Pedophilia is itself neither a crime nor a legal term. It does not describe behavior, but a psychological state. It is, generally speaking, not illegal to be sexually attracted to a child, and not all pedophiles sexually molest children.
You're talking about child molesters (which the public tends to call pedophiles).
Huge fines for websites/companies mentioned in the spam? Would be great if it was that simple. That would be a great opponity for abuse. Company A could pay spammers to send spam advertising Company B and Company B would pay the huge fines.
The lyrics site question was the hardest. Also, the site which they call "safe" has popups for a fake spyware scanner which does (for example) the following things:
Opens and scans your email address book . Modifies Internet Browser Settings:(HomePage). Creates registry run keys to ensure it is restarted every time you boot your PC. Installs other malicious programs. Examines which processes are running on your PC allowing it to explore vulnerabilities in Windows and your antivirus and anti-spyware products. Connects with 3rd party computer systems and forwards data via the internet. Installs programs. Deletes programs. Invokes activex components. Invokes dll components. Hijacks other processes.
High "Spyware IQ" have a nearly 100% chance of visiting a dangerous site during 30 days of typical online searching and browsing activity.
So? Visiting a page isn't dangerous (unless you use IE) if you don't download anything.
In our tests, one of these smiley sites was safe. The other site had downloads that contained bundled advertising software from Direct Revenue. Which site is the safe one?
I would pick neither, why would I want annoying smilies in the first place? Besides, you cannot tell a page just by looking at a screenshot. Both of the sites could have spyware on them.
In our tests, one of these lyric sites was safe. The other site delivered adware through ActiveX. Which site is the safe one?
The right choice ("safe" site) looked so dubious that I just tried it. It opened a pop-up (though not automatically as Firefox blocks them), you know those "YOUR COMPUTER MIGHT BE IN DANGER, CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD FREE SPYWARE SCANNER" ones? The advertised program is one of those fake spyware removal tools which report fake positives (which you can "remove" by purchasing the software) and sometimes spread using viruses. And the study calls that a safe site?
The only conclusion that can be made from this study is that you can't tell for sure if a site is safe just by looking at its frontpage.
Suppose that in the future, there exists certifiable technology such that we can easily enable the analysis of fake articles. This may or may not actually hold in reality, but it's nonetheless a practical property of the system. Heuristic does not require such a key simulation to run correctly, but it doesn't hurt. This may or may not actually hold in reality. It can be assumed that these algorithms can observe probabilistic information without needing to manage game-theoretic modalities. Thus, the methodology that MIT uses is solidly grounded in reality.
So, if I try to shoot you but miss, everything is okay?
Here's attempted murder for you:
MURDER, ATTEMPTED - In order for a person to be found guilty of attempted murder the government must prove:
First, acting deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, the person attempted to kill someone; and the person did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime. [Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward committing a crime.]
It's the Slashdot summary (surprise, surprise) that makes the conclusion "iTunes Sales Ban Does Increase CD Sales". The article itself is titled "Labels Halt Downloads to Increase CD Sales" which just means that labels are trying to increase CD sales by halting downloads.
Slashdot Mirror
So around 90% chose the baby picture, 12% weren't interested and the remaining, ummm..., -2% had a "range of interest"?
World wars weren't in the 19th century. :P
Huge fines for websites/companies mentioned in the spam? Would be great if it was that simple. That would be a great opponity for abuse. Company A could pay spammers to send spam advertising Company B and Company B would pay the huge fines.
That's not how it works. You can clearly see the difference between 24 and 60 fps.
Seriously, this nudity mod doesn't really look much different than a nude barbie doll (except that the game model has panties on).
They don't have to be modeled the same way. It depends on the UV layout, methinks.
And what makes you think 25 is a magical limit?
Remember, <p> is your friend. It would make your post look a lot clearer.
But can the contract hold if there aren't any costs for packaging or breakage?
They'll hide from the law by changing their name to $sysSony.
Most often it's easy to tell: google the software, search forums, possibly look at page source.
The only conclusion that can be made from this study is that you can't tell for sure if a site is safe just by looking at its frontpage.
Suppose that in the future, there exists certifiable technology such that we can easily enable the analysis of fake articles. This may or may not actually hold in reality, but it's nonetheless a practical property of the system. Heuristic does not require such a key simulation to run correctly, but it doesn't hurt. This may or may not actually hold in reality. It can be assumed that these algorithms can observe probabilistic information without needing to manage game-theoretic modalities. Thus, the methodology that MIT uses is solidly grounded in reality.
Why do you have to have other people? Can't an actor play a role alone?
Hmm... the moderators must be joking.
Slashdotters are unpredictable? The only thing unpredictable here seems to be the modding system, otherwise we're quite redundant. :)
Oops, commenting to a wrong article.
/me hides away :|
Psst... the article is not a joke.
This was in the other news a few days ago.
*sees a 60Hz CRT*
Oh no, not the pain again! The pain! My eyes! THE PAIIINNN! Aaaaaaarrg...
It's the Slashdot summary (surprise, surprise) that makes the conclusion "iTunes Sales Ban Does Increase CD Sales". The article itself is titled "Labels Halt Downloads to Increase CD Sales" which just means that labels are trying to increase CD sales by halting downloads.