but the fact that real photographs may be "turned into" non-realistic images that are indistinguishable from drawn cartoons.
Note that that's also already possible. I'd have no objection to criminalising images derived from abuse (as is the case in the UK, for example). It might be useful to have some way to track which images were derived from abuse, but either way, there is no justification for criminalising all images of non-realistic images.
I also find it rather odd that someone would ever want to do this - wouldn't it be far easier to just create the cartoon without abusing children? I'd be curious to see evidence on how much this ever happens - it may well be a myth created to help support new laws on non-realistic images (the UK Government recently made these claims).
Also I would be careful of the argument that child abuse images are converted into other things - where will it end? Supposing we hear stories that pedophiles are photoshopping images of child abuse to look like adults - shall we criminalise adult porn, or do we need to track which adult porn images came from adults and which were photoshopped from children? Supposing pedophiles are photoshopping images of child abuse to look like non-pornographic images of children - do we need to do the same for all images of children now? Or perhaps all images full stop, as they might have been converted from a child abuse image?
but I wonder how many people are looking to outlaw cartoon images simply because they cannot be distinguished from real images which have been doctored to look like cartoons, thus painting the law with broad strokes?
Indeed, some such as the UK Government are. Though it is a pretty poor argument as I say above, especially with little evidence presented of how much this actually happens. I am also suspicious if this is really the true reason, as the proposed law has no defence for images that can be proven to not come from actual abuse (see my comment here - people who make arguments of "we have to criminalise it all, just in case it might be abusive" typically are not even willing to consider the burden of proof being on the defendant). I suspect that they simply want to criminalise images they find "disgusting" (as was the case with the recent law criminalising possession of so-called "extreme" adult porn), and simply stir up claims of pedophiles converting images of abuse to cartoons in order to lend support (even though the UK has already criminalised possession of non-realistic images that were derived from abusive images...)
In ten or twenty years, it will be a very real question where the burden of proof is to lie: Should the prosecution have to prove child abuse (as criminal law normally demands)? Or should owners or producers of such images have to prove it is an artificially rendered image (on the side of caution)? Or should the content, real or artificial, be banned completely because, well, "ew, you sicko"?
Unfortunately, the only debate that people pushing these laws are concerned with is on the last of those questions.
There might be an argument to say that with realistic images, the burden of it being fake is on the defendant. But typically, laws on fake child porn do not even allow such a defence! Sure, supporters of the law will claim the difficulty of proving guilt as a reason, but they'll never allow such a defence in law, despite the fact that such a law would already be biased against the defendant.
And then with laws on non-realistic images, as in this case, the question of it involving actual children is irrelevant - that clearly isn't the case.
Note, there's no reason to wait ten or twenty years. It's been possible to construct realistic faked images for years - just a simple copy and paste, for example, although Photoshop allows for more advanced methods.
Don't get me wrong, freedom of expression is important. But so is the safety of children. This is not just some nanny-state legislature about whether the word "fuck" can be said in public.
A false dichotomy. How on earth does anything you have said relate to non-realistic images that clearly did not involve actual children?
Indeed. In response to the UK's "consulation" on criminalising possession non-realistic sexual images of under-18s, I raised the issue of anal sex with the Rice Krispie Elf "Crackle", and asked them if the Government was planning to introduce an age of consent for elves and other non-existent creatures... (Needless to say, the Government's consultation response document doesn't answer this question - it's full steam ahead with the legislation, ignoring the many flaws and problems pointed out to them.)
The underlying problem that is worrying many, I believe, is that as technology advances it will become increasingly difficult to distinguish between real photographs and cartoons. They're be indistinguishable.
I think most people would say that a cartoon, by definition, isn't realistic.
Presumably you meant to say that eventually technology will allow for realistic fake images to be created? But that's already the case. And many countries (such as the UK) brought in laws to treat realistic fake images as equivalent to child porn.
I think such laws are still mad - but that's off-topic here. The issue here is non-realistic images of child porn. Saying that non-realistic images will one day become realistic is non-sensical - a non-realistic image isn't realistic by definition. If it was realistic, then it would be caught by the laws on realistic images, and there's still no need for a law on non-realistic images.
Note, this just means he's not in their database. Their policy has nothing to do with whether you require a licence - they just assume everyone without a licence is breaking the law, and send them harrassing threatening letters.
Read the post I replied to. The OP didn't say the fine was justified because it was against the law, he said it was justified because of a statement made by the defendant:
"The reason why she got slammed with such high levels for each instance of infringement is because she tried to make the jurors feel stupid"
If you don't believe the law is ethical, there are proper channels to go through in order to change it.
That's irrelevant - that doesn't mean that such people should be fined excessively more for what they believe. If your point is to simply say that the law allows for such vast fines, then yes, we know what the law says, and no one is disagreeing with that point - that's a straw man.
A 20 year old Amiga 500 could do a GUI with it being fully responsive, and the massive advancement in graphics hardware, even when not fully utilising the GPU, is still more than enough to handle the increase in screen resolution since then.
Yes, a GPU can use more tricks that Aero might use. But you have not provided any evidence that these make the slightest bit of difference in Vista. You're like the people who claim things would be done faster in assembler even before actually writing it. Things only make a difference in performance if it's a bottleneck, and the only way to find out is to test it.
Even when fully using the GPU, you still have lots of information travelling across to the graphics card, as the CPU still does a lot, which causes the screen to change, not to mention software that still uses the CPU to draw graphics or otherwise affect the appearance of the application.
I'm also not sure you understand how graphics cards work. It's been years since the CPU had to be used to laboriously draw every pixel - even on the Amiga, there were specialised chips to quickly draw blocks of memory. What's changed with the GPU is that the graphics processor is now a fully fledged processor (i.e., turing complete, and hence can run any program on it).
Indeed they did - covering simple possession of even private material. The law comes into force January 26.
The law I saw was nebulous enough that Hitchcock gets banned just as quickly as BDSM porn.
One ridiculous thing is that the Hitchcock film itself would be exempt simply because BBFC material is exempt from the law (which means the Government must fear that the law would otherwise criminalise BBFC material - despite their insistence that it only covers material already illegal to publish). But then another clause of the Act says that screenshots from legal films are not exempt.
What we object to, and what these proposals are about, is people posting graphic depictions of acts in which they are physically hurting or even killing real people.
I'm more concerned with people being physically hurt and killed.
Rape and murder are not protected speech.
They're not speech at all.
You're basically confusing acts, with images of acts. I don't support bank robberies, but should we implement some great new censorship system to block images of bank robberies?
Even if we don't care about those beheading images, do you seriously think that the rating systems will be purely used for those few images? Supporters of censorship will make claims about the most serious content that may exist, such as beheadings or alleged Nazi content, but the proposed laws are never restricted to those most serious items.
Don't worry; he's talking out of his arse, he hasn't a cat in hell's chance of getting a Bill through parliament to implement this spatchcock guff. We have this thing called the Human Rights Act... and if they repeal that, there's the European Court.
The problem is that even if a law is incompatible with the ECHR, there's nothing stopping the Government passing the law, and you've then got to wait until someone pays the large amount of legal fees to take this to the european courts. To pass the law, the Government just has to claim that the law is necessary for the "protection of morals". They've already done this to pass a law that criminalises even possession of images of adults they don't want people to see, so I fear that classification of websites could come just as easily, if that's what they wanted.
You may be right - sometimes these laws are just a bit of self-publicity that the Government have no plans in doing. But occasionally a law gets passed, no matter how draconian and ridiculous and unlikely it might have seemed.
The BBFC's job is classification, not censorship. It has no power to ban material or demand cuts in any material.
As of the Video Recordings Act 1984, video can only be legally sold or hired if it has been classified. (Consider the recent case of Manhunt 2 as an example.)
Indeed, the BBFC's name changed from "censors" to "classification" at the same time that the Act changed their job from that of classification to censorship. As summed up in a House of Lords debate:
"On Report, I spoke about the Video Recordings Act 1984. I did not repeat one of the juiciest pieces about it. Until that time, we had a British Board of Film Censors, which was not a censorship board. It classified films, and if it refused to classify them, they could still be shown with the permission of local authorities. The Video Recordings Act 1984 changed the board from being a classification board to being a censorship board because if a video recording was not approved by the board, it could not be shown at all. From being a classification board, it became a censorship board, but its name changed from being a censorship board to a classification board. George Orwell would have been proud."
but certification is only withheld where it's considered the material in question would breach the criminal law, usually the Obscene Publications Act.
Now having said that, I agree with the main point of your post in that the problem is with the laws rather than the BBFC - in this case, the Video Recordings Act 1984, and the Obscene Publications Act (not to mention a new law that as of January 26 will criminalise possession of adult images considered "extreme" by the Government).
Yes, an iMac may seem pricy, but with AppleCare, the relative can get questions answered at a Genius Bar or via the Apple line and not have to keep bugging you.
I'd rather get them a computer that Just Works, rather than requiring pricey special lines.
People said that I should persuade my parents to spend the several hundered pounds extra to "Get a Mac". Well, they went on Vista - and as it turns out, it Just Works, no problems (in almost two years now).
Linux is also good, but one advantage of Macs is that the older person can ask more than just you, as a lot more people run Macs than Linux boxes.
Indeed - and vastly more run a certain other platform.
Another factor is that the older person will be keeping the machine a lot longer than the usual 2-3 years a normal PC is used.
Are you seriously suggesting that PCs just fall apart or something after 2-3 years? Even if it is true that PCs have a quicker upgrade cycle, that's just because there's most cheap fast stuff coming out all the time to make it worthwhile (plus the stats are probably biased by businesses that will upgrade more often than home users). I mean, by that reasoning I might as well point out Amiga users who are still upgrading their 15 year old Amiga 1200s, and therefore claim that's a much better choice...
Another advantage is that Macs run almost all popular software. Say the relative wants to watch a Flash movie or find a podcast, Macs happily do this with few issues. For word processing, iWork is easy to install and use and does most of the basics.
So, they can only be certain to run the most popular software. If they come across some new nifty toy, it may or may not be supported. For someone who's a geek, this isn't a problem as you can hunt out something equivalent, or just not bother. But will that satisfy Dad when he's on the phone asking why the software he wants to run won't Just Work on his Mac?
For loss of data, backups are quite easy with OS X. Plug in an external hard disk, configure Time Machine, walk away.
I hope you don't walk away at that point. I'm curious how Time Machine has made people think that backing up is simply a matter of having your data on two drives rather than one. That's fine for hard disk failures, but doesn't protect against things like fire and theft. There's always a need for backups onto separate media (note that Windows has its own backup software anyway).
greatly decrease any chance of 2am "tech support" calls.
Never had them. Admittedly it's true that I'd be guaranteed of not having to help if they'd got a Mac - as my response to any problems they might have (such as some software they downloaded not being compatible) would be "I dunno, it's a Mac" or "Macs simply can't do that, tough luck, bye".
And my parents and I just run Windows out of the box, and it Just Works fine.
If you're going seriously going to suggest that what paganizer does is necessary or typical, then it's fair game to pick on what Linux users say they have to do to get things working.
(Although I've lost track of the number of times I've asked on Slashdot how to do something in Linux, and, with no hint of sarcasm, the response has been some command. Perhaps things have changed - maybe this year it'll be ready for the desktop?)
I would be upset.... So the phone is at best useless to most of them and at worst, an additional monthly cost.
Okay, this is just silly. No one would pay the additional monthly cost, if the phone was useless to them. I very much doubt they are forced to pay the fee if they don't want the phone! And even though most people already have a phone, and they can't sell this one, they could, perhaps, sell their old phone.
Yes, the phone might be useless to some, but to others, it's a new $400 phone for free. If you don't like freebies from your company, then chuck them in the bin - but it's nothing to get upset about. I've had freebies that really were useless. We made a joke about it, not get all upset and whine about it to Slashdot.
PS - if anyone wants to "foist" their $400 wares onto me, please feel free. And maybe any "upset" Google employees can give their burden away to people who might be more grateful.
And just to add - your techies vs other people is a false dichotomy. There is something special about "techies" and copyright infringement - large numbers of ordinary non-techies copy music and download films.
Techies have a serious communication problem. They believe in free without copyright, right to pirate, etc, etc.
Some do, some don't. Sounds like an over-simplistic straw man.
Techies need to start policing themselves. Yes BitTorrent has a real need, but until these protocols are managed to stop piracy nothing will change.
There are already laws against copyright infringement. The attitude of "You need to police yourselves, or else we'll ban all of it" sounds like a parent or schoolteacher talking to children. It isn't what I expect from a Government, and isn't how laws generally work (or should generally work, in case you wheel out a counter-example of another bad law). Similarly, things should not be blocked simply because someone thinks what you are doing is "potentially illegal" (as with the recent UK example of blocking Wikipedia). We have courts for a reason.
Here is the thing, I hate the drug laws, despise them actually. But I can't go out and start smoking pot because today it is STILL ILLEGAL.... The solution is to legalize pot, not smoke it and yell at the top of my lungs and say how dumb the laws are (they are...) How do I legalize pot? Work with the system and get it legalized.
Perhaps I'm behind the time, but is Bittorrent illegal in Australia then?
If you read all the details of the court case it's quite clear that the 'Nazi' interpretation, even if not legally provable due to the very specific lack of swastikas, was one that would automatically occur to about 95% of people.
Were we reading the same court details? I read the court ruling, where Judge Eady completely demolishes the claims of Nazi allegations, and I entirely agree with him. The "Nazi" claim was based on:
* Many aspects that had no more in common with Nazi camps than any other prison scenes (e.g., striped uniforms). Are all prison fantasies about Nazi death camps? Of course not. Such things are common in S&M role-play, and do not entail Nazism. And in fact, the uniforms had horizontal stripes, where as concentration camp prisoners typically wore uniforms with vertical stripes. "Pictures were also produced to show a group of people running in the recent London Marathon wearing prison costumes. These too had horizontal stripes; yet no-one would imagine that they were in any way making reference to concentration camps or mocking their victims"
* They wore German uniforms and some of them spoke German. But they were not Nazi uniforms - the assumption was that because they were role-playing a German scene, it must have been Nazism, which if nothing else is offensive to Germans, and is typical the soft of racist behaviour you get from tabloids. As pointed out in the ruling, the point is to be interrogated in a language that is unfamiliar to the submissive, adding to the sense of helplessness. "the language is perceived as having a harsh and guttural sound and is thought to be more suitable for use by those playing a dominant role in S and M scenarios than (say) French or Italian. Apparently Russian might have also been suitable, but unfortunately none of the participants spoke Russian." But no - people like you and the NOTW jerk their knees, and accuse them of Nazism.
* The most laughable claim was that it was Nazism because Mosley was "shaved". If you check your history books, you will see that concentration camp victims had their heads shaved. Mosley had his bottom shaved. Thus, you either have not read the court details for yourself, or you are incapable of telling your head from your arse.
Also, the News Of the World's star witness concerning the 'Nazi' interpretation mysteriously withdrew at the last minute; up until this point it looked like NOTW was probably going to win.
Oh dear, my heart bleeds. What shocking evidence did this "star witness" have? Anyway, this was an invasion of privacy trial, not a libel trial. The court ruled his privacy was wrongly invaded, and I find it hard to believe how anyone could think otherwise. (If you do, send in a picture of yourself having sex, for the NOTW to profit from.)
Obviously this strange and unexplained withdrawl had *nothing* to do with the fact that Mosley is a *very* rich and powerful man.
Ah, it seems that defenders of libel like to make libellous claims themselves. Yes, because obviously the NOTW is such a poor and not-powerful defendant! (Usually the tabloids take on individuals who are unable to fight back - the only difference this time is they picked on someone who was able to fight back.)
But that's all that many news organisations do these days! Just copy and paste from one of the news outlets, and maybe write their own biased editorial over it. At least information transmitted by blogs don't have as much individual power over people. Also, IME, the fact that bloggers point to others' content means at least they are citing their sources - something that is almost unheard of by media organisations.
Plus there is more opportunity to find out more information in the comments - look at Slashdot, where people will often point out if a story is misleading.
It may seem cool to get your news from bloggers but they aren't news sources they just voice opinions they aren't held to any standards.
Ha! It may seem cool to get your news from tabloids but they aren't news sources they just voice opinions they aren't held to any standards.
Really - I don't know if objective news is a dying thing, or if it's always been this way, but the amount of misinformation, bias, scaremongering and outright harrassment out there is appalling. Recently in the UK, we had the News Of The World secretly filming private sexual acts, then putting it on their website for profit, as well as making libellous false allegations about Nazism - when understandably they were successfully sued for invasion of privacy, we have the news media whinging about their supposed freedom and how important they all were.
Even non-tabloids aren't immune to this. Objective news went a long time before the Internet came along, if it ever existed at all (how would I know? Am I supposed to trust you, an anonymous commenter to a blog?) - and the Internet at least makes it easier for me to check out things from various different sources.
The founding fathers were concerned about freedom of speech, as I am too. That doesn't mean that people are entitled to be heard - if newspapers die because no one chooses to buy them, then that is not a freedom of speech issue. I certainly won't be shedding a tear.
Bacteria aren't human. Killing them is about as wrong as killing other non-human creatures that aren't remotely endangered.
I agree that a criterion based solely on being "human" is a poor definition - personally I would judge it on other things, such as sentience.
Living cells die, yes. But they aren't zygotes.
So? You are the one who stated that being "life" is important.
So there was an poor choice of terms. You are just being pedantic.
Which terms? I have no problem with your choice in terms. If you can rephrase so that your claims make sense, please do.
I knew a girl that was going to be identical twins, but the two merged back together into a singe fetus. I'd say they are capable of being a single entity, although at some point they will be separate for too long to recombine.
So if you have several identical-DNA embryos, it would be okay to terminate all but one, because they are "capable of being" a single entity?
And what about sperm and egg, which have different DNA - these should be different entities, and thus it is wrong to terminate them, according to your logic?
Slashdot Mirror
but the fact that real photographs may be "turned into" non-realistic images that are indistinguishable from drawn cartoons.
Note that that's also already possible. I'd have no objection to criminalising images derived from abuse (as is the case in the UK, for example). It might be useful to have some way to track which images were derived from abuse, but either way, there is no justification for criminalising all images of non-realistic images.
I also find it rather odd that someone would ever want to do this - wouldn't it be far easier to just create the cartoon without abusing children? I'd be curious to see evidence on how much this ever happens - it may well be a myth created to help support new laws on non-realistic images (the UK Government recently made these claims).
Also I would be careful of the argument that child abuse images are converted into other things - where will it end? Supposing we hear stories that pedophiles are photoshopping images of child abuse to look like adults - shall we criminalise adult porn, or do we need to track which adult porn images came from adults and which were photoshopped from children? Supposing pedophiles are photoshopping images of child abuse to look like non-pornographic images of children - do we need to do the same for all images of children now? Or perhaps all images full stop, as they might have been converted from a child abuse image?
but I wonder how many people are looking to outlaw cartoon images simply because they cannot be distinguished from real images which have been doctored to look like cartoons, thus painting the law with broad strokes?
Indeed, some such as the UK Government are. Though it is a pretty poor argument as I say above, especially with little evidence presented of how much this actually happens. I am also suspicious if this is really the true reason, as the proposed law has no defence for images that can be proven to not come from actual abuse (see my comment here - people who make arguments of "we have to criminalise it all, just in case it might be abusive" typically are not even willing to consider the burden of proof being on the defendant). I suspect that they simply want to criminalise images they find "disgusting" (as was the case with the recent law criminalising possession of so-called "extreme" adult porn), and simply stir up claims of pedophiles converting images of abuse to cartoons in order to lend support (even though the UK has already criminalised possession of non-realistic images that were derived from abusive images...)
Not to mention, Red Rocket - maybe the US authorities should prosecute Wikipedia for their article with the "child porn" image...
In ten or twenty years, it will be a very real question where the burden of proof is to lie: Should the prosecution have to prove child abuse (as criminal law normally demands)? Or should owners or producers of such images have to prove it is an artificially rendered image (on the side of caution)? Or should the content, real or artificial, be banned completely because, well, "ew, you sicko"?
Unfortunately, the only debate that people pushing these laws are concerned with is on the last of those questions.
There might be an argument to say that with realistic images, the burden of it being fake is on the defendant. But typically, laws on fake child porn do not even allow such a defence! Sure, supporters of the law will claim the difficulty of proving guilt as a reason, but they'll never allow such a defence in law, despite the fact that such a law would already be biased against the defendant.
And then with laws on non-realistic images, as in this case, the question of it involving actual children is irrelevant - that clearly isn't the case.
Note, there's no reason to wait ten or twenty years. It's been possible to construct realistic faked images for years - just a simple copy and paste, for example, although Photoshop allows for more advanced methods.
What will likely be more of an issue is people role-playing sexual acts in online games, where one of them uses a model that might appear under 18. But given how doing this in Second Life with non-realistic graphics is already causing people to call for criminalisation on non-realistic images (e.g., in the UK: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/13/pedo_art_illegal/ , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1022387/Cartoon-style-child-sex-abuse-images-banned-MPs-close-paedophile-loophole.html ), I think it's clear their concern is not the abuse of children.
Don't get me wrong, freedom of expression is important. But so is the safety of children. This is not just some nanny-state legislature about whether the word "fuck" can be said in public.
A false dichotomy. How on earth does anything you have said relate to non-realistic images that clearly did not involve actual children?
Indeed. In response to the UK's "consulation" on criminalising possession non-realistic sexual images of under-18s, I raised the issue of anal sex with the Rice Krispie Elf "Crackle", and asked them if the Government was planning to introduce an age of consent for elves and other non-existent creatures... (Needless to say, the Government's consultation response document doesn't answer this question - it's full steam ahead with the legislation, ignoring the many flaws and problems pointed out to them.)
The underlying problem that is worrying many, I believe, is that as technology advances it will become increasingly difficult to distinguish between real photographs and cartoons. They're be indistinguishable.
I think most people would say that a cartoon, by definition, isn't realistic.
Presumably you meant to say that eventually technology will allow for realistic fake images to be created? But that's already the case. And many countries (such as the UK) brought in laws to treat realistic fake images as equivalent to child porn.
I think such laws are still mad - but that's off-topic here. The issue here is non-realistic images of child porn. Saying that non-realistic images will one day become realistic is non-sensical - a non-realistic image isn't realistic by definition. If it was realistic, then it would be caught by the laws on realistic images, and there's still no need for a law on non-realistic images.
Note, this just means he's not in their database. Their policy has nothing to do with whether you require a licence - they just assume everyone without a licence is breaking the law, and send them harrassing threatening letters.
Read the post I replied to. The OP didn't say the fine was justified because it was against the law, he said it was justified because of a statement made by the defendant:
"The reason why she got slammed with such high levels for each instance of infringement is because she tried to make the jurors feel stupid"
If you don't believe the law is ethical, there are proper channels to go through in order to change it.
That's irrelevant - that doesn't mean that such people should be fined excessively more for what they believe. If your point is to simply say that the law allows for such vast fines, then yes, we know what the law says, and no one is disagreeing with that point - that's a straw man.
At least its fixable if you have a monitor to connect to it. Im sure anyone can find one around somewhere
Yeah, it really Just Works doesn't it?
cant that much for ya'lls vista problems
Can't what? I've never had problems with Vista or XP.
A 20 year old Amiga 500 could do a GUI with it being fully responsive, and the massive advancement in graphics hardware, even when not fully utilising the GPU, is still more than enough to handle the increase in screen resolution since then.
Yes, a GPU can use more tricks that Aero might use. But you have not provided any evidence that these make the slightest bit of difference in Vista. You're like the people who claim things would be done faster in assembler even before actually writing it. Things only make a difference in performance if it's a bottleneck, and the only way to find out is to test it.
Even when fully using the GPU, you still have lots of information travelling across to the graphics card, as the CPU still does a lot, which causes the screen to change, not to mention software that still uses the CPU to draw graphics or otherwise affect the appearance of the application.
I'm also not sure you understand how graphics cards work. It's been years since the CPU had to be used to laboriously draw every pixel - even on the Amiga, there were specialised chips to quickly draw blocks of memory. What's changed with the GPU is that the graphics processor is now a fully fledged processor (i.e., turing complete, and hence can run any program on it).
So it's fair to fine the defendant $221,976.24 for having the view that their actions weren't unethical? Interesting.
because she tried to make the jurors feel stupid
Where did she do this?
Indeed they did - covering simple possession of even private material. The law comes into force January 26.
The law I saw was nebulous enough that Hitchcock gets banned just as quickly as BDSM porn.
One ridiculous thing is that the Hitchcock film itself would be exempt simply because BBFC material is exempt from the law (which means the Government must fear that the law would otherwise criminalise BBFC material - despite their insistence that it only covers material already illegal to publish). But then another clause of the Act says that screenshots from legal films are not exempt.
What we object to, and what these proposals are about, is people posting graphic depictions of acts in which they are physically hurting or even killing real people.
I'm more concerned with people being physically hurt and killed.
Rape and murder are not protected speech.
They're not speech at all.
You're basically confusing acts, with images of acts. I don't support bank robberies, but should we implement some great new censorship system to block images of bank robberies?
Even if we don't care about those beheading images, do you seriously think that the rating systems will be purely used for those few images? Supporters of censorship will make claims about the most serious content that may exist, such as beheadings or alleged Nazi content, but the proposed laws are never restricted to those most serious items.
Don't worry; he's talking out of his arse, he hasn't a cat in hell's chance of getting a Bill through parliament to implement this spatchcock guff. We have this thing called the Human Rights Act... and if they repeal that, there's the European Court.
The problem is that even if a law is incompatible with the ECHR, there's nothing stopping the Government passing the law, and you've then got to wait until someone pays the large amount of legal fees to take this to the european courts. To pass the law, the Government just has to claim that the law is necessary for the "protection of morals". They've already done this to pass a law that criminalises even possession of images of adults they don't want people to see, so I fear that classification of websites could come just as easily, if that's what they wanted.
You may be right - sometimes these laws are just a bit of self-publicity that the Government have no plans in doing. But occasionally a law gets passed, no matter how draconian and ridiculous and unlikely it might have seemed.
The BBFC's job is classification, not censorship. It has no power to ban material or demand cuts in any material.
As of the Video Recordings Act 1984, video can only be legally sold or hired if it has been classified. (Consider the recent case of Manhunt 2 as an example.)
Indeed, the BBFC's name changed from "censors" to "classification" at the same time that the Act changed their job from that of classification to censorship. As summed up in a House of Lords debate:
"On Report, I spoke about the Video Recordings Act 1984. I did not repeat one of the juiciest pieces about it. Until that time, we had a British Board of Film Censors, which was not a censorship board. It classified films, and if it refused to classify them, they could still be shown with the permission of local authorities. The Video Recordings Act 1984 changed the board from being a classification board to being a censorship board because if a video recording was not approved by the board, it could not be shown at all. From being a classification board, it became a censorship board, but its name changed from being a censorship board to a classification board. George Orwell would have been proud."
but certification is only withheld where it's considered the material in question would breach the criminal law, usually the Obscene Publications Act.
That's one reason, but the class of material they will refuse to classify is slightly broader than that (e.g., see http://www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/c_R18.php ).
Now having said that, I agree with the main point of your post in that the problem is with the laws rather than the BBFC - in this case, the Video Recordings Act 1984, and the Obscene Publications Act (not to mention a new law that as of January 26 will criminalise possession of adult images considered "extreme" by the Government).
Yes, an iMac may seem pricy, but with AppleCare, the relative can get questions answered at a Genius Bar or via the Apple line and not have to keep bugging you.
I'd rather get them a computer that Just Works, rather than requiring pricey special lines.
People said that I should persuade my parents to spend the several hundered pounds extra to "Get a Mac". Well, they went on Vista - and as it turns out, it Just Works, no problems (in almost two years now).
Linux is also good, but one advantage of Macs is that the older person can ask more than just you, as a lot more people run Macs than Linux boxes.
Indeed - and vastly more run a certain other platform.
Another factor is that the older person will be keeping the machine a lot longer than the usual 2-3 years a normal PC is used.
Are you seriously suggesting that PCs just fall apart or something after 2-3 years? Even if it is true that PCs have a quicker upgrade cycle, that's just because there's most cheap fast stuff coming out all the time to make it worthwhile (plus the stats are probably biased by businesses that will upgrade more often than home users). I mean, by that reasoning I might as well point out Amiga users who are still upgrading their 15 year old Amiga 1200s, and therefore claim that's a much better choice...
Another advantage is that Macs run almost all popular software. Say the relative wants to watch a Flash movie or find a podcast, Macs happily do this with few issues. For word processing, iWork is easy to install and use and does most of the basics.
So, they can only be certain to run the most popular software. If they come across some new nifty toy, it may or may not be supported. For someone who's a geek, this isn't a problem as you can hunt out something equivalent, or just not bother. But will that satisfy Dad when he's on the phone asking why the software he wants to run won't Just Work on his Mac?
For loss of data, backups are quite easy with OS X. Plug in an external hard disk, configure Time Machine, walk away.
I hope you don't walk away at that point. I'm curious how Time Machine has made people think that backing up is simply a matter of having your data on two drives rather than one. That's fine for hard disk failures, but doesn't protect against things like fire and theft. There's always a need for backups onto separate media (note that Windows has its own backup software anyway).
greatly decrease any chance of 2am "tech support" calls.
Never had them. Admittedly it's true that I'd be guaranteed of not having to help if they'd got a Mac - as my response to any problems they might have (such as some software they downloaded not being compatible) would be "I dunno, it's a Mac" or "Macs simply can't do that, tough luck, bye".
Why not? Zero IT problems, no viruses. Gets the job done, it Just Works. Better than all that messing around with DOS and Windows 9x.
And my parents and I just run Windows out of the box, and it Just Works fine.
If you're going seriously going to suggest that what paganizer does is necessary or typical, then it's fair game to pick on what Linux users say they have to do to get things working.
(Although I've lost track of the number of times I've asked on Slashdot how to do something in Linux, and, with no hint of sarcasm, the response has been some command. Perhaps things have changed - maybe this year it'll be ready for the desktop?)
I would be upset. ... So the phone is at best useless to most of them and at worst, an additional monthly cost.
Okay, this is just silly. No one would pay the additional monthly cost, if the phone was useless to them. I very much doubt they are forced to pay the fee if they don't want the phone! And even though most people already have a phone, and they can't sell this one, they could, perhaps, sell their old phone.
Yes, the phone might be useless to some, but to others, it's a new $400 phone for free. If you don't like freebies from your company, then chuck them in the bin - but it's nothing to get upset about. I've had freebies that really were useless. We made a joke about it, not get all upset and whine about it to Slashdot.
PS - if anyone wants to "foist" their $400 wares onto me, please feel free. And maybe any "upset" Google employees can give their burden away to people who might be more grateful.
I agree. I wouldn't be complaining about a free $400 phone for xmas. I'm more than happy getting a salary.
And just to add - your techies vs other people is a false dichotomy. There is something special about "techies" and copyright infringement - large numbers of ordinary non-techies copy music and download films.
Techies have a serious communication problem. They believe in free without copyright, right to pirate, etc, etc.
Some do, some don't. Sounds like an over-simplistic straw man.
Techies need to start policing themselves. Yes BitTorrent has a real need, but until these protocols are managed to stop piracy nothing will change.
There are already laws against copyright infringement. The attitude of "You need to police yourselves, or else we'll ban all of it" sounds like a parent or schoolteacher talking to children. It isn't what I expect from a Government, and isn't how laws generally work (or should generally work, in case you wheel out a counter-example of another bad law). Similarly, things should not be blocked simply because someone thinks what you are doing is "potentially illegal" (as with the recent UK example of blocking Wikipedia). We have courts for a reason.
Here is the thing, I hate the drug laws, despise them actually. But I can't go out and start smoking pot because today it is STILL ILLEGAL.... The solution is to legalize pot, not smoke it and yell at the top of my lungs and say how dumb the laws are (they are...) How do I legalize pot? Work with the system and get it legalized.
Perhaps I'm behind the time, but is Bittorrent illegal in Australia then?
If you read all the details of the court case it's quite clear that the 'Nazi' interpretation, even if not legally provable due to the very specific lack of swastikas, was one that would automatically occur to about 95% of people.
Were we reading the same court details? I read the court ruling, where Judge Eady completely demolishes the claims of Nazi allegations, and I entirely agree with him. The "Nazi" claim was based on:
* Many aspects that had no more in common with Nazi camps than any other prison scenes (e.g., striped uniforms). Are all prison fantasies about Nazi death camps? Of course not. Such things are common in S&M role-play, and do not entail Nazism. And in fact, the uniforms had horizontal stripes, where as concentration camp prisoners typically wore uniforms with vertical stripes. "Pictures were also produced to show a group of people running in the recent London Marathon wearing prison costumes. These too had horizontal stripes; yet no-one would imagine that they were in any way making reference to concentration camps or mocking their victims"
* They wore German uniforms and some of them spoke German. But they were not Nazi uniforms - the assumption was that because they were role-playing a German scene, it must have been Nazism, which if nothing else is offensive to Germans, and is typical the soft of racist behaviour you get from tabloids. As pointed out in the ruling, the point is to be interrogated in a language that is unfamiliar to the submissive, adding to the sense of helplessness. "the language is perceived as having a harsh and guttural sound and is thought to be more suitable for use by those playing a dominant role in S and M scenarios than (say) French or Italian. Apparently Russian might have also been suitable, but unfortunately none of the participants spoke Russian." But no - people like you and the NOTW jerk their knees, and accuse them of Nazism.
* The most laughable claim was that it was Nazism because Mosley was "shaved". If you check your history books, you will see that concentration camp victims had their heads shaved. Mosley had his bottom shaved. Thus, you either have not read the court details for yourself, or you are incapable of telling your head from your arse.
Also, the News Of the World's star witness concerning the 'Nazi' interpretation mysteriously withdrew at the last minute; up until this point it looked like NOTW was probably going to win.
Oh dear, my heart bleeds. What shocking evidence did this "star witness" have? Anyway, this was an invasion of privacy trial, not a libel trial. The court ruled his privacy was wrongly invaded, and I find it hard to believe how anyone could think otherwise. (If you do, send in a picture of yourself having sex, for the NOTW to profit from.)
Obviously this strange and unexplained withdrawl had *nothing* to do with the fact that Mosley is a *very* rich and powerful man.
Ah, it seems that defenders of libel like to make libellous claims themselves. Yes, because obviously the NOTW is such a poor and not-powerful defendant! (Usually the tabloids take on individuals who are unable to fight back - the only difference this time is they picked on someone who was able to fight back.)
But that's all that many news organisations do these days! Just copy and paste from one of the news outlets, and maybe write their own biased editorial over it. At least information transmitted by blogs don't have as much individual power over people. Also, IME, the fact that bloggers point to others' content means at least they are citing their sources - something that is almost unheard of by media organisations.
Plus there is more opportunity to find out more information in the comments - look at Slashdot, where people will often point out if a story is misleading.
It may seem cool to get your news from bloggers but they aren't news sources they just voice opinions they aren't held to any standards.
Ha! It may seem cool to get your news from tabloids but they aren't news sources they just voice opinions they aren't held to any standards.
Really - I don't know if objective news is a dying thing, or if it's always been this way, but the amount of misinformation, bias, scaremongering and outright harrassment out there is appalling. Recently in the UK, we had the News Of The World secretly filming private sexual acts, then putting it on their website for profit, as well as making libellous false allegations about Nazism - when understandably they were successfully sued for invasion of privacy, we have the news media whinging about their supposed freedom and how important they all were.
Even non-tabloids aren't immune to this. Objective news went a long time before the Internet came along, if it ever existed at all (how would I know? Am I supposed to trust you, an anonymous commenter to a blog?) - and the Internet at least makes it easier for me to check out things from various different sources.
The founding fathers were concerned about freedom of speech, as I am too. That doesn't mean that people are entitled to be heard - if newspapers die because no one chooses to buy them, then that is not a freedom of speech issue. I certainly won't be shedding a tear.
Bacteria aren't human. Killing them is about as wrong as killing other non-human creatures that aren't remotely endangered.
I agree that a criterion based solely on being "human" is a poor definition - personally I would judge it on other things, such as sentience.
Living cells die, yes. But they aren't zygotes.
So? You are the one who stated that being "life" is important.
So there was an poor choice of terms. You are just being pedantic.
Which terms? I have no problem with your choice in terms. If you can rephrase so that your claims make sense, please do.
I knew a girl that was going to be identical twins, but the two merged back together into a singe fetus. I'd say they are capable of being a single entity, although at some point they will be separate for too long to recombine.
So if you have several identical-DNA embryos, it would be okay to terminate all but one, because they are "capable of being" a single entity?
And what about sperm and egg, which have different DNA - these should be different entities, and thus it is wrong to terminate them, according to your logic?