there is no substantial difference between a photo, a photo realistic artists rendering with a model, a photo realistic artist rendering without a model, a CGI rendering, and a stylized artist rendering.
Here I must strenuously disagree. There is a huge difference. For the same reason I disagree with "possession of the material is the crime". The crime, if there was any, was in the creation. I can agree that products of that crime, "real" child porn, should thus also be illegal. But in no way can I agree that someone's CGI rendering of something that never took place is; and that people should be branded sex offenders and be jailed for what really are nothing more than thought crimes.
the market is the problem,
Well, yes. But you would attack the market for FAKE porn, and assume that this is the same as the one for REAL porn. Surely there is some overlap, but it's guilt by association. It would be like PETA bombing a shop that sells faux fur. Or like invading random Muslim countries because.... maybe I see a pattern.
Humbert Humbert? Anyway, you don't have to champion things you don't like. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
How about simply because the murder isn't "glorified" or condoned? The interest that many people have in those books could be that the "good guys" win and the "bad guys" go punished.
There's lost that don't follow that script -- Hannibal for one, which is why I mentioned that actually. [SPOILER] Hannibal Lecter kills lots of people, dissects and eats some, and lives happily ever after with Clarice. Bestseller. Also see books by Clive Barker, etc.
our to speak on any other subject is not infringed by societies right not to have to deal with child pornographers.
"Societies right not to have to deal with...". Which right is that? And you're not advocating "not dealing with them", but locking them up.
I think that there is no justification for criminalising fantasy art -- and labelling it child porn when no real children were involved in its production is begging the question. I'm also sure that should any such law be tested in court (I don't think any prosecutions have been made solely on this point) that a judge must rapidly rule that it was unconstitutional. The problem is that the mere accusation is enough to destroy a person's life.
Anyway, I personally find CGI porn weird and distasteful, but don't feel the horror of knowing it depicts a real situation. And once I tried to read American Psycho and couldn't get through it as it just made me feel ill. But I don't feel any need to criminalise authors and artists for making art that I don't like.
Sovereign governments trump business monopolies. The various national governments could just legislate compulsory licences and pay whatever they wanted. But more likely they'd just transition to Linux; that would frighten MS much more.
Again the abuse isn't the crime, possession of the product is....Since there is no way to tell whether or not the manufacture was criminal, anything that is designed to look like it required abuse to make is illegal.
What laws are you citing here? I really hope thought crimes aren't actually on the books.
This is why the photo-realistic artist rendering of an underage model is illegal,
Actually, I doubt that is the case, in the US at least. I think such laws have been proposed, but struck down when shown to conflict with the First Amendment.
The whole tenor of your post shows how easy it is to have all considerations of free speech and due process thrown away when you introduce an accusation that presses a hot button. And the slippery slope is very steep and short from there down.
child porn is that child porn creates a real threat to someone.
Yes, REAL child porn does necessarily in its manufacture.
I will argue that quasi child porn is similar enough to real child porn that there is no substantial difference between a child porn consumer and a quasi child porn consumer.
That's not an "argument", it's just expressing distaste.
I'll again pose the challenge, what is the difference between real child porn, photo-realistic child porn with a model, and photo realistic child porn without a model? Now what is the difference between photo-realistic porn and more stylized child porn?
Challenge? The first is criminal and involves abuse, the second maybe or maybe not, depending on the age of the model and the jurisdiction; the last is just art (or just porn), but not hurting anyone.
Child porn laws aren't just there to protect the children who are being abused, but also to set clear boundaries as to what is not acceptable. If quasi-child porn were legal it sends the message that there is nothing wrong with fantasizing about children. This isn't calling the thought police - looking at quasi-child porn is a real offence and puts real children in danger. It whets the appetite of the perv.
This is a commonly held belief. wonmder though why it only applies to sexual fantasy (again, FANTASY, not real ) about children? Look for instance at the NY Times list of best-selling books. Currently the top 5 are:
THE HUSBAND, by Dean Koontz
BEACH ROAD, by James Patterson and Peter de Jonge
AT RISK, by Patricia Cornwell
THE BOOK OF THE DEAD, by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child
TERRORIST, by John Updike
I think at least 4 of the top 5 are about murder, some presenting killing and rape in great, loving detail. Why then do not the millions of readers of these books find their appetites for murder and rape whetted? Why is it perfectly acceptable for maiden aunts to read Hannibal on a bus? Do any of them go home and crack open someone's skull to eat fresh brains?
Here this "whetting" argument is often riduculed when Jack Thomson comes out with another vilification of video games.
Children know that cartoons are not real. They don't think they can fall off cliffs and survive like Wile E Coyote. People can indulge themselves in all kinds of horrible fantasies, and then close the book and live in the real world.
You don't read the whole post or you simply don't understand it. In your out-of-context and unfair quote you forget the "but" part... (you tried to discredit my opinion with an unfair quote)
I read your entire post. I can't see any other reason for you to follow "I don't want to sound liberal" with "I'm against child pornography," other than you think they're usually related ideas and you want to disassocate yourself from both.
Someones think that if a 40 year old men have sex with a 15 child, there's nothing wrong
The problem is that you imply that these "someones" are "liberals". It seems you use it as shorthand for anything repugnant to you.
. It may tend to stay on the Random board and is usually only posted as a shock image, but it still appears on a daily basis."
So because some asshole posts offensive images, he gets the whole site banned? Once that policy becomes established, think how easy it would be for any determined person to get just about any site blacklisted. Just post some kiddie porn every day for a week, reporting the site immediately after before it can be removed.
Adobe's Portable Document Format has the potential to become the dominant player as a universal format
No. It's great for displaying and printing, but basically impossible to edit (you can edit images, and change a word here and there, or fill out forms, but that's about it). It's wonderful for publishing, but useless for authoring or revision. You could embed a bunch of XML in it, and rebuild the PDF part every time you changed the text, but in that case you might as well just use the XML and render that directly.
Extra toolbars from Google, Yahoo, or anyone else for that matter are a violation of the security policy where I work. This means that I have to start figuring out how to remove them from the system or worse, stop using their programs. Its a shame that as an administrator I cant use a program becuase of the bundled extra crap.
As an administrator, you can probably work out how to uncheck the option to install it.
I've never heard of RAR files being encrypted, which version do you need for this? I know they can be password protected, but that's perfectly crackable.
A RAR file with a password IS encrypted. But that is secure, as far as I know (unlike most ZIPs).
If for instance I look for RAR password crackers, I find only things like Elcomsoft who say "At the moment, there is no known method to extract the password from the compressed file; so the only available methods are 'brute force' and dictionary-based attacks.... WinRAR has incorporated AES (using the Rijndael algorithm) encryption since V2.9." Sounds good enough to me.
I'm prepared to be labeled a mindless republican bushite and modded down for this but..
Actually you're currently +3 insightful. Obviously you'e not the only mindless republican bushite who posted without bothering to RTFA. It WASN'T WARMER 400 years ago. It's just that the data is less good.
No, in fact, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that they've entirely covered their bases.
No. "Global warming" refers to the "globe". The AVERAGE TEMPERATURE of the ENTIRE PLANET. If that figure was going down, it would be disproved. It's going up, about 0.5C in the last 100 years, and accelerating. Do you imagine that real scientists are all stupid or are all part of some vast conspiracy to make you catch public transport because they're disappointed Al Gore lost?
Scientist 1: global warming is for real Scientist 2: is not Scientist 1: rly it is Scientist 2: rly it is not
And who am I supposed to believe? I don't know. Right now I don't care either way.
Being "apathetic" IS taking a position, it's supporting the current "going to hell in a handbasket" strategy. And the real case is, if you read this or any other FA in a scientific publication:
500 Scientists: global warming is for real Texaco Scientist: is not 500 Scientists: rly it is Shell Scientist: rly it is not
It's very much like the health issues of smoking. Billions of dollars spent lobbying to make it look as if there is doubt when the case is proved by any reasonable definition.
Ran any more encryption-savvy slashdotters suggest some powerful encryption tools that would be suitable for backing up files online to be accessed from a remote location?
RAR archives can be encrypted, and I haven't heard of any cracks. Install WinRAR and it's a right-click away.
Slashdot Mirror
Here I must strenuously disagree. There is a huge difference. For the same reason I disagree with "possession of the material is the crime". The crime, if there was any, was in the creation. I can agree that products of that crime, "real" child porn, should thus also be illegal. But in no way can I agree that someone's CGI rendering of something that never took place is; and that people should be branded sex offenders and be jailed for what really are nothing more than thought crimes.
the market is the problem,
Well, yes. But you would attack the market for FAKE porn, and assume that this is the same as the one for REAL porn. Surely there is some overlap, but it's guilt by association. It would be like PETA bombing a shop that sells faux fur. Or like invading random Muslim countries because.... maybe I see a pattern.
Cliff is the editor of this story. They're supposed to read and corect things like that. Any other site than Slashdot anyway.
Humbert Humbert? Anyway, you don't have to champion things you don't like. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
There's lost that don't follow that script -- Hannibal for one, which is why I mentioned that actually. [SPOILER] Hannibal Lecter kills lots of people, dissects and eats some, and lives happily ever after with Clarice. Bestseller. Also see books by Clive Barker, etc.
"Societies right not to have to deal with...". Which right is that? And you're not advocating "not dealing with them", but locking them up.
I think that there is no justification for criminalising fantasy art -- and labelling it child porn when no real children were involved in its production is begging the question. I'm also sure that should any such law be tested in court (I don't think any prosecutions have been made solely on this point) that a judge must rapidly rule that it was unconstitutional. The problem is that the mere accusation is enough to destroy a person's life.
Anyway, I personally find CGI porn weird and distasteful, but don't feel the horror of knowing it depicts a real situation. And once I tried to read American Psycho and couldn't get through it as it just made me feel ill. But I don't feel any need to criminalise authors and artists for making art that I don't like.
In the entirely hypothetical case of a faceoff with MS, motives would be different. It'd virtually be treasonous to do that.
Sovereign governments trump business monopolies. The various national governments could just legislate compulsory licences and pay whatever they wanted. But more likely they'd just transition to Linux; that would frighten MS much more.
What laws are you citing here? I really hope thought crimes aren't actually on the books.
This is why the photo-realistic artist rendering of an underage model is illegal,
Actually, I doubt that is the case, in the US at least. I think such laws have been proposed, but struck down when shown to conflict with the First Amendment.
The whole tenor of your post shows how easy it is to have all considerations of free speech and due process thrown away when you introduce an accusation that presses a hot button. And the slippery slope is very steep and short from there down.
Yes, REAL child porn does necessarily in its manufacture.
I will argue that quasi child porn is similar enough to real child porn that there is no substantial difference between a child porn consumer and a quasi child porn consumer.
That's not an "argument", it's just expressing distaste.
I'll again pose the challenge, what is the difference between real child porn, photo-realistic child porn with a model, and photo realistic child porn without a model? Now what is the difference between photo-realistic porn and more stylized child porn?
Challenge? The first is criminal and involves abuse, the second maybe or maybe not, depending on the age of the model and the jurisdiction; the last is just art (or just porn), but not hurting anyone.
This is a commonly held belief. wonmder though why it only applies to sexual fantasy (again, FANTASY, not real ) about children? Look for instance at the NY Times list of best-selling books. Currently the top 5 are:
- THE HUSBAND, by Dean Koontz
- BEACH ROAD, by James Patterson and Peter de Jonge
- AT RISK, by Patricia Cornwell
- THE BOOK OF THE DEAD, by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child
- TERRORIST, by John Updike
I think at least 4 of the top 5 are about murder, some presenting killing and rape in great, loving detail. Why then do not the millions of readers of these books find their appetites for murder and rape whetted? Why is it perfectly acceptable for maiden aunts to read Hannibal on a bus? Do any of them go home and crack open someone's skull to eat fresh brains?Here this "whetting" argument is often riduculed when Jack Thomson comes out with another vilification of video games.
Children know that cartoons are not real. They don't think they can fall off cliffs and survive like Wile E Coyote. People can indulge themselves in all kinds of horrible fantasies, and then close the book and live in the real world.
I read your entire post. I can't see any other reason for you to follow "I don't want to sound liberal" with "I'm against child pornography," other than you think they're usually related ideas and you want to disassocate yourself from both.
Someones think that if a 40 year old men have sex with a 15 child, there's nothing wrong
The problem is that you imply that these "someones" are "liberals". It seems you use it as shorthand for anything repugnant to you.
This isn't really just "any site", it's a pedo hangout.
And this would make it so easy to paint any site someone had a grudge against as a "pedo hangout". and have it blocked.
That's an amazing equation. Liberals support child porn now, as well as terrorism.
So because some asshole posts offensive images, he gets the whole site banned? Once that policy becomes established, think how easy it would be for any determined person to get just about any site blacklisted. Just post some kiddie porn every day for a week, reporting the site immediately after before it can be removed.
No. It's great for displaying and printing, but basically impossible to edit (you can edit images, and change a word here and there, or fill out forms, but that's about it). It's wonderful for publishing, but useless for authoring or revision. You could embed a bunch of XML in it, and rebuild the PDF part every time you changed the text, but in that case you might as well just use the XML and render that directly.
As an administrator, you can probably work out how to uncheck the option to install it.
Well, she was 12. "Think of the children!"
No, that was the point of TFA. Holding a phone will incease the damage.
A RAR file with a password IS encrypted. But that is secure, as far as I know (unlike most ZIPs). If for instance I look for RAR password crackers, I find only things like Elcomsoft who say "At the moment, there is no known method to extract the password from the compressed file; so the only available methods are 'brute force' and dictionary-based attacks.... WinRAR has incorporated AES (using the Rijndael algorithm) encryption since V2.9." Sounds good enough to me.
It's 16% of those eligible (in 2002). Not of the entire population. And if you go back a few years, it's much lower.
"an economy that's only 13% the size of the US"
Salaries are much lower; thus number of jobs/dollar higher.
And I return to my personal observation: this is not true of any office I've been to.
Actually you're currently +3 insightful. Obviously you'e not the only mindless republican bushite who posted without bothering to RTFA. It WASN'T WARMER 400 years ago. It's just that the data is less good.
No. "Global warming" refers to the "globe". The AVERAGE TEMPERATURE of the ENTIRE PLANET. If that figure was going down, it would be disproved. It's going up, about 0.5C in the last 100 years, and accelerating. Do you imagine that real scientists are all stupid or are all part of some vast conspiracy to make you catch public transport because they're disappointed Al Gore lost?
What's wrong with the one linked from TFA? "The National Academy of Sciences.
Being "apathetic" IS taking a position, it's supporting the current "going to hell in a handbasket" strategy. And the real case is, if you read this or any other FA in a scientific publication:
It's very much like the health issues of smoking. Billions of dollars spent lobbying to make it look as if there is doubt when the case is proved by any reasonable definition.
RAR archives can be encrypted, and I haven't heard of any cracks. Install WinRAR and it's a right-click away.