X11 does not go over the network for local desktops. You need to read up on unix domain sockets. XFree86 is not "slow because it is going over the network all the time." That is the uninformed opinion of many non programmers but that does not make it true.
There are many reasons for perceived slowness in Linux guis. Some include the state of drivers on various video platforms, what window manager and desktop environment you use, how bloated they are/aren't and what they choose to helpflly load for you (damn Nautilus! 120MB RAM for a file exploration program??).
If you just use Xfree86, you will find it runs pretty fast. Even if you throw on a window manager like fvwm2, it is still fast. It is only when you throw in all kinds of other stuff that you start to slow down, and even then only if you have old slow hardware anyway. Also, Xfree86 != X11. It is an X11 implementation common on open source OS's, but its speed or lack thereof is *not* an indictment of the X11 protocol itself.
The fact is that the revolutionaries did engage in violent acts. The government was ultimately overthrown democratically, but there was a lot of violence involved on both sides in getting there. I really don't see how you can say that killing informers is not an act of revolution.
I think that'e the biggest problem with the mozilla stance on the issue and most of the posts here. Phoenix had to be changed because it was someone else's name. Before changing the name to Firebird the Mozilla people did a name search and found that there was another Open Source Firebird already, but rather than contact anyone involved in it they just decided it was a small enough group they could just stomp on it and who cares. It is an example of what is to come, with Open Source projects getting taken over by megacorporations like aol/time/warner/bmi/whatever they will throw their weight around even more than Microsoft (would microsoft even dae to steal somone's name without buying their company first?).
Sounds to me like it's all black and white to you. Beat down the loopholes, then nail these suckers to the wall. But what's the difference between a "virus" doing the downloading and the browser cache doing it? What if you clicked on a link you didn't intend to, or what if you were just curious where something that was vaguely named went to? Now you've got pictures of people on your screen that you didn't want. And in your browser cache. So, loopholes all having been gotten rid of, how will you defend yourself? I'd like to defend myself by saying, "but I didn't do anything" not by having someone say "but I imagine you would have". Because what you imagine I'm going to do and what I am in fact going to do might be very different.
No it's not all black and white to me, though I could see how you would get that impression. I should point out the idea of trying to nail people on pictures in their browser cache and deleted files is somewhat frightening to me, especially with all the kidpr0n spamming on ICQ and email. I think proper forensic analysis of hard drive data is a process that should be improved significantly. It should not be just a matter of "Well I found 5 pictures in the deleted files of your hard drive that might or might not be underaged models so you are going to jail, bucko."
As I state in anoter reply below, I was reacting mostly to the idea you seemed to espouse that it is okay to allow kidpr0n. I think it is not because destigmatizing these fantasies is an enabler to the behaviour. Current methods of dealing with the problem might probably be reformed, but I can't see kidpr0n as harmless because of the nature of its use and the set of ideas to which the idea of its being harmless leads.
It is important to recognize, however, that the legal system is not an appropriate place to deal with medical issues. It does no good to this consumer, nor to society at large, and in particular the children within society, to deal with that person's mental problem, if it is such, by putting the person in prison. However, this is the approach that our society prefers to take, primarily, I presume, because it's easier than actually dealing with the real problem. The same holds true with current drug laws.
This is true, but in many states mandatory treatment is a part of sentencing. I would think it would be best if in cases where the person did not act on these impulses mandatory treatment in itself would be the whole of the sentence. In some cases it probably is.
It should never be illegal simply to enjoy something. If I happen to enjoy killing, that's one thing. If I actually go out and kill someone, that's another thing entirely. We have laws against that, and I don't propose that those laws be changed. But to simply be a person who enjoys killing, and not actually do it, should never be illegal. I should, in that case, seek professional help as a preventive measure. But let's not throw people in prison for thoughts, ideas, and desires -- even if those thoughts, ideas and desires are diseased.
Let the medical profession deal with diseases, and the police deal with criminal acts.
In general I agree with this approach, however firstly I must point out that in practice it is impossible to mandate treatment for mental disorders without involving the courts and police. I shoudl also hasten to point out my post was mainly a reaction to my perception the parent post was saying it was okay for people to have and use child pornography.
My position is it is not okay, and we should not enable the behaviour of people in general when it is likely to lead to ruin for them and grievous harm for others. We should instead throw red flags high in the air, set of loud sirens, and join in a concert of "don't do that!"
The idea that some thouhgts and ideas are dangerous is in itself a dangerous idea, and should indeed set off red flags. But likewise it is important that in the case of certain things which we as a society have decided are not okay it remains understood they are not okay.
Someone who is thinking about abusing a child should realise right away that to act on such urges would be a very bad thing, and that if they continue to have such urges they should try to get help to understand why. (Perhaps they were themselves abused as a child and have repressed the memory, for instance.) If we allow people to maintain collections of this pornography and in any way remove the stigma of the child abuse itself, as suggested by the poster, we are enabling the behaviour of the abusers by saying it is okay to want to abuse children.
It is not okay to want to kill people, and it is not okay to plan to kill people, and by the way people are prosecuted and put in jail for doing so. There is even a prominent case in which a man who was thought to be a potential danger to his ex-wife was put into prison for owning a gun.
I think the most important part of this thoughts and feelings and planning issue is the distinction between thinking about doing something and thinking about it. For instance it is one thing to think about the idea of killing, but it is quite another to think about killing someone, and another matter altogether to obsess daily about killing a particular person (in the vein of Sirhan Sirhan filling notebooks with "RFK must die").
In the case of child pornography, we are dealing firstly with an obsession. This is not something which is just casually happened upon. There is a lot of premeditation and thought involved here. Secondly, it is an urge which the pedophile often seems to feel unable to control. People who seek help for this problem often do because they realize it is wrong
The was going by US law, specifically the property seizure laws passed as part of the drug war (of course, the kidpr0n case under discussion did occur in the UK...). Under such laws, if a tenant is involved in the manufacture and/or distribution of narcotics the landlord can be held liable and the property seized. It was meant as a means to get landlords to watch tenants and turn them in, beside the fact most landlords spy on their tenants (they routinely have maintenance enter whether you know they are going there or not, and scout around) and will evict on suspicion of any such activity.
What I think is missing here is what the trojan was. If it was identified, they should have told what it is. If it is not identified, no AV software can protect you, and they shoudl have reported that. Then again, the whole thing could have been hypothetical (they did not find a trojan, they just claimed it was possible a trojan did it) which is even more dangerous because no one will find the trojan if it exists, and if it does not we let a kiddie porn enthusiast free (or rather the uk did).
Child porn is caught in between these two scenarios, I think, with some parts of it falling into one scenario and some into the other. Certainly, if the pics are of real children, then that's bad. But it's within range of technology to make the entire industry based on fabricated images. Then who would be the victim? If no child was abused in the taking of the pictures, for all we know, the people in possession of them are sublimating urges they might otherwise carry out. Is taking the photos away going to cause them to not have the urge? Or just cause them to be out on the street seeking real children? We're so quick to make assumptions in this area, I just don't know why we don't just make a death penalty for anyone even suspected of child abuse or kiddie porn and be done with it mercifully, because nothing the person can do for the rest of their life after they're found in possession of something like this will ever be normal.
I think at the heart of this problem is the question of children being abused, and it appears you acknowlege that much. And I understand your argument about when abuse takes place. But let's think this out a minute.
The laws against child pornography are primarily aimed at preventing child abuse. In order to produce most child pornography, children have to be abused by someone. So by trying to find the offending material and investigating to find the sources, the hope is we can prevent the abuse. This of course often involves detaining, interrogating and prosecuting end-users.
Your main issue seems to be with the process of prosecuting end-users, especially if the pornography is virtual (in other words no children were harmed in the making o fthis production, etc etc..). But again, there are important facts to consider. The consumer of child pornography has a mental problem such that viewing pictures of children being abused is enjoyable to them. They like to watch children being abused, and fantasize about abusing children. They may fear actually acting on their fantasies, but this does not mean they will not. It is clear they have taken a step in that direction, and if unchecked they may very well (as many have) act on such fantasies, especially in a moment of passion given sufficient opportunity with a perceived minimum of risk in being caught.
It is also clear that it has been common in the past for consumers of child pornography to become purveyors themselves. In the past, this was apparently the most common method for pedophiles to obtain pornography (essentially by swapping pictures like trading cards).
It is important to recognize that in our society it is unacceptable not only to abuse children, but to enjoy abusing children. If someone enjoys abusing children, and enjoys the idea, the hope is we can intervene and get this person help before they actually harm a child. That is why these laws are important.
But you read slashdot, and all of these things were announced on slashdot. Indeed, there were dupes, and just in case we forgot, the stories were ressurected many many times. Then there were any number of "what database is best?" articles and ask slashdots, which quickly degenerated into a discussion of similar calibre to the various "emacs vs vi" arguments.
Maybe that article recently about there being too many Open Source Projects was on the mark. Certainly it makes sense in the face of the fact that even with all the coverage on slashdot of other databases, the most widely known DB among slashdotters is the one slashdot uses: MySQL.
Firebird has been mentioned in pretty much every discussion of Open Source databases that has come across this site, and in a number of others as well. It does not have the reputation necessarily of MySQL or Oracle, but it is not quite so unknown as people would suggest...
The tire necklacing of government informants is not like the beheading of aristocrats? Not a shot fired in South Africa? Man. You have some very strange ideas about history.
What he said was interesting enough. Of course not only was what he said in the context of a work of fiction, the character he was playing at the time was lying when he said it as well. He was pretending to be a revolutionary when in reality all he wanted was money. Then again, this applies to bin laden irl as well...
God, reading comprehension on Slashdot is about as common as common sense. The parent was syaing that, were he to submit a bill to microsoft for support costs, there is no way they can verify what he truly paid his support people. He is not saying his support staff really get paid $250k/year or indeed even that he has a support staff (of 100).
It should not go down. If the whole network can even possibly go down at once, we are probbaly talking about a small network. Even then, we should be talking about minutes to bringing it back up or the people in charge are not doing their job.
Or when they disconnect their portable, and take it to a meeting?
When they bring the portable to a meeting, they should be jacking into the network. If they are offsite, they should be connecting home via a vpn.
Sorry. There's lots of environments where "save everything to the file server" is *really* bad advice. (And of course, many where it's good advice.)
Yes, badly designed, shoddily built, and poorly maintained environments. Come to think of it, in any environment "save everything to the server" is the best advice, and if there is a reason it does not work, it should be fixed.
Oh come now, the imac is equally useful. What's a gun with no ammunition?:)
Re:What I want to know is...
on
T-Shirt Cannon
·
· Score: 1
I think the poster meant "what did the frog look like after impacting a kid's face hard enough to break it."
Man to me the worst part of the story was:
Lisa Berry said that the force of the blast blew off her son's eyelids.
"If he cries, it burns his eyes," she said. "I never thought any toy a child could order would wound my child like that."
Now that would seriously suck. Your eyes are knocked out, your face is broken, and if you cry then it really starts to hurt. I guess it is a good reason not to look into the barrel of a loaded weapon...
Slashdot Mirror
X11 does not go over the network for local desktops. You need to read up on unix domain sockets. XFree86 is not "slow because it is going over the network all the time." That is the uninformed opinion of many non programmers but that does not make it true.
There are many reasons for perceived slowness in Linux guis. Some include the state of drivers on various video platforms, what window manager and desktop environment you use, how bloated they are/aren't and what they choose to helpflly load for you (damn Nautilus! 120MB RAM for a file exploration program??).
If you just use Xfree86, you will find it runs pretty fast. Even if you throw on a window manager like fvwm2, it is still fast. It is only when you throw in all kinds of other stuff that you start to slow down, and even then only if you have old slow hardware anyway. Also, Xfree86 != X11. It is an X11 implementation common on open source OS's, but its speed or lack thereof is *not* an indictment of the X11 protocol itself.
I guess there is still room for debate, then, eh?
The fact is that the revolutionaries did engage in violent acts. The government was ultimately overthrown democratically, but there was a lot of violence involved on both sides in getting there. I really don't see how you can say that killing informers is not an act of revolution.
I think that'e the biggest problem with the mozilla stance on the issue and most of the posts here. Phoenix had to be changed because it was someone else's name. Before changing the name to Firebird the Mozilla people did a name search and found that there was another Open Source Firebird already, but rather than contact anyone involved in it they just decided it was a small enough group they could just stomp on it and who cares. It is an example of what is to come, with Open Source projects getting taken over by megacorporations like aol/time/warner/bmi/whatever they will throw their weight around even more than Microsoft (would microsoft even dae to steal somone's name without buying their company first?).
Erm, just a guess, but I would suspect the person who said it was Tom Waits. :P
Sounds to me like it's all black and white to you. Beat down the loopholes, then nail these suckers to the wall. But what's the difference between a "virus" doing the downloading and the browser cache doing it? What if you clicked on a link you didn't intend to, or what if you were just curious where something that was vaguely named went to? Now you've got pictures of people on your screen that you didn't want. And in your browser cache. So, loopholes all having been gotten rid of, how will you defend yourself? I'd like to defend myself by saying, "but I didn't do anything" not by having someone say "but I imagine you would have". Because what you imagine I'm going to do and what I am in fact going to do might be very different.
No it's not all black and white to me, though I could see how you would get that impression. I should point out the idea of trying to nail people on pictures in their browser cache and deleted files is somewhat frightening to me, especially with all the kidpr0n spamming on ICQ and email. I think proper forensic analysis of hard drive data is a process that should be improved significantly. It should not be just a matter of "Well I found 5 pictures in the deleted files of your hard drive that might or might not be underaged models so you are going to jail, bucko."
As I state in anoter reply below, I was reacting mostly to the idea you seemed to espouse that it is okay to allow kidpr0n. I think it is not because destigmatizing these fantasies is an enabler to the behaviour. Current methods of dealing with the problem might probably be reformed, but I can't see kidpr0n as harmless because of the nature of its use and the set of ideas to which the idea of its being harmless leads.
It is important to recognize, however, that the legal system is not an appropriate place to deal with medical issues. It does no good to this consumer, nor to society at large, and in particular the children within society, to deal with that person's mental problem, if it is such, by putting the person in prison. However, this is the approach that our society prefers to take, primarily, I presume, because it's easier than actually dealing with the real problem. The same holds true with current drug laws.
This is true, but in many states mandatory treatment is a part of sentencing. I would think it would be best if in cases where the person did not act on these impulses mandatory treatment in itself would be the whole of the sentence. In some cases it probably is.
It should never be illegal simply to enjoy something. If I happen to enjoy killing, that's one thing. If I actually go out and kill someone, that's another thing entirely. We have laws against that, and I don't propose that those laws be changed. But to simply be a person who enjoys killing, and not actually do it, should never be illegal. I should, in that case, seek professional help as a preventive measure. But let's not throw people in prison for thoughts, ideas, and desires -- even if those thoughts, ideas and desires are diseased.
Let the medical profession deal with diseases, and the police deal with criminal acts.
In general I agree with this approach, however firstly I must point out that in practice it is impossible to mandate treatment for mental disorders without involving the courts and police. I shoudl also hasten to point out my post was mainly a reaction to my perception the parent post was saying it was okay for people to have and use child pornography.
My position is it is not okay, and we should not enable the behaviour of people in general when it is likely to lead to ruin for them and grievous harm for others. We should instead throw red flags high in the air, set of loud sirens, and join in a concert of "don't do that!"
The idea that some thouhgts and ideas are dangerous is in itself a dangerous idea, and should indeed set off red flags. But likewise it is important that in the case of certain things which we as a society have decided are not okay it remains understood they are not okay.
Someone who is thinking about abusing a child should realise right away that to act on such urges would be a very bad thing, and that if they continue to have such urges they should try to get help to understand why. (Perhaps they were themselves abused as a child and have repressed the memory, for instance.) If we allow people to maintain collections of this pornography and in any way remove the stigma of the child abuse itself, as suggested by the poster, we are enabling the behaviour of the abusers by saying it is okay to want to abuse children.
It is not okay to want to kill people, and it is not okay to plan to kill people, and by the way people are prosecuted and put in jail for doing so. There is even a prominent case in which a man who was thought to be a potential danger to his ex-wife was put into prison for owning a gun.
I think the most important part of this thoughts and feelings and planning issue is the distinction between thinking about doing something and thinking about it. For instance it is one thing to think about the idea of killing, but it is quite another to think about killing someone, and another matter altogether to obsess daily about killing a particular person (in the vein of Sirhan Sirhan filling notebooks with "RFK must die").
In the case of child pornography, we are dealing firstly with an obsession. This is not something which is just casually happened upon. There is a lot of premeditation and thought involved here. Secondly, it is an urge which the pedophile often seems to feel unable to control. People who seek help for this problem often do because they realize it is wrong
The was going by US law, specifically the property seizure laws passed as part of the drug war (of course, the kidpr0n case under discussion did occur in the UK...). Under such laws, if a tenant is involved in the manufacture and/or distribution of narcotics the landlord can be held liable and the property seized. It was meant as a means to get landlords to watch tenants and turn them in, beside the fact most landlords spy on their tenants (they routinely have maintenance enter whether you know they are going there or not, and scout around) and will evict on suspicion of any such activity.
What I think is missing here is what the trojan was. If it was identified, they should have told what it is. If it is not identified, no AV software can protect you, and they shoudl have reported that. Then again, the whole thing could have been hypothetical (they did not find a trojan, they just claimed it was possible a trojan did it) which is even more dangerous because no one will find the trojan if it exists, and if it does not we let a kiddie porn enthusiast free (or rather the uk did).
Child porn is caught in between these two scenarios, I think, with some parts of it falling into one scenario and some into the other. Certainly, if the pics are of real children, then that's bad. But it's within range of technology to make the entire industry based on fabricated images. Then who would be the victim? If no child was abused in the taking of the pictures, for all we know, the people in possession of them are sublimating urges they might otherwise carry out. Is taking the photos away going to cause them to not have the urge? Or just cause them to be out on the street seeking real children? We're so quick to make assumptions in this area, I just don't know why we don't just make a death penalty for anyone even suspected of child abuse or kiddie porn and be done with it mercifully, because nothing the person can do for the rest of their life after they're found in possession of something like this will ever be normal.
I think at the heart of this problem is the question of children being abused, and it appears you acknowlege that much. And I understand your argument about when abuse takes place. But let's think this out a minute.
The laws against child pornography are primarily aimed at preventing child abuse. In order to produce most child pornography, children have to be abused by someone. So by trying to find the offending material and investigating to find the sources, the hope is we can prevent the abuse. This of course often involves detaining, interrogating and prosecuting end-users.
Your main issue seems to be with the process of prosecuting end-users, especially if the pornography is virtual (in other words no children were harmed in the making o fthis production, etc etc..). But again, there are important facts to consider. The consumer of child pornography has a mental problem such that viewing pictures of children being abused is enjoyable to them. They like to watch children being abused, and fantasize about abusing children. They may fear actually acting on their fantasies, but this does not mean they will not. It is clear they have taken a step in that direction, and if unchecked they may very well (as many have) act on such fantasies, especially in a moment of passion given sufficient opportunity with a perceived minimum of risk in being caught.
It is also clear that it has been common in the past for consumers of child pornography to become purveyors themselves. In the past, this was apparently the most common method for pedophiles to obtain pornography (essentially by swapping pictures like trading cards).
It is important to recognize that in our society it is unacceptable not only to abuse children, but to enjoy abusing children. If someone enjoys abusing children, and enjoys the idea, the hope is we can intervene and get this person help before they actually harm a child. That is why these laws are important.
Jack, is that you?
No, just any woman stupid enough to marry a spouse-killing abusive moron.
But you read slashdot, and all of these things were announced on slashdot. Indeed, there were dupes, and just in case we forgot, the stories were ressurected many many times. Then there were any number of "what database is best?" articles and ask slashdots, which quickly degenerated into a discussion of similar calibre to the various "emacs vs vi" arguments.
Maybe that article recently about there being too many Open Source Projects was on the mark. Certainly it makes sense in the face of the fact that even with all the coverage on slashdot of other databases, the most widely known DB among slashdotters is the one slashdot uses: MySQL.
Firebird has been mentioned in pretty much every discussion of Open Source databases that has come across this site, and in a number of others as well. It does not have the reputation necessarily of MySQL or Oracle, but it is not quite so unknown as people would suggest...
According to Mr. Stallman, the MPL software license is a free (libre) software license, but it is not compatable with the GPL.
The tire necklacing of government informants is not like the beheading of aristocrats? Not a shot fired in South Africa? Man. You have some very strange ideas about history.
slashdot is a plot by microsoft to destroy the productivity of linux users
Hmmm... :)
What he said was interesting enough. Of course not only was what he said in the context of a work of fiction, the character he was playing at the time was lying when he said it as well. He was pretending to be a revolutionary when in reality all he wanted was money. Then again, this applies to bin laden irl as well...
You're right. According to that article, the answer is that he was undeniably not elected fairly and squarely.
Thanks for the post, but this of course confirms the poster was correct.
He did. RTFP.
That amount of releases is on par with the number of release that any given linux distro has which is not a good thing. My 2C.
God, reading comprehension on Slashdot is about as common as common sense. The parent was syaing that, were he to submit a bill to microsoft for support costs, there is no way they can verify what he truly paid his support people. He is not saying his support staff really get paid $250k/year or indeed even that he has a support staff (of 100).
And when the network goes down?
It should not go down. If the whole network can even possibly go down at once, we are probbaly talking about a small network. Even then, we should be talking about minutes to bringing it back up or the people in charge are not doing their job.
Or when they disconnect their portable, and take it to a meeting?
When they bring the portable to a meeting, they should be jacking into the network. If they are offsite, they should be connecting home via a vpn.
Sorry. There's lots of environments where "save everything to the file server" is *really* bad advice. (And of course, many where it's good advice.)
Yes, badly designed, shoddily built, and poorly maintained environments. Come to think of it, in any environment "save everything to the server" is the best advice, and if there is a reason it does not work, it should be fixed.
Oh come now, the imac is equally useful. What's a gun with no ammunition? :)
I think the poster meant "what did the frog look like after impacting a kid's face hard enough to break it."
Man to me the worst part of the story was:
Lisa Berry said that the force of the blast blew off her son's eyelids.
"If he cries, it burns his eyes," she said. "I never thought any toy a child could order would wound my child like that."
Now that would seriously suck. Your eyes are knocked out, your face is broken, and if you cry then it really starts to hurt. I guess it is a good reason not to look into the barrel of a loaded weapon...