The biggest fear is child pornography rings and allowing any kind of loop hole. Also, the law needs to be explicitly clear. Maybe this is too much morality police, but I certainly don't want to be going by my usual porn site to see a consenting 13 and 14 year old, and I don't think it would be out of line to say that anyone collecting or buying up such videos from those minors and selling them in compilations should be able to have some kind of charges brought up against them. I am a big fan of judicial discretion, but at what point do you put the probable cause? Also, curious what you might think of the above response to a similar question.
The issue I see is say that a teen takes pictures of herself in an obviously sexual way and sends them to her boyfriend of the same age. For the sake of drama, say the mother of the boy gets a hold of the pictures and furious that this 'slut' is corrupting her boy shows them to her friends to get some sympathy, discuss how they should handle the matter. Because she is a bit embarrassed to approach her son about the issue, she takes the pictures to her husband so that there can be a "man to man" talk about the whole thing, and downplays the issue basically saying congratulations, but please stop worrying your mother and hide that stuff. For a good laugh, the husband then shares them with his friends but unknowingly a friend borrows and posts them on the Internet. Pics get on 4chan, and while some guy / husband is browsing and downloading pics, wife / girlfriend whatever sees the pics and reports the guy as a possible pedophile. Police identify girl as under age, and man gets arrested.
Who all is in the wrong? How many of them should be labeled sex offenders? How many have committed a felony? How many should go to prison? Do anti-child porn laws really stop the exploitation of children? Is making the FBI's job of having to figure out the difference between different types of child porn a "necessary cost of ensuring liberty"?
I can understand where you are coming from, and I think what you are saying is under appreciated. I get that cameras are the technology of the times and it has gone from playing 'house' and 'doctor' to 'model' and 'porn star'. The biggest issue I think everyone is worried about is child exploitation and loop holes that might allow for people to get away with it. Do you think that if child porn is non-profit then that is good enough to stop child pornography rings?
a) there is a direct relationship between 'piracy' and sales. The more popular the game, the more it sells. The simplest solution to encourage people to pay is to add some online element, and make it VERY easy to pay for.
b) This is hard how? You can build this into the.deb install script. It is also easy to ask the user for permission to add the repo, which I would prefer. I would be upset if a repo was added without asking first.
c) Ubuntu may get updates, but the Linux Standard Base is easy to stick with. Also, for a commercial product, any time API's change, or deprecate commands, there is typically a tutorial guide to change your code to comply with the new version, not to mention that things that become deprecated often warn developer long in advance that a future release is going to remove a feature. I think it would be much easier to keep up with the minor six month changes of Ubuntu than all the sudden changes from XP to Vista and now 7even. Commercial developers are able to keep up, but look at all the little projects out there. They typically die with a new version of windows. Ubuntu'd quick release cycle make keeping up much more smooth.
From what I have noticed, parents that have healthy communications about sex and sexuality with their children end up with well adjusted children that know and understand that unwelcome advances should not be tolerated and that there are people that will help the child. On the other hand, parents that teach their kids that sex is dirty may feel much more ashamed to tell their parents that they "participated" in something sexual and hide the truth of their abuse as so not to be labeled "dirty". Abusers exist EVERYWHERE! The only difference is whether or not we have a culture that teaches kids to watch out for danger signs, and feel comfortable coming forward if abused, or not. Ignorance protects nobody.
You are already +5 insightful, but I still think what you are saying is under rated. The only harm that will come out of this is the criminal case itself, if not the conviction, which I find unlikely. This should incident, technically, should not have gone beyond the school, and the parents. The behavior with regard to the school could warrant suspension on the grounds of "disruptive behavior". Without any harm, it is just morality police.
This is where statute law comes in. The intent of a law is very important. Even though the prosecutor / DA really wants to make an example out of these kids, any lawyer worth his weight in water should be able to show this was not the intent of the law.
And that is why we have Miranda rights. By your logic (and I agree, just to make it clear) This case can only be proven through clever, manipulative, self-incrimination. If the defendants totally keep their mouth shut, and they have a descent lawyer that understands privacy and pornography law, and the very important statutes regarding child porn, these kids must not be convicted. In simple terms, these are not the type of people the law was trying to protect society from. I remember hearing that with cases like this, it is making it very difficult for the FBI to track down child pornography rings because so often the publishers are children. The law isn't meant to protect people from having to possibly see children in sexual situations (as disgusting as that is) but to protect children from abusive adults of many kinds. Some people get off on recording depraved acts, others steal children, or buy them off the black market as slaves for adult films. It is a sick world and our law recognizes that and makes a very strong effort to shut such groups down with very severe laws
That is not what is going on here. Is it behavior that should be encouraged? Of course not! As you said, what is the intent by the model, photographer, and distributor?
There are some difficult questions to answer. The law also needs to be clear, but not by prosecuting these kids in a way that the law was never intended. I think some responsibility needs to go to the parents, but NOT the same charges. I think the harshest justifiable punishment would be some kind of counseling for the teens about appropriate school behavior, and the differences between appropriate minor vs adult activities.
I think that type of development will never change, and that the GPL will continue to reflect that Linux will never be owned in a way to take rights away from anyone. It is disappointing to think that people would not believe that freedom is scalable. The culture will change as adoption increases to the non-techies, but I find it hard to believe it won't be for the greater good. I hope and believe that Ubuntu will always have that good blend of user friendly and expert tools, but the freedom Linux will always allow people to have whatever they want from Linux, Unlike Windows which is whatever Microsoft tells us it is going to be. We have seen this same freedom on the Internet; many media types and platforms that have only increased the ways that people can get information. Unix started proprietary, and Gnu started with that proprietary kernel early on having just free system tools. Gnu wasn't a completely free as a software platform till it became Gnu/Linux. Networks were all once powered by proprietary protocols, but in the end TCP/IP and other free platforms took over. What I hope to see is free CHOICES that will always be at least the pace car of what can be done. I do not see it being such a terrible thing when all proprietary software will be available on free platforms. It is about options.
But with a dominant free platform, there will be rules and guidelines that will make the makers of proprietary software accountable for playing by the rules of the system, supporting standards and such. I look forward to seeing compliance being the rule rather than the exception. This is the type of barrier in reality Linux needs to overcome, and historically that is done in the brutal real world of marketing.
Computer people know about Linux, but I talk to people all the time that say they have never heard of Linux. This in Silicon Valley! People at Berkley, San Jose State, Santa Cruz; I frequent Coffee Bars often, and will be discussing Linux and people will come up to me and be like "I couldn't help but over hear... what are you talking about?". This is where I wish I kept Ubuntu CD's on me more often, but I will actually spell 'LINUX' for them. I give a little speech about community development and sharing, and people working together for a common good and such, and many leave very interested. But, this is actually a pretty regular thing.
I think many of us forget that as much as people may use computers, and as much as the internet may be integrated into their lives, they are not "computer people". Just like has been mentioned here man times, just because we drive cars doesn't make us motorheads. I am not a car person, and I know lots of people that don't do more than fill their gas tank when the gas light comes on, and know the brake is on the left, throttle on the right. It "just works".
This is where it gets a little tough. Non linux people hear the fanboyism and it becomes annoying quickly as we have all heard it many many times, but these same people run into non-computer people all the time and give the same memorized speech. Foe those hearing it for the first time can be inspired. It takes that kind of work to get new people involved.
There are some great commercials, but marketing to non-computer people still has a long way to go. Marketing is about name recognition. We have these stupid commercials all the time that talk nothing about their product, but just get their name out there. No one can buy your product if they have never heard of you. Maybe the simplest way to put it is that the lowest common denominator is generally the largest pool yo can ever draw from. It takes everyone knowing your name before much anything can happen. Linux has dominated technology because tech people are always seeking new solutions to problems (at least those that survive). I think Linux has always been very much about enabling users to take power of their machines, but Linux is also about software freedom and a culture of sharing, however that sharing is rooted in the first part that many people just can't care about any more than drivers want to know more about their car. It is a tough battle, but (sadly in a way) very much of it is just going to have to be making people aware of their choices, and until they "get it", or don't, a big selling point is "it is free, and if you use it, believe us that we appreciate it.
I am actually using Colemak because it is fewer changes than from qwerty to dvorak, to just be weird, and it isn't supported in Windows. But I have run into the same issue. My wife only uses Colemak and loves it. Same thing said above, your fingers don't get so tied in knots. But I am forced to use qwerty at work and switching between is a bit odd.
Like lots of people try Linux and switch back to Windows? I would find it unlikely in a general, non-technical crowd to find many people that would even know what keyboard layout is, let alone any variation thereof. What I think is more accurate would be:
The world is full of people who havn't heard of Dvorak and don't care if it was all that special.
I think the mori important argument was that Sony censored what could be produced on beta, like porn. Sony didn't understand that 1) adult industry as a whole are always early adopters and 2) make up a strong majority of the movie industry. Cut them out from the beginning, and you are doomed.
Please, you almost have the start of a counter argument.... oh wait, you stopped writing.
Are you saying that detaining people that may pose a terrorist threat or have information about a possible terrorist threat isn't in the best interest of national security? Also, I don't think I even implied that this behavior is excusable, just that Guantanamo wouldn't still be open if it wasn't for SOME justification by SOMEBODY... so I ask again... what the fuck are you talking about?
As far as I understand, they are detaining people for the purposes of national security. They have sota made this grey area, not really an enemy combatant or a prisoner of war or under the jurisdiction of the US cause is is off the soil, so there is no law that applies... at least that is the excuse.
Troll? Do you work for Bush directly? I honestly think a very valid point is being made here if you were following the context. Last I checked, there are a lot of people quite upset over this whole jurisdiction "constitution doesn't apply if we take them to Cuba" thing. I am pretty sure the statements were rhetorical, such that if you said 'no' to either of those questions, then you were supporting Shakrai's point.
HA! I didn't catch your subject line. Maybe I am remembering it better than it really was. It was so fascinating and new at the time (for me). Do you think the good to garbage ratio has stayed the same or improved? Just as far as chatting and such or moderation of boards for technical issues?
If I might go out on a limb, I have noticed that for myself, I often create problems on my machine that I don't think a novice would ever manage to get themselves into. Fortunately just the same, I know how to resolve them. I have issues with file permissions, typicaly because I was messing with something, or I might have messed with some kind of setting that didn't manifest its problems until much later. So it begs the question...
Why was there a folder on your user desktop with permissions that conflicted with that user?
of course you wanting to delete a folder under such circumstances, you would know how to, but I see the odds of a newbie even getting into that situation? unlikely.
I started tinkering with computers very young (starting with an IBM display writer), and fairly proficient with Linux. My wife doesn't like computers, but she does use email, ebay, myspace, and has used open office. She almost never has problems with the computer, unless I left the computer in an odd state (like at a terminal). Despite our differences and experience, ironically I have many more problems using Ubuntu than her... which is probably a good thing:) When I just want to get something done rather than mess with every little thing, Ubuntu works quite flawlessly for me. Just a thought.
I would assume that the usage data Microsoft collects without asking is for internal use only. It is still THEIR operating system. you do not own it. However, for anything that is going to be published, they would only use the opt-in data. They don't want to get a bad rap, and I think they get a lot more pressure to be big brother than they really desire. Whatever they may collect I am sure is only used for quality control and help drive development. As much as I may not like Microsoft, I don't believe for a second they are stupid, just because they choose to play the game a certain way. That WAY has made them a very powerful player, so they are obviously doing something right:) (ok, sorry that was a mix of too many things)
which begs the question, how is that cross-section, the opt-in people, different from the whole. I have a feeling these statistic lean towards optimistic.
would have? They do track usage, and they do ask first. It is right above the "Click here if you accept the terms of the End User License Agreement".
I think a lot of people don't necessarly get that. So many people are like "I don't have to follow the EULA", but that isn't what a lot of it is about. You are USING an operating system that is still THEIR'S. People talk about the the EULA not being legally binding if you break it, but a lot of the EULA is informed consent about what they are doing that you might not otherwise assume. When I used Windows long ago, when I actually read the EULA one day, I wasn't really worried... but you got to admit that the overall theme is pretty odd. In a way, it is like the government taking away rights of criminals. Why should I care, I am not a criminal:)
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest fear is child pornography rings and allowing any kind of loop hole. Also, the law needs to be explicitly clear. Maybe this is too much morality police, but I certainly don't want to be going by my usual porn site to see a consenting 13 and 14 year old, and I don't think it would be out of line to say that anyone collecting or buying up such videos from those minors and selling them in compilations should be able to have some kind of charges brought up against them. I am a big fan of judicial discretion, but at what point do you put the probable cause? Also, curious what you might think of the above response to a similar question.
The issue I see is say that a teen takes pictures of herself in an obviously sexual way and sends them to her boyfriend of the same age. For the sake of drama, say the mother of the boy gets a hold of the pictures and furious that this 'slut' is corrupting her boy shows them to her friends to get some sympathy, discuss how they should handle the matter. Because she is a bit embarrassed to approach her son about the issue, she takes the pictures to her husband so that there can be a "man to man" talk about the whole thing, and downplays the issue basically saying congratulations, but please stop worrying your mother and hide that stuff. For a good laugh, the husband then shares them with his friends but unknowingly a friend borrows and posts them on the Internet. Pics get on 4chan, and while some guy / husband is browsing and downloading pics, wife / girlfriend whatever sees the pics and reports the guy as a possible pedophile. Police identify girl as under age, and man gets arrested.
Who all is in the wrong? How many of them should be labeled sex offenders? How many have committed a felony? How many should go to prison? Do anti-child porn laws really stop the exploitation of children? Is making the FBI's job of having to figure out the difference between different types of child porn a "necessary cost of ensuring liberty"?
I can understand where you are coming from, and I think what you are saying is under appreciated. I get that cameras are the technology of the times and it has gone from playing 'house' and 'doctor' to 'model' and 'porn star'. The biggest issue I think everyone is worried about is child exploitation and loop holes that might allow for people to get away with it. Do you think that if child porn is non-profit then that is good enough to stop child pornography rings?
a) there is a direct relationship between 'piracy' and sales. The more popular the game, the more it sells. The simplest solution to encourage people to pay is to add some online element, and make it VERY easy to pay for.
.deb install script. It is also easy to ask the user for permission to add the repo, which I would prefer. I would be upset if a repo was added without asking first.
c) Ubuntu may get updates, but the Linux Standard Base is easy to stick with. Also, for a commercial product, any time API's change, or deprecate commands, there is typically a tutorial guide to change your code to comply with the new version, not to mention that things that become deprecated often warn developer long in advance that a future release is going to remove a feature. I think it would be much easier to keep up with the minor six month changes of Ubuntu than all the sudden changes from XP to Vista and now 7even. Commercial developers are able to keep up, but look at all the little projects out there. They typically die with a new version of windows. Ubuntu'd quick release cycle make keeping up much more smooth.
b) This is hard how? You can build this into the
From what I have noticed, parents that have healthy communications about sex and sexuality with their children end up with well adjusted children that know and understand that unwelcome advances should not be tolerated and that there are people that will help the child. On the other hand, parents that teach their kids that sex is dirty may feel much more ashamed to tell their parents that they "participated" in something sexual and hide the truth of their abuse as so not to be labeled "dirty". Abusers exist EVERYWHERE! The only difference is whether or not we have a culture that teaches kids to watch out for danger signs, and feel comfortable coming forward if abused, or not. Ignorance protects nobody.
You are already +5 insightful, but I still think what you are saying is under rated. The only harm that will come out of this is the criminal case itself, if not the conviction, which I find unlikely. This should incident, technically, should not have gone beyond the school, and the parents. The behavior with regard to the school could warrant suspension on the grounds of "disruptive behavior". Without any harm, it is just morality police.
Ha ha ha. The only thing funnier than that was the fact that you got moderated all +4 insightful rather than funny.
This is where statute law comes in. The intent of a law is very important. Even though the prosecutor / DA really wants to make an example out of these kids, any lawyer worth his weight in water should be able to show this was not the intent of the law.
And that is why we have Miranda rights. By your logic (and I agree, just to make it clear) This case can only be proven through clever, manipulative, self-incrimination. If the defendants totally keep their mouth shut, and they have a descent lawyer that understands privacy and pornography law, and the very important statutes regarding child porn, these kids must not be convicted. In simple terms, these are not the type of people the law was trying to protect society from. I remember hearing that with cases like this, it is making it very difficult for the FBI to track down child pornography rings because so often the publishers are children. The law isn't meant to protect people from having to possibly see children in sexual situations (as disgusting as that is) but to protect children from abusive adults of many kinds. Some people get off on recording depraved acts, others steal children, or buy them off the black market as slaves for adult films. It is a sick world and our law recognizes that and makes a very strong effort to shut such groups down with very severe laws
That is not what is going on here. Is it behavior that should be encouraged? Of course not! As you said, what is the intent by the model, photographer, and distributor?
There are some difficult questions to answer. The law also needs to be clear, but not by prosecuting these kids in a way that the law was never intended. I think some responsibility needs to go to the parents, but NOT the same charges. I think the harshest justifiable punishment would be some kind of counseling for the teens about appropriate school behavior, and the differences between appropriate minor vs adult activities.
I think that type of development will never change, and that the GPL will continue to reflect that Linux will never be owned in a way to take rights away from anyone. It is disappointing to think that people would not believe that freedom is scalable. The culture will change as adoption increases to the non-techies, but I find it hard to believe it won't be for the greater good. I hope and believe that Ubuntu will always have that good blend of user friendly and expert tools, but the freedom Linux will always allow people to have whatever they want from Linux, Unlike Windows which is whatever Microsoft tells us it is going to be. We have seen this same freedom on the Internet; many media types and platforms that have only increased the ways that people can get information. Unix started proprietary, and Gnu started with that proprietary kernel early on having just free system tools. Gnu wasn't a completely free as a software platform till it became Gnu/Linux. Networks were all once powered by proprietary protocols, but in the end TCP/IP and other free platforms took over. What I hope to see is free CHOICES that will always be at least the pace car of what can be done. I do not see it being such a terrible thing when all proprietary software will be available on free platforms. It is about options.
But with a dominant free platform, there will be rules and guidelines that will make the makers of proprietary software accountable for playing by the rules of the system, supporting standards and such. I look forward to seeing compliance being the rule rather than the exception. This is the type of barrier in reality Linux needs to overcome, and historically that is done in the brutal real world of marketing.
Computer people know about Linux, but I talk to people all the time that say they have never heard of Linux. This in Silicon Valley! People at Berkley, San Jose State, Santa Cruz; I frequent Coffee Bars often, and will be discussing Linux and people will come up to me and be like "I couldn't help but over hear... what are you talking about?". This is where I wish I kept Ubuntu CD's on me more often, but I will actually spell 'LINUX' for them. I give a little speech about community development and sharing, and people working together for a common good and such, and many leave very interested. But, this is actually a pretty regular thing.
I think many of us forget that as much as people may use computers, and as much as the internet may be integrated into their lives, they are not "computer people". Just like has been mentioned here man times, just because we drive cars doesn't make us motorheads. I am not a car person, and I know lots of people that don't do more than fill their gas tank when the gas light comes on, and know the brake is on the left, throttle on the right. It "just works".
This is where it gets a little tough. Non linux people hear the fanboyism and it becomes annoying quickly as we have all heard it many many times, but these same people run into non-computer people all the time and give the same memorized speech. Foe those hearing it for the first time can be inspired. It takes that kind of work to get new people involved.
There are some great commercials, but marketing to non-computer people still has a long way to go. Marketing is about name recognition. We have these stupid commercials all the time that talk nothing about their product, but just get their name out there. No one can buy your product if they have never heard of you. Maybe the simplest way to put it is that the lowest common denominator is generally the largest pool yo can ever draw from. It takes everyone knowing your name before much anything can happen. Linux has dominated technology because tech people are always seeking new solutions to problems (at least those that survive). I think Linux has always been very much about enabling users to take power of their machines, but Linux is also about software freedom and a culture of sharing, however that sharing is rooted in the first part that many people just can't care about any more than drivers want to know more about their car. It is a tough battle, but (sadly in a way) very much of it is just going to have to be making people aware of their choices, and until they "get it", or don't, a big selling point is "it is free, and if you use it, believe us that we appreciate it.
I am actually using Colemak because it is fewer changes than from qwerty to dvorak, to just be weird, and it isn't supported in Windows. But I have run into the same issue. My wife only uses Colemak and loves it. Same thing said above, your fingers don't get so tied in knots. But I am forced to use qwerty at work and switching between is a bit odd.
The world is full of people who havn't heard of Dvorak and don't care if it was all that special.
There, fixed it.
I think the mori important argument was that Sony censored what could be produced on beta, like porn. Sony didn't understand that 1) adult industry as a whole are always early adopters and 2) make up a strong majority of the movie industry. Cut them out from the beginning, and you are doomed.
Hey, but when it is what you are looking for... :)
Please, you almost have the start of a counter argument.... oh wait, you stopped writing.
Are you saying that detaining people that may pose a terrorist threat or have information about a possible terrorist threat isn't in the best interest of national security? Also, I don't think I even implied that this behavior is excusable, just that Guantanamo wouldn't still be open if it wasn't for SOME justification by SOMEBODY... so I ask again... what the fuck are you talking about?
As far as I understand, they are detaining people for the purposes of national security. They have sota made this grey area, not really an enemy combatant or a prisoner of war or under the jurisdiction of the US cause is is off the soil, so there is no law that applies... at least that is the excuse.
Troll? Do you work for Bush directly? I honestly think a very valid point is being made here if you were following the context. Last I checked, there are a lot of people quite upset over this whole jurisdiction "constitution doesn't apply if we take them to Cuba" thing. I am pretty sure the statements were rhetorical, such that if you said 'no' to either of those questions, then you were supporting Shakrai's point.
parent +Insightful
"most" is subjective. If he baby steps it, every thing he does could be "more" and "more" open. He wouldn't want to loose his tag line.
HA! I didn't catch your subject line. Maybe I am remembering it better than it really was. It was so fascinating and new at the time (for me). Do you think the good to garbage ratio has stayed the same or improved? Just as far as chatting and such or moderation of boards for technical issues?
that was why "Internet" was in quotes. I assumed in the other details it would come across. oh well.
If I might go out on a limb, I have noticed that for myself, I often create problems on my machine that I don't think a novice would ever manage to get themselves into. Fortunately just the same, I know how to resolve them. I have issues with file permissions, typicaly because I was messing with something, or I might have messed with some kind of setting that didn't manifest its problems until much later. So it begs the question...
:) When I just want to get something done rather than mess with every little thing, Ubuntu works quite flawlessly for me. Just a thought.
Why was there a folder on your user desktop with permissions that conflicted with that user?
of course you wanting to delete a folder under such circumstances, you would know how to, but I see the odds of a newbie even getting into that situation? unlikely.
I started tinkering with computers very young (starting with an IBM display writer), and fairly proficient with Linux. My wife doesn't like computers, but she does use email, ebay, myspace, and has used open office. She almost never has problems with the computer, unless I left the computer in an odd state (like at a terminal). Despite our differences and experience, ironically I have many more problems using Ubuntu than her... which is probably a good thing
evidently it didn't
I would assume that the usage data Microsoft collects without asking is for internal use only. It is still THEIR operating system. you do not own it. However, for anything that is going to be published, they would only use the opt-in data. They don't want to get a bad rap, and I think they get a lot more pressure to be big brother than they really desire. Whatever they may collect I am sure is only used for quality control and help drive development. As much as I may not like Microsoft, I don't believe for a second they are stupid, just because they choose to play the game a certain way. That WAY has made them a very powerful player, so they are obviously doing something right :) (ok, sorry that was a mix of too many things)
which begs the question, how is that cross-section, the opt-in people, different from the whole. I have a feeling these statistic lean towards optimistic.
would have? They do track usage, and they do ask first. It is right above the "Click here if you accept the terms of the End User License Agreement".
:)
I think a lot of people don't necessarly get that. So many people are like "I don't have to follow the EULA", but that isn't what a lot of it is about. You are USING an operating system that is still THEIR'S. People talk about the the EULA not being legally binding if you break it, but a lot of the EULA is informed consent about what they are doing that you might not otherwise assume. When I used Windows long ago, when I actually read the EULA one day, I wasn't really worried... but you got to admit that the overall theme is pretty odd. In a way, it is like the government taking away rights of criminals. Why should I care, I am not a criminal