RE: The New Scientist reports secure internet servers will blast-off into space for the first time on Thursday with a mission to get as beat up as possible.
Which means, paradoxically, that because we're expecting to see damage, etc. there will be absolutely no mishap at all that will cause any damage whatsoever to the test machines.
Contrast that with other recent space experiments: the effort through ruthlessly rugged engineering to produce an aborted mission caused by an inability to standardise measurements in metric, the effort through ruthlessly rugged engineering to produce a probe we subsequently lost somewhere around Mars (was it?), never mind the ruthless engineering that went into producing space-worthy O rings on the Space Shuttle...
Unless you're in the business of distributing art (in which case, given that you're peddling in fecal-matter portraits of the Virgin Mary, Mapplethorpe's Last Supper (complete with fisting) etc.) what do you care whether or not it blocks out the capacity to email the Mona Lisa at work?
The point behind this software is to prevent people at work from sending pictures like the "Yes, you can park a Ford Expedition in me" guy on that infamous troll-loved web-site, to each other.
I don't think too many people email each other pictures of the Mona Lisa at work. Baby pictures perhaps, but many companies prohibit personal use of company email and resources anyway.
Then again, if you're sending an engineering drawing that for some reason has tons of flesh tones and it's blocked, you can always apply to the administrator to let it through.
As I've said before and will say AGAIN. Given that child pr0n is either evidence of a crime or used to get children to commit crimes, never mind the fact that wanting to look at same is unhealthy, very suspect, and might well push a "attracted to but wouldn't actually follow through on his desires" type over the edge...
I'm sure there are heroin addicts who get on with life quite fine, thanks. But many of them end up slumped behind dumpsters raging with HIV and hepatitis, which is why in the interest of the public and private good, heroin is illegal.
Everyone accused of real child pr0n will try and get it thrown out on a "this is digitally altered" technicality, which will make prosecuting the real producers next to impossible. Only the truly sick (child pr0n consumers) would support the notion of making fake child pr0n illegal.
Well, let's put it this way. The girl in realdoll who wanted a child one so her father would leave her alone - isn't that statement alone a testament to how evil attacking children this way is? I hate to say this, but having fake child pr0n will NOT stop predatory behavior. In fact, it will feed it, and aid and abet it, for reasons I have already gone into. The response to "I like to hurt children" isn't "well hey, let's feed this fantasy of yours" it should be some kind of therapy.
I believed the "Hackers" (the book) hype against Multics and heard many an anti-Multics joke throughout the years. But I ended up meeting (at a short-lived contract) a wonderful gentleman who had worked on Multics and was very proud of the accomplishments he'd achieved and what ground Multics had broken.
I gained a new respect for the achievements of the Multics team, and I know today my former coworker and friend would be very unhappy to learn of this news. It really is the end of an era, and we have a lot to thank for what was learned as a result of it.
Look, all I'm saying is this. There is really no argument for child pornography. At the very least, it encourages dangerous feelings in people, at the very most, it is literally evidence of a crime in as much as it is the result of crimes against a child. And it is used as a tool by child molesters to lure children into their webs.
Your friend needs to know this. And to get help.
Please get him that help.
That was an exaggeration and turn of phrase. I'm sorry, I want to make it clear I wouldn't physically kill someone. I meant it in the same way someone would say "I'll give them trouble" as in "I'll kill that kid when he gets home" meaning to ground, etc. but said as such for emphasis. Sorry for any fright, fear, worry, or pain that caused. I shouldn't argue about this, I have too strong an opinion about it.
Alright, I'll freely admit I am not thinking straight, and in fact said some things I don't mean. I really wouldn't kill anyone. I might fly into a massive rage and smack them around before calling 911, but not kill.
This is a VERY sore subject with me, I was almost attacked myself at a young age. As far as I am concerned, if someone has urges then no, they shouldn't be jailed for it. But participating in kiddie porn isn't right. At all. And trafficking in it, or any reasonable facsimile thereof, should be a crime.
RE: I consider you to be a more dangerous person than my friend.
In that you are wrong. If I was to know of someone out there molesting children, and do nothing, that would be the dangerous thing. Because those children grow up. And many of them become VERY ANGRY adults.
Normal human beings find kiddie porn sick and think that diddlers and those who agree with them should be locked up. Go into any prison system and you will find that diddlers do not last long. There was a case in france recently where some construction workers came across a guy trying to rape a little girl. They attached him to the wall with an air hammer until the cops arrived. Well, actually, until someone arrived with bolt cutters to get him off the wall. Were they jailed? No.
RE: Perhaps you are so insecure in yourself that you can't help announcing your rightousness to others, but that is no excuse.
Oh spare me. Hear that sound? It's the sound of the world's smallest violin, and it's playing for you. Your friend I advise to get help. Your response is to tell me that I'm not politically correct because I don't equate the desire to interfere sexually with children with normal, adult, consenting behaviour??? Well you my friend are very deluded. You have no idea how pervasive, how poisonous, and how very very serious this issue is.
You see, the idea of harm reduction comes into play, here. Someone on heroin has problems, and should be treated as such. Speech, depending on what it is, doesn't cause harm. Kiddie porn does cause harm, a lot of harm, a lot of irreperable harm. Stopping some kids from showing off they can copy a DVD is trivial. Stopping people from abusing and humiliating children for fun and profit is paramount. Most dangerous criminals were abused as children and there are proven links between abuse and violent behaviour later on in life. This isn't just some little girl's problem, it's everyone's problem.
Well, there are some problems with that too. First of all, everyone caught with diddler material will claim it's computer generated. That means all child pr0n will move to CDROMS and therefore noone will ever be charged or convicted, and the molestation will continue. In fact, it might get worse because with the legal risk removed, or worse, if the politically correct liberals poison the collective mind of this country and have everyone believe it's OK to have sex with children. Second of all, mocked up or not, that kind of material is used to get children to ACTUALLY perform those acts, so there's proven harm resulting from child pr0n production. I'm not even touching about effects of pr0nography on people's minds, cause it can't be proven either way, but there's enough sickos out there without society giving more people ideas...
RE::) I just wanted to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the term.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your attempts at being sympathetic to the devil are lost on me. Totally. If your friend has a picture of a little girl (or boy) being sexually interfered with or even if it's just she or he being exploited for erotic purposes, that means that somewhere there is a little girl or boy in the hands of people who are doing this to him or her. And if he's collecting, trading, enjoying, whatever said material, he's contributing to it. I don't know why you're having difficulty understanding this.
RE: In this, I expect that you will stop equating the word pedophila with 'abusers of children', because that can cause innocent people to be persecuted for the abuse of children.
And is he really innocent? He's somehow managed to get hold of child porn. I don't think it's something you wake up one morning and magically find on your hard drive. He's gone looking for it. Innocent is the little child who has no idea why the man with the camera is taking her clothes off, not the guy having totally inappopriate thoughts while looking at the picture.
RE: Here's the problem: I like my friend. I get drunk with him.. we go to clubs and talk about chicks.
Well, there are things about him you didn't know.
RE: He pays his taxes.. he loves his girlfriend.
Does SHE know there are pictures of little girls on his hard drive? I don't think so. Wow, this just gets better and better.
RE: He has lots of friends at work, and writes damned fine code.:)
I'm a fan of Java as well (bada, boom, ching), but this has nothing to do with the fact that he is involved in something very dark and abusive. Did you expect rapists and murderers to look like hunchbacked, evil people? Guess what, they're next door. There are children out there who are being physically abused and noone would ever guess cause Daddy's a fine upstanding pillar of the community active in his church etc etc etc dosen't fit the stereotype of the alcoholic in the trailer park.
According to the Webster's (online) pedophile: one afflicted with pedophilia: Pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.
Now, this technically in and of itself doesn't warrant censure - the person is mentally ill (note that you suggested Webster's, and it says perversion - not quite what you anticipated!). However, your friend (assuming it's you - you AC's look all alike) who collects pedophilic material is contributing to the abuse of children, (if noone buys it, then they won't make it) and has evidence of a crime in his house. You are enabling him by supporting his position and not reporting him to the authorities, just like not reporting a drunk driver who hasn't killed anyone yet. Intervene for this person's own good, and because there are children in the area.
That's what a paedophile is. That's like saying "I don't understand why you equate being a thief with stealing stuff."
Even if your friend only has pornography lying around, he's TECHNICALLY SUPPORTING PEOPLE WHO ABUSE CHILDREN. It's just as much a crime to pay someone to make a snuff video and watch it as it is to actually kill someone yourself.
RE: I wasn't going to post, but god damn it makes me mad. Why oh why do slashdotters keep slamming 3d environment projects??? can't you see it??? i thought we were supposed to be the technically savvy type...
Well, no quite frankly. Just because something is technically more difficult or technically more interesting doesn't necessarily make it better. Microsoft Bob was supposed to be a great leap forward in usability, too.
I mean, it may very well be really cool. I'll be watching to see how these develop, and I wish them the best of luck. I wasn't slamming 3d environments, my question was why a desktop in 3d? I can see APPS in 3d, as can you.. you said "actually i'm having a hard time thinking of an application that wouldn't benefit from a 3d environment."...but why a 3D desktop? Some people have written some very interesting and cogent responses to same. As for having multiple windows open keeping track of 10 of them with one behind the other might be more problematic than just having more real estate to open said windows on.
Look, nowhere at all do I suggest jailing someone for BEING anything. And you can knock off the "pedophiles are misunderstood, snif, they're people, just like you and me" crap for a moment.
There are also people who have homicidal urges. And strangely enough, when we identify people who do these kinds of things, we take em out of society. I'm waiting for you to bleeding heart that "homicidal people are people too, snif, they're people just like you and me."
RE: Why are you intentionally blurring the lines between sex and abuse? This is exactly the type of shit that causes hateful agression in the first place! Dude - chill.
Sexually interfering with a child IS abusive. Period. I know that some lib lefty thinktank has said that it's OK, but lib lefty thinktanks have also produced reports saying that it's an act of violence to teach your child to read. I suggest quite strongly that you wake up. Whereas I wasn't sexually interfered with as a child, I went to a school where it went on. And some of those people tried to kill themselves. One tried to kill someone else.
It repulses me that while there's ample evidence that using a child for sexual gratification is wrong and hurtful, we like to use "nicey nicey" words like FONDLING rather than SEXUAL ASSAULT, and "paedophile" rather than "sick bastard who wants to diddle kids."
Slashdot Mirror
So what's the "hidden meanings" behind the tired and oft-repeated "alien with phallic tentacles raping a 12 year old schoolgirl" image?
Not flamebait, just wondering... if you could explain ONE obvious and un-subtle image, maybe you could explain this one too.
How about a porn site
http://whatsmy.name
The Matrix title lego...
The one with the four guys in it...
That would explain how the guy on goatse.cx got the way he did, wouldn't it?
It's karmic payback for what we did to Godzilla when we did an American remake...
Japanese movie special effects have come so far since the Toho Films days (Godzilla, Rodan et. al), haven't they?
Compared to them, these are absolutely stellar. Two thumbs up!
RE: The New Scientist reports secure internet servers will blast-off into space for the first time on Thursday with a mission to get as beat up as possible.
Which means, paradoxically, that because we're expecting to see damage, etc. there will be absolutely no mishap at all that will cause any damage whatsoever to the test machines.
Contrast that with other recent space experiments: the effort through ruthlessly rugged engineering to produce an aborted mission caused by an inability to standardise measurements in metric, the effort through ruthlessly rugged engineering to produce a probe we subsequently lost somewhere around Mars (was it?), never mind the ruthless engineering that went into producing space-worthy O rings on the Space Shuttle...
Unless you're in the business of distributing art (in which case, given that you're peddling in fecal-matter portraits of the Virgin Mary, Mapplethorpe's Last Supper (complete with fisting) etc.) what do you care whether or not it blocks out the capacity to email the Mona Lisa at work?
The point behind this software is to prevent people at work from sending pictures like the "Yes, you can park a Ford Expedition in me" guy on that infamous troll-loved web-site, to each other.
I don't think too many people email each other pictures of the Mona Lisa at work. Baby pictures perhaps, but many companies prohibit personal use of company email and resources anyway.
Then again, if you're sending an engineering drawing that for some reason has tons of flesh tones and it's blocked, you can always apply to the administrator to let it through.
The benefit of a cartridge seems to me to be that you can remove it and stick another one in.
What does this guy do if a ROM burns out? He'll have to use solder to get it off, I gather.
I'm not saying he's evil, I'm saying he's sick. I'm saying that people who want to produce child pr0n are evil.
As I've said before and will say AGAIN. Given that child pr0n is either evidence of a crime or used to get children to commit crimes, never mind the fact that wanting to look at same is unhealthy, very suspect, and might well push a "attracted to but wouldn't actually follow through on his desires" type over the edge...
I'm sure there are heroin addicts who get on with life quite fine, thanks. But many of them end up slumped behind dumpsters raging with HIV and hepatitis, which is why in the interest of the public and private good, heroin is illegal.
Everyone accused of real child pr0n will try and get it thrown out on a "this is digitally altered" technicality, which will make prosecuting the real producers next to impossible. Only the truly sick (child pr0n consumers) would support the notion of making fake child pr0n illegal.
Well, let's put it this way. The girl in realdoll who wanted a child one so her father would leave her alone - isn't that statement alone a testament to how evil attacking children this way is? I hate to say this, but having fake child pr0n will NOT stop predatory behavior. In fact, it will feed it, and aid and abet it, for reasons I have already gone into. The response to "I like to hurt children" isn't "well hey, let's feed this fantasy of yours" it should be some kind of therapy.
I think someone lied about their availability to play some puerile goatse.cx prank.
Do NOT follow the suggestion attached to this message rated -1, Troll.
Speaking of "I saw the movie cause I thought it was..."
I wanted to go see "Lost Souls" cause I thought it was based on the Poppy Z. Brite book. Glad I found out MOMENTS before going that wasn't the case.
Curse movies with the same title as much better books, like Red Planet. Or for that matter, Johnny Mnemonic...
I believed the "Hackers" (the book) hype against Multics and heard many an anti-Multics joke throughout the years. But I ended up meeting (at a short-lived contract) a wonderful gentleman who had worked on Multics and was very proud of the accomplishments he'd achieved and what ground Multics had broken.
I gained a new respect for the achievements of the Multics team, and I know today my former coworker and friend would be very unhappy to learn of this news. It really is the end of an era, and we have a lot to thank for what was learned as a result of it.
Well, I've retracted the statement I made above.
Look, all I'm saying is this. There is really no argument for child pornography. At the very least, it encourages dangerous feelings in people, at the very most, it is literally evidence of a crime in as much as it is the result of crimes against a child. And it is used as a tool by child molesters to lure children into their webs.
Your friend needs to know this. And to get help. Please get him that help.
That was an exaggeration and turn of phrase. I'm sorry, I want to make it clear I wouldn't physically kill someone. I meant it in the same way someone would say "I'll give them trouble" as in "I'll kill that kid when he gets home" meaning to ground, etc. but said as such for emphasis. Sorry for any fright, fear, worry, or pain that caused. I shouldn't argue about this, I have too strong an opinion about it.
Alright, I'll freely admit I am not thinking straight, and in fact said some things I don't mean. I really wouldn't kill anyone. I might fly into a massive rage and smack them around before calling 911, but not kill.
This is a VERY sore subject with me, I was almost attacked myself at a young age. As far as I am concerned, if someone has urges then no, they shouldn't be jailed for it. But participating in kiddie porn isn't right. At all. And trafficking in it, or any reasonable facsimile thereof, should be a crime.
RE: I consider you to be a more dangerous person than my friend.
In that you are wrong. If I was to know of someone out there molesting children, and do nothing, that would be the dangerous thing. Because those children grow up. And many of them become VERY ANGRY adults.
Normal human beings find kiddie porn sick and think that diddlers and those who agree with them should be locked up. Go into any prison system and you will find that diddlers do not last long. There was a case in france recently where some construction workers came across a guy trying to rape a little girl. They attached him to the wall with an air hammer until the cops arrived. Well, actually, until someone arrived with bolt cutters to get him off the wall. Were they jailed? No.
RE: Perhaps you are so insecure in yourself that you can't help announcing your rightousness to others, but that is no excuse.
Oh spare me. Hear that sound? It's the sound of the world's smallest violin, and it's playing for you. Your friend I advise to get help. Your response is to tell me that I'm not politically correct because I don't equate the desire to interfere sexually with children with normal, adult, consenting behaviour??? Well you my friend are very deluded. You have no idea how pervasive, how poisonous, and how very very serious this issue is.
You see, the idea of harm reduction comes into play, here. Someone on heroin has problems, and should be treated as such. Speech, depending on what it is, doesn't cause harm. Kiddie porn does cause harm, a lot of harm, a lot of irreperable harm. Stopping some kids from showing off they can copy a DVD is trivial. Stopping people from abusing and humiliating children for fun and profit is paramount. Most dangerous criminals were abused as children and there are proven links between abuse and violent behaviour later on in life. This isn't just some little girl's problem, it's everyone's problem.
Well, there are some problems with that too. First of all, everyone caught with diddler material will claim it's computer generated. That means all child pr0n will move to CDROMS and therefore noone will ever be charged or convicted, and the molestation will continue. In fact, it might get worse because with the legal risk removed, or worse, if the politically correct liberals poison the collective mind of this country and have everyone believe it's OK to have sex with children. Second of all, mocked up or not, that kind of material is used to get children to ACTUALLY perform those acts, so there's proven harm resulting from child pr0n production. I'm not even touching about effects of pr0nography on people's minds, cause it can't be proven either way, but there's enough sickos out there without society giving more people ideas...
RE: :) I just wanted to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the term.
:)
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your attempts at being sympathetic to the devil are lost on me. Totally. If your friend has a picture of a little girl (or boy) being sexually interfered with or even if it's just she or he being exploited for erotic purposes, that means that somewhere there is a little girl or boy in the hands of people who are doing this to him or her. And if he's collecting, trading, enjoying, whatever said material, he's contributing to it. I don't know why you're having difficulty understanding this.
RE: In this, I expect that you will stop equating the word pedophila with 'abusers of children', because that can cause innocent people to be persecuted for the abuse of children.
And is he really innocent? He's somehow managed to get hold of child porn. I don't think it's something you wake up one morning and magically find on your hard drive. He's gone looking for it. Innocent is the little child who has no idea why the man with the camera is taking her clothes off, not the guy having totally inappopriate thoughts while looking at the picture.
RE: Here's the problem: I like my friend. I get drunk with him.. we go to clubs and talk about chicks.
Well, there are things about him you didn't know.
RE: He pays his taxes.. he loves his girlfriend.
Does SHE know there are pictures of little girls on his hard drive? I don't think so. Wow, this just gets better and better.
RE: He has lots of friends at work, and writes damned fine code.
I'm a fan of Java as well (bada, boom, ching), but this has nothing to do with the fact that he is involved in something very dark and abusive. Did you expect rapists and murderers to look like hunchbacked, evil people? Guess what, they're next door. There are children out there who are being physically abused and noone would ever guess cause Daddy's a fine upstanding pillar of the community active in his church etc etc etc dosen't fit the stereotype of the alcoholic in the trailer park.
According to the Webster's (online) pedophile: one afflicted with pedophilia: Pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.
Now, this technically in and of itself doesn't warrant censure - the person is mentally ill (note that you suggested Webster's, and it says perversion - not quite what you anticipated!). However, your friend (assuming it's you - you AC's look all alike) who collects pedophilic material is contributing to the abuse of children, (if noone buys it, then they won't make it) and has evidence of a crime in his house. You are enabling him by supporting his position and not reporting him to the authorities, just like not reporting a drunk driver who hasn't killed anyone yet. Intervene for this person's own good, and because there are children in the area.
That's what a paedophile is. That's like saying "I don't understand why you equate being a thief with stealing stuff."
Even if your friend only has pornography lying around, he's TECHNICALLY SUPPORTING PEOPLE WHO ABUSE CHILDREN. It's just as much a crime to pay someone to make a snuff video and watch it as it is to actually kill someone yourself.
Clue train pulled into the station yet?
RE: I wasn't going to post, but god damn it makes me mad. Why oh why do slashdotters keep slamming 3d environment projects??? can't you see it??? i thought we were supposed to be the technically savvy type...
...but why a 3D desktop? Some people have written some very interesting and cogent responses to same. As for having multiple windows open keeping track of 10 of them with one behind the other might be more problematic than just having more real estate to open said windows on.
Well, no quite frankly. Just because something is technically more difficult or technically more interesting doesn't necessarily make it better. Microsoft Bob was supposed to be a great leap forward in usability, too.
I mean, it may very well be really cool. I'll be watching to see how these develop, and I wish them the best of luck. I wasn't slamming 3d environments, my question was why a desktop in 3d? I can see APPS in 3d, as can you.. you said "actually i'm having a hard time thinking of an application that wouldn't benefit from a 3d environment."
Look, nowhere at all do I suggest jailing someone for BEING anything. And you can knock off the "pedophiles are misunderstood, snif, they're people, just like you and me" crap for a moment.
There are also people who have homicidal urges. And strangely enough, when we identify people who do these kinds of things, we take em out of society. I'm waiting for you to bleeding heart that "homicidal people are people too, snif, they're people just like you and me."
RE: Why are you intentionally blurring the lines between sex and abuse? This is exactly the type of shit that causes hateful agression in the first place! Dude - chill.
Sexually interfering with a child IS abusive. Period. I know that some lib lefty thinktank has said that it's OK, but lib lefty thinktanks have also produced reports saying that it's an act of violence to teach your child to read. I suggest quite strongly that you wake up. Whereas I wasn't sexually interfered with as a child, I went to a school where it went on. And some of those people tried to kill themselves. One tried to kill someone else.
It repulses me that while there's ample evidence that using a child for sexual gratification is wrong and hurtful, we like to use "nicey nicey" words like FONDLING rather than SEXUAL ASSAULT, and "paedophile" rather than "sick bastard who wants to diddle kids."