Check it out yourself: http://www.whitehouse.com/. There is nothing objectionable (other than the word "SEXUAL") there whatsoever (on the front page) and an extremely clear warning:
We are the Worldwide Leader in Adult and Political Entertainment Celebrating our 6th Anniversary (1997-2003)
This Website does contain sexually-oriented adult material which may include visual images, movies and verbal descriptions of nude adults, adults engaging in sexual acts, and other audio and visual content that is sexually-explicit in nature. Permission to enter this Website and to view and download the content is strictly limited to consenting adults. You agree that:
1. You are at least 18 years old or the legal age in your area to view and access sexually-explicit images and content for your personal use. This site is not intended to be viewed by minors. 2. You are familiar with your local community standards and that the viewing of sexually explicit materials falls within the community standards of acceptance and tolerance in your community. If you are a minor or your community standards do not allow the viewing of sexually explicit material or if you find adult material offensive please leave.
Viewing is evil? If I show you a child porn image, does that mean you are going to hell? Creation is evil - not matter what age? If a child has sex with another child and photographs it - is that evil? Will they both go to hell? Your views are too simplistic.
Not to mention that definitions of child pornography are extremely vague. Here are some pictures - can you determine whether they are child porn or not?
In Japan child erotica was legal all the way until 1999.
Under Canadian child pornography laws, written discussions of "sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years" are considered child pornography (Criminal Code section 163.1).
In the United States vs. Knox case American court held that there is no nudity requirement in the child pornography statute and considered music videos of dancing 10-17 years old girls wearing bikinis and leotards to be child pornography, because the photographer zoomed on the girl's pubic areas for extended periods of time (United States vs. Knox).
Many American states also prohibit images of minors displaying their bodies "for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer." Some legal specialists are concerned that legal images can be considered child pornography simply by being presented in the context of the porn website.
UK laws consider artificially created images (which only appear to be photographs) to be considered child porn, regardless of their origins.
As for the motives, they are the same as with traditional vanilla porn. People need to jerk off and some enjoy doing that while watching images of naked kids or kids having sex. Aside from the issue of child porn creation, there is nothing wrong with that. And as for the creation, you need to realise that most of the child porn is created in countries with very bad socio-economic situations. Kids there have a very simple choice - earn some money for themselves and their families or starve. It just happens that there is no "safety net" and no jobs, other than prostitution or child porn. What would you like them to do? I say having sex with an adult for money is still better than starving to death. What do you think? It's the same as with Nike sweatshops - it's terrible that kids work there for 10 hours daily for a few dollars a day, but the alternative is no job at all.
It seems I was an exceptional child at 3-something years old...;)
For example - a 3 to 4 year old believes they can do anything... literally. In their mind they can climb as fast and as high as any world class rock climber. They'll believe this even after they've fallen off a 2 foot high chair 10 times in a row. They'll believe it in the face of every scrap of empirical evidence to the contrary, and if you tell them they can't they'll just try harder. It was enough to burn my fingers once (nothing serious) to understand that you don't play with fire.:)
4 year olds can't lie - they believe you know the truth even before you ask the question. They don't understand that their thoughts are private to them, and even if you try to explain it to them, they still won't make the connection. Just a few hours before I burned my fingers my mother caught me playing with matches. She scolded me for that and asked whether I am going to do that again. She still (after 20+ years) remembers my reply and reminds me from time to time.:) I said, extremely indignantly, something along the lines of "What do you think I am, stupid or what?" Of course she believed me. Of course immediately after I was left alone I went to the kitchen and resumed my experiements.;)
Porn throws that development off a cliff Bullshit. Porn may not conform to your expectations of children as innocent beings, but there is nothing unnatural about it. In the past kids married as early as when they were 10 years old and had sex as soon as they were ready. And today the psychology of the kids is mostly the same. So porn doesn't harm kids, it simply can't (leaving out the extreme cases). Your whole paragraph starting from "Sexual maturity starts between 9 and 14..." is unsubstantiated nonsense. Can you point to at least one scientific study proving that porn harms kids? That would help a lot to persuade a sceptical audience.
I think the point of this article is to say "your kids are not necessarily wasting time playing that thing." Another point that needs to be made is that kids do not necessarily spend their time wisely when they take any formal education. As far as I know, all too often children (and adults) completely waste their time in schools where everyone just pretends to be learning. People are talking about complex (or basic) concepts, but nobody cares if they have any understanding whatsoever - and usually they don't.
You forgot strategy games. Operation Silent Storm (screens) includes a licenced LifeMode engine to dynamically model faces based on a number of tweakable parameters. See a few examples. The best thing about this is that the faces fit the game and do not look like ugly photos plastered over in-game models. The bad thing is that Nival somewhat limited the customisation in order to simplify the interface.
CyberExtruder has another interesting technology - generating a model based on a quality face photo.
And also a brain-computer interface version for those users who choose to access/. not from their desktop computers or PDAs, but directly with their brain.:)
The post is -1: Lack of strategic thinking. When everyone subscribes, MS will not have to make any new OSes at all. Just look at IE. All existing installations would be protected by DRM (you won't be able to move your media permissions to a competing OS). And with 90% of the market who needs new users?:)
Eternal bliss. You will use Longhorn 2006 forever and ever and pay $100+ per year for this privilege.:)
First off, the margins are relatively slim on software OSes.
Sorry, this looks like you don't have a clue about what "margins" are. Margings on software OSes can be approximated as 99%. There are almost no variable costs. Printing a few CDs and a manual and sticking this into a box doesn't cost more than 10 bucks. All other costs are fixed and the more you sell, the less they amount to per box. Apple can certainly make a killing, selling their OS on x86. The only problems are porting apps and losing their exclusive hardware profits.
I think the only reason to port MacOS (not just OS X, but the brand) would be if PPC processors start really lagging behind x86 for a few years. But even then it might be better for Apple to simply insert Intel (AMD) CPUs into their G8, coincide it with a new OS XXX and continue to work as if nothing has changed.
Regardless of whether it would be disasterous or not, I just can't see any point in doing so. Yes, it would benefit Linux users, but so would releasing OS X as open source and giving iMacs away for free.:) Both none of these things would benefit Apple in any way. Ianoo probably was just dreaming.
I agree. The consensus here seems to be is that moving to x86 would be a bad idea, because it would expose Apple to additional competition and take away any "monopoly" control it had over its hardware and software and would force it to face unpredictable competition. Who knew that Dell would improve its supply chain? How then could Apple foresee it and be proactive?
Right now Apple faces a choice between limited, but more or less guaranteed marketshare on the PPC platform or more risky, but potentially more interesting move to the x86 platform. But we should not overestimate the benefits. Most people, who want Apple to move to x86, do it not to be able to run MacOS (they can get a Mac), but to be able to run Windows apps. And I don't think Apple has much to gain from this relatively small group of users (those who want to run two operating systems). And it's not like there are any cost benefits - I don't think ATI cards for x86 cost less than the same cards for PPC.
While I also want to see PLoS succeed (and indeed have recently submitted work there), please note the PLoS publication charges per article at $1500 a pop. Does that mean researchers from third-world countries are indirectly excluded from publishing there? How many of them might decide that instead of trying to publish the results in PLoS their $1500 would be better spent on hiring a research assistant for a year (and publishing in some lesser journal)?
Well, this is often the most logical way for an organisation to behave. If you want your organisation survive and your set of beliefs to propagate, the best way to do like the catholic church did. Look, the church is almost 2 thousand years old and the science is only a few centuries old. There are certainly some things to learn from the church.:)
Of course, to be serious, the principle is not that simple. It is more like "The propagation of your beliefs is a danger to our own goals. -> Screw you." Why do you call this ignorance?
This may seem unethical, but it is not. For example, plagiarism and academic dishonesty are valid alternative sets of beliefs, but science and academia seem to fight them without much outrage from the public.:) Same should be with creationism.
Excuse me my mistake - English is not my first language. Sorry.:( And sorry for my little attempt at name-calling, I take it back. Peace?:)
But, using the correct definition of virility, what makes you think Chinese are the most virile? Why not French, or Swedish, or Egyptian? Why not Russia, for example? Why do you want to consider the country which have shown such patience in the past? What would the USA do if China openly supported Alaska in trying to defect from the US, if China bombed a US embassy and if China launched a spy-plane over the US and then threatened it after it was shot down? What would the US do? Now, remind me, who was the greatest threat on this planet?
how many times they *haven't* fed themselves So what? And how many times Americans haven't supplied themselves with electricity? Does that mean they are going to attack some Middle-East countries to solve their oil problems? Oh... nevermind.
What, exactly, do you think the WTO gets together to discuss The horrendous policies of so called civilized nations that fight any attempts to liberase food markets, may be? The food problem is a problem of distributing it, not growing enough.
Who has how many? Americans surely like to eat till they literally explode. Some fasting certainly wouldn't hurt most of them. And don't let me started on their total consumption per capita, other than food.
First, we do not know if his beliefs had any effect whasoever in the decision of the Nobel Committee and the Academy. But if it had, I would support that reasoning. A creationist does not deserve the main scientific award. This does not negate his achievements, but he is simply not worthy of it, just like Yasser Arafat is not eligible of the Peace Prize.:) Another important issue is that giving the prize to a creationist would simply give too great a weapon to them. Of course, his research doesn't have anything with creation "science", but creationists would surely use his Nobel prize each time someone questions creationism.
Yeah, I know what you would answer, you just don't think this should matter and I I think it should.
The problem is that things like Stalin's purges are not the result of external forces. They are always born inside the state. And the only realistic method to prevent them is to limit the government in every conceivable way possible.
If you accept this little fire, government will start burning books 451-style before you can say "freedom of speech". Do you want that? I though so.
Ask yourself a question - what is more likely: 1) A government, abusing it's authority and commiting injustice on a large scale. 2) A gang of PhDs using their knowledge and capabilities to wreck havok on a large scale.
I don't know how religious is that guy, but if he is hardcore, then I can certainly understand why not give the prize to him. One thing is to believe that a higher being created this universe 14bn years ago and another is to believe in everything that is written in the bible.
Again, I am amazed at how powerful had the RIAA become. It is supposedly an organisation formed by studios and now it dictates them what to do. What next, the Congress telling American citizens how to behave? Oh, sorry, nevermind...
Hey, guys, I am Alex Halderman, a graduate student at Princeton's computer science department. To disable the CD protection, hold the Shift key after inserting the CD. Just my 2 cents.
And if you want to disable it permanently, use TweakUI or edit the Registry (instructions at microsoft.com) to disable Autorun. Just 2 cents more.
Slashdot Mirror
Check it out yourself: http://www.whitehouse.com/. There is nothing objectionable (other than the word "SEXUAL") there whatsoever (on the front page) and an extremely clear warning:
We are the Worldwide Leader in Adult and Political Entertainment
Celebrating our 6th Anniversary (1997-2003)
This Website does contain sexually-oriented adult material
which may include visual images, movies and verbal descriptions of nude adults, adults engaging in sexual acts, and other audio and visual content that is sexually-explicit in nature. Permission to enter this Website and to view and download the content is strictly limited to consenting adults. You agree that:
1. You are at least 18 years old or the legal age in your area to view and access sexually-explicit images and content for your personal use. This site is not intended to be viewed by minors.
2. You are familiar with your local community standards and that the viewing of sexually explicit materials falls within the community standards of acceptance and tolerance in your community. If you are a minor or your community standards do not allow the viewing of sexually explicit material or if you find adult material offensive please leave.
Not to mention that definitions of child pornography are extremely vague. Here are some pictures - can you determine whether they are child porn or not?
1,
2,
3,
4 and
5.
And did you know that
In Japan child erotica was legal all the way until 1999.
Under Canadian child pornography laws, written discussions of "sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years" are considered child pornography (Criminal Code section 163.1).
In the United States vs. Knox case American court held that there is no nudity requirement in the child pornography statute and considered music videos of dancing 10-17 years old girls wearing bikinis and leotards to be child pornography, because the photographer zoomed on the girl's pubic areas for extended periods of time (United States vs. Knox).
Many American states also prohibit images of minors displaying their bodies "for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer." Some legal specialists are concerned that legal images can be considered child pornography simply by being presented in the context of the porn website.
UK laws consider artificially created images (which only appear to be photographs) to be considered child porn, regardless of their origins.
As for the motives, they are the same as with traditional vanilla porn. People need to jerk off and some enjoy doing that while watching images of naked kids or kids having sex. Aside from the issue of child porn creation, there is nothing wrong with that. And as for the creation, you need to realise that most of the child porn is created in countries with very bad socio-economic situations. Kids there have a very simple choice - earn some money for themselves and their families or starve. It just happens that there is no "safety net" and no jobs, other than prostitution or child porn. What would you like them to do? I say having sex with an adult for money is still better than starving to death. What do you think? It's the same as with Nike sweatshops - it's terrible that kids work there for 10 hours daily for a few dollars a day, but the alternative is no job at all.
HTH.
It seems I was an exceptional child at 3-something years old... ;)
:)
:) I said, extremely indignantly, something along the lines of "What do you think I am, stupid or what?" Of course she believed me. Of course immediately after I was left alone I went to the kitchen and resumed my experiements. ;)
For example - a 3 to 4 year old believes they can do anything... literally. In their mind they can climb as fast and as high as any world class rock climber. They'll believe this even after they've fallen off a 2 foot high chair 10 times in a row. They'll believe it in the face of every scrap of empirical evidence to the contrary, and if you tell them they can't they'll just try harder.
It was enough to burn my fingers once (nothing serious) to understand that you don't play with fire.
4 year olds can't lie - they believe you know the truth even before you ask the question. They don't understand that their thoughts are private to them, and even if you try to explain it to them, they still won't make the connection.
Just a few hours before I burned my fingers my mother caught me playing with matches. She scolded me for that and asked whether I am going to do that again. She still (after 20+ years) remembers my reply and reminds me from time to time.
Porn throws that development off a cliff
Bullshit. Porn may not conform to your expectations of children as innocent beings, but there is nothing unnatural about it. In the past kids married as early as when they were 10 years old and had sex as soon as they were ready. And today the psychology of the kids is mostly the same. So porn doesn't harm kids, it simply can't (leaving out the extreme cases). Your whole paragraph starting from "Sexual maturity starts between 9 and 14..." is unsubstantiated nonsense. Can you point to at least one scientific study proving that porn harms kids? That would help a lot to persuade a sceptical audience.
How about instructions on how to find child-porn on the Internet? Looks like it's unpopular enough to qualify.
I think the point of this article is to say "your kids are not necessarily wasting time playing that thing."
Another point that needs to be made is that kids do not necessarily spend their time wisely when they take any formal education. As far as I know, all too often children (and adults) completely waste their time in schools where everyone just pretends to be learning. People are talking about complex (or basic) concepts, but nobody cares if they have any understanding whatsoever - and usually they don't.
Thanks to the CyberExtruder technology, you can witness the future of gaming now.
The Cyber Goatse!
You forgot strategy games. Operation Silent Storm (screens) includes a licenced LifeMode engine to dynamically model faces based on a number of tweakable parameters. See a few examples. The best thing about this is that the faces fit the game and do not look like ugly photos plastered over in-game models. The bad thing is that Nival somewhat limited the customisation in order to simplify the interface.
CyberExtruder has another interesting technology - generating a model based on a quality face photo.
No.
Morpheus? What are you doing on Slashdot?
And also a brain-computer interface version for those users who choose to access /. not from their desktop computers or PDAs, but directly with their brain. :)
Such though have crossed my mind, but you never know on Slashdot.
Sorry to spoil it for you, but using ^H is a common^H^H^H^H^H^Hsecret way to show what you really think about something. Search for it.
The post is -1: Lack of strategic thinking. When everyone subscribes, MS will not have to make any new OSes at all. Just look at IE. All existing installations would be protected by DRM (you won't be able to move your media permissions to a competing OS). And with 90% of the market who needs new users? :)
:)
Eternal bliss. You will use Longhorn 2006 forever and ever and pay $100+ per year for this privilege.
First off, the margins are relatively slim on software OSes.
Sorry, this looks like you don't have a clue about what "margins" are. Margings on software OSes can be approximated as 99%. There are almost no variable costs. Printing a few CDs and a manual and sticking this into a box doesn't cost more than 10 bucks. All other costs are fixed and the more you sell, the less they amount to per box. Apple can certainly make a killing, selling their OS on x86. The only problems are porting apps and losing their exclusive hardware profits.
I think the only reason to port MacOS (not just OS X, but the brand) would be if PPC processors start really lagging behind x86 for a few years. But even then it might be better for Apple to simply insert Intel (AMD) CPUs into their G8, coincide it with a new OS XXX and continue to work as if nothing has changed.
Regardless of whether it would be disasterous or not, I just can't see any point in doing so. Yes, it would benefit Linux users, but so would releasing OS X as open source and giving iMacs away for free. :) Both none of these things would benefit Apple in any way. Ianoo probably was just dreaming.
I agree. The consensus here seems to be is that moving to x86 would be a bad idea, because it would expose Apple to additional competition and take away any "monopoly" control it had over its hardware and software and would force it to face unpredictable competition. Who knew that Dell would improve its supply chain? How then could Apple foresee it and be proactive?
Right now Apple faces a choice between limited, but more or less guaranteed marketshare on the PPC platform or more risky, but potentially more interesting move to the x86 platform. But we should not overestimate the benefits. Most people, who want Apple to move to x86, do it not to be able to run MacOS (they can get a Mac), but to be able to run Windows apps. And I don't think Apple has much to gain from this relatively small group of users (those who want to run two operating systems). And it's not like there are any cost benefits - I don't think ATI cards for x86 cost less than the same cards for PPC.
While I also want to see PLoS succeed (and indeed have recently submitted work there), please note the PLoS publication charges per article at $1500 a pop.
Does that mean researchers from third-world countries are indirectly excluded from publishing there? How many of them might decide that instead of trying to publish the results in PLoS their $1500 would be better spent on hiring a research assistant for a year (and publishing in some lesser journal)?
Well, this is often the most logical way for an organisation to behave. If you want your organisation survive and your set of beliefs to propagate, the best way to do like the catholic church did. Look, the church is almost 2 thousand years old and the science is only a few centuries old. There are certainly some things to learn from the church. :)
:) Same should be with creationism.
Of course, to be serious, the principle is not that simple. It is more like "The propagation of your beliefs is a danger to our own goals. -> Screw you." Why do you call this ignorance?
This may seem unethical, but it is not. For example, plagiarism and academic dishonesty are valid alternative sets of beliefs, but science and academia seem to fight them without much outrage from the public.
Excuse me my mistake - English is not my first language. Sorry. :( And sorry for my little attempt at name-calling, I take it back. Peace? :)
But, using the correct definition of virility, what makes you think Chinese are the most virile? Why not French, or Swedish, or Egyptian? Why not Russia, for example? Why do you want to consider the country which have shown such patience in the past? What would the USA do if China openly supported Alaska in trying to defect from the US, if China bombed a US embassy and if China launched a spy-plane over the US and then threatened it after it was shot down? What would the US do? Now, remind me, who was the greatest threat on this planet?
how many times they *haven't* fed themselves
So what? And how many times Americans haven't supplied themselves with electricity? Does that mean they are going to attack some Middle-East countries to solve their oil problems? Oh... nevermind.
What, exactly, do you think the WTO gets together to discuss
The horrendous policies of so called civilized nations that fight any attempts to liberase food markets, may be? The food problem is a problem of distributing it, not growing enough.
Who has how many?
Americans surely like to eat till they literally explode. Some fasting certainly wouldn't hurt most of them. And don't let me started on their total consumption per capita, other than food.
First, we do not know if his beliefs had any effect whasoever in the decision of the Nobel Committee and the Academy. But if it had, I would support that reasoning. A creationist does not deserve the main scientific award. This does not negate his achievements, but he is simply not worthy of it, just like Yasser Arafat is not eligible of the Peace Prize. :) Another important issue is that giving the prize to a creationist would simply give too great a weapon to them. Of course, his research doesn't have anything with creation "science", but creationists would surely use his Nobel prize each time someone questions creationism.
Yeah, I know what you would answer, you just don't think this should matter and I I think it should.
Get your facts straight. People like you started a war on Iraq over non-existing weapons of mass destruction and other people like you believed them.
Most virile? Largest? Hungriest?You are just another living proof that a low Slashdot ID doesn't give immunity from stupidity.
The problem is that things like Stalin's purges are not the result of external forces. They are always born inside the state. And the only realistic method to prevent them is to limit the government in every conceivable way possible.
If you accept this little fire, government will start burning books 451-style before you can say "freedom of speech". Do you want that? I though so.
Ask yourself a question - what is more likely:
1) A government, abusing it's authority and commiting injustice on a large scale.
2) A gang of PhDs using their knowledge and capabilities to wreck havok on a large scale.
Act accordingly.
I don't know how religious is that guy, but if he is hardcore, then I can certainly understand why not give the prize to him. One thing is to believe that a higher being created this universe 14bn years ago and another is to believe in everything that is written in the bible.
Again, I am amazed at how powerful had the RIAA become. It is supposedly an organisation formed by studios and now it dictates them what to do. What next, the Congress telling American citizens how to behave? Oh, sorry, nevermind...
The original article
Hey, guys, I am Alex Halderman, a graduate student at Princeton's computer science department. To disable the CD protection, hold the Shift key after inserting the CD. Just my 2 cents.
And if you want to disable it permanently, use TweakUI or edit the Registry (instructions at microsoft.com) to disable Autorun. Just 2 cents more.