But didn't you just publicly leak the fact that Snowden leaked information?
Clearly that means the blame for the original crimes falls squarely on your shoulders.
Not only that, but you are trying to implicate ME in your crimes by making me point out that you are pointing out what Snowden has already pointed out!
Chrome and Firefox both do, though Firefox only supports part of the cipher suite. I recall Microsoft claiming they were going to add it in a future IE, but never actually checked... So I'll believe that one if/when I see it.
I didn't know about Safari or Opera, so thank you for that.
It sounds better to me overall, because freedom is my prime concern, not safety.
Then shouldn't one factor in the 10 year old girls freedom to not have undesired sex forced upon her? How is the girl free if she has no option but to submit to sex she never claimed to have wanted?
Talking to someone and actually abusing them are two different things.
Exactly. Adult people showing up to the "girls" posted address, and sending pictures of their penis to without saying in advance thats what the picture is, is very far from "talking"
Perhaps you're thinking of other unrelated situations where child abuse laws were themselves being abused?
They weren't and didn't.
As it turns out they weren't, but they didn't know that at first. At first, they fully thought they WERE in that situation, and proceeded to try having sex with her.
I see little difference in showing up at the profile address of a bot or cop that you thought was a 10 year old girl, and showing up at the profile address of a 10 year old girl.
In both cases they thought they would be having sex with a 10 year old girl.
There are also only a small number of situations, mainly where the adult chances their mind and doesn't want to do so in the end, that would factor in. If their intent is to have sex with a 10 year old, they clearly have intentions to have sex with a 10 year old. It doesn't matter if the reason they were prevented from doing so was that the girl wasn't real, or they got in a car accident on the way over, or what have you.
This bot did not reach out to anyone. The entire conversation was initiated by the adult, it was escalated to sex by the adult, and it was the adult that pursued the sex.
Now if the police see a chat transcript where the adult finally asks the girls age, she says 10, and the adult replies "uhhh, seriously? Yea sorry that's not the age difference I was looking for. Bye" and then proceed to make arrests and press charges, THEN I will grant you the adults freedom was infringed.
But that wouldn't be the case at hand. So to me the freedom of the child outweighs the adults freedom to fuck a 10 year old.
I don't think there is a State in the country that requires presenting a State ID before having sex.
Neither do I. I simply said that with our current system of "You are legally an adult at midnight of your Xth birthday" it is very simple and straight forward to verify and confirm this. The ID will say you are over X years old, and lack of ID (or an ID that says otherwise) means you are not over X years old.
That is the entire basis why the "your Xth birthday" is simple and cheap, compared to what the GP claimed was better (individually judging each individual as competent as an adult, at the time they actually are)
It is -- by necessity -- based on the "reasonable person" concept. Would a reasonable person believe that this person was of age?
If we were to switch to a per child based metric, as the GP stated should be the requirement, how would the reasonable person test even work? If legal adulthood was no longer based on age, but instead was based on a certificate you got after being deemed fit to handle adult responsibility, what kind of reasonable person test would even work except "I need to see your adult certificate please" ?
I would assume a reasonable person would think a 10 year old is not a sexual object, however under the GPs system that 10 year old just might have been granted a "You are an adult legally" certificate. (In this case I would be thinking that person is a sick fuck, despite they are having sex with a legal adult)
I would also assume a reasonable person would think a 40 year old is able to handle sex, but again under the GPs system that 40 year old might not have got their "You are an adult" certificate, and thus it would be criminal to have sex with them. That's a lot of reasonable people in prison for child molestation!
With the current standard of "midnight of your 18th birthday", it's very simple to apply the reasonable person test. Do they look 10? If so, you fail, plz go to jail. Do they look 40? Easy enough, get your unz on.
I still stand by my statement that using Xth birthday is simpler, easier, and more efficient than judging adulthood on a person by person basis, even if it is less accurate and with a higher chance of being incorrect.
While I dislike hearing of the "18 year old arrested on his birthday because of 17 year 11 month 15 day old girlfriend" stories, nor feel passing out in a park and pissing your pants warrants being on the sexual offenders list, these are more problems with abuse of existing laws for purposes they were not intended, and not problems with the spirit of the original laws. Specific to this case, I am perfectly OK with any law saying its illegal for an adult to have sex with a 10 year old. Despite abuses of such laws, the laws themselves are still a good idea (IMNSHO)
Short version: I disagree we should stop prosecuting all sexual abuse cases like the GP said. I also disagree it would be simpler to individually judge adult capability on a per-person basis instead of using a simple "Your Xth birthday" metric as the GP said (While also not saying the Xth birthday method is more accurate.) I also feel your argument only reenforces mine, in that the reasonable person test would be useless if we change to judging adulthood by a metric that one couldn't readily and easily prove.
That only sounds arguably better at face value, and perhaps only balancing out the original+actual problem. I'm not sure either option could claim to be the best one.
I agree that too many people have been prosecuted under such laws after being twisted for situations they were never intended for, and I agree that really needs to stop.
I also see the majority of the problem being "at home" as well which seems to be mostly ignored, which is very wrong too. I even seem to remember some reports and studies out there claiming a child is much more likely to be abused (sexually or otherwise) by a family member or other trusted individual. It may just be a reporting of it type of issue, but even so it seems that is not addressed nearly enough.
The remaining cases however I don't think should be completely ignored. Granted, at least in the US we've seem to gone too far the other direction, and I don't claim to have any answers or better solutions, but I'm convinced there are.
At least in this particular case, in the way presented in the summary and this one article, this isn't that bad of a solution to a small part of the problem. Used as stated, there isn't much room to abuse it, and leaves pretty much no question about the people it is catching.
Of course it can be twisted into something that can be abused. But if the fake child being simulated here actually is just a profile online and initiates nothing, it's pretty open and shut.
Anyone initiating a sexual situation with a 10 year old without provocation is someone I wouldn't want to have any opportunity to be around real children. They clearly would sexually abuse real children, because they have proven that's exactly what they would do in that situation, because they were in that situation and did exactly that.
I would even argue that, used in the current form, this would even be an improvement for police to directly use. Whatever time and money they are spending on real police to pretend to be a child online is saved with the computer doing that, and those cops time can be better spent elsewhere now. In fact my only reason for not encouraging exactly that, is that the police don't have the best track record when it comes to not abusing things given to them. The cynic in me pretty much expects someone to find a way.
But compared with what is currently being done, and including the potential abuses this system could still be used for, it's still a net gain in my opinion. I would easily choose slightly less abuse over the current lots of abuse, and choose never initiating conversation software over the current real humans doing it that just may.
If you wish to pay out of your own pocket to fund the creation, validation, and application of a test that can be applied to each child individually in order to determine the "real" line for that child, that gesture will no doubt make many people and groups very happy!
Short of that however, unfortunately not many other people or groups wish to pay what it would cost.
Cheaper measures mean less reliable results with more noise. That's why we have the imaginary line of your Xth birthday. It's as cheap as a validated ID card (which most places is govt/state issued anyways, so already an expected and required cost)
No one, including the lawmakers, are claiming or believe a person magically changes from a child to an adult at midnight of the magic day, if that is what you meant. It's just the best you get when no effort or money is being allocated for a better way.
Plus, looking at the percentage of the population that has kids, I'd imagine the majority of that majority* actually have had the thought occur that they could use the existing system as a form of "legal club" against other adults whom do anything to them or their child that they dislike. I doubt that group would want to change the existing system to anything better, as it removes a powerful weapon from their hands.
* I'm assuming the child-having percentage of our population is larger than the childless percentage, but admit I don't actually know. Apologies if that is incorrect.
That list is far from complete, and is mostly USA-centric. In other countries, not only are there more search providers, but Google does not even rank in the top lists. Or just look at China, where Google is made fun of similar to AOL is in the US today.
If that is what you label a monopoly, I really want to know what you call companies like Microsoft regarding desktop operating systems - or the phone company - or patents/copyrights for that matter.
Ok, build me a web forum in similar style to slashdot. I've already started. My code consists of a single FOR loop that never increments or even changes the counter variable.
You MUST use that code exactly as-is - NO changes, no removing it, no bypassing it. Chop chop!
This is a 1.6 KB core memory module still in a functional condition. It was one of many from the system it came out of, so I saw little point in backing up the fragment of program that was on it, but currently should still contain the state of an 8x8 game of life board from when I last had it connected to a PIC and LED matrix.
I keep it on my cubicle wall for anytime an employee requests additional RAM for their computer, along with the acoustic modem when they ask about Internet bandwidth or the QoS settings, and an 8" floppy disk labeled "Server Backups"
Uh, if that astronaut was travelling from here to that black hole 1600ly distant at a significant fraction of c , he might well arrive before he gets hungry for breakfast in the morning. Granted, his family will all have long since died but the astronaut will still be in great shape (if hungry).
That still doesn't quite add up.
If that "significant fraction of c" was 1, his trip would take 1600 years by his own clock. I know of no single person that has lived that many years and was still in great shape. (Unless you count the shape of the burial urn of course:P )
Of course only massless particles can travel at 1x of c, so it would still take longer than 1600 years for the astronaut to make the trip, assuming by "fraction" you mean x > 0 and x 1
At 99% of c, it will take about 1860 years to get there. Any slower, and the eta just goes up further.
The only thing that changes with the astronauts speed, is how much time for the astronaut it takes for say 100 years to pass on earth (a good assumption for one human life time)
Moving exceptionally slowly, it would still take 100 years for the astronaut to have 100 years pass on earth. Moving faster, it takes less time from the astronauts point of view for that same 100 years to pass on earth. At 0.99x c, the astronaut would only have to wait a few seconds or a minute to have those 100 years pass on earth, at which time he/she could safely assume the family members they knew are now dead and only potential decedents would now remain.
But no matter how fast earth time passes for the astronaut, the astronaut still needs a number of years greater than 1600 to get there.
The USB-IF has long had a VID/PID process for hobbyists.
*snip*
The letter sent wasnt a "screw you and your OSS tendencies", it was more of a "no, you cannot transfer PIDs like you want to; please cease pursuing that plan":
Arguably claiming "A two thousand dollar fee for your unique VID" combined with "hobbyist" is pretty dishonest at best. The fact of the matter is, before Arachnid Labs requested a VID for this purpose the policy DID allow transfers and sub-allocations!
Very few hobbyists have that type of money to purchase one VID nor has need of all 65535 PIDs contained within. I would also venture a guess that of the subset of hobbyists that can afford it, it is a smaller percentage wanting and willing.
Worse, the usb.org used to have two methods to obtain VIDs. You can either become a member, which includes VIDs with your yearly dues (plus justification for blocks after the first), or you could out right purchase a VID.
If you purchased a VID, it was completely and totally up to the VID holder how to allocate and manage PIDs. This is the policy they just recently changed, and seemingly right after the hobbyist community started discussing this very project earlier this year. Perhaps it really is just "bad timing", but I too am pretty full of cynicism and thus don't believe that to be the case.
If it was nothing more than usb.org enforcing their own policy, this issue would be nothing more than a "doh!" moment. The problem is their policy said one thing, they were asked to use a VID this way, they went and updated their policy right that second and responded with the newly ink-still-wet policy with nothing more than "that isn't allowed - see, the policy says so!"
If you are going to have a policy in the first place - you best damn well live by it or accept when people call out the lies. If you can't live by your own policy, then what is the point of even making one in the first place?
The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants Ã" in their own words Ã" are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.
Sounds reasonable.
Does it? Remember that time you used wd-40 and duct tape to fix that little problem with your homes front door? Implementing a fix in a manor not intended by the original manufacturer is the definition of hacking, thus you sir are a hacker.
Please do elaborate further how it sounds reasonable that you have sacrificed all of your constitutionally protected rights simply because you used a roll of duct tape?
Even if you personally are willing to give up all your constitutionally protected rights for using duct tape, I seriously question how and even IF your choice should in anyway apply to me. I realize the both of us have already broken 4 federal laws - assuming you haven't yet gone outside today either - but none the less I see no argument why that should become yet another federal crime, simply because I have a roll of duct tape in the house.
The final bit of irony regarding your point of view, is that possession or use of duct tape requires NO computer skills what so ever, let alone the specific computer skills of "turning computer on" or "writing code" to release publicly or privately.
Can you elaborate further on these inconsistencies between your point of view and reality?
Ah, but they do own it. See, when you signed that loan agreement, or contracted for utilities, or had that background check for that job, you signed an agreement that your Social Security Number could be given to a "third party" for the fulfillment of the credit or background check, and that the third party could then use it according to its own policies. Those policies you never saw but agreed to anyway likely remove all restriction on what can be done with your SSN.
Yes, but that same agreement stated I sign away rights to your daughter as well;} In both cases, I can't sign away rights to things I personally do not own. That covers both my SSN as well as your daughter.
SSN's belong solely to the social security administration, and do not belong to the person the number is issued for. It says as much on the back of my SSN card.
If I do somehow have the right to sign away things I don't own, then under the same argument, why is it not legal to sign away your daughter to my friend?
My SSN card is from 1978 and pretty much says the same thing. (BTW Mcgrew, I thought you were old! Now I feel aged)
"For tax purposes only. Improper use of this card and/or number by the number holder or any other person is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both. This card is the property of the Social Security Administration"
I've never once had others do anything but laugh that message away and try to justify how it doesn't apply to their case.
There is another person in my city with the same name but a good 30 years older than me, who apparently got and used my SSN at some point in the past. Apparently I owe $30k in past debts I made when I was 5 years old.
I don't have a bank account to this day due to this, and have had to pay cash for every car I've ever owned. I'm renting a house and don't see how I will ever get around a home owners loan.
I attempted to get things cleared up through the courts, but that lasted all of 2-3 months before the debts got sold off to other collection agencies and apparently count again.
It was even suggested that I file for bankruptcy and pay the debts off just so it gets removed from my records... Which is pretty bullshit to begin with. But at the same time, why should I believe that would fix the problem? The credit agencies have already proven they are happy to list anything, no matter how obviously fake, or no matter how court ordered not to. I have no doubt if I procured $30k out of my ass to pay them, they would still somehow get listed again.
Experian and all the others can go fuck themselves in a fire for all I care.
If you happen upon a used iPhone, such as a hand-me-down from someone that upgraded to the newest shiney, you likely can find a good deal on an older 3g or 4 model.
Then you can use the free enterprise/IT software iPhone configuration utility (Link is to the Windows version, but there is a Mac version as well)
This will let you create policies to push to the phone to limit resources and lock settings down.
You can give it a fixed set of contacts that can't be modified (for you and other close family), limit facetime calls and data usage to avoid extra charges on your cellular bill, lock the apple store to varying levels (including completely - highly recommended if you link it to your own itunes account!), as well as enforce other app and setting limits.
The idea is normally an IT department would get in a batch of phones, link them all to the company itunes account, and push predefined settings and limitations. Then they are assigned to employees. In this case, just think of it as crazy detailed parental control settings. It also provides for IT department control during use, where it would be inconvenient to get your hands on the device. You can push apps to it if/when needed, to location finding and locking, etc. You can even go all advanced and set it to keep a permanent VPN to an openvpn server you run, so you can reach the phone as long as it has some form of 3g or wifi connectivity.
Personally I couldn't really recommend purchasing a new iPhone for a 4 year old, but if your the one that ends up with the relatives old computing gear, free would be a good deal to take advantage of.
The only other functional equivalent setup for a smartphone that I'm aware of would be a Blackberry device... But unfortunately this needs way more always-on infrastructure on the back end to even make work, such as the blackberry information server, and something to link that to such as an exchange server. Not too many people have that already setup however.
I've not yet found any such equivalent software features for Android. Assuming it does and it's something you can run without a full IT department of resources behind it, the phone itself might be a more attractive option to purchase new or used.
Lastly, if you are willing to drop the video conference call requirement - dumb phones would be a perfect fit for a child. They have some pretty rugged models out there for very cheap, so losing $25 on the phone isn't as big of a deal if it gets lost, stolen, or broken. Just be mindful of data connections (aka avoid that cell plan option if you can!) Todays dumb phones seem to purposely go out of their way to rip people off in data charges. Most phones these days have dedicated "mail" and "web" buttons that can not be disabled, will always charge the minimum 1 minute of data usage no matter how fast you exit the app by slamming the end button (something you may remember to do, but your child will not), and they seem to locate these always-on rip-off buttons right around the most common functions such as send/end/ok and the dpad. IMHO a lot of models are also lacking in the parental control department, so do your research before buying a model.
So I guess the question for everyone is should Google (and others) be allowed to scan communications if they state clearly in their EULA what they are doing and why? Does the answer change when the communications include a parties that didn't accept the EULA?
Here is the very first email Google sent to me when I signed up for Gmail service. Bold is added by me.
Just due to the fact Google already does explain it clearly in their (obviously unread) EULA, as well as in their welcome email, and on more than one help/support page, I doubt explaining it yet another time would make any difference to these people.
----------
Gmail Team 6/25/04 to me
First off, welcome. And thanks for agreeing to help us test Gmail. By now you probably know the key ways in which Gmail differs from traditional webmail services. Searching instead of filing. A free gigabyte of storage. Messages displayed in context as conversations.
So what else is new?
Gmail has many other special features that will become apparent as you use your account. Youâ(TM)ll find answers to most of your questions in our searchable help section, which includes a Getting Started guide. You'll find information there on such topics as:
How to use address auto-complete
Setting up filters for incoming mail
Using advanced search options
You may also have noticed some text ads or related links to the right of this message. They're placed there in the same way that ads are placed alongside Google search results and, through our AdSense program, on content pages across the web. The matching of ads to content in your Gmail messages is performed entirely by computers; never by people. Because the ads and links are matched to information that is of interest to you, we hope you'll find them relevant and useful.
You're one of the very first people to use Gmail. Your input will help determine how it evolves, so we encourage you to send your feedback, suggestions and questions to us. But mostly, we hope you'll enjoy experimenting with Google's approach to email.
No I didn't mean to imply you were incorrect or to argue that point. Apologies if my post came across that way.
I was only pointing out that the steam/software feature for a tv console has been released, and thought you may be interested to give it a try on a computer.
True, control key wasn't needed on the// and//+ Starting with the//e open-apple reset halted the running program and dropped to monitor, while adding in the control key did a warm-reset.
I remember basic living at $d000 (the rom copy at least) which you could just type the address and "g" to go/run it.
But the restart key sequence remained all the way through to the//gs (No idea about the/// - I never saw a working one of those)
These were the computers I cut my teeth on growing up, so unfortunately I still have way too much a2 info taking up space in my brain;}
The craziest thing is that the kinds of device I'm thinking of are typically used by the IT guys in large organisations.
Most medium to large IT shops run their own Certificate Authority that is only trusted within the organization. One can sign unlimited keys this way, as well as avoid the age limits the public CAs cap you at. Windows networks have a GUI for this, so the process only takes a couple minutes. Unix networks use openssl, which I admit takes a bit of learning to use if it isn't something you do regularly. Personally I use TinyCA as a GUI front end instead.
For one thing, signing a Java applet proves exactly nothing about how trustworthy it is. You can easily get a signing certificate by spending a small amount of money and waiting a small amount of time. The whole concept of granting increased permissions to untrusted software just because it's been signed is absurd.
Two things in reply to this part.
1) GlobalSign.com has a free code signing tool. (Likewise, OpenSSL offers free class-1 certificates for your web server) Both are major public CAs trusted by default. Even a small amount of money is not much of a problem.
2) Your comment about proving trust is part right, but part wrong.
What cert and code signing actually does is prove the apps/servers in question is linked to a particular private key. Only saying "that key is that person/organization" is not proven or a given.
So it is still useful to know if future apps/servers are from the same source, and on a much lower level showing what org claims to be that source.
In other words, if you make and put up an app signed by your private key, then later you make and put out some other app signed with the same key, then PKI has just proved both apps came from the same source. If I downloaded those apps from your website, and your name is in the readme, then it is safe to assume any apps signed with that key are yours. I can then choose to trust those apps based off my level of trust for you.
If you make awesome apps, that trust will go up. If you put out some infected app, or otherwise damaging software, that trust will go down.
But you are perfectly correct about PKI not proving anything regarding if you actually want to run that code or not. And this is a poor metric to be modifying Java to make such a choice on. In the above example, you can just make a new private key to use, and it might take a bit before anyone notices the two keys are the same person and thus apply their trust rules accordingly.
That is the main reason a black list method will never work, only a white list method.
If I white-list the key your first app used because I trust it and you, then that trust will apply to your other apps too. But if I black-list your key because I don't trust you, that is useless since you can generate unlimited private keys (and even one key per app, if you are trying to avoid black lists;)
That's why Java blacklisting things (aka things not signed by a CA) is pretty pointless.
In addition, the two shift keys were added to the keyboard long before computers even existed, back in the days of typewriters.
Pressing a shift key would physically move the entire carriage assembly up to align the second set of characters with the ink ribbon.
This movement process took some time on mechanical systems, and qwerty utilized quite a few "features" that basically added in delays to help prevent such mechanical misalignment problems. A lot of those methods attempted to make most common two-key sequences use alternating hands.
If you would literally hit shift and another key at the exact same time (instead of hitting shift first, then the other key), there was a small chance that neither set of characters would be lined up with the ink ribbon, and you ended up with either nothing, or an unintended super-script or sub-script character, or even both.
Most all of the leftover slow-down "features" in qwerty (arguably all of the qwerty layout itself) no longer applies to our newer electronic typewriters and computers.
When the mechanical typewriters had "hammer" arms for each key, they would line up in the same vertical slot while the arm was tucked away the same as a column of keys line up. (IE:: 1, Q, A, Z) If you were to hit two keys in the same column at the same time, the hammer arms would be trying to aim for the exact same spot above the ink ribbon, and typically jam up. One goal of qwerty was to try and group letters by their average usage and lay them out so one wouldn't need to type two characters in the same column for common words.
This is why qwerty got the reputation of basically trying to slow down the typist.
I suppose the closest thing in the PC world were the changes behind the PSU power button handlers in the ATX standard that replaced AT.
I commented elsewhere that a keyboard power button didn't seem to catch on much back when they added the media keys to the 104 key standard, which is kinda where I would have expected it.
But I completely forgot about the PSU power button, which basically works the same way as the macs keyboard power button. Tap to send an ACPI event to the OS, or hold down to power off. (The later being the part I use while working on hardware)
Seems like a bad design. Macs had a power key for ages on their keyboard, but it pulled up a shutdown prompt instead of killing the whole machine instantly.
At the time the alt-ctl-del sequence was added into the keyboard controller as a special Key-ID-Seq, Macintosh did not yet exist and the equivalent system was the Apple 2 series. The Apple 2 series had a very similar button sequence (open-apple, control, reset), which actually did soft reboot the machine without confirmation.
However I do agree, if you are going to have a dedicated power button then an on-screen prompt feels like a better design choice, since holding the power button a few seconds would still hard-shutdown.
For some reason "power" didn't seem to catch on back when the "media" keys were added to the pc104 keyboard standard, which seems like it would have been the best time to do it. The only other major keyboard change since then was renaming the meta key to the windows key, however adding in power with that doesn't really make sense.
Exactly. This is like saying that because the SWAT and the FBI handle situations involving murder and hostages, that those departments should be more than capable of finding my lost kitten. Then proceeding to complain that they are not doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
But didn't you just publicly leak the fact that Snowden leaked information?
Clearly that means the blame for the original crimes falls squarely on your shoulders.
Not only that, but you are trying to implicate ME in your crimes by making me point out that you are pointing out what Snowden has already pointed out!
Damn you, now you're even more guilty!
I just wanted to add in what I know.
Chrome and Firefox both do, though Firefox only supports part of the cipher suite.
I recall Microsoft claiming they were going to add it in a future IE, but never actually checked... So I'll believe that one if/when I see it.
I didn't know about Safari or Opera, so thank you for that.
It sounds better to me overall, because freedom is my prime concern, not safety.
Then shouldn't one factor in the 10 year old girls freedom to not have undesired sex forced upon her? How is the girl free if she has no option but to submit to sex she never claimed to have wanted?
Talking to someone and actually abusing them are two different things.
Exactly. Adult people showing up to the "girls" posted address, and sending pictures of their penis to without saying in advance thats what the picture is, is very far from "talking"
Perhaps you're thinking of other unrelated situations where child abuse laws were themselves being abused?
They weren't and didn't.
As it turns out they weren't, but they didn't know that at first.
At first, they fully thought they WERE in that situation, and proceeded to try having sex with her.
I see little difference in showing up at the profile address of a bot or cop that you thought was a 10 year old girl, and showing up at the profile address of a 10 year old girl.
In both cases they thought they would be having sex with a 10 year old girl.
There are also only a small number of situations, mainly where the adult chances their mind and doesn't want to do so in the end, that would factor in.
If their intent is to have sex with a 10 year old, they clearly have intentions to have sex with a 10 year old.
It doesn't matter if the reason they were prevented from doing so was that the girl wasn't real, or they got in a car accident on the way over, or what have you.
This bot did not reach out to anyone. The entire conversation was initiated by the adult, it was escalated to sex by the adult, and it was the adult that pursued the sex.
Now if the police see a chat transcript where the adult finally asks the girls age, she says 10, and the adult replies "uhhh, seriously? Yea sorry that's not the age difference I was looking for. Bye" and then proceed to make arrests and press charges, THEN I will grant you the adults freedom was infringed.
But that wouldn't be the case at hand. So to me the freedom of the child outweighs the adults freedom to fuck a 10 year old.
I don't think there is a State in the country that requires presenting a State ID before having sex.
Neither do I. I simply said that with our current system of "You are legally an adult at midnight of your Xth birthday" it is very simple and straight forward to verify and confirm this.
The ID will say you are over X years old, and lack of ID (or an ID that says otherwise) means you are not over X years old.
That is the entire basis why the "your Xth birthday" is simple and cheap, compared to what the GP claimed was better (individually judging each individual as competent as an adult, at the time they actually are)
It is -- by necessity -- based on the "reasonable person" concept. Would a reasonable person believe that this person was of age?
If we were to switch to a per child based metric, as the GP stated should be the requirement, how would the reasonable person test even work?
If legal adulthood was no longer based on age, but instead was based on a certificate you got after being deemed fit to handle adult responsibility, what kind of reasonable person test would even work except "I need to see your adult certificate please" ?
I would assume a reasonable person would think a 10 year old is not a sexual object, however under the GPs system that 10 year old just might have been granted a "You are an adult legally" certificate. (In this case I would be thinking that person is a sick fuck, despite they are having sex with a legal adult)
I would also assume a reasonable person would think a 40 year old is able to handle sex, but again under the GPs system that 40 year old might not have got their "You are an adult" certificate, and thus it would be criminal to have sex with them.
That's a lot of reasonable people in prison for child molestation!
With the current standard of "midnight of your 18th birthday", it's very simple to apply the reasonable person test. Do they look 10? If so, you fail, plz go to jail. Do they look 40? Easy enough, get your unz on.
I still stand by my statement that using Xth birthday is simpler, easier, and more efficient than judging adulthood on a person by person basis, even if it is less accurate and with a higher chance of being incorrect.
While I dislike hearing of the "18 year old arrested on his birthday because of 17 year 11 month 15 day old girlfriend" stories, nor feel passing out in a park and pissing your pants warrants being on the sexual offenders list, these are more problems with abuse of existing laws for purposes they were not intended, and not problems with the spirit of the original laws.
Specific to this case, I am perfectly OK with any law saying its illegal for an adult to have sex with a 10 year old. Despite abuses of such laws, the laws themselves are still a good idea (IMNSHO)
Short version:
I disagree we should stop prosecuting all sexual abuse cases like the GP said.
I also disagree it would be simpler to individually judge adult capability on a per-person basis instead of using a simple "Your Xth birthday" metric as the GP said (While also not saying the Xth birthday method is more accurate.)
I also feel your argument only reenforces mine, in that the reasonable person test would be useless if we change to judging adulthood by a metric that one couldn't readily and easily prove.
That only sounds arguably better at face value, and perhaps only balancing out the original+actual problem. I'm not sure either option could claim to be the best one.
I agree that too many people have been prosecuted under such laws after being twisted for situations they were never intended for, and I agree that really needs to stop.
I also see the majority of the problem being "at home" as well which seems to be mostly ignored, which is very wrong too.
I even seem to remember some reports and studies out there claiming a child is much more likely to be abused (sexually or otherwise) by a family member or other trusted individual.
It may just be a reporting of it type of issue, but even so it seems that is not addressed nearly enough.
The remaining cases however I don't think should be completely ignored. Granted, at least in the US we've seem to gone too far the other direction, and I don't claim to have any answers or better solutions, but I'm convinced there are.
At least in this particular case, in the way presented in the summary and this one article, this isn't that bad of a solution to a small part of the problem.
Used as stated, there isn't much room to abuse it, and leaves pretty much no question about the people it is catching.
Of course it can be twisted into something that can be abused. But if the fake child being simulated here actually is just a profile online and initiates nothing, it's pretty open and shut.
Anyone initiating a sexual situation with a 10 year old without provocation is someone I wouldn't want to have any opportunity to be around real children.
They clearly would sexually abuse real children, because they have proven that's exactly what they would do in that situation, because they were in that situation and did exactly that.
I would even argue that, used in the current form, this would even be an improvement for police to directly use. Whatever time and money they are spending on real police to pretend to be a child online is saved with the computer doing that, and those cops time can be better spent elsewhere now.
In fact my only reason for not encouraging exactly that, is that the police don't have the best track record when it comes to not abusing things given to them. The cynic in me pretty much expects someone to find a way.
But compared with what is currently being done, and including the potential abuses this system could still be used for, it's still a net gain in my opinion.
I would easily choose slightly less abuse over the current lots of abuse, and choose never initiating conversation software over the current real humans doing it that just may.
If you wish to pay out of your own pocket to fund the creation, validation, and application of a test that can be applied to each child individually in order to determine the "real" line for that child, that gesture will no doubt make many people and groups very happy!
Short of that however, unfortunately not many other people or groups wish to pay what it would cost.
Cheaper measures mean less reliable results with more noise. That's why we have the imaginary line of your Xth birthday. It's as cheap as a validated ID card (which most places is govt/state issued anyways, so already an expected and required cost)
No one, including the lawmakers, are claiming or believe a person magically changes from a child to an adult at midnight of the magic day, if that is what you meant.
It's just the best you get when no effort or money is being allocated for a better way.
Plus, looking at the percentage of the population that has kids, I'd imagine the majority of that majority* actually have had the thought occur that they could use the existing system as a form of "legal club" against other adults whom do anything to them or their child that they dislike.
I doubt that group would want to change the existing system to anything better, as it removes a powerful weapon from their hands.
* I'm assuming the child-having percentage of our population is larger than the childless percentage, but admit I don't actually know. Apologies if that is incorrect.
I don't see this monopoly (virtual or otherwise) in search that you are talking about. Care to provide examples?
In that case, allow me.
This is just a small sample of how wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong and hella wrong you are.
That list is far from complete, and is mostly USA-centric. In other countries, not only are there more search providers, but Google does not even rank in the top lists. Or just look at China, where Google is made fun of similar to AOL is in the US today.
If that is what you label a monopoly, I really want to know what you call companies like Microsoft regarding desktop operating systems - or the phone company - or patents/copyrights for that matter.
Ok, build me a web forum in similar style to slashdot. I've already started.
My code consists of a single FOR loop that never increments or even changes the counter variable.
You MUST use that code exactly as-is - NO changes, no removing it, no bypassing it.
Chop chop!
Oh, and the forum must support unicode :P
Do you use magnetic cores?
Use? No. Own? Certainly!
http://postimg.org/image/ikdo5jnvx/
This is a 1.6 KB core memory module still in a functional condition.
It was one of many from the system it came out of, so I saw little point in backing up the fragment of program that was on it, but currently should still contain the state of an 8x8 game of life board from when I last had it connected to a PIC and LED matrix.
I keep it on my cubicle wall for anytime an employee requests additional RAM for their computer, along with the acoustic modem when they ask about Internet bandwidth or the QoS settings, and an 8" floppy disk labeled "Server Backups"
http://postimg.org/image/kxjre3fj1/
(Just ignore the energy drinks, it made sense at the time... I think)
Just one more fine touch for the BoFH that has everything :D
n00b, I still have my 110/75 baud acoustic coupler. It's out on my lawn, and I'll thank you both to get off it ;P
Uh, if that astronaut was travelling from here to that black hole 1600ly distant at a significant fraction of c , he might well arrive before he gets hungry for breakfast in the morning. Granted, his family will all have long since died but the astronaut will still be in great shape (if hungry).
That still doesn't quite add up.
If that "significant fraction of c" was 1, his trip would take 1600 years by his own clock. :P )
I know of no single person that has lived that many years and was still in great shape. (Unless you count the shape of the burial urn of course
Of course only massless particles can travel at 1x of c, so it would still take longer than 1600 years for the astronaut to make the trip, assuming by "fraction" you mean x > 0 and x 1
At 99% of c, it will take about 1860 years to get there. Any slower, and the eta just goes up further.
The only thing that changes with the astronauts speed, is how much time for the astronaut it takes for say 100 years to pass on earth (a good assumption for one human life time)
Moving exceptionally slowly, it would still take 100 years for the astronaut to have 100 years pass on earth. Moving faster, it takes less time from the astronauts point of view for that same 100 years to pass on earth.
At 0.99x c, the astronaut would only have to wait a few seconds or a minute to have those 100 years pass on earth, at which time he/she could safely assume the family members they knew are now dead and only potential decedents would now remain.
But no matter how fast earth time passes for the astronaut, the astronaut still needs a number of years greater than 1600 to get there.
The USB-IF has long had a VID/PID process for hobbyists.
*snip*
The letter sent wasnt a "screw you and your OSS tendencies", it was more of a "no, you cannot transfer PIDs like you want to; please cease pursuing that plan":
Arguably claiming "A two thousand dollar fee for your unique VID" combined with "hobbyist" is pretty dishonest at best.
The fact of the matter is, before Arachnid Labs requested a VID for this purpose the policy DID allow transfers and sub-allocations!
Very few hobbyists have that type of money to purchase one VID nor has need of all 65535 PIDs contained within.
I would also venture a guess that of the subset of hobbyists that can afford it, it is a smaller percentage wanting and willing.
Worse, the usb.org used to have two methods to obtain VIDs.
You can either become a member, which includes VIDs with your yearly dues (plus justification for blocks after the first), or you could out right purchase a VID.
If you purchased a VID, it was completely and totally up to the VID holder how to allocate and manage PIDs. This is the policy they just recently changed, and seemingly right after the hobbyist community started discussing this very project earlier this year.
Perhaps it really is just "bad timing", but I too am pretty full of cynicism and thus don't believe that to be the case.
If it was nothing more than usb.org enforcing their own policy, this issue would be nothing more than a "doh!" moment. The problem is their policy said one thing, they were asked to use a VID this way, they went and updated their policy right that second and responded with the newly ink-still-wet policy with nothing more than "that isn't allowed - see, the policy says so!"
If you are going to have a policy in the first place - you best damn well live by it or accept when people call out the lies.
If you can't live by your own policy, then what is the point of even making one in the first place?
The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants Ã" in their own words Ã" are hackers. By labeling themselves this way, they have essentially announced that they have the necessary computer skills and intent to simultaneously release the code publicly and conceal their role in that act.
Sounds reasonable.
Does it? Remember that time you used wd-40 and duct tape to fix that little problem with your homes front door?
Implementing a fix in a manor not intended by the original manufacturer is the definition of hacking, thus you sir are a hacker.
Please do elaborate further how it sounds reasonable that you have sacrificed all of your constitutionally protected rights simply because you used a roll of duct tape?
Even if you personally are willing to give up all your constitutionally protected rights for using duct tape, I seriously question how and even IF your choice should in anyway apply to me.
I realize the both of us have already broken 4 federal laws - assuming you haven't yet gone outside today either - but none the less I see no argument why that should become yet another federal crime, simply because I have a roll of duct tape in the house.
The final bit of irony regarding your point of view, is that possession or use of duct tape requires NO computer skills what so ever, let alone the specific computer skills of "turning computer on" or "writing code" to release publicly or privately.
Can you elaborate further on these inconsistencies between your point of view and reality?
Ah, but they do own it. See, when you signed that loan agreement, or contracted for utilities, or had that background check for that job, you signed an agreement that your Social Security Number could be given to a "third party" for the fulfillment of the credit or background check, and that the third party could then use it according to its own policies. Those policies you never saw but agreed to anyway likely remove all restriction on what can be done with your SSN.
Yes, but that same agreement stated I sign away rights to your daughter as well ;}
In both cases, I can't sign away rights to things I personally do not own. That covers both my SSN as well as your daughter.
SSN's belong solely to the social security administration, and do not belong to the person the number is issued for. It says as much on the back of my SSN card.
If I do somehow have the right to sign away things I don't own, then under the same argument, why is it not legal to sign away your daughter to my friend?
My SSN card is from 1978 and pretty much says the same thing.
(BTW Mcgrew, I thought you were old! Now I feel aged)
"For tax purposes only. Improper use of this card and/or number by the number holder or any other person is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both. This card is the property of the Social Security Administration"
I've never once had others do anything but laugh that message away and try to justify how it doesn't apply to their case.
There is another person in my city with the same name but a good 30 years older than me, who apparently got and used my SSN at some point in the past. Apparently I owe $30k in past debts I made when I was 5 years old.
I don't have a bank account to this day due to this, and have had to pay cash for every car I've ever owned. I'm renting a house and don't see how I will ever get around a home owners loan.
I attempted to get things cleared up through the courts, but that lasted all of 2-3 months before the debts got sold off to other collection agencies and apparently count again.
It was even suggested that I file for bankruptcy and pay the debts off just so it gets removed from my records... Which is pretty bullshit to begin with. But at the same time, why should I believe that would fix the problem? The credit agencies have already proven they are happy to list anything, no matter how obviously fake, or no matter how court ordered not to. I have no doubt if I procured $30k out of my ass to pay them, they would still somehow get listed again.
Experian and all the others can go fuck themselves in a fire for all I care.
In a capitalist society, it is the excess money that should be devoted to improving society
Glad to hear it!
Say, can I have a couple thousand bucks? My file server died last week
If you happen upon a used iPhone, such as a hand-me-down from someone that upgraded to the newest shiney, you likely can find a good deal on an older 3g or 4 model.
Then you can use the free enterprise/IT software iPhone configuration utility (Link is to the Windows version, but there is a Mac version as well)
This will let you create policies to push to the phone to limit resources and lock settings down.
You can give it a fixed set of contacts that can't be modified (for you and other close family),
limit facetime calls and data usage to avoid extra charges on your cellular bill,
lock the apple store to varying levels (including completely - highly recommended if you link it to your own itunes account!),
as well as enforce other app and setting limits.
The idea is normally an IT department would get in a batch of phones, link them all to the company itunes account, and push predefined settings and limitations. Then they are assigned to employees.
In this case, just think of it as crazy detailed parental control settings.
It also provides for IT department control during use, where it would be inconvenient to get your hands on the device. You can push apps to it if/when needed, to location finding and locking, etc.
You can even go all advanced and set it to keep a permanent VPN to an openvpn server you run, so you can reach the phone as long as it has some form of 3g or wifi connectivity.
Personally I couldn't really recommend purchasing a new iPhone for a 4 year old, but if your the one that ends up with the relatives old computing gear, free would be a good deal to take advantage of.
The only other functional equivalent setup for a smartphone that I'm aware of would be a Blackberry device... But unfortunately this needs way more always-on infrastructure on the back end to even make work, such as the blackberry information server, and something to link that to such as an exchange server. Not too many people have that already setup however.
I've not yet found any such equivalent software features for Android.
Assuming it does and it's something you can run without a full IT department of resources behind it, the phone itself might be a more attractive option to purchase new or used.
Lastly, if you are willing to drop the video conference call requirement - dumb phones would be a perfect fit for a child.
They have some pretty rugged models out there for very cheap, so losing $25 on the phone isn't as big of a deal if it gets lost, stolen, or broken.
Just be mindful of data connections (aka avoid that cell plan option if you can!)
Todays dumb phones seem to purposely go out of their way to rip people off in data charges.
Most phones these days have dedicated "mail" and "web" buttons that can not be disabled, will always charge the minimum 1 minute of data usage no matter how fast you exit the app by slamming the end button (something you may remember to do, but your child will not), and they seem to locate these always-on rip-off buttons right around the most common functions such as send/end/ok and the dpad.
IMHO a lot of models are also lacking in the parental control department, so do your research before buying a model.
Good luck!
So I guess the question for everyone is should Google (and others) be allowed to scan communications if they state clearly in their EULA what they are doing and why? Does the answer change when the communications include a parties that didn't accept the EULA?
Here is the very first email Google sent to me when I signed up for Gmail service. Bold is added by me.
Just due to the fact Google already does explain it clearly in their (obviously unread) EULA, as well as in their welcome email, and on more than one help/support page, I doubt explaining it yet another time would make any difference to these people.
----------
Gmail Team 6/25/04 to me
First off, welcome. And thanks for agreeing to help us test Gmail. By now you probably know the key ways in which Gmail differs from traditional webmail services. Searching instead of filing. A free gigabyte of storage. Messages displayed in context as conversations.
So what else is new?
Gmail has many other special features that will become apparent as you use your account. Youâ(TM)ll find answers to most of your questions in our searchable help section, which includes a Getting Started guide. You'll find information there on such topics as:
How to use address auto-complete
Setting up filters for incoming mail
Using advanced search options
You may also have noticed some text ads or related links to the right of this message. They're placed there in the same way that ads are placed alongside Google search results and, through our AdSense program, on content pages across the web. The matching of ads to content in your Gmail messages is performed entirely by computers; never by people. Because the ads and links are matched to information that is of interest to you, we hope you'll find them relevant and useful.
You're one of the very first people to use Gmail. Your input will help determine how it evolves, so we encourage you to send your feedback, suggestions and questions to us. But mostly, we hope you'll enjoy experimenting with Google's approach to email.
Speedy Delivery,
The Gmail Team
No I didn't mean to imply you were incorrect or to argue that point. Apologies if my post came across that way.
I was only pointing out that the steam/software feature for a tv console has been released, and thought you may be interested to give it a try on a computer.
True, control key wasn't needed on the // and //+ //e open-apple reset halted the running program and dropped to monitor, while adding in the control key did a warm-reset.
Starting with the
I remember basic living at $d000 (the rom copy at least) which you could just type the address and "g" to go/run it.
But the restart key sequence remained all the way through to the //gs /// - I never saw a working one of those)
(No idea about the
These were the computers I cut my teeth on growing up, so unfortunately I still have way too much a2 info taking up space in my brain ;}
The craziest thing is that the kinds of device I'm thinking of are typically used by the IT guys in large organisations.
Most medium to large IT shops run their own Certificate Authority that is only trusted within the organization.
One can sign unlimited keys this way, as well as avoid the age limits the public CAs cap you at.
Windows networks have a GUI for this, so the process only takes a couple minutes.
Unix networks use openssl, which I admit takes a bit of learning to use if it isn't something you do regularly.
Personally I use TinyCA as a GUI front end instead.
For one thing, signing a Java applet proves exactly nothing about how trustworthy it is. You can easily get a signing certificate by spending a small amount of money and waiting a small amount of time. The whole concept of granting increased permissions to untrusted software just because it's been signed is absurd.
Two things in reply to this part.
1)
GlobalSign.com has a free code signing tool.
(Likewise, OpenSSL offers free class-1 certificates for your web server)
Both are major public CAs trusted by default. Even a small amount of money is not much of a problem.
2)
Your comment about proving trust is part right, but part wrong.
What cert and code signing actually does is prove the apps/servers in question is linked to a particular private key.
Only saying "that key is that person/organization" is not proven or a given.
So it is still useful to know if future apps/servers are from the same source, and on a much lower level showing what org claims to be that source.
In other words, if you make and put up an app signed by your private key, then later you make and put out some other app signed with the same key, then PKI has just proved both apps came from the same source.
If I downloaded those apps from your website, and your name is in the readme, then it is safe to assume any apps signed with that key are yours.
I can then choose to trust those apps based off my level of trust for you.
If you make awesome apps, that trust will go up.
If you put out some infected app, or otherwise damaging software, that trust will go down.
But you are perfectly correct about PKI not proving anything regarding if you actually want to run that code or not. And this is a poor metric to be modifying Java to make such a choice on.
In the above example, you can just make a new private key to use, and it might take a bit before anyone notices the two keys are the same person and thus apply their trust rules accordingly.
That is the main reason a black list method will never work, only a white list method.
If I white-list the key your first app used because I trust it and you, then that trust will apply to your other apps too. ;)
But if I black-list your key because I don't trust you, that is useless since you can generate unlimited private keys (and even one key per app, if you are trying to avoid black lists
That's why Java blacklisting things (aka things not signed by a CA) is pretty pointless.
In addition, the two shift keys were added to the keyboard long before computers even existed, back in the days of typewriters.
Pressing a shift key would physically move the entire carriage assembly up to align the second set of characters with the ink ribbon.
This movement process took some time on mechanical systems, and qwerty utilized quite a few "features" that basically added in delays to help prevent such mechanical misalignment problems.
A lot of those methods attempted to make most common two-key sequences use alternating hands.
If you would literally hit shift and another key at the exact same time (instead of hitting shift first, then the other key), there was a small chance that neither set of characters would be lined up with the ink ribbon, and you ended up with either nothing, or an unintended super-script or sub-script character, or even both.
Most all of the leftover slow-down "features" in qwerty (arguably all of the qwerty layout itself) no longer applies to our newer electronic typewriters and computers.
When the mechanical typewriters had "hammer" arms for each key, they would line up in the same vertical slot while the arm was tucked away the same as a column of keys line up. (IE:: 1, Q, A, Z)
If you were to hit two keys in the same column at the same time, the hammer arms would be trying to aim for the exact same spot above the ink ribbon, and typically jam up.
One goal of qwerty was to try and group letters by their average usage and lay them out so one wouldn't need to type two characters in the same column for common words.
This is why qwerty got the reputation of basically trying to slow down the typist.
I suppose the closest thing in the PC world were the changes behind the PSU power button handlers in the ATX standard that replaced AT.
I commented elsewhere that a keyboard power button didn't seem to catch on much back when they added the media keys to the 104 key standard, which is kinda where I would have expected it.
But I completely forgot about the PSU power button, which basically works the same way as the macs keyboard power button.
Tap to send an ACPI event to the OS, or hold down to power off.
(The later being the part I use while working on hardware)
Seems like a bad design. Macs had a power key for ages on their keyboard, but it pulled up a shutdown prompt instead of killing the whole machine instantly.
At the time the alt-ctl-del sequence was added into the keyboard controller as a special Key-ID-Seq, Macintosh did not yet exist and the equivalent system was the Apple 2 series.
The Apple 2 series had a very similar button sequence (open-apple, control, reset), which actually did soft reboot the machine without confirmation.
However I do agree, if you are going to have a dedicated power button then an on-screen prompt feels like a better design choice, since holding the power button a few seconds would still hard-shutdown.
For some reason "power" didn't seem to catch on back when the "media" keys were added to the pc104 keyboard standard, which seems like it would have been the best time to do it.
The only other major keyboard change since then was renaming the meta key to the windows key, however adding in power with that doesn't really make sense.
Exactly.
This is like saying that because the SWAT and the FBI handle situations involving murder and hostages, that those departments should be more than capable of finding my lost kitten.
Then proceeding to complain that they are not doing so.