When Ayatollah Khamenei comes out and says publicly that attacks on civilians are unacceptable and he publicly denounces all terrorists and calls for no attacks against civilians, then I'll be impressed...
Yep. I am having deja vu to 9/11. When here on slashdot, several commentators accurately predicted the largest fallout would be restricting our own freedoms.
Instead of limited our freedoms, how about we go kick in the teeth of anyone who doesn't support peace, anyone who promotes violence, and anyone who doesn't denounce this?
The shooters are yelling "Allahu Akhbar" and you goddamn liberals are blaming the French !!
I have to say, this is a rather fair point...
Fighting in a war zone is one thing, going into restaurants in the middle of Paris and opening up with automatic AK-47s into civilians eating dinner is quite another.
People who would do such things are animals and aren't worth dealing with on an even level. If they wish to behave this way, then they should be treated that way.
No. I can offer a qualitative guess once it is clarified whether the 3 GB per machine automatic download of the Windows 10 upgrade installer is charged against the Windows 7 total or against the Windows 10 total.
If you're on a metered connection, then you should have it set to being on a metered connection...
And that download is charged to Windows 7, not 10, IMHO... since it doesn't download on 10...
Sure, even the USA has done it from time to time... but yes, you're right, they are half-hearted and never to the same extent as enforcement against the loser of the war.
Like I said, I wasn't telling you how great the system was, I was saying what the system was.:)
Covering up alleged copyright infringement is by far not the only example of a reason why one would desire privacy.
No, it isn't, but now you've expanded the example to fit your case.
Your question was, do I want the MPAA watching for pirating of their work. I answered that. Then you moved the goal posts.
And if you handle confidential information in the ordinary course of work, such as trade-secret computer program source code or patients' health information, would you be comfortable with live-streaming every keypress you make to Microsoft and its "marketing partners"?
No, of course not. But if I did that, I'd run a secured desktop with an external firewall with everything blocked, and that isn't hard to do. And then I still wouldn't trust it, I'd want a security audit by someone else, regardless of the version of the OS I use, be that Windows, OS X, or Linux.
But since I don't do any of that, I don't care, and 99% of the people don't have to.
Good for you. It might not be so good for others reading this, who might have to not only buy a copy of Windows 10 to replace a copy of Windows Vista but also find a new job in a place offering unmetered Internet access and relocate their families to such "an area with 3 high speed Internet choices, including two fiber to the home options."
Do you have any numbers for how much data Windows 10 uses, compared to Windows 7? I'd be curious to know if it is very much. I doubt it, but I'm all ears to hear the number over the course of a month.
As for buying Windows 10 to replace Vista, don't be silly... anyone still using a computer that came with Vista would be better off with a new computer. There are options for $350 in both the notebook and desktop dept that come with Haswell or Skylake CPUs, will be three times faster than what they have (if not more), and be new and dependable...
It is time to retire those old machines.
Now you'd probably say, "but not everyone has $350".
Fair enough, you can use your Vista or XP computer until the end of time, but you may not use it on the Internet where you cause huge security problems for everyone else.
Well, you can today, but I don't expect that to last, sooner or later there are going to be calls to make the Internet "secure", and one easy way to do that is to cut off the XP/Vista (and sooner or later, 7) boxes from the Internet.
---
Regarding Internet access... I would support a ruling that high speed Internet of at least 25 megabit be a "right", in the same sense that phone service is a "right" today. You have to pay for it, but that charge is a "do not exceed", meaning you can live pretty far into the boonies and the phone company has to put in a phone line for you at a reasonable charge, paid for by the universal service fund.
I also think that wired based Internet should have no caps, just like landline phone service has no caps. I get why wireless needs caps, there are freq issues there, but landlines have no such issues.
What if ISPs started blocking Internet service to computers running out of date OSes?
Since XP is not and soon Vista will no longer be secure, what if they simply prevented such computers from getting on the Internet?
As crazy as the idea sounds, I can see how from a national security point of view, at some point the Internet needs to be secured and the government might stand behind ISPs blocking older computers from infecting the rest of us.
Would you be OK if that trade led Microsoft to feed information to a service provider used by the MPAA, which in turn feeds it to the FBI, which in turn kicks down your door?
I don't pirate movies.
And would you be OK with the telemetry's Internet data usage causing you to run up overage fees, especially now that more and more ISPs are going pay-per-bit?
I don't have metered internet access, I live in an area with 3 high speed Internet choices, including two fiber to the home options.
For most users, does it really matter [1]? Is there anything in W7, 8, or 10 that makes it a must to upgrade? Office works on all of them, so do applications, as well as games.
Most users don't know any better, but yes, there is...
Windows 10 is far more secure than XP, Vista, or 7.
8.1 wasn't bad, but going forward, 10 will be a safer place to be than anything 7 or prior.
I don't know anyone who was really excited about W10.
Now you do, me!:)
I waited a month to put it on my main production machine, but I had it on two test machines before then and a few others at launch...
Other than older machines for testing, I have it on everything now and wouldn't ever want to go back.
It takes what was great about 7, adds the improvements from 8/8.1, along with some more, and runs from there.
Of course, I'm happy to have Cortana on my desktop, which I get that not everyone likes, so there is that.:)
"Hey Contana, what is on my calendar tomorrow?"
Being able to do that without touching the computer is nice...
I hate to say it, because you said it harshly, but you're telling the truth...
Vista SP2 is actually not that bad, they did fix the major issues and it was fine near the end, but RTM did suck in many ways. Not all of it was MS fault, some of it was the drivers of the day or the hardware it was put on at the time, but it really was rushed.
Windows 7 was great RTM and 10 is great RTM... 8 was a mess, but 8.1 fixed much of it, if not all...
Likewise, as you point out, Windows 7's mainstream support ended January 13, 2015. Why does Chrome for Windows 7 get critical security updates and not Chrome for Windows Vista?
Itâ(TM)s not personal, Sonny. Itâ(TM)s strictly business.
But how does not being able to provide new HTML5 features due to limits of operating system capabilities block the provision of critical security updates for the browser?
It costs money to update software and do testing on multiple OSes.
This removes two major OS releases that Google has to do testing against, that will save them a lot of time and money.
I'm interested. In your opinion, what's the risk of allowing the telemetry that Windows 10 doesn't let users turn off, such as Cortana, live tiles, and Son of CEIP? I've read "keylogger" rumors, and I'm told that Windows uses an anti-phishing service run by an organization that has provided enforcement services to the MPAA.
Microsoft has a lot to lose if they screw up the telemetry of Windows 10. On the other hand, they have a lot to gain by getting it right. They should, if they have any brains at all, have their very smartest people on this.
I don't want to turn Cortana off, I use her every day, and I get that she need a 2 way datalink to the world to work properly.
Windows 10 keeps track of a lot, what programs you use, how often you use them, what you search for on your computer and on the web (anything you type in the search box of Windows or Edge), etc. But I KNOW they are doing that.
Do I have a problem with it? No, I honestly don't. I use a Microsoft account to log in, it is wonderful, all my settings are saved and synced across the web, OneDrive stores all my files, every member of my family has their own account, their own settings, programs, etc.
It is a trade... In return for tons of information about me, my family, and how I use my computers, Microsoft gives me a ton of services for free, including Windows 10. I'm ok with that trade.
I get that not everyone else, but I suspect that most people will be and the outliers who aren't ok with it are a small enough group of people to leave behind. If I'm wrong, then MS will change going forward... If Linux is still at 1.5% desktop market share in 3 years and Windows 10 is at 50%, then you'll have your answer as to how many people really care. If Windows 10 is at 25% and Linux is at 10%, then I'd be more inclined to think you're on to something.
It will get the same security attention, which is what I'm worried about.
Maybe we're talking about two different things. I'm saying do you think Microsoft will pay as much attention to Windows 7 security in 2019. My point is that as it nears the end of extended support, more and more engineers will be moved off it and on to the next thing. Only major, glaring problems will get fixed as it ages.
Yes actually they should be treating them because they are not combatants in the fight between the USA and Taliban.
I think you forgot good ol' George W. Bush's comment...
"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists..."
It is also well established in international law that it is illegal for any side in a fight to attack a hospital unless that hospital is actively attacking you, regardless of who is in it.
Yes, it is... and it has also happened in every war since forever... sometimes by mistake, sometimes not...
This idea of "rules of war" is a nice one, and it works sometimes... but not all the time, because war is hell...
Someone attacking a known non combatant hospital is a war crime and it doesn't matter if the entire leadership of the Taliban was being treated inside it and you had no other way of getting them all.
I don't dispute that it is a war crime... but it still might be worth doing, if it really got the entire leadership in one shot... Keep in mind, only the loser of a war really gets charged with war crimes...
Note that I'm not defending the practice, I'm telling you how it works in reality, not debate class.
If it is actually true that it happened, that they knew it was a hospital and nobody from in the hospital was actively attacking them, then everyone involved from the pilot to the person giving the order belongs in prison for a long time.
And if the USA loses the war to the Taliban, they can do just that.
Odds of that happening are as close to it not mattering... zero...
Again, I'm not promoting the point, I'm telling you which way the wind is blowing... pissing into the wind is stupid and arguing against the way of the world is equally stupid...
One-eighth the users left in the lurch is still greater than zero users left in the lurch.
While that is true, it is not economically possible to serve every last customer.
Vista is past is mainstream support end date by 3 years, the number of people using Chrome on Vista may well be even less than Vista's marketshare (Google would have those numbers, which we wouldn't).
It may simply not be worth providing them further support beyond 2016.
On the other hand, I can see the flip side, which is that Vista's mainstream support ended 4/10/2012. Which means that it isn't getting feature updates, only critical security updates.
To move forward, Chrome needs to support the latest features such as HTML5, and Vista may simply never get some of the updates that Windows 7 and later will get.
Speaking of which, Windows 7 has passed its mainstream support date as well, that passed 01/13/2015. While Windows 7 will continue to get critical security updates for some time, it will slowly end up in the position XP was near the end.
Microsoft is giving away Windows 10 for free. Very few people should turn them down on that offer, it is all around a good upgrade for both 7 and 8/8.1.
---
One of the problems that XP had is that people confuse the difference between:
"End of extended support"
and
"End of mainstream support"
People only see the date for extended support and ignore the mainstream number.
For most people, it is really the mainstream number they should be paying attention to. While some updates will continue to come, do you honestly think Windows 7 will continue to get the same internal attention in 2019 as it did in 2014?
Why would people using Windows XP, an OS that was retired 18 months ago, care that their web browser won't be getting updates in 2016, 2 years post OS retirement?
If Windows XP being retired didn't get them to change, this won't either.
You're welcome to think that, but you'd be wrong. Many studies have been done on the subject, you're welcome to do the reading if you'd like to become educated.
But since you likely don't want to become educated, I'm sure you'll keep repeating the same false information over and over, proud of yourself for what you think you know.
Majority ruling becomes mob rule really quickly, without something to balance it out.
Lynching black people in the south used to be done due to "mob rule". It wasn't right back then, it isn't right today.
For instance, while there are undoubtedly some paedophiles who would want the age of consent abolished entirely, most of us think a law preventing you from fucking babies is a good idea.
And, yes, this does infringe on the paedophiles' "rights".
That would infringe on the child's rights not to be assaulted. But we already have laws against assault, so this just adds yet another law, to pile onto the millions of other laws. Because a politician somewhere was running for office.
As a side note, there is in fact a difference between an adult having sex with a minor, with consent, and an adult that assaults a minor by having sex with them without consent. But sadly, the law doesn't see that, one of the errors in the law that is hard to change because "think of the children".
A 26 year old man having sex with a 16 year old girl, when they are in a relationship and she is willing, is not at all the same as a 26 year old man raping a 16 year old girl.
Slashdot Mirror
You think you're funny and clever of course...
How about we start with this guy:
http://nypost.com/2015/03/23/i...
When Ayatollah Khamenei comes out and says publicly that attacks on civilians are unacceptable and he publicly denounces all terrorists and calls for no attacks against civilians, then I'll be impressed...
Post with an account, or not at all... ACs are pointless here...
At the time that CmndTaco posted that, the full extent of the situation was not know.
Yep. I am having deja vu to 9/11. When here on slashdot, several commentators accurately predicted the largest fallout would be restricting our own freedoms.
Instead of limited our freedoms, how about we go kick in the teeth of anyone who doesn't support peace, anyone who promotes violence, and anyone who doesn't denounce this?
Who is "all of them"?
I am referring to people who support, encourage, harbor, fund, or otherwise assist in such attacks.
Those are the people who are animals, and just like a rabid dog, they need to be put down.
The shooters are yelling "Allahu Akhbar" and you goddamn liberals are blaming the French !!
I have to say, this is a rather fair point...
Fighting in a war zone is one thing, going into restaurants in the middle of Paris and opening up with automatic AK-47s into civilians eating dinner is quite another.
People who would do such things are animals and aren't worth dealing with on an even level. If they wish to behave this way, then they should be treated that way.
Those are fair points you make...
Sadly, the answer might be something that people sitting in their currently safe homes simply can't accept...
We might not be killing enough people... we're killing too few to have an effect...
The whole thing sucks, I know that much... but we simply can't accept groups of people that want to see our way of life ended.
It might well come down to an "us or them". Will we have the backbone to do whatever it takes?
No. I can offer a qualitative guess once it is clarified whether the 3 GB per machine automatic download of the Windows 10 upgrade installer is charged against the Windows 7 total or against the Windows 10 total.
If you're on a metered connection, then you should have it set to being on a metered connection...
And that download is charged to Windows 7, not 10, IMHO... since it doesn't download on 10...
Sure, even the USA has done it from time to time... but yes, you're right, they are half-hearted and never to the same extent as enforcement against the loser of the war.
Like I said, I wasn't telling you how great the system was, I was saying what the system was. :)
Covering up alleged copyright infringement is by far not the only example of a reason why one would desire privacy.
No, it isn't, but now you've expanded the example to fit your case.
Your question was, do I want the MPAA watching for pirating of their work. I answered that. Then you moved the goal posts.
And if you handle confidential information in the ordinary course of work, such as trade-secret computer program source code or patients' health information, would you be comfortable with live-streaming every keypress you make to Microsoft and its "marketing partners"?
No, of course not. But if I did that, I'd run a secured desktop with an external firewall with everything blocked, and that isn't hard to do. And then I still wouldn't trust it, I'd want a security audit by someone else, regardless of the version of the OS I use, be that Windows, OS X, or Linux.
But since I don't do any of that, I don't care, and 99% of the people don't have to.
Good for you. It might not be so good for others reading this, who might have to not only buy a copy of Windows 10 to replace a copy of Windows Vista but also find a new job in a place offering unmetered Internet access and relocate their families to such "an area with 3 high speed Internet choices, including two fiber to the home options."
Do you have any numbers for how much data Windows 10 uses, compared to Windows 7? I'd be curious to know if it is very much. I doubt it, but I'm all ears to hear the number over the course of a month.
As for buying Windows 10 to replace Vista, don't be silly... anyone still using a computer that came with Vista would be better off with a new computer. There are options for $350 in both the notebook and desktop dept that come with Haswell or Skylake CPUs, will be three times faster than what they have (if not more), and be new and dependable...
It is time to retire those old machines.
Now you'd probably say, "but not everyone has $350".
Fair enough, you can use your Vista or XP computer until the end of time, but you may not use it on the Internet where you cause huge security problems for everyone else.
Well, you can today, but I don't expect that to last, sooner or later there are going to be calls to make the Internet "secure", and one easy way to do that is to cut off the XP/Vista (and sooner or later, 7) boxes from the Internet.
---
Regarding Internet access... I would support a ruling that high speed Internet of at least 25 megabit be a "right", in the same sense that phone service is a "right" today. You have to pay for it, but that charge is a "do not exceed", meaning you can live pretty far into the boonies and the phone company has to put in a phone line for you at a reasonable charge, paid for by the universal service fund.
I also think that wired based Internet should have no caps, just like landline phone service has no caps. I get why wireless needs caps, there are freq issues there, but landlines have no such issues.
"Rules of war"? You mean Geneva convention and other applicable international law, right?
Sure, but who enforces them?
Answer: Whomever wins the war.
I didn't say it was a pretty system, I simply explained what the system was.
Just tossing out an interesting idea here...
What if ISPs started blocking Internet service to computers running out of date OSes?
Since XP is not and soon Vista will no longer be secure, what if they simply prevented such computers from getting on the Internet?
As crazy as the idea sounds, I can see how from a national security point of view, at some point the Internet needs to be secured and the government might stand behind ISPs blocking older computers from infecting the rest of us.
Just tossing the thought out there...
Would you be OK if that trade led Microsoft to feed information to a service provider used by the MPAA, which in turn feeds it to the FBI, which in turn kicks down your door?
I don't pirate movies.
And would you be OK with the telemetry's Internet data usage causing you to run up overage fees, especially now that more and more ISPs are going pay-per-bit?
I don't have metered internet access, I live in an area with 3 high speed Internet choices, including two fiber to the home options.
For most users, does it really matter [1]? Is there anything in W7, 8, or 10 that makes it a must to upgrade? Office works on all of them, so do applications, as well as games.
Most users don't know any better, but yes, there is...
Windows 10 is far more secure than XP, Vista, or 7.
8.1 wasn't bad, but going forward, 10 will be a safer place to be than anything 7 or prior.
I don't know anyone who was really excited about W10.
Now you do, me! :)
I waited a month to put it on my main production machine, but I had it on two test machines before then and a few others at launch...
Other than older machines for testing, I have it on everything now and wouldn't ever want to go back.
It takes what was great about 7, adds the improvements from 8/8.1, along with some more, and runs from there.
Of course, I'm happy to have Cortana on my desktop, which I get that not everyone likes, so there is that. :)
"Hey Contana, what is on my calendar tomorrow?"
Being able to do that without touching the computer is nice...
I hate to say it, because you said it harshly, but you're telling the truth...
Vista SP2 is actually not that bad, they did fix the major issues and it was fine near the end, but RTM did suck in many ways. Not all of it was MS fault, some of it was the drivers of the day or the hardware it was put on at the time, but it really was rushed.
Windows 7 was great RTM and 10 is great RTM... 8 was a mess, but 8.1 fixed much of it, if not all...
But now that 10 is here, what's the issue?
Likewise, as you point out, Windows 7's mainstream support ended January 13, 2015. Why does Chrome for Windows 7 get critical security updates and not Chrome for Windows Vista?
Itâ(TM)s not personal, Sonny. Itâ(TM)s strictly business.
But how does not being able to provide new HTML5 features due to limits of operating system capabilities block the provision of critical security updates for the browser?
It costs money to update software and do testing on multiple OSes.
This removes two major OS releases that Google has to do testing against, that will save them a lot of time and money.
I'm interested. In your opinion, what's the risk of allowing the telemetry that Windows 10 doesn't let users turn off, such as Cortana, live tiles, and Son of CEIP? I've read "keylogger" rumors, and I'm told that Windows uses an anti-phishing service run by an organization that has provided enforcement services to the MPAA.
Microsoft has a lot to lose if they screw up the telemetry of Windows 10. On the other hand, they have a lot to gain by getting it right. They should, if they have any brains at all, have their very smartest people on this.
I don't want to turn Cortana off, I use her every day, and I get that she need a 2 way datalink to the world to work properly.
Windows 10 keeps track of a lot, what programs you use, how often you use them, what you search for on your computer and on the web (anything you type in the search box of Windows or Edge), etc. But I KNOW they are doing that.
Do I have a problem with it? No, I honestly don't. I use a Microsoft account to log in, it is wonderful, all my settings are saved and synced across the web, OneDrive stores all my files, every member of my family has their own account, their own settings, programs, etc.
It is a trade... In return for tons of information about me, my family, and how I use my computers, Microsoft gives me a ton of services for free, including Windows 10. I'm ok with that trade.
I get that not everyone else, but I suspect that most people will be and the outliers who aren't ok with it are a small enough group of people to leave behind. If I'm wrong, then MS will change going forward... If Linux is still at 1.5% desktop market share in 3 years and Windows 10 is at 50%, then you'll have your answer as to how many people really care. If Windows 10 is at 25% and Linux is at 10%, then I'd be more inclined to think you're on to something.
It will get the same security attention, which is what I'm worried about.
Maybe we're talking about two different things. I'm saying do you think Microsoft will pay as much attention to Windows 7 security in 2019. My point is that as it nears the end of extended support, more and more engineers will be moved off it and on to the next thing. Only major, glaring problems will get fixed as it ages.
Are you talking about that, or something else?
Yes actually they should be treating them because they are not combatants in the fight between the USA and Taliban.
I think you forgot good ol' George W. Bush's comment...
"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists..."
It is also well established in international law that it is illegal for any side in a fight to attack a hospital unless that hospital is actively attacking you, regardless of who is in it.
Yes, it is... and it has also happened in every war since forever... sometimes by mistake, sometimes not...
This idea of "rules of war" is a nice one, and it works sometimes... but not all the time, because war is hell...
Someone attacking a known non combatant hospital is a war crime and it doesn't matter if the entire leadership of the Taliban was being treated inside it and you had no other way of getting them all.
I don't dispute that it is a war crime... but it still might be worth doing, if it really got the entire leadership in one shot... Keep in mind, only the loser of a war really gets charged with war crimes...
Note that I'm not defending the practice, I'm telling you how it works in reality, not debate class.
If it is actually true that it happened, that they knew it was a hospital and nobody from in the hospital was actively attacking them, then everyone involved from the pilot to the person giving the order belongs in prison for a long time.
And if the USA loses the war to the Taliban, they can do just that.
Odds of that happening are as close to it not mattering... zero...
Again, I'm not promoting the point, I'm telling you which way the wind is blowing... pissing into the wind is stupid and arguing against the way of the world is equally stupid...
XP will be used for a long time...
But this article specifically deals with the XP user base that is browsing the web, and how many of them are using Chrome to do it.
Frankly, for your uses, you likely couldn't care less if Chrome supports XP or not, since you're not using XP for that.
The question really is, "how many people are still using XP to browse the web and how many are using Chrome?"
I suspect the answer is small and smaller, and both grows smaller each day.
One-eighth the users left in the lurch is still greater than zero users left in the lurch.
While that is true, it is not economically possible to serve every last customer.
Vista is past is mainstream support end date by 3 years, the number of people using Chrome on Vista may well be even less than Vista's marketshare (Google would have those numbers, which we wouldn't).
It may simply not be worth providing them further support beyond 2016.
That is a fair point regarding Vista users...
On the other hand, I can see the flip side, which is that Vista's mainstream support ended 4/10/2012. Which means that it isn't getting feature updates, only critical security updates.
To move forward, Chrome needs to support the latest features such as HTML5, and Vista may simply never get some of the updates that Windows 7 and later will get.
Speaking of which, Windows 7 has passed its mainstream support date as well, that passed 01/13/2015. While Windows 7 will continue to get critical security updates for some time, it will slowly end up in the position XP was near the end.
Microsoft is giving away Windows 10 for free. Very few people should turn them down on that offer, it is all around a good upgrade for both 7 and 8/8.1.
---
One of the problems that XP had is that people confuse the difference between:
"End of extended support"
and
"End of mainstream support"
People only see the date for extended support and ignore the mainstream number.
For most people, it is really the mainstream number they should be paying attention to. While some updates will continue to come, do you honestly think Windows 7 will continue to get the same internal attention in 2019 as it did in 2014?
Why would people using Windows XP, an OS that was retired 18 months ago, care that their web browser won't be getting updates in 2016, 2 years post OS retirement?
If Windows XP being retired didn't get them to change, this won't either.
While that is true... if we all do that, then we won't get any more of these games...
If you really want more of these games to come, someone has to pay launch day prices...
You're welcome to think that, but you'd be wrong. Many studies have been done on the subject, you're welcome to do the reading if you'd like to become educated.
But since you likely don't want to become educated, I'm sure you'll keep repeating the same false information over and over, proud of yourself for what you think you know.
It happens more often than you'd think. If you're getting your information from CNN, well that's your problem.
Guns are used in self-defense every day. Far more than mass shootings, but they don't end up on national media.
It's a case of the majority ruling.
Majority ruling becomes mob rule really quickly, without something to balance it out.
Lynching black people in the south used to be done due to "mob rule". It wasn't right back then, it isn't right today.
For instance, while there are undoubtedly some paedophiles who would want the age of consent abolished entirely, most of us think a law preventing you from fucking babies is a good idea.
And, yes, this does infringe on the paedophiles' "rights".
That would infringe on the child's rights not to be assaulted. But we already have laws against assault, so this just adds yet another law, to pile onto the millions of other laws. Because a politician somewhere was running for office.
As a side note, there is in fact a difference between an adult having sex with a minor, with consent, and an adult that assaults a minor by having sex with them without consent. But sadly, the law doesn't see that, one of the errors in the law that is hard to change because "think of the children".
A 26 year old man having sex with a 16 year old girl, when they are in a relationship and she is willing, is not at all the same as a 26 year old man raping a 16 year old girl.
Yet the law sees it largely the same way.