Good god man! Kopete has the worst user interface known to man. That may make it fit in well with the rest of the KDE desktop, but to load kde libs to use it on a netbook is insanity.
The government that the Democratic majority and presidency is practicing is the type of behavior that is common in the legislatures of states like New York. The "leadership" provides plums in the form of committee assignments, jobs for relatives and cash in exchange for voting as ordered. If you don't follow the leader, you lose the privileges.
This obviously isn't a phenomenon unique to democrats...
Um... obviously not, because the New York State legislature has been under republican control for most of the last 40 years. They lost control to the democrats this past January, but regained it just recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/nyregion/09switch.html/
...and such was the case with the "one-finger salute" video. That intellectual powerhouse thinks Obama somehow snuck into the White House even though he is a Kenyan citizen, and mourns the loss of the Pontiac Firebird.
1 Recruit a child for a photo session.
2 Photoshop the head of the child on a similar child-like body of an adult.
3 Distribute the composite photo as a pornographic photo of a child.
The child.
For the illusion to be convincing you will of course have had to pose the boy or girl very carefully.
You will have taken equal care in the selection and positioning of your adult model.
It's a process that stinks of fraud and sexual abuse from start to finish.
4 Profit
These are actions not thoughts.
What a completely absurd hypothetical scenario. Has nothing to do with what this guy was doing. Anyway, even if something like you propose does occur you answered your own question: "It's a process that stinks of fraud and sexual abuse from start to finish." So charge your hypothetical bad guy with fraud or sexual abuse if you can; why are people so keen on constantly creating new criminal laws?
Anyway, in a nutshell, Artifakt interpreted a statement in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition which was followed by the language "Respondents do not challenge this provision, and we do not consider it" to align with his own position, while conveniently ignoring the main thrust of the opinion.
There's images of real children (their faces). They were too young to give informed consent for those images being combined with the other images (adult women's bodies). (That last point technically assumes the faces weren't very old footage and in the interm the children hadn't grown up enough to give legal consent of course, and there could be other factors, such as whether anyone actually recognized a face and thought the photos were actually all of the person that went with the face, not composites.).
And if they are public photographs there is no reason they need to give consent for their use. Don't confuse consent for usage of ordinary public photographs with consent for participating in pornography.
I.E. means 'id est', and the usual English translation of that is to hold it to mean 'that is'. I.e. is properly used when you intend to restate an idea, or expand upon it.
E.g. is an abbreviation for the Latin 'exempli gratia'. The normal English equivalent is 'for example'. If you mean to clairify by an example, and that example doesn't limit what other cases might also exist, e.g is correct.
Stop patronizing.
While Jane Q Public used i.e., the original supreme court ruling didn't. Instead, it talked about possible harm to real minors, and used actual abuse or molestation as two examples of such harm, not as a limiting definition enumerating all possible harm connected to the production of material. Jane probably should have used 'e.g.'
You really need to read the opinion again. You have no idea what you are talking about. Here's a bit from Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition:
In contrast to the speech in Ferber, speech that itself is the record of sexual abuse, the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not "intrinsically related" to the sexual abuse of children, as were the materials in Ferber. 458 U.S., at 759. While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, see infra, at 13--16, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts.
And the section you quoted:
Here's a bit from the SCOTUS decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
" Section 2256(8)(C) prohibits a more common and lower tech means of creating virtual images, known as computer morphing. Rather than creating original images, pornographers can alter innocent pictures of real children so that the children appear to be engaged in sexual activity. Although morphed images may fall within the definition of virtual child pornography, they implicate the interests of real children and are in that sense closer to the images in Ferber."
The important bit from Ashcroft right after the portion you quoted but neglected to include is this:
Respondents do not challenge this provision, and we do not consider it.
Being "in that sense" closer to Ferber with a caveat of "we do not consider it" in no way should be construed as "pretty close to the line" of actual children involved in sexual activity.
Note that the court said "implicate the interests of real children", which could include many other situations than actual abuse or molestation. Presumably, the effects on the child's interests would have to be negative, although that's not really spelled out, and presumably the normal legal principles about proportionality and gravity apply, so if casting Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon had been a dumb career move, it wouldn't be enough to trigger a charge against her mother.
Yes, you can extrapolate all sorts of things from that statement, but again, the important part should be "we do not consider it".
No, we're not necessarily talking porn here. This is a minor's head photoshopped onto an adult nude body. Do you consider the statue of David to be porn? Because he's naked.
Why is consent important to you in this situation? When you're talking about consent in a pornographic situation you are usually talking about the active participants consenting to the filming or photographing or the sexual acts depicted. Since the subjects in these altered photos did not have to actually perform any sexual actions nor pose nude I can't see how this is analogous. Please explain.
No, but the video does. A tenant (of the accused) found the said photos. One of the photos (well the face) belonged to the tenant's kid. Calm the fuck down.
You calm the fuck down. Show me the actual harm being done. And while you're at it, tell me why you are so keen on outlawing certain thoughts you find creepy or distasteful.
So what. I just spit on a picture of Bill Gates. An actual person. Should I go to jail?
I just photoshopped a picture of Bill Gates head on the body of a donkey and masturbated to that image. Should I go to jail?
I just held a picture of Britney Spears from when she was 17 next to a picture of a naked adult female, but I imagined her head on the naked body. Should I go to jail?
Where's the line here? Just how much thought do you want to control?
First off, the 'harm' that is caused by child porn is of many types:
- Obvious, physical abuse
- Ditto, emotional abuse
- Recognized in depictions later in life, more emotional abuse
Woops. I wonder how the children, the pictures of whose faces were used, would feel if they were sent these photos. Or if their parents received them.
This is harm. He's gonna lose this one.
So if I photoshopped a picture of a minor and smeared virtual poop on his/her face that would also be emotional abuse? Or if I photoshopped the photo of a skinny girl's head on a fat girl's body? I suppose that would qualify as harm as well.
Do you support outlawing any visual image which may possibly cause emotional harm? Including editorial cartoons of course, as well as any altered picture on the internet which could conceivably be construed as insulting.
The reality is that this stuff is not harmful unless you consider that a bunch of small-minded control-freaks like yourself want to imprison people for creating derivative artistic works. SCOTUS did not make a mess of this, and people like you scare the hell out of me.
Well, the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (i.e., no children were actually abused or molested), then it is protected speech. I would think that a child's face pasted on an adult's body would fall into that category. But IANAL, and it is pretty close to the line.
Why is that "pretty close to the line"? You said yourself, if it doesn't involve children who were actually abused or molested than it is protected speech. So why, pray tell, would this fall anywhere near the line?
Widgets are bad? Are you suggesting that the goal of making it easier to add features to a desktop is not worth pursuing?
Yes. In my opinion, widgets are bad. Kickass (ah-hem) taskbars are good.
Maybe they don't have widgets you like, but I'm not sure where you get off dumping on a project that cost you nothing. You know, there's a bug list among other ways to communicate with the developers.
Why is it wrong for me to criticize a software project and one of its developers in a discussion of an article which frequently mentions that software project and that developer frequently? It's quite on topic.
Get back to me after coding something as big and complicated as a desktop that _actually_ works and attracts users/contributors. I'll be sure to criticize your efforts.
I see. So absolutely no criticism until I write my own software project. Or maybe I'll submit a bug report that I don't like widgets. Please. You're on a discussion site. People will express their opinions and offer criticisms about vista, corn flakes and KDE4. Get over it. Since when are opensource projects such wimps about criticism?
Aaron Seigo thinks he is embarking on a bold new vision of the desktop, but so far, he's produced only developments that inhibit productivity. Making everything into desktop widgets (including social networking fads like facebook) isn't a bold new vision of the desktop environment... it's glitzy eye-candy. Seigo peppers every idea he has with colorful language like "new paradigms" but his ideas so far are hardly innovative. Desktop widgets? Already done. Animations? Compiz did it. Creating folder containments and extra desktop views? No one ever asked for it, nor apparently like it. He is a man with solutions in search of a problem.
The only thing that KDE4 has accomplished to date is to offer less features than 3.5, and make everything slower and a little more mouse dependent.
what? for research? if by research he means being a sadistic pedophile then i can understand that. of course i'm sure he had to force himself to look at these 'researh images' for several hours a day so he can better understand the mind of a pedophile. so if i'm a scientist, and i'm doing pharmaceutical research, can i use that as my excuse for a small mountain of cocaine on my coffee table?
Yes, how absurd. Obviously if he looked at these images he is a sadistic pedophile and was about to attack children any second. He also apparently texted the word "geil" so we know exactly what he was thinking.
Of course law enforcement can look at these images for several hours a day and no one is harmed, and we also know they never have any improper thoughts while doing so.
Wow. It was a picture of a kid in a bathtub. You think all bathtub photos of children should be investigated by the police? People like you frighten me more than "creepy neighbor #4".
Yeah, the real message is that you just don't hand you collection of illegal images over to anyone if you don't want them found.
You're assuming that "illegal images" is a cut and dry term. Not anymore. Have some myspace photos of your young looking friend in just her underwear? A "jailbait" inspirational photo in your picture folder as a joke? Manga which might be considered obscene?
No matter how innocuous you may think your hard drive is, if you are a heavy internet user there's a chance there's something on there that someone might consider child porn.
Until the circuit city lackey starts to comb through thumbnail images in your browser cache and sees something that might be considered child porn, so he calls the police, who are anxious to bust some scary pedos and take you into custody. Presto! Your life is ruined!
Geez, that 4.3 video makes it look horrible. It still has slow screen redraws and weird artifacts when moving windows. It also appears to be getting uglier and uglier as we painfully proceed along the KDE release trail. And I see that damn cashew in the corner (which everyone but a handful of KDE developers seem to hate) is still hanging in there. Frankly, vista looks a hell of a lot more polished and modern than that.
Christ dude, if you're going to go car analogy, you have to go full-car. Leave out FFmpeg and MPEG and all that other confusing crap and just talk about cars.
But seriously, this is how it's done KDE. Note that people still want to download it and test it despite the fact that it is not labeled a.0 release.
Re:KDE 4 looks promising
on
KDE 4.2.4 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No. When people were complaining about what a trainwreck 4.0 was, the KDE team claimed that 4.1 would be the release that is ready for users. Then, when 4.1 was released, the KDE team claimed that 4.2 would be the release that is ready for users.
4.1 isn't even close to 4.2. You might as well compare a beta to a release version (think of it this way - 4.0 was the tech preview, incomplete and buggy but with APIs in place. 4.1 is the beta - many of the features but not all, and still buggy. 4.2 is release, with bugs fixed and features in place).
You'd think that talking about 4.1 in an article about 4.2.4 would be obviously absurd, but apparently not...
It's a real shame there is no way to label software releases as "tech previews", "release candidates", or "betas". Oh well, I guess we'll just have to stick with generic number releases and let users find out what they've installed after the fact.
Ah, I should have made myself more clear. A picture of a minor fully clothed, all alone, with no one else in the photograph, and not engaged in any sexual act of any kind, can still be considered child porn. Check out United States v. Knox for more clarification.
Slashdot Mirror
Good god man! Kopete has the worst user interface known to man. That may make it fit in well with the rest of the KDE desktop, but to load kde libs to use it on a netbook is insanity.
The government that the Democratic majority and presidency is practicing is the type of behavior that is common in the legislatures of states like New York. The "leadership" provides plums in the form of committee assignments, jobs for relatives and cash in exchange for voting as ordered. If you don't follow the leader, you lose the privileges. This obviously isn't a phenomenon unique to democrats...
Um... obviously not, because the New York State legislature has been under republican control for most of the last 40 years. They lost control to the democrats this past January, but regained it just recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/nyregion/09switch.html/
...and such was the case with the "one-finger salute" video. That intellectual powerhouse thinks Obama somehow snuck into the White House even though he is a Kenyan citizen, and mourns the loss of the Pontiac Firebird.
I think I'll cry.
What a completely absurd hypothetical scenario. Has nothing to do with what this guy was doing. Anyway, even if something like you propose does occur you answered your own question: "It's a process that stinks of fraud and sexual abuse from start to finish." So charge your hypothetical bad guy with fraud or sexual abuse if you can; why are people so keen on constantly creating new criminal laws?
Well I sure messed up that blockquote.
Anyway, in a nutshell, Artifakt interpreted a statement in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition which was followed by the language "Respondents do not challenge this provision, and we do not consider it" to align with his own position, while conveniently ignoring the main thrust of the opinion.
No, we're not necessarily talking porn here. This is a minor's head photoshopped onto an adult nude body. Do you consider the statue of David to be porn? Because he's naked.
Why is consent important to you in this situation? When you're talking about consent in a pornographic situation you are usually talking about the active participants consenting to the filming or photographing or the sexual acts depicted. Since the subjects in these altered photos did not have to actually perform any sexual actions nor pose nude I can't see how this is analogous. Please explain.
No, but the video does. A tenant (of the accused) found the said photos. One of the photos (well the face) belonged to the tenant's kid. Calm the fuck down.
You calm the fuck down. Show me the actual harm being done. And while you're at it, tell me why you are so keen on outlawing certain thoughts you find creepy or distasteful.
The faces were of actual children.
So what. I just spit on a picture of Bill Gates. An actual person. Should I go to jail?
I just photoshopped a picture of Bill Gates head on the body of a donkey and masturbated to that image. Should I go to jail?
I just held a picture of Britney Spears from when she was 17 next to a picture of a naked adult female, but I imagined her head on the naked body. Should I go to jail?
Where's the line here? Just how much thought do you want to control?
So if I photoshopped a picture of a minor and smeared virtual poop on his/her face that would also be emotional abuse? Or if I photoshopped the photo of a skinny girl's head on a fat girl's body? I suppose that would qualify as harm as well.
Do you support outlawing any visual image which may possibly cause emotional harm? Including editorial cartoons of course, as well as any altered picture on the internet which could conceivably be construed as insulting.
The reality is that this stuff is not harmful unless you consider that a bunch of small-minded control-freaks like yourself want to imprison people for creating derivative artistic works. SCOTUS did not make a mess of this, and people like you scare the hell out of me.
Well, the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (i.e., no children were actually abused or molested), then it is protected speech. I would think that a child's face pasted on an adult's body would fall into that category. But IANAL, and it is pretty close to the line.
Why is that "pretty close to the line"? You said yourself, if it doesn't involve children who were actually abused or molested than it is protected speech. So why, pray tell, would this fall anywhere near the line?
Widgets are bad? Are you suggesting that the goal of making it easier to add features to a desktop is not worth pursuing?
Yes. In my opinion, widgets are bad. Kickass (ah-hem) taskbars are good.
Maybe they don't have widgets you like, but I'm not sure where you get off dumping on a project that cost you nothing. You know, there's a bug list among other ways to communicate with the developers.
Why is it wrong for me to criticize a software project and one of its developers in a discussion of an article which frequently mentions that software project and that developer frequently? It's quite on topic.
Get back to me after coding something as big and complicated as a desktop that _actually_ works and attracts users/contributors. I'll be sure to criticize your efforts.
I see. So absolutely no criticism until I write my own software project. Or maybe I'll submit a bug report that I don't like widgets. Please. You're on a discussion site. People will express their opinions and offer criticisms about vista, corn flakes and KDE4. Get over it. Since when are opensource projects such wimps about criticism?
Aaron Seigo thinks he is embarking on a bold new vision of the desktop, but so far, he's produced only developments that inhibit productivity. Making everything into desktop widgets (including social networking fads like facebook) isn't a bold new vision of the desktop environment... it's glitzy eye-candy. Seigo peppers every idea he has with colorful language like "new paradigms" but his ideas so far are hardly innovative. Desktop widgets? Already done. Animations? Compiz did it. Creating folder containments and extra desktop views? No one ever asked for it, nor apparently like it. He is a man with solutions in search of a problem.
The only thing that KDE4 has accomplished to date is to offer less features than 3.5, and make everything slower and a little more mouse dependent.
Yes, how absurd. Obviously if he looked at these images he is a sadistic pedophile and was about to attack children any second. He also apparently texted the word "geil" so we know exactly what he was thinking.
Of course law enforcement can look at these images for several hours a day and no one is harmed, and we also know they never have any improper thoughts while doing so.
Wow. It was a picture of a kid in a bathtub. You think all bathtub photos of children should be investigated by the police? People like you frighten me more than "creepy neighbor #4".
Besides, who even downloads and saves porn anyways? Hasn't this guy heard of the internet? He should be punished for being a total moron
Everyone who uses a browser cache. Which is the vast majority of people.
Yeah, the real message is that you just don't hand you collection of illegal images over to anyone if you don't want them found.
You're assuming that "illegal images" is a cut and dry term. Not anymore. Have some myspace photos of your young looking friend in just her underwear? A "jailbait" inspirational photo in your picture folder as a joke? Manga which might be considered obscene?
No matter how innocuous you may think your hard drive is, if you are a heavy internet user there's a chance there's something on there that someone might consider child porn.
Until the circuit city lackey starts to comb through thumbnail images in your browser cache and sees something that might be considered child porn, so he calls the police, who are anxious to bust some scary pedos and take you into custody. Presto! Your life is ruined!
Full disk encryption is very setup with ubuntu on the alternative-installer disk.
Geez, that 4.3 video makes it look horrible. It still has slow screen redraws and weird artifacts when moving windows. It also appears to be getting uglier and uglier as we painfully proceed along the KDE release trail. And I see that damn cashew in the corner (which everyone but a handful of KDE developers seem to hate) is still hanging in there. Frankly, vista looks a hell of a lot more polished and modern than that.
Christ dude, if you're going to go car analogy, you have to go full-car. Leave out FFmpeg and MPEG and all that other confusing crap and just talk about cars.
Final release 2.3?
.0 release.
But seriously, this is how it's done KDE. Note that people still want to download it and test it despite the fact that it is not labeled a
No. When people were complaining about what a trainwreck 4.0 was, the KDE team claimed that 4.1 would be the release that is ready for users. Then, when 4.1 was released, the KDE team claimed that 4.2 would be the release that is ready for users.
4.1 isn't even close to 4.2. You might as well compare a beta to a release version (think of it this way - 4.0 was the tech preview, incomplete and buggy but with APIs in place. 4.1 is the beta - many of the features but not all, and still buggy. 4.2 is release, with bugs fixed and features in place). You'd think that talking about 4.1 in an article about 4.2.4 would be obviously absurd, but apparently not...
It's a real shame there is no way to label software releases as "tech previews", "release candidates", or "betas". Oh well, I guess we'll just have to stick with generic number releases and let users find out what they've installed after the fact.
Ah, I should have made myself more clear. A picture of a minor fully clothed, all alone, with no one else in the photograph, and not engaged in any sexual act of any kind, can still be considered child porn. Check out United States v. Knox for more clarification.