April Fools' is tired (note the apostrophe because the day is April Fools' Day with an apostrophe)
they have to tell us that "it's pants", which somehow we non-Brits will all magically know. For shizzle my nizzle.
"Lame" is a good equivalent in tone and meaning. Incidentally I first heard and used this word, "pants", whilst at Uni in 1995 (IIRC). I heard it from a friend at York Uni and used it in Saint Andrews, possibly I was the carrier? For emphasis I'd use the phrase "big pig pants"... language is great isn't it.
It's because of the huge amounts of data, err.... it's because of the need to communicate real-time, err... it's the customer service reps reading the text off one screen and typing it on to the other, yep that must be it!
And I can't remember a language with less letters than English:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotokas_alphabet has 12 letters but the language has double (long) vowels so you might argue for 17. 12 letters would make for an awesome compact keyboard but also makes for longer words (which presumably would compress quite well).
"England" and "UK" are different things. And "Great Britain" is different again. The most general designation is "UK", or, to give it its full designation, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", from which you'll be able to work out that "UK" includes Northern Ireland, "Great Britain" is the rest of the country. Great Britain is, in turn made up of England, Scotland and Wales.
To be pedantic for a moment (and who doesn't love a pedant?) - Great Britain was established by the Acts of Union (1707) between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland. Wales was (and is from what I can tell) just a part of England like Yorkshire say since Wales was annexed to England in the 1500s.
Wales actually only existed very briefly as self-proclaimed Prince of Wales Llywelyn "the Last" ap Gruffudd seized control of the local rulers (1200s). I'm not even sure, outside of the definition under annexation that Wales as defined now ever existed as a unified body though some might argue it did in the 1400s as Owain Glyndwr tried, in his failed rebellion, to pull deals to separate Wales as a country with him as leader.
The thing is that music you buy in stores is, legally, licensed (just like software). While there may be no EULAs, you still are only legally allowed to use the music for personal use. The line of legal uses is blurry (playing the music to your family is clearly legal; [...]
My wife and I run our own business, if she comes into the workshop to bring me a cup of tea and I have the radio on I'm breaking the law because we are both employees. Playing the music to your family is *not* clearly legal. I wonder if we're both listening at home whether the PRS couldn't try to nab us.
AKMudflats posted for thanksgiving 2008 that she was going to be away with friends and family in an isolated place (27th, http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/happy-thanksgiving/ ) the linked Flickr account ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/akmudflats/ ) has images from said isolated place, possibly Perry Island, on the 29th and 30th November 2008. I can well imagine the Rep. Doogan could just ask around if anyone knows where the pics were taken - he was apparently a journalist for 14 years he must be reasonably good at finding out who people are.
Certainly on 5 December they were in Whittier Harbour and on Perry Island. Would the harbour logs show who made such a journey?
Google shows me that Perry Island is a tiny volcanic island in Prince William sound. Flickr shows me there was one house on it in 1976.
It's probably the only way your kind will ever wake up: being caught in the results of your own vicious, hateful designs for the persecution of others.
How about this then, I get a trojan on your PC [...]
Nice troll, here have a cookie.
Seriously? You think that laws shouldn't be enacted because it's possible for a malevolent sociopath to fake evidence? Presumably then you think there should be no murder laws because evidence of murder can be faked, in fact no laws at all? You're welcome to your desire for anarchy but I'd rather some civilisation.
My "singular experience" (you mean noone else ever recognises someone they've not seen for a while?) was simply a counter to your experience of not recognising yourself in childhood photos. Yes, *shocking revelation* strangers don't recognise people as easily as those familiar with them, who knew!
on their static features but instead of associations of events with partial feature topology across time
Partial feature topology = static features ("characteristics" would have been a better choice of word for me here).
Personally I don't think it matters whether you're traumatised or not the law should help you to protect yourself from intrusion into your private life in instances such as unwanted nude photos being propagated by others.
Yes, and to achieve that, you should be allowed to nuke North America back into the Stone Age... no? Too radical? [...] persecution of all who ever came in contact with those oh-so-precious pictures of yours irrespective how they got them [...]
How does the law _helping_ you protect your private life, particularly with respect to personal photos, equate to killing people? You'll notice I said "propagated".
If something is in your web-cache, fine, I'll accept your not actively distributing it or promotiong it (provided its not from a pay site). If you've archived it on CD, backed up to HDD or whatever, then you're propagating it. If you email it on, post it on the web, drop it on an FTP server, you're propagating it.
Sincerely, do you believe that those who seek to stop the exploitation of children for the sexual gratification of adults are vicious and hateful?
Is it just me, or does anyone else here find it disturbing that CmdrTaco put "I-like-the-testing-part" and described the story as "the sextiest" when the subject is about children taking nude pictures of themselves, and testing to see if they are child pornography?
I think it's more disturbing that you think females past the age of puberty are somehow not sexual beings and that having a sexual interest is somehow unnatural and wrong.
I guess its the use of the word "children" as opposed to adolescents or teens or youths.
Natural does not mean right. Rape and murder are natural.
Just because a pubescent girl, say, is sexual does not mean it is right to exploit their burgeoning and not yet properly formed or understood desires in order to get your end off. I can't think of an analogy perhaps giving huge meals to obese kids because they say they're hungry?
What the age is, I don't know (I'm going to say 16 sounds nice personally), but I think that the transition age from child to adult should be FIRMLY and legally defined, and at that specific age all of the following become true:
Because all children mature at the same age and have the same comprehension about their actions?
If they're not developed enough to understand their actions or understand the [potential] consequences enough to realise that something is a heinous crime - through age or reduced mental faculty (unless that reduction was under their control and likely to lead to this sort of occurence) - then their should be some abatement to their sentence.
[In your first clause I'm hoping you meant something like "legally consent to sex with any individual" which is quite quite different to what you said]
Your conclusion is invalid because you falsely assume that the law will necessarily be written in a way compliant with what those who passed it attempted to accomplish.
The fact is that most laws are written very sloppily, and can easily be twisted around just the way this one is.
I disagree. I think laws are drafted extremely precisely but are weighted by a need for them to be understandable. It is language itself which causes the imprecision in most cases I've seen; followed closely I think by societal or technological changes.
As pointed out, the child-porn laws are unreasonable and getting worse. The thought that you can be prosecuted for possession of a picture of yourself is just one example.
If a child (under 16) sets up a child porn website, would you think they could be prosecuted or not? If not then what crime would someone make who persuaded them to set one up (as it wouldn't be contributing to a felony)? It is possibly to abuse yourself (no I don't mean that, yes I know this is slashdot).
A picture of a murder, no matter how torturous and bloody, is not the murder itself.
It's about supply and demand. You can either address the supplier, the "buyer" or both.
If the reason for the murder was to take the pictures to satisfy the lusts of the consumer (whether they pay money or not) then by prosecuting those who possess the images you're combating the further murder of people to satisfy that consumer.
Hell, most people cannot recognize themselves in them, which came as a surprise even to me when I could not identify myself in my elementary school photos.
I went to a concert once and unbeknown to me a friend of the family that I hadn't seen since she was about 7 was singing. After 11 years I picked her out of the 200 choristers about 5 mins into the concert - from maybe 50 metres or so.
I've seen plenty of pictures of my wife as a child, mixed in with cousins, schoolmates, etc., and always picked her out (though she looks very similar as a child to her brother). I suspect you have an atypical blindness to static facial features? Those further along the scale towards autism, I hear, have problems with facial recognition - so much so that it is proposed as an early indicator. Bi-polar disorder is also reported to reduce facial recognition.
There is one picture I've seen of myself that I'm not sure if it's me or a friend, you can just see my nose and part of one eye plus a little fringe as the rest of me (head and body) is obscured.
Personally I don't think it matters whether you're traumatised or not the law should help you to protect yourself from intrusion into your private life in instances such as unwanted nude photos being propagated by others. The problem I see with your scenario of not chasing those who chose to keep child porn &c. is that this would curtail any future prosecutions under the claim "i downloaded it from the 'net so you can't prosecute me for it" - that's/carte blanche/ to establish a legally uncontested trade that promotes more child abuse.
Actually bagofbeans is a wanted UK and US felon on counts of {insert despicable acts here}. He has been declared by psychiatrists as a sociopathic moron unable to make truthful claims or take part in reasoned argument. You should discount whatever he says. If you know his whereabouts you should report them to your local police force immediately. Do not approach this drooling imbecile as he is considered to be highly dangerous.
[/lies]
Invalid criticism is one thing, false and libellous accusations are another. The later should be forcefully curtailed in a civilised society IMO.
It is not [necessarily] that you made false and/or misleading claims,...
It's just that claims that seriously defame someone's character have to be proven to be true.
Under the contra condition you can claim anything you like about another person and they can't defend themselves unless they're rich enough to do so.
IMO if the point is worth public declaring and is going to damage someone's life then requiring that you back up your claim with some sort of evidence seems wise.
Unfortunately, there's no right or wrong when it comes to tagging, its all about learning.
The first thing you learn about fire is it hurts. This may not be the first thing you hear about it - "that's hot!" says Mum. You know from the tone that it's a warning or remonstration but at the age Mum tells you this you're too young to understand an abstraction such as "hot". You touch the hot thing, be it a candle, fire guard, radiator or whatever. You feel pain. You associate. I'd argue you associate the voice tone / sign with the pain, perhaps even more than you associate the item that when touched caused the pain.
Even if you're a leper and don't feel pain your body experiences the effect. This characteristic of fire is absolute, no post-modernist philosophising about "there's no right or wrong" is stopping that fire from burning you.
When he was about two years old we went to a science museum. There was a school group there at the time with kids sitting on the floor in a circle listening to a teacher. My son seemed to recognise this configuration immediately. He walked over to them, found a gap in the circle and sat down.
He didn't "recognise this configuration" he simply copied what the other kids were doing. That's the primary mode of learning, copying others.
What do you mean by the "basics of language". The entire physical side of sound making wasn't there nor, seemingly, was there immediate motivation to communicate. The brain is structured as your child learns,... so where was this base? In the macroscopic brain structure?
"did a lot of learning to get to that point" - yes. Using sign language from about 9-10months with our lad showed us that long before he could speak he could communicate basic essentials "milk", Mum, "more", "toilet", Dad and a couple of months before he could sign he could understand signs.
The fact that you think "...that the older generation didn't grow up with computers." qu[a]lifies as a 'fact' shows at the very least your ignorance and, at worst, your ageism.
Lighten up grandad.
Seriously, I'm in my 30s too. I consider the "older generation" to be 60+. And failing a few people who messed around with ticker tapes and valves then I think he's right.
Slashdot Mirror
So instead of saying
April Fools is lame
or
April Fools' is tired (note the apostrophe because the day is April Fools' Day with an apostrophe)
they have to tell us that "it's pants", which somehow we non-Brits will all magically know.
For shizzle my nizzle.
"Lame" is a good equivalent in tone and meaning. Incidentally I first heard and used this word, "pants", whilst at Uni in 1995 (IIRC). I heard it from a friend at York Uni and used it in Saint Andrews, possibly I was the carrier? For emphasis I'd use the phrase "big pig pants" ... language is great isn't it.
I heard you like pants in your pants so I put pants pants pants in your pants pants so you could pants while you pants???
Slashdot is operational 364 days a year.
actually 364.24222 days a year .. and you call yourself a nerd?
I think he was allowing for 348 mins of downtime.
Even knowing what a fork bomb will do .. I still want to try it. Can't wait to get home to my VM now.
Would you willingly take a paycut doing the same work??
But what does a mobile phone network do in it's spare time? Perhaps the cell basestations would rather time off than working 24-7 ...? ;0)
Explain the [high] cost of SMS.
It's because of the huge amounts of data, err .... it's because of the need to communicate real-time, err ... it's the customer service reps reading the text off one screen and typing it on to the other, yep that must be it!
And they're getting their accommodation and food paid for ... though it can't cost much to live in a small shed on dehydrated meals for 3 months.
And I can't remember a language with less letters than English :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotokas_alphabet has 12 letters but the language has double (long) vowels so you might argue for 17. 12 letters would make for an awesome compact keyboard but also makes for longer words (which presumably would compress quite well).
Wouldn't it be StringLenGet() if it were German?
"England" and "UK" are different things. And "Great Britain" is different again. The most general designation is "UK", or, to give it its full designation, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", from which you'll be able to work out that "UK" includes Northern Ireland, "Great Britain" is the rest of the country. Great Britain is, in turn made up of England, Scotland and Wales.
To be pedantic for a moment (and who doesn't love a pedant?) - Great Britain was established by the Acts of Union (1707) between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland. Wales was (and is from what I can tell) just a part of England like Yorkshire say since Wales was annexed to England in the 1500s.
Wales actually only existed very briefly as self-proclaimed Prince of Wales Llywelyn "the Last" ap Gruffudd seized control of the local rulers (1200s). I'm not even sure, outside of the definition under annexation that Wales as defined now ever existed as a unified body though some might argue it did in the 1400s as Owain Glyndwr tried, in his failed rebellion, to pull deals to separate Wales as a country with him as leader.
Who said that?
The thing is that music you buy in stores is, legally, licensed (just like software). While there may be no EULAs, you still are only legally allowed to use the music for personal use. The line of legal uses is blurry (playing the music to your family is clearly legal; [...]
My wife and I run our own business, if she comes into the workshop to bring me a cup of tea and I have the radio on I'm breaking the law because we are both employees. Playing the music to your family is *not* clearly legal. I wonder if we're both listening at home whether the PRS couldn't try to nab us.
AKMudflats posted for thanksgiving 2008 that she was going to be away with friends and family in an isolated place (27th, http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/happy-thanksgiving/ ) the linked Flickr account ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/akmudflats/ ) has images from said isolated place, possibly Perry Island, on the 29th and 30th November 2008. I can well imagine the Rep. Doogan could just ask around if anyone knows where the pics were taken - he was apparently a journalist for 14 years he must be reasonably good at finding out who people are.
Certainly on 5 December they were in Whittier Harbour and on Perry Island. Would the harbour logs show who made such a journey?
Google shows me that Perry Island is a tiny volcanic island in Prince William sound. Flickr shows me there was one house on it in 1976.
It's probably the only way your kind will ever wake up: being caught in the results of your own vicious, hateful designs for the persecution of others.
How about this then, I get a trojan on your PC [...]
Nice troll, here have a cookie.
Seriously? You think that laws shouldn't be enacted because it's possible for a malevolent sociopath to fake evidence? Presumably then you think there should be no murder laws because evidence of murder can be faked, in fact no laws at all? You're welcome to your desire for anarchy but I'd rather some civilisation.
My "singular experience" (you mean noone else ever recognises someone they've not seen for a while?) was simply a counter to your experience of not recognising yourself in childhood photos. Yes, *shocking revelation* strangers don't recognise people as easily as those familiar with them, who knew!
on their static features but instead of associations of events with partial feature topology across time
Partial feature topology = static features ("characteristics" would have been a better choice of word for me here).
Personally I don't think it matters whether you're traumatised or not the law should help you to protect yourself from intrusion into your private life in instances such as unwanted nude photos being propagated by others.
Yes, and to achieve that, you should be allowed to nuke North America back into the Stone Age... no? Too radical? [...] persecution of all who ever came in contact with those oh-so-precious pictures of yours irrespective how they got them [...]
How does the law _helping_ you protect your private life, particularly with respect to personal photos, equate to killing people? You'll notice I said "propagated".
If something is in your web-cache, fine, I'll accept your not actively distributing it or promotiong it (provided its not from a pay site). If you've archived it on CD, backed up to HDD or whatever, then you're propagating it. If you email it on, post it on the web, drop it on an FTP server, you're propagating it.
Sincerely, do you believe that those who seek to stop the exploitation of children for the sexual gratification of adults are vicious and hateful?
Is it just me, or does anyone else here find it disturbing that CmdrTaco put "I-like-the-testing-part" and described the story as "the sextiest" when the subject is about children taking nude pictures of themselves, and testing to see if they are child pornography?
I think it's more disturbing that you think females past the age of puberty are somehow not sexual beings and that having a sexual interest is somehow unnatural and wrong.
I guess its the use of the word "children" as opposed to adolescents or teens or youths.
Natural does not mean right. Rape and murder are natural.
Just because a pubescent girl, say, is sexual does not mean it is right to exploit their burgeoning and not yet properly formed or understood desires in order to get your end off. I can't think of an analogy perhaps giving huge meals to obese kids because they say they're hungry?
What the age is, I don't know (I'm going to say 16 sounds nice personally), but I think that the transition age from child to adult should be FIRMLY and legally defined, and at that specific age all of the following become true:
Because all children mature at the same age and have the same comprehension about their actions?
If they're not developed enough to understand their actions or understand the [potential] consequences enough to realise that something is a heinous crime - through age or reduced mental faculty (unless that reduction was under their control and likely to lead to this sort of occurence) - then their should be some abatement to their sentence.
[In your first clause I'm hoping you meant something like "legally consent to sex with any individual" which is quite quite different to what you said]
Your conclusion is invalid because you falsely assume that the law will necessarily be written in a way compliant with what those who passed it attempted to accomplish.
The fact is that most laws are written very sloppily, and can easily be twisted around just the way this one is.
I disagree. I think laws are drafted extremely precisely but are weighted by a need for them to be understandable. It is language itself which causes the imprecision in most cases I've seen; followed closely I think by societal or technological changes.
As pointed out, the child-porn laws are unreasonable and getting worse. The thought that you can be prosecuted for possession of a picture of yourself is just one example.
If a child (under 16) sets up a child porn website, would you think they could be prosecuted or not? If not then what crime would someone make who persuaded them to set one up (as it wouldn't be contributing to a felony)? It is possibly to abuse yourself (no I don't mean that, yes I know this is slashdot).
A picture of a murder, no matter how torturous and bloody, is not the murder itself.
It's about supply and demand. You can either address the supplier, the "buyer" or both.
If the reason for the murder was to take the pictures to satisfy the lusts of the consumer (whether they pay money or not) then by prosecuting those who possess the images you're combating the further murder of people to satisfy that consumer.
Hell, most people cannot recognize themselves in them, which came as a surprise even to me when I could not identify myself in my elementary school photos.
I went to a concert once and unbeknown to me a friend of the family that I hadn't seen since she was about 7 was singing. After 11 years I picked her out of the 200 choristers about 5 mins into the concert - from maybe 50 metres or so.
I've seen plenty of pictures of my wife as a child, mixed in with cousins, schoolmates, etc., and always picked her out (though she looks very similar as a child to her brother). I suspect you have an atypical blindness to static facial features? Those further along the scale towards autism, I hear, have problems with facial recognition - so much so that it is proposed as an early indicator. Bi-polar disorder is also reported to reduce facial recognition.
There is one picture I've seen of myself that I'm not sure if it's me or a friend, you can just see my nose and part of one eye plus a little fringe as the rest of me (head and body) is obscured.
Personally I don't think it matters whether you're traumatised or not the law should help you to protect yourself from intrusion into your private life in instances such as unwanted nude photos being propagated by others. The problem I see with your scenario of not chasing those who chose to keep child porn &c. is that this would curtail any future prosecutions under the claim "i downloaded it from the 'net so you can't prosecute me for it" - that's /carte blanche/ to establish a legally uncontested trade that promotes more child abuse.
[lies]
Actually bagofbeans is a wanted UK and US felon on counts of {insert despicable acts here}. He has been declared by psychiatrists as a sociopathic moron unable to make truthful claims or take part in reasoned argument. You should discount whatever he says. If you know his whereabouts you should report them to your local police force immediately. Do not approach this drooling imbecile as he is considered to be highly dangerous.
[/lies]
Invalid criticism is one thing, false and libellous accusations are another. The later should be forcefully curtailed in a civilised society IMO.
It is not [necessarily] that you made false and/or misleading claims, ...
It's just that claims that seriously defame someone's character have to be proven to be true.
Under the contra condition you can claim anything you like about another person and they can't defend themselves unless they're rich enough to do so.
IMO if the point is worth public declaring and is going to damage someone's life then requiring that you back up your claim with some sort of evidence seems wise.
Unfortunately, there's no right or wrong when it comes to tagging, its all about learning.
The first thing you learn about fire is it hurts. This may not be the first thing you hear about it - "that's hot!" says Mum. You know from the tone that it's a warning or remonstration but at the age Mum tells you this you're too young to understand an abstraction such as "hot". You touch the hot thing, be it a candle, fire guard, radiator or whatever. You feel pain. You associate. I'd argue you associate the voice tone / sign with the pain, perhaps even more than you associate the item that when touched caused the pain.
Even if you're a leper and don't feel pain your body experiences the effect. This characteristic of fire is absolute, no post-modernist philosophising about "there's no right or wrong" is stopping that fire from burning you.
I think you need to reassess.
When he was about two years old we went to a science museum. There was a school group there at the time with kids sitting on the floor in a circle listening to a teacher. My son seemed to recognise this configuration immediately. He walked over to them, found a gap in the circle and sat down.
He didn't "recognise this configuration" he simply copied what the other kids were doing. That's the primary mode of learning, copying others.
What do you mean by the "basics of language". The entire physical side of sound making wasn't there nor, seemingly, was there immediate motivation to communicate. The brain is structured as your child learns, ... so where was this base? In the macroscopic brain structure?
"did a lot of learning to get to that point" - yes. Using sign language from about 9-10months with our lad showed us that long before he could speak he could communicate basic essentials "milk", Mum, "more", "toilet", Dad and a couple of months before he could sign he could understand signs.
MS: "But Firefox 0.7" /is/ a recent version"
sixth post
The fact that you think "...that the older generation didn't grow up with computers." qu[a]lifies as a 'fact' shows at the very least your ignorance and, at worst, your ageism.
Lighten up grandad.
Seriously, I'm in my 30s too. I consider the "older generation" to be 60+. And failing a few people who messed around with ticker tapes and valves then I think he's right.