Well said - it's worrying how many people in favour of this law do not actually understand this. They argue that such images are illegal because they are offensive to look at, and therefore these "violent" images should be treated the same.
As well as being outright insulting to those adults who like such images, this is an insult to those who have suffered from child abuse. Apparentely their abuse isn't actually the problem - we only care what sort of images people look at.
It may not be pandering to the tabloids, but it's still pandering to a vocal minority who are basing their arguments not on evidence, but a single case (and even that single case is dubious).
There has also been much grassroots opposition - in fact, the majority of responses to the consultation opposed the changes. But let's not care about the people who have actually read the consultation and considered the arguments, when we can get loads of people to sign a biasedly-worded petition.
It's also worth noting that the consultation response suggests many of those opposing actually want all porn banned (or tighter controls on it). The Government would never pander to this, but for some reason it thinks it's okay to do so for "extreme" images, simply because it can get away with doing so.
It's a lot better than it could have been (originally the proposal was for violence on the level of GBH, which is rather undefined and left up to the courts to decide).
But as well as including simulations/fake material as the other reply suggested, note the word "likely" - how likely is likely? It's one thing to talk about images showing actual serious disabling image, but another to say that things could go wrong and injury could occur.
Images of breathplay between consenting adults for example could easily be covered by this law.
Can't you get monitors with speakers? And someone already pointed out about USB, so that just leaves the monitor to plug in.
Well yeah, that's true. But put it this way, for years home computers such as the Amiga had the keyboard built-in, but for all the advantages people might have tried to advocate for that platform, I never heard anyone say "Well, you don't have to plug the keyboard in, that makes it more user-friendly".
Why is it that an operating system has to have a real shell to be productive?
I do love the irony... for years Macs are without any shell whatsoever, and apparentely that's more productive. But now all of a sudden, when the MacOS finally gets a shell, it's suddenly important;)
(Yes I know, it's fine to judge OSs on what they are now rather than what they are... but it does make you question how serious those people are when they claim things are/aren't important, when they've done so many U-turns over the years.)
None of them care too much about being 'cool', and have made informed decisions about what computer platform is best for them - and all of them (ALL OF THEM) use a Mac.
Perhaps he was going a bit too far the other way with his stereotyping, but I think the point is clear that you can't generalise on what sort of people use what sort of computer. I.e., the OP was wrong in his claim that creative people in general use Macs and they also dress "cool" rather than "boring" (honestly, this is like being back at school with all the "being cool"...)
I don't know everyone's jumping on this guy, and not questioning the obvious stereotyping in the OP...
(And yeah, I wear glasses by the way. Some people value being able to see over "coolness"; what is this, back at school?)
I agree with you - the OP you replied to was blatent troll/flamebait, but it's rather shocking that instead you and the other reply get modded down...
Even if mods thought you were wrong to imply that so few "creative types" use Macs based on anecdotal evidence, the point is that clearly the OP was also wrong to do so. In that case, it was fair game to reply saying something along the lines of "Actually, I know many creative types who don't use Macs".
These ads never say anything about "Windows." They talk about PC-vs-Mac. What they are talking about is not Windows per se, but the experience of running a non-Mac PC for most users. Most users don't understand the difference between Windows, PC hardware, add-ons from OEMs, and Microsoft Office. In their minds, it's all the same thing.
These ads play on that fact. Whether that's fair or unfair is another question entirely.
I agree, and they also do so inconsistently - remember the "fastest PC" and "first 64 bit PC" ads? Then it was okay for a Mac to be a PC (though oddly, all the previous 64 bit PCs for some reason weren't PCs), but since the switch to x86, it seems they've gone back to the big distinction between "Macs and PCs".
Actually, it points out what people already know: Corporations and businesses use Windows PCs. Windows for many is Word and Excel.
Not really relevant, unless we've skipped back 20 years. Back then, PCs were dominant in business, but not in the home market which was taken up by many other types of computers. But now it's different - Windows PCs are dominant in the home too. It seems a bit weak (and outdated) to me to still try to portray them as business machines only. And that strategy didn't work in the 80s/90s when PCs started to become more popular in homes, so I don't see why it will work now.
The Mac is being shown in the light of being a computer for your home life, far away from spreadsheets and Active Directory, where your photos, home movies, and music play a much stronger role, and showing ease-of-use for doing nice things with that media.
Yeah, all the things people use PCs for. People may use PCs at work for "Word and Excel", but that's not all they use them for.
makes you think that the general public would not be concerned if scientists have redefined the meaning of a planet? It's scientists who should not care about changing the definition of a planet. The general public cares a great deal, as these scientists are redefining their culture.
Well, is the scientists' primary concern what terminology they use, or just redefining it for popular culture? If the latter, I would agree, but if the former, I don't think that should be overridden by popular culture; who cares that some non-scientists insist Pluto should be a planet?
Should scientific changes really not be made, if it affects popular culture?
But still, my point remains: Yes, people don't have to travel, but I believe we should be able to, and I object to restrictions placed on those who wish to travel. It's all very well people saying "But they don't have a right to enter the country", but I may wish people to come visit me, and I may also not wish to be subject to these measures by my own Government when I leave or reenter the country.
You said it was a violation of one's privacy. Regardless if the person did have such material on their laptop and the officer believed he individual would spread it the person should be denied entrance to the country, after all entrance to a foreign country is not a right.
I am not addressing whether it is right or wrong to look at their laptop - the point is that even if we believe it is right, the contents of that laptop are still not public, so I don't see how it can be considered hate speech. There are some things that are only illegal if done in public - e.g., sex or nudity; if police burst down your door and find sex or nudity, then even if they have every right to do so and we decide it isn't a violation of privacy, that does not suddenly make it a public event, and mean they can arrest you for sex/nudity in public!
Customs agents have been pulling people aside for suspicion of contraband way before any war on terror this has nothing to do with any war on terror. I don't understand why you keep playing that card.
There have been numerous new security changes since 9/11, all in the name of fighting terrorism, which can end up being used for other things. Yes I realise there was security before then - were the Government open back then that any new security measures weren't actually for hijackers etc, but instead were just to fish for porn?
I am not following are you saying you should be able to complain if you are investigated for a crime you committed?
No, I am saying we shouldn't be searching everyone fishing for random crime, just like it would be wrong to search everyone's home just on the off-chance.
I mean, if someone searched your home and found evidence of a crime, are you saying you shoul be able to complain for being investigated for a crime you committed? If not, you think that searching everyone's houses and computers is okay?
At any point you can say fuck you and go home.
I am a citizen too, and if I want someone to visit, I can say fuck you and keep your eyes out of their private life. Also, security measures apply to those who are citizens of that particular country. Or perhaps we can debate without resorting to xenophobia and personal insults.
Or perhaps they can do their job and ensure contraband does not enter the country and leave security to those who's job it is ensure.
Right. And don't be surprised when there are people (yes, citizens and taxpayers, with just as much right to a say as you) object to such people and their jobs, as they have been doing so in this thread.
What if I dissolve (without a prescription) methadone tablets in my water bottle prior to crossing the border in order fool the border guards? You know your bags may be checked. You know you will be asked questions when crossing the border. How are the contents of one's laptop any more private then one's luggage? Myself I don't bring anything that may be illegal in the country I am traveling to and if I am unsure I check.
I didn't question the privacy, I asked how it can be hate speech in the first place. Drugs are illegal whether or not they are hidden; I was saying that surely illegal hate speech much be published or distributed to others in some way by its definition?
Sure he got the full treatment but he got nothing that someone who an agent had a feeling about might get.
I know that, but I was questioning the system in general. Increased checks are brought in on the basis of combatting terrorism, yet they are used to enforce drugs or even people's private sex life. Is that right? is what I am asking. Shouldn't the Government at least be upfront about what any new security procedures are going to be used for, rather than going "Blah blah War on Terrorrr"?
There is a big difference between being search on the border and choosing to take that risk anyway and being forced to a search with no aspect of choice. There is a world of difference between the two.
In some contexts, yes, but I was arguing against the principle of "If it's illegal, you shouldn't complain if they investigate and charge you for it".
The problem is a customs agent has nothing to do with flying planes or even largely secuirty their job is to allow or deny people into the country. The job of security falls to border guards not customs agents.
Then perhaps we should have more people to deal with security instead of more to browse through people's porn collections?
Does it count has hate speech even when you aren't publishing it to anyone? I can't see it's what people would think of as "hate speech" when you only find it by violating someone's privacy. What if it's encrypted, and hence not even readable?
Anyway, whether or not certain things are illegal though - should security measures brought in supposedly to combat terrorism (e.g., making sure it's a working laptop, not a bomb) be used to search people for every other possible violation (e.g., they have a picture of their girlfriend in some kinky situation which happens to be illegal under the country's authoritarian laws, even though that person never intended to distribute the image to anyone)?
I mean, if the Government decided that everybody's houses had to be searched, and everyone's computers searched, I'd imagine many would oppose it, whether or not they were only after the technically illegal material.
Maybe if security kept to security rather than harrassing and locking people up for naughty images of consensual sex, or having speech the Government disapproves of, maybe we'd actually have a chance of safer flying?
Isn't it implicitly sexist to make such a big deal out of the first woman in space? Unless we're going to have stories over the first green eyed person in space and the first left hander etc. ad nauseam. Why pick this person out as exceptional?
Just like how we wouldn't term the rocks in planet rings moons, even though, to my knowledge, there's no definition in terms of size.
Although it's interesting that we don't seem to have a proper definition of "moon" other than being a natural satellite of a larger object. In fact, the same problem is occurring as more and more "moons" are discovered - for example, 45 of Jupiter's 63 moons was discovered since 2000, and includes "moons" only 1 km across! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter's_natural_sat ellites )
I wonder if they are going to redefine "moon" at some point and demote many of these moons? If not, I wonder why it's acceptable to have lots of tiny moons, but not planets?
The facts of the world here in fact have not changed. Only nomenclature has.
Right. So why is anyone bothered that scientists have now defined the meaning of planet, and it doesn't include Pluto? The facts of the world haven't changed.
The idea of planets is really only meaningful in the political or cultural sphere, since it's more interesting to say that we are going to send man to another planet than to just another random rock.
So no one cared that we sent men to that lump of rock known as the moon, because it isn't a planet?
I can see your points and generally agree, but I fail to see what my post had to do with being on a high horse. My point was that people do not view copyright infringement as theft (whether or not they view copyright infringement as wrong in itself). You see to agree with me by providing examples where people do it all the time (unless you're saying that singing Happy Birthday is equivalent to looting a shop). Nowhere in my post did I say that some forms of copyright infringement are okay, and others aren't.
As for your examples - well, it's actually Slashdot that are performing the redistribution of my text, and it would be hard for me to claim I didn't intend them to have my permission when I posted the information on the site. As for the second example, I think that any sensible copyright laws should have fair use provisions, that include at the least non-commercial singing of a song.
Well, actually any sensible copyright law wouldn't let a song written 71 years ago, and when the authors are long dead, still be under copyright...
She is arguing that video ratings need to be rethought, for instance that games should be actually played before they are designated 'violence free'. Writing off violence just because it is cartoon violence doesn't really cut it, since young children can be affected by cartoons as well as real life.
This is something that I've wondered about with cartoons in general - the cartoons I watched were full of violence (albeit in a comical fashion), and in some sense it was worse: it's showing violence as something fun, and doesn't at all show any consequences of violence (the character just gets back up again).
Not that I think cartoons should be banned, but it's odd that people only go after things based on realism, when it's not clear how that is more likely to cause a child to become violent, compared to the meaning being given in the film.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said - it's worrying how many people in favour of this law do not actually understand this. They argue that such images are illegal because they are offensive to look at, and therefore these "violent" images should be treated the same.
As well as being outright insulting to those adults who like such images, this is an insult to those who have suffered from child abuse. Apparentely their abuse isn't actually the problem - we only care what sort of images people look at.
It may not be pandering to the tabloids, but it's still pandering to a vocal minority who are basing their arguments not on evidence, but a single case (and even that single case is dubious).
There has also been much grassroots opposition - in fact, the majority of responses to the consultation opposed the changes. But let's not care about the people who have actually read the consultation and considered the arguments, when we can get loads of people to sign a biasedly-worded petition.
It's also worth noting that the consultation response suggests many of those opposing actually want all porn banned (or tighter controls on it). The Government would never pander to this, but for some reason it thinks it's okay to do so for "extreme" images, simply because it can get away with doing so.
It's a lot better than it could have been (originally the proposal was for violence on the level of GBH, which is rather undefined and left up to the courts to decide).
But as well as including simulations/fake material as the other reply suggested, note the word "likely" - how likely is likely? It's one thing to talk about images showing actual serious disabling image, but another to say that things could go wrong and injury could occur.
Images of breathplay between consenting adults for example could easily be covered by this law.
Violent pornography hurts poeple so it should be illegal
Let's be clear here - this law will cover acts between consenting adults and images which are merely "realistic depictions".
Here in America, we are allowed to do what we want. It's not too different from England.
Actually the US Supreme Court ruled that fake child porn was legal under Freedom of Speech, and I suspect this law would be struck down too.
This law is a perfect example that sometimes people do have things to hide, even though they are causing harm to no one.
Can't you get monitors with speakers? And someone already pointed out about USB, so that just leaves the monitor to plug in.
Well yeah, that's true. But put it this way, for years home computers such as the Amiga had the keyboard built-in, but for all the advantages people might have tried to advocate for that platform, I never heard anyone say "Well, you don't have to plug the keyboard in, that makes it more user-friendly".
Why is it that an operating system has to have a real shell to be productive?
... for years Macs are without any shell whatsoever, and apparentely that's more productive. But now all of a sudden, when the MacOS finally gets a shell, it's suddenly important ;)
... but it does make you question how serious those people are when they claim things are/aren't important, when they've done so many U-turns over the years.)
I do love the irony
(Yes I know, it's fine to judge OSs on what they are now rather than what they are
None of them care too much about being 'cool', and have made informed decisions about what computer platform is best for them - and all of them (ALL OF THEM) use a Mac.
Perhaps he was going a bit too far the other way with his stereotyping, but I think the point is clear that you can't generalise on what sort of people use what sort of computer. I.e., the OP was wrong in his claim that creative people in general use Macs and they also dress "cool" rather than "boring" (honestly, this is like being back at school with all the "being cool"...)
I don't know everyone's jumping on this guy, and not questioning the obvious stereotyping in the OP...
(And yeah, I wear glasses by the way. Some people value being able to see over "coolness"; what is this, back at school?)
I agree with you - the OP you replied to was blatent troll/flamebait, but it's rather shocking that instead you and the other reply get modded down...
Even if mods thought you were wrong to imply that so few "creative types" use Macs based on anecdotal evidence, the point is that clearly the OP was also wrong to do so. In that case, it was fair game to reply saying something along the lines of "Actually, I know many creative types who don't use Macs".
These ads never say anything about "Windows." They talk about PC-vs-Mac. What they are talking about is not Windows per se, but the experience of running a non-Mac PC for most users. Most users don't understand the difference between Windows, PC hardware, add-ons from OEMs, and Microsoft Office. In their minds, it's all the same thing.
These ads play on that fact. Whether that's fair or unfair is another question entirely.
I agree, and they also do so inconsistently - remember the "fastest PC" and "first 64 bit PC" ads? Then it was okay for a Mac to be a PC (though oddly, all the previous 64 bit PCs for some reason weren't PCs), but since the switch to x86, it seems they've gone back to the big distinction between "Macs and PCs".
Actually, it points out what people already know: Corporations and businesses use Windows PCs. Windows for many is Word and Excel.
Not really relevant, unless we've skipped back 20 years. Back then, PCs were dominant in business, but not in the home market which was taken up by many other types of computers. But now it's different - Windows PCs are dominant in the home too. It seems a bit weak (and outdated) to me to still try to portray them as business machines only. And that strategy didn't work in the 80s/90s when PCs started to become more popular in homes, so I don't see why it will work now.
The Mac is being shown in the light of being a computer for your home life, far away from spreadsheets and Active Directory, where your photos, home movies, and music play a much stronger role, and showing ease-of-use for doing nice things with that media.
Yeah, all the things people use PCs for. People may use PCs at work for "Word and Excel", but that's not all they use them for.
makes you think that the general public would not be concerned if scientists have redefined the meaning of a planet? It's scientists who should not care about changing the definition of a planet. The general public cares a great deal, as these scientists are redefining their culture.
Well, is the scientists' primary concern what terminology they use, or just redefining it for popular culture? If the latter, I would agree, but if the former, I don't think that should be overridden by popular culture; who cares that some non-scientists insist Pluto should be a planet?
Should scientific changes really not be made, if it affects popular culture?
Interesting ... I wonder if they read people's private diaries, and prosecute if they find anything they don't like there?
I mean, I can't believe people would think that fair, but this is what it's equivalent to, surely.
At any point you can say fuck you and go home.
;)
Sorry, I misread that bit in my reply
But still, my point remains: Yes, people don't have to travel, but I believe we should be able to, and I object to restrictions placed on those who wish to travel. It's all very well people saying "But they don't have a right to enter the country", but I may wish people to come visit me, and I may also not wish to be subject to these measures by my own Government when I leave or reenter the country.
You said it was a violation of one's privacy. Regardless if the person did have such material on their laptop and the officer believed he individual would spread it the person should be denied entrance to the country, after all entrance to a foreign country is not a right.
I am not addressing whether it is right or wrong to look at their laptop - the point is that even if we believe it is right, the contents of that laptop are still not public, so I don't see how it can be considered hate speech. There are some things that are only illegal if done in public - e.g., sex or nudity; if police burst down your door and find sex or nudity, then even if they have every right to do so and we decide it isn't a violation of privacy, that does not suddenly make it a public event, and mean they can arrest you for sex/nudity in public!
Customs agents have been pulling people aside for suspicion of contraband way before any war on terror this has nothing to do with any war on terror. I don't understand why you keep playing that card.
There have been numerous new security changes since 9/11, all in the name of fighting terrorism, which can end up being used for other things. Yes I realise there was security before then - were the Government open back then that any new security measures weren't actually for hijackers etc, but instead were just to fish for porn?
I am not following are you saying you should be able to complain if you are investigated for a crime you committed?
No, I am saying we shouldn't be searching everyone fishing for random crime, just like it would be wrong to search everyone's home just on the off-chance.
I mean, if someone searched your home and found evidence of a crime, are you saying you shoul be able to complain for being investigated for a crime you committed? If not, you think that searching everyone's houses and computers is okay?
At any point you can say fuck you and go home.
I am a citizen too, and if I want someone to visit, I can say fuck you and keep your eyes out of their private life. Also, security measures apply to those who are citizens of that particular country. Or perhaps we can debate without resorting to xenophobia and personal insults.
Or perhaps they can do their job and ensure contraband does not enter the country and leave security to those who's job it is ensure.
Right. And don't be surprised when there are people (yes, citizens and taxpayers, with just as much right to a say as you) object to such people and their jobs, as they have been doing so in this thread.
What if I dissolve (without a prescription) methadone tablets in my water bottle prior to crossing the border in order fool the border guards? You know your bags may be checked. You know you will be asked questions when crossing the border. How are the contents of one's laptop any more private then one's luggage? Myself I don't bring anything that may be illegal in the country I am traveling to and if I am unsure I check.
I didn't question the privacy, I asked how it can be hate speech in the first place. Drugs are illegal whether or not they are hidden; I was saying that surely illegal hate speech much be published or distributed to others in some way by its definition?
Sure he got the full treatment but he got nothing that someone who an agent had a feeling about might get.
I know that, but I was questioning the system in general. Increased checks are brought in on the basis of combatting terrorism, yet they are used to enforce drugs or even people's private sex life. Is that right? is what I am asking. Shouldn't the Government at least be upfront about what any new security procedures are going to be used for, rather than going "Blah blah War on Terrorrr"?
There is a big difference between being search on the border and choosing to take that risk anyway and being forced to a search with no aspect of choice. There is a world of difference between the two.
In some contexts, yes, but I was arguing against the principle of "If it's illegal, you shouldn't complain if they investigate and charge you for it".
The problem is a customs agent has nothing to do with flying planes or even largely secuirty their job is to allow or deny people into the country. The job of security falls to border guards not customs agents.
Then perhaps we should have more people to deal with security instead of more to browse through people's porn collections?
But propaganda and incitement implies some kind of publication or other way of targetting the message towards people.
How is a message on someone's hard drive doing any of this?
Does it count has hate speech even when you aren't publishing it to anyone? I can't see it's what people would think of as "hate speech" when you only find it by violating someone's privacy. What if it's encrypted, and hence not even readable?
Anyway, whether or not certain things are illegal though - should security measures brought in supposedly to combat terrorism (e.g., making sure it's a working laptop, not a bomb) be used to search people for every other possible violation (e.g., they have a picture of their girlfriend in some kinky situation which happens to be illegal under the country's authoritarian laws, even though that person never intended to distribute the image to anyone)?
I mean, if the Government decided that everybody's houses had to be searched, and everyone's computers searched, I'd imagine many would oppose it, whether or not they were only after the technically illegal material.
Maybe if security kept to security rather than harrassing and locking people up for naughty images of consensual sex, or having speech the Government disapproves of, maybe we'd actually have a chance of safer flying?
A train or a supermarket or a road junction or the airport checkin area would be as good a target for just killing people.
In particular, in an airport right by those long queues of people waiting to go through the extensive security checks...
Isn't it implicitly sexist to make such a big deal out of the first woman in space? Unless we're going to have stories over the first green eyed person in space and the first left hander etc. ad nauseam. Why pick this person out as exceptional?
0 1/1625202 ).
I take your point in general - but it doesn't apply to Slashdot, which appears to have covered previous space tourists anyway (e.g., see http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/
Has there been vastly more media coverage over this because she's female? I haven't really noticed that.
Just like how we wouldn't term the rocks in planet rings moons, even though, to my knowledge, there's no definition in terms of size.
t ellites )
Although it's interesting that we don't seem to have a proper definition of "moon" other than being a natural satellite of a larger object. In fact, the same problem is occurring as more and more "moons" are discovered - for example, 45 of Jupiter's 63 moons was discovered since 2000, and includes "moons" only 1 km across! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter's_natural_sa
I wonder if they are going to redefine "moon" at some point and demote many of these moons? If not, I wonder why it's acceptable to have lots of tiny moons, but not planets?
Define a planet as 'one of the nine classical planets, or any body meeting the following definition' ....
And why not "and Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, and Juno" too? We can't break with tradition now can we, they were once planets.
Urectum?
The facts of the world here in fact have not changed. Only nomenclature has.
Right. So why is anyone bothered that scientists have now defined the meaning of planet, and it doesn't include Pluto? The facts of the world haven't changed.
The idea of planets is really only meaningful in the political or cultural sphere, since it's more interesting to say that we are going to send man to another planet than to just another random rock.
So no one cared that we sent men to that lump of rock known as the moon, because it isn't a planet?
So get off your high "I don't steal music" horse.
Eh, what?
I can see your points and generally agree, but I fail to see what my post had to do with being on a high horse. My point was that people do not view copyright infringement as theft (whether or not they view copyright infringement as wrong in itself). You see to agree with me by providing examples where people do it all the time (unless you're saying that singing Happy Birthday is equivalent to looting a shop). Nowhere in my post did I say that some forms of copyright infringement are okay, and others aren't.
As for your examples - well, it's actually Slashdot that are performing the redistribution of my text, and it would be hard for me to claim I didn't intend them to have my permission when I posted the information on the site. As for the second example, I think that any sensible copyright laws should have fair use provisions, that include at the least non-commercial singing of a song.
Well, actually any sensible copyright law wouldn't let a song written 71 years ago, and when the authors are long dead, still be under copyright...
She is arguing that video ratings need to be rethought, for instance that games should be actually played before they are designated 'violence free'. Writing off violence just because it is cartoon violence doesn't really cut it, since young children can be affected by cartoons as well as real life.
This is something that I've wondered about with cartoons in general - the cartoons I watched were full of violence (albeit in a comical fashion), and in some sense it was worse: it's showing violence as something fun, and doesn't at all show any consequences of violence (the character just gets back up again).
Not that I think cartoons should be banned, but it's odd that people only go after things based on realism, when it's not clear how that is more likely to cause a child to become violent, compared to the meaning being given in the film.