Well, no shit. I'd say "why?" but I don't want to get into an argument about why viewing (it's understandable that making cp is illegal) adult porn is legal while child pron isn't and the advantages/disadvantages of making it legal.
Let's say he looked at a video of an adult rape. Would you say he should then be kept away from all adults?
I was sued by the MPAA for running a tracker that someone happened to upload a couple of movies onto.
By that point, I wasn't even really involved in the tracker anymore, though it bore my name. I fought, said I didn't pirate their stuff and I didn't monitor what users uploaded, that I didn't keep any IP logs. They won, I paid them a few thousand dollars.
(Internet rumor has it that I fled to Mexico because of this, but truth was I had real life bullshit going on at the time that caused me to move; The MPAA thing was done before I moved.)
I'd rather be arrested than be legally barred from being alone with my children.
I can't even appreciate why this was done. If someone was found to be looking at adult porn, would you forbid them from being alone with adult women? What about their adult offspring?
On the internet you can learn where to get land for free, how to build your own house for free, how to grow your own food for free, how to set up your own free (or even income-generating, if you sell enough power to electric companies) solar, wind, etc. power system, etc. You can easily use the internet to make enough money to pay for the internet connection, and if you put a little effort into it, you can make enough to buy laptops, tablets, and smartphones. And he obviously already has a computer - though in a couple of years it may not be able to run modern nor future games, it can probably run more old games than he could play in a lifetime (and there's enough legally free games to do that if he wouldn't pirate). As long as he knows how to keep his current computer working (if parts break there are free replacements on freecycle or craigslist), he doesn't really need to buy new laptops/tablets/smartphones.
I happen to like playing computer games all day. Perhaps we should set up a national foundation to make sure lots of money goes to games players, thereby increasing happiness and benefiting society.
As someone that plays video games for a living, I approve of this...The guy I know making the most from playing games makes nearly $7,000 a month, though - I don't really think a foundation is needed.
If you like playing games, figure out how to make money from it. I don't see why most people consider "job/career" to mean "something shitty that we must aim to make as little depressing as possible."
Teachers and nurses use computers nowadays. A teacher, in fact, could do their job ENTIRELY on computers. If someone goes from IT worker working with computers 40 hours a week to teacher working with computers 20 hours a week with an extra 20 hours to just have fun with computers, I think they would be happier. If they aren't, they can always just do what they like to do without being paid for it - or get an additional job - for those other 20 hours.
Pumping gas has been replaced with the entry level job of being on-call to handle things when someone loses their credit card and someone else picks it up and buys gas with it, and with using a computer inside the gas station to ring up purchases.
They don't have to work, but are still handed money... I don't know why they are angry. They could always get a dog it if they are just DETERMINED to shovel manure.
That's why I refuse to buy a Blue-ray Player. It's got play in the title, and to start a movie you press the "play" button. So childish. As an adult professional, I refuse to be associated with such things, even in the privacy of my own home.
The RIAA can just claim you are a copyright infringer, and *poof* the cops come and take your harddrives. A court can place an injunction on one of your neighbors, and *poof* the cops come and take your harddrive. The US Goverment can decide you need to be investigated for posting terrorist messages on twitter, and *poof* the cops come and take your harddrive.
Oh, and they'll take ALL your electronic equipment, not just things related to what you're accused of, and you won't be getting anything back.
It isn't about making others respect my belief system - it is about the fact that I am unable to practice my belief system, read what I feel I should read, etc. because the material has been banned/burned/the authors arrested/etc....
Also,
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist...
If you have to ask this question, you probably aren't doing anything too serious, but personally, I need a fast connection to do my job. Right now I'm getting 9ms to about 30 miles away. That's acceptable to me. I don't know how much it would have to go up before it became unacceptable, but I know I would be complaining well before 300ms.
It's obviously bothering you, so I would say it is unacceptable. Start threatening to take your business elsewhere. If there is no alternative ISP in your area, get your neighbors to complain too. If they still won't take action, you and your neighbors call up an ISP available in a neighboring area and say that your ISP is not fulfilling your needs, so you hope that they become available in your area soon.
Really, though, if you were only told "300ms latency (to their test servers) is the acceptable range for Centurylink 10.0Mbps" by one person, take it with a grain of salt. ISP support people will say anything they think they can get away with to get a customer to stop complaining when they can't or don't know how to fix a problem.
Are you saying America is "grown up" because when a book or picture is banned, people can't really do anything, and most people say "good, I didn't like the content of the book/picture anyway"?
Btw, not wanting something to be mandated by law is quite different than opposing. If you want to spend $100 on a camera, that's great for you, I do not oppose that, in fact I support your right to do so. Heck I'm not saying I don't want one - they would be quite helpful when parking and pulling out, even if I'm sure my kids won't be behind my car. However, I should not be required by law to buy one. More and more laws are popping up to resolve problems that could be solved with less lazy parenting, and they affect my life and my wallet - that is what I am opposed to.
Well, I'm not so sure if that is a punishment. Would it have been better for him to survive, but be in immense pain, maybe disabled in some way for life, always knowing Daddy did that to him? Death isn't always bad, seems to me it is often the best outcome for the person that died, it only sucks for the people that care about the person that died.
I think the problem is you just don't understand my point. NO safety device is as safe as not participating in the dangerous activity. Car seats can make a child a little less likely to get hurt in a car accident, but it's not guaranteed. The only guarantee is to not let your child ride in a car, but for most people, the risk of car accident is worth transporting their child long distances quickly. Hind-cameras may help a person be a little less likely to back over a child, but the only guarantee a child won't be backed over is to not let the child go behind cars. Is the benefit of not having to watch and educate your child to ensure it does not go behind cars worth it to you?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no shit. I'd say "why?" but I don't want to get into an argument about why viewing (it's understandable that making cp is illegal) adult porn is legal while child pron isn't and the advantages/disadvantages of making it legal.
Let's say he looked at a video of an adult rape. Would you say he should then be kept away from all adults?
By that logic you should keep every single person from being alone with their kids.
You must not have kids, then.
did coca-cola get rid of the BPA yet?
I WISH I could get coke with sugar in it. It tastes so much better than that High Fructose Corn Syrup bullshit.
I was sued by the MPAA for running a tracker that someone happened to upload a couple of movies onto.
By that point, I wasn't even really involved in the tracker anymore, though it bore my name. I fought, said I didn't pirate their stuff and I didn't monitor what users uploaded, that I didn't keep any IP logs. They won, I paid them a few thousand dollars.
(Internet rumor has it that I fled to Mexico because of this, but truth was I had real life bullshit going on at the time that caused me to move; The MPAA thing was done before I moved.)
I'd rather be arrested than be legally barred from being alone with my children.
I can't even appreciate why this was done. If someone was found to be looking at adult porn, would you forbid them from being alone with adult women? What about their adult offspring?
On the internet you can learn where to get land for free, how to build your own house for free, how to grow your own food for free, how to set up your own free (or even income-generating, if you sell enough power to electric companies) solar, wind, etc. power system, etc. You can easily use the internet to make enough money to pay for the internet connection, and if you put a little effort into it, you can make enough to buy laptops, tablets, and smartphones. And he obviously already has a computer - though in a couple of years it may not be able to run modern nor future games, it can probably run more old games than he could play in a lifetime (and there's enough legally free games to do that if he wouldn't pirate). As long as he knows how to keep his current computer working (if parts break there are free replacements on freecycle or craigslist), he doesn't really need to buy new laptops/tablets/smartphones.
Or with some sort of job that can be done over the internet...
You can learn to fake it - and with the internet you can be a salesperson without ever actually dealing with people.
I happen to like playing computer games all day. Perhaps we should set up a national foundation to make sure lots of money goes to games players, thereby increasing happiness and benefiting society.
As someone that plays video games for a living, I approve of this...The guy I know making the most from playing games makes nearly $7,000 a month, though - I don't really think a foundation is needed.
If you like playing games, figure out how to make money from it. I don't see why most people consider "job/career" to mean "something shitty that we must aim to make as little depressing as possible."
Teachers and nurses use computers nowadays. A teacher, in fact, could do their job ENTIRELY on computers. If someone goes from IT worker working with computers 40 hours a week to teacher working with computers 20 hours a week with an extra 20 hours to just have fun with computers, I think they would be happier. If they aren't, they can always just do what they like to do without being paid for it - or get an additional job - for those other 20 hours.
Pumping gas has been replaced with the entry level job of being on-call to handle things when someone loses their credit card and someone else picks it up and buys gas with it, and with using a computer inside the gas station to ring up purchases.
They don't have to work, but are still handed money... I don't know why they are angry. They could always get a dog it if they are just DETERMINED to shovel manure.
Or they could find a different, more enjoyable way to make money. But soylent green works too.
What is it that you fear could happen to them if they download an unsafe app?
That's why I refuse to buy a Blue-ray Player. It's got play in the title, and to start a movie you press the "play" button. So childish. As an adult professional, I refuse to be associated with such things, even in the privacy of my own home.
The RIAA can just claim you are a copyright infringer, and *poof* the cops come and take your harddrives. A court can place an injunction on one of your neighbors, and *poof* the cops come and take your harddrive. The US Goverment can decide you need to be investigated for posting terrorist messages on twitter, and *poof* the cops come and take your harddrive.
Oh, and they'll take ALL your electronic equipment, not just things related to what you're accused of, and you won't be getting anything back.
It isn't about making others respect my belief system - it is about the fact that I am unable to practice my belief system, read what I feel I should read, etc. because the material has been banned/burned/the authors arrested/etc. ...
Also,
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist...
If you have to ask this question, you probably aren't doing anything too serious, but personally, I need a fast connection to do my job. Right now I'm getting 9ms to about 30 miles away. That's acceptable to me. I don't know how much it would have to go up before it became unacceptable, but I know I would be complaining well before 300ms.
It's obviously bothering you, so I would say it is unacceptable. Start threatening to take your business elsewhere. If there is no alternative ISP in your area, get your neighbors to complain too. If they still won't take action, you and your neighbors call up an ISP available in a neighboring area and say that your ISP is not fulfilling your needs, so you hope that they become available in your area soon.
Really, though, if you were only told "300ms latency (to their test servers) is the acceptable range for Centurylink 10.0Mbps" by one person, take it with a grain of salt. ISP support people will say anything they think they can get away with to get a customer to stop complaining when they can't or don't know how to fix a problem.
So taking NO action when your belief system is defiled is the grown up thing to do?
Are you saying America is "grown up" because when a book or picture is banned, people can't really do anything, and most people say "good, I didn't like the content of the book/picture anyway"?
Btw, not wanting something to be mandated by law is quite different than opposing. If you want to spend $100 on a camera, that's great for you, I do not oppose that, in fact I support your right to do so. Heck I'm not saying I don't want one - they would be quite helpful when parking and pulling out, even if I'm sure my kids won't be behind my car. However, I should not be required by law to buy one. More and more laws are popping up to resolve problems that could be solved with less lazy parenting, and they affect my life and my wallet - that is what I am opposed to.
Well, I'm not so sure if that is a punishment. Would it have been better for him to survive, but be in immense pain, maybe disabled in some way for life, always knowing Daddy did that to him? Death isn't always bad, seems to me it is often the best outcome for the person that died, it only sucks for the people that care about the person that died.
I think the problem is you just don't understand my point. NO safety device is as safe as not participating in the dangerous activity. Car seats can make a child a little less likely to get hurt in a car accident, but it's not guaranteed. The only guarantee is to not let your child ride in a car, but for most people, the risk of car accident is worth transporting their child long distances quickly. Hind-cameras may help a person be a little less likely to back over a child, but the only guarantee a child won't be backed over is to not let the child go behind cars. Is the benefit of not having to watch and educate your child to ensure it does not go behind cars worth it to you?