I was quoting the police staff interviewed in the TV series I mentioned. I don't personally have any, no, it's not exactly an area I'm interested in.
I sincerely doubt that free access to pornography depicting children reduces sexual offences against children (quote the opposite), but again, only on the basis of police comments. In fact, in general, I would guess it is probably a very low level effect either way for any sexual offences.
On the 'Wrong Buttons' tack, I did say 'large numbers' or images. Real kp dlers typically have thousands of images. I am aware that small numbers could be dled automatically, and the spamming you mention cannot be more than a few.
In fact, you're driving the sale and distribution of child porn underground, causing it to become harder and more violent.
Huh? Sorry, are you suggesting that it becomes legal to possess images of children being abused? Nah, I must've misunderstood you... either that or you haven't thought this through. All child porn is violent. If you don't see that, you're broken.
Anyhow, apologies, but I've said all I want to on this subject. Your original point is disagreed with by the UK police specialising in investigating this stuff. I can't say more than that, as I don't know any more.
In truth there is probably little basis for treating downloading of child porn as "criminal behaviour", although the making and selling of it is most definitely so.
This is an old and dangerous canard. Firstly, there is a mass of evidence that photos are taken to order within groups of abusers, and secondly (for sex crimes in general) those with pictures are statistically likely to go on to physical acts.
Further, your statement that:
It does not protect children, it does not prevent child abuse, it does not catch the real exploiters, but it does create grief for many people who have done little more than click on the wrong button.
is total rubbish in the case of someone who has deliberately dled kid porn - which is clearly the majority of people with kp on their machines as this defence is not a common one. Here in the UK, a TV documentary series was made last year (which was incredibly hard to watch). In it, an investigation was made that went from finding pictures to proving abuse... Too right this sort of thing should be followed up. It will protect children.
Finally, do you really think that there is a 'wrong button' out there that will dl large numbers of images on to your machine? If so, imo, you're some kind of fool.
If everyone's too busy or important to reply, why do they have time to write a reply that isn't constructive
Give someone the answer to a simple question, they'll ask every time.
Point them to google and they won't.
It was intended to be polite and helpful, while very mildly scolding, as I thought the parent's author simply hadn't bothered to do anything to help him/herself.
Without intending to be rude, two seconds on google will give you the answer. No-one here, including me, will answer such a basic question!
As mentioned earlier today,/. is one of the few places where someone will use the FAA acronym in a post without explanation, but feel the need to elaborate on 'Newfoundland' for clarity!
I nkow some cell phone companies have offers when calling within their network (no use of minutes, extra minutes, etc.), but not being able to call out of the network at all?
As someone said, the thing is dead already.
If you'll forgive the ad hominem comment, it astonishes me that you haven't learnt anything from all the tech that we obsess about so enjoyably here on/.
Remember SMS messaging? Oh, you're prolly a yank, maybe you don't use it. Well, it was your network only at first, then it was inter-network, now you can send SMS messages to and from the net via a bridge.
If these phones are useful enough for international companies who need dedicated calling tech, then it'll sell. After that, how long do you think it'll be before someone implements a bridge for this to the other phone networks? OK, it may not be cheap, but this is how technology develops.
This could prove to be the first step to VOIP for everything, or it could be Betamax, but it's far too soon to tell.
During the court case, it will become very clear whether they are going to win or lose, and they'll be on the front lines with their cell phones to their brokers telling them whether to short the stock or hold.
And isn't that the point where they get arrested for stock manipulation? Or does that come later?
My point, if you had read and understood my whole post instead of just the first two paras, was/not/ that nothing had been stolen, but that the end users aren't responsible in law.
As I pointed out in the bit you don't seem to have read, SCO must first prove IBM is at fault, then get damages to-date from them, *then* and only then can they license use of the IP they claim for *future* use from that date. End users aren't liable till SCO proves ownership.
...except that the end users didn't steal anything, so have no need for a SCO licence.
To improve (slightly) your piss-poor analogy, it would be like someone stealing a car from a taxi firm and giving lifts to people. When the thief is caught, those lucky enough to have got a lift wouldn't then get charged retrospective taxi fares - especially not at the extortionate rate this taxi firm feels like!
Any successful action by SCO would be against IBM. If that occurs, they will get damages from IBM, and anyone using Linux can then be required to stop using the offending code, or licence it, but not until.
J.
IANAL, natch, but clearly neither is the author of the parent.
If MS licensing fees totalled 50kusd, that's only 250 200usd licences for XPpro, or 500 for NT using your own figures, so that's pretty reasonable.
As they've developed the Wine solution in house and are otherwise mostly a Linux shop (if they are), then they won't need to spend 40kusd on Windows support per year, but will have no non-trivial additional costs to their current setup.
So, overall the numbers sound pretty reasonable to me. In fact, 90kusd is a pretty small sum, but the convenience of staying a linux-only shop (if they are) would be huge.
Well, it's fairly easy to have not seen Windows XP - my parents haven't. However, it's pretty hard not to have seen some flavour of Windows. Taking that into account, KDE must be considered at least even with XP IMHO.
I'll let someone better than myself explain why your god as only an explanation for the unexplained is incorrect.
Still waiting...
If you can tell me why you postulate God, except for 'We can't explain X any other way', then I'll be interested. Until then, it's just people who want to believe in God but try to sound vaguely scientific to justify their position.
The Catholic Church has become so cognizant of this that they've assigned it a name: the God Of The Gaps.
Actually, that was CA Coulson.
But you're right - ID is a God of the Gaps argument. Ultimately, everything is cos God is just a way of abstracting out of reality stuff we can't explain. And I don't even need to start talking about control theories and the catholic church.
I suspect you don't really know anything about the science behind Intelligent Design. I suggest you learn something about it before criticizing it.
You suspect wrong.
Yes, so-called "Intelligent Design" is inherently a religious concept. So what? How does that invalidate it?
It doesn't invalidate it - equally, Purple Slime Monsters from Jupiter creating the world can't be disproved. It does, however, mean that it's not a theory based on scientific method, no matter how much you steal the clothes/phrases of real scientists.
If you look carefully at the Biblical account of the Creation
This is the christian version. If you back to the pre-christian sources (jewish legends, the Caballa, etc), you find more detail. Check out the legend of Leviathan. It's interesting - God's perfect work included an evil sea monster that he had to battle. Your christian stories are just tidies up versions of the jewish myths. Nothing true in them - the version you are familiar with is the work of a man, not a god.
you can believe what you want, but don't force it on others. Eliminating Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call it, from school curriculum amounts to nothing more than censorship, just like eliminating evolution.
But, thicky, you are arguing that we should force teaching of ID on people despite it being an unscientific load of pap. Don't you see the irony?!
They can refine all they like, but they have still postulated something huge - allegedly in order to explain the complexity all around us. We evolutionists postulate something tiny - natural selection - which acheives the same result. According to scientific principle, which these guys claim to follow (but don't), that makes it a far better hypothesis.
Ask yourself this: why is God in that model? Is it because it's a bloody good explanation, or because the creationists like the idea of a big brother looking out for them?
Therefore, the refinement of the model in which god exists is a theoretical science just like all the crap in this article.
Why does God exist in this model? What's the reason to postulate God? Why would the model not work without it?
In short, don't justify yourself by telling me to be open minded, try analysing your own reasons for preferring that model. I'll give you a clue: it's not because it's the best hypothesis for the evidence.
Haven't you got anything better to do that to keep 'refining' Creationism whenever in response to Evolution showing it to be unnecessary.
There is NO NEED for intelligent design. It's only purpose is to allow you justify your belief in God. I don't care if it's the Bombadier Beetle, the jinking Moth, whatever, it's just as sensible to think of a way it could've evolved than to allege that there is a God. And a God is a damn big hypothesis that only serves to abstract out the thing you can't explain.
Justin.
Bored of bloody desperate religionists arguing over who's got the best imaginary friend.
Sony made some things called GlassTrons, which, according to their website, were excellent.
I actually tried to buy some for use with my laptop while commuting, but all the Sony outlets are franchises and couldn't afford to lay out the cash to Sony to buy (very expensive) unproven stock. So I couldn't find anywhere to actually try them. So I never got a pair.
In other words, they were successfully manufactured, but badly marketted, and now Sony and others don't seem to think there is a market. Arse.
Anyway, how come you got modded interesting instead of off-topic?
What the hell's wrong with doing dumb jokes? Does your mouse finger get tired from scrolling the first 50 lines out of the way? Live with it - hell, try and enjoy it!
Anyway: I agree with him! Why does anyone use a language choice that ties you into a hardware choice that ties you into no licensing choices!
Slashdot Mirror
I sincerely doubt that free access to pornography depicting children reduces sexual offences against children (quote the opposite), but again, only on the basis of police comments. In fact, in general, I would guess it is probably a very low level effect either way for any sexual offences.
On the 'Wrong Buttons' tack, I did say 'large numbers' or images. Real kp dlers typically have thousands of images. I am aware that small numbers could be dled automatically, and the spamming you mention cannot be more than a few.
Huh? Sorry, are you suggesting that it becomes legal to possess images of children being abused? Nah, I must've misunderstood you... either that or you haven't thought this through. All child porn is violent. If you don't see that, you're broken.Anyhow, apologies, but I've said all I want to on this subject. Your original point is disagreed with by the UK police specialising in investigating this stuff. I can't say more than that, as I don't know any more.
Justin.
This is an old and dangerous canard. Firstly, there is a mass of evidence that photos are taken to order within groups of abusers, and secondly (for sex crimes in general) those with pictures are statistically likely to go on to physical acts.
Further, your statement that:
is total rubbish in the case of someone who has deliberately dled kid porn - which is clearly the majority of people with kp on their machines as this defence is not a common one. Here in the UK, a TV documentary series was made last year (which was incredibly hard to watch). In it, an investigation was made that went from finding pictures to proving abuse... Too right this sort of thing should be followed up. It will protect children.Finally, do you really think that there is a 'wrong button' out there that will dl large numbers of images on to your machine? If so, imo, you're some kind of fool.
Justin.
Give someone the answer to a simple question, they'll ask every time.
Point them to google and they won't.
It was intended to be polite and helpful, while very mildly scolding, as I thought the parent's author simply hadn't bothered to do anything to help him/herself.
YMMV <shrug>
J.
As mentioned earlier today, /. is one of the few places where someone will use the FAA acronym in a post without explanation, but feel the need to elaborate on 'Newfoundland' for clarity!
J.
J.
If you'll forgive the ad hominem comment, it astonishes me that you haven't learnt anything from all the tech that we obsess about so enjoyably here on /.
Remember SMS messaging? Oh, you're prolly a yank, maybe you don't use it. Well, it was your network only at first, then it was inter-network, now you can send SMS messages to and from the net via a bridge.
If these phones are useful enough for international companies who need dedicated calling tech, then it'll sell. After that, how long do you think it'll be before someone implements a bridge for this to the other phone networks? OK, it may not be cheap, but this is how technology develops.
This could prove to be the first step to VOIP for everything, or it could be Betamax, but it's far too soon to tell.
J.
And isn't that the point where they get arrested for stock manipulation? Or does that come later?
J.
My point, if you had read and understood my whole post instead of just the first two paras, was /not/ that nothing had been stolen, but that the end users aren't responsible in law.
As I pointed out in the bit you don't seem to have read, SCO must first prove IBM is at fault, then get damages to-date from them, *then* and only then can they license use of the IP they claim for *future* use from that date. End users aren't liable till SCO proves ownership.
J.
To improve (slightly) your piss-poor analogy, it would be like someone stealing a car from a taxi firm and giving lifts to people. When the thief is caught, those lucky enough to have got a lift wouldn't then get charged retrospective taxi fares - especially not at the extortionate rate this taxi firm feels like!
Any successful action by SCO would be against IBM. If that occurs, they will get damages from IBM, and anyone using Linux can then be required to stop using the offending code, or licence it, but not until.
J.
IANAL, natch, but clearly neither is the author of the parent.
As they've developed the Wine solution in house and are otherwise mostly a Linux shop (if they are), then they won't need to spend 40kusd on Windows support per year, but will have no non-trivial additional costs to their current setup.
So, overall the numbers sound pretty reasonable to me. In fact, 90kusd is a pretty small sum, but the convenience of staying a linux-only shop (if they are) would be huge.
J.
This will carry a lot of weight to any argument with a PHB or similar.
J.
Well, it's fairly easy to have not seen Windows XP - my parents haven't. However, it's pretty hard not to have seen some flavour of Windows. Taking that into account, KDE must be considered at least even with XP IMHO.
J.
Clearly you don't understand the meaning of the word. In what way is it science?!
Does it make testable predictions? No.
Does it use the simplest explanation which explains all the facts? No.
How is this crap science?
I'll give you a hint: using scientific words doesn't count. You have to use scientific method
J.
Still waiting...
If you can tell me why you postulate God, except for 'We can't explain X any other way', then I'll be interested. Until then, it's just people who want to believe in God but try to sound vaguely scientific to justify their position.
J.
Actually, that was CA Coulson.
But you're right - ID is a God of the Gaps argument. Ultimately, everything is cos God is just a way of abstracting out of reality stuff we can't explain. And I don't even need to start talking about control theories and the catholic church.
J.
Atheist.
You suspect wrong.
Yes, so-called "Intelligent Design" is inherently a religious concept. So what? How does that invalidate it?
It doesn't invalidate it - equally, Purple Slime Monsters from Jupiter creating the world can't be disproved. It does, however, mean that it's not a theory based on scientific method, no matter how much you steal the clothes/phrases of real scientists.
If you look carefully at the Biblical account of the Creation
This is the christian version. If you back to the pre-christian sources (jewish legends, the Caballa, etc), you find more detail. Check out the legend of Leviathan. It's interesting - God's perfect work included an evil sea monster that he had to battle. Your christian stories are just tidies up versions of the jewish myths. Nothing true in them - the version you are familiar with is the work of a man, not a god.
you can believe what you want, but don't force it on others. Eliminating Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call it, from school curriculum amounts to nothing more than censorship, just like eliminating evolution.
But, thicky, you are arguing that we should force teaching of ID on people despite it being an unscientific load of pap. Don't you see the irony?!
J.
Ask yourself this: why is God in that model? Is it because it's a bloody good explanation, or because the creationists like the idea of a big brother looking out for them?
J.
Why does God exist in this model? What's the reason to postulate God? Why would the model not work without it?
In short, don't justify yourself by telling me to be open minded, try analysing your own reasons for preferring that model. I'll give you a clue: it's not because it's the best hypothesis for the evidence.
J.
Oh god (irony), not this crap again.
Haven't you got anything better to do that to keep 'refining' Creationism whenever in response to Evolution showing it to be unnecessary.
There is NO NEED for intelligent design. It's only purpose is to allow you justify your belief in God. I don't care if it's the Bombadier Beetle, the jinking Moth, whatever, it's just as sensible to think of a way it could've evolved than to allege that there is a God. And a God is a damn big hypothesis that only serves to abstract out the thing you can't explain.
Justin.
Bored of bloody desperate religionists arguing over who's got the best imaginary friend.
After that, it's all just presentation - turtles, arrows, Terry Pratchett, etc
Justin.
I actually tried to buy some for use with my laptop while commuting, but all the Sony outlets are franchises and couldn't afford to lay out the cash to Sony to buy (very expensive) unproven stock. So I couldn't find anywhere to actually try them. So I never got a pair.
In other words, they were successfully manufactured, but badly marketted, and now Sony and others don't seem to think there is a market. Arse.
Anyway, how come you got modded interesting instead of off-topic?
J.
Tell your Mom to tell the business to invest in a clue and get someone to set the caller id fields on their switch. It's a ten minute job.
J.
J.
Anyway: I agree with him! Why does anyone use a language choice that ties you into a hardware choice that ties you into no licensing choices!
J.
It's science, so Kelvin.