Was searching for Bin Laden news, found a program called "Fox Tab" in the search results, and discovered this PDF creation tool was actually a trojan. Dang. (thought "open source" was supposed to be safe, but I guess not.)
>>>From this and other postings, you appear to have little problem with the raping of children for someone else's pleasure
You appear to an idiot. The same kind of idiot that is arresting Artists for drawing nudes (Aussieland), or Cartoonists for showing child or teen sex (drawing are not victims shithead). You were a victim, which is a true tragedy, but also shows you have NO LOGICAL reasoning to discusss the idssue. You probably look at \Playboy and think 'That should be made illegal." You're o better tan a Religious nutter. Suppressing freedom of people to enjoy a little bit of pron. Fuck you Tyrant. Die like Bin Laden died.
>>>at the point it's being traded the harm to the child is done.
Exactly. Just like my downloading (or trading) of Lizzie Borden's murder photos harms nobody. The act is already complete and the killer already punished. No additional harm is caused by my viewing of these photos, and I should not be arrested.
What's next? We outlaw photos of marijuana or cocaine? ("Clearly the existence of these photos will cause more drug usage amongst kids. They must be confiscated!" - current DOJ head)
>>>Also, "freedom of lifestyle" is not a guaranteed right under the constitution, even if it should be.
"The rights enumerated in the Constitution shall not be construed to eliminate other Non-enumerated rights reserved to the People." i.e. Just because the constitution does not say "You have the right to privacy" does not mean you don't have that right. Plus other rights.
>>>I'm sure that these people are reassured by your arguments.
Last I heard they were freed, and all charges dropped, since sharing nude photos of your own body (which you own) is not a crime. Unless you live in Iraq, Iran, Arabia, or some other Church-dominated state. Is the US tumbling backwards from a free, liberal country to an ass-backwards shithole like the Middle Ages Europe (with catholic inquisitions and such)? I sincerely hope not.
>>>Have sex with an unconsenting adult or a child--
Dear sir:
Looking at a photo is not sex. DUH. Likewise viewing a video of Russians getting beheaded by Afghan rebels is not a murder. It's a recorded image.
Sincerely, A guy who uses his BRAIN instead of just blindly following the morality his parents' programmed him with. You might want to try it sometime. i.e. THINK instead of acting like Pat Robertson or Bin Laden or some other religious nutter.
>>>Looking at the picture gives vicarious gratification
You sound liked a damned Christian (i.e. suppressing anything you consider "immoral" like cussing. Or premarital sex. Swinging partners. Et cetera). I can not lay my hand on any part of the US Constitution that grants you the power to force your backwards dark-age morality on to the rest of us.
>>>Some adults are addicted to it. They need help.
Sexual instinct is not a crime shithead. What? You going to come after me, and imprison me, because I visit playboy every night? STOP SUPPRESSING MY FREEDOM YOU STUPID GLOBALIST TYRANT.
>>>the FBI agents are trying to remove the market for the kiddie porn.
Agreed. Let's also outlaw images of marijuana. Cocaine. Smoking. Cowboy films (too much violence) Accident photos. Snuff films. Sex images. Nude photos (think of the children finding naked mom laying in dad's sock drawer - the horror).
And so on. What? It's YOUR stupid logic. I can't help that it's flawed and makes zero sense.
>>>Also, would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn?
Yes. Just I don't want the FBI arresting people for watching Snuff films. The FBI should be going after the CRIMINALS who are raping/killing citizens, not wasting time on mr. loner poundng his pud to sixteen magazine. That's just stupid.
the person that's been sexually abused is still being used for such purposes, I wouldn't personally want footage or pics of something like that happening to me... >>>
Following this reasoning, Brooke Shields' mom should be thrown in prison for allowing her 13-year-old daughter to make a film about a brothel, as well as anybody who views the movie "Pretty Baby". They deserve to be punished, according to you.
On the other hand: I think your reasoning is not logical, and indicates a fear of the human body (i.e. you think nudity and/or sex is evil?). I'd recommend psychotherapy because your belief is unhealthy.
>>>got the goods to send people to prison for just trading in the stuff.
Possession of nude photos of kids or teens is not a crime ignorant. If it were, Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon executives would now be in prison (they sell nude photo books of minors). It's called free speech, free expression, and freedom of lifestyle (nudism). Read Amendments 1, 9, 10, and 14 of the Union Constitution, as well as your local Member State's constitution, which provides additional liberties.
>>>If there is a "healthy" "market" for child pornography then some people will go out and get fresh product for that market. This is how children are harmed by viewing it.
Your logic is lacking. If it made sense, we should also outlaw: - murder photos - snuff videos (like animals set on fire) - accident scenes - and so on. Because the distribution of this material will cause an "industry" of murder to create new photos/films! The horror!!!
Or not.
Your logic is flawed. Just like most religious nutcases (think Jim Baker or Pat Robertson). Stop trying to suppress free people from exercising "thoughtcrimes" like pornography, smoking weed, chewing tobacco (sin tax), and so on. Victimless crimes are NOT crimes.
>>>I'm at work to make money and not to make friends.
And besides - you can do the "let's be friends" stuff ON WORK TIME rather than personal time. Like when you're in the lab at 3pm, and telling jokes/stories with coworkers.
Personal time is exactly that - Time for me - to catch up on other stuff like the latest Asimov's Science Fiction magazine, or reading my email, or checking slashdot
These companies don't want to compete against their own products (released to open source). They'd rather make these products disappear forever, and force customers to buy the newest gadgets.
Basically it's the same strategy Microsoft follows when it refuses to open source Windows 3 or 95 or XP.
"If you're doing nothing wrong, you should have nothing to fear from cops."
Being Libertarian (i.e. 10th amendment constitutionalist) I strongly disagree with her. Cops ARE people you need to fear, especially when they have a habit of dragging people out of cars and beating them, or "accidentally" shooting kids/pets during drug raids. The last thing I want it them tracking me.
>>>Considering that certain companies have a revenue that surpasses man smaller and medium sized countrie
Yes and who created those companies (accurate name: corporations)? Government. Via issuing limited liability licenses to permit individuals to incorporate as modern megaliths like Microsoft, Exxon, et cetera. So government created the very evil you fear. Government is the Source of the evil.
>>>If you consider kiddie porn, expression, you might need some help.
You need to be more explicit what you mean by "porn". The US Supreme Court has ruled that: - child sex is illegal - child nudity is legal (think nudism and art) - depictions of adults as children having sex is free speech - cartoons/drawings of child sex is free speech
Also I don't consider possession of porn to be any more "immoral" than possession of marijuana (a plant given to us by nature), or possession of murder photos. The person who did the killing is the criminal, not the person holding the photos. Same applies to porn.
Of course if you think we should outlaw possession of murder photos/videos, then go ahead. I'll fight you every step of the way. Free speech/expression applies in ALL things, including subjects you find disgusting.
>>>most people will applaud these moves as fair compromises, necessary, or even a gain for society -- after all, now all that "illicit content" is being blocked.
I don't have a problem blocking illicit content, but it should be a CHOICE available to parents (or religious types), not something to be forced upon every one like the "no nudity on tv" rule. We should not be living in a one-size-fits-all society where everyone is forced to adopt the same restrictions.
This is the kind of story I would expect coming from the US president's office, not the EU president's office. Hopefully this kind of censorship will die, like it died in Australia.
Free, liberated adults should be able to view any site (or book or pamphlet) they desire - without restriction. No government official may overrule that basic natural right of expression.
>>>Still looking at a minimum of $70ish dollars a month though.
Ouch. That's how much Comcast cable costs! (shrug) I prefer my $0/month phone plan. Maybe if I was a subway or metro commuter I'd see the value in a smart phone to fill-in the time, but with my current lifestyle I'm always in front of a computer (at work or home).
>>>I'm sure Apple is objecting to the use of the word "Store".:-)
Your joke is not as funny as you believe. Amazon was sued in the mid-90s for calling itself "the world's largest bookstore". Barnes&Noble claimed that it isn't a store, therefore should not use that term, and the idiotic courts agreed, forcing amazon to drop the label. (In my opinion, a place where you store books, food, widgets, et cetera can call itself "a store".)
>>>File an anti-trust complaint and break up the monopoly.
Won't do any good, because it was the government that created the monopoly, and the government is therefore bound by that contract. A wiser course is to simply demand your politicians Revoke the exclusive license/monopoly they gave to Mediacom, and give it to someone else (like cox, comcast, et cetera).
Slashdot Mirror
Was searching for Bin Laden news, found a program called "Fox Tab" in the search results, and discovered this PDF creation tool was actually a trojan.
Dang.
(thought "open source" was supposed to be safe, but I guess not.)
>>>From this and other postings, you appear to have little problem with the raping of children for someone else's pleasure
You appear to an idiot.
The same kind of idiot that is arresting Artists for drawing nudes (Aussieland), or Cartoonists for showing child or teen sex (drawing are not victims shithead). You were a victim, which is a true tragedy, but also shows you have NO LOGICAL reasoning to discusss the idssue. You probably look at \Playboy and think 'That should be made illegal."
You're o better tan a Religious nutter.
Suppressing freedom of people to enjoy a little bit of pron.
Fuck you Tyrant. Die like Bin Laden died.
>>>at the point it's being traded the harm to the child is done.
Exactly. Just like my downloading (or trading) of Lizzie Borden's murder photos harms nobody. The act is already complete and the killer already punished. No additional harm is caused by my viewing of these photos, and I should not be arrested.
What's next? We outlaw photos of marijuana or cocaine? ("Clearly the existence of these photos will cause more drug usage amongst kids. They must be confiscated!" - current DOJ head)
>>>Also, "freedom of lifestyle" is not a guaranteed right under the constitution, even if it should be.
"The rights enumerated in the Constitution shall not be construed to eliminate other Non-enumerated rights reserved to the People." i.e. Just because the constitution does not say "You have the right to privacy" does not mean you don't have that right. Plus other rights.
>>>I'm sure that these people are reassured by your arguments.
Last I heard they were freed, and all charges dropped, since sharing nude photos of your own body (which you own) is not a crime. Unless you live in Iraq, Iran, Arabia, or some other Church-dominated state. Is the US tumbling backwards from a free, liberal country to an ass-backwards shithole like the Middle Ages Europe (with catholic inquisitions and such)? I sincerely hope not.
>>>Have sex with an unconsenting adult or a child--
Dear sir:
Looking at a photo is not sex. DUH. Likewise viewing a video of Russians getting beheaded by Afghan rebels is not a murder. It's a recorded image.
Sincerely,
A guy who uses his BRAIN instead of just blindly following the morality his parents' programmed him with. You might want to try it sometime. i.e. THINK instead of acting like Pat Robertson or Bin Laden or some other religious nutter.
>>>Looking at the picture gives vicarious gratification
You sound liked a damned Christian (i.e. suppressing anything you consider "immoral" like cussing. Or premarital sex. Swinging partners. Et cetera). I can not lay my hand on any part of the US Constitution that grants you the power to force your backwards dark-age morality on to the rest of us.
>>>Some adults are addicted to it. They need help.
Sexual instinct is not a crime shithead. What? You going to come after me, and imprison me, because I visit playboy every night? STOP SUPPRESSING MY FREEDOM YOU STUPID GLOBALIST TYRANT.
>>>the FBI agents are trying to remove the market for the kiddie porn.
Agreed.
Let's also outlaw images of marijuana.
Cocaine.
Smoking.
Cowboy films (too much violence)
Accident photos.
Snuff films.
Sex images.
Nude photos (think of the children finding naked mom laying in dad's sock drawer - the horror).
And so on.
What?
It's YOUR stupid logic. I can't help that it's flawed and makes zero sense.
>>>Also, would you prefer the FBI not go after child porn?
Yes.
Just I don't want the FBI arresting people for watching Snuff films. The FBI should be going after the CRIMINALS who are raping/killing citizens, not wasting time on mr. loner poundng his pud to sixteen magazine. That's just stupid.
the person that's been sexually abused is still being used for such purposes, I wouldn't personally want footage or pics of something like that happening to me...
>>>
Following this reasoning, Brooke Shields' mom should be thrown in prison for allowing her 13-year-old daughter to make a film about a brothel, as well as anybody who views the movie "Pretty Baby". They deserve to be punished, according to you.
On the other hand:
I think your reasoning is not logical, and indicates a fear of the human body (i.e. you think nudity and/or sex is evil?). I'd recommend psychotherapy because your belief is unhealthy.
>>>got the goods to send people to prison for just trading in the stuff.
Possession of nude photos of kids or teens is not a crime ignorant. If it were, Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon executives would now be in prison (they sell nude photo books of minors). It's called free speech, free expression, and freedom of lifestyle (nudism). Read Amendments 1, 9, 10, and 14 of the Union Constitution, as well as your local Member State's constitution, which provides additional liberties.
>>>If there is a "healthy" "market" for child pornography then some people will go out and get fresh product for that market. This is how children are harmed by viewing it.
Your logic is lacking. If it made sense, we should also outlaw:
- murder photos
- snuff videos (like animals set on fire)
- accident scenes
- and so on. Because the distribution of this material will cause an "industry" of murder to create new photos/films! The horror!!!
Or not.
Your logic is flawed. Just like most religious nutcases (think Jim Baker or Pat Robertson). Stop trying to suppress free people from exercising "thoughtcrimes" like pornography, smoking weed, chewing tobacco (sin tax), and so on. Victimless crimes are NOT crimes.
Well that was useful. The dictionary might as well say: "Chemical: everything"
>>>I'm at work to make money and not to make friends.
And besides - you can do the "let's be friends" stuff ON WORK TIME rather than personal time. Like when you're in the lab at 3pm, and telling jokes/stories with coworkers.
Personal time is exactly that - Time for me - to catch up on other stuff like the latest Asimov's Science Fiction magazine, or reading my email, or checking slashdot
These companies don't want to compete against their own products (released to open source). They'd rather make these products disappear forever, and force customers to buy the newest gadgets.
Basically it's the same strategy Microsoft follows when it refuses to open source Windows 3 or 95 or XP.
"If you're doing nothing wrong, you should have nothing to fear from cops."
Being Libertarian (i.e. 10th amendment constitutionalist) I strongly disagree with her. Cops ARE people you need to fear, especially when they have a habit of dragging people out of cars and beating them, or "accidentally" shooting kids/pets during drug raids. The last thing I want it them tracking me.
>>>Considering that certain companies have a revenue that surpasses man smaller and medium sized countrie
Yes and who created those companies (accurate name: corporations)?
Government. Via issuing limited liability licenses to permit individuals to incorporate as modern megaliths like Microsoft, Exxon, et cetera. So government created the very evil you fear. Government is the Source of the evil.
18 U.S.C. 2252A has been nullified by the SCOTUS as being contrary to the superior Constitutional Law (1st amendment right of free speech/expression).
Also additional Constitutional Law - amendment 10 (the power to outlaw obscene/immoral content is reserved to the Member States).
>>>If you consider kiddie porn, expression, you might need some help.
You need to be more explicit what you mean by "porn". The US Supreme Court has ruled that:
- child sex is illegal
- child nudity is legal (think nudism and art)
- depictions of adults as children having sex is free speech
- cartoons/drawings of child sex is free speech
Also I don't consider possession of porn to be any more "immoral" than possession of marijuana (a plant given to us by nature), or possession of murder photos. The person who did the killing is the criminal, not the person holding the photos. Same applies to porn.
Of course if you think we should outlaw possession of murder photos/videos, then go ahead. I'll fight you every step of the way. Free speech/expression applies in ALL things, including subjects you find disgusting.
>>>most people will applaud these moves as fair compromises, necessary, or even a gain for society -- after all, now all that "illicit content" is being blocked.
I don't have a problem blocking illicit content, but it should be a CHOICE available to parents (or religious types), not something to be forced upon every one like the "no nudity on tv" rule. We should not be living in a one-size-fits-all society where everyone is forced to adopt the same restrictions.
This is the kind of story I would expect coming from the US president's office, not the EU president's office. Hopefully this kind of censorship will die, like it died in Australia.
Free, liberated adults should be able to view any site (or book or pamphlet) they desire - without restriction. No government official may overrule that basic natural right of expression.
>>>Still looking at a minimum of $70ish dollars a month though.
Ouch.
That's how much Comcast cable costs! (shrug) I prefer my $0/month phone plan. Maybe if I was a subway or metro commuter I'd see the value in a smart phone to fill-in the time, but with my current lifestyle I'm always in front of a computer (at work or home).
>>>I'm sure Apple is objecting to the use of the word "Store". :-)
Your joke is not as funny as you believe. Amazon was sued in the mid-90s for calling itself "the world's largest bookstore". Barnes&Noble claimed that it isn't a store, therefore should not use that term, and the idiotic courts agreed, forcing amazon to drop the label. (In my opinion, a place where you store books, food, widgets, et cetera can call itself "a store".)
>>>File an anti-trust complaint and break up the monopoly.
Won't do any good, because it was the government that created the monopoly, and the government is therefore bound by that contract. A wiser course is to simply demand your politicians Revoke the exclusive license/monopoly they gave to Mediacom, and give it to someone else (like cox, comcast, et cetera).