Hey, I had an uncensored Usenet feed *with* binaries! Of course, I had to limit the users and myself quite a lot so that the line wouldn't be tied up all the time receiving packets. But our local FidoNet Net had all pitched in for a satellite feed of Usenet. Great stuff.
1:105/39
Gravity's Angel BBS (503), 1993-1994
386DX/40, OS/2, Maximus/Binkley/Squash
PS: I used BlueWave to read Usenet for many years after.:) Still might set it up again...
All games are zero sum in that the sum of the winners and losers is zero. Otherwise, it's called an activity, not a game.
Well, for multi-player games, you're just wrong, and there are too many of those for me to list. But let's say 6 people are playing and one wins. If win = +1 and lose = -1, then the net sum is -4.
Also, in tournament play, or repeated play of the same game, sometimes point totals are kept, and in that case, finishing place does matter a great deal and can matter even more than individual wins.
Here are even some notable exceptions to that rule:
Lord of the Rings. All players cooperate to win against the dark forces. Either everyone wins or everyone loses.
Cosmic Encounter. Multiple players can win at the same time.
Uh, they are comparing the Linux kernel to the Windows kernel, right? What enterprise-specific stuff does the Windows kernel have? Isn't that built into all the support modules that go around the Windows kernel?
They need to compare a desktop Linux distro to Windows Me and a server Linux distro to Windows 2000 for it to be truly valid.
If Christianity is true, then porn does you harm whether you like it or not. Most major world religions don't work with "it could be true for me but not true for you." I'll just leave it at that, since it's not my job to convince you of the accuracy of the Christian worldview.
Granted. That's another discussion, and if you want to have it privately, we can. But it's out of place in this thread.
Incidentally, you didn't answer the question about sexual relationships through porn alone, in spite of the fact that you quoted it.
I'm of the mind that porn does not incite someone to do something they wouldn't have been inclined to before. "Oh, look at that kid; hey, that gives me an idea! Come here, Susie!" If anything, porn can keep someone from committing acts that we'd rather they not do. IMO, people don't watch a video and suddenly turn into rapists. They were potential rapists to begin with.
Your avowed pedophile actually said that he would molest children, were it accepted by society (in other words, the only thing stopping him is the fear of the law). Is that a strong enough barrier?
That person said that their own conscience (knowing it is "wrong") was also a factor in keeping their desires limited to the occasional naughty picture or story. I'm sure a lot of people have eyed something in a store, and thought about pocketing it, but their conscience kept them from it, as well as the threat of punishment. It's the same thing, isn't it?
There are two questions in your issue of "conditioning;" reinforcement is one and the indwelling and conviction of the Holy Spirit is the other. [...]
This is another discussion that would stray quite far if we kept going with it. Email is fine if you'd like to discuss further.
Finally, I'm curious where your "10-100x storage" number comes from; that seems really inefficient to me, since I can't imagine that either someone would spend that much time touching up a photo (if you track mouse moves at 30Hz, and each sample is 20 bits deep, you'd have to work on something for 4 hours to get 1 MB of uncompressed samples). [...]
You're assuming that all of the VCP would be retouched photos. What about art created from scratch, with no actual physical model used?
Let's say you've got a 50k GIF. That takes up 50k, obviously. Let's say it took 10,000 different brush strokes, mouse moves, tool uses, undos, layer effects, selections, etc. For each one, you'd have to record mouse start, mouse end, foreground color, background color, tool in use, tool options in use, layers that were affected, masks that were employed, filters applied, texture bitmap used, and probably a few other things I forgot about. Plus, if it was 3d rendered, you'd have to include wireframe models, texture mapping instructions, camera angles, lighting statistics, transparency, opacity, reflectivity, x/y/z rotation, etc.
In essence, you're saying that any computer artist has to keep all source material, copies of the project through each stage of evolution, samples from every step (in case that step is questions), as well as complete event logs, just so they can prove they created it *if* anyone ever asks.
I believe it's worse because the drawing depicts an act which is morally wrong, i.e. child porn.
By your morals, or whose morals? What if it is a drawing of two 100% heterosexual adult humans, one male, one female, totally consenting, married to each other by church and state, having oral sex? That's an act that's against many people's morals and is even illegal in some US states.
The bottom line question is this: Who gets to be the moral judge for all the rest of us?
[...] I can't agree with the argument that "porn does me no harm" (for most people): Porn (as generally combined with masturbation) causes a feedback loop: porn is associated with masturbation which is associated with a sexual gratification, which then increases the desire for porn. Based on my understanding of how sin works, and based on personal experience. Unless your purpose for looking at porn is NOT sexual gratification (then what is it?).
What's wrong with masturbation, other than some religions believe it damns your soul? What if my religion doesn't believe that? Is it okay for me?
Which religion gets to set the laws of the USA? Of the world?
[...] but honestly how many of you would be happy having no sexual relationships outside of looking at porn? [...]
I'm a furry. That means I love to look at and think of anthropomorphic intelligent animals -- Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Joe Camel, Brer Rabbit, centaurs, satyrs, not to mention an endless number of original creations.
I have lots of erotic pictures involving furries (these anthro animals). Some is purely for sexual stimulation and would be "porn"; some is truly fine art that just happens to be erotic to some people (whether displaying genitalia or not).
Obviously, since these creatures don't exist yet in real life, as far as I've seen, I enjoy my particular kink via masturbation and erotic imagery (actual images, stories, role-playing, and my own thoughts).
Who am I hurting? And what exactly are you going to ban? Paintings? Storytelling? Role-playing? Thinking?
So if your PRIMARY sexual gratification comes from imagining sex with children, the only thing that's going to stop you from actually molesting a child is the fear of the law.
Prove it. An avowed pedophile already posted to this topic and said that was not true.
The problem is that the thought leads to action, action leads to habits, habits lead to attitudes, attitudes lead to character, character leads to destiny. Lust after children needs to be fixed at the thought level. We can't legislate that, and we shouldn't, so...
So... ? What's your solution? Legislating Christian morality on all non-Christians?
For example, I have a friend who struggled with homosexuality. The way he beat it is by removing masturbation and porn from the feedback loop (and controlling his thoughts/resisting the devil).
Keeping the discussion on this issue curtailed for now, it does raise the question of whether someone can be conditioned to resist certain sexual impulses that we don't want them to have -- in particular, pedophilic ones. I too have a gay friend who became a born-again Christian and willed himself into "straightness", but it didn't take away his homosexual desires, it's just that he denies them now.
Back to the point of the case, which is the legal (not ethical) perspective: I believe that the law should be that computer modified images should be legal, but subject to carrying "proof" (basically a list of Photoshop {re,un}doable commands) that it's from non-sexual sources.
That's an interesting proposal, though, for many pieces of original artwork, the list of each brush stroke, undo, erasure, change, color selection, texture mapping, etc., would be immense and probably take up more electronic storage than 10 or 100 of the actual pictures. Is that the intent?
For me, in most cases, it's not at all difficult to determine what constitutes pornography: the depiction of children, real or simulated, engaged in sexual activity, presented merely to tickle the libido, besides being disgusting, is wrong. It's as wrong as anything can be.
As to the argument regarding "Romeo and Juliet": the play, both as written and as performed (every performance I've seen, and am aware of) doesn't depict the relationship between the two children in a pornographic manner. If a production chose to focus on a sexual relationship, as well as the adolecence of the couple, in order to appeal to pedophiliac tastes, then it crosses the line.
So, depictions of real adult-child sex that is loving, erotic, passionate, consentual, and enjoyed by both or all parties should be perfectly legal, as long as it isn't produced purely for titillation but to show a tender sensual moment? Thank you for that breath of sanity.:)
[...] Well this is one freedom that doesn't need to be available. If you read earlier posts of mine you'll see why: When law enforcement has to let someone go because they can't tell if the images on the hard drive were real or CG, and this guy continues purchasing or personally generating kiddie porn with someone's kids, I draw the line.
You have a point... but yes, it *does* need to be available. Why? Slippery slope.
Next, someone decides that they don't like tentacle-sex, so that's banned. Next, someone decides that they don't like sex with latex or rubber, so that's banned. Next, someone decides that they don't like oral sex, so that's banned (it's already illegal in some states). Next, someone decides that they don't like gay sex, so that's banned (ditto). Next, someone decides that they don't like whatever it is you're into, and that gets banned. Then what will you say?
Er... it's only a new concept for the Intel-based platform.
Going backward in time, through PCs alone:
Amiga, with Kickstart ROM, booted up the base portion of the Amiga OS and Workbench, which finished loading from disk.
Macintosh (and Lisa) had part of the OS bootstrap kernel in ROM as well, though most of the OS was on the disk.
Of course, Apple, Atari, and Commodore all had this ages ago, with the entire OS (minus individual hardware drivers) nestled in on-board ROM! (Apple II, Atari 400/800, Commodore PET/64)
Anyone know where SQL Server and Exchange server fall in the split between OS and apps?
They're clearly not OS elements, since you can buy and even install Windows without them, and you can install competing SQL servers or mail servers on Windows. That makes them applications.
[...] Does one car maker sell 95% of all cars? Does one soft drink vendor have 95% of the supermarket shelves and twist the arms of supermarkets to have veto power over anything in the supermarket, by threatening to withdraw their product? [...]
They demonstrably do not. One of my favorite megacorp vs. megacorp stories is Coca-Cola vs. McDonald's. Apparently, Coke told McDonald's that they would offer their syrup shipment to McD's for free if McD's would stop selling Dr. Pepper. Now, McD's must spend gobs of money on Coke, I would think. But McD's told them to shove off anyway.:)
All of this started just because Microsoft bundled their Internet Explorer with their OS. Hmm... Doesn't Red Hat Linux ship with Netscape installed??? Is that the same thing???
No, it's not. Red Hat doesn't own Netscape. They probably pay a licensing fee to distribute it with their, uh, distribution.
Microsoft bundling IE with Windows is a little like Ford bundling Ford tires with Ford cars, if 95% of the roads in the US were compatible only with Ford cars (and you drive at your own risk in anything else). It's a captive consumer audience.
acoustix also wrote:
I mean how many flavors of operating systems do we really want out there? Its bad enough try to get companies to support 3 or 4 OSes, but what happens when there are more?
Now that's a good point. I don't think Windows will slip that much. The Windows company will make many of the same licensing deals with VARs just as before, but it will have a little less leverage now to be such a bully.
You said: [...] Why is the the Gnome/KDE/whatever interface even now still a pure bastardization of the MSWindows and Macintosh interfaces? There are brilliant people inovating in every area of design; why has nobody bothered to figure out a better interface? [...] I think it's because, under the whole concept of the "desktop metaphor", all those OSs have hit upon the same basic functions that all users would want to do on a window that's open on their desktop. - They might want to close it (thus close button) - They might want to make it fill the screen (thus maximize button) - They might want to change its size (thus resizing by corner-drag) - They might want to move it (thus dragging by title bar) - They might want to push it out of the way temporarily (thus minimizing and rolling-up) - They might want to execute some other seldom-used functions on it (thus the control menu or right-clicking on title bar) Once someone comes up with a brand new metaphor for using files, applications, windows, etc., I'm sure there will be a new window-management metaphor as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I had an uncensored Usenet feed *with* binaries! Of course, I had to limit the users and myself quite a lot so that the line wouldn't be tied up all the time receiving packets. But our local FidoNet Net had all pitched in for a satellite feed of Usenet. Great stuff. 1:105/39 Gravity's Angel BBS (503), 1993-1994 386DX/40, OS/2, Maximus/Binkley/Squash PS: I used BlueWave to read Usenet for many years after. :) Still might set it up again...
Well, for multi-player games, you're just wrong, and there are too many of those for me to list. But let's say 6 people are playing and one wins. If win = +1 and lose = -1, then the net sum is -4.
Also, in tournament play, or repeated play of the same game, sometimes point totals are kept, and in that case, finishing place does matter a great deal and can matter even more than individual wins.
Here are even some notable exceptions to that rule:
Uh, they are comparing the Linux kernel to the Windows kernel, right? What enterprise-specific stuff does the Windows kernel have? Isn't that built into all the support modules that go around the Windows kernel?
They need to compare a desktop Linux distro to Windows Me and a server Linux distro to Windows 2000 for it to be truly valid.
Let's say you've got a 50k GIF. That takes up 50k, obviously. Let's say it took 10,000 different brush strokes, mouse moves, tool uses, undos, layer effects, selections, etc. For each one, you'd have to record mouse start, mouse end, foreground color, background color, tool in use, tool options in use, layers that were affected, masks that were employed, filters applied, texture bitmap used, and probably a few other things I forgot about. Plus, if it was 3d rendered, you'd have to include wireframe models, texture mapping instructions, camera angles, lighting statistics, transparency, opacity, reflectivity, x/y/z rotation, etc.
In essence, you're saying that any computer artist has to keep all source material, copies of the project through each stage of evolution, samples from every step (in case that step is questions), as well as complete event logs, just so they can prove they created it *if* anyone ever asks.
By your morals, or whose morals? What if it is a drawing of two 100% heterosexual adult humans, one male, one female, totally consenting, married to each other by church and state, having oral sex? That's an act that's against many people's morals and is even illegal in some US states.
The bottom line question is this: Who gets to be the moral judge for all the rest of us?
What's wrong with masturbation, other than some religions believe it damns your soul? What if my religion doesn't believe that? Is it okay for me?
Which religion gets to set the laws of the USA? Of the world?
I'm a furry. That means I love to look at and think of anthropomorphic intelligent animals -- Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Joe Camel, Brer Rabbit, centaurs, satyrs, not to mention an endless number of original creations.
I have lots of erotic pictures involving furries (these anthro animals). Some is purely for sexual stimulation and would be "porn"; some is truly fine art that just happens to be erotic to some people (whether displaying genitalia or not).
Obviously, since these creatures don't exist yet in real life, as far as I've seen, I enjoy my particular kink via masturbation and erotic imagery (actual images, stories, role-playing, and my own thoughts).
Who am I hurting? And what exactly are you going to ban? Paintings? Storytelling? Role-playing? Thinking?
Prove it. An avowed pedophile already posted to this topic and said that was not true.
So... ? What's your solution? Legislating Christian morality on all non-Christians?
Keeping the discussion on this issue curtailed for now, it does raise the question of whether someone can be conditioned to resist certain sexual impulses that we don't want them to have -- in particular, pedophilic ones. I too have a gay friend who became a born-again Christian and willed himself into "straightness", but it didn't take away his homosexual desires, it's just that he denies them now.
That's an interesting proposal, though, for many pieces of original artwork, the list of each brush stroke, undo, erasure, change, color selection, texture mapping, etc., would be immense and probably take up more electronic storage than 10 or 100 of the actual pictures. Is that the intent?
So, depictions of real adult-child sex that is loving, erotic, passionate, consentual, and enjoyed by both or all parties should be perfectly legal, as long as it isn't produced purely for titillation but to show a tender sensual moment? Thank you for that breath of sanity.
You have a point... but yes, it *does* need to be available. Why? Slippery slope.
Next, someone decides that they don't like tentacle-sex, so that's banned. Next, someone decides that they don't like sex with latex or rubber, so that's banned. Next, someone decides that they don't like oral sex, so that's banned (it's already illegal in some states). Next, someone decides that they don't like gay sex, so that's banned (ditto). Next, someone decides that they don't like whatever it is you're into, and that gets banned. Then what will you say?
Going backward in time, through PCs alone:
ac wrote:
They're clearly not OS elements, since you can buy and even install Windows without them, and you can install competing SQL servers or mail servers on Windows. That makes them applications.
http://totem.fdns.net - totem@nwlink.com
Chris Johnson wrote:
They demonstrably do not. One of my favorite megacorp vs. megacorp stories is Coca-Cola vs. McDonald's. :)
Apparently, Coke told McDonald's that they would offer their syrup shipment to McD's for free if McD's would stop selling Dr. Pepper. Now, McD's must spend gobs of money on Coke, I would think. But McD's told them to shove off anyway.
IE's good on Mac
Netscape 6 still looks bad
Opera reinstalled.
acoustix wrote:
No, it's not. Red Hat doesn't own Netscape. They probably pay a licensing fee to distribute it with their, uh, distribution.
Microsoft bundling IE with Windows is a little like Ford bundling Ford tires with Ford cars, if 95% of the roads in the US were compatible only with Ford cars (and you drive at your own risk in anything else). It's a captive consumer audience.
acoustix also wrote:
Now that's a good point. I don't think Windows will slip that much. The Windows company will make many of the same licensing deals with VARs just as before, but it will have a little less leverage now to be such a bully.
You said: [...] Why is the the Gnome/KDE/whatever interface even now still a pure bastardization of the MSWindows and Macintosh interfaces? There are brilliant people inovating in every area of design; why has nobody bothered to figure out a better interface? [...] I think it's because, under the whole concept of the "desktop metaphor", all those OSs have hit upon the same basic functions that all users would want to do on a window that's open on their desktop. - They might want to close it (thus close button) - They might want to make it fill the screen (thus maximize button) - They might want to change its size (thus resizing by corner-drag) - They might want to move it (thus dragging by title bar) - They might want to push it out of the way temporarily (thus minimizing and rolling-up) - They might want to execute some other seldom-used functions on it (thus the control menu or right-clicking on title bar) Once someone comes up with a brand new metaphor for using files, applications, windows, etc., I'm sure there will be a new window-management metaphor as well.