don't ever think that it was your fault in any way. it's possible you live in an area with a lot of messed up people. there IS a kind of social pathology to crimes--especially crimes of this nature.
exploiting child-predation as a form of mass entertainment. outstanding indeed.
despite NBC's fearmongering, true cases of kids dumb enough to invite sexual predators into their homes or fly out to meet them are very very very extremely rare. your kid is probably a lot safer from child predators surfing myspace at home than they probably are at school(which is not to say that they are in any great danger at school and you shouldn't let them go to school).
As others have mentioned. If your 12-year-old kid isn't emotionally neglected they probably won't be looking for strange 40-year-old men on the internet to have sex with.
even if you're not a citizen or you're underaged, or even if you're a convicted felon and thus cannot vote, you can still gather in peaceful protest. mass demonstrations are a powerful political tool. demonstrations promote unity, makes your voiced dissent visible, and helps effect cultural change. a lot of progress has been achieved this way throughout american history, which is why i don't understand when people call demonstrators unamerican. must be the same crowd who considers dissent dangerous and unpatriotic...
just goes to show that soundbites are more powerful than facts when swaying public opinion. if you don't own the media, you can't get away with even a blowjob. but if you DO own the media, then you can commit perjury and mass murder and still get away with it.
well, the military CAN be a powerful bulwark for progressivism as demonstrated in Venezuela. but that's because their military has a long tradition of being closely tied with the progressive movement there. and so far Venezuela has been an anomaly.
hypocrisy? that's like saying a judge who might have stepped on a few ants then convicting a serial killer for murder is a hypocrite. one guy is weaseling out of a situation regarding his personal life, the other is trying to undermine our consitutional right to habeas corpus.
seriously, you're a fucking moron for even trying to equate the two. i'm usually not this harsh on people, but this news should be a serious concern for american citizens.
you really think that kind of vertical expansion is feasible or practical for content producers? i really can't see all the asian hardware manufacturers falling in line as trusted computing proponents hope.
precisely. quantum encryption isn't a mathematical encryption. it's a way of transmitting data securely through quantum entanglement (but the message itself isn't encrypted in the traditional sense). traditionally encryption methods are designed to send encrypted data through unsecure means. with quantum encryption you're just sending unencrypted data through a presumably secure means. but even still i recall reading an article on slashdot regarding a guy who devised a way of eavesdropping on quantum encrypted transmissions undetected.
do you understand what a physical encryption is? bringing up quantum encryption in the context of this discussion suggests that you don't. wanna read that wiki article and try this again?
Kthxbye;-)
ofcourse not. it's a physical encryption isn't it? there are ways to bypass quantum encryption though, just as there are ways to intercept other transmission methods.
considering the theoretical impossibility of an unbreakable DRM scheme which is obvious to anyone who gives the idea 2 seconds of thought, I'd say that they are just deluding themselves anyway so facts and reality probably don't matter to them.
hey, my friends and i did that one time! it was cuz the bike was a piece of shit, and all we really wanted was the inner tube to begin with. he didn't go to the University of Illinois did he?
the reason so few people are green is because greens act like...
that makes perfect sense:
i don't care about the ecological damage that society is doing--the impact of which we're already feeling--because environmentalists are assholes! so instead, i'd rather keeping digging the collective grave for our species and screw myself and future generations over with the ruin of our environment. i want to breathe in pollutants from burning fossil fuels to the detriment of my health because environmentalists are such pricks!
your impeccable logic has cleared away so much confusion for me.
so wanting a judicial process where vigilantes and mobs don't just get to take it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner is a victim mentality? maybe you're right, we don't need law enforcement or a justice system. every dispute should just be solved by whoever has the biggest gun--now that's progress.
is it shitty action if in my doctoral dissertation i present a totally factually unsupported claim and demonstrate faulty research and as a result the school does not grant me my degree? is it shitty if i flunk a history test because i claim that germany lost WWII because aliens invaded germany and attacked berlin with giant mutant turnips?
good thing no one is advocating silencing or killing people who espouse unpopular beliefs. this isn't an issue of what beliefs are popular--but rather what scientists are not meeting the standards of scientific integrity, in other words, reviewing the process of scientists and decertifying those who make claims based on payouts rather than research data.
this isn't really censorship. would you consider the medical review board a form of censorship? a doctor who advocates non- factual/science-based beliefs is potentially very dangerous. you would expect a doctor who recommends homeopathic therapy to someone who really needs chemo to lose his medical license, so why wouldn't you treat an environmental scientist who makes false and unsupported claims to misinform the public the same way? we're not talking about theoretical science. this is an argument based on abundant empirical evidence. the way i see it, this is the only way to maintain the credibility of scientists. scientists who allow themselves to be purchased by the highest bidder erode the credibility of all scientific research, and just as their authority in the field is given to them by academia and the scientific community of their peers, so should they lose it if misconduct is observed. what they are doing is tantamount to bad science--so why not decertify them? this doesn't just apply to environmental research either.
Slashdot Mirror
don't ever think that it was your fault in any way. it's possible you live in an area with a lot of messed up people. there IS a kind of social pathology to crimes--especially crimes of this nature.
exploiting child-predation as a form of mass entertainment. outstanding indeed.
despite NBC's fearmongering, true cases of kids dumb enough to invite sexual predators into their homes or fly out to meet them are very very very extremely rare. your kid is probably a lot safer from child predators surfing myspace at home than they probably are at school(which is not to say that they are in any great danger at school and you shouldn't let them go to school).
As others have mentioned. If your 12-year-old kid isn't emotionally neglected they probably won't be looking for strange 40-year-old men on the internet to have sex with.
yea, i discovered porn on AOL when i was like in 2nd grade, and i turned out alright.
...ok bad example. but i'm pretty sure it wasn't the porn.
even if you're not a citizen or you're underaged, or even if you're a convicted felon and thus cannot vote, you can still gather in peaceful protest. mass demonstrations are a powerful political tool. demonstrations promote unity, makes your voiced dissent visible, and helps effect cultural change. a lot of progress has been achieved this way throughout american history, which is why i don't understand when people call demonstrators unamerican. must be the same crowd who considers dissent dangerous and unpatriotic...
just goes to show that soundbites are more powerful than facts when swaying public opinion. if you don't own the media, you can't get away with even a blowjob. but if you DO own the media, then you can commit perjury and mass murder and still get away with it.
well, the military CAN be a powerful bulwark for progressivism as demonstrated in Venezuela. but that's because their military has a long tradition of being closely tied with the progressive movement there. and so far Venezuela has been an anomaly.
hypocrisy? that's like saying a judge who might have stepped on a few ants then convicting a serial killer for murder is a hypocrite. one guy is weaseling out of a situation regarding his personal life, the other is trying to undermine our consitutional right to habeas corpus.
seriously, you're a fucking moron for even trying to equate the two. i'm usually not this harsh on people, but this news should be a serious concern for american citizens.
i really wish i had some mod points right now. best comment i've read on this issue on digg OR slashdot all day.
you really think that kind of vertical expansion is feasible or practical for content producers? i really can't see all the asian hardware manufacturers falling in line as trusted computing proponents hope.
precisely. quantum encryption isn't a mathematical encryption. it's a way of transmitting data securely through quantum entanglement (but the message itself isn't encrypted in the traditional sense). traditionally encryption methods are designed to send encrypted data through unsecure means. with quantum encryption you're just sending unencrypted data through a presumably secure means. but even still i recall reading an article on slashdot regarding a guy who devised a way of eavesdropping on quantum encrypted transmissions undetected.
do you understand what a physical encryption is? bringing up quantum encryption in the context of this discussion suggests that you don't. wanna read that wiki article and try this again? Kthxbye ;-)
ofcourse not. it's a physical encryption isn't it? there are ways to bypass quantum encryption though, just as there are ways to intercept other transmission methods.
considering the theoretical impossibility of an unbreakable DRM scheme which is obvious to anyone who gives the idea 2 seconds of thought, I'd say that they are just deluding themselves anyway so facts and reality probably don't matter to them.
that joke's not funny anymore...
are you sure that's how it translates over? just clockspeed * number of cores?
hey, my friends and i did that one time! it was cuz the bike was a piece of shit, and all we really wanted was the inner tube to begin with. he didn't go to the University of Illinois did he?
wth? you need guns and to get rid of courts and police in order to discipline your children?
that makes perfect sense:
i don't care about the ecological damage that society is doing--the impact of which we're already feeling--because environmentalists are assholes! so instead, i'd rather keeping digging the collective grave for our species and screw myself and future generations over with the ruin of our environment. i want to breathe in pollutants from burning fossil fuels to the detriment of my health because environmentalists are such pricks!
your impeccable logic has cleared away so much confusion for me.
i imagine you'd feel the heat or see things around it charred up and covered with carbon to give you a slight clue.
so wanting a judicial process where vigilantes and mobs don't just get to take it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner is a victim mentality? maybe you're right, we don't need law enforcement or a justice system. every dispute should just be solved by whoever has the biggest gun--now that's progress.
it's a toss-up for me between the gay robot and the pedophile. if i wanted to feel like i was on acid i'd just take some acid...
is it shitty action if in my doctoral dissertation i present a totally factually unsupported claim and demonstrate faulty research and as a result the school does not grant me my degree? is it shitty if i flunk a history test because i claim that germany lost WWII because aliens invaded germany and attacked berlin with giant mutant turnips?
good thing no one is advocating silencing or killing people who espouse unpopular beliefs. this isn't an issue of what beliefs are popular--but rather what scientists are not meeting the standards of scientific integrity, in other words, reviewing the process of scientists and decertifying those who make claims based on payouts rather than research data.
this isn't really censorship. would you consider the medical review board a form of censorship? a doctor who advocates non- factual/science-based beliefs is potentially very dangerous. you would expect a doctor who recommends homeopathic therapy to someone who really needs chemo to lose his medical license, so why wouldn't you treat an environmental scientist who makes false and unsupported claims to misinform the public the same way? we're not talking about theoretical science. this is an argument based on abundant empirical evidence. the way i see it, this is the only way to maintain the credibility of scientists. scientists who allow themselves to be purchased by the highest bidder erode the credibility of all scientific research, and just as their authority in the field is given to them by academia and the scientific community of their peers, so should they lose it if misconduct is observed. what they are doing is tantamount to bad science--so why not decertify them? this doesn't just apply to environmental research either.
do you have a link to one such study?