If that's the case, then why is everything tied up in extreme legalese? Why not just flat out say, "We take all your album sales, in exchange for ?"
Whether or not artists can benefit from this or not, the record labels are sleazy in my opinion. Especially how they make sure to use "we're fighting for the artists" when most of what they are fighting for is their own bottom-line.
The facts are the facts, beyond they it's just opinion, and it's mine that the record companies are sleazy regardless of the morality of downloading music, etc. Just because the record labels are providing a service to the artists doesn't mean it's right for the labels to bend the artists over a barrel.
Also, saying that the artists that "make it big" aren't complaining is focusing in the wrong place. If you ask a Senator or Congressman (in the US) if he's happy with his health care and he'll say yes he is. But I'd hardly say that all the other US citizens are just 'a bunch of whiners.' A member of Congrss (in the Senate or the House or Reps) have one of the best healthcare packages in the States, even after they retire/are voted out of office (though being voted out of office almost never happens, esp in the House of Reps).
It's sort of off-topic, but by sister-in-law is an artist. She has told me that some artists want to 'lease' their work (as in paintings, not music). Why? Because they feel that artists are always getting ripped off due to their art only becoming worth millions of dollars after they are dead and gone.
I seriously did not know how to respond to that. It seems like the height of greed to me and a gross misunderstanding of exactly *why* the cost goes up after death.
Artists still sign because they "want to make it big." Also, the record companies hire 20-somethings that are basically the 'con-men' that woo the artist by telling them things like "this contract is what most artists sign for us" or "Blink182 gets about the same deal as you." The young, budding artist sees that they are getting the same deal as a multi-platinum artist and they feel it must be a good deal. They are also 'wined and dined' by these smooth talking reps from the record industry, so that they feel like they are important to the company.
The truth is that maybe 80% of the artists never make anything of themselves, but it's not like the record companies are going to tell them that. And let's face it, not everyone is smart enough to 'just f'ing google it.'
The recording industry's business model is to keep throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, and only ~20% of anything sticks to the wall. The rest fail, and owe them money. The record companies then tie them up with 'working off the debt.' I'm not too sure of the specifics, but I know that their career goes into limbo because the contracts prevent them from going elsewhere or producing more music (or at least making money from it I gather).
I think that the best way to put it is something that I see reiterated a lot.
In the 'new business model,' it becomes easy for a lot of artists to make a little, but hard to a few artists to make a lot.
It just means the death of the "mega-lithic" rock star that 'hits it big' and owns 10 yachts and 3 multi-million dollar homes. On the flipside, it means that lots of smaller artists will be able to make more money selling their music through their own sites, or independent online retail outlets (something similar to iTunes Music Store where individual artists can register to sell their music).
You say that, but I recall a story on another site that had kdawson's real name because he was part of some internet activism group. It identified him as "kdawson from slashdot.org." I don't think that kdawson is just a 'shared login.'
Then please enlighten me. I realize that the requests will have IP addresses attached to them, but that doesn't link it directly to *me* unless they go through the mobile carrier that I'm using. There are barriers to the information that are placed in front of them. If a personal identifier is sent with each request... there are no barriers. They already have the info.
It's not just Americans. The American bashers are focusing on the US-centric aspect of this too... which is ridiculous because it also affects them as well.
Who says I'm a US citizen? You do realize that this affects countries other than that US. What an anti-US view of the world to only focus your thoughts on how this affects the US (and therefore how you can rip on them) as opposed to how it affects the world at large.
I'm not paranoid that Apple in particular will do something with it. I just don't like it when companies are trying to pump some sort of information out of you.
There may be a rational explanation for this, but I can't see how it 'makes sense' for them to attach identifying information to Weather and Stock info requests...
The problem in the United States is government interference. It's true that in a lot of cases the free market tends towards a single monopoly. Microsoft is a good example of that. The Telco/Cable companies are not.
The Telco/Cable companies for years were granted government regulated monopolies. Ma Bell even had guaranteed profits at one point, IIRC. In all of those years of living high off the hog, they've done a few things:
1) Built up a large communications infrastructure. The Telcos have their copper telephone lines (that are being/have been replaced with fibre). The Cable companies with their coax lines (that are being/have been replaced with fibre).
2) Gain money and power.
They use all that money and power to keep their infrastructure fresh (though that's somewhat debatable) and to squash competition. Right now the barrier to entry for other companies to compete is that initial amount of money it would take to build up the infrastructure needed to compete with the big players.
It has less to do with "Communism vs the Free Market" and more to do with the government giving some companies an unfair advantage. That's why it's laughable when companies like AT&T or Comcast whine about "keeping a free market" when the idea of government regulation comes around. It's easy to say "we should decide who wins by way of a 100m sprint" when you know that you're the fastest sprinter because you've been pumping up on steroids.
Ah, but which quotes I'm looking at is another can of worms. It implies that I either own stock in that company, or plan to. I realize that I could just be watching the stock "for fun," but aggregating this type of information to have the "big picture" is the problem.
Apple might be able to 'play off' the fact that they are gathering info on you through the Weather applet (though I find it unacceptable). But the Stocks applet? So now every request for stock information sent to Apple contains identifying information about myself? I
'm sorry but which stocks I own/watch is my own business. Even when the PR machine spins up, "we're not doing anything with the information" is not good enough to me. Maybe that explanation would be good enough if it was just the Weather widget, because that info is somewhat irrelevant, but someone's financial information is different.
Corporations and government agencies are comprised of people. And it is people who do the daftest things when it comes to security. In fact, 95% or better of security problems involve the USER carelessness for the problem. The entire point of my post was that if that user is properly informed on the issue by the government agency or corporation, then it is the *USER'S* fault if they don't follow that.
Then they aught to get cracking and learn. And also put it on their list of criteria and which products to buy/use. Then we might get somewhere.
I/T can't enforce this, the CIO's are too busy on "perception" issues. And management involve technical types and follow recommendations does not work either as most main line business types choose to ignore the obvious until burned. Then it is someone else's fault. You have to go for the person... I'm not saying it's up to I/T to *enforce* this 100% or be called out as the responsible party. But if there is no policy in place than the government agency/corporation is just as responsible as the employee. Whatever issues the management has with developing a policy, it is unacceptable to tie up a "how do we deal w/ private data" policy in red tape and board meetings for years on end, while the data is unprotected in the meantime.
And it is especially stupid to go after the low-level employee in a matter where upper-management is dropping the ball. You're just agreeing that when a government agency or corporation blunders, there should be a legal scapegoat so that they don't 'lose face.'
I do agree that the employee *can* be the responsible party, but to say that the employee is *always* the responsible party is a little narrow-minded.
as most main line business types choose to ignore the obvious until burned. I don't see how you can condone this. Just because that's the way it is, does not mean that these people should be 'high and dry.' They are just as to blame for the problem as the employee if this is the case, yet you seem to be excusing them of any responsibility.
The problem that I see with this is that government agencies (or corporations) aren't being penalized. I don't think that the employee can be blamed when the corporate policy allows the employee to have sensitive information on their laptop *and* take the laptop off-site.
Let's face it. I'm sure *a lot* of employees don't even know much about encryption software, let alone which ones to use and how they work. I don't see the sense in blaming an employee that "should have known better" when it's possible that the company didn't provide the tools/training to allow employee to know what to do.
That being said, the employee has some responsibility to bear as well. If they take it to a restaurant and accidentally leave it there, that's their fault. If the company *does* have a policy about encrypting private information and the employee doesn't follow it, then it's the employee's negligence. If the company says, "No private data offsite," and the employee leaves with it on his/her laptop. It's that employee's own fault.
Or it could just be that different forms of media are a reflection of the views of society.
It's basically an argument between whether or not people made a form of media popular because they shared those views or because they were attracted to its 'forbidden' nature (and were consequently entrapped by it.... '...you don't change the devil; the devil changes you' and all.
Internet or not, the one thing that bands don't have is the marketing engine to consistently push their songs they way that the major labels do. The real break through for internet-only unsigned bands is when internet-only/word of mouth advertising is enough to get them into the Top 40 consistently, and on top of the record label pushed songs.
It's great that this band has made it to the top on their own, but how many other homebrew bands will be able to do this? If they are just an anomaly, then it doesn't mean much. I'm not holding my breath until this starts happening more often.
The reason for a single charity is probably to reduce fraud. If they didn't have that policy, someone could try to get around the 180 day wait period by saying 'please donate the money to my charity, 123donations.com.' 123donations.com could just be a money laundering scheme for some phishers or mobsters, etc.
Paypal on the other hand was being quite unreasonable since the Red Cross is hardly a money laundering scheme. It would seem more beneficial to PayPal to seek out to 'certify/verify' certain charities to their own criteria to make sure that they are legit, and then allow their customers a choice, rather than just one charity or none.
I've always thought that a Dead Man's Switch held too many problems. Unless you have people that are 'out to get you' and your switch is your leverage, then it's not much use.
What happens if you get into a severe accident and end up in the hospital without the ability to 'check in' with it? What happens if you are stranded at an airport with a snowstorm? What if you are stranded at a ski lodge in the mountains in the middle of a snow storm? etc...
If you were ever unable to check in with the switch, then you would probably regret hate mail to your boss or other nasties that you had planned to send to people you hate. It would also be an unwelcome surprise for friends and family to get 'letters from the dead' just to find out that you really aren't dead. It would definitely be a detriment to you if you had it setup to donate all of the money in your bank accounts to charities....
The Dead Man's Switch has too many if's in it. It makes more sense to just put together a will and make sure you entrust someone you deeply trust to execute it.
Reading the article (btw, why was it linked to twice in the summary?), it seems to me to just be an opinion piece based on rumors and a single patent application.
The patent application itself sounds more like it describes the rumored 'iPhone,' which would make GPS functionality not that out of place seeing as many cellphones on the market now employ GPS technology.
As far as the OS-level integration, it seems more like adding GPS and/or map support to the OS is what Apple is interested in. More like iMap, with an API for other 3rd party apps to access it. There is nothing anywhere that there are going to be GPS chips in the computers or ipods. There are just people speculating. It seems to me that it's more likely that it will have support for 3rd party GPS devices.
I know that the default on slashdot is tinfoil-ism, but sometimes you have to be a little more realistic than getting your panties in a twist over wild speculation.
We're talking about child porn that tries to play games with legal loopholes about whether a child is actually harmed. It encourages the direct physical abuse of real children by conditioning the paedophile to consider their lustful and abusive mentality "acceptable" or "normal".
Do you actually have proof that it encourages pedophiles to attack children? This is the same argument used against violent video games. Couldn't it be possible that violent people are drawn to violent video games, not that violent video games create violent people? The same applies to this. People that are pedophiles are drawn to this stuff because they are pedophiles... not because the content made them into pedophiles. Most child sexual abuse comes from a friend or family member, not some ambiguous recluse that offers candy to kids on the playground.
Most pedophiles slowly work their way up to the abuse, perform the act, then deny, even to themselves, that it even happened. The people that you think about that wear their pedophilia as a badge of courage are few and far between. The majority of pedophiles will abuse with or without this material. Pedophiles can be encouraged by regular porn too. They see a regular porn of a girl having anal sex, and they say "I'll try that on my daughter." Should we now ban all porn because it 'inspires pedophilia?' Banning these things based on what you *think* that a minority of pedophiles will do based on it is akin to banning violent video games because of 2 or 3 incidents where someone killed a bunch of people and just happened to like violent video games too.
Let's carry this a step further. If depicting acts that are not socially and morally acceptable, even in fantasy, should be banned then where do we draw the line? Hollywood has plenty of examples of movies that celebrate poor moral values. Under your logic, movies like "Payback", and the Godfather Trilogy should be banned because they encourage rogues and Mafiosos to continue their illegal and immoral acts. You logic makes a depiction of any illegal act a bannable offense.
Also, how do you quantify cartoon sex? Yea, there are blatant examples of people raping kids and saying things like "I like raping 12 year olds like you" in the cartoons/comics. But what about more ambiguous examples? What about a 40 year old woman that gets trapped in the body of a 12 year old? Is it child abuse or illegal to see depictions of her having sex in the 12 year old body? How do you quantify the age of someone in a cartoon? Unless they explicitly state their age, there are plenty of characters that are supposed to be teens that look like they are 20. There are also plenty of 20 year olds in these comics that look like they are teens?
It starts to encroach on the realm of thought more so then the realm of reality. How does any of this differ from someone that only sleeps with women that look like they are 15, even though they are really 21? Should that be illegal too? You also have to account for the real porn out there that is between consenting adults that look like they are teens. Right now that is legal. After this law it would still be legal, but fake depictions of the same thing would be illegal.
It's the same problem that is caused by allowing pre-teen and teen models to be dressed up as if they were adults by clothing advertisers.
I would rethink your wording. The other day I saw a billboard of a bunch of maybe 12 year old boys dressed up in blazers and such for Christmas. You could hardly say it was sexual at all, but if you were to ban based on your wording, then things like that would be banned.
Comparing South Park's creative and repetitive killing of the self-repairing Kenny to someone trying to portray a realistic scene of rape and torture is disingenuous at best. No one would ever confuse Kenny with being real, but when you consider the stellar work done by SquareSoft, Pixar, or the team beh
Since when does attacking someone win you the argument? Unless you buy into McCarthy-ism then maybe you should settle down and calmly explain your argument.
Maybe you're 12 and your time's worthless. Mine isn't and I now charge $$$ to fix computers. You don't want to pay? YeeHaw! Go away, fix it yourself then, or find some rather dim student who has nothing better to do. You aren't required to fix people's computers. And even if you were, he's not asking you to fix his computer. If people think that you *need* to fix their computer for free, then just tell them to piss off. If they can't do it for themselves, they shouldn't expect you to do it for free, but don't project your anger at technophobes onto other people.
I really don't see anywhere in his argument where he said that you should fix people's computers pro-bono. The crux of the argument is that is should be illegal for these companies to put their stuff on the computers of unsuspecting users in the first place. And it *is* illegal insofar as I know. It's just a matter of why the authorities are over-looking the issue. You seem to just be trying to de-rail the conversation into some personal feelings towards people that allow themselves to be infected with 100s of viruses, malware, adware, etc.
Awww, how sweet. Welcome to the real world, not the idealised socialist one you have in your head. Yea, it is the real world. But I also think that people have a right to a childhood without sexual molestation, or a right to life without being murdered for their brand new Nikes in the middle of the street. That doesn't mean that people won't get molested or murdered. To think that you could prevent all such cases is naive. That doesn't prevent us from making laws and punishing those that perform those actions though. Your argument seems to be that users are stupid and these malware companies are 100% justified in taking advantage of stupid people because it is a just punishment for these users wanting you for fix their computers for free.
Lots of people don't know much about cars. I'm sure they are ripped off by mechanics all the time. Is that justified because the person was too stupid to maintain their car so that it doesn't breaking down? Is it justified that they pay the mechanic a premium for work that he might knowingly done incorrectly just because they don't know enough to inspect the work for correctness themselves?
The reviewer is trying to say that it would make more sense to more readers to have 'remote filesystems' grouped together. Whether or not Samba is a kludgy add-on, it is in the same general category as NFS.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a horrible analogy. By your analogy I'm calling the 80% of artists that fail sleazebags.
If that's the case, then why is everything tied up in extreme legalese? Why not just flat out say, "We take all your album sales, in exchange for ?"
Whether or not artists can benefit from this or not, the record labels are sleazy in my opinion. Especially how they make sure to use "we're fighting for the artists" when most of what they are fighting for is their own bottom-line.
The facts are the facts, beyond they it's just opinion, and it's mine that the record companies are sleazy regardless of the morality of downloading music, etc. Just because the record labels are providing a service to the artists doesn't mean it's right for the labels to bend the artists over a barrel.
Also, saying that the artists that "make it big" aren't complaining is focusing in the wrong place. If you ask a Senator or Congressman (in the US) if he's happy with his health care and he'll say yes he is. But I'd hardly say that all the other US citizens are just 'a bunch of whiners.' A member of Congrss (in the Senate or the House or Reps) have one of the best healthcare packages in the States, even after they retire/are voted out of office (though being voted out of office almost never happens, esp in the House of Reps).
It's sort of off-topic, but by sister-in-law is an artist. She has told me that some artists want to 'lease' their work (as in paintings, not music). Why? Because they feel that artists are always getting ripped off due to their art only becoming worth millions of dollars after they are dead and gone. I seriously did not know how to respond to that. It seems like the height of greed to me and a gross misunderstanding of exactly *why* the cost goes up after death.
Artists still sign because they "want to make it big." Also, the record companies hire 20-somethings that are basically the 'con-men' that woo the artist by telling them things like "this contract is what most artists sign for us" or "Blink182 gets about the same deal as you." The young, budding artist sees that they are getting the same deal as a multi-platinum artist and they feel it must be a good deal. They are also 'wined and dined' by these smooth talking reps from the record industry, so that they feel like they are important to the company.
The truth is that maybe 80% of the artists never make anything of themselves, but it's not like the record companies are going to tell them that. And let's face it, not everyone is smart enough to 'just f'ing google it.'
The recording industry's business model is to keep throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, and only ~20% of anything sticks to the wall. The rest fail, and owe them money. The record companies then tie them up with 'working off the debt.' I'm not too sure of the specifics, but I know that their career goes into limbo because the contracts prevent them from going elsewhere or producing more music (or at least making money from it I gather).
I think that the best way to put it is something that I see reiterated a lot.
In the 'new business model,' it becomes easy for a lot of artists to make a little, but hard to a few artists to make a lot.
It just means the death of the "mega-lithic" rock star that 'hits it big' and owns 10 yachts and 3 multi-million dollar homes. On the flipside, it means that lots of smaller artists will be able to make more money selling their music through their own sites, or independent online retail outlets (something similar to iTunes Music Store where individual artists can register to sell their music).
You say that, but I recall a story on another site that had kdawson's real name because he was part of some internet activism group. It identified him as "kdawson from slashdot.org." I don't think that kdawson is just a 'shared login.'
Then please enlighten me. I realize that the requests will have IP addresses attached to them, but that doesn't link it directly to *me* unless they go through the mobile carrier that I'm using. There are barriers to the information that are placed in front of them. If a personal identifier is sent with each request... there are no barriers. They already have the info.
It's not just Americans. The American bashers are focusing on the US-centric aspect of this too... which is ridiculous because it also affects them as well.
Who says I'm a US citizen? You do realize that this affects countries other than that US. What an anti-US view of the world to only focus your thoughts on how this affects the US (and therefore how you can rip on them) as opposed to how it affects the world at large.
I'm not paranoid that Apple in particular will do something with it. I just don't like it when companies are trying to pump some sort of information out of you. There may be a rational explanation for this, but I can't see how it 'makes sense' for them to attach identifying information to Weather and Stock info requests...
The problem in the United States is government interference. It's true that in a lot of cases the free market tends towards a single monopoly. Microsoft is a good example of that. The Telco/Cable companies are not.
The Telco/Cable companies for years were granted government regulated monopolies. Ma Bell even had guaranteed profits at one point, IIRC. In all of those years of living high off the hog, they've done a few things:
1) Built up a large communications infrastructure. The Telcos have their copper telephone lines (that are being/have been replaced with fibre). The Cable companies with their coax lines (that are being/have been replaced with fibre).
2) Gain money and power.
They use all that money and power to keep their infrastructure fresh (though that's somewhat debatable) and to squash competition. Right now the barrier to entry for other companies to compete is that initial amount of money it would take to build up the infrastructure needed to compete with the big players.
It has less to do with "Communism vs the Free Market" and more to do with the government giving some companies an unfair advantage. That's why it's laughable when companies like AT&T or Comcast whine about "keeping a free market" when the idea of government regulation comes around. It's easy to say "we should decide who wins by way of a 100m sprint" when you know that you're the fastest sprinter because you've been pumping up on steroids.
Ah, but which quotes I'm looking at is another can of worms. It implies that I either own stock in that company, or plan to. I realize that I could just be watching the stock "for fun," but aggregating this type of information to have the "big picture" is the problem.
Apple might be able to 'play off' the fact that they are gathering info on you through the Weather applet (though I find it unacceptable). But the Stocks applet? So now every request for stock information sent to Apple contains identifying information about myself? I
'm sorry but which stocks I own/watch is my own business. Even when the PR machine spins up, "we're not doing anything with the information" is not good enough to me. Maybe that explanation would be good enough if it was just the Weather widget, because that info is somewhat irrelevant, but someone's financial information is different.
Sorry, it wasn't clear from your post. I thought that you were excusing upper management. :)
And it is especially stupid to go after the low-level employee in a matter where upper-management is dropping the ball. You're just agreeing that when a government agency or corporation blunders, there should be a legal scapegoat so that they don't 'lose face.'
I do agree that the employee *can* be the responsible party, but to say that the employee is *always* the responsible party is a little narrow-minded. as most main line business types choose to ignore the obvious until burned. I don't see how you can condone this. Just because that's the way it is, does not mean that these people should be 'high and dry.' They are just as to blame for the problem as the employee if this is the case, yet you seem to be excusing them of any responsibility.
The problem that I see with this is that government agencies (or corporations) aren't being penalized. I don't think that the employee can be blamed when the corporate policy allows the employee to have sensitive information on their laptop *and* take the laptop off-site.
Let's face it. I'm sure *a lot* of employees don't even know much about encryption software, let alone which ones to use and how they work. I don't see the sense in blaming an employee that "should have known better" when it's possible that the company didn't provide the tools/training to allow employee to know what to do.
That being said, the employee has some responsibility to bear as well. If they take it to a restaurant and accidentally leave it there, that's their fault. If the company *does* have a policy about encrypting private information and the employee doesn't follow it, then it's the employee's negligence. If the company says, "No private data offsite," and the employee leaves with it on his/her laptop. It's that employee's own fault.
Or it could just be that different forms of media are a reflection of the views of society.
It's basically an argument between whether or not people made a form of media popular because they shared those views or because they were attracted to its 'forbidden' nature (and were consequently entrapped by it.... '...you don't change the devil; the devil changes you' and all.
Internet or not, the one thing that bands don't have is the marketing engine to consistently push their songs they way that the major labels do. The real break through for internet-only unsigned bands is when internet-only/word of mouth advertising is enough to get them into the Top 40 consistently, and on top of the record label pushed songs.
It's great that this band has made it to the top on their own, but how many other homebrew bands will be able to do this? If they are just an anomaly, then it doesn't mean much. I'm not holding my breath until this starts happening more often.
The reason for a single charity is probably to reduce fraud. If they didn't have that policy, someone could try to get around the 180 day wait period by saying 'please donate the money to my charity, 123donations.com.' 123donations.com could just be a money laundering scheme for some phishers or mobsters, etc.
Paypal on the other hand was being quite unreasonable since the Red Cross is hardly a money laundering scheme. It would seem more beneficial to PayPal to seek out to 'certify/verify' certain charities to their own criteria to make sure that they are legit, and then allow their customers a choice, rather than just one charity or none.
I've always thought that a Dead Man's Switch held too many problems. Unless you have people that are 'out to get you' and your switch is your leverage, then it's not much use.
What happens if you get into a severe accident and end up in the hospital without the ability to 'check in' with it? What happens if you are stranded at an airport with a snowstorm? What if you are stranded at a ski lodge in the mountains in the middle of a snow storm? etc...
If you were ever unable to check in with the switch, then you would probably regret hate mail to your boss or other nasties that you had planned to send to people you hate. It would also be an unwelcome surprise for friends and family to get 'letters from the dead' just to find out that you really aren't dead. It would definitely be a detriment to you if you had it setup to donate all of the money in your bank accounts to charities....
The Dead Man's Switch has too many if's in it. It makes more sense to just put together a will and make sure you entrust someone you deeply trust to execute it.
Reading the article (btw, why was it linked to twice in the summary?), it seems to me to just be an opinion piece based on rumors and a single patent application. The patent application itself sounds more like it describes the rumored 'iPhone,' which would make GPS functionality not that out of place seeing as many cellphones on the market now employ GPS technology. As far as the OS-level integration, it seems more like adding GPS and/or map support to the OS is what Apple is interested in. More like iMap, with an API for other 3rd party apps to access it. There is nothing anywhere that there are going to be GPS chips in the computers or ipods. There are just people speculating. It seems to me that it's more likely that it will have support for 3rd party GPS devices. I know that the default on slashdot is tinfoil-ism, but sometimes you have to be a little more realistic than getting your panties in a twist over wild speculation.
We're talking about child porn that tries to play games with legal loopholes about whether a child is actually harmed. It encourages the direct physical abuse of real children by conditioning the paedophile to consider their lustful and abusive mentality "acceptable" or "normal".
Do you actually have proof that it encourages pedophiles to attack children? This is the same argument used against violent video games. Couldn't it be possible that violent people are drawn to violent video games, not that violent video games create violent people? The same applies to this. People that are pedophiles are drawn to this stuff because they are pedophiles... not because the content made them into pedophiles. Most child sexual abuse comes from a friend or family member, not some ambiguous recluse that offers candy to kids on the playground.
Most pedophiles slowly work their way up to the abuse, perform the act, then deny, even to themselves, that it even happened. The people that you think about that wear their pedophilia as a badge of courage are few and far between. The majority of pedophiles will abuse with or without this material. Pedophiles can be encouraged by regular porn too. They see a regular porn of a girl having anal sex, and they say "I'll try that on my daughter." Should we now ban all porn because it 'inspires pedophilia?' Banning these things based on what you *think* that a minority of pedophiles will do based on it is akin to banning violent video games because of 2 or 3 incidents where someone killed a bunch of people and just happened to like violent video games too.
Let's carry this a step further. If depicting acts that are not socially and morally acceptable, even in fantasy, should be banned then where do we draw the line? Hollywood has plenty of examples of movies that celebrate poor moral values. Under your logic, movies like "Payback", and the Godfather Trilogy should be banned because they encourage rogues and Mafiosos to continue their illegal and immoral acts. You logic makes a depiction of any illegal act a bannable offense.
Also, how do you quantify cartoon sex? Yea, there are blatant examples of people raping kids and saying things like "I like raping 12 year olds like you" in the cartoons/comics. But what about more ambiguous examples? What about a 40 year old woman that gets trapped in the body of a 12 year old? Is it child abuse or illegal to see depictions of her having sex in the 12 year old body? How do you quantify the age of someone in a cartoon? Unless they explicitly state their age, there are plenty of characters that are supposed to be teens that look like they are 20. There are also plenty of 20 year olds in these comics that look like they are teens?
It starts to encroach on the realm of thought more so then the realm of reality. How does any of this differ from someone that only sleeps with women that look like they are 15, even though they are really 21? Should that be illegal too? You also have to account for the real porn out there that is between consenting adults that look like they are teens. Right now that is legal. After this law it would still be legal, but fake depictions of the same thing would be illegal.
It's the same problem that is caused by allowing pre-teen and teen models to be dressed up as if they were adults by clothing advertisers.
I would rethink your wording. The other day I saw a billboard of a bunch of maybe 12 year old boys dressed up in blazers and such for Christmas. You could hardly say it was sexual at all, but if you were to ban based on your wording, then things like that would be banned.
Comparing South Park's creative and repetitive killing of the self-repairing Kenny to someone trying to portray a realistic scene of rape and torture is disingenuous at best. No one would ever confuse Kenny with being real, but when you consider the stellar work done by SquareSoft, Pixar, or the team beh
The reviewer is trying to say that it would make more sense to more readers to have 'remote filesystems' grouped together. Whether or not Samba is a kludgy add-on, it is in the same general category as NFS.