In that case, yes, they should charge him. But it's irrelevant to this case, because gambling software itself is not illegal, just accepting bets with it. You can write and export the software to jurisdictions where they actually accept bets.
"Force"? You drank too much of the kool-aid. Copyright is a privilege we (society) grant to authors - such as myself - and which can be canceled when we want.
Again, you seem to take the polar opposite here by saying that censoring pornography will cause extreme political ideaology to prevail and we will go through other Holocaust.
No, that's not what I said or meant.
You argued that we should ban pornography due to its harmful nature to society.
I'm saying that political speech has itself caused much more harm, therefore by your argument, it should be censored too.
Those who advocate censorship are not all Facists and Maoists - they just want their future generation to have a higher view of women and more respect for them.
Sure, and I don't doubt that.
But the issue that renders censorship to be so dangerous is that there was never an implementation of it that wasn't abused by those who chose what was censored, either by incompetence or malice. Even in Australia, a democratic country by all accounts, had plenty of innocent sites banned by their online filters.
The fact that the classification is usually extremely murky (just try to get ten people to agree on a definition of "pornography") just makes things worse.
Furthermore, I have an issue with banning pornography being a women respecting action.
When women enjoy making and publishing their own porn for other women, which focus on their needs and pleasures, and we tell them to shut up because what they're doing is "forbidden", are we really respecting them? Or are we being patronizing and actually disrespecting them even more?
Frankly, I find the idea that we should decide for women if they should do pornography or not to be abhorrent and extremely disrespectful of their will as free individuals.
Read and reflect on reports on how young boys are watching extreme pornographic, and then getting a girlfriend and trying the same things they have seen, which can cause the girl pain and emotional distress.
Sure, and I find that terrible. But why did the boy try that, if it caused pain on the girl?
Either he didn't know it would - and then I argue the real problem is the lack of education that ensure the kids remain completely ignorant about such issues, and that porn is the only source of "knowledge" they have, and the solution is not to ban porn but to teach and make more, good porn which respects everyone involved.
Or the kid didn't care about the pain it would cause, in which case I think it's obvious why porn is not the real issue.
In either case, pornography seems like a scapegoat we use to avoid seeing the flaws that the parents and other educators in our society have, and the harm they are imposing.
When is comes to moderation, pornography will always lead to excess as it encourages a quick-route to satisfaction which will always be addictive. A quick route to pleasure without very little effort is very addictive regardless of the vice.
Maybe; but that doesn't mean it should be banned.
Age is definately a factor in determing how people think and view life. Our thoughts evolve everyday - this doesn't make me "ageist" as you describe
No, the fact that you think people of a certain age are necessarily "more right" does.
it's not suprising a pro-pornography person such as yourself will be quick to make me out to be discriminatory and try make yourself out to be the hero. Now I guess im "anti-liberalist" for pointing out your modus operandi.
I'm not pro-pornography, I'm anti-censorship. I defend the right of people expressing themselves, regardless of whether it is by having sex or by wearing a Swastika, as long as they don't violate the rights of others.
And of course you're discriminatory. So am I, so are all of us, it's part of the human condition. But we should point it out when we see it, and try to correct it.
Linguistically you're first point may make sense but practically it does not. Censorship is not a form of pornography.
Not only pornography can be obscene.
I wouldn't call pronography a sound form of expression. Just look at the effects of it on our society.
Political speech, the protected speech by definition, brought us Fascism, National Socialism, Maoism and all the other political ideologies with millions of deaths in their history. Pornography has nothing on them in terms of "effects on society".
I hate to play the censorship card on this one but I am a realist - censoring people from material that is good for them is no different from preventing people from taking hard drugs such heroin.
I agree. Thankfully, where I live we've decriminalized the consumption of all drugs, including heroin. And usage dropped.
Grosteque tabus around sex is one extreme and it's complete openess devoid of censorship is another. Like I said we need an equilibrium here.
Soviet propaganda is an extreme, the truth is another, do we need an equilibrium? Argument to moderation is a fallacy; the middle term is not always the best course of action.
It may not but the correlation I am observing is that younger people such as myself have less reponsibility such as children. Therefore they are less likely to understand what it really means to have your children at risk on the internet, such as being exposed to uncensored pornography with all its genres.
Young people were themselves children not that long ago. But in any case, instead of making an ageist argument, you could instead provide evidence of those risks of uncensored pornography. I'll in turn provide the evidence of what censorship has caused throughout History.
I read a good post on slashdot a few days back about how students are usually left-wing and anti-taxation, until they step into the real world after they've done their degree and start earning.
You could attribute that to them being wiser. You could also attribute that to fear of losing their job. The status quo is always the choice of the average salaryman.
A complete lack of censorship is all good until you discover it's your children viewing the pornography
There was never a work of pornography more obscene than censorship.
pornography which helps subconsciously shape their view of women and men in society.
The idea that some people can forcefully prevent others from expressing themselves shapes their views too, and in much more dangerous ways.
Plus, pornography only shapes our views of other people because of the grotesque tabus we have around 'sex', which ensure that porn is the kids' only source of information. Censoring just hides the problem, it doesn't fix it.
Does it come as a suprise that the strongest anti-censorship activists are young people without children?
Activists in general are young, and young people have less children. That says nothing about anti-censorship activists in particular.
But in any case, who forks the money is irrelevant. It's kind of hard to keep a job as a kernel developer if you can't get your patches accepted, so Linus controls their paychecks, much like any manager.
That's because the server has no way of knowing anything about the passphrase unless the client tells it, and no way of knowing if the client is telling the truth, so it would be foolish to include such verification.
No, now that you properly abased OP with your post, I'm sure s/he has seen the light and will relinquish all the media devices from the house until the kid is 33 and married.
And how many clients do you think they would have if they only had Portal, HL, L4D and a few indie games nobody has ever head of?
DRM is a requirement if you want big publishers selling their games on your store. It's the people who actually buy the games that can shape the market, by refusing to buy DRMed crap.
Yes, doing various activities? Unpossible! If the parent wants to let the kid play with something, that obviously means that's all the kid will do all day!
As soon as I ready the title, I knew that some condescending prick would post something like this.
Who the fuck said anything about substituting normal communication with this? Are you somehow incapable of doing more than one thing per day, let alone per week?
Your study proposes imposing limits on screen time, not banning them as if a couple of hours of TV per week is going to mush the kids brains. Stop assuming everyone but you is incapable of having common sense.
I think parent's talking about the fact that the executive body (the European Commission) is not directly elected but appointed by the European Council, and then approved by the European Parliament, so there's a lot of layers between the citizens and the EC members.
You should consider the difference in the national governments. Living in Portugal, the European Directives are often much more aligned with our population's interests than our own legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
In that case, yes, they should charge him. But it's irrelevant to this case, because gambling software itself is not illegal, just accepting bets with it. You can write and export the software to jurisdictions where they actually accept bets.
"Force"? You drank too much of the kool-aid. Copyright is a privilege we (society) grant to authors - such as myself - and which can be canceled when we want.
Again, you seem to take the polar opposite here by saying that censoring pornography will cause extreme political ideaology to prevail and we will go through other Holocaust.
No, that's not what I said or meant.
You argued that we should ban pornography due to its harmful nature to society.
I'm saying that political speech has itself caused much more harm, therefore by your argument, it should be censored too.
Those who advocate censorship are not all Facists and Maoists - they just want their future generation to have a higher view of women and more respect for them.
Sure, and I don't doubt that.
But the issue that renders censorship to be so dangerous is that there was never an implementation of it that wasn't abused by those who chose what was censored, either by incompetence or malice.
Even in Australia, a democratic country by all accounts, had plenty of innocent sites banned by their online filters.
The fact that the classification is usually extremely murky (just try to get ten people to agree on a definition of "pornography") just makes things worse.
Furthermore, I have an issue with banning pornography being a women respecting action.
When women enjoy making and publishing their own porn for other women, which focus on their needs and pleasures, and we tell them to shut up because what they're doing is "forbidden", are we really respecting them? Or are we being patronizing and actually disrespecting them even more?
Frankly, I find the idea that we should decide for women if they should do pornography or not to be abhorrent and extremely disrespectful of their will as free individuals.
Read and reflect on reports on how young boys are watching extreme pornographic, and then getting a girlfriend and trying the same things they have seen, which can cause the girl pain and emotional distress.
Sure, and I find that terrible. But why did the boy try that, if it caused pain on the girl?
Either he didn't know it would - and then I argue the real problem is the lack of education that ensure the kids remain completely ignorant about such issues, and that porn is the only source of "knowledge" they have, and the solution is not to ban porn but to teach and make more, good porn which respects everyone involved.
Or the kid didn't care about the pain it would cause, in which case I think it's obvious why porn is not the real issue.
In either case, pornography seems like a scapegoat we use to avoid seeing the flaws that the parents and other educators in our society have, and the harm they are imposing.
When is comes to moderation, pornography will always lead to excess as it encourages a quick-route to satisfaction which will always be addictive. A quick route to pleasure without very little effort is very addictive regardless of the vice.
Maybe; but that doesn't mean it should be banned.
Age is definately a factor in determing how people think and view life. Our thoughts evolve everyday - this doesn't make me "ageist" as you describe
No, the fact that you think people of a certain age are necessarily "more right" does.
it's not suprising a pro-pornography person such as yourself will be quick to make me out to be discriminatory and try make yourself out to be the hero. Now I guess im "anti-liberalist" for pointing out your modus operandi.
I'm not pro-pornography, I'm anti-censorship. I defend the right of people expressing themselves, regardless of whether it is by having sex or by wearing a Swastika, as long as they don't violate the rights of others.
And of course you're discriminatory. So am I, so are all of us, it's part of the human condition. But we should point it out when we see it, and try to correct it.
However I
FSF is not against Secure Boot, just against implementations that remove the control from the user.
Yes, saying they don't want my measly $20 or $40
I have no idea where you saw that. The header of the page clearly says:
Start your membership today with a $10 donation
And yes, you can donate just that.
Signing something saying I won't buy a UEFI-enabled system
Good thing the FSF statement doesn't say that.
Good thing that the FSF isn't against Secure Boot, but against implementations of it that don't allow the user to install free software OSs.
The threat is not the UEFI specification itself, but in how computer manufacturers choose to implement the boot restrictions.
Linguistically you're first point may make sense but practically it does not. Censorship is not a form of pornography.
Not only pornography can be obscene.
I wouldn't call pronography a sound form of expression. Just look at the effects of it on our society.
Political speech, the protected speech by definition, brought us Fascism, National Socialism, Maoism and all the other political ideologies with millions of deaths in their history. Pornography has nothing on them in terms of "effects on society".
I hate to play the censorship card on this one but I am a realist - censoring people from material that is good for them is no different from preventing people from taking hard drugs such heroin.
I agree. Thankfully, where I live we've decriminalized the consumption of all drugs, including heroin. And usage dropped.
Grosteque tabus around sex is one extreme and it's complete openess devoid of censorship is another. Like I said we need an equilibrium here.
Soviet propaganda is an extreme, the truth is another, do we need an equilibrium? Argument to moderation is a fallacy; the middle term is not always the best course of action.
It may not but the correlation I am observing is that younger people such as myself have less reponsibility such as children. Therefore they are less likely to understand what it really means to have your children at risk on the internet, such as being exposed to uncensored pornography with all its genres.
Young people were themselves children not that long ago. But in any case, instead of making an ageist argument, you could instead provide evidence of those risks of uncensored pornography. I'll in turn provide the evidence of what censorship has caused throughout History.
I read a good post on slashdot a few days back about how students are usually left-wing and anti-taxation, until they step into the real world after they've done their degree and start earning.
You could attribute that to them being wiser. You could also attribute that to fear of losing their job. The status quo is always the choice of the average salaryman.
A complete lack of censorship is all good until you discover it's your children viewing the pornography
There was never a work of pornography more obscene than censorship.
pornography which helps subconsciously shape their view of women and men in society.
The idea that some people can forcefully prevent others from expressing themselves shapes their views too, and in much more dangerous ways.
Plus, pornography only shapes our views of other people because of the grotesque tabus we have around 'sex', which ensure that porn is the kids' only source of information. Censoring just hides the problem, it doesn't fix it.
Does it come as a suprise that the strongest anti-censorship activists are young people without children?
Activists in general are young, and young people have less children. That says nothing about anti-censorship activists in particular.
He didn't say that the developers don't get paid
The first phrase certainly implied it.
But in any case, who forks the money is irrelevant. It's kind of hard to keep a job as a kernel developer if you can't get your patches accepted, so Linus controls their paychecks, much like any manager.
Says you.
How does the server know the key came from a smartcard?
That's because the server has no way of knowing anything about the passphrase unless the client tells it, and no way of knowing if the client is telling the truth, so it would be foolish to include such verification.
But then you could only sell all your songs as a package, instead of piecemeal.
No, now that you properly abased OP with your post, I'm sure s/he has seen the light and will relinquish all the media devices from the house until the kid is 33 and married.
And how many clients do you think they would have if they only had Portal, HL, L4D and a few indie games nobody has ever head of?
DRM is a requirement if you want big publishers selling their games on your store.
It's the people who actually buy the games that can shape the market, by refusing to buy DRMed crap.
Yes, I'm sure you know what a kid you know nothing about wants better than his or her parents.
And I'm sure that if people here act like condescending pricks, all those lazy parents will see the errors of their ways and turn off the TVs.
And sleeping is more important than reading Slashdot, therefore we should be always sleeping and never read slashdot, not even for 5mins.
Yes, doing various activities? Unpossible! If the parent wants to let the kid play with something, that obviously means that's all the kid will do all day!
As soon as I ready the title, I knew that some condescending prick would post something like this.
Who the fuck said anything about substituting normal communication with this? Are you somehow incapable of doing more than one thing per day, let alone per week?
Your study proposes imposing limits on screen time, not banning them as if a couple of hours of TV per week is going to mush the kids brains. Stop assuming everyone but you is incapable of having common sense.
You say $20 would pay for your expenses for the day? I thought that room and board would be more than that.
It depends on where you live; it should be enough in cheap countries, like Cambodia.
Tell what? They don't own empty space itself, just an object that's in it.
I think parent's talking about the fact that the executive body (the European Commission) is not directly elected but appointed by the European Council, and then approved by the European Parliament, so there's a lot of layers between the citizens and the EC members.
You should consider the difference in the national governments. Living in Portugal, the European Directives are often much more aligned with our population's interests than our own legislation.