... nobody I have every heard is saying that billions of computers out there are going to run out of MAC addresses to give out soon...
MAC addresses don't need to be globally unique as they are only used to identify interfaces on the local network. Once you pass through a router the original MAC address becomes irrelevant. If you have anywhere near 2**48 (~280 trillion) network cards in a single subnet you really need to rethink your network topology; running out of MAC addresses should be the least of your worries.
Like IPv6 addresses, MAC addresses have this many bits so that some bits can be reserved for a manufacturer code (IPv6 network prefixes for sane routing) while the rest are randomly assigned to minimize the chance of a collision. For that to work there need to be many more possible addresses than actual devices.
With IPv6, all new owners can talk to the old owners.... Top sites like youtube, google, facebook and maybe even windows update with reserved IPv4 address isn't just going to magically lose it. They'll shuffle less important services to IPv6 the day they are forced to exceed their IPv4 allocation.
Actually, IPv6-only hosts can't talk effectively with IPv4-only hosts. Any IPv6 host can send packets to IPv4 hosts at will, since the IPv4 address space is a subset of IPv6, but the reverse is not true—an IPv4-only host is incapable of addressing IPv6 hosts for the replies. Servers will require dual IP stacks: IPv4 addresses for IPv4-only clients, and IPv6 addresses for IPv6-only clients. Major sites will keep their current IPv4 allocations, but they will need to add support for IPv6 now, alongside IPv4, not later when their IPv4 allocation runs out.
There is just no reason to run IPv6 on an internal network unless you need some specific function of IPv6 on your internal network....
Like the ability to connect to external IPv6 hosts? Granted, there aren't many now, but if you have reason to accept incoming IPv6 connections you probably have reason to make outgoing IPv6 connections as well. Unless, of course, all your outgoing traffic is proxied, in which you may only need IPv6 for the proxy server.
Nothing in this proposed legislation... would apply to truly private facilities, including "private websites." However, if your website (or physical facility) offers what is referred to as "public accommodation"... then it would have to comply.
Anything owned by a private individual or organization is truly private. The "public accommodation" doctrine is just a fancy way to seize private property for public use (eminent domain) without paying the Constitutionally-mandated compensation.
you'd rather help them fake out the analyzer rather than taking the wheel yourself
I imaging any sort of interlock device would prevent you from driving normally just as much as the vehicle's owner. Ergo, even if you were to take the wheel, you'd still have to fake out the analyzer.
Govt. policies tend to be better for consumers......than policies set by monopolists or duopolists.
Impossible. The government itself is a monopoly, of the worst sort: a monopoly on coercion. Government policies are policies set by monopolists, and infinitely more destructive than anything a private monopoly could accomplish.
Translation: because a sweatshop is better than living in a ditch, it's okay to run sweatshops.
In short, yes. If you've got a problem with that, offer something better. Agitating for the so-called sweatshops to be closed without replacing them with better labor conditions can only result in driving the sweatshop's former employees back to "living in a ditch", or whatever they were actually doing before they decided to go work for the sweatshop. Do you think they would be working there if there was already better work available? You are not helping them at all by arguing for the prohibition of the best offer of employment they have.
It's not voluntary unless your freedom and property rights are respected. If you're prohibited from competing, or from moving to another area, or are threatened with assault or loss of property for refusing to work, then the work is not voluntary. Most sweatshops deserving of the name fall into this category.
On the other hand, if it's a simple matter of there being no other employers close by, with no coercion involved, then the work is voluntary and prohibiting it can only make those who choose such employment worse off. If you don't consider that a reasonable choice, feel free to offer something better out of your own resources.
I assume you won't mind a couple of guys named Mahmoud and Ahmed having a nuclear bomb in New York City, right?
This is a tiresomely common pseudo-argument against the 2nd Amendment, but the solution is quite simple. Anyone can possess, or even use, a nuclear/chemical/biological weapon or equivalent—but if you bring it within range of another person without their knowledge and permission it should be treated no differently than if you had pointed a gun in their face, as doing so places them under threat of eminent and irreversible harm. They would be entitled to respond in self-defense, lethally if necessary. Bringing such a weapon into a populated area without announcing one's intentions and somehow proving that the weapon is not a threat would thus be an effective form of suicide.
No offense, but when the justification for something ceases to exist, that thing is no longer justifiable.
No offense taken, but you're wrong. Removal of one justification does not necessarily make something unjustifiable. Note that most amendments do not state any justification at all; that does not make them invalid. So militias are no longer so major an issue as they were when the amendment was first written; so what? That does not invalidate the core of the amendment, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
With very few exceptions, the US Constitution is not intended to limit what individual states can do. That's why each state has its own constitution governing its own behavior. Personally, I'm opposed to states limiting gun ownership, but I wouldn't go about enforcing that by granting even greater power to the federal government to override state laws. That approach is ultimately self-destructive; power must be curtailed from the top down, not concentrated upward. Or, to put it another way, if one permits the federal government to micromanage the states, it becomes difficult to argue against the states micromanaging their citizens in turn.
Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, the need for militias is merely the justification for guaranteeing that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. One absolutely does not need to be part of a militia to have and exercise that right.
Anyway, the 2nd amendment is completely redundant, like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to prohibit ownership or non-aggressive use of any kind of weapon in the first place. Given that they needed an amendment to ban alcohol, they would certainly need one to ban guns (or drugs or anything else not specifically mentioned among their enumerated powers).
There is ZERO reason to use worthless tests like these as opposed to using real identification. That is instead of using computer generated difficult test, use actual pictures of actual 'difficult text' that an OCR agent failed to identify. Each person is given one alread tested sample and one unknown sample. If you get the already tested sample, then your answer is accepted as 'probable' correct for the unknown sample.
Congratulations, you've just described ReCAPTCHA! This is exactly how the current system works.
I've heard people argue that World War II was good for the economy, and I think that's a more obvious version of this fallacy.
Not necessarily. Sure, if all else were equal, WWII would be clearly nothing but pure dead-weight loss, economically. However, not all else was equal. The time from the start of the Great Depression (a bit earlier, actually) to WWII was full of unprecedented interference in the market, for example, which WWII distracted them from. More importantly, after WWII the US was just about the only industrialized country to emerge with its infrastructure intact—and thus held an effective monopoly on large-scale production while the other nations rebuilt (driving a heightened demand for exports, no less). Something like that can only benefit the local economy.
War is never good for the economy as a whole, but it is possible for some to profit by it, at others' expense. Consider the Broken Window scenario from the point-of-view of the glassmaker, for example, or a contractor who installs windows. Still a net economic loss, but personally profitable nonetheless.
Instead of running around believing that all "gubmint" is bad, find the actual bad parts, and cut them out.
The "actual bad parts", the root of the problem, is the legitimization of aggression, without which the government cannot exist. The rest, corruption and bad laws and a bias toward putting sociopaths in positions of power—these are just the symptoms. One cannot remove the "actual bad parts" without eliminating government itself.
The actual constitution says the People shall not be subject to unreasonable searches unless a warrant is obtained.
No, the actual constitution says the People shall not be subject to unreasonable searches, and thus (in order to ensure this) no searches shall take place without a specific warrant. How "reasonable" the search is has nothing to do with the requirement for a warrant.
Of course, actual freedom from unreasonable searches—as determined by an actual court, not the person initiating the search—would crimp the enforcers' style, so the warrant requirement is routinely overlooked.
Yes, yes. I'm aware of HTML spacing conventions. My point was simply that single spaces have become a de facto standard, used in practice even by those who express support for two spaces, and we appear to have adapted to it just fine. Ergo, the extra spaces are simply redundant.
Persistent non-ownership is impossible. Whoever exercises the rights associated with ownership becomes the owner—this is how property gets created in the first place. If you own your own body then everyone else is answerable to you for interfering in your use of it (more typically known as assault, kidnapping, et al.). If someone else owns your body then you are answerable to them for any use, i.e. you have no real freedom. If no one owned it then you would be answerable to no one for using it, and in doing so you would acquire self-ownership via homesteading. In practice, of course, the use of one's body begins well before birth, and cannot be forfeited in practice by any act of will, so ownership of one's body is considered both self-evident and inalienable.
A trust or guardianship is a delegated (agent/principal) position wherein you manage property for someone else. It is no different from the second scenario wherein someone else owns you, which is neatly illustrated by your example. If someone else can acquire the right to lock you up in a mental hospital by declaring you insane and a danger to yourself, then your freedom is subject to their whim. In a free society sanity must be taken as a given until and unless the individual voluntarily forfeits the protection of the law by disavowing personal responsibility for their actions (i.e. pleading insanity).
Therein lies the problem: If it's impossible to prove, it's religion.
That's backward. It's a religion if it's impossible to disprove. In science you can perform experiments to either disprove the hypothesis, or confirm it for the specific conditions involved in the experiment. You can never prove the hypothesis; at most you can show that your model holds for a given set of conditions. The more robust it is against varying conditions the more likely it is to be generally useful, though you can always run into conditions you hadn't yet tested for which the model does not hold. That is how progress is made.
Anyway, the real question isn't whether the climate is changing, or whether the change is man-made or natural. These are questions to be researched dispassionately by experts. The questions we need to answer are these: If climate change does occur, what will the effects be? What can we do about it? What should we do about it?
For myself, I am persuaded that the climate is changing, and that the cause most likely has a human component. I am less convinced that the outcome will be a significant threat to the human population of the planet, particularly in the "first world". I am absolutely opposed to any "solution" which depends on aggression, which is pretty much anything political in nature: cap & trade, carbon taxes, gas taxes, efficiency regulations, etc. I would support stricter enforcement of property rights against polluters, although it's difficult to argue direct harm from CO2 per se. (Smog, acid rain, and so on are a different matter.)
The real problem is that the climate and the atmosphere (and the oceans) are huge commons, and we have no obvious way of partitioning them or otherwise enforcing ownership of and responsibility for specific regions, even on a national scale. Perhaps technological advances can help with that. For all I know, perhaps humans of the future will live in domed cities; that's a possible solution, albeit not an ideal one. I'm open to better suggestions. For now we're left with the only non-aggressive approach there is for such commons: peer pressure.
Given that the existence of UFOs (unidentified objects in the sky) is a documented fact, I'm going to assume they used a more specific term like "extraterrestrial visitors to Earth". Given that:
It's not hard to conceive of a situation where someone would disbelieve in actual alien visitors and still believe that the government was hiding information relating to them—or more accurately, to reported sightings, which is still related even if there are no real aliens coming to Earth. Honestly, I'm surprised the numbers weren't far higher. I'd find it difficult to believe that they wouldn't attempt to suppress or discredit at least some UFO sightings where the UFOs actually turn out to be some classified military project, for example.
If they actually referred to "UFOs" in the survey, of course, then I'd expect both responses to be close to 100%, barring significant (and highly predictable) lapses in communication.
One explanation of this is that "Life" assumes we own ourselves, "Liberty" assumes we can use what we own (ourselves) to do what we want AS LONG AS WE DON'T IMPINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO THE SAME, and "Pursuit of happiness" is construed as the right to own (and dispose of) the products of our life AS LONG AS WE DON'T IMPINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.... The OP created the images. He should be rewarded as he sees fit even if he chooses no reward.
Your argument is a contradiction. Copyright infringement in no way impinges on others' ability to exercise their own self-ownership or personal property rights; ergo, it should be permitted under the first part of your argument. However, in the second part you argue that it should be prohibited on the basis of completely different reasoning: that the OP is entitled to some sort of reward of his choosing (which, BTW, is not guaranteed even with full copyright enforcement). These positions cannot co-exist, so which do you favor, liberty or copyright?
I assume that this isn't merely a vice - that there's something seriously wrong with the way these people are wired. Like serial killers, who I likewise assume are quite rare.
Your comparison is flawed, in that you're comparing people who look at CP—not actual child-molesters—with people who actively go out and commit murder. Better comparisons would be child-molesters vs. serial killers, or CP consumers vs. consumers of violent media (e.g. books and/or movies about serial killers—a very common theme in certain genres). The former compares crimes; the latter compares the associated vices. In both cases the number of otherwise normal individuals eager to simply watch is both higher than most people would like to admit, and far greater than the number of individuals to ever likely to act on such an impulse in real life.
The problem arguably comes when one references inline functions or macros that aren't trivial.
Right, that is exactly what I was referring to. Some of the common macros / inline functions in the header files are actually rather complex—more so in the kernel than otherwise due to the need for performance, low-level interaction with the hardware, and platform independence. One runs into the same problem frequently when dealing with C++, particularly templates and inlined methods (which are more common than inlined C functions).
But certainly the safe method in this case is would be to write a shim that does include the kernel header files and a separate module that only talks to the shim that does not.
I'm not so sure that can be considered "safe". Courts tend to frown on technicalities, and might not see any real distinction between your shim version and the equivalent code without the shim. The need for license compatibility may end up being transitive.
Again, I'm not saying that this is right, or even the proper interpretation of the law. I'm just pointing out that there exists a real possibility that some court could consider such use to be infringement. Until some solid precedence is established, one way or the other, anyone taking that risk must be prepared to defend their position.
Slashdot Mirror
... nobody I have every heard is saying that billions of computers out there are going to run out of MAC addresses to give out soon ...
MAC addresses don't need to be globally unique as they are only used to identify interfaces on the local network. Once you pass through a router the original MAC address becomes irrelevant. If you have anywhere near 2**48 (~280 trillion) network cards in a single subnet you really need to rethink your network topology; running out of MAC addresses should be the least of your worries.
Like IPv6 addresses, MAC addresses have this many bits so that some bits can be reserved for a manufacturer code (IPv6 network prefixes for sane routing) while the rest are randomly assigned to minimize the chance of a collision. For that to work there need to be many more possible addresses than actual devices.
With IPv6, all new owners can talk to the old owners.... Top sites like youtube, google, facebook and maybe even windows update with reserved IPv4 address isn't just going to magically lose it. They'll shuffle less important services to IPv6 the day they are forced to exceed their IPv4 allocation.
Actually, IPv6-only hosts can't talk effectively with IPv4-only hosts. Any IPv6 host can send packets to IPv4 hosts at will, since the IPv4 address space is a subset of IPv6, but the reverse is not true—an IPv4-only host is incapable of addressing IPv6 hosts for the replies. Servers will require dual IP stacks: IPv4 addresses for IPv4-only clients, and IPv6 addresses for IPv6-only clients. Major sites will keep their current IPv4 allocations, but they will need to add support for IPv6 now, alongside IPv4, not later when their IPv4 allocation runs out.
There is just no reason to run IPv6 on an internal network unless you need some specific function of IPv6 on your internal network....
Like the ability to connect to external IPv6 hosts? Granted, there aren't many now, but if you have reason to accept incoming IPv6 connections you probably have reason to make outgoing IPv6 connections as well. Unless, of course, all your outgoing traffic is proxied, in which you may only need IPv6 for the proxy server.
Nothing in this proposed legislation ... would apply to truly private facilities, including "private websites." However, if your website (or physical facility) offers what is referred to as "public accommodation" ... then it would have to comply.
Anything owned by a private individual or organization is truly private. The "public accommodation" doctrine is just a fancy way to seize private property for public use (eminent domain) without paying the Constitutionally-mandated compensation.
On the other hand, driving is a privilege, not a right.
I'll agree that driving is a revokable privilege when you agree that collecting road taxes is a revokable privilege.
So far as I'm concerned, as long as someone's forced to pay for the roads they have the irrevokable right to drive on them.
you'd rather help them fake out the analyzer rather than taking the wheel yourself
I imaging any sort of interlock device would prevent you from driving normally just as much as the vehicle's owner. Ergo, even if you were to take the wheel, you'd still have to fake out the analyzer.
Govt. policies tend to be better for consumers......than policies set by monopolists or duopolists.
Impossible. The government itself is a monopoly, of the worst sort: a monopoly on coercion. Government policies are policies set by monopolists, and infinitely more destructive than anything a private monopoly could accomplish.
Translation: because a sweatshop is better than living in a ditch, it's okay to run sweatshops.
In short, yes. If you've got a problem with that, offer something better. Agitating for the so-called sweatshops to be closed without replacing them with better labor conditions can only result in driving the sweatshop's former employees back to "living in a ditch", or whatever they were actually doing before they decided to go work for the sweatshop. Do you think they would be working there if there was already better work available? You are not helping them at all by arguing for the prohibition of the best offer of employment they have.
It's not voluntary unless your freedom and property rights are respected. If you're prohibited from competing, or from moving to another area, or are threatened with assault or loss of property for refusing to work, then the work is not voluntary. Most sweatshops deserving of the name fall into this category.
On the other hand, if it's a simple matter of there being no other employers close by, with no coercion involved, then the work is voluntary and prohibiting it can only make those who choose such employment worse off. If you don't consider that a reasonable choice, feel free to offer something better out of your own resources.
I assume you won't mind a couple of guys named Mahmoud and Ahmed having a nuclear bomb in New York City, right?
This is a tiresomely common pseudo-argument against the 2nd Amendment, but the solution is quite simple. Anyone can possess, or even use, a nuclear/chemical/biological weapon or equivalent—but if you bring it within range of another person without their knowledge and permission it should be treated no differently than if you had pointed a gun in their face, as doing so places them under threat of eminent and irreversible harm. They would be entitled to respond in self-defense, lethally if necessary. Bringing such a weapon into a populated area without announcing one's intentions and somehow proving that the weapon is not a threat would thus be an effective form of suicide.
No offense, but when the justification for something ceases to exist, that thing is no longer justifiable.
No offense taken, but you're wrong. Removal of one justification does not necessarily make something unjustifiable. Note that most amendments do not state any justification at all; that does not make them invalid. So militias are no longer so major an issue as they were when the amendment was first written; so what? That does not invalidate the core of the amendment, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
With very few exceptions, the US Constitution is not intended to limit what individual states can do. That's why each state has its own constitution governing its own behavior. Personally, I'm opposed to states limiting gun ownership, but I wouldn't go about enforcing that by granting even greater power to the federal government to override state laws. That approach is ultimately self-destructive; power must be curtailed from the top down, not concentrated upward. Or, to put it another way, if one permits the federal government to micromanage the states, it becomes difficult to argue against the states micromanaging their citizens in turn.
Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, the need for militias is merely the justification for guaranteeing that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. One absolutely does not need to be part of a militia to have and exercise that right.
Anyway, the 2nd amendment is completely redundant, like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to prohibit ownership or non-aggressive use of any kind of weapon in the first place. Given that they needed an amendment to ban alcohol, they would certainly need one to ban guns (or drugs or anything else not specifically mentioned among their enumerated powers).
There is ZERO reason to use worthless tests like these as opposed to using real identification. That is instead of using computer generated difficult test, use actual pictures of actual 'difficult text' that an OCR agent failed to identify. Each person is given one alread tested sample and one unknown sample. If you get the already tested sample, then your answer is accepted as 'probable' correct for the unknown sample.
Congratulations, you've just described ReCAPTCHA! This is exactly how the current system works.
I've heard people argue that World War II was good for the economy, and I think that's a more obvious version of this fallacy.
Not necessarily. Sure, if all else were equal, WWII would be clearly nothing but pure dead-weight loss, economically. However, not all else was equal. The time from the start of the Great Depression (a bit earlier, actually) to WWII was full of unprecedented interference in the market, for example, which WWII distracted them from. More importantly, after WWII the US was just about the only industrialized country to emerge with its infrastructure intact—and thus held an effective monopoly on large-scale production while the other nations rebuilt (driving a heightened demand for exports, no less). Something like that can only benefit the local economy.
War is never good for the economy as a whole, but it is possible for some to profit by it, at others' expense. Consider the Broken Window scenario from the point-of-view of the glassmaker, for example, or a contractor who installs windows. Still a net economic loss, but personally profitable nonetheless.
Instead of running around believing that all "gubmint" is bad, find the actual bad parts, and cut them out.
The "actual bad parts", the root of the problem, is the legitimization of aggression, without which the government cannot exist. The rest, corruption and bad laws and a bias toward putting sociopaths in positions of power—these are just the symptoms. One cannot remove the "actual bad parts" without eliminating government itself.
The actual constitution says the People shall not be subject to unreasonable searches unless a warrant is obtained.
No, the actual constitution says the People shall not be subject to unreasonable searches, and thus (in order to ensure this) no searches shall take place without a specific warrant. How "reasonable" the search is has nothing to do with the requirement for a warrant.
Of course, actual freedom from unreasonable searches—as determined by an actual court, not the person initiating the search—would crimp the enforcers' style, so the warrant requirement is routinely overlooked.
Yes, yes. I'm aware of HTML spacing conventions. My point was simply that single spaces have become a de facto standard, used in practice even by those who express support for two spaces, and we appear to have adapted to it just fine. Ergo, the extra spaces are simply redundant.
Also, doesn't work here.
I disagree. Even with proportional fonts one space at the end of a period makes the text look crowded.
If that's true, why do you only use a single space in your comments?
Persistent non-ownership is impossible. Whoever exercises the rights associated with ownership becomes the owner—this is how property gets created in the first place. If you own your own body then everyone else is answerable to you for interfering in your use of it (more typically known as assault, kidnapping, et al.). If someone else owns your body then you are answerable to them for any use, i.e. you have no real freedom. If no one owned it then you would be answerable to no one for using it, and in doing so you would acquire self-ownership via homesteading. In practice, of course, the use of one's body begins well before birth, and cannot be forfeited in practice by any act of will, so ownership of one's body is considered both self-evident and inalienable.
A trust or guardianship is a delegated (agent/principal) position wherein you manage property for someone else. It is no different from the second scenario wherein someone else owns you, which is neatly illustrated by your example. If someone else can acquire the right to lock you up in a mental hospital by declaring you insane and a danger to yourself, then your freedom is subject to their whim. In a free society sanity must be taken as a given until and unless the individual voluntarily forfeits the protection of the law by disavowing personal responsibility for their actions (i.e. pleading insanity).
Therein lies the problem: If it's impossible to prove, it's religion.
That's backward. It's a religion if it's impossible to disprove. In science you can perform experiments to either disprove the hypothesis, or confirm it for the specific conditions involved in the experiment. You can never prove the hypothesis; at most you can show that your model holds for a given set of conditions. The more robust it is against varying conditions the more likely it is to be generally useful, though you can always run into conditions you hadn't yet tested for which the model does not hold. That is how progress is made.
Anyway, the real question isn't whether the climate is changing, or whether the change is man-made or natural. These are questions to be researched dispassionately by experts. The questions we need to answer are these: If climate change does occur, what will the effects be? What can we do about it? What should we do about it?
For myself, I am persuaded that the climate is changing, and that the cause most likely has a human component. I am less convinced that the outcome will be a significant threat to the human population of the planet, particularly in the "first world". I am absolutely opposed to any "solution" which depends on aggression, which is pretty much anything political in nature: cap & trade, carbon taxes, gas taxes, efficiency regulations, etc. I would support stricter enforcement of property rights against polluters, although it's difficult to argue direct harm from CO2 per se. (Smog, acid rain, and so on are a different matter.)
The real problem is that the climate and the atmosphere (and the oceans) are huge commons, and we have no obvious way of partitioning them or otherwise enforcing ownership of and responsibility for specific regions, even on a national scale. Perhaps technological advances can help with that. For all I know, perhaps humans of the future will live in domed cities; that's a possible solution, albeit not an ideal one. I'm open to better suggestions. For now we're left with the only non-aggressive approach there is for such commons: peer pressure.
Given that the existence of UFOs (unidentified objects in the sky) is a documented fact, I'm going to assume they used a more specific term like "extraterrestrial visitors to Earth". Given that:
It's not hard to conceive of a situation where someone would disbelieve in actual alien visitors and still believe that the government was hiding information relating to them—or more accurately, to reported sightings, which is still related even if there are no real aliens coming to Earth. Honestly, I'm surprised the numbers weren't far higher. I'd find it difficult to believe that they wouldn't attempt to suppress or discredit at least some UFO sightings where the UFOs actually turn out to be some classified military project, for example.
If they actually referred to "UFOs" in the survey, of course, then I'd expect both responses to be close to 100%, barring significant (and highly predictable) lapses in communication.
One explanation of this is that "Life" assumes we own ourselves, "Liberty" assumes we can use what we own (ourselves) to do what we want AS LONG AS WE DON'T IMPINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO THE SAME, and "Pursuit of happiness" is construed as the right to own (and dispose of) the products of our life AS LONG AS WE DON'T IMPINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO THE SAME. ... The OP created the images. He should be rewarded as he sees fit even if he chooses no reward.
Your argument is a contradiction. Copyright infringement in no way impinges on others' ability to exercise their own self-ownership or personal property rights; ergo, it should be permitted under the first part of your argument. However, in the second part you argue that it should be prohibited on the basis of completely different reasoning: that the OP is entitled to some sort of reward of his choosing (which, BTW, is not guaranteed even with full copyright enforcement). These positions cannot co-exist, so which do you favor, liberty or copyright?
Perhaps it was meant as a contrast, i.e. critical thinking vs. creationism?
I assume that this isn't merely a vice - that there's something seriously wrong with the way these people are wired. Like serial killers, who I likewise assume are quite rare.
Your comparison is flawed, in that you're comparing people who look at CP—not actual child-molesters—with people who actively go out and commit murder. Better comparisons would be child-molesters vs. serial killers, or CP consumers vs. consumers of violent media (e.g. books and/or movies about serial killers—a very common theme in certain genres). The former compares crimes; the latter compares the associated vices. In both cases the number of otherwise normal individuals eager to simply watch is both higher than most people would like to admit, and far greater than the number of individuals to ever likely to act on such an impulse in real life.
The problem arguably comes when one references inline functions or macros that aren't trivial.
Right, that is exactly what I was referring to. Some of the common macros / inline functions in the header files are actually rather complex—more so in the kernel than otherwise due to the need for performance, low-level interaction with the hardware, and platform independence. One runs into the same problem frequently when dealing with C++, particularly templates and inlined methods (which are more common than inlined C functions).
But certainly the safe method in this case is would be to write a shim that does include the kernel header files and a separate module that only talks to the shim that does not.
I'm not so sure that can be considered "safe". Courts tend to frown on technicalities, and might not see any real distinction between your shim version and the equivalent code without the shim. The need for license compatibility may end up being transitive.
Again, I'm not saying that this is right, or even the proper interpretation of the law. I'm just pointing out that there exists a real possibility that some court could consider such use to be infringement. Until some solid precedence is established, one way or the other, anyone taking that risk must be prepared to defend their position.