#2 Applications and compilers (VBS, Office, MS Money, AOE, etc.)
Well I'd split that one in half - application on one side and compilers/dev. IDE on the other side. Remember how MS used its power to crush Borland, Wacom and other dev. tools ? Borland sued about that but it took so long that in the end Borland went under and MS settled by buying shares of it.
Bionic jaw muscle attachments, so you don't have to spend effort chewing
Well if you like it that way, then there's a more efficient way of doing it : - ground the hamburger into something semi-liquid - mix with artificial gastric juices - feed to your stomach directly thru a pipe
Why would anyone bother chewing or digesting ? All this time lost while you could be watching Jerry Springer instead !
Yeah I've been a die hard BeOS fan too - but never really used it because it doesn't support my Ethernet card (a 3Com PCMCIA card). Worse, it doesn't support Fast Ethernet on most supported card either (and I can't do without it) and it doesn't like my sound chip either (there's supposedly a driver for it but I never figured how to make it work).
I think the worst thing is still not the lack of drivers, it is the fact that you can't see a damn thing about whats wrong with the drivers you put in it. Appart from "nothing seems to happen", BeOS never tells you what could be wrong, or even that he tried to load the driver (at least on Windows or Linux give you some tips, or let you know that the driver failed to load properly)
Well then you could have a simple easy to use unique ID : convenient for authentification over a network (Intel advertised it as an help for e-commerce and secure communications).
We're funding development efforts with the MySQL team to add database replication and rollback capabilities to MySQL (these improvements will of course be rolled into the normal MySQL release as well).
Transactions in MySQL ??? That would be really wonderfull, I really miss this feature (I could also use some kind of data coherency checks too).
Excuse me ? No I'm from France. I never said anything about being from England.
We don't have some royal peice of garbage parading around with all the countries riches and saying what goes.
Neither does France. We cut the king heads and his minions more than 200 years ago. Hell, we even provided military support to the US to fight against the English !!!
What i think is insane is the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that EVERY human has a dark side. We are a mix of both good and evil.
And what makes as human is that YES - we can try do to the good and inhibit our own dark side. Putting a killing device into everybody hands is certainly not the best way to keep the good side winning.
Oh, and if i remember correctly, the 2 most horrific and horrible wars occured in Europe.
Of course - because US always organise its war overseas. Vietnam, Irak, Kosovo, Korea, etc...
Lets not forget that Christianity, probably the most popular religion in the world, has at its heart that man IS evil, period.
Own of the most perverted religion too BTW. I don't see why I should be responsible for Adam and Eves dark sides, it's not my problem. I take care of my own dark side, thank you, and I never needed a gun for that.
Are you a strict vegetarian? Someone had to kill that hamburger you just ate.
Sure - but the cow wasn't shot and hunted for hours before it died. Livestock is (at least over here) killed quickly and as painless as possible.
Killing smaller animals is the natural order of things. Cats eat mice and birds alligators eat almost anything, etc etc.
Sure - but cats don't hunt with Uzis and M16. If you wanna hunt with your barehands I'm ok with that. Any tools you use to hunt is "cheating" (much like equiping dears with an auto-aiming mini-gun would make hunting less fun for you).
I'm not afraid of a tool, which is exactly what a gun is.
A tool whose only purpose is killing.
Someone stabs you with a knife, should all knives and anything remotely pointy be outlawed ?
Knives are not killing devices. You can at least find several non-lethal use of knives. But guns can only be used for killings (or shooting empty bottles of beer, but I fail to see the practical use of it). Also killing 45 people in a McDonald is not as easy with a knive as it is with an Uzi.
No you punish the person not the instrument.
Of course. But I'd rather have to punish someone for stabing me with a knive rather than shooting me with a AK-47. My chances of survival are much better with knives.
You're missing the entire point of the Second Amendment. Its to keep the government in line. (not invoking Godwin, as I'm not calling anyone a Nazi) - That's why Hitler's first acts were to disarm (especially Jews) the citizenry.
Reread your history book first. Guns were pretty common around Europe before WWII, especially since most people were still living in the countryside and kept at least a gun for hunting. If WWII proved something, it is that a "well regulated militia" with a bunch of hunting gun is no match to a well armed and organised army with tanks, fighters and submarines. If you believe your 2nd amendment protects you from invasions and dictatorship, then you are not living in this century. Wars are fought with cruise missiles, not G-lock.
Are you a vegetarian? If not. SOMEBODY had to kill your fish/chicken/beef/goat/lamb/whatever.
No I'm not a vegetarian - but those animals were killed because it is a necessity. I hope the guys who kill cows don't do it for fun - or they are certainly very sick. I certainly like meat, but I prefer that the animal who made it is killed in the fastest, most painless way as possible. Inflicting pain and death shouldn't be fun.
They think we're barbarians, and we're STILL helping them.
Well it has been over 20 years than European nation demand the removal of US base (except for France because they kicked Nato out of there quickly and built their own nukes and army). The US governement want the world to believe they provide "military help" when they are merely using their military power to protect their own interest (coffee and bananas in south America, petrol in middle east, cheap manufacturing in Asia, etc...). The US has NEVER helped any foreign country out of generosity (Koweit = petrol, Vietnam = self-defence against USSR, WWII : they entered only after Japanese attacked directly a US territory, but had no problem with Hitler politic before that, etc...)
Is this the same Europe that to this day has countries with governments that make a hobby of killing people ?
You mean putting people in the death row ? Last time I checked USA was the latest western country to be so backward that you can legaly execute people.
"America is unique in that it is the only country that went that went from barbarism to decadence without going thru civilisation". Oscar Wilde
I suppose it also was not possible for the citizenry opposed to the us/french in Vietnam to have done very well in opposing a technically superior foreign aggressor.
Don't rewrite history - at least in Vietnam vs US, the Vietnamese were armed by the russian. They didn't bought their guns and grenades at their local grocery store.
Anyway, you really aren't going to make any impression whatsoever on someone like me who believes in the 2nd ammendment quite strongly and does not fall into the "Billy Bubba chewin tobacco Deliverance cast member" stereotype you hope to carry across with the term gun-nut.
I'm sorry but I live in Europe, and all those crazy Americans so in love with their guns are gun-nuts to me. A gun sole purpose is to kill - plain and simple. You can't use it to repair your car or to cook. Professing the widespread availability of killing-devices is completely insane.
At the time the United States had no regular army and relied upon local militias to organize themselves into fighting units.
Well now they do - so the situation CHANGED. And the 2nd amendment is obsolete.
To this end in order that militias are not to require massive amounts of training to be effective with their weaponry in the defense of the FREE state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms was to achieve a goal - it is not a basic human right like free speech. Therefor this right can be modified. Nobody said the constitution should remain enchanged for milleniums.
Also people used their weapons for self defense and hunting as they do now.
Well I think hunting is nut too, I mean which mentally sane human could enjoy killing - even animals ?
Im afraid all you anti-gun people will stumble all over yourselves to crush every contitutional right we have in the name of safety and the common good while in actuality you create a system of laws that punish and the law-abiding all for a kind and happy feeling that someone will always be there to protect you when/if anything bad happens.
Again I live in Europe. I'm anti-gun like 99,9% if my fellow citizens. I've never been afraid of getting shot in the streets - the chances of me dying from a gunshot is so close to 0 it is negligeable. I bet you can't says as much...
But then it is Darwin ideas at work : if Americans like guns so much, we Europeans will be more than happy to sell them the bullets they need to kill each others. As for the defense of our free stats, we have armies and nukes, and that's enough, thank you.
I'm affraid he thought twice - and decided to rob someone anyway. When you are on drugs the risk don't count, and you are already killing yourself with drugs anyway.
You can't threathen someone who has nothing to loose, not even his life. Your AK-47 is pointless.
0. How high is the proberbility of some one getting hurt in a crime if there is NO gun involved?
In most countries of the world this is the way it works. It is mostly the US which is still debating over gun-control. Other nations (in Europe for example) have long closed the debate and done The Right Thing(TM)
then what about being shot, along with your familly who happened to be eating with you in that restaurant where a psycho-killer used his M16 ?
I'd rather have to face criminals with knives and clubs than criminals with Uzi. Even with a gun concealed on me I don't stand a chance if a guy with a Uzi comes by surprise and start spraying death all over the place.
Criminals need to be disarmed, not law-abiding private citizens.
Please explain how you make the difference between law abiding citizen and criminals. Does having speed tickets on your records makes you a criminal ? Then does being seriously paranoid and making plans to kill your familly, but not having done it yet - makes you a law abiding citizen ?
Every person who legally owns a firearm is maintaining the security of a free state on a daily basis,
... or bankrobbing, killing his wife and kids, spraying bullets around a McDonald, shooting cops, etc...
On the other hand the last time your free state was in danger is... let me check. Well that could have been the cold war, but then your well armed militia would have been pretty useless against the Russian nukes.
Bullshit ! There's no such thing as a honest citizen. Any citizen is a potential law-breaker. Mass-killers are always law abiding citizen at some point in their life.
The constitution was written with the idea that people have the right to protect themselves from a corrupt government with technologically advanced weapons.
Which is NOT possible anyway - even with some Uzis a bunch of gun-nuts won't overthrown the US governement (be it corrupt or not : gun-nuts tend to be on the paranoid side).
And then again, I don't think the constitution was written with Uzi, tactical nukes, biological weapons and TNT in mind.
In the 200+ years since the constitution was drafted, nothing has changed that would make nullify this statement.
The consitution doesn't say you should be allowed to buy SR-71 at Walmart. It says exactly that :
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The weapon possession should be allowed BECAUSE it is necessary to the security of a free state. This is a reference to external threats (such as England) NOT a defense against a corrupt governement. The people who say so are just right-wingers obsessed with any governement intervention into their activies and other conspiracy nuts. This article talks about being able to turn citizens into a defense army against invasions, not about emptying a McDonalds with a M16. Also notice the words well regulated (which doesn't apply to individuals stockpiling AK-47 to prepare for the Y2K bug, or to David Koresh followers either). So far pro-gun failed to explain how they plan to "well regulate " their militia (since they hate so much any regulation).
I'm afraid all you pro-gun people only take the words the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed and try to erase the begining of the sentence (A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state) because you don't like it. If you have to use the 2nd amendment, then use it completely or don't use it.
Nothing. But that won't kill Freenet. They are suing the DeCCS coders - does that kills DeCSS ? Seems to make it stronger if you ask me, never heard of it before the MPAA started playing dirty.
Because : a) it doesn't belong to anyone. Who will they sue ? Even the nodes (servers) of Freenet are designed so that their owners don't even know what they host. Request and searches are also anonymous (crypted and hashed), so you can't even tell who is looking for what. b) it is open source. Much like GNUtella, once the source has been released into the wilderness (the Internet) you can't kill it. Try to think of rabits in Australia... c) it is really a distributed filesystem - you can't just shut down a server a kill it. It doesn't even rely on DNS !
Well nobody in his right mind would write complete software in assembler. But the idea that most 3D action games or multimedia software don't use one single line of assembler, not even for time critical loops, makes me really sick. Because the coders are so lazy and ignorant, I have to buy a bigger CPU, a faster graphic card and waste money (and pollute the environement) on something that could be done better in software.
Well don't forget such projects as Freenet ( http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ ). You can't regulate it. You can't kill it. Even if you could remove all nodes and the source from this world, many peoples will still have the concept of it in mind and can revive it under another form.
Napster is a good idea over a lame, centralised and not-anonymous protocol. GNUtella improves a little on that. Freenet will be the nail in the coffin of copyrights laws. For good or for worse - those systems are coming and won't go away, ever.
They are just providing all the specs for their CPU well before release date. But we have always had specs for Intel CPU at some points - or else how are we supposed to make our assembler code works ? (ok I know not many Linux people like assembler, but that's still the programming language of the real die-hard geek, the only way to squeeze as much juice out of your hardware)
Once the pendora box of technology has been open, there's no way to close it back. Of course ignorant people (especially lawyers and entertainement executives) will never understand that. Too bad for them...
Indeed - Freenet can't hide the IP number - but it hides the keyword you search as well as crypt the data you download. So basically the only thing someone else can know is that you downloaded something.
Freenet is the ultimate in freedom of information. This is a one way street that will make ineffective any law restricting information - be it copyrights, censorship or - yes - illegal pictures.
Slashdot Mirror
#2 Applications and compilers (VBS, Office, MS Money, AOE, etc.)
Well I'd split that one in half - application on one side and compilers/dev. IDE on the other side. Remember how MS used its power to crush Borland, Wacom and other dev. tools ? Borland sued about that but it took so long that in the end Borland went under and MS settled by buying shares of it.
Bionic jaw muscle attachments, so you don't have to spend effort chewing
Well if you like it that way, then there's a more efficient way of doing it :
- ground the hamburger into something semi-liquid
- mix with artificial gastric juices
- feed to your stomach directly thru a pipe
Why would anyone bother chewing or digesting ? All this time lost while you could be watching Jerry Springer instead !
Yeah I've been a die hard BeOS fan too - but never really used it because it doesn't support my Ethernet card (a 3Com PCMCIA card). Worse, it doesn't support Fast Ethernet on most supported card either (and I can't do without it) and it doesn't like my sound chip either (there's supposedly a driver for it but I never figured how to make it work).
I think the worst thing is still not the lack of drivers, it is the fact that you can't see a damn thing about whats wrong with the drivers you put in it. Appart from "nothing seems to happen", BeOS never tells you what could be wrong, or even that he tried to load the driver (at least on Windows or Linux give you some tips, or let you know that the driver failed to load properly)
Well then you could have a simple easy to use unique ID : convenient for authentification over a network (Intel advertised it as an help for e-commerce and secure communications).
We're funding development efforts with the MySQL team to add database replication and rollback capabilities to MySQL (these improvements will of course be rolled into the normal MySQL release as well).
Transactions in MySQL ??? That would be really wonderfull, I really miss this feature (I could also use some kind of data coherency checks too).
and that fact that you are from England.
Excuse me ? No I'm from France. I never said anything about being from England.
We don't have some royal peice of garbage parading around with all the countries riches and saying what goes.
Neither does France. We cut the king heads and his minions more than 200 years ago. Hell, we even provided military support to the US to fight against the English !!!
What i think is insane is the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that EVERY human has a dark side. We are a mix of both good and evil.
And what makes as human is that YES - we can try do to the good and inhibit our own dark side. Putting a killing device into everybody hands is certainly not the best way to keep the good side winning.
Oh, and if i remember correctly, the 2 most horrific and horrible wars occured in Europe.
Of course - because US always organise its war overseas. Vietnam, Irak, Kosovo, Korea, etc...
Lets not forget that Christianity, probably the most popular religion in the world, has at its heart that man IS evil, period.
Own of the most perverted religion too BTW. I don't see why I should be responsible for Adam and Eves dark sides, it's not my problem. I take care of my own dark side, thank you, and I never needed a gun for that.
Are you a strict vegetarian? Someone had to kill that hamburger you just ate.
Sure - but the cow wasn't shot and hunted for hours before it died. Livestock is (at least over here) killed quickly and as painless as possible.
Killing smaller animals is the natural order of things. Cats eat mice and birds alligators eat almost anything, etc etc.
Sure - but cats don't hunt with Uzis and M16. If you wanna hunt with your barehands I'm ok with that. Any tools you use to hunt is "cheating" (much like equiping dears with an auto-aiming mini-gun would make hunting less fun for you).
I'm not afraid of a tool, which is exactly what a gun is.
A tool whose only purpose is killing.
Someone stabs you with a knife, should all knives and anything remotely pointy be outlawed ?
Knives are not killing devices. You can at least find several non-lethal use of knives. But guns can only be used for killings (or shooting empty bottles of beer, but I fail to see the practical use of it). Also killing 45 people in a McDonald is not as easy with a knive as it is with an Uzi.
No you punish the person not the instrument.
Of course. But I'd rather have to punish someone for stabing me with a knive rather than shooting me with a AK-47. My chances of survival are much better with knives.
You're missing the entire point of the Second Amendment. Its to keep the government in line. (not invoking Godwin, as I'm not calling anyone a Nazi) - That's why Hitler's first acts were to disarm (especially Jews) the citizenry.
Reread your history book first. Guns were pretty common around Europe before WWII, especially since most people were still living in the countryside and kept at least a gun for hunting. If WWII proved something, it is that a "well regulated militia" with a bunch of hunting gun is no match to a well armed and organised army with tanks, fighters and submarines. If you believe your 2nd amendment protects you from invasions and dictatorship, then you are not living in this century. Wars are fought with cruise missiles, not G-lock.
Are you a vegetarian? If not. SOMEBODY had to kill your fish/chicken/beef/goat/lamb/whatever.
No I'm not a vegetarian - but those animals were killed because it is a necessity. I hope the guys who kill cows don't do it for fun - or they are certainly very sick. I certainly like meat, but I prefer that the animal who made it is killed in the fastest, most painless way as possible. Inflicting pain and death shouldn't be fun.
They think we're barbarians, and we're STILL helping them.
Well it has been over 20 years than European nation demand the removal of US base (except for France because they kicked Nato out of there quickly and built their own nukes and army). The US governement want the world to believe they provide "military help" when they are merely using their military power to protect their own interest (coffee and bananas in south America, petrol in middle east, cheap manufacturing in Asia, etc...). The US has NEVER helped any foreign country out of generosity (Koweit = petrol, Vietnam = self-defence against USSR, WWII : they entered only after Japanese attacked directly a US territory, but had no problem with Hitler politic before that, etc...)
Is this the same Europe that to this day has countries with governments that make a hobby of killing people ?
You mean putting people in the death row ? Last time I checked USA was the latest western country to be so backward that you can legaly execute people.
"America is unique in that it is the only country that went that went from barbarism to decadence without going thru civilisation". Oscar Wilde
I suppose it also was not possible for the citizenry opposed to the us/french in Vietnam to have done very well in opposing a technically superior foreign aggressor.
Don't rewrite history - at least in Vietnam vs US, the Vietnamese were armed by the russian. They didn't bought their guns and grenades at their local grocery store.
Anyway, you really aren't going to make any impression whatsoever on someone like me who believes in the 2nd ammendment quite strongly and does not fall into the "Billy Bubba chewin tobacco Deliverance cast member" stereotype you hope to carry across with the term gun-nut.
I'm sorry but I live in Europe, and all those crazy Americans so in love with their guns are gun-nuts to me. A gun sole purpose is to kill - plain and simple. You can't use it to repair your car or to cook. Professing the widespread availability of killing-devices is completely insane.
At the time the United States had no regular army and relied upon local militias to organize themselves into fighting units.
Well now they do - so the situation CHANGED. And the 2nd amendment is obsolete.
To this end in order that militias are not to require massive amounts of training to be effective with their weaponry in the defense of the FREE state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms was to achieve a goal - it is not a basic human right like free speech. Therefor this right can be modified. Nobody said the constitution should remain enchanged for milleniums.
Also people used their weapons for self defense and hunting as they do now.
Well I think hunting is nut too, I mean which mentally sane human could enjoy killing - even animals ?
Im afraid all you anti-gun people will stumble all over yourselves to crush every contitutional right we have in the name of safety and the common good while in actuality you create a system of laws that punish and the law-abiding all for a kind and happy feeling that someone will always be there to protect you when/if anything bad happens.
Again I live in Europe. I'm anti-gun like 99,9% if my fellow citizens. I've never been afraid of getting shot in the streets - the chances of me dying from a gunshot is so close to 0 it is negligeable. I bet you can't says as much...
But then it is Darwin ideas at work : if Americans like guns so much, we Europeans will be more than happy to sell them the bullets they need to kill each others. As for the defense of our free stats, we have armies and nukes, and that's enough, thank you.
I'm affraid he thought twice - and decided to rob someone anyway. When you are on drugs the risk don't count, and you are already killing yourself with drugs anyway.
You can't threathen someone who has nothing to loose, not even his life. Your AK-47 is pointless.
You forgot :
0. How high is the proberbility of some one getting hurt in a crime if there is NO gun involved?
In most countries of the world this is the way it works. It is mostly the US which is still debating over gun-control. Other nations (in Europe for example) have long closed the debate and done The Right Thing(TM)
then what about being shot, along with your familly who happened to be eating with you in that restaurant where a psycho-killer used his M16 ?
I'd rather have to face criminals with knives and clubs than criminals with Uzi. Even with a gun concealed on me I don't stand a chance if a guy with a Uzi comes by surprise and start spraying death all over the place.
Criminals need to be disarmed, not law-abiding private citizens.
Please explain how you make the difference between law abiding citizen and criminals. Does having speed tickets on your records makes you a criminal ? Then does being seriously paranoid and making plans to kill your familly, but not having done it yet - makes you a law abiding citizen ?
Every person who legally owns a firearm is maintaining the security of a free state on a daily basis,
... or bankrobbing, killing his wife and kids, spraying bullets around a McDonald, shooting cops, etc...
On the other hand the last time your free state was in danger is... let me check. Well that could have been the cold war, but then your well armed militia would have been pretty useless against the Russian nukes.
disarming the honest citizens
Bullshit ! There's no such thing as a honest citizen. Any citizen is a potential law-breaker. Mass-killers are always law abiding citizen at some point in their life.
The constitution was written with the idea that people have the right to protect themselves from a corrupt government with technologically advanced weapons.
Which is NOT possible anyway - even with some Uzis a bunch of gun-nuts won't overthrown the US governement (be it corrupt or not : gun-nuts tend to be on the paranoid side).
And then again, I don't think the constitution was written with Uzi, tactical nukes, biological weapons and TNT in mind.
In the 200+ years since the constitution was drafted, nothing has changed that would make nullify this statement.
The consitution doesn't say you should be allowed to buy SR-71 at Walmart. It says exactly that :
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The weapon possession should be allowed BECAUSE it is necessary to the security of a free state. This is a reference to external threats (such as England) NOT a defense against a corrupt governement. The people who say so are just right-wingers obsessed with any governement intervention into their activies and other conspiracy nuts. This article talks about being able to turn citizens into a defense army against invasions, not about emptying a McDonalds with a M16. Also notice the words well regulated (which doesn't apply to individuals stockpiling AK-47 to prepare for the Y2K bug, or to David Koresh followers either). So far pro-gun failed to explain how they plan to "well regulate " their militia (since they hate so much any regulation).
I'm afraid all you pro-gun people only take the words the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed and try to erase the begining of the sentence (A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state) because you don't like it. If you have to use the 2nd amendment, then use it completely or don't use it.
Nothing. But that won't kill Freenet. They are suing the DeCCS coders - does that kills DeCSS ? Seems to make it stronger if you ask me, never heard of it before the MPAA started playing dirty.
Because :
a) it doesn't belong to anyone. Who will they sue ? Even the nodes (servers) of Freenet are designed so that their owners don't even know what they host. Request and searches are also anonymous (crypted and hashed), so you can't even tell who is looking for what.
b) it is open source. Much like GNUtella, once the source has been released into the wilderness (the Internet) you can't kill it. Try to think of rabits in Australia...
c) it is really a distributed filesystem - you can't just shut down a server a kill it. It doesn't even rely on DNS !
Well nobody in his right mind would write complete software in assembler. But the idea that most 3D action games or multimedia software don't use one single line of assembler, not even for time critical loops, makes me really sick. Because the coders are so lazy and ignorant, I have to buy a bigger CPU, a faster graphic card and waste money (and pollute the environement) on something that could be done better in software.
Well don't forget such projects as Freenet ( http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ ). You can't regulate it. You can't kill it. Even if you could remove all nodes and the source from this world, many peoples will still have the concept of it in mind and can revive it under another form.
Napster is a good idea over a lame, centralised and not-anonymous protocol. GNUtella improves a little on that. Freenet will be the nail in the coffin of copyrights laws. For good or for worse - those systems are coming and won't go away, ever.
They are just providing all the specs for their CPU well before release date. But we have always had specs for Intel CPU at some points - or else how are we supposed to make our assembler code works ? (ok I know not many Linux people like assembler, but that's still the programming language of the real die-hard geek, the only way to squeeze as much juice out of your hardware)
Once the pendora box of technology has been open, there's no way to close it back. Of course ignorant people (especially lawyers and entertainement executives) will never understand that. Too bad for them...
(first post ?)
Indeed - Freenet can't hide the IP number - but it hides the keyword you search as well as crypt the data you download. So basically the only thing someone else can know is that you downloaded something.
Freenet is the ultimate in freedom of information. This is a one way street that will make ineffective any law restricting information - be it copyrights, censorship or - yes - illegal pictures.