warrants and the like. The most reasonable way to find people accessing these sites, is through payment details. See who pays for it - and go after them. It also instantly negates the "I got there accidentally, saw those images, it's not what I want, left the site immediately" argument that offenders may use in there defence. Showing all images as broking isn't making anyone pay for it.
Then there is of course the moral issue of the government taking part in the crime. I see it as a necessary evil in this case (assuming the money made from the site's continued operation doesn't go into the child porn production coffers, and that it actually can be proven to help cracking down on the whole issue), and quite similar to the police taking over an agreed-for drug sale to see who shows up to pay and pick up the goods. The main difference with the digital world is of course that you can't stop the offender from taking delivery that easily, you can't arrest them the moment they finish the transaction.
I've heard about this US$0.99/year after the first year.
I'm a WhatsApp user for several years now. I never paid anything for it, nor did it bug me for payment.
Even if everyone would pay that $0.99 fee, I can't imagine the service to be financially viable. It's just too cheap. Also makes me wonder who paid WhatsApp's bills over the past years.
It sounds like the CPS should be sued for mistreating children. In general it has to be pretty bad at home for a child to be better off taken away from its parents.
My 9yo often enough comes home from school by himself. Walks down to the train station with other kids, then takes the train one stop, and walks the 15 minutes back home. Good for him, this way he can get a bit of self confidence and independence. It's also pretty safe, two roads to cross, both with pedestrian lights which he knows to wait for.
Really sad that in the US children are treated this bad.
Indeed... except for the fact that now you have to walk to the supermarket around the corner, which may or may not be doable for the average overweight American, but how are you ever going to get to that airport?
If the roads are that bad, only stupid drivers even attempt to go out in the first place. And when a snow storm happens (these things are usually predicted in advance nowadays) there is usually enough time to find a safe place to shelter before it gets to this kind of conditions.
If you say driving at 20 km/h is dangerous - when the vehicle does so due to stopping distance and risk of slipping so I assume you mean "dangerous as it's much slower than other traffic" - driving at any higher speed would be even more dangerous. That other drivers attempt to do that, says more about their poor driving skills than the qualities of the AI operating the autonomous vehicle.
I think there is a reason these auto makers go for a "coast to coast" first. It's all highways, and easy driving.
Your problem is a much harder one: improperly mapped surroundings, lots of moving obstacles (ranging from people to dumpsters placed haphazardly), etc.
I'll be impressed when this car can do what you describe. Or navigate from one end of a big city to the other - without using the city's ring roads, but really going through city traffic, dealing with traffic lights, cyclists, detours, and all the other unexpected obstacles thrown at city drivers.
Why should they wait for "laws to be ready"? If every innovator would do that, we'd be still riding around on horses. When the car was invented, there for sure were no vehicle liability insurances. I'm sure that got sorted out soon enough after the first accidents though. Here the same. Let it happen. Of course the auto makers will do their utmost best for no accidents to happen (it's part of their business model after all), but it will happen, and then we'll see.
Things will be sorted out soon enough. First figure out who is liable for the accident - I bet most of the times it is not the autonomous car. But if it is the autonomous car, it will be up to the courts to find liability, and it's going to be insurer from one side versus manufacturer on the other side. The courts will hand down a judgement, maybe a few more such incidents, and there's precedent. Laws may be updated or amended it the court ruling goes against what the public wants, and that's it.
How about: browsers do not accept clicks on items with less than 100% opacity? Or at least something like 50% opacity? I can't think of a legitimate reason to make user click on something invisible, so there's no reason to make anything invisible clickable.
Given enough time and effort, a digital lock could become perfect: no bugs left. Of course that's a lot of effort, yet it is what we should always aim for in software, and OpenBSD is doing a great job in that respect. It's as good as unbreakable.
Wrong comparison.
Even perfectly constructed mechanical locks requiring a mechanical key can be picked. Or otherwise broking using force. It may be hard to pick, it may need a lot of force, but they can be broken. This as mechanical locks are always approached physically.
A perfect digital lock can only be broken by brute forcing the cryptographic key: trying again and again, trillions of times if needed. The digital lock of course can easily rate limit this to prevent even that attack, leaving it truly unbreakable. This unless the digital lock is approached physically, but that's not the question here, we're talking about remote access. Furthermore, stumbling upon the key to one of these locks leaves all others still locked - again assuming perfect design where all keys are truly random and different.
Software like Flash should not even be compared to a lock, but to a prison cell. No way out. Perfect brick walls, extending all around you in all directions, no doors or windows or even the drain pipe of a loo. The problem now is of course that the wall Flash built has some bricks missing, and that's where there may be a way through that wall. Telling everyone which bricks are missing shouldn't be a crime - taking advantage of that information however may very well be.
I think this is because video is just one of the many uses of Flash. It would break, for example, the menus of many sites - albeit far less than it used to be nearly a decade ago when I first installed FlashBlock, there still are some around.
Facebook also has such "privacy settings". Don't trust them. Only put stuff on Twitter/Facebook that you want the world to know, no matter how strict the "privacy settings". After all, everyone that reads it can retweet your messages and it's out in the open anyway. Twitter's privacy settings may have bugs that allow others to see your stuff after all. Foreign law enforcement (specifically the NSA of the US Government) may have a direct back door into Twitter, and be reading your messages regardless of your "privacy settings".
It would also really narrow your field of vision - it is as if you're zooming in about 2 times.
If a sales team doesn't make enough to cover the cost of the sales team, it's time for a new sales team.
Even better for AM would be of those users would get their spouse to sign up as well, and in the process get a somewhat more balanced gender ratio - after all it seems they are mostly after heterosexual encounters - and have even more chance to grow. They just may have to change their language and transform from being a cheaters site to a swingers site.
Well, even with all the extras taken into account, it seems you end up with a nation wide credit card debt of $5,000 per household on average. Still a serious number, as it's well over one month's median household income (yes I'm conveniently mixing average and median here).
Because probably they're losers whose chance to get lucky on MA while really low is still much higher than in the real world.
Even if the UI part is the same, that still leaves you with the programming language itself (Java with specific Android extensions for Android, Obj C or some others for iOS, etc), the platform-specific libraries (you won't be able to use the exact same code that accesses the GPS in Android on iOS), the database system used, and there will be other fundamental differences as well.
So even with QT you're still probably best off to just write a separate app for each platform.
Because the charger should have overload protection in the first place.
There is no reason a 500 mA rated charger should be allowed to deliver anything beyond that - and explode or overheat and melt or whatever. Instead of relying on the phone to listen to what it says and play nicely and not try to draw more (or the user accidentally short-circuit the charging lines) it should just limit it's output itself. Much safer!
Better is of course both ways, but you should NEVER rely on someone else doing your overload safety. Of course it's cheaper, but it's also what will cause problems.
Bad idea. At least you should give him a reliable lighter. Or a flare, just to make sure.
If anything it'd provide more work for politicians, as they'd have to go out campaigning so much more to get people to vote for their ideas.
What's to prevent people from voting en-masse for lunatic ideas that might be proposed after an event like 9-11, without any check on their power, with little debate?
The US politicians didn't need "continuous voting" or anything fancy to do just that: making lunatic ideas into laws undermining democracy without any check on their power and with little debate. They just gave it a fancy name, PATRIOT Act is the best known, PRISM Is just one other symptom of that.
Or will ABP leverage this to extract gobs of cash from the ad industry to allow a lot of ads through, rendering it relatively useless?
ABP has a very thin line to walk there, as the moment they go too far in allowing ads through people will jump ship and move to another blocker. They may be the most popular, but they for sure aren't the only ones out there.
For me the main reason to use ABP (and FlashBlock) is to get rid of floaters, popup/unders, moving/flashing images, ads with sound, and other such annoyances. I don't mind ads as such. I still buy paper newspapers even though at least a quarter of the page area is advertising - all static images that don't distract me, it's so hard to read text when there are a few ads flashing next to the article (the web site of the Dutch paper "De Volksrant" is a prime example of this horror - at least it was last time it triggered me to install ABP/FlashBlock).
My ABP allows "acceptable ads" and until a few days ago when I checked while reading another /. discussion I didn't realise this. I'm obviously not bothered by them. Maybe it's also that the "acceptable ads" are far and few between.
That should be one of the rules, but hard to enforce: how about all the other content that comes from CDNs instead of directly from the site? Many also use separate domains to host static images and the like. Even with ABP enabled I see lots of sites download stuff from other domains than their own.