The whole purpose of child pornography laws is to protect the minor victim.
Under the law, a minor child CAN NEVER give consent to a sexual act. Period. There are exceptions for teenagers with other teenagers, but beyond that there is no exception (hence statutory rape laws). The whole point of making child pornography possession illegal is to get around the loophole of "I have a picture of an illegal act, but you can't prosecute me because you do not know who is in the picture."
Now when you actually KNOW who was depicted in the picture, and the circumstances surrounding the picture, you can make a determination as to whether the underlying sexual offense has taken place.
I find it impossible to comprehend the charging of a minor for possession of THEIR OWN PORNOGRAPHY!!! We are now prosecuting the person whom the law was written to PROTECT!!!
The question should not be "is it pornography?" The real question is "was the person who is shown in the photograph illegally exploited?" That is a much simpler question to come to terms with, and by ignoring that question, you make a mockery of the legal system.
Apple Must be doing something right. Go to bestbuy.com and search for iPods. They are all sold out. Why does Apple need to lower the price? If they are selling out, economics says they should raise the price.
If it turns out that there really is no infringing code, this is what would happen.
1. Red Hat would win it's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. You have to at least say what the other person did wrong for a law suit to continue. If SCO has no code to point to, then there is nothing to argue about, and the case is dismissed.
2. Red Hat then could file a Section 11 sanctions against SCO. SCO would have to then show why it sued Red Hat when it had no proof that Red Hat did anything. The cool thing about a section 11 is that SCO's lawyers would be on the hook for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Either way, if SCO can't produce any code, then the case gets thrown out. That is why SCO wants to make discovery as long as possible. The longer they don't have to show anyone anything, the longer they can make the cases run in the courts.
You are a little wrong about innocent until proven guilty. Only in a criminal action is that the case. In a civil suit (which is what RIAA suing a person is), the RIAA only need prove thier case by a "preponderance of the evidence." Or namely that it is more likely than not that you broke copyright law.
It is a much lower standard than in a criminal court, and has been a hallmark of the US legal system for centuries.
I was very envious today when my friend with his ibook was able to log into iTunes and download 15 songs in minutes. Since it stores you credit card, it is perhaps TOO easy to download songs (Parents giving credit card numbers to kids may find a large bill next month).
I may now have to buy an Apple just to use the service. It's easy to use, has a wide selection, and is everything a music service should be. Only time will tell if they have the pricing right.
I don't know what took the music industry so long.
HDs have bevome overpriced hunks of junk
on
IBM Spins Down
·
· Score: 1
A year ago we purchased four 36GB 10K RPM SSA drives. These are the high end drives that cost $4000 a piece. In the course of 13 months, three of these four drives have FAILED. A 75% failure rate seems a little high for such expensive drives. Don't think I would by IBM ever again.
IBM knows it has lost the low-mid range server war. They may sell a lot of high end servers, but how many non-Fortune 500 companies run AIX?
I think this is what IBM wants to happen:
1. Admins purchase Linux for small Intel-based servers.
2. As system size grows, admins would like to stick with Linux for larger systems.
3. Admins purchase IBM systems that also run Linux, instead of having to integrate AIX.
They are banking that Linux will be thier door into the lower end server market. And then everyone would buy IBM servers over SUN and HP. At least this is what they would like
IBM is just trying to get Linux as stable as AIX.
I think they are going to get rid of AIX in a few years, and they hope Linux will be there for enterprise applications.
Good for IBM: Free software development.
Good for Users: An open source stable operating system with commercial goodies.
Slashdot Mirror
IAAL
The whole purpose of child pornography laws is to protect the minor victim.
Under the law, a minor child CAN NEVER give consent to a sexual act. Period. There are exceptions for teenagers with other teenagers, but beyond that there is no exception (hence statutory rape laws). The whole point of making child pornography possession illegal is to get around the loophole of "I have a picture of an illegal act, but you can't prosecute me because you do not know who is in the picture."
Now when you actually KNOW who was depicted in the picture, and the circumstances surrounding the picture, you can make a determination as to whether the underlying sexual offense has taken place.
I find it impossible to comprehend the charging of a minor for possession of THEIR OWN PORNOGRAPHY!!! We are now prosecuting the person whom the law was written to PROTECT!!!
The question should not be "is it pornography?" The real question is "was the person who is shown in the photograph illegally exploited?" That is a much simpler question to come to terms with, and by ignoring that question, you make a mockery of the legal system.
Apple Must be doing something right. Go to bestbuy.com and search for iPods. They are all sold out. Why does Apple need to lower the price? If they are selling out, economics says they should raise the price.
If it turns out that there really is no infringing code, this is what would happen.
1. Red Hat would win it's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. You have to at least say what the other person did wrong for a law suit to continue. If SCO has no code to point to, then there is nothing to argue about, and the case is dismissed.
2. Red Hat then could file a Section 11 sanctions against SCO. SCO would have to then show why it sued Red Hat when it had no proof that Red Hat did anything. The cool thing about a section 11 is that SCO's lawyers would be on the hook for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Either way, if SCO can't produce any code, then the case gets thrown out. That is why SCO wants to make discovery as long as possible. The longer they don't have to show anyone anything, the longer they can make the cases run in the courts.
You are a little wrong about innocent until proven guilty. Only in a criminal action is that the case. In a civil suit (which is what RIAA suing a person is), the RIAA only need prove thier case by a "preponderance of the evidence." Or namely that it is more likely than not that you broke copyright law.
It is a much lower standard than in a criminal court, and has been a hallmark of the US legal system for centuries.
I was very envious today when my friend with his ibook was able to log into iTunes and download 15 songs in minutes. Since it stores you credit card, it is perhaps TOO easy to download songs (Parents giving credit card numbers to kids may find a large bill next month).
I may now have to buy an Apple just to use the service. It's easy to use, has a wide selection, and is everything a music service should be. Only time will tell if they have the pricing right.
I don't know what took the music industry so long.
A year ago we purchased four 36GB 10K RPM SSA drives. These are the high end drives that cost $4000 a piece. In the course of 13 months, three of these four drives have FAILED. A 75% failure rate seems a little high for such expensive drives. Don't think I would by IBM ever again.
IBM knows it has lost the low-mid range server war. They may sell a lot of high end servers, but how many non-Fortune 500 companies run AIX?
I think this is what IBM wants to happen:
1. Admins purchase Linux for small Intel-based servers.
2. As system size grows, admins would like to stick with Linux for larger systems.
3. Admins purchase IBM systems that also run Linux, instead of having to integrate AIX.
They are banking that Linux will be thier door into the lower end server market. And then everyone would buy IBM servers over SUN and HP. At least this is what they would like
IBM is just trying to get Linux as stable as AIX. I think they are going to get rid of AIX in a few years, and they hope Linux will be there for enterprise applications. Good for IBM: Free software development. Good for Users: An open source stable operating system with commercial goodies.