Yes, you're perfectly right, but impersonating a 12 year old girl is not in itself illegal (in most countries anyway). What would become a guy who innocently impersonates 12 year old girls on chat rooms? OK, the guy is creepy, but there's no law against being creepy.
Problem is, there is nothing illegal in pretending to be a 12 year old girl when actually a 40 year old man. Or copy-pasting into textboxes to avoid typing pattern detection.
So we are talking about a method for detecting something that isn't illegal by itself (it becomes illegal when the 40 year old guy invites her new friend in his house to mistreat her) and flagging it as suspicious. Automatic crime detection leads to an unfair justice system IMHO. In addition, flagging someone for a crime that, statistically, they have more chance of committing than others I find wrong too.
Last, but not least, how many false positives? How many 12 year old girls type like 40 year old guys? What would be the consequences?
Sorry, my answer was harsh too, I apologise. Thank you for answering me nonetheless.
Personally, I think gun control is relatively irrelevant with regard to crime rates. Of course being able to defend oneself against an attack is something that firearms allow, I can't disagree with that. On the other hand, an attacker or an invader is less likely to carry a gun in France, just because it is not really possible to buy one legally (there are exceptions of course, soldiers, policemen and security agencies can have a firearm owner ID, as well as huntsmen).
And lets face it, if I don't own a gun, my 7 years old son can't find it and shoot himself with it by accident; now I don't think this is remotely frequent in countries that allow free gun ownership, but this would still irrationally frighten me.
And last, what would I do if multiple Mexicans with AR-15's stormed my home? Opening fire does not seem very safe here. I think my preservation instinct would rapidly overcome me and make me flee or surrender (after all, I am French). So OK, they would rob me or kidnap my child, but I would be alive, trying to do something about it.
I understand quite well that our countries have very different threats to face, and that the response to those threats are obviously not the same, but I still wonder what stricter gun control would do to the US.
OK, thank you for your kind answer. My point is still valid though, you assert that crime rates are lower in low gun control states, and provide one example where it is higher. When trying to make points, try giving relevant examples, it prevents stupid men like me to be confused.
I would just like to point out that, where I live (France) we have drastic gun control (we, simple citizens, do not have the right to own a gun), and that we have much less criminal rates than you have in the USA. We have drug cartels too, and we have Italian and Russian Mafia at some places too, so I don't think it is completely related to drug cartels and other criminal organisations.
Please keep in mind in your answer that I am aware of my own stupidity, and don't remind me of it.
I don't understand... Less gun control induces lower rates of crime, and the example you provide is Arizona, specifically Phoenix (IIRC it is in Arizona), which, should we believe you, has the second highest kidnapping rate... how is this a much lower rate of crime? have I missed something in your post?
The point is, we know that burning carbon is dangerous as it emits carbon dioxyde, and that every solution would be better than that.
Why don't we build wind turbines now and think later of the implications on environment (which would be less dangerous, we already know that)
Well, actually, they have other attributions, like answering the voters about their work at the assembly, working on writing other laws, and a few other things.
It is legal in France to be at the same time mayor of a city and member of the parliament, and it is frequent (this is unfortunate, IMHO, but legal), so they can have their mayor duties on top of their parliament duties (I really do not understand how it is even possible to do this, and still sleep and feed sometimes).
The French parliament does have rules regarding a need for a quorum (half of the assembly plus one must be present for the vote to be called), but it must be invoqued by a "group leader" to be enforced (if not, one member of the assembly alone can vote a law, and yes, this is stupid), late thursday, there weren't any in the hemicycle (the place where they meet). The quorum rules are only for votes, and not for debates, it is quite frequent to see only a quarter of the assembly in the parliament debates (nobody can be an expert in everything).
Now, to clarify things, I am not happy with this, I believe that members of the parliament shouldn't have other attributions (a part from debating and voting the laws, and maybe reporting their work to their voters), and shouldn't be allowed to cumulate with a mayor mandate, but it is a fact that they can, and that they do so have some other attributions.
As a side note, I too fear for the future of democracy in France...
Keep in mind that there were 36 members of parliament who voted, where the assembly is made of 577... Being French myself, I watched the live stream. The president of the assembly was dumbstruck.
Members of parliament also have other things to do than discussing and voting every law that goes through.
That said, members of the assembly were a lot fewer than usual this morning. This could be because some members didn't want to vote this law (votes are public, and they don't want to face public opinion), so stayed the ones who intended to vote against this law, and too few of the ones whose party line was to vote for the law.
Yes, DRM to reduce costs seems great, but why does it have to go though locking every device used to see the movie?
DRM is something that profits only those hardcore enough to succeed bypassing it, and restrain everyone that would want a little looseness in the copyright laws.
The whole concept of DRM looks like the paranoid rantings of a delusional conspiracy theorist. Honestly, why would there be situations where I don't have the right to see a movie I bought?
However, DRM exists and people begin to get used to it, sadly. If it can profit to Microsoft to lock their hardware to be only compatible with Windows, they'd do it, without looking back.
I can only agree to this. Enterprise readyness is difficult to quantify, and nothing is completely bug free.
Now this bug seems pretty basic and important, but then there are (or at least were) bugs like that in a lot of systems, and it is fairly impressive to see that these are corrected in this few a time.
I believe the former example was the waterbed patent, I see a huge difference between this and a warp drive, the first clearly describes its own implementation...
The other point is, "if you don't believe yourself in God, why do you hate Christians for believing an act was "caused" by someone you don't even acknowledge the existence?"
I think he just wants to point out that if there is a good argument against the usefulness of prayer, then it won't be basic logic. It might exist of course, but it will not be explainable in such a small/. post.
AFAIK, Evolution is still a theory. A very convincing theory, I do not doubt that, but a theory nonetheless.
Exhuming a skeleton is not a fact that proves something about how life works, scientifically speaking, it is more a clue. Evolution is the best explanation found for all the scientific observations made on bones and live species, but it is not proven.
Evolution is the most likely scenario (by far, because no other theory have so many really convincing clues) but it is still not factual.
Your assertion that an embryo is not self-sufficient is dishonest. I don't know about you, but personnally, I still need to eat and drink... so am I self-sufficient or not? Am I not alive?
AFAIK, no chemical signals are needed from another organism than the embryo himself in the uterus. So yeah, he needs a uterus... for food and shelter. (Note that I could be wrong of course, I am not a specialist)
But, I could argue that I still need food and shelter now that I am an adult, capable of reproduction...
His friends could just phone him if he keeps his cellphone on, couldn't they ? And if he doens't answer, authorities will find him, tell him his friends miss him, but if he is gone by free will, what can they possibly do?
True,
Have someone tried the voice recognition integrated to Windows Vista?
I tried it, and was really impressed. Speech to text exists for almost ten years now, so I'm not impressed with this news whatsoever...
The point is even unformatted à 100 GB drive only contains 100,000,000,000 bytes at most, where most systems calculates disk size in powers of 2, where 100 GB is roughly equal to 93.1 billions of bytes, which is quite different than space used for the allocation table and all that stuff...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you're perfectly right, but impersonating a 12 year old girl is not in itself illegal (in most countries anyway). What would become a guy who innocently impersonates 12 year old girls on chat rooms? OK, the guy is creepy, but there's no law against being creepy.
This can be easily modified, and the hacker paedophiles would instantly workaround that.
Problem is, there is nothing illegal in pretending to be a 12 year old girl when actually a 40 year old man. Or copy-pasting into textboxes to avoid typing pattern detection.
So we are talking about a method for detecting something that isn't illegal by itself (it becomes illegal when the 40 year old guy invites her new friend in his house to mistreat her) and flagging it as suspicious. Automatic crime detection leads to an unfair justice system IMHO. In addition, flagging someone for a crime that, statistically, they have more chance of committing than others I find wrong too.
Last, but not least, how many false positives? How many 12 year old girls type like 40 year old guys? What would be the consequences?
Sorry, my answer was harsh too, I apologise. Thank you for answering me nonetheless.
Personally, I think gun control is relatively irrelevant with regard to crime rates. Of course being able to defend oneself against an attack is something that firearms allow, I can't disagree with that. On the other hand, an attacker or an invader is less likely to carry a gun in France, just because it is not really possible to buy one legally (there are exceptions of course, soldiers, policemen and security agencies can have a firearm owner ID, as well as huntsmen).
And lets face it, if I don't own a gun, my 7 years old son can't find it and shoot himself with it by accident; now I don't think this is remotely frequent in countries that allow free gun ownership, but this would still irrationally frighten me.
And last, what would I do if multiple Mexicans with AR-15's stormed my home? Opening fire does not seem very safe here. I think my preservation instinct would rapidly overcome me and make me flee or surrender (after all, I am French). So OK, they would rob me or kidnap my child, but I would be alive, trying to do something about it.
I understand quite well that our countries have very different threats to face, and that the response to those threats are obviously not the same, but I still wonder what stricter gun control would do to the US.
OK, thank you for your kind answer. My point is still valid though, you assert that crime rates are lower in low gun control states, and provide one example where it is higher. When trying to make points, try giving relevant examples, it prevents stupid men like me to be confused.
I would just like to point out that, where I live (France) we have drastic gun control (we, simple citizens, do not have the right to own a gun), and that we have much less criminal rates than you have in the USA. We have drug cartels too, and we have Italian and Russian Mafia at some places too, so I don't think it is completely related to drug cartels and other criminal organisations.
Please keep in mind in your answer that I am aware of my own stupidity, and don't remind me of it.
I don't understand... Less gun control induces lower rates of crime, and the example you provide is Arizona, specifically Phoenix (IIRC it is in Arizona), which, should we believe you, has the second highest kidnapping rate... how is this a much lower rate of crime? have I missed something in your post?
The point is, we know that burning carbon is dangerous as it emits carbon dioxyde, and that every solution would be better than that. Why don't we build wind turbines now and think later of the implications on environment (which would be less dangerous, we already know that)
Well, actually, they have other attributions, like answering the voters about their work at the assembly, working on writing other laws, and a few other things.
It is legal in France to be at the same time mayor of a city and member of the parliament, and it is frequent (this is unfortunate, IMHO, but legal), so they can have their mayor duties on top of their parliament duties (I really do not understand how it is even possible to do this, and still sleep and feed sometimes).
The French parliament does have rules regarding a need for a quorum (half of the assembly plus one must be present for the vote to be called), but it must be invoqued by a "group leader" to be enforced (if not, one member of the assembly alone can vote a law, and yes, this is stupid), late thursday, there weren't any in the hemicycle (the place where they meet). The quorum rules are only for votes, and not for debates, it is quite frequent to see only a quarter of the assembly in the parliament debates (nobody can be an expert in everything).
The quorum need is usually solved through a "solemn vote" (vote solennel) where members of the parliament are given a time where the vote is being held, and the vote is public (everybody can see who voted for the law and who voted against, and), but there is a "fast procedure" (procédure d'urgence), invoqued in this case, permitting to vote for laws rapidly, that do not call for a solemn vote, meaning that the law is voted right after being discussed, with the people present at the time. This does not suppress the rule for a quorum, but it can be called only by a few members of the parliament (called "group leaders" as I mentionned earlier, groups are parties or joining of parties).
Now, to clarify things, I am not happy with this, I believe that members of the parliament shouldn't have other attributions (a part from debating and voting the laws, and maybe reporting their work to their voters), and shouldn't be allowed to cumulate with a mayor mandate, but it is a fact that they can, and that they do so have some other attributions.
As a side note, I too fear for the future of democracy in France...
Keep in mind that there were 36 members of parliament who voted, where the assembly is made of 577... Being French myself, I watched the live stream. The president of the assembly was dumbstruck.
Members of parliament also have other things to do than discussing and voting every law that goes through.
That said, members of the assembly were a lot fewer than usual this morning. This could be because some members didn't want to vote this law (votes are public, and they don't want to face public opinion), so stayed the ones who intended to vote against this law, and too few of the ones whose party line was to vote for the law.
Yes, DRM to reduce costs seems great, but why does it have to go though locking every device used to see the movie?
DRM is something that profits only those hardcore enough to succeed bypassing it, and restrain everyone that would want a little looseness in the copyright laws.
Right,
The whole concept of DRM looks like the paranoid rantings of a delusional conspiracy theorist. Honestly, why would there be situations where I don't have the right to see a movie I bought?
However, DRM exists and people begin to get used to it, sadly. If it can profit to Microsoft to lock their hardware to be only compatible with Windows, they'd do it, without looking back.
I can only agree to this. Enterprise readyness is difficult to quantify, and nothing is completely bug free.
Now this bug seems pretty basic and important, but then there are (or at least were) bugs like that in a lot of systems, and it is fairly impressive to see that these are corrected in this few a time.
I believe the former example was the waterbed patent, I see a huge difference between this and a warp drive, the first clearly describes its own implementation...
I think I agree to this even more than with what I wrote two days ago.
I was trying to say something like that, but of course, my poor English language and reasoning skills didn't put things together well...
The other point is, "if you don't believe yourself in God, why do you hate Christians for believing an act was "caused" by someone you don't even acknowledge the existence?"
I think he just wants to point out that if there is a good argument against the usefulness of prayer, then it won't be basic logic. It might exist of course, but it will not be explainable in such a small /. post.
this sounds like the Vatican is backpedalling in order to do damage control,
Did the Vatican said something opposed to that in the past? Do you have source?
AFAIK, they just didn't speak about alien life, having no official point of vue on this particular question. But I'd like to know if I were mistaken.
AFAIK, Evolution is still a theory. A very convincing theory, I do not doubt that, but a theory nonetheless.
Exhuming a skeleton is not a fact that proves something about how life works, scientifically speaking, it is more a clue. Evolution is the best explanation found for all the scientific observations made on bones and live species, but it is not proven.
Evolution is the most likely scenario (by far, because no other theory have so many really convincing clues) but it is still not factual.
Your assertion that an embryo is not self-sufficient is dishonest. I don't know about you, but personnally, I still need to eat and drink... so am I self-sufficient or not? Am I not alive?
AFAIK, no chemical signals are needed from another organism than the embryo himself in the uterus. So yeah, he needs a uterus... for food and shelter. (Note that I could be wrong of course, I am not a specialist)
But, I could argue that I still need food and shelter now that I am an adult, capable of reproduction...
In that case, who's going to look for him?
His friends could just phone him if he keeps his cellphone on, couldn't they ? And if he doens't answer, authorities will find him, tell him his friends miss him, but if he is gone by free will, what can they possibly do?
I have a French version of Vista, and it works quite well :)
Of course, Madarin Chinese... never tried that.
True, Have someone tried the voice recognition integrated to Windows Vista? I tried it, and was really impressed. Speech to text exists for almost ten years now, so I'm not impressed with this news whatsoever...
That's hardly the point here...
The point is even unformatted à 100 GB drive only contains 100,000,000,000 bytes at most, where most systems calculates disk size in powers of 2, where 100 GB is roughly equal to 93.1 billions of bytes, which is quite different than space used for the allocation table and all that stuff...Your idea is insightful, but I'm afraid that capping voting power is not possible, if you combine it with the problems with votes on the internet.
e.g. Rich people could register multiple accounts using bots, and have access to uncapped voting power