It's suppose to happening in our current view of reality, but suggests that our view is not correct, that it's really two hundred years in the future and we're just living out 1999 in a computer simulation. So that scene in the movie is happening in 1999, not 2199.
Sorry, dude, you failed.
It's happening in 2199, in a computer simulation of 1999. Yeah, it's happening in our current view of reality, but it's still happening in the time the film takes place, which is supposed to be 2199. So, that's when it's happening. It's like if you were playing a simulation of WWII. Would the stuff youw ere doing be happening in 1942? Nope. Happening now.
"You're looking at now. Everything you see is happening, now." "What happened to then?" "We just left then." "When" "Just now"
I know that often when I've had to shift files over a network to preserve them, I'll glance inside the folder after the transfer just to make sure I got everything.
If you're that worried about preserving privacy and still that determine to verify the files were all transferred, why not use a simple shell script to count the files and compare the sizes? Not only would it be better than looking in a directory you don't belong in, but you would also be able to do your job more efficiently.
Yes but like a lot of slashdot posters in this article who have been saying of the wrongdoings (was if you theolien who said about your boss downloading porn at 6am or someoen else - bah its 3am here) there is a nice permenant record with your name on it. and lets face it it can be traced back to you - most people use the same online handle for usenet , email accounts, and slashdot some of which will have your real name on.
Not to mention that revenge isn't a good excuse to throw morals out the window. I don't know how you feel personally, but while I would love to avenge myself of my former employer, turning to the BSA is still wrong and I won't do it.
If you want another reason why it's not only justified but required to go to the law or otherwise make sure law enforcement is informed of a felony in progress in the workplace: Your office policies are a matter of contract law between you and your employer, and contracts are not allowed to force one party to commit a crime, or become an accessory to a crime. So if a crime is being committed in the workplace, you are required to report it to the legal authorities (or see that it's reported) if you know about it, and you may be required to report it to your boss.
I agree that with certain crimes in certain situations, it is necessary to go to the law with it. HOWEVER, consider this:
I work for you. I find kiddie porn on your computer. I call the cops, you go to jail.
That's one scenario.
I work for you. I find kiddie porn on your computer. I tell you that I found it, you say "It's not mine" and immediately delete. Now, you know that there's kiddie porn in your company. So you start looking for, company liability and so forth, not to mention that YOU HAVE KIDS yourself. Kiddie porn is linked to the act. Fact is, people that molest children also look at porn displaying the molestation. I'm all over the fact that viewing kiddie porn doesn't make someone molest children, but to use another analogy, armed robbers read Guns and Ammo. At least, the few that I've known did.
You should *never* go recklessly calling the cops. If you believe that you should call the cops to make sure that justice has a possibility of getting served, then you must take responsibility for determining for yourself whether or not the person who will get it is in fact violating the law. If I found kiddie porn in my wife's home directory, know what I'd do? I'd install a firewall and a sniffer, and delete it. If it reappears, then we've got trouble. (I'd also look over the kids and ask them probing questions and so forth) But you can't presume guilt any more than the law can.
To make an analogy, if you broke into an employee's office to play a prank, and found a rape in progress, would you call the cops, or would you call your boss (assuming your boss isn't the rapist)? At that point it ceases to matter why you were there, for purposes of who to report the crime to, but it may matter in that you might lose your job over it (which is, really, as it should be).
While this ia good analogy, it is flawed in several respects. First, if you break into a room and find a rape in progress, you don't call anybody. You kill the rapist. 'nuff said, right? If you don't, then you should be killed. Simple as that. Second problem: Rape is a different crime than saving kiddie porn. I know from experience that rape can be cleaned off afterwards (not direct personal experience) and covered up, but kiddie porn is stored. You don't have to immediately call the cops to prevent a crime in progress, you have plenty of time to go up corporate channels.
Finally, the company has a stake in this. If you go to the cops and it gets to the press and the company doesn't have a chance to do anything with it, they get a big ol' black eye in the press. If you talk to your boss, he talks to his boss, whatever, and they call the cops, then the cops are still called, and the press stories will reflect that your company called the cops. Now they look good in the press. You have a responsibility, when you work for a company, to make them money. You also have a responsibility not to hurt them. If you don't want that responsibility with your company, find another fucking job. Now, if you talk to your boss, and he goes to his boss, et. al, and NOTHING HAPPENS, then call the cops. THe company deserves their black eye, at that point.
Do you really want to live in a society where the guy behind you on the freeway calls the police on you for doing 57 in a 55.
Eh? By the time our society gets that bad, it'll be illegal to drive and use a cell-phone. Just think, you'll be driving along doing 57, and two cop cars show up. One to arrest you for speeding, and the other to arrest the narc for using his cell-phone while driving...
Usually what's involved is someone that didn't produce the pictures, has no way to know their provenence and in no way contributed to their making, and the pictures in question are perhaps shots of 16 year old girls on nude beaches and the like. 16 years is the age of consent in a lot of countries you know. In the US it was formerly 12, in fact if memory serves 11 in one state. And there's no way to tell what age a model was in most cases anyway - is that a 16 year old, or an 18? Without knowing the provenence of the pictures and having records to prove the ages of those involved, it's simple conjecture, hiding behind outrage to avoid proving anything.
It's very difficult to prove kiddie-porn when the models involved have boobs and hair and orgasms and stuff. The reason is obvious, puberty is the process of becoming an adult, at least sexually. Not to mention all the porn out there that says "Teens do anything for you!" and crap. That usually refers to girls 18 and 19, but I've seen a lot of High School cheerleaders who WERE 18 during the photo shoot, or may have even been younger but were 18 when they signed the paper to distribute th tstuff, or whatever.
THe only way to prove kiddie porn, in my opinion, in a picture by itself, requires several elements. 1) something with which to scale the model, such as a couch or something. I've seen 18-year-olds who could shave their pussies and stand in an empty room and pass for naked 8-year-olds. 2) Blatant sexual activity. In fact, I'm nervous about taking pictures of my own kids when they're naked, even if they're doing one of those really cute and memorable things, because in this society somebody might take it as kiddie porn. 3) Obvious sexual immaturaty (sp?). Many women go through their whole lives without growing large breasts, and for portions of their adult life could pass as pre-menses. Many other women develop early and can pass as 20+ years old when they're in fact "kiddie porn" material. How can sexual immaturity be obvious? Well, it's a topic beyond the scope of this post.
THe problem is totally exacerbated by the ideas involved in statutory rape. The assumption is that an older man uses his superior experience, charm, and knowledge to seduce a younger girl who would, if she knew better, say "no". But the girls themselves may very well be well-developed women, with boobs and pubes and totally orgasmic. Yet there are people who think it's sick and twisted to look at those girls, even though the girls' bodies are doing exactly what they naturally do at that point and trying to look as sexy as possible to attract a mate. SO it's considered sick and twisted to respond in a natural fashion to a girl who's body is trying to get you to respond in a natural fashion. (Of course I'm talking about girls in the age ranges of 12-17, but mostly in the range of 15-17. But I have seen 12-14-year-olds who could pass for at least 18, and no, I didn't see them naked) Statutory rape is one of those laws that has a good intent, but is incapable of carrying out justice.
Anyway, I got sidetracked. The article also says that the employees only saw thumbnails of the so-called kiddie porn. I've seen thumbnails of pictures that looked benign but turned out to be porn, and I've seen thumbnails that looked pornographic that turned out not to be. Windows thumbnails are pretty small, so how the fuck did the employees successfully identify, from a thumbnail in an innocent directory crawl, that the pictures were porn and the genre? I have to say, it's totally reasonable when you've backed up Data to probe his anus to make sure all his shit's in place. Er, totally reasonable when you've backup up some data to go spot-checking in various directories to see that the data survived the transfer and that you're safe to smash the hard drive.
An employee discovering illegal porn on a computer or illegal anything is in a tough position: report it to you employer and the problem will magically go away or report it to the proper authorities and get fired because you violated some legal agreement you signed with them (under duress) the year before.
I've been in a similar situation. As a texas state inspector, I worked with a guy that gave out an inspection sticker to a girl with boobs in exchange for a free looky and a 12-pack. (He was also an idiot) Then he makes this big commotion about how he was getting a 12-pack and that car's a piece of shit, or something like that. So I went and told my boss that I had to do something about it. The guy made a huge fuss about it, and if the car was caught, the paper trail was clear, and it would be known that I was working. In any serious investigation, I'd be in some tough shit myself. Besides that, there was also plenty of reason to believe that the girl's car really wasn't safe to drive. Heh. So I told my boss "I want to call the cops on this guy, what do you want to do?" MY boss says "We need him right now, and we can't hire somebody else. Please don't make an issue out of it." After some long, hard thinking, I called my inspection supervisor and told him the whole thing. He cut me off, asking if I had first talked to the store manager. I told him how the conversation had gone, but he cut me off again. He then called the store and talked to the guy. Within a couple of hours the decision was made for me to give a statement. ON that statement, the investigation proceeded. But, as I understand, the statement itself was never used. Anyway, my supervisor wanted to make sure the company had an opportunity to do the right thing, even if they ahd already started on the wrong track. THEN he wanted to see if they would do it, and if so, great. If not, he would revoke their license to do state inspections.
The point of telling the story is that the law would prefer to give companies the opportunity to do the right thing, or at least to allow their employees to do the right thing. Now, I don't really have any idea what would've happened with me and the company after that, but I was starting to smell some bad wind coming my way, and I took off before the company could fuck with me. Thus, I saved face for all of us.:)
The grandparent was saying that seeing pics could encourage people to molest children.
I was just liking this to the argument that seeing violent movies encourages violence, seeing murderers in films encourages killing, and so on.
Yes, you were, and it was very much a flawed analogy. Instead, liken it to seeing actual films of murders being committed, because kiddie porn is actually seeing pictures of kids engaging in sexual activities. Yes, I've seen it, and it's some scary shit. I've also seen drawings made with a different purpose, but essentially showing the same shit. The drawings aren't nearly as scary, because 1) they're not real, they're just something somebody drew. 2) They weren't drawn with the intention of giving someone a hard-on. Quite the opposite. 3) No-one was actually molested in the creation of the drawing.
The reason those things make it so different is because in the real thing, you're seeing a kid who is actually being molested, and you're seeing exactly what is happening. And, like porn (in fact, this is the thing that separates porn from other picutres of naked people), the intent of the picture is to give someone a hard-on.
The point is, you can't compare hollywood special effects and entertaining movies to kiddie porn because in the first case, what you're seeing isn't real (although they try to make it look as real as possible). In the second case, you're seeing something real.
Since when is choosing not to rat someone out to the cops the same as condoning their behavior?
Every single time.
Um, I have to disagree with that. While, as a rule, I would certainly agree with the idea presented, but ratting to the cops isn't always the best solution to the problem.
Take my neighbor's kids. (Please!) I have reason to suspect they're smoking pot around the yard. If I rat to the cops and the cops come, find shit, and arrest the kids, the mother will get evicted. This is a drug-free neighborhood. Now the kids are in trouble, the mother (and two brothers) are homeless, and the only thing the family as a whole has learned is "fucksl4shd0t's an asshole". The two kids who I suspect are doing this are around 13 years old. When my wife was 13, she was smoking pot and doing a hell of a lot more. Yet, according to your rule, the legal system should take care of these kids.
Another scenario, this one more contrived. Say you see kiddie porn on someone's hard drive. You also see the kind of porn that's real pictures of women being raped. And you're a woman. That's gotta be part of the scenario.:) So you go and rat to the cops. The cops come and investigate and are unable to do anything about it. The guy thinks about it and figures out that you must have found and said something. So he comes along and rapes/kills you. Was it such a good idea to put your fate in the hands of law enforcement?
In a perfect world, yes, taking matters up with government authorities is a good idea. However, there ain't no such thing as a perfect world.
I'm taking the company's side.:) The quotes from the Plaintiffs made them sound a lot like the kind of people who would accuse their boss of anything if the boss did anything but lick the employee's assholes. Stuff like "We werent' trained by the company to deal with finding child pornography". How the fuck is the company supposed to train them? Further, how are they supposed to train them without getting in trouble themselves?
I'll bet they were problem employees who didn't exactly handle themselves with maturity throughout this particular ordeal and were terminated WITH CAUSE. I've seen their like before. Fuck 'em all. Darwin in the work force should weed out these people.
The only reason not to have scrollbars on the top and left is if there was some other useful clickable stuff already using that space. The top of windows is devoted to menus or buttons- traditionally, there hasn't been anything on the left, although recently some button bars or "Sidebars" show up there.
Indeed, as a consequence of english being left-to-right, paper books have required us to reach to the right, with our right hand, to turn the page. Since that is essentially what a scrollbar does, it seems to be more fitting with more traditional media to have scrollbars on the right.
If you think about it.:) Also, since the language is left to right, you're more likely to find a sentence ending closer to the right-hand side than the left-hand side, and your eyes will be closer to the scrollbars.
One more thing: Since most people are right-handed, and they use their mouse on the right-hand side of the screen, it feels more natural to them to reach to the right to scroll down.
Final point:
There isn't any *right place* to put a scrollbar. Windows sucks because you don't have any choice. The closest thing to the right place for a scrollbar is a preferences setting that lets the user pick.
(often half the show isn't even animated at all, it just slides still frames past the camera, eg. Samurai Jack)
I've got 3 words for you. The original Spiderman. Either you're old enough to know what i'm talking about, or you're too young to care. But those were some rockin' cartoons, even if the animation was so shitty.
This is perhaps a little off-topic, but... Saying "Have a nice day!" is a relic of the 80s? I grew up in the 80s, but I'm lost on this one... Does anybody know what this is a reference to?
Um, the fact that there was still at least a remnant of manners in the 80s that doesn't exist anymore?
I was actually surprised that Sponge Bob didn't get censored to oblivion. That show is COOL. IN fact, my wife watched it with my daughter once (back when we had a tv, and we actually had cable) and told me it was a bad show, too much violence and other crap. She's one of those mothers. Luckily, i don't put up with that crap. So I told her to put on Sponge Bob when it came back on and show me where she had problems with it. Would you know? She couldn't find any problems with it. Moreover, we both found it to be really really funny, and a lot of fun to watch with the kids.
Occasionally I think about getting cable again to watch that show, but then I get real again. Dammit, TV just plain sucks. What do my kids do on saturday morning? They go out with their mother while I sleep.:) Then they come home and play with me for awhile, then we all go outside and play together.
although I will excuse Tiny Toons, but thats my opinion).
Tiny Toons rocked! It's probably the only example where someone made a next-generation of a previous series and it was really good! It can't even be compared to the original bugs bunny and crap, because they're completely different. Sure, there's all the familiar cartoon gags and stuff, but sometimes it was a 20-minute sitcom, other times it was a series of 5-minute shorts. ALways something different, always funny, and always witty. Great twists of plotlines, where the good guys didn't always win, and the bad guys were even good guys sometimes. Hell, Montana Max doing Citizen Kane was cool in and of itself (even if that was the episode Fox always showed).
The difference between Tiny Toons and all the other "kid" cartoons was that TIny Toons preserved the spirit of the originals, and expanded in its areas of expression. Babs was always talking trash about "political correctness" and...and...and...
Shit. Like Phil Collins says, "They'll never see the likes of us again!"
If you can't stop the car with the brake booster disabled, then you're driving too much car for you, period. No exceptions. If you want to drive a car that size, get something designed to have manual brakes, like an older truck. (Trucks in the seventies often came with manual brakes.)
We're talking about criminals who may have stolen the car, or are driving their own car, or whatever. People without any sense of discretion, or else they wouldn't be criminals in the first place.:)
I drive a '71 Chevy pickup with manual brakes, so I know what you're saying about stopping a car without power assist.:) Takes more room, that's for sure.
Your comment about diesels is also a very good comment. Stopping the ECU in those cars may not actually stop the car. Heh. But burning up the radiator will work just as well. Of course, I'm suggesting a technology that doesn't exist in a practical form, and the discussion is about a technology that does exist in a practical form.
The engine would continue to generate vacuum if it stalled at a high speed. Especially if the effected car had a manual transmission.
In a manual transmission, yes. But then you're depending on the criminal not pushing in the clutch, or shifting into neutral, which he may do to keep coasting as fast as he can.
IN an automatic transmission, not a chance in hell. Your torque converter is hydraulic, but the pressure must come from the engine side. You can't turn the engine over by spinning the wheels. The disengagement is a property of the torque converter.
Finally, in a manual transmission, it is possible after burning up the radiator to lock the engine. If the transmission is still engaged when that happens, then the drive wheels would lock, creating the safety situation you're trying to avoid. However, chances are good at that point that the criminal would push in the clutch and/or shift into neutral to regain control of the vehicle.
Other than the loss of power steering there is no danger to just stopping the engine in a high speed persuit
You also forgot the fact that the power brake booster in your car is likely powered by engine vacuum. In some exotic cars, it's hydraulically powered. In either case, it requires a running engine. At low speeds, failure of these components isn't dangerous because under federal law they're required to have enough boost stored in them to provide for stopping in case of failure. However, at higher speeds, you can easily drain the system of it's reserve and find yourself having to stand on the brakes to stop.
Loosing power steering at high speeds is relatively safe, on the other hand. Most/all power steering systems kick off anyway over 35 mph, some kick off even earlier. The only purpose power steering serves is to counteract the wheels gripping the road at a stop or at low speeds. THe reason why your steering gearbox (or rack-n-pinion) is designed to work without power assist isn't a safety issue, it's because the power assist automatically cuts off during regular operation.
Finally, back to brakes, some newer ABS systems behave in a fashion that can be dangerous in a high-speed failure. Once again, they're designed not to fail in these cases, so the risk is relatively low. However, the assumption made in these cases is that the valves will be able to close. If the valves were unable to close (and this proposed device could cause that, but it'll take a real engineer to tell me), then it's possible that the 2000 psi stored up in the accumulator would be applied in the regular brakes, causing the wheels to lock up. At a high speed, this could be fatal to more than just the people in the crime car.
Now, blowing up the motor somehow would be more effective. Of course, I'm using the slang "blowing up the motor" which doesn't resemble explosives at all. A laser burn through the radiator, and then it's a race of attrition. Get the guy to overheat the engine and his electrical system will keep working. Better yet, a laser burn through the block. Of course, a laser that powerful would probably be a lot more dangerous than it sounds. Keep his tires, brakes, and steering intact, and burn the radiator. If his transmission is automatic, you might be able to target the tranny cooling system instead, but it'd be a harder target to hit then the engine. But if you could hit it, you could leave him with a running engine but not torque to the wheels. Then he's still got ABS, vacuum assist, AND power steering, and still can't move.
Re:Journaling File System: for those who don't kno
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
This way in case of crash original file will either contain old content or new content, but you can't end with situation when it does not exist at all (unlike your algorithms).
Your method will destroy symlinks. Once you rename the temp file to the new file, if the new file was a symlink, well now it's not anymore. It's a regular file, and the original is now orphaned. Worse, it may have been a symlink to allow several users to share it transparently (I've done that with Kab), and now you have users using different copies again, and not even knowing it.
Did your parents ever play that trick on you with Gi-Joe or legos or anything?
Yeah, well, but I can't remember specifics. My parents have a big collective heart, but have always failed in implementation. They'd promise all kinds of stuff, and then not be able to deliver.
When my kids ask me for stuff, I give them a straight answer. I haven't failed yet to either provide when I said I would, or tell them I couldn't without raising their hopes. 4 years so far (my oldest is 4), so good.:)
But right about now I'm thinking about taking them out and showing them a bottle rocket-powered car. I wonder if my daughter still has a car I can use for it? Aaa, I can find one.:)
Slashdot Mirror
It's suppose to happening in our current view of reality, but suggests that our view is not correct, that it's really two hundred years in the future and we're just living out 1999 in a computer simulation. So that scene in the movie is happening in 1999, not 2199.
Sorry, dude, you failed.
It's happening in 2199, in a computer simulation of 1999. Yeah, it's happening in our current view of reality, but it's still happening in the time the film takes place, which is supposed to be 2199. So, that's when it's happening. It's like if you were playing a simulation of WWII. Would the stuff youw ere doing be happening in 1942? Nope. Happening now.
"You're looking at now. Everything you see is happening, now." "What happened to then?" "We just left then." "When" "Just now"
P.C.-ness is horribly repellent.
So, if PC-ness sucks so badly, how does PowerPC-ness stack up?
I know that often when I've had to shift files over a network to preserve them, I'll glance inside the folder after the transfer just to make sure I got everything.
If you're that worried about preserving privacy and still that determine to verify the files were all transferred, why not use a simple shell script to count the files and compare the sizes? Not only would it be better than looking in a directory you don't belong in, but you would also be able to do your job more efficiently.
Yes but like a lot of slashdot posters in this article who have been saying of the wrongdoings (was if you theolien who said about your boss downloading porn at 6am or someoen else - bah its 3am here) there is a nice permenant record with your name on it. and lets face it it can be traced back to you - most people use the same online handle for usenet , email accounts, and slashdot some of which will have your real name on.
Not to mention that revenge isn't a good excuse to throw morals out the window. I don't know how you feel personally, but while I would love to avenge myself of my former employer, turning to the BSA is still wrong and I won't do it.
If you want another reason why it's not only justified but required to go to the law or otherwise make sure law enforcement is informed of a felony in progress in the workplace: Your office policies are a matter of contract law between you and your employer, and contracts are not allowed to force one party to commit a crime, or become an accessory to a crime. So if a crime is being committed in the workplace, you are required to report it to the legal authorities (or see that it's reported) if you know about it, and you may be required to report it to your boss.
I agree that with certain crimes in certain situations, it is necessary to go to the law with it. HOWEVER, consider this:
I work for you. I find kiddie porn on your computer. I call the cops, you go to jail.
That's one scenario.
I work for you. I find kiddie porn on your computer. I tell you that I found it, you say "It's not mine" and immediately delete. Now, you know that there's kiddie porn in your company. So you start looking for, company liability and so forth, not to mention that YOU HAVE KIDS yourself. Kiddie porn is linked to the act. Fact is, people that molest children also look at porn displaying the molestation. I'm all over the fact that viewing kiddie porn doesn't make someone molest children, but to use another analogy, armed robbers read Guns and Ammo. At least, the few that I've known did.
You should *never* go recklessly calling the cops. If you believe that you should call the cops to make sure that justice has a possibility of getting served, then you must take responsibility for determining for yourself whether or not the person who will get it is in fact violating the law. If I found kiddie porn in my wife's home directory, know what I'd do? I'd install a firewall and a sniffer, and delete it. If it reappears, then we've got trouble. (I'd also look over the kids and ask them probing questions and so forth) But you can't presume guilt any more than the law can.
To make an analogy, if you broke into an employee's office to play a prank, and found a rape in progress, would you call the cops, or would you call your boss (assuming your boss isn't the rapist)? At that point it ceases to matter why you were there, for purposes of who to report the crime to, but it may matter in that you might lose your job over it (which is, really, as it should be).
While this ia good analogy, it is flawed in several respects. First, if you break into a room and find a rape in progress, you don't call anybody. You kill the rapist. 'nuff said, right? If you don't, then you should be killed. Simple as that. Second problem: Rape is a different crime than saving kiddie porn. I know from experience that rape can be cleaned off afterwards (not direct personal experience) and covered up, but kiddie porn is stored. You don't have to immediately call the cops to prevent a crime in progress, you have plenty of time to go up corporate channels.
Finally, the company has a stake in this. If you go to the cops and it gets to the press and the company doesn't have a chance to do anything with it, they get a big ol' black eye in the press. If you talk to your boss, he talks to his boss, whatever, and they call the cops, then the cops are still called, and the press stories will reflect that your company called the cops. Now they look good in the press. You have a responsibility, when you work for a company, to make them money. You also have a responsibility not to hurt them. If you don't want that responsibility with your company, find another fucking job. Now, if you talk to your boss, and he goes to his boss, et. al, and NOTHING HAPPENS, then call the cops. THe company deserves their black eye, at that point.
Do you really want to live in a society where the guy behind you on the freeway calls the police on you for doing 57 in a 55.
Eh? By the time our society gets that bad, it'll be illegal to drive and use a cell-phone. Just think, you'll be driving along doing 57, and two cop cars show up. One to arrest you for speeding, and the other to arrest the narc for using his cell-phone while driving...
Usually what's involved is someone that didn't produce the pictures, has no way to know their provenence and in no way contributed to their making, and the pictures in question are perhaps shots of 16 year old girls on nude beaches and the like. 16 years is the age of consent in a lot of countries you know. In the US it was formerly 12, in fact if memory serves 11 in one state. And there's no way to tell what age a model was in most cases anyway - is that a 16 year old, or an 18? Without knowing the provenence of the pictures and having records to prove the ages of those involved, it's simple conjecture, hiding behind outrage to avoid proving anything.
It's very difficult to prove kiddie-porn when the models involved have boobs and hair and orgasms and stuff. The reason is obvious, puberty is the process of becoming an adult, at least sexually. Not to mention all the porn out there that says "Teens do anything for you!" and crap. That usually refers to girls 18 and 19, but I've seen a lot of High School cheerleaders who WERE 18 during the photo shoot, or may have even been younger but were 18 when they signed the paper to distribute th tstuff, or whatever.
THe only way to prove kiddie porn, in my opinion, in a picture by itself, requires several elements. 1) something with which to scale the model, such as a couch or something. I've seen 18-year-olds who could shave their pussies and stand in an empty room and pass for naked 8-year-olds. 2) Blatant sexual activity. In fact, I'm nervous about taking pictures of my own kids when they're naked, even if they're doing one of those really cute and memorable things, because in this society somebody might take it as kiddie porn. 3) Obvious sexual immaturaty (sp?). Many women go through their whole lives without growing large breasts, and for portions of their adult life could pass as pre-menses. Many other women develop early and can pass as 20+ years old when they're in fact "kiddie porn" material. How can sexual immaturity be obvious? Well, it's a topic beyond the scope of this post.
THe problem is totally exacerbated by the ideas involved in statutory rape. The assumption is that an older man uses his superior experience, charm, and knowledge to seduce a younger girl who would, if she knew better, say "no". But the girls themselves may very well be well-developed women, with boobs and pubes and totally orgasmic. Yet there are people who think it's sick and twisted to look at those girls, even though the girls' bodies are doing exactly what they naturally do at that point and trying to look as sexy as possible to attract a mate. SO it's considered sick and twisted to respond in a natural fashion to a girl who's body is trying to get you to respond in a natural fashion. (Of course I'm talking about girls in the age ranges of 12-17, but mostly in the range of 15-17. But I have seen 12-14-year-olds who could pass for at least 18, and no, I didn't see them naked) Statutory rape is one of those laws that has a good intent, but is incapable of carrying out justice.
Anyway, I got sidetracked. The article also says that the employees only saw thumbnails of the so-called kiddie porn. I've seen thumbnails of pictures that looked benign but turned out to be porn, and I've seen thumbnails that looked pornographic that turned out not to be. Windows thumbnails are pretty small, so how the fuck did the employees successfully identify, from a thumbnail in an innocent directory crawl, that the pictures were porn and the genre? I have to say, it's totally reasonable when you've backed up Data to probe his anus to make sure all his shit's in place. Er, totally reasonable when you've backup up some data to go spot-checking in various directories to see that the data survived the transfer and that you're safe to smash the hard drive.
An employee discovering illegal porn on a computer or illegal anything is in a tough position: report it to you employer and the problem will magically go away or report it to the proper authorities and get fired because you violated some legal agreement you signed with them (under duress) the year before.
I've been in a similar situation. As a texas state inspector, I worked with a guy that gave out an inspection sticker to a girl with boobs in exchange for a free looky and a 12-pack. (He was also an idiot) Then he makes this big commotion about how he was getting a 12-pack and that car's a piece of shit, or something like that. So I went and told my boss that I had to do something about it. The guy made a huge fuss about it, and if the car was caught, the paper trail was clear, and it would be known that I was working. In any serious investigation, I'd be in some tough shit myself. Besides that, there was also plenty of reason to believe that the girl's car really wasn't safe to drive. Heh. So I told my boss "I want to call the cops on this guy, what do you want to do?" MY boss says "We need him right now, and we can't hire somebody else. Please don't make an issue out of it." After some long, hard thinking, I called my inspection supervisor and told him the whole thing. He cut me off, asking if I had first talked to the store manager. I told him how the conversation had gone, but he cut me off again. He then called the store and talked to the guy. Within a couple of hours the decision was made for me to give a statement. ON that statement, the investigation proceeded. But, as I understand, the statement itself was never used. Anyway, my supervisor wanted to make sure the company had an opportunity to do the right thing, even if they ahd already started on the wrong track. THEN he wanted to see if they would do it, and if so, great. If not, he would revoke their license to do state inspections.
The point of telling the story is that the law would prefer to give companies the opportunity to do the right thing, or at least to allow their employees to do the right thing. Now, I don't really have any idea what would've happened with me and the company after that, but I was starting to smell some bad wind coming my way, and I took off before the company could fuck with me. Thus, I saved face for all of us. :)
The grandparent was saying that seeing pics could encourage people to molest children. I was just liking this to the argument that seeing violent movies encourages violence, seeing murderers in films encourages killing, and so on.
Yes, you were, and it was very much a flawed analogy. Instead, liken it to seeing actual films of murders being committed, because kiddie porn is actually seeing pictures of kids engaging in sexual activities. Yes, I've seen it, and it's some scary shit. I've also seen drawings made with a different purpose, but essentially showing the same shit. The drawings aren't nearly as scary, because 1) they're not real, they're just something somebody drew. 2) They weren't drawn with the intention of giving someone a hard-on. Quite the opposite. 3) No-one was actually molested in the creation of the drawing.
The reason those things make it so different is because in the real thing, you're seeing a kid who is actually being molested, and you're seeing exactly what is happening. And, like porn (in fact, this is the thing that separates porn from other picutres of naked people), the intent of the picture is to give someone a hard-on.
The point is, you can't compare hollywood special effects and entertaining movies to kiddie porn because in the first case, what you're seeing isn't real (although they try to make it look as real as possible). In the second case, you're seeing something real.
Since when is choosing not to rat someone out to the cops the same as condoning their behavior?
Every single time.
Um, I have to disagree with that. While, as a rule, I would certainly agree with the idea presented, but ratting to the cops isn't always the best solution to the problem.
Take my neighbor's kids. (Please!) I have reason to suspect they're smoking pot around the yard. If I rat to the cops and the cops come, find shit, and arrest the kids, the mother will get evicted. This is a drug-free neighborhood. Now the kids are in trouble, the mother (and two brothers) are homeless, and the only thing the family as a whole has learned is "fucksl4shd0t's an asshole". The two kids who I suspect are doing this are around 13 years old. When my wife was 13, she was smoking pot and doing a hell of a lot more. Yet, according to your rule, the legal system should take care of these kids.
Another scenario, this one more contrived. Say you see kiddie porn on someone's hard drive. You also see the kind of porn that's real pictures of women being raped. And you're a woman. That's gotta be part of the scenario. :) So you go and rat to the cops. The cops come and investigate and are unable to do anything about it. The guy thinks about it and figures out that you must have found and said something. So he comes along and rapes/kills you. Was it such a good idea to put your fate in the hands of law enforcement?
In a perfect world, yes, taking matters up with government authorities is a good idea. However, there ain't no such thing as a perfect world.
I'm taking the company's side. :) The quotes from the Plaintiffs made them sound a lot like the kind of people who would accuse their boss of anything if the boss did anything but lick the employee's assholes. Stuff like "We werent' trained by the company to deal with finding child pornography". How the fuck is the company supposed to train them? Further, how are they supposed to train them without getting in trouble themselves?
I'll bet they were problem employees who didn't exactly handle themselves with maturity throughout this particular ordeal and were terminated WITH CAUSE. I've seen their like before. Fuck 'em all. Darwin in the work force should weed out these people.
The only reason not to have scrollbars on the top and left is if there was some other useful clickable stuff already using that space. The top of windows is devoted to menus or buttons- traditionally, there hasn't been anything on the left, although recently some button bars or "Sidebars" show up there.
Indeed, as a consequence of english being left-to-right, paper books have required us to reach to the right, with our right hand, to turn the page. Since that is essentially what a scrollbar does, it seems to be more fitting with more traditional media to have scrollbars on the right.
If you think about it. :) Also, since the language is left to right, you're more likely to find a sentence ending closer to the right-hand side than the left-hand side, and your eyes will be closer to the scrollbars.
One more thing: Since most people are right-handed, and they use their mouse on the right-hand side of the screen, it feels more natural to them to reach to the right to scroll down.
Final point:
There isn't any *right place* to put a scrollbar. Windows sucks because you don't have any choice. The closest thing to the right place for a scrollbar is a preferences setting that lets the user pick.
(often half the show isn't even animated at all, it just slides still frames past the camera, eg. Samurai Jack)
I've got 3 words for you. The original Spiderman. Either you're old enough to know what i'm talking about, or you're too young to care. But those were some rockin' cartoons, even if the animation was so shitty.
Now kids spend their Saturday mornings sleeping in as they usually have been out smoking bongs and having sex the night before.
Their role models - Eminem and Christina Aguilera, Brittney, Holly Valance etc. You get the picture.
Previously their role models were Bon Jovi, Tiffany, George Michael, and Mariah Carey. NOthing's changed. Try again.
This is perhaps a little off-topic, but... Saying "Have a nice day!" is a relic of the 80s? I grew up in the 80s, but I'm lost on this one... Does anybody know what this is a reference to?
Um, the fact that there was still at least a remnant of manners in the 80s that doesn't exist anymore?
Spounge Bob Sqaure Pants?
I was actually surprised that Sponge Bob didn't get censored to oblivion. That show is COOL. IN fact, my wife watched it with my daughter once (back when we had a tv, and we actually had cable) and told me it was a bad show, too much violence and other crap. She's one of those mothers. Luckily, i don't put up with that crap. So I told her to put on Sponge Bob when it came back on and show me where she had problems with it. Would you know? She couldn't find any problems with it. Moreover, we both found it to be really really funny, and a lot of fun to watch with the kids.
Occasionally I think about getting cable again to watch that show, but then I get real again. Dammit, TV just plain sucks. What do my kids do on saturday morning? They go out with their mother while I sleep. :) Then they come home and play with me for awhile, then we all go outside and play together.
although I will excuse Tiny Toons, but thats my opinion).
Tiny Toons rocked! It's probably the only example where someone made a next-generation of a previous series and it was really good! It can't even be compared to the original bugs bunny and crap, because they're completely different. Sure, there's all the familiar cartoon gags and stuff, but sometimes it was a 20-minute sitcom, other times it was a series of 5-minute shorts. ALways something different, always funny, and always witty. Great twists of plotlines, where the good guys didn't always win, and the bad guys were even good guys sometimes. Hell, Montana Max doing Citizen Kane was cool in and of itself (even if that was the episode Fox always showed).
The difference between Tiny Toons and all the other "kid" cartoons was that TIny Toons preserved the spirit of the originals, and expanded in its areas of expression. Babs was always talking trash about "political correctness" and...and...and...
Shit. Like Phil Collins says, "They'll never see the likes of us again!"
Why use a high powered laser to perferate his radiator when a good ol' fashion rifle bullet would do the job just as effectively?
One word: ricochet
If you can't stop the car with the brake booster disabled, then you're driving too much car for you, period. No exceptions. If you want to drive a car that size, get something designed to have manual brakes, like an older truck. (Trucks in the seventies often came with manual brakes.)
We're talking about criminals who may have stolen the car, or are driving their own car, or whatever. People without any sense of discretion, or else they wouldn't be criminals in the first place. :)
I drive a '71 Chevy pickup with manual brakes, so I know what you're saying about stopping a car without power assist. :) Takes more room, that's for sure.
Your comment about diesels is also a very good comment. Stopping the ECU in those cars may not actually stop the car. Heh. But burning up the radiator will work just as well. Of course, I'm suggesting a technology that doesn't exist in a practical form, and the discussion is about a technology that does exist in a practical form.
The engine would continue to generate vacuum if it stalled at a high speed. Especially if the effected car had a manual transmission.
In a manual transmission, yes. But then you're depending on the criminal not pushing in the clutch, or shifting into neutral, which he may do to keep coasting as fast as he can.
IN an automatic transmission, not a chance in hell. Your torque converter is hydraulic, but the pressure must come from the engine side. You can't turn the engine over by spinning the wheels. The disengagement is a property of the torque converter.
Finally, in a manual transmission, it is possible after burning up the radiator to lock the engine. If the transmission is still engaged when that happens, then the drive wheels would lock, creating the safety situation you're trying to avoid. However, chances are good at that point that the criminal would push in the clutch and/or shift into neutral to regain control of the vehicle.
Other than the loss of power steering there is no danger to just stopping the engine in a high speed persuit
You also forgot the fact that the power brake booster in your car is likely powered by engine vacuum. In some exotic cars, it's hydraulically powered. In either case, it requires a running engine. At low speeds, failure of these components isn't dangerous because under federal law they're required to have enough boost stored in them to provide for stopping in case of failure. However, at higher speeds, you can easily drain the system of it's reserve and find yourself having to stand on the brakes to stop.
Loosing power steering at high speeds is relatively safe, on the other hand. Most/all power steering systems kick off anyway over 35 mph, some kick off even earlier. The only purpose power steering serves is to counteract the wheels gripping the road at a stop or at low speeds. THe reason why your steering gearbox (or rack-n-pinion) is designed to work without power assist isn't a safety issue, it's because the power assist automatically cuts off during regular operation.
Finally, back to brakes, some newer ABS systems behave in a fashion that can be dangerous in a high-speed failure. Once again, they're designed not to fail in these cases, so the risk is relatively low. However, the assumption made in these cases is that the valves will be able to close. If the valves were unable to close (and this proposed device could cause that, but it'll take a real engineer to tell me), then it's possible that the 2000 psi stored up in the accumulator would be applied in the regular brakes, causing the wheels to lock up. At a high speed, this could be fatal to more than just the people in the crime car.
Now, blowing up the motor somehow would be more effective. Of course, I'm using the slang "blowing up the motor" which doesn't resemble explosives at all. A laser burn through the radiator, and then it's a race of attrition. Get the guy to overheat the engine and his electrical system will keep working. Better yet, a laser burn through the block. Of course, a laser that powerful would probably be a lot more dangerous than it sounds. Keep his tires, brakes, and steering intact, and burn the radiator. If his transmission is automatic, you might be able to target the tranny cooling system instead, but it'd be a harder target to hit then the engine. But if you could hit it, you could leave him with a running engine but not torque to the wheels. Then he's still got ABS, vacuum assist, AND power steering, and still can't move.
This way in case of crash original file will either contain old content or new content, but you can't end with situation when it does not exist at all (unlike your algorithms).
Your method will destroy symlinks. Once you rename the temp file to the new file, if the new file was a symlink, well now it's not anymore. It's a regular file, and the original is now orphaned. Worse, it may have been a symlink to allow several users to share it transparently (I've done that with Kab), and now you have users using different copies again, and not even knowing it.
No, I don't have a better solution. :)
Did your parents ever play that trick on you with Gi-Joe or legos or anything?
Yeah, well, but I can't remember specifics. My parents have a big collective heart, but have always failed in implementation. They'd promise all kinds of stuff, and then not be able to deliver.
When my kids ask me for stuff, I give them a straight answer. I haven't failed yet to either provide when I said I would, or tell them I couldn't without raising their hopes. 4 years so far (my oldest is 4), so good. :)
But right about now I'm thinking about taking them out and showing them a bottle rocket-powered car. I wonder if my daughter still has a car I can use for it? Aaa, I can find one. :)
I always wanted the barbie car. That fucker has to flaunt my childhood around violated with metal valve fittings.
Cancel my subscription, I don't want any more of your issues.
What idiot modded that as troll? Cannibalism jokes are funny! Hell, did anyone else notice the astronaut's name was "Donner"????