Because the prosecution and judge openly mocked him for being 'weird' and several people on the jury admitted they convicted him by simply 'looking into his eyes'.
Guilty or not, this is scary stuff for people with significant social disorders. To many it really appears he was not convicted on evidence but on personality. "He acted guilty" seems to be the dominant reasoning.
It is esp disconcerting because, trait by trait, many people know at least one or two peeps who have individual traits that were mocked. The looking people in the eye thing is a common example.. lots of aspies and such really have trouble with that, but average people (this is a big problem with police esp) read it as hiding something or guilt.
Oops, I stand corrected. Age of Concent is a per state issue and thus would not be a felony. Though in pretty much every state there is some combination where minors (not children) having sex will put at least one of them in jail.
Since the crime in this case is possession, not production, the victim may not be trackable.
While the discussion has diverged quite a bit, the original piece went over a pretty significant worry. If there is no good, legally admissable way to determine if an image is real or CG then cases become extremly difficult to either prosecute or defend (depending on the assumption).
On the one hand you don't want people with real CP (assuming that possession alone is worth prosecuting) being able to say 'but it is CG!'.. on the other hand you don't want everyone who gets some lolicon hentai to go to jail.
Ahm, minors having sex with each other IS a felony. For that matter, minors taking nude pictures of themselves is also a felony. And yes, people do go to jail for it.
I am unable to find a link from anyone saying, "I would have been a child molester, but since I can live out my fantasies in my computer chair, I don't have to be." Because no one is stupid enough to say something like that? Think about it.. modern america even saying you THINK about kids is enough to get people saying you should be strung up and killed. It can be used to justify removal from a job, harrasment in a community, and child custody cases (if not CPS in general) all make such a statement very, very dangerous.
This is the group of pedophiles you do not hear from.. people who have some level of desire but are not a threat to anyone because they have learned to cope with it and not act on their urges.. just like EVERYONE has to learn to keep their id in check.
People want to do all sorts of horrible things. Yeasterday someone cut me off in traffic and caused me to swerve. I had a momentary fantasy about ramming them, and some days I might go home and play a game where I get to run cars into eachother. Safe release for id impuse to do something harmfull.
There are lots of people who like young imagry, esp teens. 99% of them do not act on the desires.
Probably one of the big reasons people get so worked up about underaged stuff IS the fact it is so normal.. so in order for people to deal with their own desire they make really damn sure everyone around them KNOWS how much they detest 'those perverts'.
You forget, the only moral form of sex is missionary possition within a marrage between one male (older and dominant) and one female (younger and submissive).. anything else is a sin in the eyes of my invisible friend skippy.
In all seriousness though, there actually is a good case for monogomy in nature. Geese are an example of a creature that mates for life for instance. Humans actually fall into a grey area.. we are both a 1:N (one male many females), M:1 (one female multiple males) N:M (complicated) and 1:1 (monogomous). Humans have wiring for all of them depending on the situation and can flow between them. Each individual also has leaning twoards one structure or another.
If I recall correctly the basic flaw of these studies was that they tended to expose people to porn who had otherwise not been interacting with it.
A bit like giving teens alcohol for the first time.. they took people who grew up without developing the mechanisms to cope with the material and thus reacted strongly to it.
Though I was particularly offended at the researcher noting the attitudes towards monogamy as 'bad'. Oh no, people with a different lifestyle! we can't have that! *headdesk*. I kept expecting to see 'after viewing porn men started believing that lesbians exist and that they are not the spawn of satan sent to destroy good godfearing men'
That being said, many tribes in the amazon have immense amounts of freetime.. I could easily see some groups being bored enough to maintain body paint at all times.
Though the ironic bit is that often legit customers require pirate copies in order to actually play the games they buy.
For instance, most games I buy for the PC I usually have to get a no-cd crack. For these internet-required games I could easily see that becoming an increasing priority again.
What moves like this really risk doing is pissing off customers that don't have the savvy to get the cracks thus end up with a broken gaming experience that reduce the chances of them buying again. And stuff like this DRM yeah, works fine most of the time, but when it breaks it is really irritating... in this case people who don't always have internet, who travel a lot, or try going back to the game after EA has lost interest (ever try finding patchs for older games? Even big houses like EA and Activision have sizeable catalogs of games that they just don't bother hosting the patches for anymore)
In the EA thread the support person tried to address that by saying that if they went out of business they would first product a patch to remove the DRM.
I'm not sure how many people actually believe that though.
Well, one positive thing worth saying though was I think you were spot on with the Ruby solution.
goto's main use is when interfacing directly with ANSI C libraries that do not allow for things like exception handling or automatic destructors. Or situations where the 'common case' for/while/do/if/case do not fit very well (since those are all common cases of goto wrapped up with pretty synatx.. but do not represent the full usage).
It's actually kind fun playing with the lower level clone calls to get just the solution one needs for a situation.
Though moving forward I am using threads less and less and fork/anon mmap more and more unless something is really lightweight (and encapsulated within a single class object)
In the case I was thinking, the 'libarary calls' were obtaining the needed handlers to actually work with the data. There were quite a few of them that have to be set up and destroyed. These handlers could be passed around as parameters but there was an increasing number of them and passing them around was adding significant complexity.
Unfortunately exceptions are not always an option and may not be thrown when you want to, esp if the library you are interacting with does not throw exceptions. Even then an exception only works if you have a way to catch the needed calls when unrolling the stack.
Sure you can wrap up the c handlers in c++ objects which then have automagic destructors, but that is a lot of extra layers and code just to get around using a goto.
The place I usually use goto (an I think I have used it a total of 2 or 3 times in my career) is when interfacing C++ code into c libraries.
It can be really useful for jumping down to a cleanup section of a function where some things need to be manually shut down upon failure of the main function. In these situations there are OOP (or even procedural) ways to also handle it but they tend to require either some rather iffy wrapper classes or complex parameters being passed around. Example:
Now, within OOP you could wrap up the library_thingies within locally scoped objects and the compilier will insert the needed deconstructors but for small cases this ads a lot more complexty and indirrection making the code harder to read.
but you can imagine how badly that can scale depending on how much can get passed around.
it is also possible to make the things global (it's own type of evil) or use heavily nested if/then/else statements but that can also become very complex and difficult to read.
Having seen some pretty messy 'correct' solutions that can be implemented so much cleaner with a goto,... no, I would say the GP was correct. A well used goto is quite readable and can be far, far simpler then the messy workarounds using higher level structures.
One of the things I look for in interviewing a programer is their perspective on 'goto'... if they claim it should never be used ever for anything by anyone in any situation that is generally a black mark against them.
*nods* I love ObjC's retain/release GC style for threading.
I actually think a good set of 'training wheels' for getting developers thinking about threaded environments is to introduce them to fork with anonymous shared memory. Much easier to encapsulate things but still teaches how think in terms of multiple threads.
The problem is that programmers are generally untrained in them or trained very poorly.
Writing a safe threaded application is not a difficult task, but it is a different task then writing a single-threaded app. And unfortunately CS programs, books, tutorials, etc, still train people in the single-thread mindset and yes the programs they produce end up being buggy.
And I'm not sure these 'high abstraction' languages are really the 'answer'. I have found that often in higher level solutions the results become even less predictable and tracing what is actually happening when becomes either extremely difficult, extremely inefficient, or just back to the single-thread mentality.
I think the OP talking about how one might be next writing a parrell app shows the real flaw here... the author is going from one mentality, entering another without really thinking it through, and then complaining when old methods don't work well. Take a programmer who STARTED in parrell space and you don't run into these problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the prosecution and judge openly mocked him for being 'weird' and several people on the jury admitted they convicted him by simply 'looking into his eyes'.
Guilty or not, this is scary stuff for people with significant social disorders. To many it really appears he was not convicted on evidence but on personality. "He acted guilty" seems to be the dominant reasoning.
It is esp disconcerting because, trait by trait, many people know at least one or two peeps who have individual traits that were mocked. The looking people in the eye thing is a common example.. lots of aspies and such really have trouble with that, but average people (this is a big problem with police esp) read it as hiding something or guilt.
Not really. Bits an pieces of nazi data filtered into the medial community over the years and lives have been saved by doing so.
He has not confessed. The DA is mearly saying that IF he were to confess and show them the body then they would CONSIDER a lower sentence.
Bah. Real PvP is when you die and loose your character.
EvE was written by UO PvPers, which explains why it is a grief heavy game. So much potential in EvE,.. ruined by side blinders.
Oops, I stand corrected. Age of Concent is a per state issue and thus would not be a felony. Though in pretty much every state there is some combination where minors (not children) having sex will put at least one of them in jail.
Since the crime in this case is possession, not production, the victim may not be trackable.
While the discussion has diverged quite a bit, the original piece went over a pretty significant worry. If there is no good, legally admissable way to determine if an image is real or CG then cases become extremly difficult to either prosecute or defend (depending on the assumption).
On the one hand you don't want people with real CP (assuming that possession alone is worth prosecuting) being able to say 'but it is CG!'.. on the other hand you don't want everyone who gets some lolicon hentai to go to jail.
Ahm, minors having sex with each other IS a felony. For that matter, minors taking nude pictures of themselves is also a felony. And yes, people do go to jail for it.
This is the group of pedophiles you do not hear from.. people who have some level of desire but are not a threat to anyone because they have learned to cope with it and not act on their urges.. just like EVERYONE has to learn to keep their id in check.
People want to do all sorts of horrible things. Yeasterday someone cut me off in traffic and caused me to swerve. I had a momentary fantasy about ramming them, and some days I might go home and play a game where I get to run cars into eachother. Safe release for id impuse to do something harmfull.
There are lots of people who like young imagry, esp teens. 99% of them do not act on the desires.
Probably one of the big reasons people get so worked up about underaged stuff IS the fact it is so normal.. so in order for people to deal with their own desire they make really damn sure everyone around them KNOWS how much they detest 'those perverts'.
You forget, the only moral form of sex is missionary possition within a marrage between one male (older and dominant) and one female (younger and submissive).. anything else is a sin in the eyes of my invisible friend skippy.
In all seriousness though, there actually is a good case for monogomy in nature. Geese are an example of a creature that mates for life for instance. Humans actually fall into a grey area.. we are both a 1:N (one male many females), M:1 (one female multiple males) N:M (complicated) and 1:1 (monogomous). Humans have wiring for all of them depending on the situation and can flow between them. Each individual also has leaning twoards one structure or another.
If I recall correctly the basic flaw of these studies was that they tended to expose people to porn who had otherwise not been interacting with it.
A bit like giving teens alcohol for the first time.. they took people who grew up without developing the mechanisms to cope with the material and thus reacted strongly to it.
Though I was particularly offended at the researcher noting the attitudes towards monogamy as 'bad'. Oh no, people with a different lifestyle! we can't have that! *headdesk*. I kept expecting to see 'after viewing porn men started believing that lesbians exist and that they are not the spawn of satan sent to destroy good godfearing men'
If someone saw a UFO in the middle of the day with people visablly sitting in it then yeah, they would probably think 'people'.
Depends on how visible the people in the helicopter are.
If they see people inside the thing, they are probably going to think 'people'.
*nods* that was my take on the post too.
That being said, many tribes in the amazon have immense amounts of freetime.. I could easily see some groups being bored enough to maintain body paint at all times.
Though the ironic bit is that often legit customers require pirate copies in order to actually play the games they buy.
For instance, most games I buy for the PC I usually have to get a no-cd crack. For these internet-required games I could easily see that becoming an increasing priority again.
What moves like this really risk doing is pissing off customers that don't have the savvy to get the cracks thus end up with a broken gaming experience that reduce the chances of them buying again. And stuff like this DRM yeah, works fine most of the time, but when it breaks it is really irritating... in this case people who don't always have internet, who travel a lot, or try going back to the game after EA has lost interest (ever try finding patchs for older games? Even big houses like EA and Activision have sizeable catalogs of games that they just don't bother hosting the patches for anymore)
In the EA thread the support person tried to address that by saying that if they went out of business they would first product a patch to remove the DRM.
I'm not sure how many people actually believe that though.
Well, one positive thing worth saying though was I think you were spot on with the Ruby solution.
goto's main use is when interfacing directly with ANSI C libraries that do not allow for things like exception handling or automatic destructors. Or situations where the 'common case' for/while/do/if/case do not fit very well (since those are all common cases of goto wrapped up with pretty synatx.. but do not represent the full usage).
try/catch only works when the library you are using has functions that throw exceptions.
many system (and c) libraries do not throw anything and often have functions specifically marked NOTHROW.
screw it, screw slashdot, screw the lame filter.
I couldn't get it to accept the post due to the various code-like examples. something about not enough characters per line.
Agreed.
It's actually kind fun playing with the lower level clone calls to get just the solution one needs for a situation.
Though moving forward I am using threads less and less and fork/anon mmap more and more unless something is really lightweight (and encapsulated within a single class object)
In the case I was thinking, the 'libarary calls' were obtaining the needed handlers to actually work with the data. There were quite a few of them that have to be set up and destroyed. These handlers could be passed around as parameters but there was an increasing number of them and passing them around was adding significant complexity.
Unfortunately exceptions are not always an option and may not be thrown when you want to, esp if the library you are interacting with does not throw exceptions. Even then an exception only works if you have a way to catch the needed calls when unrolling the stack.
Sure you can wrap up the c handlers in c++ objects which then have automagic destructors, but that is a lot of extra layers and code just to get around using a goto.
The place I usually use goto (an I think I have used it a total of 2 or 3 times in my career) is when interfacing C++ code into c libraries.
It can be really useful for jumping down to a cleanup section of a function where some things need to be manually shut down upon failure of the main function. In these situations there are OOP (or even procedural) ways to also handle it but they tend to require either some rather iffy wrapper classes or complex parameters being passed around. Example:
foo()
{
library_thingie
library_thingie
library_thingie
do stuff that can fail horribly
goto cleanup;
do more stuff
cleanup:
undo_library_thingie
undo_library_thingie
undo_library_thingie
}
Now, within OOP you could wrap up the library_thingies within locally scoped objects and the compilier will insert the needed deconstructors but for small cases this ads a lot more complexty and indirrection making the code harder to read.
Within procedural you could change it too:
foo()
{
library_thingie
library_thingie
library_thingie
bar(library_thingie,library_thingie,library,librar_thingie);
undo_library_thingie
undo_library_thingie
undo_library_thingie
}
but you can imagine how badly that can scale depending on how much can get passed around.
it is also possible to make the things global (it's own type of evil) or use heavily nested if/then/else statements but that can also become very complex and difficult to read.
The entire point of threads is to share everything ^_~
If you want limited sharing you can still make use of thread design by using fork or clone to only share the things you want to.
Having seen some pretty messy 'correct' solutions that can be implemented so much cleaner with a goto,... no, I would say the GP was correct. A well used goto is quite readable and can be far, far simpler then the messy workarounds using higher level structures.
One of the things I look for in interviewing a programer is their perspective on 'goto'... if they claim it should never be used ever for anything by anyone in any situation that is generally a black mark against them.
*nods* I love ObjC's retain/release GC style for threading.
I actually think a good set of 'training wheels' for getting developers thinking about threaded environments is to introduce them to fork with anonymous shared memory. Much easier to encapsulate things but still teaches how think in terms of multiple threads.
The problem is that programmers are generally untrained in them or trained very poorly.
Writing a safe threaded application is not a difficult task, but it is a different task then writing a single-threaded app. And unfortunately CS programs, books, tutorials, etc, still train people in the single-thread mindset and yes the programs they produce end up being buggy.
And I'm not sure these 'high abstraction' languages are really the 'answer'. I have found that often in higher level solutions the results become even less predictable and tracing what is actually happening when becomes either extremely difficult, extremely inefficient, or just back to the single-thread mentality.
I think the OP talking about how one might be next writing a parrell app shows the real flaw here... the author is going from one mentality, entering another without really thinking it through, and then complaining when old methods don't work well. Take a programmer who STARTED in parrell space and you don't run into these problems.