That's how we came up with the concept of "Age of Consent" in the first place.
Hang on a minute. We have an age of consent, a line which we DARE NOT CROSS; doing so leads to felony charges or worse, your name on a list for the rest of eternity.
However, when a child kills someone in a particularly devious manner, that child can then be tried as an adult in our society.
Post-sentencing, if the child is found guilty, can that child then have sex? (Obviously not; just pointing out the double standard.)
Let's not forget that Actual child porn involving real children IS abuse, and results in permanent harm (both psychological and physical) to a child. This is something that any healthy society should strive to prevent.
Ahem. Twisting it slightly: "Let's not forget that photographic evidence of a bank robbery IS abuse, and results in permanent harm (both psychological and physical) to the victims. This is something that any healthy society should strive to prevent."
Now, does the "law against possession of evidence that a crime was committed" seem arbitrary and ridiculous (as in, deserving of ridicule)?
I think that the perpetrators of child abuse should be brought to justice. People who are in possession of photographic evidence that the crime took place should be subpoenaed as witnesses, not locked up.
Yes, your argument completely convinced me. I will now go hide under a rock and wait for the Rapture(TM). Thanks for your well-thought-out argument. Surely, you are a greater mind than I.
I can also imagine that the flywheel itself could be tilted with hydraulics to take advantage of the gyroscopic effect for enabling tighter turns. I doubt F1 would allow this, but it would be a pretty amazing ride! I can imagine future F1 drivers wearing a g-suit.
So, it was a really shitty movie, but perhaps Speed Racer-style maneuvering is in our racing sports' futures?
I fully believe that the RepRap chip design project will build in a casing and vacuum pump, "and stuff like that". But, still, keep convincing yourself that believing in the future is wrong -- you have a larger audience.
Yeah, whereas these days, anyone can have a processor manufacturing plant in their garage!
Although I think you left off the sarcasm tag, I do agree with you:
The people working on the RepRap project are currently working on the second generation 3D printer. The first generation prints in silicone. The second generation will print that as well as a conducting material, which has a melting point lower than the silicone; that way the silicone can be formed with grooves and channels, then the conducting material laid in them as traces to produce electronics.
Sure, the initial results will be clunky and seem very old-tech, likely not even the equivalent of the 8086. However, as others mentioned, technology tends to become both cheaper and doable by smaller and smaller groups of people.
That said, I would imagine that most sites that have said regulations are not particularly close to public land and/or have some sort of obstruction to keep people from taking photographs.
(Emphasis mine.) One of the things the individuals in this story are being charged with is taking pictures of the boundary wall. From Stanislav_J's post:
"Their digital camera too had clippings of some prohibited spots - a photo of Jamnagar airport's main gate, boundary walls and also buildings."
Maybe they need to erect a boundary wall to prevent people from taking pictures of the boundary wall....
Huh. Seems like, despite (perhaps because of?) having a much lower lifespan, our ancestors seem far less fragile as individuals than we are today. I remember a president having a fitness program, many years ago. Perhaps it's time to reinstate something like that in our public schools?
How, in any way, shape or form, can someone making a copy of their CD or MP3 files be said to 'enrich' the band ?
Well, here's one: it widens their audience, which may lead to more ticket sales, t-shirts, and even purchases of their CDs both at the gigs and on-line.
Jonathan Coulton has made significant buck from giving his stuff away. Although he may be an island in a sea of failures, he is an example, and I have provided an answer to your question.
Also, the whole point enshrined in our Constitution is that it was supposed to be a social contract, where both parties obtain something of value. It is now a one-sided contract; since 1923, no work has entered the public domain, and it is highly likely that Disney et al will petition the government for a 20-year increase, every 18 years, like they've been doing. So it is no longer a contract at all; it is "merely" a restriction.
From what I can see, piracy actually helps society.
Please, PLEASE stop calling copyright infringement "piracy". Piracy happens on the high seas, generally, lately, near Somalia. And it can be deadly, as the pirates who tried to attack the Indian Navy vessel learned last week.
Copyright infringement is not even stealing; it's copying. Stealing (legal definition) involves depriving the owner of their property, but copying does not do that; rather, it enriches both parties.
In addition, corporations have stolen from the public domain that was granted access to all works after a short period of time, as defined by the US Constitution. So, these corporations have reneged on their social contract, and therefore do not deserve to have their copyrights respected (note that this last part has not been confirmed by the courts, but it should, soon; Google "Lessig Eldred").
And I agree: rampant copying does help society, because it helps us ensure that we bring forward our culture, rather than letting it rot, forgotten, in unmarketable silos.
By the way, could someone introduce Slashdot to the wonder of TRANSPARENT GIFS (at least), so they can remove the white corners showing up on their "curvy" grey buttons on these forms? It's kind of embarrassing.
Heh, I just like to think of it as the form is smiling at me.
Funny you should mention that. Even though his replacement would be chosen by special election and appointed, the consensus in the punditocracy was that Palin would run for the seat and probably win.
That's actually my favorite part about this: her national political career is now stillborn, she'll have to wait for an actual election to be able to take a Senate seat.
Thanks for the hate! Slashdot doesn't let you know when a Friend became so, or from which post, so I try to be helpful. As always, of course, help isn't always appreciated, and I thank you for reinforcing that lesson.
As a copyright owner you have to specify under oath (perjury) exactly the thing that infringes your copyright for the website to take it down.
Actually, I think it's a bit more insidious than that. The copyright holder just needs to specify what to take down; it is not under oath.
If the infringer petitions the safe harbor to put it back, that's the part that is under oath.
This protects the studios, who paid for this law in the first place, so it makes sense even if it does not make sense from a public policy perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
Hang on a minute. We have an age of consent, a line which we DARE NOT CROSS; doing so leads to felony charges or worse, your name on a list for the rest of eternity.
However, when a child kills someone in a particularly devious manner, that child can then be tried as an adult in our society.
Post-sentencing, if the child is found guilty, can that child then have sex? (Obviously not; just pointing out the double standard.)
Ahem. Twisting it slightly: "Let's not forget that photographic evidence of a bank robbery IS abuse, and results in permanent harm (both psychological and physical) to the victims. This is something that any healthy society should strive to prevent."
Now, does the "law against possession of evidence that a crime was committed" seem arbitrary and ridiculous (as in, deserving of ridicule)?
I think that the perpetrators of child abuse should be brought to justice. People who are in possession of photographic evidence that the crime took place should be subpoenaed as witnesses, not locked up.
See, now that time I left out the sarcasm tag, and it confused the reader. So your original statement that pointing that out ... ohwhatstheuse
Yes, your argument completely convinced me. I will now go hide under a rock and wait for the Rapture(TM). Thanks for your well-thought-out argument. Surely, you are a greater mind than I.
So, it was a really shitty movie, but perhaps Speed Racer-style maneuvering is in our racing sports' futures?
I fully believe that the RepRap chip design project will build in a casing and vacuum pump, "and stuff like that". But, still, keep convincing yourself that believing in the future is wrong -- you have a larger audience.
Although I think you left off the sarcasm tag, I do agree with you:
The people working on the RepRap project are currently working on the second generation 3D printer. The first generation prints in silicone. The second generation will print that as well as a conducting material, which has a melting point lower than the silicone; that way the silicone can be formed with grooves and channels, then the conducting material laid in them as traces to produce electronics.
Sure, the initial results will be clunky and seem very old-tech, likely not even the equivalent of the 8086. However, as others mentioned, technology tends to become both cheaper and doable by smaller and smaller groups of people.
Males too.
it to you pal?
(Posting this because you missed out on the subject/comment flow...)
(Emphasis mine.) One of the things the individuals in this story are being charged with is taking pictures of the boundary wall. From Stanislav_J's post:
Seriously: I wish I had the option of pads when I was a kid.
Would have made "jumping from heights" a lot less dangerous.
Or, we could have had higher heights and still bounced safely. :)
Huh. Seems like, despite (perhaps because of?) having a much lower lifespan, our ancestors seem far less fragile as individuals than we are today. I remember a president having a fitness program, many years ago. Perhaps it's time to reinstate something like that in our public schools?
Well, here's one: it widens their audience, which may lead to more ticket sales, t-shirts, and even purchases of their CDs both at the gigs and on-line.
Jonathan Coulton has made significant buck from giving his stuff away. Although he may be an island in a sea of failures, he is an example, and I have provided an answer to your question.
Also, the whole point enshrined in our Constitution is that it was supposed to be a social contract, where both parties obtain something of value. It is now a one-sided contract; since 1923, no work has entered the public domain, and it is highly likely that Disney et al will petition the government for a 20-year increase, every 18 years, like they've been doing. So it is no longer a contract at all; it is "merely" a restriction.
Wouldn't that be better achieved by kneeling?
Please, PLEASE stop calling copyright infringement "piracy". Piracy happens on the high seas, generally, lately, near Somalia. And it can be deadly, as the pirates who tried to attack the Indian Navy vessel learned last week.
Copyright infringement is not even stealing; it's copying. Stealing (legal definition) involves depriving the owner of their property, but copying does not do that; rather, it enriches both parties.
In addition, corporations have stolen from the public domain that was granted access to all works after a short period of time, as defined by the US Constitution. So, these corporations have reneged on their social contract, and therefore do not deserve to have their copyrights respected (note that this last part has not been confirmed by the courts, but it should, soon; Google "Lessig Eldred").
And I agree: rampant copying does help society, because it helps us ensure that we bring forward our culture, rather than letting it rot, forgotten, in unmarketable silos.
Well, yes, exactly. Think of the children you're saving from existence by killing that hooker!
I liked the other guy's answer, but I've got a snarky one:
It is perpetuated by those same folks who only use 2% of their brains!
Thanks folks, try the veal, second show is at 11!
Agreed. (I'm surprised I was modded troll, but oh well! At least it's positive on balance...)
Heh, I just like to think of it as the form is smiling at me.
That's actually my favorite part about this: her national political career is now stillborn, she'll have to wait for an actual election to be able to take a Senate seat.
Why yes, Hallowe'en was a couple weeks ago! The upcoming alternative is called Thanksgiving.
Thanks for the hate! Slashdot doesn't let you know when a Friend became so, or from which post, so I try to be helpful. As always, of course, help isn't always appreciated, and I thank you for reinforcing that lesson.
Actually, I think it's a bit more insidious than that. The copyright holder just needs to specify what to take down; it is not under oath.
If the infringer petitions the safe harbor to put it back, that's the part that is under oath.
This protects the studios, who paid for this law in the first place, so it makes sense even if it does not make sense from a public policy perspective.
"Lisa, in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
To answer the other (AC) response: because Funny doesn't boost karma. Mods aren't trying to game the system; they're trying to fix the system.
Hi Kent. Have you been touching yourself?