But MS *does* support XP - they release security and bug fixes. The fact that MS does not also give XP new features does not mean the OS isn't supported.
Why? Yes, XP is currently sold, and its sold with a given set of features - it does not come with any guarantee that you will get more features in the future, although MS has provided more on occasion (.Net, IE8 etc).
People buying XP now are not entitled to anything more than they actually bought, and that is what is happening.
I'm going to guess that you don't know about Dodge vs Ford (1919), where the companies shareholders sued Ford to release more profits to shareholders rather than use those profits to unduly raise wages of the workers.
It does get quite difficult to have a mature conversation with someone who insults you all the time....
You once again miss the fact that this internet filter will not reduce the number of pedophiles behind the filter at all, it doesn't lock any up, it doesn't restrict movements of any, it doesn't offer treatment for any - it just cuts them off from their supply, cold turkey, no help offered at all.
I am also not claiming anything about how the internet has changed the behaviours or habits of pedophiles.
Once again, I am saying that the original statement made in the article, "[Malcolm Turnbull] has to explain to Australian families that he is prepared to do nothing about blocking access to those sites,' Conroy added." is false because it does NOTHING about the pedophiles.
The ones that were going to abuse will still abuse. The ones that cannot get their fix via the internet may go one of several ways - they may stop or return to regular porn, they may turn to domestically produced child porn, or they may start abusing themselves. It depends on their degree of fixation.
The filter will not stop those that were going to abuse anyway. The Australian family were always going to be harmed. The Australian family is harmed.
The filter will not stop those that were not going to abuse, but will now abuse. The Australian family were not going to be harmed. The Australian family is harmed.
The filter will not stop those that were not going to abuse, and will not abuse. The Australian family were never going to be harmed.
If the fact that child porn is 'readily available' on the internet does indeed 'stoke the vile urges of paedophiles', you still miss the fact that removing access to that ready supply does not instantly reduce the amount of pedophiles down to whatever it might have been otherwise - there will still be pedophiles that have liked what they acquired a taste for and can never go back to a normal life. Those won't go away, and they may go on to abuse directly.
My evidence is history itself - you really think there were no pedophiles before the internet came into existence? How do you think they operated then?
I have also assumed no 'causality' - you miss the fact that you are *not* removing consumers from the market, you are simply segmenting them in the market from their suppliers. What that does to the Thai suppliers is outside the discussion here, its what those 'consumers' do after their supply is removed - do they simply give up on the whole child porn aspect? In a perfect world, yes, but then again in a perfect world they wouldn't exist in the first place.
Some casual 'consumers' may certainly give up their hobby, but equally there will be those that go elsewhere for their fix - where do you think that their new supply will come from, when they can no longer go outside the country on the internet for their porn? Certainly there will be other channels, and domestically made child porn is one of them.
I also find it amusing that, while we are discussing the harm that comes to Australian children here, you assume that I care not a bit for non-Australian children - nothing further from the truth could be had. And I also resent your implication that I prefer any child to be harmed.
Once again, we come back to what this discussion is all about - whether the filter protects the Australian family. It doesn't, and all of my posts demonstrate that.
In the first case, it doesn't remove any suppliers from the market place - they exist outside of the remit of this filter and thus have a larger market. The argument that if you remove the customer base you reduce the suppliers market is false - many times this has been tried with prostitution and it has failed in every country thus far. They existed before the internet, and they were world wide then.
In the second case, it doesn't necessarily remove any consumers from the market place - it simply restricts their supply. What they do after that is of question.
Thirdly, it may indeed foist more harm on the Australian family as those consumers that cannot get their fix from external sources now have to turn to internal sources to fulfill their desires. Some of that internal supply may be smuggled in as before, but equally some may be domestically produced material that would never have been produced otherwise.
So you really think that once they cannot get access to content on the internet, *all* pedophiles in Australia will immediately stop being pedophiles and get on with their lives? Now that's optimism!
What is more likely to happen is that local pedophile rings will increase in Australia, individual pedophiles will group together to find a release for their urges and thus more Australian children will be subject to degredation and harm as the child porn will now have to be locally produced (easier than smuggling it in) and change hands physically rather than over the internet (like the 'good' old days).
Also, just because they hide it behind an internet filter doesn't mean the material ceases to exist - the site in Thailand will still exist, and still cause children to be sexually abused whether Australia blocks access or not, the filter hasn't prevented anything in that case.
It works because it is a real problem. Child porn is a bad thing.
While child porn is extremely bad, preventing access to it will not protect Australian families from pedophiles at all - infact, with one method of release denied to them (and no, thats not me condoning access to child porn), they could become more dangerous toward Australian families.
The summary is bollocks however - the statement that 'Adobe seems to have made an about face regarding their support for native 64-bit Linux support for Flash today' implies that an about face was needed when in-fact Adobes statement at the time of closing the Linux 64bit beta program included the sentence 'We remain committed to delivering 64-bit support in a future release of Flash Player'. Its hardly an about face when they do infact deliver on that sentence.
Did he have authorisation to do anything he wanted with the information or system? No, he didn't, he had authorisation to act within a given framework of policies, therefor his actions can be considered in breach of hte Computer Misuse Act.
And at some point before you are *convicted* of a crime, you are *suspected* of a crime, which means someone has to think you are *guilty* of a crime and has to have *investigated* you and *charged* you with a crime.
The 'innocent until proven guilty' stance is only the stance of a court, in that the prosecution has to prove your guilt, you do not have to prove your innocence but only defend yourself against the prosecutions case. It does not apply to the police, prosecution or anyone else.
In the UK, he would have breached the Misuse of Computers Act and several child protection laws - I am not intimately familiar with US law, but I would imagine that equivalent laws exist over there as well.
I don't know that you didn't commit a crime this morning. You don't know whether I am a serial killer or not. However, in both of those 'examples' neither yourself nor myself have yet carried out any public act which is questionable in a legal sense - this guy has, but you seem determined to not have that question answered.
If you see a young male with a hoodie running down the street with a handbag in his hand and a screaming grandmother further down the street, would you be more likely to call the police (or intervene yourself) or wait for the grandmother to prove the muggers guilt before calling the police (or intervening)?
How do you know he didn't commit a crime? The issue was never put infront of the police or a prosecutor so they couldn't make the judgment if a law was potentially broken or not and thus had no chance of bringing charges.
Your little dialog between two anonymous people assumes that he didn't commit a crime and uses that supposition to suggest that saying his actions should be referred to the authorities is wrong - my stance is that his actions are definitely morally and ethically wrong, and could indeed constitute a criminal act but the authorities were not given the chance to determine whether or not they were.
If this case involved credit card numbers, what would your suggestion be then? What about this case does not scream invasion of privacy, misuse of privileges, abuse of trust and numerous other things? This person should not have been simply let go, it should have been referred to the authorities - he didn't make a simple mistake, he took deliberate action. Simply letting him go allows Google to silently preserve their pristine image.
People seem to be taking my point about quietly letting him go to mean that Google should have issued a press release or made a public announcement - no, that's not what I am suggesting, but its quite apt since reporting this matter to the authorities would have been akin to making a public announcement.
Yes, I have used JS on the server and I wouldn't use it for anything production in place of.Net - the frameworks and language features are just not there to be competitive yet.
On the server side, fast is not enough. I don't want to be reimplementing functionality I know I can get elsewhere very very cheaply.
Web apps most often still need a corresponding back end application suite as well, so while JS (more likely, frameworks such as JQuery on top of JS - I don't imagine anything being written in straight JS), Java and.Net still have a significant place, although its going to be more of a symbiosis than a domination of one tier over the other.
From the sound of it, they aren't using it to "see who closes cases", but rather to see "who was the most involved in helping to get cases closed". Quite often a sales force will have the top tier sales people, junior sales people and a backing of office workers who prep documents, write contracts, manage problems, make appointments, clarify details etc etc. The sales people may close the deal, but who actually did the most work in getting that deal to the point where it can be closed?
In addition, by some strange coincidence, any time the police in the UK have been accused of misdeeds, (such as brutalising innocent members of the public) the relevant CCTV cameras have always been found to have been wiped/malfunctioning/looking in the wrong direction.
If street criminals have even 10% of the luck of these accused police officers, then the CCTV system is basically useless and pointless.
We'd be better off relying on members of the public and ubiquitous phone cams. At least *they* have caught the occasional police brutality incident. That makes them superior to the CCTV system in my opinion, and cheaper too.
Well, that statement is complete bollocks, I can think of several high profile cases where a police officer has been caught 'brutalising innocent members of the public' on CCTV in cases that made it all the way to court. Here's one that happened within the past week:
"A police officer has been jailed for six months after he was caught on CCTV throwing a woman into a cell, badly injuring her.
The footage also shows Sgt Mark Andrews dragging Pamela Somerville, 59, through Melksham police station in Wiltshire."
"A police watchdog is investigating an alleged attack on a man by three officers in Wigan, Greater Manchester.
In video obtained by the Sunday Mirror the man - said to be Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall - is shown being pinned to the ground and repeatedly punched. "
There is an entire realm of possibilities between 'abstain from actions that will piss them off' and 'actively seeking out actions that will piss them off' - how often do people burn Korans in every day life in America?
To further risk angering the analogy crowd, the difference between what you have said and what I have said is the equivalent of a meat eater going out of their way to kill a cow just to piss off the vegetarian protester when infact that meat eater would never do that and instead go down to the local supermarket to get their prepackaged, precut meat.
I have seen several people make this mistake - this has nothing at all to do with Flash-the-web-content-platform discussion, as in this case we are not seeing Flash hosted by the web browser at all. No, this is about Flash as a generalised development language for the iOS platform, running code natively and replacing ObjC in the development process - it allows current Flash developers to target their skills at more than just the web.
Flash-the-web-content-platform can wither and die while this use of Flash-the-language can thrive completely independently.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't the moon, Mars has significant weather which can flatten impact craters in dust fields.
But MS *does* support XP - they release security and bug fixes. The fact that MS does not also give XP new features does not mean the OS isn't supported.
Why? Yes, XP is currently sold, and its sold with a given set of features - it does not come with any guarantee that you will get more features in the future, although MS has provided more on occasion (.Net, IE8 etc).
People buying XP now are not entitled to anything more than they actually bought, and that is what is happening.
I'm going to guess that you don't know about Dodge vs Ford (1919), where the companies shareholders sued Ford to release more profits to shareholders rather than use those profits to unduly raise wages of the workers.
The shareholders won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
It does get quite difficult to have a mature conversation with someone who insults you all the time....
You once again miss the fact that this internet filter will not reduce the number of pedophiles behind the filter at all, it doesn't lock any up, it doesn't restrict movements of any, it doesn't offer treatment for any - it just cuts them off from their supply, cold turkey, no help offered at all.
I am also not claiming anything about how the internet has changed the behaviours or habits of pedophiles.
Once again, I am saying that the original statement made in the article, "[Malcolm Turnbull] has to explain to Australian families that he is prepared to do nothing about blocking access to those sites,' Conroy added." is false because it does NOTHING about the pedophiles.
The ones that were going to abuse will still abuse. The ones that cannot get their fix via the internet may go one of several ways - they may stop or return to regular porn, they may turn to domestically produced child porn, or they may start abusing themselves. It depends on their degree of fixation.
The filter will not stop those that were going to abuse anyway. The Australian family were always going to be harmed. The Australian family is harmed.
The filter will not stop those that were not going to abuse, but will now abuse. The Australian family were not going to be harmed. The Australian family is harmed.
The filter will not stop those that were not going to abuse, and will not abuse. The Australian family were never going to be harmed.
If the fact that child porn is 'readily available' on the internet does indeed 'stoke the vile urges of paedophiles', you still miss the fact that removing access to that ready supply does not instantly reduce the amount of pedophiles down to whatever it might have been otherwise - there will still be pedophiles that have liked what they acquired a taste for and can never go back to a normal life. Those won't go away, and they may go on to abuse directly.
So why is WM7 joining the fray now any different to Android joining the fray two years after the iPhone?
My evidence is history itself - you really think there were no pedophiles before the internet came into existence? How do you think they operated then?
I have also assumed no 'causality' - you miss the fact that you are *not* removing consumers from the market, you are simply segmenting them in the market from their suppliers. What that does to the Thai suppliers is outside the discussion here, its what those 'consumers' do after their supply is removed - do they simply give up on the whole child porn aspect? In a perfect world, yes, but then again in a perfect world they wouldn't exist in the first place.
Some casual 'consumers' may certainly give up their hobby, but equally there will be those that go elsewhere for their fix - where do you think that their new supply will come from, when they can no longer go outside the country on the internet for their porn? Certainly there will be other channels, and domestically made child porn is one of them.
I also find it amusing that, while we are discussing the harm that comes to Australian children here, you assume that I care not a bit for non-Australian children - nothing further from the truth could be had. And I also resent your implication that I prefer any child to be harmed.
Once again, we come back to what this discussion is all about - whether the filter protects the Australian family. It doesn't, and all of my posts demonstrate that.
In the first case, it doesn't remove any suppliers from the market place - they exist outside of the remit of this filter and thus have a larger market. The argument that if you remove the customer base you reduce the suppliers market is false - many times this has been tried with prostitution and it has failed in every country thus far. They existed before the internet, and they were world wide then.
In the second case, it doesn't necessarily remove any consumers from the market place - it simply restricts their supply. What they do after that is of question.
Thirdly, it may indeed foist more harm on the Australian family as those consumers that cannot get their fix from external sources now have to turn to internal sources to fulfill their desires. Some of that internal supply may be smuggled in as before, but equally some may be domestically produced material that would never have been produced otherwise.
Now *thats* reaching....
So you really think that once they cannot get access to content on the internet, *all* pedophiles in Australia will immediately stop being pedophiles and get on with their lives? Now that's optimism!
What is more likely to happen is that local pedophile rings will increase in Australia, individual pedophiles will group together to find a release for their urges and thus more Australian children will be subject to degredation and harm as the child porn will now have to be locally produced (easier than smuggling it in) and change hands physically rather than over the internet (like the 'good' old days).
Also, just because they hide it behind an internet filter doesn't mean the material ceases to exist - the site in Thailand will still exist, and still cause children to be sexually abused whether Australia blocks access or not, the filter hasn't prevented anything in that case.
Have you used SCOs abomination that is UNIX? Nowhere decent.
It works because it is a real problem. Child porn is a bad thing.
While child porn is extremely bad, preventing access to it will not protect Australian families from pedophiles at all - infact, with one method of release denied to them (and no, thats not me condoning access to child porn), they could become more dangerous toward Australian families.
The summary is bollocks however - the statement that 'Adobe seems to have made an about face regarding their support for native 64-bit Linux support for Flash today' implies that an about face was needed when in-fact Adobes statement at the time of closing the Linux 64bit beta program included the sentence 'We remain committed to delivering 64-bit support in a future release of Flash Player'. Its hardly an about face when they do infact deliver on that sentence.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/06/11/1338207/Adobe-Temporarily-Kills-64-Bit-Flash-For-Linux?from=rss
Did he have authorisation to do anything he wanted with the information or system? No, he didn't, he had authorisation to act within a given framework of policies, therefor his actions can be considered in breach of hte Computer Misuse Act.
And at some point before you are *convicted* of a crime, you are *suspected* of a crime, which means someone has to think you are *guilty* of a crime and has to have *investigated* you and *charged* you with a crime.
The 'innocent until proven guilty' stance is only the stance of a court, in that the prosecution has to prove your guilt, you do not have to prove your innocence but only defend yourself against the prosecutions case. It does not apply to the police, prosecution or anyone else.
In the UK, he would have breached the Misuse of Computers Act and several child protection laws - I am not intimately familiar with US law, but I would imagine that equivalent laws exist over there as well.
I don't know that you didn't commit a crime this morning. You don't know whether I am a serial killer or not. However, in both of those 'examples' neither yourself nor myself have yet carried out any public act which is questionable in a legal sense - this guy has, but you seem determined to not have that question answered.
If you see a young male with a hoodie running down the street with a handbag in his hand and a screaming grandmother further down the street, would you be more likely to call the police (or intervene yourself) or wait for the grandmother to prove the muggers guilt before calling the police (or intervening)?
How do you know he didn't commit a crime? The issue was never put infront of the police or a prosecutor so they couldn't make the judgment if a law was potentially broken or not and thus had no chance of bringing charges.
Your little dialog between two anonymous people assumes that he didn't commit a crime and uses that supposition to suggest that saying his actions should be referred to the authorities is wrong - my stance is that his actions are definitely morally and ethically wrong, and could indeed constitute a criminal act but the authorities were not given the chance to determine whether or not they were.
If this case involved credit card numbers, what would your suggestion be then? What about this case does not scream invasion of privacy, misuse of privileges, abuse of trust and numerous other things? This person should not have been simply let go, it should have been referred to the authorities - he didn't make a simple mistake, he took deliberate action. Simply letting him go allows Google to silently preserve their pristine image.
People seem to be taking my point about quietly letting him go to mean that Google should have issued a press release or made a public announcement - no, that's not what I am suggesting, but its quite apt since reporting this matter to the authorities would have been akin to making a public announcement.
And the quietly letting him go rather than warning others about this persons actions is ... whose policy?
Yes, I have used JS on the server and I wouldn't use it for anything production in place of .Net - the frameworks and language features are just not there to be competitive yet.
On the server side, fast is not enough. I don't want to be reimplementing functionality I know I can get elsewhere very very cheaply.
Web apps most often still need a corresponding back end application suite as well, so while JS (more likely, frameworks such as JQuery on top of JS - I don't imagine anything being written in straight JS), Java and .Net still have a significant place, although its going to be more of a symbiosis than a domination of one tier over the other.
So what about this does not constitute managing the work? Its just another way of managing, whether you like it or not.
From the sound of it, they aren't using it to "see who closes cases", but rather to see "who was the most involved in helping to get cases closed". Quite often a sales force will have the top tier sales people, junior sales people and a backing of office workers who prep documents, write contracts, manage problems, make appointments, clarify details etc etc. The sales people may close the deal, but who actually did the most work in getting that deal to the point where it can be closed?
In addition, by some strange coincidence, any time the police in the UK have been accused of misdeeds, (such as brutalising innocent members of the public) the relevant CCTV cameras have always been found to have been wiped/malfunctioning/looking in the wrong direction.
If street criminals have even 10% of the luck of these accused police officers, then the CCTV system is basically useless and pointless. We'd be better off relying on members of the public and ubiquitous phone cams. At least *they* have caught the occasional police brutality incident. That makes them superior to the CCTV system in my opinion, and cheaper too.
Well, that statement is complete bollocks, I can think of several high profile cases where a police officer has been caught 'brutalising innocent members of the public' on CCTV in cases that made it all the way to court. Here's one that happened within the past week:
"A police officer has been jailed for six months after he was caught on CCTV throwing a woman into a cell, badly injuring her.
The footage also shows Sgt Mark Andrews dragging Pamela Somerville, 59, through Melksham police station in Wiltshire."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-11214026
Another one from last year...
"A police watchdog is investigating an alleged attack on a man by three officers in Wigan, Greater Manchester.
In video obtained by the Sunday Mirror the man - said to be Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall - is shown being pinned to the ground and repeatedly punched. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7757229.stm
There is an entire realm of possibilities between 'abstain from actions that will piss them off' and 'actively seeking out actions that will piss them off' - how often do people burn Korans in every day life in America?
To further risk angering the analogy crowd, the difference between what you have said and what I have said is the equivalent of a meat eater going out of their way to kill a cow just to piss off the vegetarian protester when infact that meat eater would never do that and instead go down to the local supermarket to get their prepackaged, precut meat.
I have seen several people make this mistake - this has nothing at all to do with Flash-the-web-content-platform discussion, as in this case we are not seeing Flash hosted by the web browser at all. No, this is about Flash as a generalised development language for the iOS platform, running code natively and replacing ObjC in the development process - it allows current Flash developers to target their skills at more than just the web.
Flash-the-web-content-platform can wither and die while this use of Flash-the-language can thrive completely independently.
What I want to know is how is GoogleTV battling for anything - its still vapourware!