More than that, it could be a way to reduce any airplane's radar cross-section by 90%. Furthermore a 10% ghost is much better than a 100% picture anywhere.
please tell me you're trolling; it would renew my lost confidence in the human race. "Ask the parents of the victims." Good lord are you seriously suggesting that a child who is being decently parented can be hurt in any way by finding information on the internet? And when I say "decently parented" I don't mean "being restricted on the internet"
Many years ago, I took one of those for a Sales job at Sears, an ethics test. The thing was completely worthless; Anyone with an IQ over 90 could have figured out the "correct" answers. Basically, suggest harsh punishment for any crimes, admit to committing one minor offense as a child and feeling guilty about it, and deny ever having broken a law since.
In high school I took one for an avation class. Apparently pilots are required to take them. (?) That was a test of my sanity and equally easy to figure out. It consisted of tests like "you just killed a man. Why?" and the trick was to admit equally to each of four possible psychological problems so you look balanced. God forbid a smart lunatic or a smart criminal take those tests.
Just once, I've love to hear a die-hard libertarian explain how privatized roads would work. Just once. I'm not talking highways either, I'm talking arterials, residential roads, etc. And don't cop out and point to tiny road networks found in gated communities. Tell me how you'd have a privatized road system on the scale of say, New York or LA.
I would use the internet model. I would make small areas each responsible for their own internal transportation problems (residential roads) and make it known (in your "from scratch" scenario they would already understand) to them how paying for the backbones(highways and arterials) is in their best interests because if they do, they can travel to other places. The highways and arterials would be privatized, tolls charged for highways. Those with lower tolls get more traffic. Arterials would be funded by an entirely optional fee to each community or driver. Pay the fee, get a sticker for your windshield allowing travel on those roads. Traffice police would be paid for the same way, with the only penalty being: the car would be forbidden to travel on that road/group of roads/any major road for a short time/long time/ever. Private industry, when given a profit motive, can come up with very good ways of knowing car from car. Appeals possible in the case of theft, with coordination with local police.
And if your answer is "it would be impossible now", explain how you could, from scratch, create a privatized road network that would then give birth to a city of that size.
For extra credit, explain if it is nessicary to create a standard for signs, lighting, turn signals, mirrors, cross-walks and such. If it is, explain how this would be legislated and if it is not legislated who would regulate such things.
Yes such standards are necessary, and can be handled by a standards organization. Tell me, was IP-6 legislated into existance?
After some practice I could do it myself. So can you. Start with a hallway with hard walls and walk down it blindfolded using your ears. It may help if you make a high-pitched sound. (at least high-pitched sounds are easier for me) I can only avoid large objects that don't aborb sound myself, but I bet I could get better.
You know what? I hope the palestinians develop highly advanced sciences of every type tomorrow. Science brings freedom of information and freedom from bias, and freedom of information with freedom from bias trumps bigotry.
The written part will be slightly smoother. Slide the pencil over the part written on and analyse drag for a destructive read. Alternatively, pick up and drop the pencil a very short distance and measure the shock.
I, for one, hope they have very strong filtering methods that require some real knowledge to bypass. You will be pitting their desire to be lazy against their 14-year-old hormones and they will, completely by accident, end up with very useful knowledge about information security.
As a child, I saw the landing pod from an Apollo mission at a museum. I got to climb inside, but I was severely disappointed: Everything had been welded in place and covered with layers of plastic and padding! I could not have been more disappointed or less inspired. Remove the batteries, toxic compounds, sure. Drain every last drop of fuel and other stored things, sure. Depressurize the tanks, of course. Even fill the hidden parts of the engine with inerts but for God's sake don't "safe" it until it's impossible for a kiddy to climb into the seat and play pilot!
Let the control column move! Let the switches switch! Will it really cost so much to replace the occasional switch and clean it out sometimes? Sure some kid might climb somewhere, fall, and get hurt. That's what parents are for. Hell, I'll even let you pad the places kids might fall but not too safe, okay!?
First, a note to the mods who modded me funny: The definition of pedophilia is a feeling of sexual attraction to children. (as opposed to teenagers or adults) Most pedophiles would not choose to feel this attraction given a choice. If there were a pill that cured it, it would be flying off the shelves.
You are confusing the attraction/desire with the activity that is desired. Prejudice against pedophiles: a real bigotry. Prejudice against criminals (of whatever type): the phrase doesn't make sense because that is about an activity. So I stand by my words.
If you were modding it funny because you think that any defense of child porn cannot be legitimate then your extreme bias is showing: you would ignore an argument because it is uncomfortable to you.
Except that none of those are thoughts, they're physical actions.
They are actions that were criminalized for one of two reasons: hatred against those who would consume child porn, and the mistaken belief that laws against such would save a child from that dread fate. They are actions that, in themselves, hurt no one. Indeed they are actions, but the laws are obviously against people who WANT to see those scenes. A picture that is okay in a pediatrician's textbook becomes illegal on a pedophile's computer. An image generated in reality becomes legal if it were generated by computer. If the information is the same, why should legality depend on context if it isn't a thought crime?
Actively seeking it out creates demand, too
Only if one is seeking on media that can possibly generate ad revenue. P2P piracy, for instance, cannot generate revenue. But in any case my claim is that creating demand by directly paying for child porn should not be illegal.
There is the little matter of effectiveness. Making only the abuse and direct commissioning the offences just means that the abuse will take place in places without such legislation or with ineffective enforcement, which I'd guess is pretty much how things are anyway because those things are already offences in most civilized countries. If one wants to limit child abuse, the most effective means is likely to be to tackle all parts of the abuse chain that fall within your administration.
I dispute that. Laws against child porn serve to outlaw all evidence. Anyone coming across such would be wise, under the current system, to immediately delete it without reporting it. Furthermore child abuse would be better limited by spending the same money now spent enforcing child porn laws on tracking down actual abusers. Do you claim that if evidence were sure to be spread far and wide you would see many offenders walking down the street in countries with enforcement? And if sex is legal at the age of 14 in Chili, why shouldn't porn be legal at that age in Chili?
Child porn is certainly data, but is it information?By definition, yes. As soon as it is put onto a human-readable format, it is changed from data to information.
Allow me to present one more argument: A picture of a murder scene can make millions of dollars for CNN. If that picture and method of making money is legal, why is a different kind of crime scene illegal to film and sell?
Every time I've seen your sig "I am the cheese", I almost want to disregard everything else you've said.
That says something about you...
I understand that child porn is a legislation gateway for something-nefarious(tm), BUT currently viewing child porn IS NOT illegal. In fact, if you ever serve on the jury for a case about child porn PRODUCER, you may have to view some as evidence. What is illegal is 1) paying for it 2) storing or distributing it 3) creating it.
What I mean to say, but don't because it makes an awkward sentence is: Paying for, storing, distributing, and filming child porn: Thought crime.
In each of these cases, your helping create supply and/or demand
I dispute this. Only paying for it creates demand.
which does in fact hurt children.
I dispute that too. The only action of those specified that hurts a child is actual abuse, and only that and directly commissioning such should be a crime.
Currently, accidentally downloading child porn or viewing is unlikely to attract FBI attention, unless you do it a lot (and how can that be accidental?) I mean, if the FBI acted on that, they'd be arresting huge swaths of 4chan members at a time, since that stuff is (somewhat) frequently posted on message threads. If you do accidentally download it, you are probably tech savvy enough, being a Slashdot poster, to clean out your temporary files.
When it comes right down to it, seeing your signature makes me wonder if you are in fact, a pedophile. If you are, and you've never committed a crime, great! but that's your business. However, it still hurts your reputation to have that out in the open and it muddies the real issues.
I think it is a real issue. I have a serious problem with other people's information flow being stopped by any entity for any reason. If people don't like this point of view then I have at least made them think. If my reputation takes a hit because people are prejudiced against pedophiles, so be it. I sincerely appreciate your mostly unbiased approach to this controversial subject.
Some people will say "slippery slope", and others will declare that the phrase is a fallacy. As a shortcut description of the probably course of events, "slippery slope" is just fine. In this case:
1: Billboards watch people. 2: These billboards are more popular and are put into more common use. 3: Information from a billboard cam is subpoenaed. 4: Some bright young chap in politics notices that (a) There are cameras everywhere that could be used to observe the populace, (b) The information from these cameras isn't in use, and (c) He is up for re-election soon and needs some dirt on his opponent. 5: This politician will make a bill to monitor the billboards. Anyone in opposition will be "soft on crime", "unwilling to monitor dangerous criminals", and "must be hiding something." 6: Sooner or later, Minority Report.
That won't happen, and this is why. Japan was forced to build robots to keep costs down.
In manufacturing, there are three kind of builders: The expert craftsman who is probably well paid to do excellent work, the robot who can drill a hole in precisely the same place 10,000 times, and the poorly paid factory worker, for whom really, really good quality control is needed. Guess which one China employs? It is a fact that a part assembled by machine will, given the same effort put into QC, put out a much better product than the same part assembled by low wage humans. low quality parts=poor system reliability.
This is somewhat off-topic, being about American law, but the "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" laws are abused continually. Police can and do search wherever they feel like by lying and saying they "smelled something." Flex your rights.
Just to be sure I got this right, we're living on a massive nuclear reactor that is still active, and still of the same design that once brought catastrophic failure?
Copyright was always intended to give artists of all types a temporary monopoly on their works. When a law is abusive, it becomes the citizen's duty to violate it. I stopped respecting copyright the day I read about the micky mouse law, which effectively extended copyright far far beyond the term anyone rationally should have a copyright.
Re:Can we get back to the old definition of WMDs
on
Botnets As "eWMDs"
·
· Score: 1
I beg to differ, energy to mass converstion is entirely possible.
Slashdot Mirror
More than that, it could be a way to reduce any airplane's radar cross-section by 90%. Furthermore a 10% ghost is much better than a 100% picture anywhere.
I was not worried about being arrested because there were about 30 witnesses.
And in that statement is evidence just how far we have fallen.
please tell me you're trolling; it would renew my lost confidence in the human race. "Ask the parents of the victims." Good lord are you seriously suggesting that a child who is being decently parented can be hurt in any way by finding information on the internet? And when I say "decently parented" I don't mean "being restricted on the internet"
The moon is a harsh mistress.
Many years ago, I took one of those for a Sales job at Sears, an ethics test. The thing was completely worthless; Anyone with an IQ over 90 could have figured out the "correct" answers. Basically, suggest harsh punishment for any crimes, admit to committing one minor offense as a child and feeling guilty about it, and deny ever having broken a law since.
In high school I took one for an avation class. Apparently pilots are required to take them. (?) That was a test of my sanity and equally easy to figure out. It consisted of tests like "you just killed a man. Why?" and the trick was to admit equally to each of four possible psychological problems so you look balanced. God forbid a smart lunatic or a smart criminal take those tests.
Just once, I've love to hear a die-hard libertarian explain how privatized roads would work. Just once. I'm not talking highways either, I'm talking arterials, residential roads, etc. And don't cop out and point to tiny road networks found in gated communities. Tell me how you'd have a privatized road system on the scale of say, New York or LA. I would use the internet model. I would make small areas each responsible for their own internal transportation problems (residential roads) and make it known (in your "from scratch" scenario they would already understand) to them how paying for the backbones(highways and arterials) is in their best interests because if they do, they can travel to other places. The highways and arterials would be privatized, tolls charged for highways. Those with lower tolls get more traffic. Arterials would be funded by an entirely optional fee to each community or driver. Pay the fee, get a sticker for your windshield allowing travel on those roads. Traffice police would be paid for the same way, with the only penalty being: the car would be forbidden to travel on that road/group of roads/any major road for a short time/long time/ever. Private industry, when given a profit motive, can come up with very good ways of knowing car from car. Appeals possible in the case of theft, with coordination with local police. And if your answer is "it would be impossible now", explain how you could, from scratch, create a privatized road network that would then give birth to a city of that size. For extra credit, explain if it is nessicary to create a standard for signs, lighting, turn signals, mirrors, cross-walks and such. If it is, explain how this would be legislated and if it is not legislated who would regulate such things. Yes such standards are necessary, and can be handled by a standards organization. Tell me, was IP-6 legislated into existance?
+1 self-disproving post
You're right! We need an immediate return to communism!
After some practice I could do it myself. So can you. Start with a hallway with hard walls and walk down it blindfolded using your ears. It may help if you make a high-pitched sound. (at least high-pitched sounds are easier for me) I can only avoid large objects that don't aborb sound myself, but I bet I could get better.
You know what? I hope the palestinians develop highly advanced sciences of every type tomorrow. Science brings freedom of information and freedom from bias, and freedom of information with freedom from bias trumps bigotry.
I should think that journal peer review, done properly, is a far better turing test.
One may suspect that the original submission was heavily edited. (read: merely an inspiration for a real idea) That said, this should be in "idle."
Good metadata is hard to come by. By this I mean it's very expensive to input metadata for every object.
One is a greedy, evil scumbag that destroys lives for whim or money. The other has an honest line of work.
The written part will be slightly smoother. Slide the pencil over the part written on and analyse drag for a destructive read. Alternatively, pick up and drop the pencil a very short distance and measure the shock.
I, for one, hope they have very strong filtering methods that require some real knowledge to bypass. You will be pitting their desire to be lazy against their 14-year-old hormones and they will, completely by accident, end up with very useful knowledge about information security.
As a child, I saw the landing pod from an Apollo mission at a museum. I got to climb inside, but I was severely disappointed: Everything had been welded in place and covered with layers of plastic and padding! I could not have been more disappointed or less inspired. Remove the batteries, toxic compounds, sure. Drain every last drop of fuel and other stored things, sure. Depressurize the tanks, of course. Even fill the hidden parts of the engine with inerts but for God's sake don't "safe" it until it's impossible for a kiddy to climb into the seat and play pilot!
Let the control column move! Let the switches switch! Will it really cost so much to replace the occasional switch and clean it out sometimes? Sure some kid might climb somewhere, fall, and get hurt. That's what parents are for. Hell, I'll even let you pad the places kids might fall but not too safe, okay!?
First, a note to the mods who modded me funny: The definition of pedophilia is a feeling of sexual attraction to children. (as opposed to teenagers or adults) Most pedophiles would not choose to feel this attraction given a choice. If there were a pill that cured it, it would be flying off the shelves.
You are confusing the attraction/desire with the activity that is desired. Prejudice against pedophiles: a real bigotry. Prejudice against criminals (of whatever type): the phrase doesn't make sense because that is about an activity. So I stand by my words.
If you were modding it funny because you think that any defense of child porn cannot be legitimate then your extreme bias is showing: you would ignore an argument because it is uncomfortable to you.
Except that none of those are thoughts, they're physical actions.
They are actions that were criminalized for one of two reasons: hatred against those who would consume child porn, and the mistaken belief that laws against such would save a child from that dread fate. They are actions that, in themselves, hurt no one. Indeed they are actions, but the laws are obviously against people who WANT to see those scenes. A picture that is okay in a pediatrician's textbook becomes illegal on a pedophile's computer. An image generated in reality becomes legal if it were generated by computer. If the information is the same, why should legality depend on context if it isn't a thought crime?
Actively seeking it out creates demand, too
Only if one is seeking on media that can possibly generate ad revenue. P2P piracy, for instance, cannot generate revenue. But in any case my claim is that creating demand by directly paying for child porn should not be illegal.
There is the little matter of effectiveness. Making only the abuse and direct commissioning the offences just means that the abuse will take place in places without such legislation or with ineffective enforcement, which I'd guess is pretty much how things are anyway because those things are already offences in most civilized countries. If one wants to limit child abuse, the most effective means is likely to be to tackle all parts of the abuse chain that fall within your administration.
I dispute that. Laws against child porn serve to outlaw all evidence. Anyone coming across such would be wise, under the current system, to immediately delete it without reporting it. Furthermore child abuse would be better limited by spending the same money now spent enforcing child porn laws on tracking down actual abusers. Do you claim that if evidence were sure to be spread far and wide you would see many offenders walking down the street in countries with enforcement? And if sex is legal at the age of 14 in Chili, why shouldn't porn be legal at that age in Chili?
Child porn is certainly data, but is it information?By definition, yes. As soon as it is put onto a human-readable format, it is changed from data to information.
Allow me to present one more argument: A picture of a murder scene can make millions of dollars for CNN. If that picture and method of making money is legal, why is a different kind of crime scene illegal to film and sell?
Every time I've seen your sig "I am the cheese", I almost want to disregard everything else you've said.
That says something about you...
I understand that child porn is a legislation gateway for something-nefarious(tm), BUT currently viewing child porn IS NOT illegal. In fact, if you ever serve on the jury for a case about child porn PRODUCER, you may have to view some as evidence. What is illegal is 1) paying for it 2) storing or distributing it 3) creating it.
What I mean to say, but don't because it makes an awkward sentence is: Paying for, storing, distributing, and filming child porn: Thought crime.
In each of these cases, your helping create supply and/or demand
I dispute this. Only paying for it creates demand.
which does in fact hurt children.
I dispute that too. The only action of those specified that hurts a child is actual abuse, and only that and directly commissioning such should be a crime.
Currently, accidentally downloading child porn or viewing is unlikely to attract FBI attention, unless you do it a lot (and how can that be accidental?) I mean, if the FBI acted on that, they'd be arresting huge swaths of 4chan members at a time, since that stuff is (somewhat) frequently posted on message threads. If you do accidentally download it, you are probably tech savvy enough, being a Slashdot poster, to clean out your temporary files.
When it comes right down to it, seeing your signature makes me wonder if you are in fact, a pedophile. If you are, and you've never committed a crime, great! but that's your business. However, it still hurts your reputation to have that out in the open and it muddies the real issues.
I think it is a real issue. I have a serious problem with other people's information flow being stopped by any entity for any reason. If people don't like this point of view then I have at least made them think. If my reputation takes a hit because people are prejudiced against pedophiles, so be it. I sincerely appreciate your mostly unbiased approach to this controversial subject.
Some people will say "slippery slope", and others will declare that the phrase is a fallacy. As a shortcut description of the probably course of events, "slippery slope" is just fine. In this case:
1: Billboards watch people.
2: These billboards are more popular and are put into more common use.
3: Information from a billboard cam is subpoenaed.
4: Some bright young chap in politics notices that (a) There are cameras everywhere that could be used to observe the populace, (b) The information from these cameras isn't in use, and (c) He is up for re-election soon and needs some dirt on his opponent.
5: This politician will make a bill to monitor the billboards. Anyone in opposition will be "soft on crime", "unwilling to monitor dangerous criminals", and "must be hiding something."
6: Sooner or later, Minority Report.
That won't happen, and this is why. Japan was forced to build robots to keep costs down. In manufacturing, there are three kind of builders: The expert craftsman who is probably well paid to do excellent work, the robot who can drill a hole in precisely the same place 10,000 times, and the poorly paid factory worker, for whom really, really good quality control is needed. Guess which one China employs? It is a fact that a part assembled by machine will, given the same effort put into QC, put out a much better product than the same part assembled by low wage humans. low quality parts=poor system reliability.
This is somewhat off-topic, being about American law, but the "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" laws are abused continually. Police can and do search wherever they feel like by lying and saying they "smelled something." Flex your rights.
Just to be sure I got this right, we're living on a massive nuclear reactor that is still active, and still of the same design that once brought catastrophic failure?
Copyright was always intended to give artists of all types a temporary monopoly on their works. When a law is abusive, it becomes the citizen's duty to violate it. I stopped respecting copyright the day I read about the micky mouse law, which effectively extended copyright far far beyond the term anyone rationally should have a copyright.
I beg to differ, energy to mass converstion is entirely possible.