So psychos act like psychos after playing video games? WHAT A SURPRISE!
If you hand someone over to a psychologist, plenty of us have some sort of traits. Unless you completely lack a "fight or flee" response you probably have some aggressiveness, for example. It's a huge difference between these people being psychos before, playing the game and still being psychos and someone with tendencies to become a full-blown psycho through playing video games.
Imagine what the treatment would be for someone with trouble connecting to other people's emotions and conflict resolution without resorting to violence would be. Then realize that a FPS deathmatch where your kills is objectified to a score and where the goal is to kill everyone is pretty much dead opposite of that. Most of us just aren't very affected by that anti-treatment.
I'd seriously worry about someone who obsessed over FPS games, both for the long term effect and because you read a lot of these psychos that go nuts have been "working it up" by intensely playing for hours then go out, adrenaline pumping and play it "live". I've seen people get emotionally involved in a film but never like the rage from being pwn'd in a video game. Some really can't handle it, which si so sad for the rest of us.
I had to laugh a year ago watching an Australian TV debate on this topic. Some school drop-out loser on the front row stands up and tells us he's a budding guitarist and he doesn't want people stealing his music! And I think to myself I probably have twenty times his musical talent, finished school, went to university, got a job, ten years later bought myself the musical instruments I always wanted, and music editing software I wanted, and can create music as a hobby!
Wow, that's arrogant. I was whiz through a thick text book and ace any exam, but I can't play music worth shit. Likewise, there's people that'll never do well with books but hand them a guitar and they can play to make your skin crawl. But alright, let's say you are the talent. Do you think the optimal to promote the production of music is the path you've taken? That after ten years of school, degree, working and purchasing you can finally play as a hobby? Or would you probably be a much better guitarist, and a far more productive guitarist, if there was a possibility of doing it full time?
There's a lot of talk about the Internet and playing at concerts, but they're really not that coherent. Sure, you can go broad on the Internet and get thousands of fans but if they're spread so thin and even all the way around the world you won't make money off concerts. Concerts you can make an earning off by being a local hit, play the music that's popular locally and maybe just as much for being a live musician than the music. I know people here hate the world monetize, but if you can't monetize having an Internet fan base it's just like collecting mod points or comment thumbs or diggs, ultimately it's not advertising if you can't sell something in the end. And no, T-shirt and coffee mugs don't really amount to much if you can't sell songs, sell the information.
Unfortunately I don't see a perfect solution to that. From all I've seen of DRM and lock-in and dubious attempts at suing tools and infrastructure and file hosts and search engines, I've come to the conclusion that the ends do not justify the means. Society is better off just killing copyright and dealing with the fallout some other way than to try turning back the clock of history. But I'm not so blind as to think we won't lose some things, that some people who makes a living today will lose that income and so lose what they produce. But then, we have lost many classes of workers throughout the times, society will adjust. There's much more we stand to lose than we stand to win by trying to make water not wet.
That's maybe how you'd like it to be, but in practice it isn't. For example triple damages have been used quite a bit. Statutory minimums means you don't have to prove any damage at all. However, claims like these are just bizarre. Imagine, for one little moment that LimeWire had 1.5 trillion, you couldn't say this was actual damages or even triple damages it'd just be massive cash grab.
Even in civil cases they want it to work so that most people and companies stay honest. If the absolutely worst you could end up with in civil court is to pay what you rightfully owed, then everybody would try to cheat as much as possible. But this... I've had to deal with a few US template contracts at international companies even though I'm not in the US, and the more I see of the US system the more I see why they're filled with 100 pages of CYA. Else you get the silliest of lawsuits bleeding you to death.
According to wikipedia, no, the largest market cap in the world is 460 billion. If it was a country, it'd be in 9th place according to the IMFs list between Brazil and Spain. P.S. This lawsuit is actually lower than in 2006, when they sued AllOfMp3 for 1.65 trillion.
And it's related to DisplayPort, because DP doesn't need a clock signal generator. If you want to use 3+ screens, anything past the first two must be DP or use an active DP converter. Too bad so many low-end monitors ship with it.
In citrix-based companies, not that many as you start citrix and it runs a full screen session with your desktop. Everything you need to use is in citrix so there's no point in having citrix on one screen and something else on the other, that has at least been the way in the three companies I've seen though I admit only one has used this dual-screen setup. And that citrix desktop has no clue it's actually split over two monitors, leading to the results I talked about.
As a person more or less forced to use two at work, I hate it with a vengeance because it's all one big virtual desktop because of citrix and every application feels like popping up dialogs across the middle. Three would be infinitely much better than two, at least there no "#%5%%%#"# bar dead center. I know you can do that with a regular Radeon 5xxx if you have DP displays or an active converter, but I'd love to see it become standard like double DVI ports have been for a while.
4) Even if you somehow managed, against all odds, to find the perpetrators, who were within a sane legal jurisdiction, and you won a contentious civil court case against them... Is a 17 year-old script kiddie really going to have any money?
Most likely there's someone far more "serious" being huge DDoS operations than 17 year old script kiddies, they might be hirelings but nothing more and you can be sure there's money at the top. The trouble is that many career criminals rarely have any legal money, just black money. Mysteriously they always make rent and their car lease but they never have any assets for anyone to seize or wages to garnish. Or it's somehow whitewashed and put on relatives or some other way you can't reach it. So the conclusion is right but the logic sounded a little naive.
"Malfunction voids all pays and plays" should be illegal too, if the machine might malfunction, it should be illegal.
Only a nerd in a basement can manage to mod this up as insightful. In the real world everything can break down or malfunction, there's people all over the system that are human, the developers are human, nothing physical is 100% not even computers themselves that could suffer bit flips or data corruption and so on. Perfection only exist in a fantasy land, one thing how malfunction is handled but contracts can't outlaw reality.
The rules of the game is an agreement, presumably nobody agreed to be killed by that construction crane. You want every cash register, every online bank, every website, every advertisement to be held to any and all typos and bugs and human errors as absurd contracts? Okay, but it'll go both ways. Don't be surprised then if you click through a license agreement and discover that on page 13, paragraph 45, section 4 you gave all your money to the Church of Scientology. And you'll go "OMG no I'd never do that, it's absurd, it's robbery in broad daylight, it's fraud" they'll go "tough shit, the casino didn't mean to give away $42 million under any circumstances either". Fortunately it doesn't work that way, courts have found these contracts to be unconscionable even if the fault was made by those who'd lose on it, as long as no reasonable person would have given or accepted the contract that way.
I mean are they for private enterprise and the free market or not?
They're politicians. They don't even get a passing grade in remedial politics if they can't dodge such obvious attempts at consistency and accountability.
At the time, the top award on the slot, a progressive game that takes a percentage of bets placed in all similar machines, was $251,183.16. But to be eligible for the top award, a maximum wager of 400 credits, or $4, was required. Chavez's 40-cent wager was eligible for a prize of 20,000 credits, or $200, if she would have hit the progressive.
So.... you're playing a 40 cent game for $200 max, who cares if it shows 42 millions when it's impossible? I can tell you what happened too, a 32 bit unsigned has a max of 4,294,967,295 <-- seem familiar? Somehow a subtraction lacked a bounds check and it underflowed to be UINT_MAX cents. And for that they should pay out 200,000 times her largest possible theoretical winnings? Sorry, but I'll side with the casino on this one.
If they really have money trouble I agree. Personally I suspect the journalist was trying to say was that they'd never have to trouble themselves with money ever again, as in don't need to concern themselves with it. He's trying to be dramatic and say it in as few words as possible, if it had said "their money worries were over" I'd certainly not react, most live within a budget and "worry" about what they can afford. With $11M in the bank you can buy almost anything you want without worrying. Let me just put it this way, I've seen how mangled theings get going from reality to article, and this would be somewhere around 3/10 on that scale.
What the Internet has done is that almost no matter how obscure your preferences are, it's a group on the Internet for it. According to the latest stats there's 1.8 billion people online. Even if one in a million think like you, there's 1800 of them on the Internet. There's language barriers and some other details too, but still. Of course it's natural that like minded people meet, but on the Internet it's so extreme you run into groupthink - Exhibit A.
Take for example the coming wave of elderly in the western world. Here on slashdot we have mostly technological/geeky solutions. Doctors for the most part have medical solutions. Economists has some monetary solutions. Each group can think because they all just read their own sites that they've understood what "everybody" thinks and what "consensus" is on how to solve it, in short that they're smart when really their solutions are shallow, unfeasible and incomplete because they haven't been challenged enough. You see it with some computer systems, all the geeks agree it's great but unless you get user testing from somewhere else it very often flops.
I don't think we've really gotten dumber on the fundamentals even though we search the Internet rather than know by heart, there's much less meaning in memorization and hand calculation but then I never felt that to be a valuable skill in itself - it's a bit like measuring your writings by your fountain pen technique. The real value is what you understand, your ability to draw reasonable conclusions. Knowledge is important because you need to know the facts and the context to draw those conclusions from. It takes different skills because so much on the Internet is bullshit, if ypo put someone who is used to only serious and reliable sources and put online they could end up being dumber. But the younger generation who knows the pitfalls, they can go much further.
I simply think the answer is that we're getting more specialized, which is neither smarter or dumber - just different.
I think it really all depends on perspective - my old man worked with everything from vacuum tube computers and magnetic core memory up to PCs before he retired, he thought the advancements were pretty damn amazing. If you want to crown the most revolutionary time of computers there's very heavy competition. The 40s saw the first real computers, the 50s the transistor, the 60s the mainframes, the 70s the minicomputer, the 80s the PC, the 90s Internet, 00s mobile devices and wireless. Every one of them a revolution in their own right. But I'm guessing we have a lot to come as well, not that I would know what...
Well, it depends how you say it - we have the technology to develop the technology needed. But we don't have much of the rockets, landers, habitats, robotics and whatnot we'd need. Everything would have to be designed and simulated and manufactured and tested and... So even if you said "Go!" today, I imagine it'd take JFKs decade at best. And with no Cold War and huge national prestige breathing down their necks I suspect 20-30 years is a very realistic estimate. Of course with the current political outlook I wouldn't bet on it being the 21st century.
Unlike today, they can just sleep together, have children together, live together, write the same kind of contracts those that just live together do... I just found some stats here from Norway that says only 77% of the couples living together are married, when you think of how many old married couples there are you realize very few young people marry - or at least not until they've been together for many years.
A few points: 1) A criminal prosecution will at least get you a public defender. 2) The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", big difference. 3) The Google style safe harbor is part of copyright law, so forget that.
Also, it is quite likely you could get someone like EFF on board. Ask the file hosts to submit support briefs and so on. I couldn't find anything on any freenet hosts being arrested, but there are definitely examples of TOR exit node operators being raided and/or arrested. Examples: 1, 2. Eventually, it was all dropped. Unlike TOR which makes unencrypted exit requests looking just like a normal end user, there's very little grounds for arresting anyone over a Freenet node. I guess you can go for the hypothetical maybes, but many thousands of people in many countries all over the world have run it for years now and I haven't read of a single case yet.
Well, during normal peace time a lot of things like water pipes, electricity, phone lines etc. basically what you call critical infrastructure is a civilian matter. In a real emergency or military conflict the military can send an engineer corps to fix it, and I doubt any civilian has the authority to stop them. This sounds like something fairly similar for cybersecurity. If they need to plug in some extra cryptoboxes or firewall rules or armed guards at interconnects to secure the network infrastructure, they can and will. I'm just saying that depending on what exactly this means, it might be quite similar to what's already happening for other infrastructure.
Iridium appeals to users who need connectivity everywhere on the planet,
And needs it in a fairly mobile and battery-efficient matter in between cell phones and a big fixed installation. Part of Iridium's problem was from what I understood that you need quite many satellites for coverage, the wikipedia page says 66, and being in LEO they also need a lot of boosting to stay in orbit. If you're doing something like setting up a remote science station, my impression was that you'd rather throw up a huge dish and talk directly to a GEO satellite because in total it's cheaper. Around the base you can have your own wifi/(femto-)cell/walkie-talkie setup with small handsets. Ultimately Iridium is for a very small market of mobilse users in very remote areas.
I think the better question is how Freenet is unlike a distributed version of Rapidshare etc. with passworded files. Even though almost certainly file hosts have files with tons of illegal things passing through them, it'd be complete nonsense to prosecute them for it. Likewise on Freenet without the CHK you haven't got any chance of finding out what's in a file. To have any meaningful effect you'd also have to pass a law saying all files must be "open" for inspection for illegal content.
Slashdot Mirror
So psychos act like psychos after playing video games? WHAT A SURPRISE!
If you hand someone over to a psychologist, plenty of us have some sort of traits. Unless you completely lack a "fight or flee" response you probably have some aggressiveness, for example. It's a huge difference between these people being psychos before, playing the game and still being psychos and someone with tendencies to become a full-blown psycho through playing video games.
Imagine what the treatment would be for someone with trouble connecting to other people's emotions and conflict resolution without resorting to violence would be. Then realize that a FPS deathmatch where your kills is objectified to a score and where the goal is to kill everyone is pretty much dead opposite of that. Most of us just aren't very affected by that anti-treatment.
I'd seriously worry about someone who obsessed over FPS games, both for the long term effect and because you read a lot of these psychos that go nuts have been "working it up" by intensely playing for hours then go out, adrenaline pumping and play it "live". I've seen people get emotionally involved in a film but never like the rage from being pwn'd in a video game. Some really can't handle it, which si so sad for the rest of us.
I had to laugh a year ago watching an Australian TV debate on this topic. Some school drop-out loser on the front row stands up and tells us he's a budding guitarist and he doesn't want people stealing his music! And I think to myself I probably have twenty times his musical talent, finished school, went to university, got a job, ten years later bought myself the musical instruments I always wanted, and music editing software I wanted, and can create music as a hobby!
Wow, that's arrogant. I was whiz through a thick text book and ace any exam, but I can't play music worth shit. Likewise, there's people that'll never do well with books but hand them a guitar and they can play to make your skin crawl. But alright, let's say you are the talent. Do you think the optimal to promote the production of music is the path you've taken? That after ten years of school, degree, working and purchasing you can finally play as a hobby? Or would you probably be a much better guitarist, and a far more productive guitarist, if there was a possibility of doing it full time?
There's a lot of talk about the Internet and playing at concerts, but they're really not that coherent. Sure, you can go broad on the Internet and get thousands of fans but if they're spread so thin and even all the way around the world you won't make money off concerts. Concerts you can make an earning off by being a local hit, play the music that's popular locally and maybe just as much for being a live musician than the music. I know people here hate the world monetize, but if you can't monetize having an Internet fan base it's just like collecting mod points or comment thumbs or diggs, ultimately it's not advertising if you can't sell something in the end. And no, T-shirt and coffee mugs don't really amount to much if you can't sell songs, sell the information.
Unfortunately I don't see a perfect solution to that. From all I've seen of DRM and lock-in and dubious attempts at suing tools and infrastructure and file hosts and search engines, I've come to the conclusion that the ends do not justify the means. Society is better off just killing copyright and dealing with the fallout some other way than to try turning back the clock of history. But I'm not so blind as to think we won't lose some things, that some people who makes a living today will lose that income and so lose what they produce. But then, we have lost many classes of workers throughout the times, society will adjust. There's much more we stand to lose than we stand to win by trying to make water not wet.
Just define blackjack to be a sport, it's certainly no worse than poker. One down, two creative rewrites to go.
Then make sure the check for the two trillion dollar bounces. Wait, wrong scam.
That's maybe how you'd like it to be, but in practice it isn't. For example triple damages have been used quite a bit. Statutory minimums means you don't have to prove any damage at all. However, claims like these are just bizarre. Imagine, for one little moment that LimeWire had 1.5 trillion, you couldn't say this was actual damages or even triple damages it'd just be massive cash grab.
Even in civil cases they want it to work so that most people and companies stay honest. If the absolutely worst you could end up with in civil court is to pay what you rightfully owed, then everybody would try to cheat as much as possible. But this... I've had to deal with a few US template contracts at international companies even though I'm not in the US, and the more I see of the US system the more I see why they're filled with 100 pages of CYA. Else you get the silliest of lawsuits bleeding you to death.
According to wikipedia, no, the largest market cap in the world is 460 billion. If it was a country, it'd be in 9th place according to the IMFs list between Brazil and Spain. P.S. This lawsuit is actually lower than in 2006, when they sued AllOfMp3 for 1.65 trillion.
And it's related to DisplayPort, because DP doesn't need a clock signal generator. If you want to use 3+ screens, anything past the first two must be DP or use an active DP converter. Too bad so many low-end monitors ship with it.
In citrix-based companies, not that many as you start citrix and it runs a full screen session with your desktop. Everything you need to use is in citrix so there's no point in having citrix on one screen and something else on the other, that has at least been the way in the three companies I've seen though I admit only one has used this dual-screen setup. And that citrix desktop has no clue it's actually split over two monitors, leading to the results I talked about.
As a person more or less forced to use two at work, I hate it with a vengeance because it's all one big virtual desktop because of citrix and every application feels like popping up dialogs across the middle. Three would be infinitely much better than two, at least there no "#%5%%%#"# bar dead center. I know you can do that with a regular Radeon 5xxx if you have DP displays or an active converter, but I'd love to see it become standard like double DVI ports have been for a while.
4) Even if you somehow managed, against all odds, to find the perpetrators, who were within a sane legal jurisdiction, and you won a contentious civil court case against them... Is a 17 year-old script kiddie really going to have any money?
Most likely there's someone far more "serious" being huge DDoS operations than 17 year old script kiddies, they might be hirelings but nothing more and you can be sure there's money at the top. The trouble is that many career criminals rarely have any legal money, just black money. Mysteriously they always make rent and their car lease but they never have any assets for anyone to seize or wages to garnish. Or it's somehow whitewashed and put on relatives or some other way you can't reach it. So the conclusion is right but the logic sounded a little naive.
"Malfunction voids all pays and plays" should be illegal too, if the machine might malfunction, it should be illegal.
Only a nerd in a basement can manage to mod this up as insightful. In the real world everything can break down or malfunction, there's people all over the system that are human, the developers are human, nothing physical is 100% not even computers themselves that could suffer bit flips or data corruption and so on. Perfection only exist in a fantasy land, one thing how malfunction is handled but contracts can't outlaw reality.
The rules of the game is an agreement, presumably nobody agreed to be killed by that construction crane. You want every cash register, every online bank, every website, every advertisement to be held to any and all typos and bugs and human errors as absurd contracts? Okay, but it'll go both ways. Don't be surprised then if you click through a license agreement and discover that on page 13, paragraph 45, section 4 you gave all your money to the Church of Scientology. And you'll go "OMG no I'd never do that, it's absurd, it's robbery in broad daylight, it's fraud" they'll go "tough shit, the casino didn't mean to give away $42 million under any circumstances either". Fortunately it doesn't work that way, courts have found these contracts to be unconscionable even if the fault was made by those who'd lose on it, as long as no reasonable person would have given or accepted the contract that way.
I mean are they for private enterprise and the free market or not?
They're politicians. They don't even get a passing grade in remedial politics if they can't dodge such obvious attempts at consistency and accountability.
Well, here's a follow-up on that $42.9M story:
At the time, the top award on the slot, a progressive game that takes a percentage of bets placed in all similar machines, was $251,183.16. But to be eligible for the top award, a maximum wager of 400 credits, or $4, was required. Chavez's 40-cent wager was eligible for a prize of 20,000 credits, or $200, if she would have hit the progressive.
So.... you're playing a 40 cent game for $200 max, who cares if it shows 42 millions when it's impossible? I can tell you what happened too, a 32 bit unsigned has a max of 4,294,967,295 <-- seem familiar? Somehow a subtraction lacked a bounds check and it underflowed to be UINT_MAX cents. And for that they should pay out 200,000 times her largest possible theoretical winnings? Sorry, but I'll side with the casino on this one.
If they really have money trouble I agree. Personally I suspect the journalist was trying to say was that they'd never have to trouble themselves with money ever again, as in don't need to concern themselves with it. He's trying to be dramatic and say it in as few words as possible, if it had said "their money worries were over" I'd certainly not react, most live within a budget and "worry" about what they can afford. With $11M in the bank you can buy almost anything you want without worrying. Let me just put it this way, I've seen how mangled theings get going from reality to article, and this would be somewhere around 3/10 on that scale.
What the Internet has done is that almost no matter how obscure your preferences are, it's a group on the Internet for it. According to the latest stats there's 1.8 billion people online. Even if one in a million think like you, there's 1800 of them on the Internet. There's language barriers and some other details too, but still. Of course it's natural that like minded people meet, but on the Internet it's so extreme you run into groupthink - Exhibit A.
Take for example the coming wave of elderly in the western world. Here on slashdot we have mostly technological/geeky solutions. Doctors for the most part have medical solutions. Economists has some monetary solutions. Each group can think because they all just read their own sites that they've understood what "everybody" thinks and what "consensus" is on how to solve it, in short that they're smart when really their solutions are shallow, unfeasible and incomplete because they haven't been challenged enough. You see it with some computer systems, all the geeks agree it's great but unless you get user testing from somewhere else it very often flops.
I don't think we've really gotten dumber on the fundamentals even though we search the Internet rather than know by heart, there's much less meaning in memorization and hand calculation but then I never felt that to be a valuable skill in itself - it's a bit like measuring your writings by your fountain pen technique. The real value is what you understand, your ability to draw reasonable conclusions. Knowledge is important because you need to know the facts and the context to draw those conclusions from. It takes different skills because so much on the Internet is bullshit, if ypo put someone who is used to only serious and reliable sources and put online they could end up being dumber. But the younger generation who knows the pitfalls, they can go much further.
I simply think the answer is that we're getting more specialized, which is neither smarter or dumber - just different.
True, but silent water is pretty damn flat. If you got a decently sized lake and no wind you can fairly easily show it curves in the middle.
I think it really all depends on perspective - my old man worked with everything from vacuum tube computers and magnetic core memory up to PCs before he retired, he thought the advancements were pretty damn amazing. If you want to crown the most revolutionary time of computers there's very heavy competition. The 40s saw the first real computers, the 50s the transistor, the 60s the mainframes, the 70s the minicomputer, the 80s the PC, the 90s Internet, 00s mobile devices and wireless. Every one of them a revolution in their own right. But I'm guessing we have a lot to come as well, not that I would know what...
"Unobtainable Six" - these women you definitely won't get your hands on.
Well, it depends how you say it - we have the technology to develop the technology needed. But we don't have much of the rockets, landers, habitats, robotics and whatnot we'd need. Everything would have to be designed and simulated and manufactured and tested and... So even if you said "Go!" today, I imagine it'd take JFKs decade at best. And with no Cold War and huge national prestige breathing down their necks I suspect 20-30 years is a very realistic estimate. Of course with the current political outlook I wouldn't bet on it being the 21st century.
polygamy will be legal too!
Unlike today, they can just sleep together, have children together, live together, write the same kind of contracts those that just live together do... I just found some stats here from Norway that says only 77% of the couples living together are married, when you think of how many old married couples there are you realize very few young people marry - or at least not until they've been together for many years.
A few points:
1) A criminal prosecution will at least get you a public defender.
2) The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", big difference.
3) The Google style safe harbor is part of copyright law, so forget that.
Also, it is quite likely you could get someone like EFF on board. Ask the file hosts to submit support briefs and so on. I couldn't find anything on any freenet hosts being arrested, but there are definitely examples of TOR exit node operators being raided and/or arrested. Examples: 1, 2. Eventually, it was all dropped. Unlike TOR which makes unencrypted exit requests looking just like a normal end user, there's very little grounds for arresting anyone over a Freenet node. I guess you can go for the hypothetical maybes, but many thousands of people in many countries all over the world have run it for years now and I haven't read of a single case yet.
Well, during normal peace time a lot of things like water pipes, electricity, phone lines etc. basically what you call critical infrastructure is a civilian matter. In a real emergency or military conflict the military can send an engineer corps to fix it, and I doubt any civilian has the authority to stop them. This sounds like something fairly similar for cybersecurity. If they need to plug in some extra cryptoboxes or firewall rules or armed guards at interconnects to secure the network infrastructure, they can and will. I'm just saying that depending on what exactly this means, it might be quite similar to what's already happening for other infrastructure.
Iridium appeals to users who need connectivity everywhere on the planet,
And needs it in a fairly mobile and battery-efficient matter in between cell phones and a big fixed installation. Part of Iridium's problem was from what I understood that you need quite many satellites for coverage, the wikipedia page says 66, and being in LEO they also need a lot of boosting to stay in orbit. If you're doing something like setting up a remote science station, my impression was that you'd rather throw up a huge dish and talk directly to a GEO satellite because in total it's cheaper. Around the base you can have your own wifi/(femto-)cell/walkie-talkie setup with small handsets. Ultimately Iridium is for a very small market of mobilse users in very remote areas.
How is Freenet ANY different?
I think the better question is how Freenet is unlike a distributed version of Rapidshare etc. with passworded files. Even though almost certainly file hosts have files with tons of illegal things passing through them, it'd be complete nonsense to prosecute them for it. Likewise on Freenet without the CHK you haven't got any chance of finding out what's in a file. To have any meaningful effect you'd also have to pass a law saying all files must be "open" for inspection for illegal content.