As for you examples of wondering the streets at 3am, if we extend the analogy from the Internet to the real life, then you are proposing that adults should not be legally allowed to walk drunk on the streets at night because there might be children who sneaked out walking down the same streets and they might get cursed out by such adults. You may be tempted to say, "good, I like the idea of not having drunk people wandering at nights", but this is not a position a government of a free country may adopt. The government can take measures ensuring that the proverbial fist stops at a proverbial nose. It may not go further and say that anyone who as much as raises their proverbial fist above shoulder level will be deemed a criminal.
My point was that it wasn't the parents fault, not that adults shouldn't be allowed be adults on the internet, but in that analogy, if some drunk guy attacked a kid at 3AM, and the kids parents weren't aware there child was out (most teenagers will sneak out, it doesn't take an iresponsible parent not to notice, since parents sleep too) then the parents are not at fault. It's the teenagers fault for being out at night and the attackers fault for attacking them.
And in the case of this girl on the internet, it's definitely not her or her parents fault, she was just talking to a 16 year old boy on the internet, as teenagers will do, and her mother knew what was going on, she even asked the police about how she could be sure the profile was real, it's not like it happened because she had no idea what her daughter was up to. She did, she was concerned, she asked the police for advice and spoke to her daughter about it, the only other path she coud take would be disallowing her daughter from talking to people on the intenret, which obviously wouldn't go down well, the daughter would see it as a punishment for doing nothing wrong.
And lastly, the reason parents don't watch their children is because they are not held responsible for their behavior. You are confusing cause and effect. If parents were legally responsible for what their children do, all employers wouldn't have a choice but to be accomodating of that fact because that's what the market pressure (the labor market in this case) would pressure them to do.
And what would happen, the companies would be let their employees stay at home all day watching the kids, or they'd just try employ as much childless people as they can find and avoid this hassle?
You realize you're essentially saying let's throw out the First Amendment to protect the children? No wonder we live in a Nanny state. And just for a little prospective, I have an eight month year old daughter and I fear the day she won't be able to say what she wants due to erosions on her rights more then cyber bullies. I never said anything about throwing out the first amendment, I said it wasn't the parents fault, in response to a poster saying it was the parents fault, the first amendment was not mentioned at all by either of us as far as I can remember
I am pretty sure, that the current standing is that we (as a society) do not allow minors to make all decisions about their lives and do subscribe to the idea that they deserve a higher degree of protection than adults do. Perhaps a more approriate measure would be not to punish adults acting as adults on the Internet, but holding parents responsible for their children's Internet habits. Surely we would hold a parent who gets cocaine for their child to be more than just a drug dealer. Why should we not adopt the position that (at least monitoring) what children view on the Internet is their parents responsibility? Why shouldn't we say that letting children use Internet unsupervised is plain reckless? Most childrens parents have jobs, many of which are full time, so there will be times when the children are at home alone with a computer. And even if the parents were at home, it'd be impossible for them to stand looking over their kids shoulder at what the kid is doing.
Webfilters to block websites don't block them all, are usually easily circumvented and kids will pretty much always know more than their parents about this kind of stuff (most parents don't sit reading slashdot and keeping up to date with this stuff). Keep in mind that by "kids" and "children" these article usually mean teenagers, who are generally more aware of how the computers work than the parents.
It's impossible to constantly monitor or limit people's access to the internet these days, at least without limitting access to helpful websites as well as the dangerous ones, and most parents wouldn't know how to do it anyway. Blaming parents for what their children do online is just an easy way out of accepting that there is a hard to solve problem. And blaming parents for their childrens actions when the child is the VICTIM is just spiteful, do you blame parents if the child gets mugged or abused in real life, because the children(teenagers) were allowed outside of the house? Or if they weren't allowed out but left anyway without permission, teenagers aren't going to follow rules they don't agree with, and they refuse to follow ones that they do agree with if it's less fun. There have been several times when I've gone wandering around with friends at 3 in the morning, or even spent the night on some friends couch while I was supposedly sound asleep in my bed, I knew that the rules were there for a reason, but I just didn't follow them because it was less fun.
I know the last comparison was a bit over the top, but teenagers won't just accept a webfilter, they'll find a way around it and try (and usually succeed) not to get caught, just as they would in real life when faced with any form of restrictions, no matter how sensible they are.
I'm assuming they have their own toolkit for graphics, and the interface is as far as I know made with QT, which obviously runs fun on Linux, so only small changes to most of the code would be needed. The only problem I'd see with it is if they use libraries from 3rd parties and for some reason aren't allowed port them.
Or more likely, they don't think they'd make much money, so just won't ever bother.
As far as I know Codeweavers sell a version of Wine, so is this deal going to mean Photoshop will work better on Wine that I have installed for free, or the version that you sell.
My understanding is that you can only read the Firefox directory, which is NOT where your cookies, etc are stored, well atleast on my pc... It says Directory traversal, which means if "view-source:resource:///example.txt" reads "file:///C:/Program Files/Mozilla Firefox/example.txt"... Then by my understanding, "view-source:resource:///../../Windows/system32/example.txt" reads "file:///C:/Program Files/Mozilla Firefox/../../Windows/system32/example.txt" (or more directly "file:///C:/Windows/system32/example.txt")
If you aren;t able to do this and move up directories then it isn't, AFAIK "directory traversal".
THEY DID NOT CAUSE YOUR FAMILY ANYTHING. THEY ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY, WHICH YOU CHOSE TO RESPOND TO WITH GRIEF AND HUMILIATION. YOU CHOSE HOW TO REACT TO THEM AND YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE TO BLAME FOR HOW YOU FEEL.
Grow the fuck up. Your post was the definition of pathetic. What a baby, any reasonable person would be fine with that kind of harassment. It's his own fault that he got upset over being threatened and made fun of constantly for several years. I mean seriously, I'd find it hilarious if people called up my house and left insulting and racist messages for my mother to hear, and I'm sure she would too.
Big difference between people posting "lol ur gay" on a chatroom and them personally attacking your beliefs in real life. And since so much people use social networking sites and everyone can find out personal information about everyone online, a comment or message on the internet threatening someone is just as serious as a phonecall threatening it, or at least it's almost as likely to be a serious threat.
Not saying that I don't believe in free speech on the internet, I do of course, and think people have a right to trool, but there's a line between trolling and harassment, and some people cross that line and whine about the first amendment.
I'm finished giving my opinion, I wonder how long before I'm called a Nazi bastard/Dictator/Republican
I leave as an exercise for the reader the task of finding in the Constitution language that grants the federal government the power to establish Social Security and other forms of welfare, the Federal Reserve, the Food and Drug Administration, and so on. The question is whether or not it's prohibited, they don't need express permission to do anything, they just need to make sure it's not prohibited
You make specific reference to how you get downmodded a lot and come across as a whiny losers, which i suppose it's necessarily making your posts less valid.
You also stated that people send radio transmissions for fun and not to be heard, and repeatedly insult people's intelligence if they don't believe in software patents/copyright laws, stating that they aren't intelligent enough to understand.
Rage Against the machine broke up years ago, they've played a concert recently but apparently have no intentions of making any new material
Re:Software is under the eyes of regulators
on
Geekonomics
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Again, errors in books can certainly lead to lost productivity, but is there really any need for more "book security" and "book oversight" and "book regulations" to make sure that the contents of books are robust and error-free? I've yet to see a flaw in a book steal my, or anyone elses, credit card number, or delete all my other books, have you?
I'm pretty sure the SQL injection is still there... I amn't getting any SQL errors, but appending "' AND '1'='1" to a certain URL will return the desired result, whereas "' AND '1'='2" doesn't.
I just noticed this now, I tried to view it but it stopped and said 1/100 passed, though i was supre Konqueror couldn't be that wrong sicne KHTML was first engine to display Acid2 correctly (though not in Konqueror).
I'm wondering whether the Konqueror devs will notice and fix this, since a drop of 84% in that amount of time is definitely messed up.
TFA said 13-14 year old boys... But even if it was very young looking women, the police would still have a responsibility to investigate it, if his sources for the porn were legal they wouldn't be too hard for him to show to police.
They were looking for sample media files to test the DVD burner, they didn't go randomly looking for porn, they saw a suspiciously named filed, opened it and then reported it.
I would have installed some key logger software to monitor him and find his sources Ok so a lot of people here seem to show indifference, but you're the first who actually express an interest in AQUIRING child porn, well done.
No, he should be arrested for having the child porn in the first place, I would've assumed more people on/. might actually notice that child porn is illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
As for you examples of wondering the streets at 3am, if we extend the analogy from the Internet to the real life, then you are proposing that adults should not be legally allowed to walk drunk on the streets at night because there might be children who sneaked out walking down the same streets and they might get cursed out by such adults. You may be tempted to say, "good, I like the idea of not having drunk people wandering at nights", but this is not a position a government of a free country may adopt. The government can take measures ensuring that the proverbial fist stops at a proverbial nose. It may not go further and say that anyone who as much as raises their proverbial fist above shoulder level will be deemed a criminal.
My point was that it wasn't the parents fault, not that adults shouldn't be allowed be adults on the internet, but in that analogy, if some drunk guy attacked a kid at 3AM, and the kids parents weren't aware there child was out (most teenagers will sneak out, it doesn't take an iresponsible parent not to notice, since parents sleep too) then the parents are not at fault. It's the teenagers fault for being out at night and the attackers fault for attacking them.
And in the case of this girl on the internet, it's definitely not her or her parents fault, she was just talking to a 16 year old boy on the internet, as teenagers will do, and her mother knew what was going on, she even asked the police about how she could be sure the profile was real, it's not like it happened because she had no idea what her daughter was up to. She did, she was concerned, she asked the police for advice and spoke to her daughter about it, the only other path she coud take would be disallowing her daughter from talking to people on the intenret, which obviously wouldn't go down well, the daughter would see it as a punishment for doing nothing wrong.
And lastly, the reason parents don't watch their children is because they are not held responsible for their behavior. You are confusing cause and effect. If parents were legally responsible for what their children do, all employers wouldn't have a choice but to be accomodating of that fact because that's what the market pressure (the labor market in this case) would pressure them to do.
And what would happen, the companies would be let their employees stay at home all day watching the kids, or they'd just try employ as much childless people as they can find and avoid this hassle?
Webfilters to block websites don't block them all, are usually easily circumvented and kids will pretty much always know more than their parents about this kind of stuff (most parents don't sit reading slashdot and keeping up to date with this stuff). Keep in mind that by "kids" and "children" these article usually mean teenagers, who are generally more aware of how the computers work than the parents.
It's impossible to constantly monitor or limit people's access to the internet these days, at least without limitting access to helpful websites as well as the dangerous ones, and most parents wouldn't know how to do it anyway. Blaming parents for what their children do online is just an easy way out of accepting that there is a hard to solve problem. And blaming parents for their childrens actions when the child is the VICTIM is just spiteful, do you blame parents if the child gets mugged or abused in real life, because the children(teenagers) were allowed outside of the house? Or if they weren't allowed out but left anyway without permission, teenagers aren't going to follow rules they don't agree with, and they refuse to follow ones that they do agree with if it's less fun. There have been several times when I've gone wandering around with friends at 3 in the morning, or even spent the night on some friends couch while I was supposedly sound asleep in my bed, I knew that the rules were there for a reason, but I just didn't follow them because it was less fun.
I know the last comparison was a bit over the top, but teenagers won't just accept a webfilter, they'll find a way around it and try (and usually succeed) not to get caught, just as they would in real life when faced with any form of restrictions, no matter how sensible they are.
Whoa long post, sorry for the excessive reading
According to Trolltech they use Qt, though maybe they don't use it in all their programs, they definitely have it licensed to them
I'm assuming they have their own toolkit for graphics, and the interface is as far as I know made with QT, which obviously runs fun on Linux, so only small changes to most of the code would be needed. The only problem I'd see with it is if they use libraries from 3rd parties and for some reason aren't allowed port them.
Or more likely, they don't think they'd make much money, so just won't ever bother.
As far as I know Codeweavers sell a version of Wine, so is this deal going to mean Photoshop will work better on Wine that I have installed for free, or the version that you sell.
5 Offtopics in a row... Someone was really desparate to use up their mod points.
I am but I wouldn't use a sex toy on something that couldn't even enjoy it
Yean but it's easier to power if you stay away from pop tarts and beer
If you aren;t able to do this and move up directories then it isn't, AFAIK "directory traversal".
Grow the fuck up. Your post was the definition of pathetic. What a baby, any reasonable person would be fine with that kind of harassment. It's his own fault that he got upset over being threatened and made fun of constantly for several years. I mean seriously, I'd find it hilarious if people called up my house and left insulting and racist messages for my mother to hear, and I'm sure she would too.
Big difference between people posting "lol ur gay" on a chatroom and them personally attacking your beliefs in real life. And since so much people use social networking sites and everyone can find out personal information about everyone online, a comment or message on the internet threatening someone is just as serious as a phonecall threatening it, or at least it's almost as likely to be a serious threat.
Not saying that I don't believe in free speech on the internet, I do of course, and think people have a right to trool, but there's a line between trolling and harassment, and some people cross that line and whine about the first amendment.
I'm finished giving my opinion, I wonder how long before I'm called a Nazi bastard/Dictator/Republican
You make specific reference to how you get downmodded a lot and come across as a whiny losers, which i suppose it's necessarily making your posts less valid.
You also stated that people send radio transmissions for fun and not to be heard, and repeatedly insult people's intelligence if they don't believe in software patents/copyright laws, stating that they aren't intelligent enough to understand.
This gets +3, insightful... I've just lost all faith in humanity
Rage Against the machine broke up years ago, they've played a concert recently but apparently have no intentions of making any new material
I'm pretty sure the SQL injection is still there... I amn't getting any SQL errors, but appending "' AND '1'='1" to a certain URL will return the desired result, whereas "' AND '1'='2" doesn't.
No he's trying to say that if we nuked the immigrants we'd save double.
I just noticed this now, I tried to view it but it stopped and said 1/100 passed, though i was supre Konqueror couldn't be that wrong sicne KHTML was first engine to display Acid2 correctly (though not in Konqueror).
I'm wondering whether the Konqueror devs will notice and fix this, since a drop of 84% in that amount of time is definitely messed up.
TFA said 13-14 year old boys... But even if it was very young looking women, the police would still have a responsibility to investigate it, if his sources for the porn were legal they wouldn't be too hard for him to show to police.
They were looking for sample media files to test the DVD burner, they didn't go randomly looking for porn, they saw a suspiciously named filed, opened it and then reported it.
No, he should be arrested for having the child porn in the first place, I would've assumed more people on /. might actually notice that child porn is illegal.
And the pornographic images of children that were on his hard drive will turn out to just be.........
Finish that sentence?