yeah, it's a kinda fuzzy memory, after they stripped me, shocked me and injected me with a sedative I can't really remember anything. Nice flight, crappy inflight-movie though, something with Val Kilmer, couldn't really focus.
nah man, that's the mighty boosh. the greatest comedy ever to be handed down from the mighty pantheon to humanity. Then again, it seems to me that Americans often don't enjoy British humour!
What are the chances that Google and other pro-net neutrality companies will answer with their own advert? How can peoples awareness of such a complicated issue as NN be raised, when to most people the Internet is simply a pile of black voodoo magic?
you're dealing in hypotheticals and mixing industries. Web design as an emergent industry is extremely chaotic and sometimes downright stupid. I along with many others am girding my loins in expectation of not just having to write hackes for IE 5 & 6 but now 7 as well. This is my idea of a nightmare. Of course I would like to get on my high horse and ride into town with a big placard saying "WEB DESIGNERS AGAINST NON-STANDARDIZATION UNITE" but unfortunately while I'm doing that I'm not earning.
In the end web design is different from FOSS software, it doesn't have the same strong ideology behind it. It's a job, not a crusade. I'll leave the battles to those who feel stronger, I just want to make money.
because most people use internet explorer and if websites don't work in it it won't me MS they hassle, but the website designers. Designers (I'm one of them) know which side their bread is buttered on, we have to put these hacks in place because at the least clients expect sites we design for them to work in IE. They often might not know that there are different browsers or that websites render differently depending on which browser you view them with.
So in an ideal world, designers would drop tools and say fuck no, i'm not coding another box model hack till MS fix this, however MS are under *no* obligation to make IE work unfortunately. Also, to most peoples standards IE *does* work well enough unfortunately.
emo kids have never been a joke to me. People are quick to joke about sentiments they used to have when younger, to further the gap between what they are now and what they once were. Everyone was fourteen once though, I've never seen what the problem with emo was.
Yeah I've heard that one before and to be honest it doesn't hold water. If people do start using wikipedia to self diagnose themselves then that is *their* problem, not wikipedias and nor is wikipedia being misleading and suggesting itself a medical authority.
Ignore Wikipedia for a moment, lets look at medical texts. Anyone can go and in the appropriate place purchase a medical text that tells them a-z what illness they have, self-diagnosis is just an index-search away. Do people do it? No, unless perhaps they are a hypochondriac. So are people likely to use Wikipedia as a medical reference rather than going to a Doctor? No.
Are you saying it would be reasonable to use wikipedia as a medical reference for self diagnosis if it was 100% accurate? We place our trust in certain professions to help us in certain situations.
Next time there is a fire in my house, I will look up Fire Fighting on wikipedia, I'm sure it will help me, afterall who *really* needs a fire service when you have a wiki at your disposal.
because it's a summation of a massive amount of information that we are all sharing, and until recently this kind of information has been bartered and edited by a privileged few, the thought of the basic building blocks of wisdom being communally kept and edited by not few but many is a powerful and intimidating idea.
anyone complaining about google funding
on
AOL 9.0 Called Badware
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
this is called full disclosure. deal with it. Lenovo and Sun also sponsor StopBadware.org, big deal. Whether or not google have alternate reasons for getting behind a push like this they have a history of philanthropic work, I am not surprised to find them involved.
I'm not sure where the "american idol" comparison came from (well i am actually, some inflammatory print written by the guy who submitted this story) but mydreamapp.com doesn't state any such thing. Check the front page. And also claiming something about Apple originality is pointless, this has nothing to do with Apple the company. This is a competition for software that will be developed by independent software developers and judged by some pretty in the know panelists. This isn't high drama, it's high development.
I for one am gonna take off my cynical hat, put on a "this could be cool" hat and wait and see what happens.
that's a matter of opinion. Just because you think it's a troll, doesn't mean I for instance agree. The guys post, whether copy/pasted or written word by word is spot on in my opinion.
I also liked the guys description above of a bunch of obnoxious kids splashing around in a pool insisting it isn't freezing and telling you you're some kind of idiot if you can't understand some obscure documentation.
Linux's greatest problem may turn out not to be hardware support, but fleshware support. A bunch of Linux users who are such fanatical backers that they refuse to pick up on Linux's weak points because that would be like speaking bad of their saviour.
Does anyone ever get the feeling that the search for the mecca of desktop linux is being led by an attack-macaque that watches tirelessly over an infinitely large room with an infinite number of monkeys in it, all smooshing keyboards to design that distro that just might work.
and yet they can't. what is going on with that? I think by now, we've kinda grasped the things that make a good desktop. If no-one can bring that simple magic to linux now, they never will.
Technically you are correct, child molestation and child porn are different 'things', but they are both bad. They seem to be frequently linked too, i.e. someone who molests a child might also look at child porn. For me, that puts them in the same ballpark in terms of the actual horror of what they are. And yes, I do think that a man/woman who possesses child porn is as guilty as the one who molests a child, I find someone who enjoys looking at child porn for their enjoyment equally horrific as someone who commits sexual offences against a child.
Now, if someone is found to have child porn on their computer then the reason for that porn being there needs to be established in a court of law. It could be that some malicious computer virus has placed it there.
"Fascinating. So you support there being criminal penalties based solely on a person's thoughts?"
Er no, you have again done what I suggested people have been doing, which is not linking thoughts and acts. If someone were to merely think of committing an act, of course that isn't punishable, it shouldn't be. However it they *act* on those thoughts then well, you could hardly disagree that that is another matter. You seem to put pictures of childs being graphically abused in the same realm as that of fantasy, when in-fact that happened somewhere, sometime. It's hardly surprising that people remove their selves so much from what they see around them, in our minds when we see something as a bunch of fluorescent pixels on the screen it takes on an aspect of unreality, Computers and the Internet are extremely bad for this and it is something i deeply dislike about them.
"Do you think, since I am "part of the problem" due to my opinion on certain legal issues, I should be criminally liable for that opinion?"
If it's your opinion that child porn is OK, then as I have pointed out that is fine (as far as I can say finding child porn to be acceptable in any way is 'fine'), however if you decide to act on that and either acquire or create child porn. what the hell do you think?
From my point of view, yes. In the end it does come down to my view against his, and I do think in this case that I am right and he is wrong. What is slashdot but a stomping ground for people with strong opinions.
You are putting words into my mouth by suggesting that I said if someone disagrees with me that they are a paedophile. I certainly don't think that. However I do feel that if people think it shouldn't be illegal to own child porn it is a tacit recognition that its creation is ok too.
Personally I don't think that writing or CGI that contains paedophilic elements should be illegal. I realize there needs to be line drawn somewhere between freedom of expression and going too far.
Its all very well bringing up 'thought crime', a very potent image to a bunch of geeks but what people seem to be doing here is not connecting thought and intent. People find thought to be sacrosanct, in much the same way as the data on our computers - but thought with malicious intent can be a terrible thing, and a lot of our thoughts do lead to actions.
and yes, it does make you part of the problem in my opinion.
that's crazy. you're saying a little is ok because it will lead to a better world. everyone has heard of the ends not necessarily justifying the means, i believe this a case where it rings true.
the idea of founding a new law legalizing child porn to lure out possible paedophiles is very, very silly.
because he assumes that simply downloading child porn doesn't make him culpable. To put it another way, most post people are aware of the tenets of a free market, the one I would focus on in this case is supply and demand. If people demand a certain type of media (say child pornography) than the supply will increase to meet the demand.
If it were not illegal to own child porn then the demand for it would go up. I can't prove this, but I can make basic assumptions based on how supply and demand work.
So i meant to suggest 1) that the incidence of creation of child pornography would increase to meet demand because of the legalization of ownership of said pornography and 2) that people who think that they can absolve responsibility from their actions by passing it to a third party by saying that they did not create it, are as bad as the originator of the porn.
OK, we can assume that as many registered sex offenders as there are, there are still more who have never been caught. There are also people who haven't offended yet, but might do. Now, is it really such a clever idea to make child porn available to those who might commit an offence if pushed to it by readily available imagery like that. If you make the possession of child porn legal then the knock on effect would be beyond imaginations of horror.
You sir, are part of the problem if you don't think that the person who downloads child pornography is as responsible as the person who took the photo in the first place. You simply cannot passs the buck like that.
you are comparing photographs of children forced to do sexual acts to people taking pictures of their children in hospital or child actors?!
There is a massive amount of poorly written press when it comes to serious taboo issues like this, however comparing paedophilia to baby pictures is just plain stupid and I can't be bothered to be more polite about it then that.
It's true that some child actors grow up with problems, but if you hadn't noticed some adult actors seem to make up for lost time if they weren't famous as a child and develop their own sets. I think this is a symptom of stardom as much as anything else.
If you were wandering about the difference between baby pics and paedophile photographs, it's to do with intent. work it out.
I'm sorry, did someone compare the two because if they did I missed it.
Also, are you saying that if found possessing child pornography on your computer you shouldn't be prosecuted. The whole point of bringing a case where someone has been found to have child porn on or about them is to prove their guilt or innocence. Maybe you didn't realize what you downloaded, but I have just your word to go on, unless other proof supports your assertions. What choice would I have?
"So certain bit patterns make one a felon?" Yes, unless you want to make the data we store on our computers completely ungovernable. People seem to think that they have the right to store anything they want to on their computers, even though it might be highly illegal, just because it's "bits". Well wake up call, those bits are a photograph of a young child who had no choice in the matter. What gives you the right?
Would it be reasonable for me to start a party called the 'New Nazi's' in hope of making my new party more noticeable so I could actually promote my parties real values which are looking after fluffy animals, promoting Smiles and daily laughing exercises?
Whatever the Pirate Bay is here for, to the majority of users it's about getting stuff for free, not about changing dominant ideologies in the media industry, I don't exactly pat myself on the back for fighting the man when I download the latest telesync of Pirates of the Caribbean from TBP.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, it's a kinda fuzzy memory, after they stripped me, shocked me and injected me with a sedative I can't really remember anything. Nice flight, crappy inflight-movie though, something with Val Kilmer, couldn't really focus.
nah man, that's the mighty boosh. the greatest comedy ever to be handed down from the mighty pantheon to humanity. Then again, it seems to me that Americans often don't enjoy British humour!
exclusive footage of the moons response, I'm not sure he really knows what is going on, seems kinda senile.
in other news water banned as can be used as offensive weapon. /captain obvious to the rescue
surely if you defeat the great lizard you get to claim the princess's hand in marriage?
What are the chances that Google and other pro-net neutrality companies will answer with their own advert? How can peoples awareness of such a complicated issue as NN be raised, when to most people the Internet is simply a pile of black voodoo magic?
you're dealing in hypotheticals and mixing industries. Web design as an emergent industry is extremely chaotic and sometimes downright stupid. I along with many others am girding my loins in expectation of not just having to write hackes for IE 5 & 6 but now 7 as well. This is my idea of a nightmare. Of course I would like to get on my high horse and ride into town with a big placard saying "WEB DESIGNERS AGAINST NON-STANDARDIZATION UNITE" but unfortunately while I'm doing that I'm not earning.
In the end web design is different from FOSS software, it doesn't have the same strong ideology behind it. It's a job, not a crusade. I'll leave the battles to those who feel stronger, I just want to make money.
because most people use internet explorer and if websites don't work in it it won't me MS they hassle, but the website designers. Designers (I'm one of them) know which side their bread is buttered on, we have to put these hacks in place because at the least clients expect sites we design for them to work in IE. They often might not know that there are different browsers or that websites render differently depending on which browser you view them with.
So in an ideal world, designers would drop tools and say fuck no, i'm not coding another box model hack till MS fix this, however MS are under *no* obligation to make IE work unfortunately. Also, to most peoples standards IE *does* work well enough unfortunately.
emo kids have never been a joke to me. People are quick to joke about sentiments they used to have when younger, to further the gap between what they are now and what they once were. Everyone was fourteen once though, I've never seen what the problem with emo was.
Yeah I've heard that one before and to be honest it doesn't hold water. If people do start using wikipedia to self diagnose themselves then that is *their* problem, not wikipedias and nor is wikipedia being misleading and suggesting itself a medical authority.
Ignore Wikipedia for a moment, lets look at medical texts. Anyone can go and in the appropriate place purchase a medical text that tells them a-z what illness they have, self-diagnosis is just an index-search away. Do people do it? No, unless perhaps they are a hypochondriac. So are people likely to use Wikipedia as a medical reference rather than going to a Doctor? No.
Are you saying it would be reasonable to use wikipedia as a medical reference for self diagnosis if it was 100% accurate? We place our trust in certain professions to help us in certain situations.
Next time there is a fire in my house, I will look up Fire Fighting on wikipedia, I'm sure it will help me, afterall who *really* needs a fire service when you have a wiki at your disposal.
because it's a summation of a massive amount of information that we are all sharing, and until recently this kind of information has been bartered and edited by a privileged few, the thought of the basic building blocks of wisdom being communally kept and edited by not few but many is a powerful and intimidating idea.
this is called full disclosure. deal with it. Lenovo and Sun also sponsor StopBadware.org, big deal. Whether or not google have alternate reasons for getting behind a push like this they have a history of philanthropic work, I am not surprised to find them involved.
I'm not sure where the "american idol" comparison came from (well i am actually, some inflammatory print written by the guy who submitted this story) but mydreamapp.com doesn't state any such thing. Check the front page. And also claiming something about Apple originality is pointless, this has nothing to do with Apple the company. This is a competition for software that will be developed by independent software developers and judged by some pretty in the know panelists. This isn't high drama, it's high development.
I for one am gonna take off my cynical hat, put on a "this could be cool" hat and wait and see what happens.
monry sounds like a kind of cheese. is it smelly, it would be very easy to follow then.
that's a matter of opinion. Just because you think it's a troll, doesn't mean I for instance agree. The guys post, whether copy/pasted or written word by word is spot on in my opinion.
I also liked the guys description above of a bunch of obnoxious kids splashing around in a pool insisting it isn't freezing and telling you you're some kind of idiot if you can't understand some obscure documentation.
Linux's greatest problem may turn out not to be hardware support, but fleshware support. A bunch of Linux users who are such fanatical backers that they refuse to pick up on Linux's weak points because that would be like speaking bad of their saviour.
heh, that about sums it up. notice the reply after yours basically says if you can't get it working, you're clueless.
sounds like a digg user got lost.
Does anyone ever get the feeling that the search for the mecca of desktop linux is being led by an attack-macaque that watches tirelessly over an infinitely large room with an infinite number of monkeys in it, all smooshing keyboards to design that distro that just might work.
and yet they can't. what is going on with that? I think by now, we've kinda grasped the things that make a good desktop. If no-one can bring that simple magic to linux now, they never will.
Technically you are correct, child molestation and child porn are different 'things', but they are both bad. They seem to be frequently linked too, i.e. someone who molests a child might also look at child porn. For me, that puts them in the same ballpark in terms of the actual horror of what they are. And yes, I do think that a man/woman who possesses child porn is as guilty as the one who molests a child, I find someone who enjoys looking at child porn for their enjoyment equally horrific as someone who commits sexual offences against a child.
Now, if someone is found to have child porn on their computer then the reason for that porn being there needs to be established in a court of law. It could be that some malicious computer virus has placed it there.
"Fascinating. So you support there being criminal penalties based solely on a person's thoughts?"
Er no, you have again done what I suggested people have been doing, which is not linking thoughts and acts. If someone were to merely think of committing an act, of course that isn't punishable, it shouldn't be. However it they *act* on those thoughts then well, you could hardly disagree that that is another matter. You seem to put pictures of childs being graphically abused in the same realm as that of fantasy, when in-fact that happened somewhere, sometime. It's hardly surprising that people remove their selves so much from what they see around them, in our minds when we see something as a bunch of fluorescent pixels on the screen it takes on an aspect of unreality, Computers and the Internet are extremely bad for this and it is something i deeply dislike about them.
"Do you think, since I am "part of the problem" due to my opinion on certain legal issues, I should be criminally liable for that opinion?"
If it's your opinion that child porn is OK, then as I have pointed out that is fine (as far as I can say finding child porn to be acceptable in any way is 'fine'), however if you decide to act on that and either acquire or create child porn. what the hell do you think?
From my point of view, yes. In the end it does come down to my view against his, and I do think in this case that I am right and he is wrong. What is slashdot but a stomping ground for people with strong opinions.
You are putting words into my mouth by suggesting that I said if someone disagrees with me that they are a paedophile. I certainly don't think that. However I do feel that if people think it shouldn't be illegal to own child porn it is a tacit recognition that its creation is ok too.
Personally I don't think that writing or CGI that contains paedophilic elements should be illegal. I realize there needs to be line drawn somewhere between freedom of expression and going too far.
Its all very well bringing up 'thought crime', a very potent image to a bunch of geeks but what people seem to be doing here is not connecting thought and intent. People find thought to be sacrosanct, in much the same way as the data on our computers - but thought with malicious intent can be a terrible thing, and a lot of our thoughts do lead to actions.
and yes, it does make you part of the problem in my opinion.
that's crazy. you're saying a little is ok because it will lead to a better world. everyone has heard of the ends not necessarily justifying the means, i believe this a case where it rings true.
the idea of founding a new law legalizing child porn to lure out possible paedophiles is very, very silly.
because he assumes that simply downloading child porn doesn't make him culpable. To put it another way, most post people are aware of the tenets of a free market, the one I would focus on in this case is supply and demand. If people demand a certain type of media (say child pornography) than the supply will increase to meet the demand.
If it were not illegal to own child porn then the demand for it would go up. I can't prove this, but I can make basic assumptions based on how supply and demand work.
So i meant to suggest 1) that the incidence of creation of child pornography would increase to meet demand because of the legalization of ownership of said pornography and 2) that people who think that they can absolve responsibility from their actions by passing it to a third party by saying that they did not create it, are as bad as the originator of the porn.
that's absolutely ridiculous.
OK, we can assume that as many registered sex offenders as there are, there are still more who have never been caught. There are also people who haven't offended yet, but might do. Now, is it really such a clever idea to make child porn available to those who might commit an offence if pushed to it by readily available imagery like that. If you make the possession of child porn legal then the knock on effect would be beyond imaginations of horror.
You sir, are part of the problem if you don't think that the person who downloads child pornography is as responsible as the person who took the photo in the first place. You simply cannot passs the buck like that.
you are comparing photographs of children forced to do sexual acts to people taking pictures of their children in hospital or child actors?!
There is a massive amount of poorly written press when it comes to serious taboo issues like this, however comparing paedophilia to baby pictures is just plain stupid and I can't be bothered to be more polite about it then that.
It's true that some child actors grow up with problems, but if you hadn't noticed some adult actors seem to make up for lost time if they weren't famous as a child and develop their own sets. I think this is a symptom of stardom as much as anything else.
If you were wandering about the difference between baby pics and paedophile photographs, it's to do with intent. work it out.
I'm sorry, did someone compare the two because if they did I missed it.
Also, are you saying that if found possessing child pornography on your computer you shouldn't be prosecuted. The whole point of bringing a case where someone has been found to have child porn on or about them is to prove their guilt or innocence. Maybe you didn't realize what you downloaded, but I have just your word to go on, unless other proof supports your assertions. What choice would I have?
"So certain bit patterns make one a felon?" Yes, unless you want to make the data we store on our computers completely ungovernable. People seem to think that they have the right to store anything they want to on their computers, even though it might be highly illegal, just because it's "bits". Well wake up call, those bits are a photograph of a young child who had no choice in the matter. What gives you the right?
Would it be reasonable for me to start a party called the 'New Nazi's' in hope of making my new party more noticeable so I could actually promote my parties real values which are looking after fluffy animals, promoting Smiles and daily laughing exercises?
Whatever the Pirate Bay is here for, to the majority of users it's about getting stuff for free, not about changing dominant ideologies in the media industry, I don't exactly pat myself on the back for fighting the man when I download the latest telesync of Pirates of the Caribbean from TBP.