I'm just trying to figure out who or what came up with the name "LoveSan" and why? variations on "blaster" make sense because the name of the original executable was wblaster.exe and the intention was obviously to "blast" windows update or unpatched windows users or microsoft or whatever, but "LoveSan"? Am I missing something here?
Who checks so that the USA does not handle their MWDs in the wrong way?
Define "the wrong way". More to the point, what would this hypothetical checker do if they found such "mishandling"? If you thought it was difficult to get a coalition of countries together to attack Iraq in order to produce compliance, can you imagine how difficult it would be to get such a coalition to actually take real action against the most powerful country in the world?
The Bush administration has restarted our NBC weapons program, and if they are allowed to continue on this path, they WILL use them
First of all, we never stopped our *nuclear* weapons program. Second, mind if I ask you how you came upon this no doubt highly classified information about this vast government conspiracy to hide our active offensive biological and chemical weapons programs.
If you are in fact leaking classified information through your slashdot account, I have to wonder about your sense of self-preservation. I would imagine that you could end up either dead or in federal prison for doing something like that.
After playing Chris Avellone's Planescape:Torment, the idea of a girl with a tail as well as a succubus like Fall-from-Grace kind of intrigued me, but it seems unethical to force someone into being a chimera or new species.
A black panther + Slavic looking girl may seem like an interesting combination in fiction, but in the real world she would probably have a horrible life. Does a couple that really likes felines, have the right to produce a girl with just a hint of feline genetics?
Perhaps, in the future, we will be able to "steal" some genetics from the other species in order to improve our abilities without altering our appearance. I don't think this is likely to happen in any of our lifetimes though.
It's 2003. So where is he? AI has not seemed to improve much despite ambitious software projects and even games that would seem to require neural networks. Perhaps the most disappointing is the lack of much improvement in VR, with disappointing progress in input devices and 3D and other monitor technology. Voice synthesis has made some improvements though. Not bad, although it's still not HAL quality. Voice recognition seems to have matured quite a bit as well. IMO, the most significant progress has been in graphics cards with processors nearly as impressive as the main CPU. The impact this has had on games cannot be underestimated.
In a significant number of cases a bike helmet is not enough to prevent a head injury. They do not protect the brain from deceleration injuries all that much. [Think of throwing around a lightly padded wooden box with a jello mold inside.] Wearing one is definitely a good idea, but they are not a panacea.
Car accidents cause the most head injuries anyway. Just the deceleration in a relatively minor accident can cause a concussion. How often this results in a permanent reduction in recall, attention span, etc is controversial.
Most people who suffer a relatively subtle reduction in mental abilities will never know it. The only way to be sure would be to have neuropsychological/IQ testing not too long before the obviously unplanned accident. Of course, students may see a small reduction in their GPA, or may just need to spend more time studying for the same grades.
Do you wear a motorcycle helmet when driving your car? If not (I don't either:)) then you are not only at quite a significant risk from deceleration injuries (diffuse axonal injury), but also from any impact of your unprotected head against your steering wheel, the driver side window/door, or any other hard object within striking range. Airbags certainly help this, as do the shoulder straps on seatbelts.
In cold climates it provides some protection against slipping on ice. How many people wear helmets whenever they walk outside in the winter?
I don't think it takes that much creatine to benefit from the protective effect (how much is probably unknown). For some people it might be worth it, particularly people who play some kind of sport where they fall alot (like skiing/snowboarding).
Obviously it's not for everyone, but for some of us it is creatine's most useful function. Its effects seem alot more significant and proven than many of the alleged benefits of vitamin supplements. It has the potential to at least partially protect the geek's most used organ from the unexpected.
If you don't have improved education or a cure then extending the lives of the infected is probably going to increase the overall infection rate.
Which from the perspective of a shareholder in a pharmaceutical company with AIDS/HIV intellectual property is excellent news. If they can just prevent some rogue company from discovering a genuinely effective vaccine/cure for the virus itself they can keep raking in the profits until their patents expire.
Even the companies themselves will openly admit that they base research funding on potential profitability and that true vaccines (not theurapeutic, but preventative) are very risky investments due to the highly limited nature of the returns. Every patient only gets treated once. Life extending treatments OTOH, are possibly less costly and easier to discover and are far, far more profitable in the long run.
I'm generally surprised when I hear of any private company creating a new (preventative) vaccine on their own. It almost never happens because the potential for profit is just not as great. Any genuine cure or vaccine for HIV will only be discovered by government funded research.
Private companies will stick to working on better and better (just enough to be slightly better than the competition) therapies to extend the lives of their herds of cash cows.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the alleged protective effect creatine may have for concussions and head injuries. Most of you will probably think this will never happen to you. I did, which is why I wasn't wearing that bike helmet.
Taking creatine could prevent you from diminished mental capacity and memory problems after suffering some kind of accidental fall. The brain is quite a bit more soft and fragile than most people like to believe. It usually makes people uncomfortable to realize that the brain has a consistency not unlike jello, and that the neural (axonal) connections are surprisingly easy to disrupt permanently with a sudden deceleration or impact. It is also possible that minor shocks to the head can accumulate over the years resulting in subtly reduced memory abilities, although there is no direct evidence for this.
Don't worry. 99% of the photos on such groups were just stolen from the nudist ones, where they don't seem to filter out the naked children playing volleyball from their naked parents. Of course, we need to track down every one of those parents who take pictures of their children taking baths or showers and stick them head first into large vats of Nitric acid immediately.
Not that I know any of this from personal experience. That would be illegal and downright evil. In fact naked children and beaches that allow them should be outlawed immediately as well.
What worries me is that those damn Europeans might let under 18 girls walk around topless at their beaches. Sounds like a damned fine pretext to start a war...
Clearly speed is one of many factors, and simply reducing overall speeds is not a panacea.
And even if it were, when would you stop? Where do you draw that line. If 55 is a safer speed than 65, is not 35 a much safer speed than 55? Is getting there "a few minutes faster" more important than saving peoples lives. And what about the children who are going to die needlessly every year just because we all feel the need to drive insanely "fast" (fast from an old lady or cop perspective at least).
Good idea. Should land you in prison for quite a long time when they find the "evidence" on your computer. Good luck proving your innocence. The "why would I be so stupid as to call the police on myself" argument has been tried many times. It doesn't work. BTW, when you delete those files don't forget to randomly over-write them several hundred times and then put your hard-drive in the microwave after smashing it a few times with a sledgehammer. Because if there's one thing law enforcement is expert at, it's obtaining "deleted" information from a hard drive.
Or girl. I hadn't thought of that. And what if he or she didn't even bother to publish it? What if the police found photos in the bedroom of a 13 or 15 or 17 year old girl that she took of herself (using a timer) while she was masturbating (maybe even with a banana/beer bottle/shampoo bottle)?
In this case the father would probably end up hanging himself in prison. And if the girl confessed to save her father she would be the one to go to prison and acquire a criminal record for taking photos of her own body!
This is actually a great idea. The "plausible deniability" defense relied on by Freenet and GNUnet has never been tested in court AFAIK, but the "trojan defense" has already been tested and, so far, is holding up.
Since there is no law saying that you have to be certain at all times that a virus has not infected your computer. The mere presence of the "P2P" trojan on your hardrive and the lack of any trace of other P2P software would seem an excellent defense.
This is such a great idea that you should patent it before the RIAA does. Of course random downloads are not necessary. This evil trojan could make use of that text file "P2Plist.txt" which you were using to make a list of all the files you want to buy from RIAA artists as soon as you win the lottery.
I suppose it could be argued that the guy "forced" the girl to be in the photographs and thus it is a form of sexual assault.
But that's not the crime he's being accused of. They would need some evidence, at the very least testimony from the girl herself, to convict him of sexual assault. He's not being accused of "statuatory" rape either because they were both under 18 when they had sex. Two 13 year olds would represent an interesting case because both of them would be way under the "age of consent" and so both could be accused of raping the other in the "statuatory" sense.
Actually, photos of an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old would actually be proof of "statuatory" rape. Of course the penalties for statuatory rape is far less severe than those for the possesion of the photos themselves.
People don't pay people to do bank robberies so they can look at the pictures. They do pay people to assault children so they can look at the pictures. Can you see the difference?
If you are only concerned with people who actually pay an adult (18) to have sex with or stand naked next to a child (17), then you should be encouraging laws consistent with that. So if you want to be logically consistent doesn't that mean that you would only imprison/shoot/torture/castrate/dismember the two men involved in the deal itself, meaning the 18 year old guy, having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend (these ages may need to be changed to reflect differences in UK law) as well as the other sick pedophile paying the guy for photos of the act? It would seem logically inconsistent to penalize the guy in the house across the street with the pair of binoculars
Are you saying that most people like to look at kiddie porn?
If you define kiddie porn as any sexually suggestive photo of a female under the age of 18 (the legal definition), then yes. If you define it as the same type of photo of a female under the age of 11 (the pre-pubescent, almost boyish look), then I would say no.
Everyone seems to have their own definition of "too young". Forget about how bad most guys are at actually being able to differentiate the photo of a 14 or 15 year old from on 18 year old in real life. Of course, some people are very good at guessing people's ages.
Is it illegal for a minor to download sexual pictures of people his or her own age?
It is indeed. Otherwise the mere presence of a male teenager in a household would excuse anyone else living there of any ViewingCrime. What is even more strange is that a 16 year old guy is not even allowed to take naked photos of his 16 year old girlfriend. If she were in an even slightly sexually suggestive pose and possibly even if she weren't, he could go to prison for quite a while.
Also, if there were an age limit below which it were legal to possess "child porn", imagine the absurdity when, after a couple of years, the 16 year old guy wants to keep the nude photos of his girlfriend from when she was 16. Or maybe he just forgot about them on his hard drive. Now that he is 18 and a full legal adult (in the US at least), he would be prosecuted as an adult for the heinous crime of possessing child pornography.
Two 13 year olds having sex or just being naked in the same room may or may not be illegal depending on the state, but as soon as one of those 13 year olds takes a photo of the other one, it is indeed a very serious crime.
All of this pretzel logic is in the name of "protecting the children" however. So it's ok. Sometimes I am just so astonished by the stupidity of our species.
The first time this happened, I had the willies scared out of me as my 14 inch monitor was suddenly filled with an image of a girl of a similar age to the size of my monitor, barely dressed, obviously looking up at a taller photographer. It petrified and disgusted me so much that for a moment I didn't move - before I promptly turned the machine off at the mains and gutted it.
I can't tell if you are being serious or not, but if the sight of a naked 14 year old girl makes you "petrified and disgusted" I would say that there is something wrong with you. I could never understand how nudity could be considered inherently disgusting or filthy. I would feel sorry for any girl who would have you as a father. You would no doubt infect her with this disgust for the human body.
If she were only 10 and had not yet developed secondary sexual characteristics, would that have made it less traumatic for you? Humans are very strange animals indeed. I'm trying to imagine an adult dog traumatized by the mere sight of a puppy. I can't quite do it though.
The part about you destroying your computer makes me suspect that I have fallen for the bait and this is actually a joke. Oh well.
It would seem easy for women to get away with these kinds of media viewing crimes. No one would suspect that the photos/movies of the naked 13 year old girls were actually downloaded by the 13 year old bi-sexual daughter or even just out of curiosity by the 13 year old heterosexual daughter.
And how likely is the father to publicly accuse his own daughter of a felony which could destroy her life by giving her a criminal record? Many parents would be unwilling to imprison their own children in order to save themselves.
So either you've seen where your logic has gone wrong or you in fact believe that viewing certain images should be in and of itself a crime. You obviously believe the second.
I hope you are at least consistent and would be willing to outlaw *all* depictions of illegal acts in moving pictures as well as still photography.
All depictions of illegal acts in film from something as minor as J-walking to exceeding speed limits to robbing liquor stores and even shooting people should all be illegal as well.
Also, anyone who viewed the 9/11 footage should be imprisoned for watching a depiction of the murder of thousands of people. If viewing illegal acts is illegal, you have just opened a large can of worms.
I guess the fact that the images are depictions of either sex or nudity makes them different though. Sex and nudity is just so much more disgusting than images of decapitations and murders that an exception needs to be made I guess.
the prosecution could have done a whole lot better on this one.
Because anyone accused of this kind of "crime" (photos of naked 17 year olds on a computer hard drive) are normally guilty until proven innocent? Or because any male occupants of the house where the computer was located (and any male neighbors or friends who may also have viewed the forbidden images) should have simply been shot without a trial?
Wow, that is an interesting link. This is all kind of cool and creepy. I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned De Loys Ape. A creepy and genuinely old photo, first published in a newspaper in the late 1920s I think.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, isn't escrow.com the only legitimate one left?
I'm just trying to figure out who or what came up with the name "LoveSan" and why? variations on "blaster" make sense because the name of the original executable was wblaster.exe and the intention was obviously to "blast" windows update or unpatched windows users or microsoft or whatever, but "LoveSan"? Am I missing something here?
Who checks so that the USA does not handle their MWDs in the wrong way?
Define "the wrong way". More to the point, what would this hypothetical checker do if they found such "mishandling"? If you thought it was difficult to get a coalition of countries together to attack Iraq in order to produce compliance, can you imagine how difficult it would be to get such a coalition to actually take real action against the most powerful country in the world?
The Bush administration has restarted our NBC weapons program, and if they are allowed to continue on this path, they WILL use them
First of all, we never stopped our *nuclear* weapons program. Second, mind if I ask you how you came upon this no doubt highly classified information about this vast government conspiracy to hide our active offensive biological and chemical weapons programs.
If you are in fact leaking classified information through your slashdot account, I have to wonder about your sense of self-preservation. I would imagine that you could end up either dead or in federal prison for doing something like that.
I don't watch anime, but you have to wonder whether these researchers have.
After playing Chris Avellone's Planescape:Torment, the idea of a girl with a tail as well as a succubus like Fall-from-Grace kind of intrigued me, but it seems unethical to force someone into being a chimera or new species.
A black panther + Slavic looking girl may seem like an interesting combination in fiction, but in the real world she would probably have a horrible life. Does a couple that really likes felines, have the right to produce a girl with just a hint of feline genetics?
Perhaps, in the future, we will be able to "steal" some genetics from the other species in order to improve our abilities without altering our appearance. I don't think this is likely to happen in any of our lifetimes though.
It's 2003. So where is he? AI has not seemed to improve much despite ambitious software projects and even games that would seem to require neural networks. Perhaps the most disappointing is the lack of much improvement in VR, with disappointing progress in input devices and 3D and other monitor technology. Voice synthesis has made some improvements though. Not bad, although it's still not HAL quality. Voice recognition seems to have matured quite a bit as well. IMO, the most significant progress has been in graphics cards with processors nearly as impressive as the main CPU. The impact this has had on games cannot be underestimated.
In a significant number of cases a bike helmet is not enough to prevent a head injury. They do not protect the brain from deceleration injuries all that much. [Think of throwing around a lightly padded wooden box with a jello mold inside.] Wearing one is definitely a good idea, but they are not a panacea.
:)) then you are not only at quite a significant risk from deceleration injuries (diffuse axonal injury), but also from any impact of your unprotected head against your steering wheel, the driver side window/door, or any other hard object within striking range. Airbags certainly help this, as do the shoulder straps on seatbelts.
Car accidents cause the most head injuries anyway. Just the deceleration in a relatively minor accident can cause a concussion. How often this results in a permanent reduction in recall, attention span, etc is controversial.
Most people who suffer a relatively subtle reduction in mental abilities will never know it. The only way to be sure would be to have neuropsychological/IQ testing not too long before the obviously unplanned accident. Of course, students may see a small reduction in their GPA, or may just need to spend more time studying for the same grades.
Do you wear a motorcycle helmet when driving your car? If not (I don't either
In cold climates it provides some protection against slipping on ice. How many people wear helmets whenever they walk outside in the winter?
I don't think it takes that much creatine to benefit from the protective effect (how much is probably unknown). For some people it might be worth it, particularly people who play some kind of sport where they fall alot (like skiing/snowboarding).
Obviously it's not for everyone, but for some of us it is creatine's most useful function. Its effects seem alot more significant and proven than many of the alleged benefits of vitamin supplements. It has the potential to at least partially protect the geek's most used organ from the unexpected.
If you don't have improved education or a cure then extending the lives of the infected is probably going to increase the overall infection rate.
Which from the perspective of a shareholder in a pharmaceutical company with AIDS/HIV intellectual property is excellent news. If they can just prevent some rogue company from discovering a genuinely effective vaccine/cure for the virus itself they can keep raking in the profits until their patents expire.
Even the companies themselves will openly admit that they base research funding on potential profitability and that true vaccines (not theurapeutic, but preventative) are very risky investments due to the highly limited nature of the returns. Every patient only gets treated once. Life extending treatments OTOH, are possibly less costly and easier to discover and are far, far more profitable in the long run.
I'm generally surprised when I hear of any private company creating a new (preventative) vaccine on their own. It almost never happens because the potential for profit is just not as great. Any genuine cure or vaccine for HIV will only be discovered by government funded research.
Private companies will stick to working on better and better (just enough to be slightly better than the competition) therapies to extend the lives of their herds of cash cows.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the alleged protective effect creatine may have for concussions and head injuries. Most of you will probably think this will never happen to you. I did, which is why I wasn't wearing that bike helmet.
Taking creatine could prevent you from diminished mental capacity and memory problems after suffering some kind of accidental fall. The brain is quite a bit more soft and fragile than most people like to believe. It usually makes people uncomfortable to realize that the brain has a consistency not unlike jello, and that the neural (axonal) connections are surprisingly easy to disrupt permanently with a sudden deceleration or impact. It is also possible that minor shocks to the head can accumulate over the years resulting in subtly reduced memory abilities, although there is no direct evidence for this.
Does this mean those chickens are finally coming home to roost?
Don't worry. 99% of the photos on such groups were just stolen from the nudist ones, where they don't seem to filter out the naked children playing volleyball from their naked parents. Of course, we need to track down every one of those parents who take pictures of their children taking baths or showers and stick them head first into large vats of Nitric acid immediately.
Not that I know any of this from personal experience. That would be illegal and downright evil. In fact naked children and beaches that allow them should be outlawed immediately as well.
What worries me is that those damn Europeans might let under 18 girls walk around topless at their beaches. Sounds like a damned fine pretext to start a war...
Clearly speed is one of many factors, and simply reducing overall speeds is not a panacea.
And even if it were, when would you stop? Where do you draw that line. If 55 is a safer speed than 65, is not 35 a much safer speed than 55? Is getting there "a few minutes faster" more important than saving peoples lives. And what about the children who are going to die needlessly every year just because we all feel the need to drive insanely "fast" (fast from an old lady or cop perspective at least).
Good idea. Should land you in prison for quite a long time when they find the "evidence" on your computer. Good luck proving your innocence. The "why would I be so stupid as to call the police on myself" argument has been tried many times. It doesn't work. BTW, when you delete those files don't forget to randomly over-write them several hundred times and then put your hard-drive in the microwave after smashing it a few times with a sledgehammer. Because if there's one thing law enforcement is expert at, it's obtaining "deleted" information from a hard drive.
Or girl. I hadn't thought of that. And what if he or she didn't even bother to publish it? What if the police found photos in the bedroom of a 13 or 15 or 17 year old girl that she took of herself (using a timer) while she was masturbating (maybe even with a banana/beer bottle/shampoo bottle)?
In this case the father would probably end up hanging himself in prison. And if the girl confessed to save her father she would be the one to go to prison and acquire a criminal record for taking photos of her own body!
This is actually a great idea. The "plausible deniability" defense relied on by Freenet and GNUnet has never been tested in court AFAIK, but the "trojan defense" has already been tested and, so far, is holding up.
Since there is no law saying that you have to be certain at all times that a virus has not infected your computer. The mere presence of the "P2P" trojan on your hardrive and the lack of any trace of other P2P software would seem an excellent defense.
This is such a great idea that you should patent it before the RIAA does. Of course random downloads are not necessary. This evil trojan could make use of that text file "P2Plist.txt" which you were using to make a list of all the files you want to buy from RIAA artists as soon as you win the lottery.
I suppose it could be argued that the guy "forced" the girl to be in the photographs and thus it is a form of sexual assault.
But that's not the crime he's being accused of. They would need some evidence, at the very least testimony from the girl herself, to convict him of sexual assault. He's not being accused of "statuatory" rape either because they were both under 18 when they had sex. Two 13 year olds would represent an interesting case because both of them would be way under the "age of consent" and so both could be accused of raping the other in the "statuatory" sense.
Actually, photos of an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old would actually be proof of "statuatory" rape. Of course the penalties for statuatory rape is far less severe than those for the possesion of the photos themselves.
People don't pay people to do bank robberies so they can look at the pictures. They do pay people to assault children so they can look at the pictures. Can you see the difference?
If you are only concerned with people who actually pay an adult (18) to have sex with or stand naked next to a child (17), then you should be encouraging laws consistent with that. So if you want to be logically consistent doesn't that mean that you would only imprison/shoot/torture/castrate/dismember the two men involved in the deal itself, meaning the 18 year old guy, having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend (these ages may need to be changed to reflect differences in UK law) as well as the other sick pedophile paying the guy for photos of the act? It would seem logically inconsistent to penalize the guy in the house across the street with the pair of binoculars
Are you saying that most people like to look at kiddie porn?
If you define kiddie porn as any sexually suggestive photo of a female under the age of 18 (the legal definition), then yes. If you define it as the same type of photo of a female under the age of 11 (the pre-pubescent, almost boyish look), then I would say no.
Everyone seems to have their own definition of "too young". Forget about how bad most guys are at actually being able to differentiate the photo of a 14 or 15 year old from on 18 year old in real life. Of course, some people are very good at guessing people's ages.
Is it illegal for a minor to download sexual pictures of people his or her own age?
It is indeed. Otherwise the mere presence of a male teenager in a household would excuse anyone else living there of any ViewingCrime. What is even more strange is that a 16 year old guy is not even allowed to take naked photos of his 16 year old girlfriend. If she were in an even slightly sexually suggestive pose and possibly even if she weren't, he could go to prison for quite a while.
Also, if there were an age limit below which it were legal to possess "child porn", imagine the absurdity when, after a couple of years, the 16 year old guy wants to keep the nude photos of his girlfriend from when she was 16. Or maybe he just forgot about them on his hard drive. Now that he is 18 and a full legal adult (in the US at least), he would be prosecuted as an adult for the heinous crime of possessing child pornography.
Two 13 year olds having sex or just being naked in the same room may or may not be illegal depending on the state, but as soon as one of those 13 year olds takes a photo of the other one, it is indeed a very serious crime.
All of this pretzel logic is in the name
of "protecting the children" however. So it's ok. Sometimes I am just so astonished by the stupidity of our species.
The first time this happened, I had the willies scared out of me as my 14 inch monitor was suddenly filled with an image of a girl of a similar age to the size of my monitor, barely dressed, obviously looking up at a taller photographer. It petrified and disgusted me so much that for a moment I didn't move - before I promptly turned the machine off at the mains and gutted it.
I can't tell if you are being serious or not, but if the sight of a naked 14 year old girl makes you "petrified and disgusted" I would say that there is something wrong with you. I could never understand how nudity could be considered inherently disgusting or filthy. I would feel sorry for any girl who would have you as a father. You would no doubt infect her with this disgust for the human body.
If she were only 10 and had not yet developed secondary sexual characteristics, would that have made it less traumatic for you? Humans are very strange animals indeed. I'm trying to imagine an adult dog traumatized by the mere sight of a puppy. I can't quite do it though.
The part about you destroying your computer makes me suspect that I have fallen for the bait and this is actually a joke. Oh well.
Just because most sexual offenders are male ?
It would seem easy for women to get away with these kinds of media viewing crimes. No one would suspect that the photos/movies of the naked 13 year old girls were actually downloaded by the 13 year old bi-sexual daughter or even just out of curiosity by the 13 year old heterosexual daughter.
And how likely is the father to publicly accuse his own daughter of a felony which could destroy her life by giving her a criminal record? Many parents would be unwilling to imprison their own children in order to save themselves.
So either you've seen where your logic has gone wrong or you in fact believe that viewing certain images should be in and of itself a crime. You obviously believe the second.
I hope you are at least consistent and would be willing to outlaw *all* depictions of illegal acts in moving pictures as well as still photography.
All depictions of illegal acts in film from something as minor as J-walking to exceeding speed limits to robbing liquor stores and even shooting people should all be illegal as well.
Also, anyone who viewed the 9/11 footage should be imprisoned for watching a depiction of the murder of thousands of people. If viewing illegal acts is illegal, you have just opened a large can of worms.
I guess the fact that the images are depictions of either sex or nudity makes them different though. Sex and nudity is just so much more disgusting than images of decapitations and murders that an exception needs to be made I guess.
the prosecution could have done a whole lot better on this one.
Because anyone accused of this kind of "crime" (photos of naked 17 year olds on a computer hard drive) are normally guilty until proven innocent?
Or because any male occupants of the house where the computer was located (and any male neighbors or friends who may also have viewed the forbidden images) should have simply been shot without a trial?
Wow, that is an interesting link. This is all kind of cool and creepy. I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned De Loys Ape. A creepy and genuinely old photo, first published in a newspaper in the late 1920s I think.