Exactly, most people don't install Vista. The people who sell/build computers install it for them.
There are actually a fair number of computer sellers (esp the beige/white box ones) that install XP instead because of the many Vista problems.
Others offer free options to "downgrade" to XP - these will probably still be counted as a Vista sale so that Microsoft can brag about how successful and popular Vista is.
I think "OEM XP" will still be around for a few months, at least XP Pro will be.
The baby is dead, drowned under tons of filthy bathwater. So why care?
1) The last I checked patents don't speed progress at all. It's all about anticompetitive tactics (and "if you don't patent obvious stuff, other people might and stop you from using it"). 2) The real innovators would be decades ahead (e.g. Douglas Engelbart and gang[1]), so much so that 20+ year patents wouldn't help them. They do stuff people only get 30 years later (if at all).
More than 99% of the patents are for obvious crap. Awarding 20+ year monopolies for such "tiny hops" is a travesty, and slows everyone down.
You could award prizes similar to democratic elections. You let voters nominate inventions that are older than 20 years (that have not already won), and then you have elections and people vote and say the top X inventions with more than Y votes and Z% of votes win (I'm sure there are people who can work out the details).
Sure it's crap, but it's a lot less crap than the other alternatives. Even if it ends up being some popularity contest, so what? It's apparently the least crappy way to choose leaders.
I think infant/child mortality might have been high. And there was a high risk of women dying in child birth.
But once you made it past that, my guess is you'd live fairly long, maybe not as long as now, but the biblical 70 years (3 score and ten) wouldn't have been far off. The biblical upper limit of 120 years seems to hold even till today.
"Some of the best ideas in history have been simple ones which, as soon as you hear them, you think "Now why didn't I think of that?"."
Because most people are stupid (or not innovative). And all these stupid people apply for patents which are approved by equally stupid patent examiners.
"Even if you put that to one side, how the devil do you demonstrate that your specific innovation is unlikely to be thought up independently by anyone else at some point in the next 10 years?"
As I said, that's why prizes are better than patents for rewarding and encouraging inventors.
In my opinion, if you really want to encourage innovation, patents should only be granted if you can be certain that if the invention was kept secret nobody else is likely to come up with it in the next X years where X is say half the length (10 years?) of the patent monopoly (20+ years?).
In other words - if you want to encourage innovation by giving monopolies, you should only give monopolies for really hard/nonobvious stuff, stuff that other people would have taken many more years to come up with. If you give monopolies for easy/obvious stuff, you stop other people from doing that easy/obvious stuff and thus you slow down innovation and progress.
As such, I think most existing patents should not have been granted.
For most patents, once an expert in the field encounters the same problem, they are likely to have an _idea_ of how to solve it within a day or two (if not within a _second_), and come out with an actual way (details etc) not long after.
So how would awarding a patent encourage innovation in this case? It would only hold back progress - by giving people the right to tax others for obvious bullshit for 20 years or longer.
> 99% of patents are really obvious junk (I think you'd have to be retard to not find them obvious).
It is not worth granting 20 year monopolies for 999 obvious crap patents from a few companies just so that one legit innovator gets a monopoly for 20 years.
Even giving out Prizes for Innovation (only inventions older than 10 years, and that were published, qualify - hindsight is always better:) ) is less likely to be as harmful.
Where the problem is: I think the people in the US should have a problem with the present (and proposed) underwhelming ISP subscription plans, since they've already paid USD 200 billion.
I heard that the US ISPs were given USD 200 billion (via tax credits, higher charges) in the understanding that they would roll out stuff like 45Mbps (up and down) speeds to subscribers (there was talk of fibre optics and so on).
If that USD 200 billion was actually used to improve internet connectivity, perhaps there wouldn't be such a great need to throttle P2P today in the USA. With current tech, USD 200 billion should go a lot further.
One of my theories is brains predict possible futures (by modelling reality in parallel), and consciousness is what happens when a brain recursively tries to simulate and predict itself.
There are already plenty of nonhuman intelligences around (see your local pet store). And how we handle them is not that great.
I personally am not sure if creation of AI will be a big benefit to humans in the long term. Perhaps augmentation of humans or animals would be more useful.
Given it's DARPA, examples of augmentation would be adding sensors and preprocessors that do automatic weapon detection and recognition (highlighting gun muzzles in undergrowth), "crack thump" calculation to locate snipers after they shoot, and so on.
It's actually interesting - so there could be black holes about the center of the earth right now, chewing up mass very slowly.
Also the authors intentionally ignore certain effects (reradiation - which can slow down mass gathering) and make certain other assumptions for the sake of conservative estimates ("worst case scenario").
Could a small black hole produce a magnetic field?
Actually what I'd like to know is if the small black hole initially created would be affected by electromagnetic forces.
If it isn't my guess is it'll fall towards to center of the earth gathering mass along the way and I suppose that means it will slow down perhaps overshooting the center a few times but eventually get stuck in the core of the earth continuing to chew up mass - I'm not sure how fast it'll swallow mass, but maybe there are already black holes at the center of the earth and they just don't chew up stuff that fast?
If it's affected by electromagnetic forces then the path it takes might be quite different. After all it'll start out quite low in mass.
Has any decent scientist modelled what would happen if a tiny black hole suddenly was formed at the surface of the earth?
There are some people who think that some ball lightning might be due to tiny black holes. I don't know enough physics to know whether that's possible or not.
I have not used P2P stuff in the past months or year even. But the vast majority of other users could be using malware infested machines that spam the world for all I know;).
Put it this way, I do agree you might be right, but I have no evidence - and lots of people here seem to say they download 24 hours a day.
Anyway, if 90% of the broadband users are light users, then ISPs may do better by shifting the high 10% to their competitors by having terms or "fine print" that won't affect the 90% but are unacceptable to the 10%, rather than spending money on increasing capacity (which appears to be what a lot of people here want). Or alternatively charging the 10% more.
Most normal people will go "150GB/month? I'd never download that much", whereas lots of people here might scream "that's not even 500kbps sustained".
What I want is very low latency connections for online games (and snappier web browsing, ssh), and enough bandwidth to watch youtube without hiccups, and download an ISO or two within a day, and not too onerous T&C terms in terms of rights (can run servers, share connections etc). But others might have different priorities. There are limits to low latency - speed of light is crap, but my current ISP sends my packets the wrong way round the world (possibly the right way in terms of $$$, but wrong in terms of milliseconds).
In theory heavy users can be catered for by implementing caching (P2P, web etc) if there were no danger from the **AA.
In theory you should be able to get the key from the camera and use it to sign whatever photo you create.
If the feature actually works (keys/crypto not broken etc), you know that photo or tampered photo is unlikely to be created by someone without access to that key.
But if you have had access to the camera, you might have the key.
Really? How do you oversell and not monitor and throttle if all of your customers start using P2P and leave their computers online all the time? It'll be like everyone picking up their phones and connecting to each other just to listen to music all day long.
If ISPs could set up "super" caching peers for P2P on their network that'll help a lot - but the MPAA and RIAA might give them problems, and also ISPs would still have to throttle inter-ISP P2P traffic (and prioritize traffic to their super peers - so they can cache stuff ASAP for their customers).
And the only way P2P caches could work at the moment is if ISPs snoop P2P traffic. Lots of people are going snooping and throttling = bad.
One way to oversell is to have "always on" internet connection at a crap priority by default, and users use a "dialer" to get a higher priority, and they get X hours a month depending on their package. But that's back to the bad old days of dial up (except that you still do get "always on", just at really crappy speeds - when no higher priority traffic is running).
It's trivial to throttle P2P traffic - non P2P apps (that aren't worms etc) don't normally make connections to dozens of other hosts at the same time (even if your heavy web browsing has many connections, those connections are usually to a few hosts). Thing is not everyone cares if their P2P connection is getting good rates all the time - sometimes users want it ASAP, and sometimes they're just "leaving it on". Without that dialer thing, it'll be hard to tell.
That's _recall_ though, and that's different - it's proven that most people can form false memories.
Some people might see more, but I bet most other people don't see much and they make most of it up when you ask them based on what they think they saw (which can be influenced by what you tell them).
You get dictatorships due to the design flaw in Marx Communism where Marx encourages violence in implementation plans, for example:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." - The Communist Manifesto (from translation at Project Gutenberg)
When you do things that way, it makes it more likely that the people who are willing and able to exert the most violence would get to the top.
A Communist Revolution is an opportunity for dictators to seize and hijack, to set up their dictatorships. Most of those fervent communists out there would be easy pawns for upcoming dictators - they cling to Marx and become tools of the Dictator.
After such people get to the top, only a exceedingly rare few would willingly give up their power. So what you end up is a Dictatorship till the people at top die of old age or pass their power to people not as bloodthirsty or ruthless (which is actually what you see happening in China - this current generation of leaders are not as ruthless as the previous and so on- compare them with their predecessors and Mao).
Citation - see the various "communist" countries around the world and history.
When Canadians order beer by the pint is it the UK pint or the US pint?
I've actually been to a place where draught Guiness was served in a bigger pint glass (UK pint?), and some other beer was served in a smaller pint glass (US pint?):).
"Linux would have helped, instead of having a sophisticated network system where you need a valid login/pass to get access to the updates for your computer system... all the updates needed come from trusted repositories, no password or login needed"
Firstly:
The Linux update system you are talking about is similar to Windows Update and Windows Update does not require "login/pass" to work.
Companies/Organisations typically use SMS and similar sort of update software in order to: 1) update THEIR own (custom, 3rd party) software, and 2) to have more control over it (less bandwidth used, updates only happen on known dates).
So in this case Linux wouldn't work so well either, they'd to do the same thing which could have similar problems username/password incorrect, repository pointed to out of date address etc.
Secondly: Even if software is updated it does not mean the malware would have been prevented from downloading porn.
That said, Linux is safer at the moment.
However this relative safety is not due to any technical (or inherent) security advantage of Linux - on all popular Linux distros (unless you count SELinux which currently is a bad joke for desktop users), if the default browser is exploited, malware can be installed that will continue to run and be able to download porn. Firefox has had many exploitable security problems.
The only reason why Linux is safer in this scenario is because "Desktop Linux" isn't very popular. So not many "desktop" hackers target Linux (waste of time). As you say there are hackers who do attack Linux servers.
Believe me if Desktop Linux (or Mac OSX for that matter) ever has a large percentage of the desktop market, things will change. Imagine what a malicious script can do on Linux. Hackers would be able to write updates to that script faster than the AV people can update their signatures or heuristics. The script could even google for updates and download them automatically:).
Thirdly: " the way windows lets any administrator process to re write almost any file instantly, and any file with a reboot"
Linux lets any root process rewrite almost any file too - no need for reboots.
I was in the IT security line for years and from a technical point of view, Linux doesn't really have better security than Windows. In fact Windows has better sandboxing (that's half usable by normal people). AppArmor isn't quite desktop ready yet, SELinux is not usable by normal people.
Lastly: The main problem is the company was so quick to sack that person just because they found porn on his computer.
"Frankly, there was child abuse involved, but it was at the hands of the prosecution"
Yeah, brings to mind those child rape/molestation stuff, where the "System" sends a 15 year old girl's 17 year old boyfriend to prison.
I bet the girl would be scarred and damaged more by the "System" jailing her boyfriend and telling her that he was evil, than by what her boyfriend did even though what he did was wrong.
Same goes for the case where kids send nude pics to each other and are charged with distributing child porn.
How about: "In Pittsburgh, a 15-year-old girl was arrested and charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography when she posted nude and sexually explicit photos of herself on the Internet in 2004".
Protect the children by exposing them to the System in its Full Naked Glory.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, most people don't install Vista. The people who sell/build computers install it for them.
There are actually a fair number of computer sellers (esp the beige/white box ones) that install XP instead because of the many Vista problems.
Others offer free options to "downgrade" to XP - these will probably still be counted as a Vista sale so that Microsoft can brag about how successful and popular Vista is.
I think "OEM XP" will still be around for a few months, at least XP Pro will be.
But Vista doesn't have a reality distortion field that's as strong :).
The baby is dead, drowned under tons of filthy bathwater. So why care?
1) The last I checked patents don't speed progress at all. It's all about anticompetitive tactics (and "if you don't patent obvious stuff, other people might and stop you from using it").
2) The real innovators would be decades ahead (e.g. Douglas Engelbart and gang[1]), so much so that 20+ year patents wouldn't help them. They do stuff people only get 30 years later (if at all).
More than 99% of the patents are for obvious crap. Awarding 20+ year monopolies for such "tiny hops" is a travesty, and slows everyone down.
You could award prizes similar to democratic elections. You let voters nominate inventions that are older than 20 years (that have not already won), and then you have elections and people vote and say the top X inventions with more than Y votes and Z% of votes win (I'm sure there are people who can work out the details).
Sure it's crap, but it's a lot less crap than the other alternatives. Even if it ends up being some popularity contest, so what? It's apparently the least crappy way to choose leaders.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos
I think infant/child mortality might have been high. And there was a high risk of women dying in child birth.
But once you made it past that, my guess is you'd live fairly long, maybe not as long as now, but the biblical 70 years (3 score and ten) wouldn't have been far off. The biblical upper limit of 120 years seems to hold even till today.
"Some of the best ideas in history have been simple ones which, as soon as you hear them, you think "Now why didn't I think of that?"."
Because most people are stupid (or not innovative). And all these stupid people apply for patents which are approved by equally stupid patent examiners.
"Even if you put that to one side, how the devil do you demonstrate that your specific innovation is unlikely to be thought up independently by anyone else at some point in the next 10 years?"
As I said, that's why prizes are better than patents for rewarding and encouraging inventors.
In my opinion, if you really want to encourage innovation, patents should only be granted if you can be certain that if the invention was kept secret nobody else is likely to come up with it in the next X years where X is say half the length (10 years?) of the patent monopoly (20+ years?).
:) ) is less likely to be as harmful.
In other words - if you want to encourage innovation by giving monopolies, you should only give monopolies for really hard/nonobvious stuff, stuff that other people would have taken many more years to come up with. If you give monopolies for easy/obvious stuff, you stop other people from doing that easy/obvious stuff and thus you slow down innovation and progress.
As such, I think most existing patents should not have been granted.
For most patents, once an expert in the field encounters the same problem, they are likely to have an _idea_ of how to solve it within a day or two (if not within a _second_), and come out with an actual way (details etc) not long after.
So how would awarding a patent encourage innovation in this case? It would only hold back progress - by giving people the right to tax others for obvious bullshit for 20 years or longer.
> 99% of patents are really obvious junk (I think you'd have to be retard to not find them obvious).
It is not worth granting 20 year monopolies for 999 obvious crap patents from a few companies just so that one legit innovator gets a monopoly for 20 years.
Even giving out Prizes for Innovation (only inventions older than 10 years, and that were published, qualify - hindsight is always better
Where the problem is: I think the people in the US should have a problem with the present (and proposed) underwhelming ISP subscription plans, since they've already paid USD 200 billion.
I heard that the US ISPs were given USD 200 billion (via tax credits, higher charges) in the understanding that they would roll out stuff like 45Mbps (up and down) speeds to subscribers (there was talk of fibre optics and so on).
If that USD 200 billion was actually used to improve internet connectivity, perhaps there wouldn't be such a great need to throttle P2P today in the USA. With current tech, USD 200 billion should go a lot further.
http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
One of my theories is brains predict possible futures (by modelling reality in parallel), and consciousness is what happens when a brain recursively tries to simulate and predict itself.
There are already plenty of nonhuman intelligences around (see your local pet store). And how we handle them is not that great.
I personally am not sure if creation of AI will be a big benefit to humans in the long term. Perhaps augmentation of humans or animals would be more useful.
Given it's DARPA, examples of augmentation would be adding sensors and preprocessors that do automatic weapon detection and recognition (highlighting gun muzzles in undergrowth), "crack thump" calculation to locate snipers after they shoot, and so on.
Ah, I finally RTFA.
It's actually interesting - so there could be black holes about the center of the earth right now, chewing up mass very slowly.
Also the authors intentionally ignore certain effects (reradiation - which can slow down mass gathering) and make certain other assumptions for the sake of conservative estimates ("worst case scenario").
Could a small black hole produce a magnetic field?
(I'm not a physicist)
Actually what I'd like to know is if the small black hole initially created would be affected by electromagnetic forces.
If it isn't my guess is it'll fall towards to center of the earth gathering mass along the way and I suppose that means it will slow down perhaps overshooting the center a few times but eventually get stuck in the core of the earth continuing to chew up mass - I'm not sure how fast it'll swallow mass, but maybe there are already black holes at the center of the earth and they just don't chew up stuff that fast?
If it's affected by electromagnetic forces then the path it takes might be quite different. After all it'll start out quite low in mass.
Has any decent scientist modelled what would happen if a tiny black hole suddenly was formed at the surface of the earth?
There are some people who think that some ball lightning might be due to tiny black holes. I don't know enough physics to know whether that's possible or not.
Why are you talking about "Schwelder domes"? Geodesic domes aren't Schwedler domes.
References:
http://www.geodesic-dome.co.uk/theory.htm
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/eng/research/ems/ssrc/intro.htm#taught%20programmes
In the article, that sentence refers to the Superior Dome, not the Tacoma Dome.
And the Superior Dome wikipedia article contradicts the Tacoma Dome article by claiming the Superior Dome is a geodesic dome.
I have not used P2P stuff in the past months or year even. But the vast majority of other users could be using malware infested machines that spam the world for all I know ;).
Put it this way, I do agree you might be right, but I have no evidence - and lots of people here seem to say they download 24 hours a day.
Anyway, if 90% of the broadband users are light users, then ISPs may do better by shifting the high 10% to their competitors by having terms or "fine print" that won't affect the 90% but are unacceptable to the 10%, rather than spending money on increasing capacity (which appears to be what a lot of people here want). Or alternatively charging the 10% more.
Most normal people will go "150GB/month? I'd never download that much", whereas lots of people here might scream "that's not even 500kbps sustained".
What I want is very low latency connections for online games (and snappier web browsing, ssh), and enough bandwidth to watch youtube without hiccups, and download an ISO or two within a day, and not too onerous T&C terms in terms of rights (can run servers, share connections etc). But others might have different priorities. There are limits to low latency - speed of light is crap, but my current ISP sends my packets the wrong way round the world (possibly the right way in terms of $$$, but wrong in terms of milliseconds).
In theory heavy users can be catered for by implementing caching (P2P, web etc) if there were no danger from the **AA.
In theory you should be able to get the key from the camera and use it to sign whatever photo you create.
If the feature actually works (keys/crypto not broken etc), you know that photo or tampered photo is unlikely to be created by someone without access to that key.
But if you have had access to the camera, you might have the key.
You seem very confident that peak demand is well below theoretical max.
Any evidence to back that confidence?
aka "citation needed"
Really? How do you oversell and not monitor and throttle if all of your customers start using P2P and leave their computers online all the time? It'll be like everyone picking up their phones and connecting to each other just to listen to music all day long.
If ISPs could set up "super" caching peers for P2P on their network that'll help a lot - but the MPAA and RIAA might give them problems, and also ISPs would still have to throttle inter-ISP P2P traffic (and prioritize traffic to their super peers - so they can cache stuff ASAP for their customers).
And the only way P2P caches could work at the moment is if ISPs snoop P2P traffic. Lots of people are going snooping and throttling = bad.
One way to oversell is to have "always on" internet connection at a crap priority by default, and users use a "dialer" to get a higher priority, and they get X hours a month depending on their package. But that's back to the bad old days of dial up (except that you still do get "always on", just at really crappy speeds - when no higher priority traffic is running).
It's trivial to throttle P2P traffic - non P2P apps (that aren't worms etc) don't normally make connections to dozens of other hosts at the same time (even if your heavy web browsing has many connections, those connections are usually to a few hosts). Thing is not everyone cares if their P2P connection is getting good rates all the time - sometimes users want it ASAP, and sometimes they're just "leaving it on". Without that dialer thing, it'll be hard to tell.
That's _recall_ though, and that's different - it's proven that most people can form false memories.
Some people might see more, but I bet most other people don't see much and they make most of it up when you ask them based on what they think they saw (which can be influenced by what you tell them).
But all someone needs to do is scream "They are distributing child porn!" and everyone loses their minds :).
Try resubmitting the story (with the "correct" units etc).
:).
Then a dupe might be posted later
Yeah, I was thinking that 21C for "built/grow" could be more like the 0 degrees C point for freezing, than our 37 degrees C for body temperature.
That is to say, it's not so much that the trees do the regulation, but that 21C is just where the sugars start easily "freezing" to cellulose.
So some trees might have to do special stuff to grow, but other trees might not.
The 21C point is still an interesting finding (if it's true).
You get dictatorships due to the design flaw in Marx Communism where Marx encourages violence in implementation plans, for example:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." - The Communist Manifesto (from translation at Project Gutenberg)
When you do things that way, it makes it more likely that the people who are willing and able to exert the most violence would get to the top.
A Communist Revolution is an opportunity for dictators to seize and hijack, to set up their dictatorships. Most of those fervent communists out there would be easy pawns for upcoming dictators - they cling to Marx and become tools of the Dictator.
After such people get to the top, only a exceedingly rare few would willingly give up their power. So what you end up is a Dictatorship till the people at top die of old age or pass their power to people not as bloodthirsty or ruthless (which is actually what you see happening in China - this current generation of leaders are not as ruthless as the previous and so on- compare them with their predecessors and Mao).
Citation - see the various "communist" countries around the world and history.
Shouldn't it be more confusing outside the UK?
:).
When Canadians order beer by the pint is it the UK pint or the US pint?
I've actually been to a place where draught Guiness was served in a bigger pint glass (UK pint?), and some other beer was served in a smaller pint glass (US pint?)
"And second, by tomorrow, nobody will even remember this story existed"
:)
That's when we get a dupe right?
"Linux would have helped, instead of having a sophisticated network system where you need a valid login/pass to get access to the updates for your computer system... all the updates needed come from trusted repositories, no password or login needed"
:).
Firstly:
The Linux update system you are talking about is similar to Windows Update and Windows Update does not require "login/pass" to work.
Companies/Organisations typically use SMS and similar sort of update software in order to:
1) update THEIR own (custom, 3rd party) software, and
2) to have more control over it (less bandwidth used, updates only happen on known dates).
So in this case Linux wouldn't work so well either, they'd to do the same thing which could have similar problems username/password incorrect, repository pointed to out of date address etc.
Secondly:
Even if software is updated it does not mean the malware would have been prevented from downloading porn.
That said, Linux is safer at the moment.
However this relative safety is not due to any technical (or inherent) security advantage of Linux - on all popular Linux distros (unless you count SELinux which currently is a bad joke for desktop users), if the default browser is exploited, malware can be installed that will continue to run and be able to download porn. Firefox has had many exploitable security problems.
The only reason why Linux is safer in this scenario is because "Desktop Linux" isn't very popular. So not many "desktop" hackers target Linux (waste of time). As you say there are hackers who do attack Linux servers.
Believe me if Desktop Linux (or Mac OSX for that matter) ever has a large percentage of the desktop market, things will change. Imagine what a malicious script can do on Linux. Hackers would be able to write updates to that script faster than the AV people can update their signatures or heuristics. The script could even google for updates and download them automatically
Thirdly:
" the way windows lets any administrator process to re write almost any file instantly, and any file with a reboot"
Linux lets any root process rewrite almost any file too - no need for reboots.
I was in the IT security line for years and from a technical point of view, Linux doesn't really have better security than Windows. In fact Windows has better sandboxing (that's half usable by normal people). AppArmor isn't quite desktop ready yet, SELinux is not usable by normal people.
Lastly:
The main problem is the company was so quick to sack that person just because they found porn on his computer.
"Frankly, there was child abuse involved, but it was at the hands of the prosecution"
Yeah, brings to mind those child rape/molestation stuff, where the "System" sends a 15 year old girl's 17 year old boyfriend to prison.
I bet the girl would be scarred and damaged more by the "System" jailing her boyfriend and telling her that he was evil, than by what her boyfriend did even though what he did was wrong.
Same goes for the case where kids send nude pics to each other and are charged with distributing child porn.
How about: "In Pittsburgh, a 15-year-old girl was arrested and charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography when she posted nude and sexually explicit photos of herself on the Internet in 2004".
Protect the children by exposing them to the System in its Full Naked Glory.
Amazing.