Laws relating to sex and age in the US can be complicated, as federal and state laws can interact in odd ways, and grow even more complicated when the internet is involved and so parties may be in different states. There have been times when two seventeen-year-olds could legally have vaginal sex, but if they had oral then both would be guilty of statutory rape. It's still the case in most states that seventeen year olds can legally have sex, but can't legally look at it. Maybe they are supposed to wear blindfolds?
Or, for those more cynical, C) Setting up the technical and legal infrastructure for a centrally-run censorship network using child porn as an excuse that few dare to oppose, so that said network may in future be expanded and use for other purposes such as the blocking of torrent sites.
At least one muck does likewise, but in their case it's for another reason: They want an address they can be sure is legally traceable to turn over should the police request it. The operators are very legally cautious, as it's a place where lots of sexual scenes get played out, and they want a way to make sure that should drama occur they can pass the buck and not need to be involved any more than they must.
It's a common fear of small service operators - one user commits a crime, and the investigators may just sieze the entire server and the backups to be sure they get everything of use to them.
Hmm... could you make the balloon out of thin, transparent plastic for a tiny visual footprint? I know it'd leak out fast, but for an emergency battlefield comms relay a couple of hours might be all you need.
You could do without the pipe, if you allowed for a little maintainance: Someone gets to come around every week or so, haul in the tether and refill the balloon. It's not cheap though, and rather fragile.
I was telling it from the government's perspective. Obviously, the first step is to build a reciever - they'd need the reciever in order to track where the transmitters are.
1. Build reciever.
2. Track signal.
3. Send in police.
4. Pound-me-in-the-ass-prison for unlicenced use of a radio transmitter.
5. Publicise, to scare off any others who might try it.
Most users reuse passwords, anyway. Crack MothersKnittingForum's user list via a basic SQL injection attack, and it's almost guaranteed that some of those users will have the same password to access their email, facebook and paypal accounts.
Technicalities. In theory ICANN could easily ban porn from.com,.net,.org, etc - and, as they are still heavily influenced by the US government, they may do so if the right(ie, wrong) politicians come to power. The legal bit wouldn't even be hard - firstly, they could argue that they arn't really a branch of the government (Which is technically true) and secondly, within the US, pornography - or more specifically, the legally obscene - is already illegal. It's just that very few police departments consider that law worth the effort of enforcing.
The real problem such an effort would come up against would be the country-code TLDs. The US has no influence there, not even through it's proxy ICANN. So the worst case scenario is that all the porn sites leave.com - the respectable ones set up in.xxx, and the less-respectable ones set up in the country-code TLDs so they can continue using their google-manipulating, email-spamming ways as before. Nothing is really changed, but the self-declared defenders of the family can pat themselves on the back for defending the country against the pernicious pornography.
The obvious next step after that would be to filter the porn out from overseas, a Great Firewall of America, but I can't see that happening for a long time. Not because the anti-porn forces wouldn't want to, but because it takes years to push the envelope that far.
Minor nitpicking. The standard legal excuse of those who seek to impose censorship is to declare that the offending material isn't 'real' speech, and so isn't protected. They don't so much ignore the first amendment (They are often highly patriotic people who would defend the bill of rights with great vigour) as imagine some loophole by which they may decide it doesn't apply. The legal concept of obscenity is the most obvious example: If something is defined as legally obscene in the US, precident says that it isn't real speech because it doesn't say anything of value to society and so may be censored. This is the exactly approach that used to be used to restrict discussion of contraception - it was just ruled to be obscene, no different than pornography. Indeed, pornography is still technically illegal in the US today at the federal level - even perfectly ordinary adult pornography. It's simply that the law goes unenforced. There is an occasional brief revival of enforcement, the last one in 2005 with the Adult Obscenity Squad, as a show to win conservative political support - but they never go anywhere.
The two-party system in the US screws up all other attempts at political classification. There is only one classification that really matters: Republican or democrat?
"And what harm does allowing them to purchase pornography do?"
Be quiet! You're not allowed to question the widely-held but utterly unproven assumption, or else you'll be branded a pedophile-supporter and made the subject of a campaign of harassment, intimidation and legal fishing.
They'll just get the games pirate. I work at a school - we just busted five students last week for bringing in GTA3 and GTA:SA on USB sticks to actually play during lessons on the school computers.
Idiots thought we wouldn't notice. We'd have spotted them on the screen-viewer, if the sudden running out of space on the fileserver hadn't alerted us first.
This is politics! Studies don't matter. No, what is needed is one anecdotal account. Ideally with a weeping mother of the victim who can talk about how her daughter was murdered over a game of Grand Theft Auto.
I tried to work out a way to semaphore at 50bps, but it can only be done if you prepare lots of colored flags lined up on a table so you can quickly grab the right one. That seems like cheating. The best practical one-person encode for just waving flags I can find is 9 bits per second. If you had six people waving flags at once, though... that would do it.
More seriously: Why is this being done in 2.4? Even if the customer utilities are too cheap to licence a little spectrum for themselves, there are ISM bands further down. There's one around 40MHz that should be perfect.
ACPI vendors always favored windows, because that is just what most of the users will run. With the exception of server boards, non-windows users are a vanishingly tiny percentage, and scarcely worth the time to test for even briefly. It's a self-sustaining business advantage, as is seen so often in the technology sector: The dominant platform is the most widely supported, which helps to ensure it's continuing dominance.
Linux does thing the way they should be done according to standard. Windows does things they way they actually are done in the real world. The reason is simple: BIOS vendors noticed Windows doesn't follow the standard well, and made the reasonable assumption that the vast majority of users would run windows. Thus they deviated from the standard in order to better support it.
I usually use a blowtorch. Wave it slowly over the solder side of the PCB. All the solder gets melted, and quickly resolidifies, thus fixing hairline cracks and bad joints.
The standard creationist figure is 6000 years. Some medieval monk counted the generations from Adam to Noah, Noah to David and David to Jesus, multiplied them by the average age of reproduction... came up with the figure of 4004BCs. Modern creationists still use the number because... why not? It's as good a guess as any. Accuracy in math has never been one of their major concerns.
No. First you find some way to wipe out malaria. I don't know how - wonderdrug, new anti-mosquito superweapon, the how doesn't matter. Just that some way is found. Once that is done, *then* you start eliminating the sickle cell allele. It'd have political issues anyway, due to the racial correlation - start targetting sickle-cell, and you'd end up with accusations of attempted genocide.
The obvious first choice would be those carrying serious genetic conditions like Huntingtons or cystic fibrosis. A respect for human rights would prevent forced sterilisation, but that doesn't mean they can't be nudged towards it with a combination of shame and bribery. They could be offered a guaranteed place at the front of the queue for adoption. If it's possible to convince most of them to cease breeding, those conditions could be eliminated in a generation or two.
One of the reasons past efforts at eugenics failed is their lack of real science - they were just used as ways to punish the social lower classes without good cause. Genetics, on the other hand, don't have any personal bias against poor people. They don't judge the moral character of the subject. They are mostly neutral regarding race, sickle cell aside, and even then it's only a correlation.
I have no interest in starting a family, and am unlikely to ever do so (I'm a slashdotter - do you think I'll get to mate?), so there wouldn't be any point sterilising me. If I were carrying some genetic flaw that could be potentially fatal to me or my decendants though, I would certinly consider volunteering. I'd do so right away with just a modest compensation for the inconvenience.
Slashdot Mirror
Laws relating to sex and age in the US can be complicated, as federal and state laws can interact in odd ways, and grow even more complicated when the internet is involved and so parties may be in different states. There have been times when two seventeen-year-olds could legally have vaginal sex, but if they had oral then both would be guilty of statutory rape. It's still the case in most states that seventeen year olds can legally have sex, but can't legally look at it. Maybe they are supposed to wear blindfolds?
Or, for those more cynical, C) Setting up the technical and legal infrastructure for a centrally-run censorship network using child porn as an excuse that few dare to oppose, so that said network may in future be expanded and use for other purposes such as the blocking of torrent sites.
Buffering. Constant doesn't have to mean actually constant: It just means the drop-outs need to be short enough that the buffer can handle them.
"Likewise for school email "
The IT staff read your emails.
- A school IT worker.
At least one muck does likewise, but in their case it's for another reason: They want an address they can be sure is legally traceable to turn over should the police request it. The operators are very legally cautious, as it's a place where lots of sexual scenes get played out, and they want a way to make sure that should drama occur they can pass the buck and not need to be involved any more than they must.
It's a common fear of small service operators - one user commits a crime, and the investigators may just sieze the entire server and the backups to be sure they get everything of use to them.
I calculate about ten to the fourteenth years worst-case, or half that average. Enough that brute force doesn't look very practical.
Hmm... could you make the balloon out of thin, transparent plastic for a tiny visual footprint? I know it'd leak out fast, but for an emergency battlefield comms relay a couple of hours might be all you need.
You could do without the pipe, if you allowed for a little maintainance: Someone gets to come around every week or so, haul in the tether and refill the balloon. It's not cheap though, and rather fragile.
I was telling it from the government's perspective. Obviously, the first step is to build a reciever - they'd need the reciever in order to track where the transmitters are.
1. Build reciever.
2. Track signal.
3. Send in police.
4. Pound-me-in-the-ass-prison for unlicenced use of a radio transmitter.
5. Publicise, to scare off any others who might try it.
Most users reuse passwords, anyway. Crack MothersKnittingForum's user list via a basic SQL injection attack, and it's almost guaranteed that some of those users will have the same password to access their email, facebook and paypal accounts.
Technicalities. In theory ICANN could easily ban porn from .com, .net, .org, etc - and, as they are still heavily influenced by the US government, they may do so if the right(ie, wrong) politicians come to power. The legal bit wouldn't even be hard - firstly, they could argue that they arn't really a branch of the government (Which is technically true) and secondly, within the US, pornography - or more specifically, the legally obscene - is already illegal. It's just that very few police departments consider that law worth the effort of enforcing.
.com - the respectable ones set up in .xxx, and the less-respectable ones set up in the country-code TLDs so they can continue using their google-manipulating, email-spamming ways as before. Nothing is really changed, but the self-declared defenders of the family can pat themselves on the back for defending the country against the pernicious pornography.
The real problem such an effort would come up against would be the country-code TLDs. The US has no influence there, not even through it's proxy ICANN. So the worst case scenario is that all the porn sites leave
The obvious next step after that would be to filter the porn out from overseas, a Great Firewall of America, but I can't see that happening for a long time. Not because the anti-porn forces wouldn't want to, but because it takes years to push the envelope that far.
Minor nitpicking. The standard legal excuse of those who seek to impose censorship is to declare that the offending material isn't 'real' speech, and so isn't protected. They don't so much ignore the first amendment (They are often highly patriotic people who would defend the bill of rights with great vigour) as imagine some loophole by which they may decide it doesn't apply. The legal concept of obscenity is the most obvious example: If something is defined as legally obscene in the US, precident says that it isn't real speech because it doesn't say anything of value to society and so may be censored. This is the exactly approach that used to be used to restrict discussion of contraception - it was just ruled to be obscene, no different than pornography. Indeed, pornography is still technically illegal in the US today at the federal level - even perfectly ordinary adult pornography. It's simply that the law goes unenforced. There is an occasional brief revival of enforcement, the last one in 2005 with the Adult Obscenity Squad, as a show to win conservative political support - but they never go anywhere.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570.html
The two-party system in the US screws up all other attempts at political classification. There is only one classification that really matters: Republican or democrat?
"And what harm does allowing them to purchase pornography do?"
Be quiet! You're not allowed to question the widely-held but utterly unproven assumption, or else you'll be branded a pedophile-supporter and made the subject of a campaign of harassment, intimidation and legal fishing.
They'll just get the games pirate. I work at a school - we just busted five students last week for bringing in GTA3 and GTA:SA on USB sticks to actually play during lessons on the school computers.
Idiots thought we wouldn't notice. We'd have spotted them on the screen-viewer, if the sudden running out of space on the fileserver hadn't alerted us first.
This is politics! Studies don't matter. No, what is needed is one anecdotal account. Ideally with a weeping mother of the victim who can talk about how her daughter was murdered over a game of Grand Theft Auto.
I am a genderless blob.
I tried to work out a way to semaphore at 50bps, but it can only be done if you prepare lots of colored flags lined up on a table so you can quickly grab the right one. That seems like cheating. The best practical one-person encode for just waving flags I can find is 9 bits per second. If you had six people waving flags at once, though... that would do it.
More seriously: Why is this being done in 2.4? Even if the customer utilities are too cheap to licence a little spectrum for themselves, there are ISM bands further down. There's one around 40MHz that should be perfect.
ACPI vendors always favored windows, because that is just what most of the users will run. With the exception of server boards, non-windows users are a vanishingly tiny percentage, and scarcely worth the time to test for even briefly. It's a self-sustaining business advantage, as is seen so often in the technology sector: The dominant platform is the most widely supported, which helps to ensure it's continuing dominance.
Linux does thing the way they should be done according to standard. Windows does things they way they actually are done in the real world. The reason is simple: BIOS vendors noticed Windows doesn't follow the standard well, and made the reasonable assumption that the vast majority of users would run windows. Thus they deviated from the standard in order to better support it.
I usually use a blowtorch. Wave it slowly over the solder side of the PCB. All the solder gets melted, and quickly resolidifies, thus fixing hairline cracks and bad joints.
The standard creationist figure is 6000 years. Some medieval monk counted the generations from Adam to Noah, Noah to David and David to Jesus, multiplied them by the average age of reproduction... came up with the figure of 4004BCs. Modern creationists still use the number because... why not? It's as good a guess as any. Accuracy in math has never been one of their major concerns.
No. First you find some way to wipe out malaria. I don't know how - wonderdrug, new anti-mosquito superweapon, the how doesn't matter. Just that some way is found. Once that is done, *then* you start eliminating the sickle cell allele. It'd have political issues anyway, due to the racial correlation - start targetting sickle-cell, and you'd end up with accusations of attempted genocide.
The obvious first choice would be those carrying serious genetic conditions like Huntingtons or cystic fibrosis. A respect for human rights would prevent forced sterilisation, but that doesn't mean they can't be nudged towards it with a combination of shame and bribery. They could be offered a guaranteed place at the front of the queue for adoption. If it's possible to convince most of them to cease breeding, those conditions could be eliminated in a generation or two.
One of the reasons past efforts at eugenics failed is their lack of real science - they were just used as ways to punish the social lower classes without good cause. Genetics, on the other hand, don't have any personal bias against poor people. They don't judge the moral character of the subject. They are mostly neutral regarding race, sickle cell aside, and even then it's only a correlation.
I have no interest in starting a family, and am unlikely to ever do so (I'm a slashdotter - do you think I'll get to mate?), so there wouldn't be any point sterilising me. If I were carrying some genetic flaw that could be potentially fatal to me or my decendants though, I would certinly consider volunteering. I'd do so right away with just a modest compensation for the inconvenience.