but you could hack a $199 Apple TV refurb into being usable as a computer, get a small LCD display for under $100, a $50 keyboard with touchpad, and stick it all in a hollowed-out $40 unabridged dictionary (or The Complete Works of Shakespeare if you prefer). I'm not sure about finding a suitable battery for under $10 though. You might have to trade off a normal keyboard and mouse or a less expensive book or other assembly method.
If it does the same thing, and especially if I don't have to buy special more expensive petrol for it, then sure. Why throw away more money just to look flash with something no one else has? If I really wanted to do that, there are loads more interesting and obscure platforms out there to have around.
leave us alone
The irony - given that we get Apple after Apple story, it's fair game for people to comment on them. Not to mention the often heard "Get a Mac" that inevitably comes everytime someone describes a generic computer problem they are having on their PC. How about, leave us alone.
I agree. I settled on Windows as a "least worst". Flaws in Windows does not automatically mean Apple are better - this is a common fallacy that I see. Almost all advocates for Macs, not to mention Apple themselves, focus on telling us about Windows's flaws, rather than any specific good points about Macs, just as the OP in this thread did. The same arguments would mean that BeOS and AmigaOS are still just as great, too (they don't get spyware or "viriuses", either).
Darn those "Win" machines, I always hate it everytime I get a virius.
It should be noted that the MB Pro's are not geared (marketed) at joe sixpack and his grandma. And Apple does not get worried or upset if you (joe sixpack) buys a Dell instead of a Mac.
Is that you, Governor Palin?
Who are they geared (marketed) towards if it isn't joe sixpack and his grandma? And wait a mo - I thought the great thing about Macs was that they were allegedly great and easy to use for random people and their grandmas? Do we now condede that they aren't, and are only good for a niche market? I think that's exactly the point people are making here.
I didn't realise that there were limits on where you can and can't play the radio to be honest. I figure if they're going to broadcast unencrypted radio signals through the air then it shouldn't be illegal to pick them up whether it's at a stables, in an office or at a building site.
Indeed, especially since radio waves are a limited resource, and there'd be others who would love to fill the place if they had that privilege. It seems mad to me that we still crackdown on "pirate" radio stations (who are willing to publish for free), but then say that playing the radio of legitimate stations is also "piracy".
Let's make the right to play radios (perhaps along with other fair use rights) a mandatory requirement of broadcasting on the air. If they don't like it, they can stop polluting our public airwaves, and make room for someone else.
Of course it's true that good graphics alone don't make a game, and that there are plenty of fun and addictive games without good graphics.
But I sometimes think the idea of good graphics gets an unfair reputation. Think of games as an artform - having good playability as well as good graphics, storyline, music and so on, certainly adds to the whole experience. People appreciate more than pure enjoyment in things such as art and music. Even in a book, people recognise that writing quality is important, and not simply how good the plot is.
Could a game like Morrowind be as enjoyable as a text adventure? I'm sure it would still be fun in its own way, but when I'm wandering around an alien landscape, I'm appreciating the artwork just as much as anything else.
I also think that at least some developers are doing something right - the amount of time I can lose to a single game has increased significantly since the 80s (to the extent that I limit myself to as few games as possible, due to the risk of it taking up too much of my life).
Surely part of the problem with the Shuttles is that they did try to come up with something new, even when the older ideas were better?
If it isn't broken...
(And if sending an Apollo style rocket to Mars was as trivial as that, it would've been done in the 70s. As with most things, ideas are cheap, implementation is hard - the idea of "I know, let's avoid that mad expensive shuttle design" is trivial in terms of cost compared with actually designing a new craft, and the fact that it has a passing resemblance to Apollo doesn't mean it's the same in terms of technology or capability.)
Good point, yes, obviously making a spacecraft to carry six people to Mars is as simple as just coming up with the idea "make it bigger". It's not like it's rocket science, is it. They should have just read your comment here on Slashdot, we'd be there by now.
What a waste of those tax dollars, if only we hadn't spent all that money funding NASA this past five years we could have had enough for, I don't know, almost an extra year of war in Iraq ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget ). And it's not like they did anything else with all that money, like Shuttle launches is it.
I can understand them wanting to control the platforms, but that kind of short term thinking is digging their own grave. It seems obvious that sooner or later, phones will be Internet enabled devices that do everything cheaply over the Internet (and where you just pay a flat rate for Internet access). If the telcos don't offer it, someone else will (making use of the various mobile broadband networks already available), and dominate the market.
The idea that they can't make money from it is rather misleading - yes it's cheaper for the customer, but it's cheaper for the company too, and it's obviously not "free" when you pay them for Internet access. Given that my ISP can make money selling Internet access at a flat rate, I don't see why this would be different for phones on a mobile network.
(Talking of other phones with Skype, there are plenty that already have it. But of course we don't hear about those, because it's not the Iphone which for some reason even gets stories for "Look, you can now access this one webpage on an Iphone" as we got recently.)
I agree with what you say, but I'd go one step further and say to this:
Women can have pink machines if they want, but it would seem weird to me for a man to use one.
Who fucking cares.
It looks weird, because few men dare do it, because they think it looks weird. (My experience is that plenty of women dislike pink too, because it's so stereotypically girly, but they are still expected to like it.)
I am glad though that, whilst laptops, along with other modern products such as Ipods, have been produced in some stereotypical feminine styles, it does seem we have at long last left behind the labelling of "men's" and "women's" products. Just about every other personal product in history has been explicitly differentiated, even when there is no biological reason to do so - hankerchiefs, bicycles, umbrellas, glasses, toys, watches. Most people don't even notice, and would consider it weird to be done differently.
But, just imagine walking into your local computer store, and seeing the laptops, Ipods etc divided entirely into two sections, Men's and Women's? "I'm sorry sir," you hear as you look over one that looks just perfect, "But these are the Women's laptops, you need to be over there".
A bit off-topic, but what the hell. I don't think that argument is meant to say "Since you can't prove it false, you are required to believe it true."
The argument is: "My belief [God|the paranormal] is no different to your belief in [love|dreams]". Seems perfectly analogous to me.
How I've seen the argument used before is to refute the equally obviously bullshit assertion by some atheists that they "Only believe what can be empirically proved." Of course they don't; they probably believe in love, hopefully having experienced it. It is simply an example of a widely believed in phenomenon that can't be empirically proven to exist.
Thank you for falling for the bullshit argument that I was arguing against. When atheists talk about love, they mean the emotion that people feel. There is evidence for this - as far as it is falsifiable at least (arguments such as "Can you really be sure someone else feels the same thing" are no more useful than "Can you be sure we see red as the same colour", as I say in my earlier comment).
There is nothing "bullshit" about basing your beliefs on reason and evidence. My beliefs in love and dreams are based on evidence.
Consider, let's say I make up an emotion flipzog, and claim it exists. Do you believe in it? I would guess not - so why do you believe that people feel love, but not flipzog? The answer is that you have evidence for people behaving in a manner described by the emotion "love", but not "flipzog".
Do you believe in the paranormal then? After all - surely by your reasoning, belief in the paranormal is no different to belief in love, right?
Further, science is severely limited in the exploration of certain phenomena due to the nature of consciousness.
Whether we can know everything, or if we are limited, is an interesting question. I'm happy to accept that there are some things we might never be able to know.
But what I think you propose (and is common for paranormal advocates who refuse to allow any scientific testing) is the claim that there exist some things which we can't find out about using the scientific method, but for which there exists another means by which to find out.
So what exactly is this means, and - if it involves making observations about the world, and forming hypotheses and testing them - how is it not science?
Even if every scientist is corrupted as you claim, that shouldn't stop a paranormal believer conducting experiments according to the scientific method, which everyone else could then repeat.
Consider: If a force exists which is capable of being neutralized through the unconscious intent and will of observers who do not want to see it, then how do you measure it? I've never seen an experiment performed which takes this question into account.
If we wanted to test a force that could be affected by people's will, then we would conduct an experiment with those different people. Those observing the results would not be told which people were with which result.
I'll be able to do that when you can prove that you, 'Dream'.
Well done, you've shown that there exist some things that are unfalsifiable.
Yes, if we lived in a world where only some people dreamed, it would be hard to verify that. We could however read their brain patterns, note their eye movements, see how it matches up with their experiences. We can conduct experiments such as playing sounds when they sleep and seeing if they can recall them in their dreams. It's called evidence - just as we infer that some animals likely dream, even though we can't ask them.
Of course, you'll quibble we can't know 100% what their experiences of dreaming are like. Well, so what - it's unfalsifiable anyway. The problem is that claims of the paranormal often aren't unfalsifiable. You claim that people can read people's minds, that they can see the future, that ghosts do exist. Whether these are true or not are testable, in a way that what people experience dreams (a similar example would be "Prove that you see red the same as I do"). Yet despite this, they never pass such tests - and moreover, those who claim to have such powers do all they can to weasel out of being tested.
If we had a "dream test" that could test people were dreaming, I would expect people who claimed dreams exist to show it with that test. We do have tests for various paranormal claims - so why not undergo them? If you want to believe that dreams don't exist, if that makes you happy, that's up to you, but the lack of a dream test is not an excuse not to undergo the tests that do exist.
This is just a variation of the tired "But you can't prove love exists!" response from theists to atheists. Well, how about you prove that you're not an antelope? If you can't, it's okay for me to claim that you are?
The answer doesn't come from demanding the world dance for you, but by getting out there and exploring beyond the walls of official culture.
I don't expect anyone to dance. But if someone makes outlandish claims such as "I've got three heads", when I offer to test that, and they refuse, it's reasonable for me to be suspicious. People who dream have been happy to subject themselves to scientific testing, so your attack against them is unfounded.
If they dislike Randi's attitude enough to turn down a million dollars, that's up to them, but why pass up the opportunity to prove the existence of such powers once and for all? You'd be world famous, and it would be a revolution in science. You'd be remembered in history.
You don't have to have Randi doing the test, find some other independent group to test you under repeatable scientific conditions if you prefer.
It is not. It is available, but very few actually want Truth.
Yeah yeah, and Jesus exists just so long as I'm willing to look for the Truth.
Well I am willing to look for the truth - but you have to be willing to provide it, and that means in the form of scientific results.
To shove a truth down somebody's throat when they do not want it, is a violation of Free Will.
Don't be absurd. No one is talking about this. There are plenty of people willing to investigate this (e.g., Randi), and plenty of people who would be eager to see the results if it is conducted scientifically, rather than only on terms that allow trickery.
In short, if you want to know, go look; nobody is going to go to the trouble of providing anything for you if you can't be bothered to invest the energy to put in the requisite work through exploring.
Well in that case, I have three heads, and can see everything that you do. It's up to you to look to see if that's true, not me - it's not my fault if you're too lazy to do that.
i don't see why 18 is the magic number when it comes to being accountable for your actions. if someone is mature enough at 15 to commit a crime in the mind-set of an adult, why shouldn't they face adult consequences?
There's nothing wrong with saying that people have the mental capacity at 15 to comprehend the consequences of their actions - but given that you're not allowed to vote, drive, smoke, drink, play the lottery, have sex, take a naughty pic of yourself and a great deal more, then clearly the consensus decision that society has made is that 15 year olds don't have that capacity. Yet still it puts them to death.
Again this is a culture issue - there's nothing stopping Windows applications from running from a single folder (and indeed, plenty of them do). Conversely, I don't see why one couldn't make a Linux or OS X application that installed some system files (they do have shared libraries, right?)
And indeed, it's worth noting that Quicktime on Windows is as bad as an offender as any other application when it comes to installing background rubbish and insisting on running all the time, so Apple don't get off lightly here.
I agree - the battle isn't over when the law is passed, even if that happens, I still hope that one day these laws will be overturned, and I see it as part of a large battle against censorship.
I agree about the Daily Mail, although bizarrely enough, even they published a column criticising the "extreme porn" law ( http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/utley.html ). But yes, usually being in favour of censorship, or scaremongering about things they think are "sick", is right up their street.
I think your statement becomes a bit of a tautology - when "child porn" means "something intended to satisfy someone's pedophilia", of course it is reasonably likely that someone viewing it is getting off on children. Under the broader idea of sexual images depicting under 18s however, there might be other reasons someone possesses it - just as there might be other reasons for someone possessing a drawing of people planting explosives, as the OP said. The difficulty here is distinguishing anyone who is an actual danger, from someone who isn't (and even if we could, do we criminalise people because of what they might do? Even if we know someone is a pedophile, all the while they are not an abuser, I think they need help more than anything, not punishment) - just as we should distinguish between people planning a terrorist act, and someone who just possesses a drawing of one.
Also, to refer to your earlier comment:
who guarantees that a person who looks at drawn image of underage girls today won't look for photos tomorrow?
I don't know, but I think it's more likely they look for photos, if we've just banned them from drawing any images.
Maybe not proven, but let's start with evidence. Climate change has plenty of evidence - but with this law, the Government itself happily admits it's okay to pass laws in the absence of evidence.
And we can easily make the counter claim that banning these images will cause harm (indeed, this is trivially true in that criminalising someone harms them, but also the idea that even for pedophilic images, that they provide an outlet and reduce crime if they are fictional).
Otherwise, ALL drugs would have to be allowed.
Oh yes, drug laws - they're working just great aren't they. Not exactly a ringing endorsement to bring in yet more stupid laws that do far more harm than good.
However, the point is that the evidence people put in favour of drug laws - as weak as those are - don't apply to me doing a quick doodle on a piece of paper. The arguments about drugs are that they allegedly affect other people, not merely that they harm yourself. I think those claims are wrong, but the point is it's not true that drugs are illegal simply because of that. If harming yourself was illegal, then a lot more people would be locked up!
And no one would come to stop your suicide.
That's nothing to do with the law. Yes, in some countries suicide is or was illegal, but that's batshit too.
The recent "extreme porn" law covered adults, not "children" (and thus wasn't quite so demonised, and people were more willing to speak out). My impression is that it got more opposition - from people responding to the consultation, to criticism by MPs. But it sailed through, with only minor word changes.
I think a lot of people find these laws mad, but this sadly won't stop the law.
Don't get me wrong, I do think it's worth opposing the law just the same, to generate publicity about it and so on. And I'm glad to see there are organisations now opposing this law (the "extreme porn" law was opposed by a group of organisations under the name Backlash, but up until now, there was nothing for this new bill).
But equally, we shouldn't sit back and think "The law will never pass", because unless there's some sudden change in direction, this law will pass.
I didn't mention the Simpsons, I presume you mean South Park? (But given that that joke Simpsons cartoon was illegal, do you think things would be different here?)
The images also need to be pornographic, which is defined thusly: must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
Note that's based only from looking at the image alone - if it looks like porn, it's porn by this law, even if you can prove it was produced for other purposes.
and a later section says, in the case of images that are part of a larger narrative, the entire narrative should be considered
That's the only context allowed. So yes, I agree an episode of South Park in it's entirety would probably be safe. But if you had a clip of the "Red Rocket" sketch, you wouldn't have this narrative. It might be a downloaded clip you had for the amusement - and the clip is also available from one of the official websites.
In practice, I don't expect to see people hauled away for a mainstream book or cartoon, but there is a more general point here: if the law covers things which are depicted in mainstream comics and cartoons, it is a rather mad law. The fact that those mainstream things are given a special exemption, whilst other images are not, doesn't fix the problem here - if anything, that makes it worse, as we're criminalising people for possessing images that are legal to depict in mainstream media. It's fine if you're a big mainstream publisher, but it puts a chilling effect on small producers, as well as individuals who might view material online.
(Also, you have to remember that I'm limited by the size of the summary - I'm glad we agree that "The law is very bad", but an in-depth discussion of in what context images like those depicted in South Park will or won't be legal is rather too long for a summary. The point I was throwing out is that the definitions are such that they include things legally depicted in comics and cartoons like those I and the Independent listed:)
Well done, reader, for proving you can't even read the definition.
Also see the next bit, which clarifies:
the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to
(a) the image itself, and (b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.
The decision of whether it is illegal is decided purely by whether the image is of such a nature it must reasonably be assumed, or the context in which it was found as part of a series of images is relevant. So the fact that we know the book Watchmen or South Park wasn't meant to be porn is irrelevant. All that matters is if the image itself, or the context it is found, looks like it's porn.
In practice, I suspect you'd be safe with a complete copy of the book or episode, but a screenshot or clip on your computer would be another matter. This is the same wording as in the "extreme porn" law - there, the Government have confirmed that an image can be legal in its original context, but illegal in another. I can go to the official South Park website and see a clip showing just the "Red Rocket" clip - yes, you are technically right that the full BBFC version is legal, but if I'm criminalised for seeing that clip, it is not scaremongering to say "South Park is covered", because that's how the law is written.
It is also rather mad that even if a copy of Watchman is legal, the very same image drawing in another context might be illegal. And if you're risking a conviction and three years in prison based on a jury's interpretation of whether the image alone looks like it was porn, then rather you than me!
(Also, I was quoting the Independent article, if you'd bother to RTFA, so blame them for scaremongering - however, I don't believe they are.)
Please try to read all the details before jumping to conclusions of scaremongering. The only ones scaremongering are those people claiming it'll be a defence to show what an image was really produced for. That's not relevant under this law. Saying "But it wasn't meant to be porn!" won't help if the image itself depicts a clearly sexual scene, and the jury decides otherwise.
Nice ad-hominem btw - please try to stick to some kind of rational debate.
Indeed - I wonder if we will see an outbreak of wrinkly-old people porn. "Look, despite the school uniform, it's clearly an adult, Officer!" (Eww.)
To be exact, "child" is defined in the bill as:
(5) Child, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.
(6) Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if
(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or (b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
So the phrase they use is "impression conveyed by the image" - but it not only includes under-18s, but also adults who have a "predominant impression conveyed" of someone under 18.
This could include, of course, androids that look like three-year-olds having sex with robots that look like dogs.
Another example would be non-human characters that nonetheless give a child-like impression. Does being an "elf", for example, make it exempt from the law?
To be honest, I'd consider it risky to test that - given the law is no longer about real children, it wouldn't surprise me if a court rules it illegal, just so long as the impression is conveyed is that of a child, even if it's really a robot or an elf or whatever else.
(Note how deceiving the law is written - they talk about "child" throughout, leading the reader to think that this is about images of children - you know, people under the age of consent, and actual people rather than drawings - and only later on do they redefine the term "child" in such a broad way!)
but I yet have to meet a person that likes looking at child pornography without being at least somehow sexually drawn to children.
Firstly, we're not talking about child pornography, we're talking sexual images that depict someone appearing to be below 18.
So given that this is the issue - what about South Park? Joke Simpsons porn? Hentai porn of someone with big breasts but where they might be deemed to be 17 by the police or jury? The first two, there are clearly non-sexual reasons for someone to view and possess them. The latter is sexual, but not about pedophilia.
You know, there's a difference between a action comic and one that involves raping children.
Perhaps, but there is the problem with this law. It covers far more than "raping children".
For example, a drawing of a fully clothed person who looks 17, standing in the background of two adults having consensual sex, would also be illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
but you could hack a $199 Apple TV refurb into being usable as a computer, get a small LCD display for under $100, a $50 keyboard with touchpad, and stick it all in a hollowed-out $40 unabridged dictionary (or The Complete Works of Shakespeare if you prefer). I'm not sure about finding a suitable battery for under $10 though. You might have to trade off a normal keyboard and mouse or a less expensive book or other assembly method.
Apple - it Just Works!
If it does the same thing, and especially if I don't have to buy special more expensive petrol for it, then sure. Why throw away more money just to look flash with something no one else has? If I really wanted to do that, there are loads more interesting and obscure platforms out there to have around.
leave us alone
The irony - given that we get Apple after Apple story, it's fair game for people to comment on them. Not to mention the often heard "Get a Mac" that inevitably comes everytime someone describes a generic computer problem they are having on their PC. How about, leave us alone.
I agree. I settled on Windows as a "least worst". Flaws in Windows does not automatically mean Apple are better - this is a common fallacy that I see. Almost all advocates for Macs, not to mention Apple themselves, focus on telling us about Windows's flaws, rather than any specific good points about Macs, just as the OP in this thread did. The same arguments would mean that BeOS and AmigaOS are still just as great, too (they don't get spyware or "viriuses", either).
Darn those "Win" machines, I always hate it everytime I get a virius.
It should be noted that the MB Pro's are not geared (marketed)
at joe sixpack and his grandma. And Apple does not get
worried or upset if you (joe sixpack) buys a Dell instead of
a Mac.
Is that you, Governor Palin?
Who are they geared (marketed) towards if it isn't joe sixpack and his grandma? And wait a mo - I thought the great thing about Macs was that they were allegedly great and easy to use for random people and their grandmas? Do we now condede that they aren't, and are only good for a niche market? I think that's exactly the point people are making here.
I didn't realise that there were limits on where you can and can't play the radio to be honest. I figure if they're going to broadcast unencrypted radio signals through the air then it shouldn't be illegal to pick them up whether it's at a stables, in an office or at a building site.
Indeed, especially since radio waves are a limited resource, and there'd be others who would love to fill the place if they had that privilege. It seems mad to me that we still crackdown on "pirate" radio stations (who are willing to publish for free), but then say that playing the radio of legitimate stations is also "piracy".
Let's make the right to play radios (perhaps along with other fair use rights) a mandatory requirement of broadcasting on the air. If they don't like it, they can stop polluting our public airwaves, and make room for someone else.
Of course it's true that good graphics alone don't make a game, and that there are plenty of fun and addictive games without good graphics.
But I sometimes think the idea of good graphics gets an unfair reputation. Think of games as an artform - having good playability as well as good graphics, storyline, music and so on, certainly adds to the whole experience. People appreciate more than pure enjoyment in things such as art and music. Even in a book, people recognise that writing quality is important, and not simply how good the plot is.
Could a game like Morrowind be as enjoyable as a text adventure? I'm sure it would still be fun in its own way, but when I'm wandering around an alien landscape, I'm appreciating the artwork just as much as anything else.
I also think that at least some developers are doing something right - the amount of time I can lose to a single game has increased significantly since the 80s (to the extent that I limit myself to as few games as possible, due to the risk of it taking up too much of my life).
Surely part of the problem with the Shuttles is that they did try to come up with something new, even when the older ideas were better?
If it isn't broken...
(And if sending an Apollo style rocket to Mars was as trivial as that, it would've been done in the 70s. As with most things, ideas are cheap, implementation is hard - the idea of "I know, let's avoid that mad expensive shuttle design" is trivial in terms of cost compared with actually designing a new craft, and the fact that it has a passing resemblance to Apollo doesn't mean it's the same in terms of technology or capability.)
Good point, yes, obviously making a spacecraft to carry six people to Mars is as simple as just coming up with the idea "make it bigger". It's not like it's rocket science, is it. They should have just read your comment here on Slashdot, we'd be there by now.
What a waste of those tax dollars, if only we hadn't spent all that money funding NASA this past five years we could have had enough for, I don't know, almost an extra year of war in Iraq ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget ). And it's not like they did anything else with all that money, like Shuttle launches is it.
I can understand them wanting to control the platforms, but that kind of short term thinking is digging their own grave. It seems obvious that sooner or later, phones will be Internet enabled devices that do everything cheaply over the Internet (and where you just pay a flat rate for Internet access). If the telcos don't offer it, someone else will (making use of the various mobile broadband networks already available), and dominate the market.
The idea that they can't make money from it is rather misleading - yes it's cheaper for the customer, but it's cheaper for the company too, and it's obviously not "free" when you pay them for Internet access. Given that my ISP can make money selling Internet access at a flat rate, I don't see why this would be different for phones on a mobile network.
(Talking of other phones with Skype, there are plenty that already have it. But of course we don't hear about those, because it's not the Iphone which for some reason even gets stories for "Look, you can now access this one webpage on an Iphone" as we got recently.)
I agree with what you say, but I'd go one step further and say to this:
Women can have pink machines if they want, but it would seem weird to me for a man to use one.
Who fucking cares.
It looks weird, because few men dare do it, because they think it looks weird. (My experience is that plenty of women dislike pink too, because it's so stereotypically girly, but they are still expected to like it.)
I am glad though that, whilst laptops, along with other modern products such as Ipods, have been produced in some stereotypical feminine styles, it does seem we have at long last left behind the labelling of "men's" and "women's" products. Just about every other personal product in history has been explicitly differentiated, even when there is no biological reason to do so - hankerchiefs, bicycles, umbrellas, glasses, toys, watches. Most people don't even notice, and would consider it weird to be done differently.
But, just imagine walking into your local computer store, and seeing the laptops, Ipods etc divided entirely into two sections, Men's and Women's? "I'm sorry sir," you hear as you look over one that looks just perfect, "But these are the Women's laptops, you need to be over there".
A bit off-topic, but what the hell. I don't think that argument is meant to say "Since you can't prove it false, you are required to believe it true."
The argument is: "My belief [God|the paranormal] is no different to your belief in [love|dreams]". Seems perfectly analogous to me.
How I've seen the argument used before is to refute the equally obviously bullshit assertion by some atheists that they "Only believe what can be empirically proved." Of course they don't; they probably believe in love, hopefully having experienced it. It is simply an example of a widely believed in phenomenon that can't be empirically proven to exist.
Thank you for falling for the bullshit argument that I was arguing against. When atheists talk about love, they mean the emotion that people feel. There is evidence for this - as far as it is falsifiable at least (arguments such as "Can you really be sure someone else feels the same thing" are no more useful than "Can you be sure we see red as the same colour", as I say in my earlier comment).
There is nothing "bullshit" about basing your beliefs on reason and evidence. My beliefs in love and dreams are based on evidence.
Consider, let's say I make up an emotion flipzog, and claim it exists. Do you believe in it? I would guess not - so why do you believe that people feel love, but not flipzog? The answer is that you have evidence for people behaving in a manner described by the emotion "love", but not "flipzog".
Do you believe in the paranormal then? After all - surely by your reasoning, belief in the paranormal is no different to belief in love, right?
Further, science is severely limited in the exploration of certain phenomena due to the nature of consciousness.
Whether we can know everything, or if we are limited, is an interesting question. I'm happy to accept that there are some things we might never be able to know.
But what I think you propose (and is common for paranormal advocates who refuse to allow any scientific testing) is the claim that there exist some things which we can't find out about using the scientific method, but for which there exists another means by which to find out.
So what exactly is this means, and - if it involves making observations about the world, and forming hypotheses and testing them - how is it not science?
Even if every scientist is corrupted as you claim, that shouldn't stop a paranormal believer conducting experiments according to the scientific method, which everyone else could then repeat.
Consider: If a force exists which is capable of being neutralized through the unconscious intent and will of observers who do not want to see it, then how do you measure it? I've never seen an experiment performed which takes this question into account.
If we wanted to test a force that could be affected by people's will, then we would conduct an experiment with those different people. Those observing the results would not be told which people were with which result.
I'll be able to do that when you can prove that you, 'Dream'.
Well done, you've shown that there exist some things that are unfalsifiable.
Yes, if we lived in a world where only some people dreamed, it would be hard to verify that. We could however read their brain patterns, note their eye movements, see how it matches up with their experiences. We can conduct experiments such as playing sounds when they sleep and seeing if they can recall them in their dreams. It's called evidence - just as we infer that some animals likely dream, even though we can't ask them.
Of course, you'll quibble we can't know 100% what their experiences of dreaming are like. Well, so what - it's unfalsifiable anyway. The problem is that claims of the paranormal often aren't unfalsifiable. You claim that people can read people's minds, that they can see the future, that ghosts do exist. Whether these are true or not are testable, in a way that what people experience dreams (a similar example would be "Prove that you see red the same as I do"). Yet despite this, they never pass such tests - and moreover, those who claim to have such powers do all they can to weasel out of being tested.
If we had a "dream test" that could test people were dreaming, I would expect people who claimed dreams exist to show it with that test. We do have tests for various paranormal claims - so why not undergo them? If you want to believe that dreams don't exist, if that makes you happy, that's up to you, but the lack of a dream test is not an excuse not to undergo the tests that do exist.
This is just a variation of the tired "But you can't prove love exists!" response from theists to atheists. Well, how about you prove that you're not an antelope? If you can't, it's okay for me to claim that you are?
The answer doesn't come from demanding the world dance for you, but by getting out there and exploring beyond the walls of official culture.
I don't expect anyone to dance. But if someone makes outlandish claims such as "I've got three heads", when I offer to test that, and they refuse, it's reasonable for me to be suspicious. People who dream have been happy to subject themselves to scientific testing, so your attack against them is unfounded.
If they dislike Randi's attitude enough to turn down a million dollars, that's up to them, but why pass up the opportunity to prove the existence of such powers once and for all? You'd be world famous, and it would be a revolution in science. You'd be remembered in history.
You don't have to have Randi doing the test, find some other independent group to test you under repeatable scientific conditions if you prefer.
It is not. It is available, but very few actually want Truth.
Yeah yeah, and Jesus exists just so long as I'm willing to look for the Truth.
Well I am willing to look for the truth - but you have to be willing to provide it, and that means in the form of scientific results.
To shove a truth down somebody's throat when they do not want it, is a violation of Free Will.
Don't be absurd. No one is talking about this. There are plenty of people willing to investigate this (e.g., Randi), and plenty of people who would be eager to see the results if it is conducted scientifically, rather than only on terms that allow trickery.
In short, if you want to know, go look; nobody is going to go to the trouble of providing anything for you if you can't be bothered to invest the energy to put in the requisite work through exploring.
Well in that case, I have three heads, and can see everything that you do. It's up to you to look to see if that's true, not me - it's not my fault if you're too lazy to do that.
i don't see why 18 is the magic number when it comes to being accountable for your actions. if someone is mature enough at 15 to commit a crime in the mind-set of an adult, why shouldn't they face adult consequences?
There's nothing wrong with saying that people have the mental capacity at 15 to comprehend the consequences of their actions - but given that you're not allowed to vote, drive, smoke, drink, play the lottery, have sex, take a naughty pic of yourself and a great deal more, then clearly the consensus decision that society has made is that 15 year olds don't have that capacity. Yet still it puts them to death.
Again this is a culture issue - there's nothing stopping Windows applications from running from a single folder (and indeed, plenty of them do). Conversely, I don't see why one couldn't make a Linux or OS X application that installed some system files (they do have shared libraries, right?)
And indeed, it's worth noting that Quicktime on Windows is as bad as an offender as any other application when it comes to installing background rubbish and insisting on running all the time, so Apple don't get off lightly here.
Same experience I've had with Linux; meanwhile I can't remember the last time I saw Windows crash. Perhaps we shouldn't generalise from anecdotes.
I agree - the battle isn't over when the law is passed, even if that happens, I still hope that one day these laws will be overturned, and I see it as part of a large battle against censorship.
I agree about the Daily Mail, although bizarrely enough, even they published a column criticising the "extreme porn" law ( http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/utley.html ). But yes, usually being in favour of censorship, or scaremongering about things they think are "sick", is right up their street.
Fair enough :)
I think your statement becomes a bit of a tautology - when "child porn" means "something intended to satisfy someone's pedophilia", of course it is reasonably likely that someone viewing it is getting off on children. Under the broader idea of sexual images depicting under 18s however, there might be other reasons someone possesses it - just as there might be other reasons for someone possessing a drawing of people planting explosives, as the OP said. The difficulty here is distinguishing anyone who is an actual danger, from someone who isn't (and even if we could, do we criminalise people because of what they might do? Even if we know someone is a pedophile, all the while they are not an abuser, I think they need help more than anything, not punishment) - just as we should distinguish between people planning a terrorist act, and someone who just possesses a drawing of one.
Also, to refer to your earlier comment:
who guarantees that a person who looks at drawn image of underage girls today won't look for photos tomorrow?
I don't know, but I think it's more likely they look for photos, if we've just banned them from drawing any images.
Maybe not proven, but let's start with evidence. Climate change has plenty of evidence - but with this law, the Government itself happily admits it's okay to pass laws in the absence of evidence.
And we can easily make the counter claim that banning these images will cause harm (indeed, this is trivially true in that criminalising someone harms them, but also the idea that even for pedophilic images, that they provide an outlet and reduce crime if they are fictional).
Otherwise, ALL drugs would have to be allowed.
Oh yes, drug laws - they're working just great aren't they. Not exactly a ringing endorsement to bring in yet more stupid laws that do far more harm than good.
However, the point is that the evidence people put in favour of drug laws - as weak as those are - don't apply to me doing a quick doodle on a piece of paper. The arguments about drugs are that they allegedly affect other people, not merely that they harm yourself. I think those claims are wrong, but the point is it's not true that drugs are illegal simply because of that. If harming yourself was illegal, then a lot more people would be locked up!
And no one would come to stop your suicide.
That's nothing to do with the law. Yes, in some countries suicide is or was illegal, but that's batshit too.
I wish I shared your optimism :)
The recent "extreme porn" law covered adults, not "children" (and thus wasn't quite so demonised, and people were more willing to speak out). My impression is that it got more opposition - from people responding to the consultation, to criticism by MPs. But it sailed through, with only minor word changes.
I think a lot of people find these laws mad, but this sadly won't stop the law.
Don't get me wrong, I do think it's worth opposing the law just the same, to generate publicity about it and so on. And I'm glad to see there are organisations now opposing this law (the "extreme porn" law was opposed by a group of organisations under the name Backlash, but up until now, there was nothing for this new bill).
But equally, we shouldn't sit back and think "The law will never pass", because unless there's some sudden change in direction, this law will pass.
I didn't mention the Simpsons, I presume you mean South Park? (But given that that joke Simpsons cartoon was illegal, do you think things would be different here?)
The images also need to be pornographic, which is defined thusly: must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
Note that's based only from looking at the image alone - if it looks like porn, it's porn by this law, even if you can prove it was produced for other purposes.
and a later section says, in the case of images that are part of a larger narrative, the entire narrative should be considered
That's the only context allowed. So yes, I agree an episode of South Park in it's entirety would probably be safe. But if you had a clip of the "Red Rocket" sketch, you wouldn't have this narrative. It might be a downloaded clip you had for the amusement - and the clip is also available from one of the official websites.
In practice, I don't expect to see people hauled away for a mainstream book or cartoon, but there is a more general point here: if the law covers things which are depicted in mainstream comics and cartoons, it is a rather mad law. The fact that those mainstream things are given a special exemption, whilst other images are not, doesn't fix the problem here - if anything, that makes it worse, as we're criminalising people for possessing images that are legal to depict in mainstream media. It's fine if you're a big mainstream publisher, but it puts a chilling effect on small producers, as well as individuals who might view material online.
(Also, you have to remember that I'm limited by the size of the summary - I'm glad we agree that "The law is very bad", but an in-depth discussion of in what context images like those depicted in South Park will or won't be legal is rather too long for a summary. The point I was throwing out is that the definitions are such that they include things legally depicted in comics and cartoons like those I and the Independent listed:)
So, well done submitter
Well done, reader, for proving you can't even read the definition.
Also see the next bit, which clarifies:
the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.
The decision of whether it is illegal is decided purely by whether the image is of such a nature it must reasonably be assumed, or the context in which it was found as part of a series of images is relevant. So the fact that we know the book Watchmen or South Park wasn't meant to be porn is irrelevant. All that matters is if the image itself, or the context it is found, looks like it's porn.
In practice, I suspect you'd be safe with a complete copy of the book or episode, but a screenshot or clip on your computer would be another matter. This is the same wording as in the "extreme porn" law - there, the Government have confirmed that an image can be legal in its original context, but illegal in another. I can go to the official South Park website and see a clip showing just the "Red Rocket" clip - yes, you are technically right that the full BBFC version is legal, but if I'm criminalised for seeing that clip, it is not scaremongering to say "South Park is covered", because that's how the law is written.
It is also rather mad that even if a copy of Watchman is legal, the very same image drawing in another context might be illegal. And if you're risking a conviction and three years in prison based on a jury's interpretation of whether the image alone looks like it was porn, then rather you than me!
(Also, I was quoting the Independent article, if you'd bother to RTFA, so blame them for scaremongering - however, I don't believe they are.)
Please try to read all the details before jumping to conclusions of scaremongering. The only ones scaremongering are those people claiming it'll be a defence to show what an image was really produced for. That's not relevant under this law. Saying "But it wasn't meant to be porn!" won't help if the image itself depicts a clearly sexual scene, and the jury decides otherwise.
Nice ad-hominem btw - please try to stick to some kind of rational debate.
Indeed - I wonder if we will see an outbreak of wrinkly-old people porn. "Look, despite the school uniform, it's clearly an adult, Officer!" (Eww.)
To be exact, "child" is defined in the bill as:
(5) Child, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.
(6) Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if
(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
(b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
So the phrase they use is "impression conveyed by the image" - but it not only includes under-18s, but also adults who have a "predominant impression conveyed" of someone under 18.
This could include, of course, androids that look like three-year-olds having sex with robots that look like dogs.
Another example would be non-human characters that nonetheless give a child-like impression. Does being an "elf", for example, make it exempt from the law?
To be honest, I'd consider it risky to test that - given the law is no longer about real children, it wouldn't surprise me if a court rules it illegal, just so long as the impression is conveyed is that of a child, even if it's really a robot or an elf or whatever else.
(Note how deceiving the law is written - they talk about "child" throughout, leading the reader to think that this is about images of children - you know, people under the age of consent, and actual people rather than drawings - and only later on do they redefine the term "child" in such a broad way!)
but I yet have to meet a person that likes looking at child pornography without being at least somehow sexually drawn to children.
Firstly, we're not talking about child pornography, we're talking sexual images that depict someone appearing to be below 18.
So given that this is the issue - what about South Park? Joke Simpsons porn? Hentai porn of someone with big breasts but where they might be deemed to be 17 by the police or jury? The first two, there are clearly non-sexual reasons for someone to view and possess them. The latter is sexual, but not about pedophilia.
You know, there's a difference between a action comic and one that involves raping children.
Perhaps, but there is the problem with this law. It covers far more than "raping children".
For example, a drawing of a fully clothed person who looks 17, standing in the background of two adults having consensual sex, would also be illegal.