Yeah, I'm just waiting for human trials, where the host is overtaken by yeast and dies due to malnourishement..... or just becomes obscenely fat due to the increased food requirements from the yeast.
agreed. People should at least make an attempt to make the news realistic.
I wouldn't mind normally, but when you get shit like the Guardian article earlier, or this article (I mean, really, we all know that if an AI was activated, we'd be in the middle of a nuclear holocaust by now. Doesn't anybody watch the Terminator?) it gets less funny and more stupid.
How often do we see child porn producers put behind bars?
A better strategy would be to use those who buy child porn to get to those who create it. An example would be requiring those who harbor child porn to provide the source of a portion of their collection, as well as pay a fine proportionate to their means, rather than putting them in jail for ridiculous spans of time and ostracizing them socially for the rest of their lives in the US.
The only problem with that is that there's almost no way to determine the original intent of a picture with full confidence.
Or, rather, it's easy to make pictures and videos seem more or less innocent based on words and emotions.
For instance, a girl in a short skirt bending over to pick up a pencil may seem like she's intending to be sexy, but really she just wants her pencil. It's too hard to draw that line.
you really can't work that theory forwards and backwards.
People might not exploit children, but still be turned on little girls.
I suppose you could say that they are exploiting children mentally, or that you think that any sexual gratification ever should count as exploitation, but then you're just manipulating semantics, and there's about as much purpose to that as arguing on the internet.
People will get sexual gratification out of anything, though. I'm fairly sure I can find a number of middle schoolers who have yet to be introduced to Playboy that will, at some point, pleasure themselves to Greek and Roman art, regardless of how artistically it's portrayed.
There is no chicken and egg problem here - if someone's attracted to it, they'll go for it. I highly doubt that someone will suddenly be turned on to the under-aged because a girl took a picture of herself without a top on.
The fact is, you really can't be mad at kids for doing things like that. They're at that unfortunate age between when they have the legal right to explore their sexuality openly, and when the hormones begin to push them toward curiosity and lewdness.
To be honest, this is on roughly the same level as little boys getting their hands on playboys. Technically, it's illegal, but it really shouldn't be. It will happen regardless of how illegal or wrong it's made to seem.
To be honest, I wouldn't even encourage stricter parenting in this situation. I mean, look at what the kids are doing.
This is hardly worse than playing "doctor" or exploring your child hood female friend's body when you're ten. Yeah, it's a bit more high tech and wide spread, but, at it's core, there are no dirty intentions. Unlike child porn, there are no dirty naked perverts leering at a naked girl's body in a darkened room at night. There are kids who are starting to explore their sexuality.
To be sure, I don't advocate this behavior taken to the extremes in children. As with everything in life, there are logical limits to things like this. This whole case, however, clearly falls well short of that line. Though this is probably a bit more lewd than other childhood explorations, it still falls far short of what I would consider concerning. Worst case scenario is that the girls in question discover the evils of lewdness in the form of social backlash and they regret what they did. We don't need to interfere for that to happen - it'll come about once they feel the full brunt of the consequences of their actions. Although someone may need to interfere if someone harasses them further down the line for it, they shouldn't be punished for their own ignorance and immaturity.
I do, however, agree that American society is split in two with their personal freedoms, and that it's creating problems. I can't objectively offer any solutions to this dilemma - I clearly fall deep in the loose end of that spectrum - but I do think that it needs to be addressed in the very near future. It's getting to the point where neither side can be pleased angering the other. Either America needs to take a stand for personal liberties and freedoms, or the system needs to change to accommodate the more reserved section of our society.
Agreed. Although I dual boot between Linux and Windows, I never use Windows unless I want to play video games or I need to print something (my printer still doesn't play nice with Linux, sadly). Though there are still problems with Linux, there are problems with Windows as well.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Windows isn't ready for the desktop (well, XP anyway, maybe Vista, and obviously Windows 7) but I wouldn't say the same for Linux either, as I've been using it as my primary desktop for some time and it works wonderfully.
There are barriers to it's adaption (a lot of software has unaddressed bugs - especially the KDE desktop) but there are other benefits to using Linux. In the end, it's a matter of preference, ideology (if using open source is that big a deal to you) and wallet, as well as patience and adaptability (some people just won't be bothered to learn how to use a different OS).
There are a lot of false positives when it comes to key gens. In reality, I've never actually gotten a keygen with anything malicious on it, although I'd still recommend looking through comments to see just how many of them mention trojans before running it on your computer
maybe some things are easy to sell, but provide little profit.
If salesman B sells only 3 things, but each brings in 100 in profit, then he should get more money than salesman A who sells 100 things worth $1.
Then you could also say that salesmen A creates a better name, and counter that by saying that salesman B reduces necessary overhead, or allows for more useful overhead (advertising, etc) and so on.
Things are never black and white like this. Examples involving Salesmen A and B rarely work when addressing such an open issue.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T
on
Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I would rather help vote someone into office that I don't hate, than vote for my first choice and see the candidate whom I dislike the most receive the popular vote.
You can vote for the underdog if you want, but if you do, you might just get burned.
It's like the awesome corvette you bought for $100 from an ad in the news paper.
Sure, it seems attractive enough, but every time you fix it, something else will break.
True, parent-based filtering should be encouraged, but at the same time, there are parents who are WAY to strict with such things.
Seriously, I hear horror stories of over protective parents all the time. Yes, parents should be sure to supervise their children rather than placing that burden on the government, but at the same time, that doesn't give them license to over-protect and shelter their children. It's fine at first, but it can only end badly once the kid goes off to college and can have as much sex, watch as much porn, and drink as much alcohol as they want.
OP says he doesn't want to use any actual filters.
This one only works if you can make the filter only warn you, instead of outright blocking you.
I don't know what open DNS's filter does, so I suppose it could totally be the case (I've never taken the time to look myself - I don't care if I look at naked people) but, yeah, that option's out if it isn't.
Then again, not everyone's 40 or so (I'm too lazy to figure out your actual age using contextual clues)
Point is, children do that now days.
In fact, pretty much anyone under the age of 23 or 24 does that when they have too much time. I still have friends that image search their names. Female friends. In school.
Personally, I'd take the computer out of the living room. It's true that your child (especially late elementary/early middleschool) shouldn't be left alone TOO much nor have TOO much privacy, but at the same time, it may be worth it to let her have a nice secluded spot in the computer room.
It sounds counter intuitive, and I'm sure the opposite goes for children who may not be able to handle it (you know better than I do) but some level of privacy is needed for children to get some level of mental independence from their parents, as well as to ensure they don't grow up a sheltered child.
Plus, I'm sure you don't want walk in on your daughter trying to figure out what/b/ is, or what the big deal is with redtube.
Did you even read the summary of the article? Verizon will be selling things like billing info, technical info and location info, among other things.
Name ONE person that enjoys junk mail and unsolicited phone calls during supper about getting your windshield repaired, or refinancing their credit card debt, or unneeded car insurance.
Yours is an indefensible position. Nobody wants what Verizon is trying to do with their personal info, and every rational person knows that.
Although it's true that we can't dictate the exact cost of a service, having personal information sold to other companies at no benefit to the consumer on an opt out basis is wrong, regardless of the context.
If it's a way to have your bills reduced or if it's on an opt in rather than opt out basis, then maybe I'd be more sympathetic to your stance, but, as it stands, Verizon is selling private information to other companies with no benefit to the end consumer. There is no way, regardless of your convoluted view of the system, that such a situation could ever be considered fair or right.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm just waiting for human trials, where the host is overtaken by yeast and dies due to malnourishement..... or just becomes obscenely fat due to the increased food requirements from the yeast.
I'm just curious as to what happens when CADIE inevitably gets infected by Conflicker.
agreed. People should at least make an attempt to make the news realistic.
I wouldn't mind normally, but when you get shit like the Guardian article earlier, or this article (I mean, really, we all know that if an AI was activated, we'd be in the middle of a nuclear holocaust by now. Doesn't anybody watch the Terminator?) it gets less funny and more stupid.
No, I'd just wash the CPU. That one always works for me.
Just remember, if it's still wet, don't put the fan back on. The air from the fan could fling the water onto other, vital components of the computer.
Yeah.... I subscribed to CNN's newsfeed at one point.
I lost all respect for them in about a week. Three quarters is half news, and an eighth is opinions written by people who don't really matter.
To say the least, I don't read CNN any more.
Consistently insane doesn't count.
Neither does consistently inconsistent.
How often do we see child porn producers put behind bars?
A better strategy would be to use those who buy child porn to get to those who create it. An example would be requiring those who harbor child porn to provide the source of a portion of their collection, as well as pay a fine proportionate to their means, rather than putting them in jail for ridiculous spans of time and ostracizing them socially for the rest of their lives in the US.
I would disagree, though on a minor point.
I would say that the louder half of society thinks that having those images floating around is a bad idea.
To be honest, the religious right is a lot louder than the actual portion of society it inhabits.
The only problem with that is that there's almost no way to determine the original intent of a picture with full confidence.
Or, rather, it's easy to make pictures and videos seem more or less innocent based on words and emotions.
For instance, a girl in a short skirt bending over to pick up a pencil may seem like she's intending to be sexy, but really she just wants her pencil. It's too hard to draw that line.
you really can't work that theory forwards and backwards.
People might not exploit children, but still be turned on little girls.
I suppose you could say that they are exploiting children mentally, or that you think that any sexual gratification ever should count as exploitation, but then you're just manipulating semantics, and there's about as much purpose to that as arguing on the internet.
Punish the masses for the crimes of the few?
When has that ever been the right decision? If anything, more attention needs to be given to those who can't handle violent media.
People will get sexual gratification out of anything, though. I'm fairly sure I can find a number of middle schoolers who have yet to be introduced to Playboy that will, at some point, pleasure themselves to Greek and Roman art, regardless of how artistically it's portrayed.
There is no chicken and egg problem here - if someone's attracted to it, they'll go for it. I highly doubt that someone will suddenly be turned on to the under-aged because a girl took a picture of herself without a top on.
The fact is, you really can't be mad at kids for doing things like that. They're at that unfortunate age between when they have the legal right to explore their sexuality openly, and when the hormones begin to push them toward curiosity and lewdness.
To be honest, this is on roughly the same level as little boys getting their hands on playboys. Technically, it's illegal, but it really shouldn't be. It will happen regardless of how illegal or wrong it's made to seem.
To be honest, I wouldn't even encourage stricter parenting in this situation. I mean, look at what the kids are doing.
This is hardly worse than playing "doctor" or exploring your child hood female friend's body when you're ten. Yeah, it's a bit more high tech and wide spread, but, at it's core, there are no dirty intentions. Unlike child porn, there are no dirty naked perverts leering at a naked girl's body in a darkened room at night. There are kids who are starting to explore their sexuality.
To be sure, I don't advocate this behavior taken to the extremes in children. As with everything in life, there are logical limits to things like this. This whole case, however, clearly falls well short of that line. Though this is probably a bit more lewd than other childhood explorations, it still falls far short of what I would consider concerning. Worst case scenario is that the girls in question discover the evils of lewdness in the form of social backlash and they regret what they did. We don't need to interfere for that to happen - it'll come about once they feel the full brunt of the consequences of their actions. Although someone may need to interfere if someone harasses them further down the line for it, they shouldn't be punished for their own ignorance and immaturity.
I do, however, agree that American society is split in two with their personal freedoms, and that it's creating problems. I can't objectively offer any solutions to this dilemma - I clearly fall deep in the loose end of that spectrum - but I do think that it needs to be addressed in the very near future. It's getting to the point where neither side can be pleased angering the other. Either America needs to take a stand for personal liberties and freedoms, or the system needs to change to accommodate the more reserved section of our society.
Agreed. Although I dual boot between Linux and Windows, I never use Windows unless I want to play video games or I need to print something (my printer still doesn't play nice with Linux, sadly). Though there are still problems with Linux, there are problems with Windows as well.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Windows isn't ready for the desktop (well, XP anyway, maybe Vista, and obviously Windows 7) but I wouldn't say the same for Linux either, as I've been using it as my primary desktop for some time and it works wonderfully.
There are barriers to it's adaption (a lot of software has unaddressed bugs - especially the KDE desktop) but there are other benefits to using Linux. In the end, it's a matter of preference, ideology (if using open source is that big a deal to you) and wallet, as well as patience and adaptability (some people just won't be bothered to learn how to use a different OS).
There are a lot of false positives when it comes to key gens. In reality, I've never actually gotten a keygen with anything malicious on it, although I'd still recommend looking through comments to see just how many of them mention trojans before running it on your computer
maybe some things are easy to sell, but provide little profit.
If salesman B sells only 3 things, but each brings in 100 in profit, then he should get more money than salesman A who sells 100 things worth $1.
Then you could also say that salesmen A creates a better name, and counter that by saying that salesman B reduces necessary overhead, or allows for more useful overhead (advertising, etc) and so on.
Things are never black and white like this. Examples involving Salesmen A and B rarely work when addressing such an open issue.
I would rather help vote someone into office that I don't hate, than vote for my first choice and see the candidate whom I dislike the most receive the popular vote.
You can vote for the underdog if you want, but if you do, you might just get burned.
It's like the awesome corvette you bought for $100 from an ad in the news paper. Sure, it seems attractive enough, but every time you fix it, something else will break.
True, parent-based filtering should be encouraged, but at the same time, there are parents who are WAY to strict with such things. Seriously, I hear horror stories of over protective parents all the time. Yes, parents should be sure to supervise their children rather than placing that burden on the government, but at the same time, that doesn't give them license to over-protect and shelter their children. It's fine at first, but it can only end badly once the kid goes off to college and can have as much sex, watch as much porn, and drink as much alcohol as they want.
OP says he doesn't want to use any actual filters. This one only works if you can make the filter only warn you, instead of outright blocking you. I don't know what open DNS's filter does, so I suppose it could totally be the case (I've never taken the time to look myself - I don't care if I look at naked people) but, yeah, that option's out if it isn't.
I've been rick rolled plenty, but thankfully there are no memes that involve duping people into going to NSFW sites and getting written up by HR
Ummm.... goatse, lemon party, two girls one cup. Those ring any bells?
Then again, not everyone's 40 or so (I'm too lazy to figure out your actual age using contextual clues)
Point is, children do that now days.
In fact, pretty much anyone under the age of 23 or 24 does that when they have too much time. I still have friends that image search their names. Female friends. In school.
I'm half waiting for them to get burned.
Personally, I'd take the computer out of the living room. It's true that your child (especially late elementary/early middleschool) shouldn't be left alone TOO much nor have TOO much privacy, but at the same time, it may be worth it to let her have a nice secluded spot in the computer room.
/b/ is, or what the big deal is with redtube.
It sounds counter intuitive, and I'm sure the opposite goes for children who may not be able to handle it (you know better than I do) but some level of privacy is needed for children to get some level of mental independence from their parents, as well as to ensure they don't grow up a sheltered child.
Plus, I'm sure you don't want walk in on your daughter trying to figure out what
[citation needed]
Did you even read the summary of the article? Verizon will be selling things like billing info, technical info and location info, among other things.
Name ONE person that enjoys junk mail and unsolicited phone calls during supper about getting your windshield repaired, or refinancing their credit card debt, or unneeded car insurance.
Yours is an indefensible position. Nobody wants what Verizon is trying to do with their personal info, and every rational person knows that.
Although it's true that we can't dictate the exact cost of a service, having personal information sold to other companies at no benefit to the consumer on an opt out basis is wrong, regardless of the context.
If it's a way to have your bills reduced or if it's on an opt in rather than opt out basis, then maybe I'd be more sympathetic to your stance, but, as it stands, Verizon is selling private information to other companies with no benefit to the end consumer. There is no way, regardless of your convoluted view of the system, that such a situation could ever be considered fair or right.