If this is in fact, the case, then apparently sexual content in a virtual setting, already IS a crime...which to me is a slippery slope. It seems strange to me, that if you have not committed or tried to commit a physical crime...that just insinuating and talking about it online, can be a crime. To me that borders on thought crime.
To stretch it out further. Murder is a crime. Is it a crime to write about an explicit murder of a real person, and post it online, if in fact no threat to actually carry it out are given? What about other illegal activity...illegal sexual activity...is it against the law to write about it and publish it?
Talking about or insinuating murder can be a crime, online or not. Death threat and harassment type charges can stem from this. In general, expressing intent to commit a crime can itself be a crime, though this is snarly and convoluted.
As to the minors, "subjecting a teenager or child to sexual words, images or suggestions" is criminal, but it's not rape. The key point from the parent of my original post that I was agreeing with was "It ain't rape, but it ain't right".
Committing "virtual rape" can imply a threat without explicit text saying "I intend to...". If one person gives someone else a picture of the first person raping the second, it could be construed as a threat, hence criminal. Anyways, it's more than just "thought crime" since it's a person on the other end who hasn't signed on for that particular experience.
I agree. "Virtual rape" can be part of a campaign of harassment and intimidation, but it's ridiculous to equate it to the real life crime. I bet those who've suffered the real thing wish they could have just pushed a button to escape their attacker.
Generally a gun banner is someone who doesn't know anything about firearms, doesn't WANT to know and most especially wants to wallow in the fear their ignorance produces.
I'm a gun "controller" (outright ban is too strong, but it seems to me this stuff needs to be reigned in). I don't "know anything about firearms, [and don't] WANT to know". But I'm not debating that.
As someone who doesn't own and has never even touched a gun, I can say that IMO eBay should bear no fault for selling empty clips and holsters. Arguing eBay bears responsibility for Cho because they sold him a holster and empty clips, hence enabling him, is marginally less stupid than arguing the McDonalds where he bought his egg mcmuffin for breakfast enabled him. Claiming that eBay is not socially conscious because they sold these items is specious, flawed and immature. There's a reason why guns, not gun holsters are regulated.
Ringtube!?! No, since you've dropped the functional component of the word (i.e. "world", what purpose it serves), and compounded two shape descriptors, ring and tube.
The correct term is Tubeworld. Despite the environmental problems you point out, this is clearly superior to aringworld, since it would be its own internet.
More than that. It's written by the "Director and Founder" of Net Square, "a technology-based security services organization", responsible for such wonderful innovations as "httprint, a web server fingerprinting tool." which looks at response headers and figures out what webserver it is, and "datapipe_http - Raw/HTTP TCP Tunneling", "software based on datapipe port redirector originally written by Todd Vierling in 1995, , opens up a connection with the HTTP proxy server, and uses the CONNECT server:port HTTP/1.0 technique to open a plain bi-directional TCP connection to the destination server." (wow, an HTTP Proxy Client!!! How innovative!!!)
The article is bloody mess, both editorially and factually. It mixes a restating of the obvious("client-side checks must be backed up by server-side checks as well") with a healthy dose of sensationalism: "All these sources can have different point of origin(supposition) and are totally untrusted(wild blanket statement of purported fact)." (parenthetical stuff added by me)
This is simply an attempt to drum up business folks, which states absolutely nothing new. Not sure how it made it on to/., but I wish the mods would at least glance over this stuff before posting it.
I think wireless hotspots should put up disclaimers that "the USER" will be held responsible for anything. Internet is not out of control
I'd take it a step further. People should be considered responsible for what they browse. Personal responsibility shouldn't be something kids just fall ass-backwards into when they hit 18. Hotspot providers shouldn't even have to put up a disclaimer.
I'd love to see the SCO guy's numbers. How does he back this up? Or is this a precursor to some WiFi licensing software they're gonna release?
Yeah, all the emails with links to goatse.cx and subject lines like "R U A GURL?!?!?! BUTTSECKS?!" will really change her perspective on individual rights and due process. Grassroots at its finest.
You make a good point. One is not safer in a police state, but from the perspective of someone living in a free society, who's been force-fed sensationalised stories by foxnews and their ilk, and hepped up on vague fear-mongering by their gov't, it looks safer.
The problem is that people think a gov't is more than the sum of its parts, that it's somehow more responsible, more honourable, and less corruptible than the people that make it up. Watch the news for five minutes about the current US admin (or any other country's gov't for that matter) and it's obvious how flawed that notion is.
As mentioned in an earlier post, should also probably contact Tina Keeper, Official Opposition Critic for Canadian Heritage. Her mailing address is as follows: Room 712 Confederation Building, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6.
the conservative party imploded after Mulroney's time in power, falling from a clear majority to, if I recall correctly, not even managing a double-digit seat-count in the next elections
Unless the company has several new models in the pipeline to release after the original offering,
Yeah, just like they did with the iPod. You know. They released the iPod, and then that was it and they never did anything else, or came out with new models. There's still only the one type of iPod you can buy and that's it. I live in Azerbeijan.
Joke's on you! Objective news reporting has no place in Slashdot!
In all honesty though, a bit of editorialising is warranted here. What if Coke sued you because you bought a Pepsi? What if AMD sued you because you bought an Intel chip?
Diebold's premise is moronic and it invites speculation as to how closely related the parents of their board members are, and which particular brand of crack their counsel are smoking.
No it doesn't. What you've laid out is the possibility of intelligent life on other planets.
You haven't addressed some of the other very real challenges, e.g. the prohibitiveness of interstellar travel, statistically insignificant chance of "them" finding "us", etc..., you've just assumed intelligent life on other planets implies the possibility of UFO's.
Slashdot Mirror
HAHAHAHA, very funny.
I laughed loud enough that my office mates are looking at me oddly... again...
No, southpark said they look "exactly like DC-8s except with rockets and fins".
I think this means I get to sue you? The charge is threatening an aero-religious numerical designation.
As to the minors, "subjecting a teenager or child to sexual words, images or suggestions" is criminal, but it's not rape. The key point from the parent of my original post that I was agreeing with was "It ain't rape, but it ain't right".
Committing "virtual rape" can imply a threat without explicit text saying "I intend to
I agree. "Virtual rape" can be part of a campaign of harassment and intimidation, but it's ridiculous to equate it to the real life crime. I bet those who've suffered the real thing wish they could have just pushed a button to escape their attacker.
I'm a gun "controller" (outright ban is too strong, but it seems to me this stuff needs to be reigned in). I don't "know anything about firearms, [and don't] WANT to know". But I'm not debating that.
As someone who doesn't own and has never even touched a gun, I can say that IMO eBay should bear no fault for selling empty clips and holsters. Arguing eBay bears responsibility for Cho because they sold him a holster and empty clips, hence enabling him, is marginally less stupid than arguing the McDonalds where he bought his egg mcmuffin for breakfast enabled him. Claiming that eBay is not socially conscious because they sold these items is specious, flawed and immature. There's a reason why guns, not gun holsters are regulated.
Dude, it's 2 AU's across! That's a LOT of pr0n.
Canada uses it too! Does this mean it gets mocked less? ... why is everyone laughing?
Ringtube!?! No, since you've dropped the functional component of the word (i.e. "world", what purpose it serves), and compounded two shape descriptors, ring and tube.
The correct term is Tubeworld. Despite the environmental problems you point out, this is clearly superior to aringworld, since it would be its own internet.
More than that. It's written by the "Director and Founder" of Net Square, "a technology-based security services organization", responsible for such wonderful innovations as "httprint, a web server fingerprinting tool." which looks at response headers and figures out what webserver it is, and "datapipe_http - Raw/HTTP TCP Tunneling", "software based on datapipe port redirector originally written by Todd Vierling in 1995, , opens up a connection with the HTTP proxy server, and uses the CONNECT server:port HTTP/1.0 technique to open a plain bi-directional TCP connection to the destination server." (wow, an HTTP Proxy Client!!! How innovative!!!)
/., but I wish the mods would at least glance over this stuff before posting it.
The article is bloody mess, both editorially and factually. It mixes a restating of the obvious("client-side checks must be backed up by server-side checks as well") with a healthy dose of sensationalism: "All these sources can have different point of origin(supposition) and are totally untrusted(wild blanket statement of purported fact)." (parenthetical stuff added by me)
This is simply an attempt to drum up business folks, which states absolutely nothing new. Not sure how it made it on to
It's two way extortion!! Double dip racketeering! That's like a made guy telling the don "If you want your cut, you gotta pay my membership fees".
Will he claim:
I'd love to see the SCO guy's numbers. How does he back this up? Or is this a precursor to some WiFi licensing software they're gonna release?
Yeah, all the emails with links to goatse.cx and subject lines like "R U A GURL?!?!?! BUTTSECKS?!" will really change her perspective on individual rights and due process. Grassroots at its finest.
You make a good point. One is not safer in a police state, but from the perspective of someone living in a free society, who's been force-fed sensationalised stories by foxnews and their ilk, and hepped up on vague fear-mongering by their gov't, it looks safer.
The problem is that people think a gov't is more than the sum of its parts, that it's somehow more responsible, more honourable, and less corruptible than the people that make it up. Watch the news for five minutes about the current US admin (or any other country's gov't for that matter) and it's obvious how flawed that notion is.
As mentioned in an earlier post, should also probably contact Tina Keeper, Official Opposition Critic for Canadian Heritage. Her mailing address is as follows: Room 712 Confederation Building, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6.
The US doesn't export tea. Maybe we should dump 24 DVD's into the harbour? I got your DMCA right here, Jack Bauer!!!
The star exploded after eating a mint. This surprised most astronomers, since the mint was wafer thin.
How dare you question my poorly thought out, ill-researched, and potentially offensive punchline!
In Soviet Azerbaijan, punchlines question you!!
Joke's on you! Objective news reporting has no place in Slashdot!
In all honesty though, a bit of editorialising is warranted here. What if Coke sued you because you bought a Pepsi? What if AMD sued you because you bought an Intel chip?
Diebold's premise is moronic and it invites speculation as to how closely related the parents of their board members are, and which particular brand of crack their counsel are smoking.
It turns out, blowing up and irradiating cells kills them! And you thought science didn't accomplish anything.
No it doesn't. What you've laid out is the possibility of intelligent life on other planets.
You haven't addressed some of the other very real challenges, e.g. the prohibitiveness of interstellar travel, statistically insignificant chance of "them" finding "us", etc..., you've just assumed intelligent life on other planets implies the possibility of UFO's.
"We're not out to replace World of Warcraft"
It seems like every MMO announcement includes this. I guess it's boilerplate PR indemnification in case they fail to kill WoW.