For instance, imagine you have a game world that is completely interactive. I mean, 100% immersive. Say it's a Blade Runner
game. Remember the part where Harrison Ford just "happens" to find the snake scale? What are the chances of that actually
happening if the author doesn't make the character notice that.
Good point !
The problem here is that if the game becomes *that* realist, then you'll have to be *that* hero to survive through it
Anyway, the fact it is actually a problem just makes it more interesting to solve (or try to)
Have you ever played james bond rpg ?
While I didn't like james bond so much (well I just like better some other ones), Those who designed the game faced the same problem: "you've got to be a hero.. now how can you be a hero ?" and found an elegant solution (that could still be improved, especially for a video-game case):
The hero points...
You start your missions with some few hero points and their number increase according your performance in the game (game master decision)
The idea is, when you get stuck in a very hard situation, you can use a hero point to "magically" go through it
Which is a pretty funny and good way to model a "james bond" case, or the "find the snake scale"
For instance, you open a door, and damn ! three strongly armed guys are waiting for you ! you use your hero point (if you chose to do so) and oh well.. the 3 guys appear to be busy watching tv, anything...
Now it would be hard to introduce something like that in a video game, but not impossible if carefuly thought (and modified accordingly) (maybe for instance, if you run out of ammo, a hero point would spam some in the room you are (but behind you so that you don't lose too much realism and make the ammo 'shinny'.. things like that) and would perhaps help making the game-plot as hard as it should be. If you're not *that* hero it takes to get through the end, well you'll end with less hero points than somebody else, plus, you get a somewhat more interesting scoring system than counting all the dead bad guys:)
Anybody here can help with mathematical/computer science references ? I've been looking for it, but "self-understanding" "self analyzing" etc.. leads always to "enlightenment" sites (which is an interesting fact btw)
Anyway, many posts deal with the fact that it might be disapointing that we are "so simply" encoded and where can the understanding of this coding could lead us to. I also see many posts making an anology between ADN and computer code.
I think I remember it is proven that you cannot write a code that can analyze itself (something like that)
I'd appreciate if someone could *enlight* me with this self-understanding problem
If the mathematical proof does exist (I think it does, but, again, I couldn't find it), then it will have some very interesting consequences:
- Is this a proof there is no way we can actually understand ou genetic code ? (don't think so)
- If we get to understand it then:
- The states machine analogy is (at best) incomplete
- There is "something else" about us we still can't have a grasp on (soul ?):)
- The proof was wrong (unlikely)
- The proof I'm talking about doesn't exist and I was mistaken in the first place (sigh) (hope no)
Haha ! very funny !
Anyway, seriously, there is plenty of nice information on steganograpy at Fravia
and you may also want to check
Stegosaurus:)
*still laughing*
Brillant ?
If I were paranoid enough to want to send someone an encrypted mail, and oh.. it can be decrypted.. better hidden in a spammic form.. well.. the very last thing I'd do would be to first post it on a public site to have its "encrypted" result
BEsides, who knows... maybe it's not encrypted at all.. unless you have the encrypting and decryptig software in your machines... there is no need to encrypt it... all they have to do in the site is save it in a database, and associate a randomly generated SPAM.. when someone wants to decrypt it they just recognize it and get the 'answer' out of the database:)
Anyway, a better idea, and not so complicated would be a perl script than 'encrypt' and 'decrypt' your mail using fortune mods AND a key.
Oh.. and we are all pretty convinced security through obscurity is not security, but this was about privacy through obscurity:)
These companies need our support to stay in business
No they don't... I'm sorry.. I also bought a distrib I could have gotten for free, because it was easier, because my inernet connection sucks, because..because I felt like it and because I also appreciated their valueable work, I thought it was worth the money
I didn't do it because I felt they would break without my invalueable support
If I felt like that, I would have better go for another distrib. why do I want to stick to something that can't survive without our benevolent help ? they're gonna die believe me !
They do a nice job, I wish them well in their business.. but I don't think we should support them like that, they have to find the proper way to live with their business model. it happens to be hard and noble maybe.. still it's a business
oh well..
cheerz..
-------Link established-----------
(==HELLo=Hihi=)
GUIGNOLISNOTDEAD(YET)!!
YUPIYUPIBORNTOBEALIVEANYWAY
+iHOXXHTIii==ii)IIII)i)))THXXHOL; ;i)XOHTii==+;):);):););)++=iILHOXT
=iTXXHTi===;;;:::::::::;;;+=iILXXO+ ;i)OXXTi=++;;;::::::::::;;;==i)LHL= :i)OXI)ii))))=;::,:;+)T))))====LHH+
+ii)LiiIii)TI))T)+;TI)iT)TIi===I)ii :iii)ii====+==i))=;)i==+++++=+=i=++
=iiii++;+;;;=)i+;=i=;;;;;;++=i=+
))i)==++;++=)i++ii=++;;+===i=; :)))ii==)I))T))i)iiii=i====i,, ;))i=i===)I)))i))))+=+++=i:,,
))I))i==iiii=++++i==)iII=, ;ITL)LTii++++++++i))i=i)ITII+
=)ITIL)iiLHIi+==i)H==++=i)I)TII; :)IIII)TIiiiii=+;+++==++==i))=III)))I ...Hello ?... can you..read me ???..
feww.. managed to post this as no junk:)
Hey.. why flamebait ?? it was very funny
Besides, they do beat us at basketball (shame shame shame shame shame, shame on us)
They also beat us at patent warfare, fatness, american football, american bad fast food, american bullshit, and tons of other very interesting and relevant things:)
I thought Bill Gates did... :) (c):-) (TM)
Seriously.. the patent is about "indexing distributed databases - what the Internet is -",
intends to mean that the Internet is a distributed database, and the patent is about indexing distributed databases. (not about the Internet itself)
If you index a distributed set of databases-what the Internet is-and even... It's going to be interesting to see if the court will uphold patenting "-what the Internet is-"
By "What the Internet is", he refers to "a distributed set of databases", not indexing it, which is what the patent is about
This patent is really a masterpiece of shit, but your argument (even if leading to a somewhat reasonable conclusion) is flawed
Windows 2000 can be every bit as stable as...if you tweak it just right and run things smartly
Well this isn't everybody's definition of stability, but anyway that's not the point:)
I can imagine what you are saying is true, in fact I don't see a real reason why it wouldn't be, the fact is, most of us, crying after windows unstability are programers (and generaly not very good ones or we wouldn't be crying that much (about this stability issue at least, there are clearly many others))
Since we are programers, we are more likely to be seduced by an open-source OS like Linux, it is understandable, and since we are programers, we are more likely to have stability problems, and much, much more with windows than with linux, just because, once you did a big mistake in your windows app, you are often bound to reboot your computer to expect it to run correctly.
this doesn't happen (or nothing that you could compare at least) on a Linux box
So you see, for a Linux-lover, the balance is really really affected, maturity problems, geek snobism etc.. also appears, but this isn't a general Linux comunity behavior. (trouble is: a french puddle barks much more than a doberman, go figure..)
Anyway, I can assure you Linux users do feel/experience severe stability issues, because of the way they use their computers. on the other hand, windows users are much less frequently also programers, so that most of them won't have the ame idea of stability issue.
cheers..
Well, not that I want to defend someone I don't even know, but maybe (maybe) what was meant was that the event isn't relevant (but posted to avoid the other mentioned problems) for the simple reason that:
- Either you really care about it, like so many are posting about that it is important for their jobs, but in this case you already know about it, so this isn't an important post for you. (unless you want to know what people have to say about it, but then, do you really expect not to see ms bashing here ?)
- Either you don't right ?:) so in this case, the post would be only to garantee the temp is maintained hihg enough with some common pro_ms-anti_ms confrontation
In either case, the relevance of the post is about the same.
Oh well... cheers...
And what about movies that glamorize serial killers? By your same reasoning, they could foster a person's desire to kill.. doesn't that create a dangerous environment?
maybe it does.. maybe
Think about it..
do you really think it is that way ?
Anyway, you are giving us an example with the purpose of demostrating us that the other statement wasn't true (I suppose)
Unfortunately, there is absolutely no link between your example and the previous statement,
so.. what is your point...
let's see:
First:
The movie you are talking about is utterly wrong also so you support the original point giving a second favorable example. thank you for playing with us
Second:
You think the movie you are talking about is harmless (which might be a mistake in the first place, but that's another topic). In that case,
and I believe this is your case, you try to prove the original statement was wrong by giving us all an example of something that is obviously wrong, so that we should deduce the first statement was alo wrong
Well look at it twice, because you are self demostrating you are a jerk. nothing else
First, you should prove us that your case actually is a generalized form of the original one, so that the point would be made. you didn't do it, I never saw it, it's just not this way
Second, this is truly interesting, what is your point ? leading us to a direction with an obvious example of something going just in that direction.
the keyword is precisely "obvious" and that's why your point is self destructive ! if this is so obvious, then there is no point !
we can perfectly make the difference between the two cases, we don't have to clasify them in the same category, we can take an adequate distinct position in either case, thank you for showing us it's so easy trying to show us it's not !
There is no such concept as being TRULY free.
Freedom, just as pretty much anything else is bound to limits
Those limits, just as pretty much anything else happnes to be extremely fuzzy.
The real sadness is, people are so so so damn stupid they feel a need to have a straight
line drawn that would delimitate the freedom.
(which would be funny in fact, if not always related to so bad things as
the one we are talking about right now)
So here we are... the straight line doesn't exist
There are no good laws that could garantee justice in all case,
and we are always bound to human decisions in all the cases.
So why... for god sake.. why in the world do you put your so precious
freedom everywhere as a pretext to justify any atrocities. I just don't get it.. this is
ridiculous !
People like you feel a need to have some kind of absolute statement, absolute law
that would dictate wether this or this is legal or not.
that statement alone would last forever and would be the blade to cut between
right and wrong for everything.
So, people like you are puzzled when somthing as trivial as making a difference
between an 'action/violence' movie, where (many posters tried to
express the obious feeling about it) there is abslutely no 'bad' meaning/intention in
the making of this movie, and a child/porn movie.
if you cannot tell the difference, if you don't feel at least one of those
two movies is absolutly wrong, I suggest you go seek for medical asistence before
anything happens.
Many posters here say "c'mon porn child doesn't incitate pedophiles to act anymore
than a rambo movie incitate to kill"
I don't believe any of them actually believes it.
I suppose there is some hypocrisy in some cases, or maybe they actually feel
violent movies are also very harmful which could be discussed.
Anyway, what generally happen, is "I don't want to lose my freedom by allowing a law
against child porn"
Why would it be that way ?
why would you have to lose your freedom ?
You would lose your precious freedom if, and only if this freedom is very badly expressed
Remember your freedom is already limited
It is not an obsolute concept, it cannot be expressed with absoute statements
or laws
So freedom of speech, expression etc.. does not have to suffer from a decision
like this one, unless your want to preserve your freedom of watching/producing porn child
Nothing else
What must be restablished about laws and law execution, is common sense (also a big big
problem, I agree, but from where we are right now, I doubdt it could get really worse)
Laws are not a substitute for your brain
Stop thinking that if child porn is baned, tomorrow you'll go in jail for
expressing your politic opinion, because it just doesn't have anything to do with it
you can generalise it under a common 'expression' context if that suits your need,
still, this is something different, and anybody can make the difference, we do not need
a 'freedom of expression' concept that works for everything,
this is ridiculous and as dangerous as we can see it here
So you can kill an animal..
Why can't you kill a man ?
doesn't that represent a major denial of your very own freedom of killing animals
that enter your house your grand father has been fighting for so much ?
There is no limit to this kind of stupidity
I might want some freedom of expression, but I do not want the freedom
of expression any more than I want the freedom of hunting animals
I want to protect the freedoms that I need as much as most of us need
(just a matter of defining 'most of us', in the end, someone will be unhappy,
let's try to minimize the harm, that's the best we can do)
The freedom of watching/producing child porn do not belong to that list
I respect your father our whoever you want fought for a great principle of some kind of
general concept of liberty, that was necessary, and I'm sure he never inteded
to protect freedom of pedophily, if he did, I'll go piss on his grave
Allright I do not try to offend anyone's memory really,
I just don't believe whoever fought for a noble concept of freedom ever thought
of pedophily as an issue, because it is just plain ridiculous
I believe you people, protecting your so called precious heritage
are doing much more harm to it by twisting its roots
Freedom of expression, it it could stated somewhat 'absolutely'
would not then be about allowing other people to express themselves
wether you agree with it or not but would also take into account
"common sense" of evil, harmfulness, etc.. (if there is such a thing)
Of course I don't pretend to create such a statement, I really don't think
it's actually possible, but at least, we can do much much better than trying
to put everything we can think of under a same concept "freedom of expression"
Under those conditions, I do not want freedom of expression
I don't agree with you, but as much as I think this is a silly idea,
I agree you express yourself under 'that' freedom.
that's what it is about
it is not about letting someone create a virtual movie of you raping your
daughter and producing it anywhere. (noone's hurt noone's hurt)
I don't understand why is it so difficult to take 'special considerations'
and why this would automatically take 'everything we fought so much for'
oh well.. I'm not sure I'm making a good point because I'm not fluent enough to express correctly
what I want to, so I guess some will demonstrate I must be wrong if I can't even formulate correctly
what I'm trying to say, but I stil hope the point wll be made:
You must not hide yourself behind a 'noble' concept to justify an atrocity!
Even if it had to be that way, even f it was really 'freedom of expression' that were in danger
there would be nothing to think twice: the price is TOO HIGH
how can you even think about sacrifying one child ???? in those conditions ??
what exactly are you trying to protect ??
this is nonsense !!
No it's not..
in fact it's pretty much the best thing *they* can have.
The trick is they don't broadcast you. they give ou what you want to see. I tried something similar with a disguised internet-tv set top box.
But I was still using broadcast tv and the set top box was tunning the channels to provide the famous 'context-sensitive' tv interaction, thus bringing the user real interactive tv, with a real broadcast, running a site with time/channel aware contents. (something lik that, well you get the picture)
Anyway, the real good thing about it, and that's why this last one is better, is that the service provider will tune for you, thus will know exactly what you are watching, when, knowing who you are giving precise statistics and even real time ratings, which is very very good business.
Giving much more acurat ratings, than the statistic inquiries methods, providing an invalueable information to advertising companies.
Oh well..
Yeah !! you all bummers with your last flashing cellphones.
My friends and I have much more fun comunicating with smoke signs and tamboors..
While I still like some old games (especially if I have no other choice). There is no way I would ever consider them better than the new ones.
It's so snob to say "yeah but then, we had much better games with much less hardware"
DO not even mention the better gameplay.
The gameplay we have now is very criticized because we expect so much more now from new games, but truth is the worst game we have now available is still the work of several people for a long time, and is not even closely as boring as any of the best atari games you can think of.
Say, diablo, settlers II and III (just t mention a few) are criticized for being very repetitive.
Which is true for me. but c'mon... pacman ??
pitfall ?? I spent hours with pitfall and pacman, I really liked them then. but there is no way I thik they were better than the ones we have now.
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, imagine you have a game world that is completely interactive. I mean, 100% immersive. Say it's a Blade Runner game. Remember the part where Harrison Ford just "happens" to find the snake scale? What are the chances of that actually happening if the author doesn't make the character notice that. :)
Good point !
The problem here is that if the game becomes *that* realist, then you'll have to be *that* hero to survive through it
Anyway, the fact it is actually a problem just makes it more interesting to solve (or try to)
Have you ever played james bond rpg ?
While I didn't like james bond so much (well I just like better some other ones), Those who designed the game faced the same problem: "you've got to be a hero.. now how can you be a hero ?" and found an elegant solution (that could still be improved, especially for a video-game case):
The hero points...
You start your missions with some few hero points and their number increase according your performance in the game (game master decision)
The idea is, when you get stuck in a very hard situation, you can use a hero point to "magically" go through it
Which is a pretty funny and good way to model a "james bond" case, or the "find the snake scale"
For instance, you open a door, and damn ! three strongly armed guys are waiting for you ! you use your hero point (if you chose to do so) and oh well.. the 3 guys appear to be busy watching tv, anything...
Now it would be hard to introduce something like that in a video game, but not impossible if carefuly thought (and modified accordingly) (maybe for instance, if you run out of ammo, a hero point would spam some in the room you are (but behind you so that you don't lose too much realism and make the ammo 'shinny'.. things like that) and would perhaps help making the game-plot as hard as it should be. If you're not *that* hero it takes to get through the end, well you'll end with less hero points than somebody else, plus, you get a somewhat more interesting scoring system than counting all the dead bad guys
Oh good :) really thought you were trolling :)
?
and the difference is ?
Anyway, many posts deal with the fact that it might be disapointing that we are "so simply" encoded and where can the understanding of this coding could lead us to. I also see many posts making an anology between ADN and computer code.
I think I remember it is proven that you cannot write a code that can analyze itself (something like that)
I'd appreciate if someone could *enlight* me with this self-understanding problem
If the mathematical proof does exist (I think it does, but, again, I couldn't find it), then it will have some very interesting consequences:
- - Is this a proof there is no way we can actually understand ou genetic code ? (don't think so)
- - If we get to understand it then:
- - The states machine analogy is (at best) incomplete
:)
anyone ?- There is "something else" about us we still can't have a grasp on (soul ?)
- The proof was wrong (unlikely)
- The proof I'm talking about doesn't exist and I was mistaken in the first place (sigh) (hope no)
No es una moto, es un helicoptero
Haha ! very funny ! :)
Anyway, seriously, there is plenty of nice information on steganograpy at Fravia
and you may also want to check Stegosaurus
*still laughing*
Brillant ? :) :)
If I were paranoid enough to want to send someone an encrypted mail, and oh.. it can be decrypted.. better hidden in a spammic form.. well.. the very last thing I'd do would be to first post it on a public site to have its "encrypted" result
BEsides, who knows... maybe it's not encrypted at all.. unless you have the encrypting and decryptig software in your machines... there is no need to encrypt it... all they have to do in the site is save it in a database, and associate a randomly generated SPAM.. when someone wants to decrypt it they just recognize it and get the 'answer' out of the database
Anyway, a better idea, and not so complicated would be a perl script than 'encrypt' and 'decrypt' your mail using fortune mods AND a key.
Oh.. and we are all pretty convinced security through obscurity is not security, but this was about privacy through obscurity
You can drop cursed books
Yeah, but in this case, the only use for this book would be to crush bugs, so that could actually make it a cursed weapon...
These companies need our support to stay in business
No they don't... I'm sorry.. I also bought a distrib I could have gotten for free, because it was easier, because my inernet connection sucks, because..because I felt like it and because I also appreciated their valueable work, I thought it was worth the money
I didn't do it because I felt they would break without my invalueable support
If I felt like that, I would have better go for another distrib. why do I want to stick to something that can't survive without our benevolent help ? they're gonna die believe me !
They do a nice job, I wish them well in their business.. but I don't think we should support them like that, they have to find the proper way to live with their business model. it happens to be hard and noble maybe.. still it's a business
oh well..
cheerz..
Nope.. that's why most red/yellow/black/green people just hate white ones :)
As Coluche said: "I don't get it, even though homesexuals can't reproduce, there are more of them everyday !"
:)
Hmmm your post almost implies you didn't see Godzilla !!! :)
Now how are you to be trusted ??
-------Link established-----------
;i)XOHTii==+;):);):););)++=iILHOXT
;i)OXXTi=++;;;::::::::::;;;==i)LHL=
:i)OXI)ii))))=;::,:;+)T))))====LHH+
:iii)ii====+==i))=;)i==+++++=+=i=++
:)))ii==)I))T))i)iiii=i====i,,
;))i=i===)I)))i))))+=+++=i:,,
;ITL)LTii++++++++i))i=i)ITII+
:)IIII)TIiiiii=+;+++==++==i))=III)))I
...Hello ? ... can you ..read me ???.. :)
(==HELLo=Hihi=)
GUIGNOLISNOTDEAD(YET)!!
YUPIYUPIBORNTOBEALIVEANYWAY
+iHOXXHTIii==ii)IIII)i)))THXXHOL;
=iTXXHTi===;;;:::::::::;;;+=iILXXO+
+ii)LiiIii)TI))T)+;TI)iT)TIi===I)ii
=iiii++;+;;;=)i+;=i=;;;;;;++=i=+
))i)==++;++=)i++ii=++;;+===i=;
))I))i==iiii=++++i==)iII=,
=)ITIL)iiLHIi+==i)H==++=i)I)TII;
feww.. managed to post this as no junk
Hey.. why flamebait ?? it was very funny :)
Besides, they do beat us at basketball (shame shame shame shame shame, shame on us)
They also beat us at patent warfare, fatness, american football, american bad fast food, american bullshit, and tons of other very interesting and relevant things
There is..
After abusing of animals, we have to apologize
When stopped, my clock doesn't display anything
is it that it's never wrong then ?
I thought Bill Gates did...
:) (c) :-) (TM)
Seriously.. the patent is about "indexing distributed databases - what the Internet is -", intends to mean that the Internet is a distributed database, and the patent is about indexing distributed databases. (not about the Internet itself)
If you index a distributed set of databases-what the Internet is-and even...
It's going to be interesting to see if the court will uphold patenting "-what the Internet is-"
By "What the Internet is", he refers to "a distributed set of databases", not indexing it, which is what the patent is about
This patent is really a masterpiece of shit, but your argument (even if leading to a somewhat reasonable conclusion) is flawed
Hmm not completely wrong, but you should subscribe to some gtk/gnome and kde mailing lists to extend your 'only' to a more realistic 'mostly'
cheers..
Windows 2000 can be every bit as stable as...if you tweak it just right and run things smartly :)
Well this isn't everybody's definition of stability, but anyway that's not the point
I can imagine what you are saying is true, in fact I don't see a real reason why it wouldn't be, the fact is, most of us, crying after windows unstability are programers (and generaly not very good ones or we wouldn't be crying that much (about this stability issue at least, there are clearly many others))
Since we are programers, we are more likely to be seduced by an open-source OS like Linux, it is understandable, and since we are programers, we are more likely to have stability problems, and much, much more with windows than with linux, just because, once you did a big mistake in your windows app, you are often bound to reboot your computer to expect it to run correctly.
this doesn't happen (or nothing that you could compare at least) on a Linux box
So you see, for a Linux-lover, the balance is really really affected, maturity problems, geek snobism etc.. also appears, but this isn't a general Linux comunity behavior. (trouble is: a french puddle barks much more than a doberman, go figure..)
Anyway, I can assure you Linux users do feel/experience severe stability issues, because of the way they use their computers. on the other hand, windows users are much less frequently also programers, so that most of them won't have the ame idea of stability issue.
cheers..
Well, not that I want to defend someone I don't even know, but maybe (maybe) what was meant was that the event isn't relevant (but posted to avoid the other mentioned problems) for the simple reason that: :) so in this case, the post would be only to garantee the temp is maintained hihg enough with some common pro_ms-anti_ms confrontation
- Either you really care about it, like so many are posting about that it is important for their jobs, but in this case you already know about it, so this isn't an important post for you. (unless you want to know what people have to say about it, but then, do you really expect not to see ms bashing here ?)
- Either you don't right ?
In either case, the relevance of the post is about the same.
Oh well... cheers...
And what about movies that glamorize serial killers? By your same reasoning, they could foster a person's desire to kill.. doesn't that create a dangerous environment?
maybe it does.. maybe
Think about it..
do you really think it is that way ?
Anyway, you are giving us an example with the purpose of demostrating us that the other statement wasn't true (I suppose)
Unfortunately, there is absolutely no link between your example and the previous statement, so.. what is your point... let's see:
First:
The movie you are talking about is utterly wrong also so you support the original point giving a second favorable example. thank you for playing with us
Second:
You think the movie you are talking about is harmless (which might be a mistake in the first place, but that's another topic). In that case, and I believe this is your case, you try to prove the original statement was wrong by giving us all an example of something that is obviously wrong, so that we should deduce the first statement was alo wrong
Well look at it twice, because you are self demostrating you are a jerk. nothing else
First, you should prove us that your case actually is a generalized form of the original one, so that the point would be made. you didn't do it, I never saw it, it's just not this way
Second, this is truly interesting, what is your point ? leading us to a direction with an obvious example of something going just in that direction.
the keyword is precisely "obvious" and that's why your point is self destructive ! if this is so obvious, then there is no point !
we can perfectly make the difference between the two cases, we don't have to clasify them in the same category, we can take an adequate distinct position in either case, thank you for showing us it's so easy trying to show us it's not !
There is no such concept as being TRULY free.
Freedom, just as pretty much anything else is bound to limits
Those limits, just as pretty much anything else happnes to be extremely fuzzy.
The real sadness is, people are so so so damn stupid they feel a need to have a straight line drawn that would delimitate the freedom. (which would be funny in fact, if not always related to so bad things as the one we are talking about right now)
So here we are... the straight line doesn't exist
There are no good laws that could garantee justice in all case, and we are always bound to human decisions in all the cases.
So why... for god sake.. why in the world do you put your so precious freedom everywhere as a pretext to justify any atrocities.
I just don't get it.. this is ridiculous !
People like you feel a need to have some kind of absolute statement, absolute law that would dictate wether this or this is legal or not.
that statement alone would last forever and would be the blade to cut between right and wrong for everything.
So, people like you are puzzled when somthing as trivial as making a difference between an 'action/violence' movie, where (many posters tried to express the obious feeling about it) there is abslutely no 'bad' meaning/intention in the making of this movie, and a child/porn movie.
if you cannot tell the difference, if you don't feel at least one of those two movies is absolutly wrong, I suggest you go seek for medical asistence before anything happens.
Many posters here say "c'mon porn child doesn't incitate pedophiles to act anymore than a rambo movie incitate to kill"
I don't believe any of them actually believes it.
I suppose there is some hypocrisy in some cases, or maybe they actually feel violent movies are also very harmful which could be discussed.
Anyway, what generally happen, is "I don't want to lose my freedom by allowing a law against child porn"
Why would it be that way ?
why would you have to lose your freedom ?
You would lose your precious freedom if, and only if this freedom is very badly expressed
Remember your freedom is already limited
It is not an obsolute concept, it cannot be expressed with absoute statements or laws
So freedom of speech, expression etc.. does not have to suffer from a decision like this one,
unless your want to preserve your freedom of watching/producing porn child
Nothing else
What must be restablished about laws and law execution, is common sense (also a big big problem, I agree, but from where we are right now, I doubdt it could get really worse)
Laws are not a substitute for your brain
Stop thinking that if child porn is baned, tomorrow you'll go in jail for expressing your politic opinion, because it just doesn't have anything to do with it
you can generalise it under a common 'expression' context if that suits your need, still, this is something different, and anybody can make the difference, we do not need a 'freedom of expression' concept that works for everything, this is ridiculous and as dangerous as we can see it here
So you can kill an animal..
Why can't you kill a man ?
doesn't that represent a major denial of your very own freedom of killing animals that enter your house your grand father has been fighting for so much ?
There is no limit to this kind of stupidity
I might want some freedom of expression, but I do not want the freedom of expression any more than I want the freedom of hunting animals
I want to protect the freedoms that I need as much as most of us need (just a matter of defining 'most of us', in the end, someone will be unhappy, let's try to minimize the harm, that's the best we can do)
The freedom of watching/producing child porn do not belong to that list
I respect your father our whoever you want fought for a great principle of some kind of general concept of liberty, that was necessary, and I'm sure he never inteded to protect freedom of pedophily, if he did, I'll go piss on his grave
Allright I do not try to offend anyone's memory really, I just don't believe whoever fought for a noble concept of freedom ever thought of pedophily as an issue, because it is just plain ridiculous
I believe you people, protecting your so called precious heritage are doing much more harm to it by twisting its roots
Freedom of expression, it it could stated somewhat 'absolutely' would not then be about allowing other people to express themselves wether you agree with it or not but would also take into account "common sense" of evil, harmfulness, etc.. (if there is such a thing)
Of course I don't pretend to create such a statement, I really don't think it's actually possible, but at least, we can do much much better than trying to put everything we can think of under a same concept "freedom of expression"
Under those conditions, I do not want freedom of expression
I don't agree with you, but as much as I think this is a silly idea, I agree you express yourself under 'that' freedom. that's what it is about
it is not about letting someone create a virtual movie of you raping your daughter and producing it anywhere. (noone's hurt noone's hurt)
I don't understand why is it so difficult to take 'special considerations' and why this would automatically take 'everything we fought so much for'
oh well.. I'm not sure I'm making a good point because I'm not fluent enough to express correctly what I want to, so I guess some will demonstrate I must be wrong if I can't even formulate correctly what I'm trying to say, but I stil hope the point wll be made:
You must not hide yourself behind a 'noble' concept to justify an atrocity!
Even if it had to be that way, even f it was really 'freedom of expression' that were in danger there would be nothing to think twice: the price is TOO HIGH how can you even think about sacrifying one child ???? in those conditions ?? what exactly are you trying to protect ?? this is nonsense !!
No it's not..
in fact it's pretty much the best thing *they* can have.
The trick is they don't broadcast you. they give ou what you want to see. I tried something similar with a disguised internet-tv set top box.
But I was still using broadcast tv and the set top box was tunning the channels to provide the famous 'context-sensitive' tv interaction, thus bringing the user real interactive tv, with a real broadcast, running a site with time/channel aware contents. (something lik that, well you get the picture)
Anyway, the real good thing about it, and that's why this last one is better, is that the service provider will tune for you, thus will know exactly what you are watching, when, knowing who you are giving precise statistics and even real time ratings, which is very very good business.
Giving much more acurat ratings, than the statistic inquiries methods, providing an invalueable information to advertising companies.
Oh well..
Yeah !! you all bummers with your last flashing cellphones.
My friends and I have much more fun comunicating with smoke signs and tamboors..
While I still like some old games (especially if I have no other choice). There is no way I would ever consider them better than the new ones.
It's so snob to say "yeah but then, we had much better games with much less hardware"
DO not even mention the better gameplay.
The gameplay we have now is very criticized because we expect so much more now from new games, but truth is the worst game we have now available is still the work of several people for a long time, and is not even closely as boring as any of the best atari games you can think of.
Say, diablo, settlers II and III (just t mention a few) are criticized for being very repetitive.
Which is true for me. but c'mon... pacman ?? pitfall ?? I spent hours with pitfall and pacman, I really liked them then. but there is no way I thik they were better than the ones we have now.