Curtailing rights, raising taxes, and getting the governments fingers into even more of my business? This is exactly what they were intended to be used for.
Re:What masses, specifically, have botnets destroy
on
Botnets As "eWMDs"
·
· Score: 1
I am less than convinced that there are Evil Hackers out there capable of and planning to shut down water systems and power distribution. However, should it be possible and occur, think about how short a time it took for New Orleans civil society to disintegrate.
New Orleans civil society didn't disintegrate because they couldn't conduct financial transactions, and the power was out. Also, I would bet my family jewels that there are indeed evil hackers out there planning to do evil things. Billions of dollars are spent on information security every year to prevent successful attacks, and decentralized security is the only real security.
When you hear words like terror, fear, public infrastructure, mass destruction, and attack, know that they are coming for your freedom.
Great fear. Terror even. Terrorism! Danger! Danger! Threat level orange! All good citizens must immediately surrender their rights! We'll start by outlawing spam.
But how can we enforce it?
We need to verify all e-mail legitimacy!
We'll do it with technology.
What is needed is a massive database of all e-mails sent, which will be filtered to assure that no 1,000 of them are the same. After that we'll send it to the intended recipient. Of course we'll have to keep logs...
Are you people fucking blind? This is a prepubescent girl pictured in the nude, for Christ sake!! How much more "consideration" do you need? Stop defending this sick shit for the sake of "art"! It's child porn, plain and simple, and the art director should have been arrested for photographing that little girl, not to mention her parents. You don't need a court to decide what your eyes should already tell you.
So you think a child should never, ever be photographed nude? How about paintings? What do you have to say to 1200 years of art history? How about my naked baby picture? The little girl was harmed not at all, grew up, and has no regrets. Do you still feel the same way? Do tell how this photograph changed from "art" to "sick shit" when nudity was involved...
There are two kinds of laws. The first type are those that reflect society's standards and morals, perhaps with delays. The second type of laws are those that reflect tyranny.
Honestly, if you defined child porn as e.g. "photographs depicting the sexual abuse of a child", even if that turned out to exclude some pictures that people might want to be included, how many dangerous paedophiles would have collections that didn't include any qualifying images? You only need enough rope to hang them
You believe that anyone in possession of child porn is a dangerous paedophile. This is rational as long as you believe that every adult in possession of any form of porn is a rapist.
You had shells and animal scat? You lads don't know how easy you had it. Giovanni Gabrieli paid me in dried moss and sea-weed, which is how you paid for things in the old times. Up the sacrificial pyramid both ways singing In Ecclesiis less the Scutellosaurus get you, the little knee-biters.
Yes: I think that the crimes perpetrated to generate that type of information should be highly illegal. I think the videos, or whatever other products themselves should be completely legal to buy, sell, have, and use. If the same information were generated without harming a child (good GC) then the only difference would be in the manner of production and under current laws both would still be illegal. Won't someone please think of the pixels!
If you're deciding between "intelligent" and "beatable" then you're not talking about AI. An average person far outclasses, in any sufficiently complex game, a computer in the area of general intelligence. Knowing the physics equasions for a certain hit, being able to throw a hundred commands per second at your unit, having 100 percent perfect aim, these things don't involve intelligence. A game that can, without cheating beat a person on equal footing will be intelligent. I don't think there are any.
The problem with child porn isn't the 'information', it is the obtaining of that information. If you claim that your right to free and uncensored information is worth so much, how about a child's right to not be exploited?
Here we have a definition problem. When you say "the problem with child porn" are you referring to the creation, holding, commissioning, possessing, distributing, or buying and selling of it? Only one of those acts involves exploiting a child.
While I'm not pro-censorship or anything like that, I find your argument and sig.... disagreeable. You seem to be seeing the world in black and white, without the shades of grey.
You say a picture or a video is just information. Ok, fair enough.
But just because information can be freely duplicted doesn't mean it isn't affected by the laws of supply and demand.
Some people will pay for this "information" (kiddie porn).
Therefore other people will create child porn, for money.
The creation of child porn (your definition may vary)should be punished, in my opinion, by death. Commissioning of child porn is accessory to the crime and should also be punished. On the other hand those who have not commissioned the deed should not be punished even if they buy child porn because they did not have a hand in the act. Would you make it a crime to sell the 9/11 videos? Surely billions of dollars have been made from those crimes. Where is the divide between the newscaster hawking scenes of death (if it bleeds it leads) and the exploitive pornographer hawking his wares? Surely either both should be illegal or neither.
Unfortunately those people do unspeakable awful things to innocent children in order to create the information, in order to satisfy that demand.
Punish them! punish them harshly! You will have all the evidence you need.
By your logic I have done nothing wrong if I say I will provide $10,000,000 for a video of someone shooting you in the head, and someone follows through and I pay them. Or your children. Heck, your whole family. If all of you died horribly, simply because I paid for some "information" have I done anything wrong? By your logic, no.
By my logic you have done something horrible, in commissioning the crime. The newscaster who puts it on for the 8:00 news hour in return for commercial profits has not. If you had specified a computer-generated video of such then nothing wrong would have been done at all.
Child pornography is not "information." Child pornography is a product made through the rape and other sexual abuse of children.
A picture is information. A video is information. Sound is information. QED
Since no one could possibly believe that CP is just "information" (and I have a very low opinion of the intelligence of most people), the most likely explanation for your position on this is that you are a consumer and/or producer of child pornography yourself.
Just to be sure I'm understanding you, you claim that classification of "product" as not different from "information" proves me to be a consumer or producer of child porn?
Never a legitimate reason to stop information? That's so ridiculous it's beneath discussion.No, no it's not. And while we're throwing around ad hominems you, sir or madam, are an idiot.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but that dream, while nice, just isn't true. The government is getting ever more efficient about controlling the populace and defining "center" and "extreme" points of view. (hint: if the leaders don't approve, its extreme.) There will come a time when Americans are brainwashed into forgetting that America was created by bloodthirsty revolutionaries. Americans will start to care more about a government handout than a violation of civil rights. Americans will believe to ever-greater extents that if the Government does it, it must have been a good thing. Dissent will lose popularity and the dissenting will be quietly imprisoned or marginalized. God forbid, it will happen.
I do think Child Pornography should be legal. There is never a legetimate reason to stop information. For society to be free, information must only be stopped at the source (security) or destination (filtering)
So are you a moron or just evil? If you are in the top few percentage points of human reaction speed, it will take you.3 seconds to see that you need to stop and another.2 seconds to move your foot. That is half a second of movement at whatever speed before those Porsche brakes can kick in. If you are exceeding the speed limit you are endangering the innocent. I hope you are blinded soon in a freak accident involving a spoonfull of salt, three copper wires, and a love doll and that you never drive again.
That is actually not true. What is death? When your heart stops? Are you dead when you stop breathing? Rigor Mortis? Properly diagnosed brain death seems like the only way so far, but the laws are far behind the science on that one.
The robotic assistants will be able to offer color-coordination and body-type advice at least. And then if you're female you'll find pictures of you all over the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Curtailing rights, raising taxes, and getting the governments fingers into even more of my business? This is exactly what they were intended to be used for.
I am less than convinced that there are Evil Hackers out there capable of and planning to shut down water systems and power distribution. However, should it be possible and occur, think about how short a time it took for New Orleans civil society to disintegrate.
New Orleans civil society didn't disintegrate because they couldn't conduct financial transactions, and the power was out. Also, I would bet my family jewels that there are indeed evil hackers out there planning to do evil things. Billions of dollars are spent on information security every year to prevent successful attacks, and decentralized security is the only real security.
When you hear words like terror, fear, public infrastructure, mass destruction, and attack, know that they are coming for your freedom.
Great fear. Terror even. Terrorism! Danger! Danger! Threat level orange! All good citizens must immediately surrender their rights! We'll start by outlawing spam. But how can we enforce it? We need to verify all e-mail legitimacy! We'll do it with technology. What is needed is a massive database of all e-mails sent, which will be filtered to assure that no 1,000 of them are the same. After that we'll send it to the intended recipient. Of course we'll have to keep logs...
Are you people fucking blind? This is a prepubescent girl pictured in the nude, for Christ sake!! How much more "consideration" do you need? Stop defending this sick shit for the sake of "art"! It's child porn, plain and simple, and the art director should have been arrested for photographing that little girl, not to mention her parents. You don't need a court to decide what your eyes should already tell you.
So you think a child should never, ever be photographed nude? How about paintings? What do you have to say to 1200 years of art history? How about my naked baby picture? The little girl was harmed not at all, grew up, and has no regrets. Do you still feel the same way? Do tell how this photograph changed from "art" to "sick shit" when nudity was involved...
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should never smoke crack.
There are two kinds of laws. The first type are those that reflect society's standards and morals, perhaps with delays. The second type of laws are those that reflect tyranny.
Honestly, if you defined child porn as e.g. "photographs depicting the sexual abuse of a child", even if that turned out to exclude some pictures that people might want to be included, how many dangerous paedophiles would have collections that didn't include any qualifying images? You only need enough rope to hang them
You believe that anyone in possession of child porn is a dangerous paedophile. This is rational as long as you believe that every adult in possession of any form of porn is a rapist.
You had shells and animal scat? You lads don't know how easy you had it. Giovanni Gabrieli paid me in dried moss and sea-weed, which is how you paid for things in the old times. Up the sacrificial pyramid both ways singing In Ecclesiis less the Scutellosaurus get you, the little knee-biters.
Yes: I think that the crimes perpetrated to generate that type of information should be highly illegal. I think the videos, or whatever other products themselves should be completely legal to buy, sell, have, and use. If the same information were generated without harming a child (good GC) then the only difference would be in the manner of production and under current laws both would still be illegal. Won't someone please think of the pixels!
If you're deciding between "intelligent" and "beatable" then you're not talking about AI. An average person far outclasses, in any sufficiently complex game, a computer in the area of general intelligence. Knowing the physics equasions for a certain hit, being able to throw a hundred commands per second at your unit, having 100 percent perfect aim, these things don't involve intelligence. A game that can, without cheating beat a person on equal footing will be intelligent. I don't think there are any.
The problem with child porn isn't the 'information', it is the obtaining of that information. If you claim that your right to free and uncensored information is worth so much, how about a child's right to not be exploited?
Here we have a definition problem. When you say "the problem with child porn" are you referring to the creation, holding, commissioning, possessing, distributing, or buying and selling of it? Only one of those acts involves exploiting a child.
While I'm not pro-censorship or anything like that, I find your argument and sig.... disagreeable. You seem to be seeing the world in black and white, without the shades of grey.
You say a picture or a video is just information. Ok, fair enough.
But just because information can be freely duplicted doesn't mean it isn't affected by the laws of supply and demand.
Some people will pay for this "information" (kiddie porn). Therefore other people will create child porn, for money.
The creation of child porn (your definition may vary)should be punished, in my opinion, by death. Commissioning of child porn is accessory to the crime and should also be punished. On the other hand those who have not commissioned the deed should not be punished even if they buy child porn because they did not have a hand in the act. Would you make it a crime to sell the 9/11 videos? Surely billions of dollars have been made from those crimes. Where is the divide between the newscaster hawking scenes of death (if it bleeds it leads) and the exploitive pornographer hawking his wares? Surely either both should be illegal or neither.
Unfortunately those people do unspeakable awful things to innocent children in order to create the information, in order to satisfy that demand.
Punish them! punish them harshly! You will have all the evidence you need.
By your logic I have done nothing wrong if I say I will provide $10,000,000 for a video of someone shooting you in the head, and someone follows through and I pay them. Or your children. Heck, your whole family. If all of you died horribly, simply because I paid for some "information" have I done anything wrong? By your logic, no.
By my logic you have done something horrible, in commissioning the crime. The newscaster who puts it on for the 8:00 news hour in return for commercial profits has not. If you had specified a computer-generated video of such then nothing wrong would have been done at all.
Child pornography is not "information." Child pornography is a product made through the rape and other sexual abuse of children.
A picture is information. A video is information. Sound is information. QED
Since no one could possibly believe that CP is just "information" (and I have a very low opinion of the intelligence of most people), the most likely explanation for your position on this is that you are a consumer and/or producer of child pornography yourself.
Just to be sure I'm understanding you, you claim that classification of "product" as not different from "information" proves me to be a consumer or producer of child porn?
Never a legitimate reason to stop information? That's so ridiculous it's beneath discussion.No, no it's not. And while we're throwing around ad hominems you, sir or madam, are an idiot.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but that dream, while nice, just isn't true. The government is getting ever more efficient about controlling the populace and defining "center" and "extreme" points of view. (hint: if the leaders don't approve, its extreme.) There will come a time when Americans are brainwashed into forgetting that America was created by bloodthirsty revolutionaries. Americans will start to care more about a government handout than a violation of civil rights. Americans will believe to ever-greater extents that if the Government does it, it must have been a good thing. Dissent will lose popularity and the dissenting will be quietly imprisoned or marginalized. God forbid, it will happen.
I do think Child Pornography should be legal. There is never a legetimate reason to stop information. For society to be free, information must only be stopped at the source (security) or destination (filtering)
So are you a moron or just evil? If you are in the top few percentage points of human reaction speed, it will take you .3 seconds to see that you need to stop and another .2 seconds to move your foot. That is half a second of movement at whatever speed before those Porsche brakes can kick in. If you are exceeding the speed limit you are endangering the innocent. I hope you are blinded soon in a freak accident involving a spoonfull of salt, three copper wires, and a love doll and that you never drive again.
That is actually not true. What is death? When your heart stops? Are you dead when you stop breathing? Rigor Mortis? Properly diagnosed brain death seems like the only way so far, but the laws are far behind the science on that one.
Silence Ann Coulter? Ask and ye shall receive.
What P,GP, and GGP said. I want my user page back.
was a gentleman in every sense of the word and a scholar. He died sick and starving because he believed so strongly in his message of peaceful communism. Marx spent his life for the impoverished. Marx created the only economic system that looked like it may compete with capitalism and despite the mess others have made of his work, the man himself diserves only the deepest respect. A socialist I am not but you, sir, are a fool.
...until you showed up you unmitigated bastard...
I beg to differ.
I don't want to hear any of you complaining about a Brittany Spears piece ever again.
Thats right, more people need to die! you go first.
The robotic assistants will be able to offer color-coordination and body-type advice at least. And then if you're female you'll find pictures of you all over the internet.