I think this is the next stage of the evolution of slashdot.
Manufacturers pay to have their products on huge supermarket/mall chains' shelf, so it's natural for article writers to submit their articles to slashdot.
Besides, what's wrong with news pages submitting their articles? Is it better to have some reader (who sometimes completely misunderstands the article) to submit them?
That's because bittorrent is much better suited for this kind of stuff.
Bittorrent is better than direct download because it's easy to manage mirrors (you just set up another seeder) and bittorrent is scalable (huge popularity doesn't increase money spent on bandwidth).
Bittorrent is better than ed2k because users share *during* the download. So it doesn't matter if they decide not to share DRMed files *after* the download.
Besides, isn't World of Warcraft's patch system basically a commercial p2p? If it's used as a part of a commercial product, doesn't it qualify it as a commercial p2p?
More than 99% customers simply don't pirate movies.
Several pirate groups acquire a player like that and use it to pirate any movie they feel like. They don't even need to invent anything - it's already done for them. Then they can distribute pirated HD movies over the internet.
Piracy remains completely unaffected, while customers keep suffering from higher and higher restrictions.
You're assuming that those who choose to commit suicide, for any reason, isn't worthy of living (or the world is better off without them). While I can see how someone can see it that way, I would have to disagree.
No, that's assuming these people have genetic predisposition to the suicide reason. I.e., if they survive, their children are likely to have the same problems.
But that might not be the case. The suicide reason can have social roots. In that case, "getting rid" of suicidal people (by letting them commit suicide) won't help even from the natural selection point of view.
One could always believe that evolution is just a tool in God's hands. That way it's possible to believe in intelligent design without denying facts, that Earth is older than a few thousands years, etc.
Religion is about believing, science is about knowing. They are not mutually exclusive.
Does lack of child porn magically cure pedophiles?
No, this isn't about "curing pedofiles". This is about protecting children, that otherwise would fall victim to those, who create child pornography. The less children harmed, the better.
Theoretically, as long as no child is harmed in any way, there isn't a problem with pedofiles. For example, imagine some "big brother" watching over all children. If it can be guaranteed, that children are not involved, pedofiles can do whatever they want. (Like watching drawn child pornography.)
Of course, that's just theory. I highly doubt that such an absolute way of making sure children don't get harmed exists at all. But also notice that in this particular case "big brother" actually gives more freedom.
The idea is, if you could target the problem directly, you could exterminate it without sacrificing anything else. In practice, though, you have to compromise. Getting rid of child pornography is viewed as so important, that the "sacrifice bar" is much higher, than with most other things.
Please explain to me how computer-generated child porn, in which no actual child is involved, creates demand. Are people not pedophiles until they've consumed some child porn? If nobody made child porn, would we have no pedophiles who want to look at it? Perhaps it fills a demand, but how could it create demand?
Let me try to explain by showing a simple example:
Child pornography consumer (i.e. pedofile) goes to a web page, where he can download child pornography. As he downloads, he is shown ads. Ads generate revenue for the child pornography supplier. Successfully generated revenue makes him supply greater qualities of child pronography.
So without demand, there would be no supply per market rules. As long as child pornography can't be sold, new won't be created.
Whether the consumer actually consumed what he acquired is transparent to the supplier - he got his money, he wants to do it again.
Targeting both the consumer and supplier has greater effect, than targeting the supplier only. In the case of the child porno, benefits of targeting both outweight drawbacks.
It's certainly true that the current laws are curious. Even the most softcore porn featuring a 17 year old is illegal, yet incredibly hardcore material from the follow day that she turned 18 is legal... Strange.
Laws have to be as simple and precise as possible. How else would you draw a clear line between child and adult pornography?
Slashdot Mirror
Good guys win in the end...
This is just not the end ;)
Nice summary. Too bad it's stolen verbatim from TFA.
I bet noone would realize, since nobody ever reads TFA. It's a sad world, when people steal summaries from the articles they link to.
Tripple +5 funny, now that's what I call karma farming ;)
You were told you have no soul?
Well, failure is still much better than no experience. And this guy has failed *a lot*.
Google is evil and Microsoft is good? Say it ain't so!
In related news, Hell froze over!
I think this is the next stage of the evolution of slashdot.
Manufacturers pay to have their products on huge supermarket/mall chains' shelf, so it's natural for article writers to submit their articles to slashdot.
Besides, what's wrong with news pages submitting their articles? Is it better to have some reader (who sometimes completely misunderstands the article) to submit them?
Reminds me of the DO NOT NERF posts you see on MMORPG forums. ;)
Slashdot's content is the comments.
NOTE: This is a joke. Plain and simple.
Bah! You almost got me there.
The problem would be synchronizing the human.
Now that I've just wasted all of my mod points in another thread, I feel so useless...
Anyone got some spare points I can lend? I promise to give them back as soon as I get new ones!! Please?
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
That's because bittorrent is much better suited for this kind of stuff.
Bittorrent is better than direct download because it's easy to manage mirrors (you just set up another seeder) and bittorrent is scalable (huge popularity doesn't increase money spent on bandwidth).
Bittorrent is better than ed2k because users share *during* the download. So it doesn't matter if they decide not to share DRMed files *after* the download.
Besides, isn't World of Warcraft's patch system basically a commercial p2p? If it's used as a part of a commercial product, doesn't it qualify it as a commercial p2p?
I've got a perfect solution for you... don't watch the sequel!
This is how it'll work out.
More than 99% customers simply don't pirate movies.
Several pirate groups acquire a player like that and use it to pirate any movie they feel like. They don't even need to invent anything - it's already done for them. Then they can distribute pirated HD movies over the internet.
Piracy remains completely unaffected, while customers keep suffering from higher and higher restrictions.
*sigh*
But that might not be the case. The suicide reason can have social roots. In that case, "getting rid" of suicidal people (by letting them commit suicide) won't help even from the natural selection point of view.
One could always believe that evolution is just a tool in God's hands. That way it's possible to believe in intelligent design without denying facts, that Earth is older than a few thousands years, etc.
Religion is about believing, science is about knowing. They are not mutually exclusive.
But... But it's Google! We trust Google!
In related news, 7 out of 11 internet exchange points in France couldn't handle a sudden traffic increase.
Get a warning like that everyday and you'll start ignoring all warnings, including the real ones.
No, this isn't about "curing pedofiles". This is about protecting children, that otherwise would fall victim to those, who create child pornography. The less children harmed, the better.
Theoretically, as long as no child is harmed in any way, there isn't a problem with pedofiles. For example, imagine some "big brother" watching over all children. If it can be guaranteed, that children are not involved, pedofiles can do whatever they want. (Like watching drawn child pornography.)
Of course, that's just theory. I highly doubt that such an absolute way of making sure children don't get harmed exists at all. But also notice that in this particular case "big brother" actually gives more freedom.
The idea is, if you could target the problem directly, you could exterminate it without sacrificing anything else. In practice, though, you have to compromise. Getting rid of child pornography is viewed as so important, that the "sacrifice bar" is much higher, than with most other things.
That's an example, not the only possible way it can go.
Now ask yourself, which is more likely. That child porn producers are doing it for money or not?
Let me try to explain by showing a simple example:
Child pornography consumer (i.e. pedofile) goes to a web page, where he can download child pornography. As he downloads, he is shown ads. Ads generate revenue for the child pornography supplier. Successfully generated revenue makes him supply greater qualities of child pronography.
So without demand, there would be no supply per market rules. As long as child pornography can't be sold, new won't be created.
Whether the consumer actually consumed what he acquired is transparent to the supplier - he got his money, he wants to do it again.
Targeting both the consumer and supplier has greater effect, than targeting the supplier only. In the case of the child porno, benefits of targeting both outweight drawbacks.