And if you spend years making a car on the promise that you'll sell a hundred of them. And then sell one to a person who makes exact copies of it... well you probably wont make any more cars, will you?
If you have a contract stating that the other signee will buy a hundred cars from you, and they only buy one, then sue them for contract violation. And if there is no such contract, then what is this "promise" you are talking about ? Are you perhaps saying that I have an obligation to buy a car from you because you want to make a living selling them ?
And no, I wouldn't make any more cars with the dream of selling a hundred of them. I'd make a single car, show it off, and publish the blueprints in exchange for money. Then I'd start researching improvements and doing likewise with them. Alternatively, I could do commission work for modifications.
If cars can be duplicated for no cost, then the proper cost of one car is zero. The only thing of value in that situation is designer time to make the blueprints, so charge for that time. That way you won't get stressed out by a quixotic battle to keep people from copying something which is trivial to copy, and can both earn a comfortable living - assuming you're any good, of course - and take satisfaction in the knowledge that you are doing something useful.
in a related event, god said: thou shalt not steal.
Since the parent post was not talking about stealing, nor even copyright infringement, but simply bypassing the access restrictions on the machine you own, I fail to see the relation.
No, cold fusion is ruled out by basic Quantum Mechanics.
Nothing in your post had anything to do with Quantum Mechanics.
The electrons are irrelevant since their density is so low, and nuclei must be within 10^-15 m to fuse. This only occurs at temperatures of hundreds of millions Celsius.
This occurs whenever the nuclei happen to get that close to each other. Since they repulse each other by their Coulomb force due to being positively charged, it usually requires either tremendous pressure or tremendous temperature (= high average speed of particle); however, any process which could somehow shield the charge of the nuclei could also do this. Electrons can't, since their orbits are too far from the core; but myons, for example, can.
The only reason they have added this crap is to stop copying anyway, it's obvious that it isn't intended to stop actual playback for 'legal' uses.
I seem to recall the very people who passed Lex Karpela saying that they don't know what it actually forbids and allows. Given this, I think the only thing it actually intends is to help are the profits of Karpela's then-boyfriend, movie director Olli Saarela.
Oh well, just the usual corruption associated with politics, coupled with the also-usual outright lies and attempts to suppress the understandably critical reaction from the citizens by blaming it on "outside forces". Finnish politicians at their finest indeed...
I can just imagine sending an asteroid into Jupiter only for it to come out the other side and smack right into us.
It is a gas giant after all.
Yes, it's gas. It doesn't matter. Even if the asteroid would survive the thermal and kinetic shock caused by atmospheric friction (it won't, but just assume it's made of adamantium), it will lose too much speed from that same friction to escape Jupiter's gravity anymore. It will, at absolute best, end up a new moon, more likely a part of Jupiter.
When you move at several kilometers per second, it doesn't really matter whether you hit a gas cloud or a rock wall; either way, you're gonna explode. Tunguska event is a good example: hitting a mere gas cloud - Earth's atmosphere in that case - fast enough is enough to vaporize stone.
(On that point when will which ever god or other deity is responsible for our design fix the bloody faulty memory unit and start using error correcting cells?)
It's not a bug but a feature. Or do you want to remember every gory detail of Goatse with crystal clarity for all eternity ?
What AKAImBatman wrote made perfect sense to me. I'm not sure why you had a problem understanding it, it was clearly in kWh in the posters earlier comment.
I had no problem understanding it. That doesn't change the fact that "kilowatts/hour" is a non-existent unit, and "kilowatthour" is the correct one.
And I didn't recommend using joules in electric bills, I simply pointed out that 1 kilowatthour is equal to 3,600,000 joules.
They don't "peacefully demonstrate", they actively interfere with operations they disapprove of, in some cases causing significant economic and/or material damages.
Laws forbidding slavery actively interfere with slavery, and certainly cause significant economic damages to slave-owners, so by this standard trying to get such laws passed is unacceptable. In fact, all political activity is unacceptable by your standard, since any law will interfere with whatever it forbids or regulates.
Boarding a ship, attaching oneself to a building, blocking a road, etc... are all outside acceptable political activism.
Apart from boarding a ship - which has a high chance of someone getting hurt - these are all perfectly acceptable. The whole point of demonstrations and protests is to cause the cost - political or financial - of the activities being demonstrated against to increase to the point where they must be stopped.
Greenpeace might be a bunch of morons, but I haven't heard of any incident of them blowing bombs in crowded areas, flying planes into buildings, or engaging in any other terrorist activities or in fact any activities worse than annoying or inconveniencing people. Perhaps you could explain just what terror-inspiring actions you are referring to ?
Ergo, the Wii uses 18.51 kilowatt/hours to play games in a year and 73.88 kilowatt/hours to standby in a year.
No, it uses 18.51 kilowatt*hours, not 18.51 kilowatt/hours. Kilowatthour is a (non-standard) unit of energy (wattsecond, also known as joule, would be the standard one, equal to 3.6 megajoules), while what kilowatt/hour is supposed to be I have no idea.
Yes, it is a curtailment of free speech, but free speech has never been about freedom from the consequences of your speech.
In Soviet Russia during Stalin's reign you could pee on a statue of Lenin while shouting: "Down with Stalin ! Down with Communism !" You would be shot or sent to Siberia for it, but you could do it. Should we conclude that Soviet Russia at its worst was a haven of free speech ?
Holocaust denial is forbidden in some European countries simply because they were devastated by the Nazis; and by devastated I mean razed to the ground and burned to the bedrock, after which the Soviets annexed several of the weakened nations. It's not the speech itself which is the problem, idiotic as it might be; it is the perceived defense of Nazi ideology which sets the European countries on war footing.
Google are happy to remove anti-Islam videos, anti-Scientology videos and so forth yet Islamic Extremists and Scientologists are free to post all the propaganda they want.
That's because while most people hold to some moral standards, Scientology will declare you Fair Game while muslims will decide it's their religious duty to kill you.
The Christian and muslim predicates describe the population rather than the countries' foundations.
The population of a country is the country. A nation is simply a form of human society. What some people dead for hundreds of years thought about their country's foundation pales to insignificance compared with what the current inhabitants think.
"The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper" is true. It has no power whatsoever; the power rests within the people. Anyone may ignore the Constitution, unless someone else enforces it. The same goes for every law, rule and ideal. The foundation of the country is whatever the people within believe them to be, since those are the principles that get enforced. If the majority of those people believe in the principles of Christianity, then the nation is christian; if the majority of people believe in the principles of Islam, then the nation is islamic.
This, of course, doesn't mean that the version of Christianity or Islam they believe in and the nation consequently reflects can't be extremely perverted.
Black and White was *really* good for the first few levels, and then it completely falls apart.
Black and White had a good idea, but pretty shitty execution. It wasn't good even for the first few levels, it was simply new.
Still, who can forget the sailors: "Eye-del-eye-del-eeeeeee, Eye-del-eye-del-eeeeeee... we simply can't leave til we get some more wood."
While they were surrounded by forest on all sides except the sea. That, I believe, was the moment where the game came closest to the authentic godhood experience;).
I absolutely love games that have such focus and dedication that players who want to win a dungeon have to have "required stats and builds". Makes you feel like your character is you, and customized just to fit your playstyle
Yeah. Isn't that how it is in real life too - you build up your stats (CV) and gear to get higher-paying jobs (instances), which both build the CV further and drop better gear ? And while you're at it, you need to join a guild (social network) to succeed at those higher-end dungeons. Repeat until you die. Sure sounds like my life, except that I'm stuck at level 1 due to a chicken-and-egg problem;(.
The only real difference between WoW and Real Life is that in Real Life, you aren't allowed to split the Boss's head with an axe.
There is of course a glaring problem with this reasoning: a 14 year old locked up in some basement and abused is a world apart from a 14 year old who goes to hotels (i.e. places full of people and equipped with telephones) and makes no attempts whatsoever to call for help either to staff, patrons of the hotel or just by calling. That is why the "grandparent's" theory is shot full of holes. What did the mother use to stop her from calling for help? "Don't do it or your stuffed toys get it"?
"If you call for help, you'll get lots of unwanted attention and a lifetime stigma. All your friends will know just what you did, and ostracize you; even if they personally have no problem with it, they'll have to go through the motions to satisfy their parents. Not that it really matters, since you'll be taken into custody by Social Services and have to move. Oh, and since all the money is going towards paying my lawyer, and you can't get more since you'll be watched around the clock, forget getting an education."
Your attempt for argument from ridicule fails to do much more than make you seem like an idiot.
The truth is likely that the grandparent cannot simply imagine that her own grand-daughter would like being a hooker (porn-star, pop singer, [insert some "icky" profession here]) instead of a grocery store clerk. "She is such a nice girl... She must have been forced to do such Un-Christian thing!!! Waaaah!"
This, of course, is very different from you concluding all this from the fact that the grand-grand-parent disagrees with you.
Besides, a 12-yeard old is too young to be a grocery store clerk either.
I know that this is a distinct probability since recently police in Japan broke apart a prostitution ring of 12 year old school girls... run by the very same 12 year olds, complete with a website and a system of bookings based on cell phone SMS messages, which came as a great shock to their wealthy middle-class parents. Their reason: not enough money for expensive brand name designer stuff... and they liked doing it.
You do realize that there is quite a bit of difference between a prostitution ring run by its members/workers, and one run by people who have power over them ?
Look, I don't have a problem with people working as prostitutes, not even if they're young, controversial as that may be. It's simply this particular arrangement - having the whole thing run by her mother - which sets off my alarm bells. Now, obviously it is possible that such an arrangement is not abusive; however, this can not be simply assumed but should be investigated since the potential for abuse is so high.
Frankly - and I wonder if stating this puts me in some kind of watchlist - I think that it's great that 12-year olds show such enterprising spirit. Whether they'll continue in their profession or switch careers, they'll likely go far. The important thing is that they are doing something to get their goals, rather than just whining to their parents.
Also child labour laws are meant to protect children from being forced to work, not when they are coming up with a way to employ themselves.
The girl in question didn't employ herself, she was employed by her mother.
If the 14 was found to be forced indeed (kept on a chain, threatened with violence, etc), you got a case... against her mother. Not the John, who had no means of finding out (maybe except in the case of the chain thing...)
Perhaps. There's simply not enough information to judge.
FWIW, speeding is a [b]factor[/b] related to accidents, but not necessarily a cause.
If you get shot and die, getting shot was a factor in your death. In other words, this is pure pedantry.
Not paying attention is the cause of accidents, speeding may just compound the problem.
No, not paying attention is one of the causes of accidents. It is not the only one. Going too fast and simply losing control of the vechile as the tires lose traction is another cause; going too fast and thus not having enough time to react is another, and going too fast and thus being unable to stop in time is yet another.
Speeding, in itself, is a problem; that it also compounds other problems - like some moron playing with his phone rather than watching the road - is simply icing on the cake. And of course the faster the car goes, the more kinetic energy is involved, and the worse any accident is likely to be.
Communism? I doubt anyone in their right minds would call Marx an "economist." Not a very good one, at any rate.
Of course Marx was an economist. Communism is an economic arrangement, designed to solve the problems in economic conditions caused by early phases of industrialization, before the unions got strong enough to put stop to the worst predations.
Libertarianism? School of political thought stressing individual freedom and responsibility.
And anarcho-capitalism. That is an economic model, altought a completely unworkable one.
Since the main thing libertarianists on Slashdot seem to be doing is complain about taxes and especially about how some of it might actually go to help the poor, it seems primarily an economic theory to me, with some buzzwords thrown in to justify removing all checks from the power of the rich.
The "current version of global capitalism"? Something that happened - this idea of selling stuff in other countries wasn't a political theory cooked up by Keynes or Milton or some dead white guy that got thrust upon the world.
No, the people who sold it to the world are alive, well, and making money hand over fist at other people's expense. Globalism didn't "happen", it was lobbied heavily for by various corporations and enacted by their puppet politicians. And the idea of globalism isn't "selling stuff in other countries"; it is to be able to outsource production to countries where people will work for almost any fee, thus crippling the unions and turning back the clock to the above-mentioned bad old years of industrial revolution.
But, at the end of the day, if you don't want to be public and open about what you're doing, you shouldn't be doing it, and no one should be helping you conceal it. The act of concealing is an evil act, just like spreading misinformation is also an evil act.
If you believe that, "ShieldW0lf", then stop hiding behind a nickname and post your real name and adress here, you evil hypocrite.
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Lets smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Let's build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Lets assume that we have a can-opener..."
Nah. What happens is that the physicist builds an aircraft out of the soup can, the chemist makes fuel from the soup, and the economist waits until it's almost finished and then kicks the supports out from under the aircraft because the project threatened to not be finished on schedule made by him.
Economists aren't just harmless people who make stupid comments. No, they come up with crazy theories and then implement them in real life. Just look at communism, libertarianism, and the current version of global capitalism. Utter insanity...
I usually don't comment on English usage on the internet,
While "internet" might refer to some unspecified network of networks, unlikely as that is, "the Internet" is a proper noun without any ambiquity and should be capitalized.
I usually don't comment on English usage on the Internet either, but your post was simply too irresistible a target to pass.
Have you ever heard of the term "age of consent"? What gives you the idea that a ten year old is capable of being sexually exploited? Consent is not retroactive, it doesn't matter what she thinks about it now.
"Age of consent" refers to the age you can consent to sex. There is no age of consent for being photographed.
She might have blocked out the trauma.
What trauma ? You claim below that children are without sexuality; if so, then she should have been quite unable to perceive anything trauma-inducing in being photographed nude.
Furthermore, you aren't talking about a child now, you're talking about an adult. Your dismissal of her statement that she wasn't abused is insulting, to put it mildly. In fact such dismissal might be considered abuse in itself, since it is belittling and attempts to remove the right of self-determination from said person: "Oh you poor dear, you were abused - don't argue with me, you were abused, dammit !"
Not that it would be any less insulting when applied to a child, for that matter. Minority of the subject would be a basis of calm and respectful research into the matter; your dismissal of subjects feelings on the matter is abuse, no matter who you're applying it to, moreso if applied to children, and especially if applied to actual abuse victims.
Did you know that many (if not most) nude paintings and sculptures made during the Renaissance used "underage" models?
So evil that happened centuries ago justifies evil happening now?
The age of majority is arbitrary, and differs by countries even today. Categorically claiming that any nude painting, photo or statue modeled after people under whatever it currently happens to be where you live is "evil" is ridiculous.
Are you aware that children are not born as sexual beings, but that they develop sexuality during puberty?
Most developmental theories I've heard of disagree, but I'll let that slide for argument's sake. However, as seen below, I don't think that you've fully considered the implications of your statement.
This was a sexual pose that no normal ten year old would even conceive of, let alone voluntarily assume.
If a ten year old doesn't have sexuality, why would she not voluntarily assume a sexual pose ? After all, it shouldn't be any different to her than any other pose, since she would be unable to perceive the sexuality in it. She would simply think it's a pose amongst other poses, no matter what filthy thoughts go through your head when you look at it.
If this girl voluntarily put herself in front of the camera in this heavily suggestive position, it means she was probably sexually abused throughout her childhood (which happened a lot in the sixties and seventies since pedophilia was quite fasionable, especially in high society "artistic" circles).
Perhaps you might explain your logic here, because it certainly eludes me ? Remember, from the girl's point of view this would be just a normal photoshoot, there being nothing sexual in it, since she - according to you - would have had no sexuality and thus be unable to perceive any in it. So, unless you are suggesting that any child consenting to have her picture taken must be abused - in which case class pictures tell a dark tale indeed - your argument comes together as somewhat illogical.
Maybe you're the one who needs to examine his feelings when it comes to naked children...
The same right back atcha, Mr. Anonymous Coward. I hope you don't have children.
This isn't meant as an insult, so please don't take it as such. But I think th
Slashdot Mirror
If you have a contract stating that the other signee will buy a hundred cars from you, and they only buy one, then sue them for contract violation. And if there is no such contract, then what is this "promise" you are talking about ? Are you perhaps saying that I have an obligation to buy a car from you because you want to make a living selling them ?
And no, I wouldn't make any more cars with the dream of selling a hundred of them. I'd make a single car, show it off, and publish the blueprints in exchange for money. Then I'd start researching improvements and doing likewise with them. Alternatively, I could do commission work for modifications.
If cars can be duplicated for no cost, then the proper cost of one car is zero. The only thing of value in that situation is designer time to make the blueprints, so charge for that time. That way you won't get stressed out by a quixotic battle to keep people from copying something which is trivial to copy, and can both earn a comfortable living - assuming you're any good, of course - and take satisfaction in the knowledge that you are doing something useful.
Since the parent post was not talking about stealing, nor even copyright infringement, but simply bypassing the access restrictions on the machine you own, I fail to see the relation.
Nothing in your post had anything to do with Quantum Mechanics.
This occurs whenever the nuclei happen to get that close to each other. Since they repulse each other by their Coulomb force due to being positively charged, it usually requires either tremendous pressure or tremendous temperature (= high average speed of particle); however, any process which could somehow shield the charge of the nuclei could also do this. Electrons can't, since their orbits are too far from the core; but myons, for example, can.
I seem to recall the very people who passed Lex Karpela saying that they don't know what it actually forbids and allows. Given this, I think the only thing it actually intends is to help are the profits of Karpela's then-boyfriend, movie director Olli Saarela.
Oh well, just the usual corruption associated with politics, coupled with the also-usual outright lies and attempts to suppress the understandably critical reaction from the citizens by blaming it on "outside forces". Finnish politicians at their finest indeed...
Yes, it's gas. It doesn't matter. Even if the asteroid would survive the thermal and kinetic shock caused by atmospheric friction (it won't, but just assume it's made of adamantium), it will lose too much speed from that same friction to escape Jupiter's gravity anymore. It will, at absolute best, end up a new moon, more likely a part of Jupiter.
When you move at several kilometers per second, it doesn't really matter whether you hit a gas cloud or a rock wall; either way, you're gonna explode. Tunguska event is a good example: hitting a mere gas cloud - Earth's atmosphere in that case - fast enough is enough to vaporize stone.
It's not a bug but a feature. Or do you want to remember every gory detail of Goatse with crystal clarity for all eternity ?
Yeah, and without any of that politically correct Noble Savage bullshit the more recent westerns are full off. That's what makes SW great.
I had no problem understanding it. That doesn't change the fact that "kilowatts/hour" is a non-existent unit, and "kilowatthour" is the correct one.
And I didn't recommend using joules in electric bills, I simply pointed out that 1 kilowatthour is equal to 3,600,000 joules.
Laws forbidding slavery actively interfere with slavery, and certainly cause significant economic damages to slave-owners, so by this standard trying to get such laws passed is unacceptable. In fact, all political activity is unacceptable by your standard, since any law will interfere with whatever it forbids or regulates.
Apart from boarding a ship - which has a high chance of someone getting hurt - these are all perfectly acceptable. The whole point of demonstrations and protests is to cause the cost - political or financial - of the activities being demonstrated against to increase to the point where they must be stopped.
Greenpeace might be a bunch of morons, but I haven't heard of any incident of them blowing bombs in crowded areas, flying planes into buildings, or engaging in any other terrorist activities or in fact any activities worse than annoying or inconveniencing people. Perhaps you could explain just what terror-inspiring actions you are referring to ?
No, it uses 18.51 kilowatt*hours, not 18.51 kilowatt/hours. Kilowatthour is a (non-standard) unit of energy (wattsecond, also known as joule, would be the standard one, equal to 3.6 megajoules), while what kilowatt/hour is supposed to be I have no idea.
In Soviet Russia during Stalin's reign you could pee on a statue of Lenin while shouting: "Down with Stalin ! Down with Communism !" You would be shot or sent to Siberia for it, but you could do it. Should we conclude that Soviet Russia at its worst was a haven of free speech ?
Holocaust denial is forbidden in some European countries simply because they were devastated by the Nazis; and by devastated I mean razed to the ground and burned to the bedrock, after which the Soviets annexed several of the weakened nations. It's not the speech itself which is the problem, idiotic as it might be; it is the perceived defense of Nazi ideology which sets the European countries on war footing.
That's because while most people hold to some moral standards, Scientology will declare you Fair Game while muslims will decide it's their religious duty to kill you.
Ruthless evil usually gets its way.
The population of a country is the country. A nation is simply a form of human society. What some people dead for hundreds of years thought about their country's foundation pales to insignificance compared with what the current inhabitants think.
"The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper" is true. It has no power whatsoever; the power rests within the people. Anyone may ignore the Constitution, unless someone else enforces it. The same goes for every law, rule and ideal. The foundation of the country is whatever the people within believe them to be, since those are the principles that get enforced. If the majority of those people believe in the principles of Christianity, then the nation is christian; if the majority of people believe in the principles of Islam, then the nation is islamic.
This, of course, doesn't mean that the version of Christianity or Islam they believe in and the nation consequently reflects can't be extremely perverted.
Black and White had a good idea, but pretty shitty execution. It wasn't good even for the first few levels, it was simply new.
While they were surrounded by forest on all sides except the sea. That, I believe, was the moment where the game came closest to the authentic godhood experience ;).
That depends on the mouse, now doesn't it ?-)
Yeah. Isn't that how it is in real life too - you build up your stats (CV) and gear to get higher-paying jobs (instances), which both build the CV further and drop better gear ? And while you're at it, you need to join a guild (social network) to succeed at those higher-end dungeons. Repeat until you die. Sure sounds like my life, except that I'm stuck at level 1 due to a chicken-and-egg problem ;(.
The only real difference between WoW and Real Life is that in Real Life, you aren't allowed to split the Boss's head with an axe.
"If you call for help, you'll get lots of unwanted attention and a lifetime stigma. All your friends will know just what you did, and ostracize you; even if they personally have no problem with it, they'll have to go through the motions to satisfy their parents. Not that it really matters, since you'll be taken into custody by Social Services and have to move. Oh, and since all the money is going towards paying my lawyer, and you can't get more since you'll be watched around the clock, forget getting an education."
Your attempt for argument from ridicule fails to do much more than make you seem like an idiot.
This, of course, is very different from you concluding all this from the fact that the grand-grand-parent disagrees with you.
Besides, a 12-yeard old is too young to be a grocery store clerk either.
You do realize that there is quite a bit of difference between a prostitution ring run by its members/workers, and one run by people who have power over them ?
Look, I don't have a problem with people working as prostitutes, not even if they're young, controversial as that may be. It's simply this particular arrangement - having the whole thing run by her mother - which sets off my alarm bells. Now, obviously it is possible that such an arrangement is not abusive; however, this can not be simply assumed but should be investigated since the potential for abuse is so high.
Frankly - and I wonder if stating this puts me in some kind of watchlist - I think that it's great that 12-year olds show such enterprising spirit. Whether they'll continue in their profession or switch careers, they'll likely go far. The important thing is that they are doing something to get their goals, rather than just whining to their parents.
The girl in question didn't employ herself, she was employed by her mother.
If the 14 was found to be forced indeed (kept on a chain, threatened with violence, etc), you got a case ... against her mother. Not the John, who had no means of finding out (maybe except in the case of the chain thing ...)
Perhaps. There's simply not enough information to judge.
If you get shot and die, getting shot was a factor in your death. In other words, this is pure pedantry.
No, not paying attention is one of the causes of accidents. It is not the only one. Going too fast and simply losing control of the vechile as the tires lose traction is another cause; going too fast and thus not having enough time to react is another, and going too fast and thus being unable to stop in time is yet another.
Speeding, in itself, is a problem; that it also compounds other problems - like some moron playing with his phone rather than watching the road - is simply icing on the cake. And of course the faster the car goes, the more kinetic energy is involved, and the worse any accident is likely to be.
Of course Marx was an economist. Communism is an economic arrangement, designed to solve the problems in economic conditions caused by early phases of industrialization, before the unions got strong enough to put stop to the worst predations.
And anarcho-capitalism. That is an economic model, altought a completely unworkable one.
Since the main thing libertarianists on Slashdot seem to be doing is complain about taxes and especially about how some of it might actually go to help the poor, it seems primarily an economic theory to me, with some buzzwords thrown in to justify removing all checks from the power of the rich.
No, the people who sold it to the world are alive, well, and making money hand over fist at other people's expense. Globalism didn't "happen", it was lobbied heavily for by various corporations and enacted by their puppet politicians. And the idea of globalism isn't "selling stuff in other countries"; it is to be able to outsource production to countries where people will work for almost any fee, thus crippling the unions and turning back the clock to the above-mentioned bad old years of industrial revolution.
If you believe that, "ShieldW0lf", then stop hiding behind a nickname and post your real name and adress here, you evil hypocrite.
Put your money where your mouth is: post your name and adress here.
Nah. What happens is that the physicist builds an aircraft out of the soup can, the chemist makes fuel from the soup, and the economist waits until it's almost finished and then kicks the supports out from under the aircraft because the project threatened to not be finished on schedule made by him.
Economists aren't just harmless people who make stupid comments. No, they come up with crazy theories and then implement them in real life. Just look at communism, libertarianism, and the current version of global capitalism. Utter insanity...
While "internet" might refer to some unspecified network of networks, unlikely as that is, "the Internet" is a proper noun without any ambiquity and should be capitalized.
I usually don't comment on English usage on the Internet either, but your post was simply too irresistible a target to pass.
"Age of consent" refers to the age you can consent to sex. There is no age of consent for being photographed.
What trauma ? You claim below that children are without sexuality; if so, then she should have been quite unable to perceive anything trauma-inducing in being photographed nude.
Furthermore, you aren't talking about a child now, you're talking about an adult. Your dismissal of her statement that she wasn't abused is insulting, to put it mildly. In fact such dismissal might be considered abuse in itself, since it is belittling and attempts to remove the right of self-determination from said person: "Oh you poor dear, you were abused - don't argue with me, you were abused, dammit !"
Not that it would be any less insulting when applied to a child, for that matter. Minority of the subject would be a basis of calm and respectful research into the matter; your dismissal of subjects feelings on the matter is abuse, no matter who you're applying it to, moreso if applied to children, and especially if applied to actual abuse victims.
The age of majority is arbitrary, and differs by countries even today. Categorically claiming that any nude painting, photo or statue modeled after people under whatever it currently happens to be where you live is "evil" is ridiculous.
Most developmental theories I've heard of disagree, but I'll let that slide for argument's sake. However, as seen below, I don't think that you've fully considered the implications of your statement.
If a ten year old doesn't have sexuality, why would she not voluntarily assume a sexual pose ? After all, it shouldn't be any different to her than any other pose, since she would be unable to perceive the sexuality in it. She would simply think it's a pose amongst other poses, no matter what filthy thoughts go through your head when you look at it.
Perhaps you might explain your logic here, because it certainly eludes me ? Remember, from the girl's point of view this would be just a normal photoshoot, there being nothing sexual in it, since she - according to you - would have had no sexuality and thus be unable to perceive any in it. So, unless you are suggesting that any child consenting to have her picture taken must be abused - in which case class pictures tell a dark tale indeed - your argument comes together as somewhat illogical.
This isn't meant as an insult, so please don't take it as such. But I think th