Actually there are scenarios where VS 2008 requires that it be run elevated.
I haven't bumped into them yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are some elements, particularly when debugging interprocess stuff that might cross user account boundaries for example that would need elevated privs to work.
Heaven forbid a developer should want to use software under 5 years old that they paid good money for.
There's nothing stopping him. Its a -slight- inconvenience at worst, to run in elevated privileges. And if that bugs you, run it on XP or Server 2003 where its officially supported.
As for the general cost and upgrade treadmill issues, that's the cost of being a Windows developer. You knew that getting into it.
Why that defeats the purpose of going out and making the IDE software publisher rich by re-buying the same thing every couple of years!
Then why'd he upgrade OSes? In for a pinch in for a pound.
Heaven forbid things actually continue to work for an entire lifetime without having to be upgraded beyond recognition by arbitrary OS restrictions and non-compatibilities.
As a software developer developing for and on the latest operating system it is not unusual or unsurprising that he'll need to keep his tools up to date. This isn't a word processor. I'm sorry, I just can't get that put out that a product with the ability to debug a device driver might run into minor compatibility issues on the 'next version of the OS'.
How varied are these apps?
Varied enough.
In any case, people often have good reasons for deviating from the standards, and aren't just lazy/ignorant.
The lazy/ignorant case is the dominant one though.
For example they might disagree with MS policy of storing data under documents and settings, even if it is the standard. If you weren't doing this, for UAC you'd need to change to comply with the standards even if you don't agree with them.
I'd have a tough time imagining a scenario where that would be the case. In Linux do you know of a lot of applications that arbitrarily store their data in a folder they don't normally have permission to? Most follow the standard. And the ones that don't are usually 'server' type apps, and the install for those tend to involve root, creating/authorizing specific folder structures for the app.
Same applies to Vista. The administrator is free to go in and create a folder somewhere, and give 'Everyone' read/write/modify' permissions to it.
Typical/. arrogance. I don't know this guy or what apps he's written and to what quality or standards. I don't know what tradeoffs he's made. Neither have you, you arrogant ass!
Your right. I don't know. But odds are my assessment was still dead on.
If he's written 'low level' or 'system' apps, then he should expect to have to update them to work with a new kernel, whether he followed the guidelines or not. If they are normal applications then he should have followed the guidelines, because his app probably wouldn't run as a standard user in XP either. Meaning they would be a pain to use in any sort of secure/enterprise/terminal services environment.
That's the crux of it. If it ran as a standard user in XP without issue, it probably works fine under Vista. If it was a server app or something like that, then if it ran under the user account it should store its data in the users profile. It was supposed to be a proper server accessed from the outside world 24x7 or something like that then it should be given its own user account or something like that, the same as you'd do under linux.
XP supported this, and encouraged this, but few bothered to do it, because you didn't have to.
One further point. An end user typically doesn't care WHY an application broke. They're still the ones left unable to run the software properly (or at all).
Do you want security or not? How do you propose to let all your applications run and allow them administrator priviledges and at the same time prevent malware from silently rootkitting the system.
If your OS upgrade breaks a bunch of working programs, you have to wonder what's wrong with it's backward compatibility
I don't wonder. I know. Any software that wasn't targeted at
BTW1 when I installed Microsoft Visual C++ 2003 on Vista it makes me explicitly start it in Administrator mode. That should tell you the design of UAC is broken.
Or that you are using really old software. Visual Studio has been updated twice since then. VS2005, and VS2008. Guess what, VS2008 doesn't require that you run as administrator. And even VS2005 only recommends it, because its required for a few features.
As for it being a design flaw of UAC/Vista... Tell me... are you able to do C++ development as a 'standard user' on XP? Or are you required to run as an administrator? Do you have run as root to develop OSX or linux apps? Maybe the flawed design is XP / VC++ 2003, not Vista/UAC.
BTW2 Given a choice between rewriting our apps for the latest version of Windows just to support the retarded Vista designers, or rewriting it for the web aka Google apps, guess which one I'd choose?
None of my apps were difficult to port to Vista. Most needed minor to no modifications at all. Probably because they actually followed the guidelines MS had been publishing since Windows NT. They ran just fine as a 'standard user' and under terminal services/citrix, and as a result didn't fall afoul of UAC.
I'm sorry your poorly architected applications broke when Microsoft finally enforced running as a standard user, but really if you weren't writing apps that could run as a standard user, you were part of the problem, part of the reason people couldn't escape running XP as an administrator.
I agree. This is so utterly not a hack that the article comes off as almost ridiculous. In fact the first response where it was announced is:
Uhh... I'm running an admin application on startup automatically all the time, there's no need to create a service or anything. Just use the Task Scheduler to start the application, Trigger=At log on; And select "Run with highest privileges".
MS had NEVER set out to prevent elevated applications from running at startup.
Well, that depends upon whether or not you want me as a customer. I look at the cert. Will not buy anything from a site with a CA, I don't trust. I might not make a dent in your sales, but I am often asked to recommend sites for friends, family, non for profits, and small businesses.
End of the day, the cost of losing you and your referrals isn't likely to cover the annual cost of the 'better' cert.
Come back when you've educated enough people that it matters. Better still educate so many people, that domain-only certs go the way of the do-do and the economies of scale drive down the price of better certs...
The point of the encryption is transport layer security and privacy.
Right. And that's what the average user is interested in when they see 'secure login', the lock icon, or the https prefix. I don't think most users even know that https is guaranteeing WHO they are talking to at all.
The point of the certificate is TRUST. Having an encrypted session makes no difference if you are communicating with an impostor.
That's true. But beside the point. From an engineering perspective, yes, the reason for the cert is trust, and the signing chain to root CA's etc establish a chain of trust.
But in practical terms, the average user doesn't have the foggiest idea what this all means.
So as a website developer looking to satisfy customers demands, I might want to provide seamless encryption which the customer understands and wants; so I need an SSL cert because the browsers don't support seamless encryption without one. And the customer gets what they demand.
They also get some 'trust', but its a side effect of the good engineering that went into the system. The customer doesn't actually -check- the cert and verify who they are talking to. And if someone sent them a fishing email pointing at 'bankotamerica.com' instead of 'bankofamerica.com' as long as bankotamerica.com has at least a domain only cert that their browser accepts, and their lock icon comes on, they'd be satisified.
Even the Godfather movies, which are better by leaps and bounds, total less than 10h between the three of them.
You must not have actually watched Godfather III. "leaps and bounds"? I think you mean "jumped the shark".
And as good as the Godfather movies are, they do drag on, if you aren't in the right mood to watch them. LotR is the same, you've really got to be in the right mood.
I thought the main point of a SSL cert for most people was session encryption.
And the main reason we pay for one is so we get one the browser recognizes without throwing up a prompt about unrecognized certs that might be off-putting to a customer.
How many site visitors really look at the cert? Or care whether its got an company name or more. How many even KNOW there are different levels of cert? For most either the 'lock icon' is there or its not. They don't -check- the cert, or even know how?
It's only a reason against war if the regime won't use them otherwise. Saddam had plainly demonstrated against the Kurds he was the type to use them anyways.
Saddam hadn't used them recently. In fact he didn't even have them anymore. Arguing that he needed to be toppled NOW because 'once upon a time he had and used them' lacks common sense.
I would say it is a reason, it just shouldn't be the only reason as you seem to imply. I said it was only one of 4 reasons so your skirting very close to making a strawman of it.
I didn't think the other 3 much validity.
My point is that they SHOULD HAVE!
And my point is that when they invaded Iraq, there were other bigger problems in the world that were more pressing than the 'possibility things might deteriorate in Iraq'. So of ALL the possible actions the US could have taken at that time to 'better the conditions in the world' they chose a relatively bad one.
There's only 2 options, there was or was not going to be one. If there wasn't, then leaving Saddam in power meant letting him continue everything he was doing, which is unacceptable.
He wasn't doing anything 'unacceptable' when we invaded. He hadn't done anything 'unacceptable' since the Gulf War I. (By 'unacceptable' I mean relative to what half a dozen other dictators were doing at the time. There were bigger problems going on RIGHT THEN, so chasing down Saddam who hadn't done anything chart toppingly bad for quite a while, while ignoring the people who WERE doing chart toppingly bad things right at the time, is poor sense.)
Its like choosing to arrest a notorious serial killer who hadn't done anything in 15 years while someone is hacking babies in two across the street. Yeah the serial killer ought be brought to justice, and yeah, he -might- strike again... but I think most of us would agree the other guy should be the more pressing concern...he's a not merely a 'credible threat'... he's killing people as we speak.
The US chose to ignore the countless real serious crimes in progress to chase down their 'old nemesis' who was relatively inactive.
I'll return the favor by pointing out the obvious fact that "having the largest standing army in the world" belongs on the reasons NOT to invade North Korea.
Same would be true of a 'regime that uses WMDs'... yet that made your list.:)
Of course, if you are content that Saddam's terrorists weren't from Al-Qaeda then I guess it was alright. I disagree though.
I wouldn't say it was 'alright'. But its not a reason to go to WAR. I don't even think al-quaida should have been a reason to go to war, but to go to war over -other- unrelated terrorists is even more nonsensical.
So if a Shia coup really went bad, like Rwanda, you'd expect that little of real consequence would be done by the outside world. I agree completely with that analysis. I disagree with the part where somehow that situation is better than the current one.
Fair enough. But my point is that the US didn't get into Rwanda and other similiar situations. Suggesting that they went into Iraq to head off a Rwanda-like situation is silly. If they won't commit that kind of support to an actual all out massacre, why would they commit billions of dollars to fight one that may not even happen. Going into Iraq may have headed off a coup, but we don't even know that there was going to be one nor that we've prevented it... it might well still happen the moment we leave.
I was, of course responding to your query about why Iraq and not some other regime. There isn't much of a debate if you consider answering your questions 'cheating', now is there?
My point was that your shopping list is biased. Saying North Korea was a less oppressive regime than Iraq because because it's missing one of Iraq's shopping list of atrocities. If I wanted to make a shopping list of 'issues' with North Korea in mind, I could say things like:
"commands one of the worlds largest standing army in the world" "has nuclear arsenal" etc
And suddenly Iraq wouldn't rank terribly high on the list.
Your exposing your bias here. Your statement is analogous to saying that shop lifters are just like serial killers because they've both broken laws. Bush has been bad, but don't be so ignorant as to even pretend like Saddam is an entirely different category of BAD.
I wasn't even referring to Bush. I simply said, that if you shakeout the white house you'll probably find some terrorist sympathizers. Saddam wasn't involved with 'The Terrorists with a capital T'. Sure he was awful himself, but had nothing to do with 9/11. You then tried to point out some link between Iraq and some minister in the government... and I'm just pointing out there's going to be links to terrorists in any governement.
Well, history makes that pretty impossible to know. But do the mental exercise of what a successful internal coup of Saddam might look like instead. If you think the sectarian violence we have now is bad, the only way an internal Shia coup would've been less violent is if all the Sunni's were already dead or in refugee camps outside Iraq.
Oh, so we're spending 10 billion a month because a Shia coup would have been 'worse'? Give me a break. If they'd undergone a coup, we'd have applauded the new regime, maybe even supported them militarily. Eventually if the bloodshed got REALLY bad we'd start criticising them... but like Rwanda, we'd just issue edicts of 'stern disapproval', and maybe send a bit of symbolic aid, but do little of real consequence.
Just like any we've handled any other regime that's cooperative or at least irrelevant to our commercial/economic interests.
There is no such thing as a "law used inappropriately." If the wording of the law allows that, even in theory, then the law is wrong.
There is practically no law that you can conceive of that won't have exceptional cases that you'll miss when you write it. Or that new technology or circumstances will create situations you didn't fully account for. Nevermind that language itself is too imprecise to even convey precise meaning.
We can't even formulate a completely satisfactory legal definition of 'person'.
Its imperfect even with the best intentions - after you throw in the people that do actively want to subvert the process and its utterly hopeless.
But if we repealed every law that allows, even in theory, an inappropriate use, then we would have no laws at all. I fail to see how that would be an improvement.
The nations you mentioned met one or two of the above, but all of them. Saddam wasn't just a bad guy, he was a monster without rival.
Seems a bit of a cheat if you get to define the shopping list to fit the country you are interested in.
Saddam wasn't just a bad guy, he was a monster without rival.
There are lots of other monsters out there. And in Iraq's case, we waited an awful long time before invading. We waited so long that taking him out caused more damage than he was likely to cause had he been left alone.
The genocide was decades ago. We repulsed the kuwait invasion and that issue had been closed for years. By the time we invaded there were no WMDs... and I'm sure if we topple the Whitehouse and give it a good enough shake we'll find some terrorist sympathizer in there somewhere too.
No, by the time we invaded Iraq, the pretense of doing it to 'stand up for the little guy' was just that... a pretense. Plunging the nation into civil war, and destroying the infrastructure has hardly done the Iraqi citizens any favors. I'm sure they don't miss Saddam much, but it wasn't worth the price we've paid and the price they've paid to get rid of him when they did.
As to a "solution", the first step would be to put some serious effort into determination of what constitutes "consent" and when it is valid (i.e. the person is able to give coherent one) and go from there. This addresses the core isue of "abuse" and also targets a variety of other inane laws which presently use bone-headed measurements as a replacement and does not restrict itself to the issue of sex.
No it doesn't. The reason for example, doctor patient relationships are unethical is due to the imbalance of power. When it comes to adult-children relationships the same imbalance exists. You can argue that I'm presuming that, but as a parent, I'm keenly aware of the incredible power we wield over them, even the 'rebellious teens'.
This of course will never happen because at the core of these laws is in fact a puritanical hypocrisy about sex itself, and they stem from various Christianist religious dogmas involving anything sexual.
These controversies exist non-Christian cultures too.
See above. The reason that I know these people are not about protecting children is because they make no effort whatsoever in attempting resolve the central questions at the core of the issue and are instead opting for knee-jerk, feel-good but wholly irrational, hysterical "laws".
I attribute most of -that- to the fact that there are plenty of irrational hysterical people out there with good intentions but an inability to think critically, and a complete and total lack of understanding of the legal process. Its hardly surprising that their good intentions are so thoroughly subverted.
And when they do recoil in horror at the unintended side effects, they come face to face with the realities of the legal system: The fact that its much easier to pass a law than to fix one. The fact that their ranks are now divided as the power-grabbing-lunatics are now opposed to them, etc.
But most people go into this stuff with good intentions. And the results, as mangled as they are, are generally ok. There are lots of corner cases like a 17-year old taking a picture of his 17 - year old girlfriend where yeah, the lunatic fringe do want it criminalize and are happy that it is illegal...but most of us recognize something unintended got through. But at the same time, I don't want to create a loop hole where child pornographers can get a 12 year old to make the videos and dodge the law. So at the end of the day, I actually support the law.
But I think these kids are still innocent of violating the law. They should have gotten a slap on the wrist, and a warning not to do it.
As for your comments about judges being forced to enforce stupid illogical laws when they are mis-applied. We have mechanisms to mitigate that... we have constitutional challenges, we have jury nullification. The former unfortunately requires a team of lawyers and is beyond reach of the common man. (-that- should be fixed.) And the latter doesn't get used often enough and it should be precedent setting.
Although jury nullification does apparently occur in 3-4% of cases in the US, which actually surprised me.
The real solution though? Passing logical laws? Get real. Professional lawyers writing laws on the even the most uninteresting and uncontroversial subjects rarely manage to close all the loopholes. So that's not a reasonable or realistic expectation... no, I think we need to develop and expand mechanisms to promote 'common sense' interpretation of the laws we have. Because most of them really aren't that bad when applied to the situations they were written to address.
Iraq "knocked the books" out of Kuwait's hands. Iraq "knocked the books" out of Iran's hands. Iraq "knocked the books" out of the Kurd's hands. Saddam used chemical weapons for the last two, as well. Are you against people standing up to bullies on other people's behalf?
Give me a break. Framing it as the US going in for the little guy is laughable.
The US is representing its own interests in Iraq and the middle east. And it is the biggest bully among them, propping up smaller countries in exchange for oil rights.
If they were really concerned about standing up to bullies on other people's behalf they'd have done something in Liberia, Angola, Tibet, Rwanda, North Vietnam, and a dozen other places that were in far more oppressive regimes than Saddam's. But they aren't and suggesting they are indicates you are either a liar or an idiot.
And as I explained your choice to "err" is to "err" on the side of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, no matter how illogical.
Erring on the side of 'what the majority thinks is reasonable' may not be entirely reliable, but it beats the alternatives that you've proposed. Oh wait, you haven't proposed sweet fuck all. Its pretty easy to be critical of our legal system. Its riddled with holes, and I'm all for improving it any way we can. But what do you bring to the table:
Ergo there is no way to produce logical laws. QED. My entire point.
Yeah, that's constructive. Thanks.
Your approach is that of a self-serving authoritarian who wishes to impose his chierarchical ideal of the world upon others using any kind of emotional button he can to sway them to his cause, "poor abused children" in your particular case
I'd have thought someone as clever as you might have managed not to conflate genuinely 'protecting the children' with exploiting the idea of 'protecting the children' to accomplish other causes.
No, you prefer to err on the side of your prejudicies, taboos and other nonsense. If it was "caution" then children (by your own legal definition) would not be put in jail for sending pictures of themselves to their playmates of the same age. Under the charges of "child abuse" where the "abused" child was also the "perpetrator". This is what your bullshit "err on the side of caution" means.
I don't condone any of that, most people don't. In my opinion those are genuine miscarriages of justice, of laws used inappropriately. Hell, the reason those cases even made the headlines is precisely because society by and large DISAGREES with what's happened. Unfortunately the very same laws that prevent 'frothing mob rule' makes it challenging and time consuming to fix problems like that.
There is no such thing as that "line". It is wholly imaginary. It exists because various Child Protection Crusaders could not get their claws on power without some sort of rule which would give the false appearance of "reason".
Indeed, the whole idea that we maybe shouldn't film drug addicted adults having a gang bang with a 5 year old and selling it on the internet is entirely propagated by 'Child Protection Crusaders' seeking power. Sure buddy. Is your tin foil hat on straight? I think those cosmic rays are affecting your brain.
I don't dispute that plenty of 'power seekers' have worn the robes of 'child protection crusaders', but that doesn't mean that every law 'protecting children' is just some 'authoritarian plot' to accrete power.
You are presumptuous about the nature of childhood. You sound as if you cannot remember what it is like to be a helpless child that was pressured into abstinence. You make broad moral claims but you give absolutely zero evidence.
I'm presumptuous? You presume I can't remember my childhood?, that I was pressured into abstinence?! You make equally broad moral claims and give no evidence either. At the very least I'm the majority position, the burden is really on you convince us.
A rhetorical question, but one worth asking; if a parent made the decision that sex is ok for them then would this be OK with you? (I'm assuming the answer to be in the negative, but if you are serious about the issue then you should put some thought into this question).
Parents should be granted leeway in raising their children, and underage sex is complex issue; and there is a reason its not outright illegal. The majority of society really doesn't want it to be, and can't enforce it anyway. So yeah, parents have some discretion. If they take it beyond what is reasonable though I'd be inclined to think the children were in harms way and that the parents were being irresponsible and failing in there role as guardians. (And that would be for society to ultimately judge, not me personally.)
That said, when you say 'the parents say its ok to have sex' That raises the question: sex with whom and under what circumstances? say a 16 year old daughter with an equivalent aged boyfriend/girlfriend and the parents judged them to be mature? Then Yeah sure.
If its 13? I'd start to question the liklihood that the parents judgement was sound.
If, on the other hand, the parents wanted to film 3-generation-incest including grandpa and their 9 year old for the purposes of selling it over the internet? Then no. The child is clearly in harms way.
You are assuming that maturity is a pre-requisite or a requirement for sex. This is an argument I have heard from moralists that offer no scientific quantification of their facts. If in fact maturity is a requirement for sex then the vast majority of 18 to 65 year old adults would not be allowed to have sex.
Maturity is a requirement because sex carries unique risks, in terms of disease, in terms of procreation/unplanned pregnancy/parenthood, in terms of developing a healthy respect for sex and a healthy and positive self image. Its hard to do that as a pre-pubescent child. And while in the throws of hormonal overload, yeah, think it would be somewhat unnatural to completely suppress ones sexuality... but that doesn't mean we ought allow this it to be commercially and pornographically exploited by OTHERS.
Granted democracy is a preferred form of government for me, but I think it is important that people realize the disadvantages of lowest-common-denominator populous thinking. Democracy is no haven for freedom.
If you want total freedom you can choose total isolation (and good luck finding that in this day and age). Otherwise you are just going to have to cope with cultural/societal norms.
If in fact maturity is a requirement for sex then the vast majority of 18 to 65 year old adults would not be allowed to have sex.
Sure if you want to define maturity to be a level of sophistication most adults don't ever reach you could do that. Personally I think that's setting the bar too high.
Although you may not realize this explicitly, you are casting children who don't suppress their sexuality into deviants
Oh give it a rest already. I am doing no such thing. I fully expect children to be curious, to experiment, to engage in sex, and so on as they mature. I however would prefer to shield them as much as possible, and yes, that includes preventing their sexual inexperience and naiveté being exploited wholesale for commercial and pornographic gain before they've even had a chance to form a mature opinion about it. Protect them from being strung out on crack and pimped on street corners.
Do you believe that viewing video tapes of child baptisms is humiliating and degrading to the victims? If not then you are a hypocrite.
Why? Are you arguing that child baptisms are produced for pornographic indulgence? You are really putting a
And I think the same of religion. Since religion does far more harm than sex I am sure you will want it banned (if you are not a hypocrite).
Extremism and intolerance do harm. Religion is just the excuse. You take away religion intolerant extremists will find a new scapegoat.
You are saying that portrayals of violence is less harmful than portrayals of sex.
Really? Is that what I said? I agree that would make for a great rebuttal if I'd actually said that. Too bad I didn't.
For starters, your persistence in reframing the debate in terms of 'sex' and not 'child pornography' is dishonest. And secondly, I said "portrayals of child pornography may be directly harmful to children". Portrayals of violence may also be harmful; I didn't say they were less harmful. But the harm isn't directed squarely at children.
Your dogmatic assumptions are showing, you should watch that!
How about we argue what was actually said, instead of what you evidently imagine was said.
You assumed that: 1) there is a "victim" i.e. the act was not consensual or not wholly fabricated via computer graphics,
1a) Doesn't matter if the act was "consensual". We've deemed that children cannot consent to sex with adults. That the entire nature of being a child is that they are not qualified to make these decisions. This is why they have parents or gaurdians who are responsible for them. If you'd like to debate that point, fine, but its a completely separate debate.
1b) That's not an assumption, that's the context. My response on that point was limited specifically to child pornography involving children. I addressed your CG simulated child porn elsewhere.
2) that the "victim" considers that a violation of their dignity (which is a decision they must make and which might not come out to your liking, see also under "porn stars").
Again: We've deemed that children cannot make that decision for themselves. Porn stars are adults. They can make their own decisions.
Then you assumed that the person (if any) in question is a "child".
Again, that is the context. I was specifically discussing child pornography involving children. So yes, for the purpose of this sentence, there would be a person, and that person would be a child. If you want to watch 30 year olds dressed up as schoolgirls, that's not child pornography, and outside the scope of this discussion. If you want to discuss cgi-children I addressed that separately.
For bonus points: define "child" for the purpose of this discussion in some logical terms.
There are no logical terms. Children mature at different rates in different ways. A 13 year old maybe mature enough to be an adult; I've met 20 year olds who were not. The only reasonable definitions to use are the ones we have, that delineate the transition from child to adult at specific arbitrary age thresholds. I don't think they are particularly GOOD definitions either, but its what we have, and its mostly adequate.
Your thoughts are the bricks of which totalitarian states are built. You find what some perverts fantasize about "icky" and "disguisting" and thus are willing to ignore rampant illogic to see them punished for their "immoral ways". And in the process you enable far more serious crimes to be commited by those whom you empower to be your Moral Purity Police.
I don't think there is anything in that paragraph even worth responding too. Totalitarian states? Moral Purity Police? Who's making dogmatic assumptions here?
This directly contradicts your point above, in which you argued that pervert sickos cannot take care of themselves after watching their version of pornography.
The only contradictions are the one's in your head. I didn't argue that 'pervert sickos' cannot take care of themselves. I argued that amongst the crowd of 'pervert sickos' there are *some* who might not be able to take care of themselves. And if they snap, children are the victims.
The same goes for the small group of people who fantasize about chainsaw murder AND then become unhinged when exposed to it. The *difference* is the victims are generally adults -- so an adult society choosing to allow violent movies to be made/played has made the informed decision to accept that risk.
Children did not choose to accept the risk that some 'pervert sicko' might become harmful if exposed to a pile of 'child porn'.
And of course you do know better then everyone else what is good for children.
Nope. But I do prefer to err on the side of caution. AND my views are enshrined in law precisely because the majority of society agrees on the subject. And at the end of the day, that's how democracy works. Most of us, on the balance of benefits and risks to allowing child porn in any form have deemed the risks outweigh t
If a gun is used in a crime, and you have a body and a bullet, then yeah, you can go and talk to him. And if he doesn't want to talk? He doesn't have to. Unless you arrest him, in which case he gets a lawyer, and you have to release him if you dont' have at least some evidence he did something wrong that you can charge him with.
With these RIAA cases, we don't even have a *crime* here. Nevermind a bullet. Yet the ISP (university) is expected to hand over contact information without so much as blinking.
My neighbor can't wake up one morning, pick a random IP out of his ass, and tell an ISP to hand over the contact information for who ever was using it last night. *That* is very nearly what the RIAA does. Of course they have some vague claim of 'ip infringement' behind it, but provide no evidence of it, and what evidence they might be worthless or even obtained illegaly...
The strawman is all yours: the abhorrent act is the abuse, not the viewing, just like thr chain-saw murder would be, not the movie (or a TV report about it).
No. The straw man is still yours.
The viewing of child porn further degrades and humiliates the victims. Each viewing is a further violation of their rights and their basic human dignity.
So if the porn was "simulated" (via 3D computer graphics and what not) there would be no crime, right?
Making real children have 'simulated sex' is still abuse. It should still be a crime.
Your point about 3d computer graphics at least has merit, as it can be produced, distributed, and viewed without ever abusing a child. So yes, perhaps from a truly open minded standpoint, it should be legal.
That said, I don't have any particular desire to see it legalized. I'm not personally affected by the fact that it might not be legal, and I don't have any empathy for those who do. I still think its sick and demented. So at the end of the day even if I believed you were right that cg child porn is 'harmless' I'd still be disinclined to legalize it.
And maybe Rambo III does affect some small percentage of people. Maybe some movie did feed into some killers psyche and motivate a real world murder. I don't think its much of a risk myself, but more importantly, adults can take the responsibility for the risk, its up to us to accept and defend ourselves against the risk some wacko wearing a hockey mask is going to try and massacre them thanks to the influence of Jason vs Freddy. Adults can care of themselves.
But as cliche as it may sound, I'm willing to do something extra when children's welfare is involved, to err on the side of caution. They are defenceless, so I don't feel its inappropriate or irrational to take an extra step to defend them. They didn't choose to accept the risk and they can't defend themselves.
It is well documented that the definition of a celsius/centigrade degree was redefined from melting/boiling to being based on absolute zero and the triple point of water, but the above is the only -reason- I've ever heard for WHY it was redefined that way. What have you heard?
The meltwater will be handily at zero celcius until all of the ice has melted - it's a nice simple example of how the temperature remains constant until you get the energy required to change phase.
There's 0 and there's 0.001. I seem to recall that the meltwater surrounding the melting ice has a different level of air saturation that becomes insulating leading to very small temperature variations. Making it hard to pin down the melting temperature past a certain level of precision.
Meanwhile the triple point could be measured reproducibly to within 0.00001K or something like that, which was better than they could get for melting water.
Sort of the same idea for redefining a meter in terms of a wavelength, instead of a metal bar. It could be measured more precisely, and with greater reproducibility.
What is the difference between celsius and centigrade?
In practical terms nothing.
In technical terms 'centigrade' scale is defined as having zero at the melting point of ice, and 100 at the boiling point of water at standard atomopheric pressure. While celsius is defined as the kelvin temperature - 273.15.
The reason for the difference was that the melting point of water is hard to measure precisely, due to the mechanics of melting creating an insulating layer of meltwater around the ice, that you can't simply stir to remove because that would introduce heat...which obviously is counter productive.
So they redefined it in terms of Kelvin which could be measured more precisely, and renamed it to make it unambiguous which definition was being used.
And where does "stat" come from when used in medical dramas?
stat is from the latin 'statim', which just means 'immediately' or 'at once'.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there are scenarios where VS 2008 requires that it be run elevated.
I haven't bumped into them yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are some elements, particularly when debugging interprocess stuff that might cross user account boundaries for example that would need elevated privs to work.
VS is a lot more than just a compiler after all.
Heaven forbid a developer should want to use software under 5 years old that they paid good money for.
/. arrogance. I don't know this guy or what apps he's written and to what quality or standards. I don't know what tradeoffs he's made. Neither have you, you arrogant ass!
There's nothing stopping him. Its a -slight- inconvenience at worst, to run in elevated privileges.
And if that bugs you, run it on XP or Server 2003 where its officially supported.
As for the general cost and upgrade treadmill issues, that's the cost of being a Windows developer. You knew that getting into it.
Why that defeats the purpose of going out and making the IDE software publisher rich by re-buying the same thing every couple of years!
Then why'd he upgrade OSes? In for a pinch in for a pound.
Heaven forbid things actually continue to work for an entire lifetime without having to be upgraded beyond recognition by arbitrary OS restrictions and non-compatibilities.
As a software developer developing for and on the latest operating system it is not unusual or unsurprising that he'll need to keep his tools up to date. This isn't a word processor. I'm sorry, I just can't get that put out that a product with the ability to debug a device driver might run into minor compatibility issues on the 'next version of the OS'.
How varied are these apps?
Varied enough.
In any case, people often have good reasons for deviating from the standards, and aren't just lazy/ignorant.
The lazy/ignorant case is the dominant one though.
For example they might disagree with MS policy of storing data under documents and settings, even if it is the standard. If you weren't doing this, for UAC you'd need to change to comply with the standards even if you don't agree with them.
I'd have a tough time imagining a scenario where that would be the case. In Linux do you know of a lot of applications that arbitrarily store their data in a folder they don't normally have permission to? Most follow the standard. And the ones that don't are usually 'server' type apps, and the install for those tend to involve root, creating/authorizing specific folder structures for the app.
Same applies to Vista. The administrator is free to go in and create a folder somewhere, and give 'Everyone' read/write/modify' permissions to it.
Typical
Your right. I don't know. But odds are my assessment was still dead on.
If he's written 'low level' or 'system' apps, then he should expect to have to update them to work with a new kernel, whether he followed the guidelines or not. If they are normal applications then he should have followed the guidelines, because his app probably wouldn't run as a standard user in XP either. Meaning they would be a pain to use in any sort of secure/enterprise/terminal services environment.
That's the crux of it. If it ran as a standard user in XP without issue, it probably works fine under Vista. If it was a server app or something like that, then if it ran under the user account it should store its data in the users profile. It was supposed to be a proper server accessed from the outside world 24x7 or something like that then it should be given its own user account or something like that, the same as you'd do under linux.
XP supported this, and encouraged this, but few bothered to do it, because you didn't have to.
One further point. An end user typically doesn't care WHY an application broke. They're still the ones left unable to run the software properly (or at all).
Do you want security or not? How do you propose to let all your applications run and allow them administrator priviledges and at the same time prevent malware from silently rootkitting the system.
If your OS upgrade breaks a bunch of working programs, you have to wonder what's wrong with it's backward compatibility
I don't wonder. I know. Any software that wasn't targeted at
BTW1 when I installed Microsoft Visual C++ 2003 on Vista it makes me explicitly start it in Administrator mode. That should tell you the design of UAC is broken.
Or that you are using really old software. Visual Studio has been updated twice since then. VS2005, and VS2008. Guess what, VS2008 doesn't require that you run as administrator. And even VS2005 only recommends it, because its required for a few features.
As for it being a design flaw of UAC/Vista... Tell me... are you able to do C++ development as a 'standard user' on XP? Or are you required to run as an administrator? Do you have run as root to develop OSX or linux apps? Maybe the flawed design is XP / VC++ 2003, not Vista/UAC.
BTW2 Given a choice between rewriting our apps for the latest version of Windows just to support the retarded Vista designers, or rewriting it for the web aka Google apps, guess which one I'd choose?
None of my apps were difficult to port to Vista. Most needed minor to no modifications at all. Probably because they actually followed the guidelines MS had been publishing since Windows NT. They ran just fine as a 'standard user' and under terminal services/citrix, and as a result didn't fall afoul of UAC.
I'm sorry your poorly architected applications broke when Microsoft finally enforced running as a standard user, but really if you weren't writing apps that could run as a standard user, you were part of the problem, part of the reason people couldn't escape running XP as an administrator.
I agree. This is so utterly not a hack that the article comes off as almost ridiculous.
In fact the first response where it was announced is:
Uhh... I'm running an admin application on startup automatically all the time, there's no need to create a service or anything. Just use the Task Scheduler to start the application, Trigger=At log on; And select "Run with highest privileges".
MS had NEVER set out to prevent elevated applications from running at startup.
In my mind, I expand "RIAA" into "Sony Warner EMI Universal" but almost no one else thinks this way.
:)
Here's a handy mnemonic:
Warner Emi Sony Universal
or:
WE SU
End of the day, the cost of losing you and your referrals isn't likely to cover the annual cost of the 'better' cert.
Come back when you've educated enough people that it matters. Better still educate so many people, that domain-only certs go the way of the do-do and the economies of scale drive down the price of better certs...
Win-win for everyone then.
I think you may be a little mixed up.
No. Think soley in terms of the average web user.
The point of the encryption is transport layer security and privacy.
Right. And that's what the average user is interested in when they see 'secure login', the lock icon, or the https prefix. I don't think most users even know that https is guaranteeing WHO they are talking to at all.
The point of the certificate is TRUST. Having an encrypted session makes no difference if you are communicating with an impostor.
That's true. But beside the point. From an engineering perspective, yes, the reason for the cert is trust, and the signing chain to root CA's etc establish a chain of trust.
But in practical terms, the average user doesn't have the foggiest idea what this all means.
So as a website developer looking to satisfy customers demands, I might want to provide seamless encryption which the customer understands and wants; so I need an SSL cert because the browsers don't support seamless encryption without one. And the customer gets what they demand.
They also get some 'trust', but its a side effect of the good engineering that went into the system. The customer doesn't actually -check- the cert and verify who they are talking to. And if someone sent them a fishing email pointing at 'bankotamerica.com' instead of 'bankofamerica.com' as long as bankotamerica.com has at least a domain only cert that their browser accepts, and their lock icon comes on, they'd be satisified.
Even the Godfather movies, which are better by leaps and bounds, total less than 10h between the three of them.
You must not have actually watched Godfather III. "leaps and bounds"? I think you mean "jumped the shark".
And as good as the Godfather movies are, they do drag on, if you aren't in the right mood to watch them. LotR is the same, you've really got to be in the right mood.
I thought the main point of a SSL cert for most people was session encryption.
And the main reason we pay for one is so we get one the browser recognizes without throwing up a prompt about unrecognized certs that might be off-putting to a customer.
How many site visitors really look at the cert? Or care whether its got an company name or more. How many even KNOW there are different levels of cert? For most either the 'lock icon' is there or its not. They don't -check- the cert, or even know how?
It's only a reason against war if the regime won't use them otherwise. Saddam had plainly demonstrated against the Kurds he was the type to use them anyways.
Saddam hadn't used them recently. In fact he didn't even have them anymore. Arguing that he needed to be toppled NOW because 'once upon a time he had and used them' lacks common sense.
I would say it is a reason, it just shouldn't be the only reason as you seem to imply. I said it was only one of 4 reasons so your skirting very close to making a strawman of it.
I didn't think the other 3 much validity.
My point is that they SHOULD HAVE!
And my point is that when they invaded Iraq, there were other bigger problems in the world that were more pressing than the 'possibility things might deteriorate in Iraq'. So of ALL the possible actions the US could have taken at that time to 'better the conditions in the world' they chose a relatively bad one.
There's only 2 options, there was or was not going to be one. If there wasn't, then leaving Saddam in power meant letting him continue everything he was doing, which is unacceptable.
He wasn't doing anything 'unacceptable' when we invaded. He hadn't done anything 'unacceptable' since the Gulf War I. (By 'unacceptable' I mean relative to what half a dozen other dictators were doing at the time. There were bigger problems going on RIGHT THEN, so chasing down Saddam who hadn't done anything chart toppingly bad for quite a while, while ignoring the people who WERE doing chart toppingly bad things right at the time, is poor sense.)
Its like choosing to arrest a notorious serial killer who hadn't done anything in 15 years while someone is hacking babies in two across the street. Yeah the serial killer ought be brought to justice, and yeah, he -might- strike again... but I think most of us would agree the other guy should be the more pressing concern...he's a not merely a 'credible threat'... he's killing people as we speak.
The US chose to ignore the countless real serious crimes in progress to chase down their 'old nemesis' who was relatively inactive.
I'll return the favor by pointing out the obvious fact that "having the largest standing army in the world" belongs on the reasons NOT to invade North Korea.
:)
Same would be true of a 'regime that uses WMDs'... yet that made your list.
Of course, if you are content that Saddam's terrorists weren't from Al-Qaeda then I guess it was alright. I disagree though.
I wouldn't say it was 'alright'. But its not a reason to go to WAR. I don't even think al-quaida should have been a reason to go to war, but to go to war over -other- unrelated terrorists is even more nonsensical.
So if a Shia coup really went bad, like Rwanda, you'd expect that little of real consequence would be done by the outside world. I agree completely with that analysis. I disagree with the part where somehow that situation is better than the current one.
Fair enough. But my point is that the US didn't get into Rwanda and other similiar situations. Suggesting that they went into Iraq to head off a Rwanda-like situation is silly. If they won't commit that kind of support to an actual all out massacre, why would they commit billions of dollars to fight one that may not even happen. Going into Iraq may have headed off a coup, but we don't even know that there was going to be one nor that we've prevented it... it might well still happen the moment we leave.
I was, of course responding to your query about why Iraq and not some other regime. There isn't much of a debate if you consider answering your questions 'cheating', now is there?
My point was that your shopping list is biased. Saying North Korea was a less oppressive regime than Iraq because because it's missing one of Iraq's shopping list of atrocities. If I wanted to make a shopping list of 'issues' with North Korea in mind, I could say things like:
"commands one of the worlds largest standing army in the world"
"has nuclear arsenal"
etc
And suddenly Iraq wouldn't rank terribly high on the list.
Your exposing your bias here. Your statement is analogous to saying that shop lifters are just like serial killers because they've both broken laws. Bush has been bad, but don't be so ignorant as to even pretend like Saddam is an entirely different category of BAD.
I wasn't even referring to Bush. I simply said, that if you shakeout the white house you'll probably find some terrorist sympathizers. Saddam wasn't involved with 'The Terrorists with a capital T'. Sure he was awful himself, but had nothing to do with 9/11. You then tried to point out some link between Iraq and some minister in the government... and I'm just pointing out there's going to be links to terrorists in any governement.
Well, history makes that pretty impossible to know. But do the mental exercise of what a successful internal coup of Saddam might look like instead. If you think the sectarian violence we have now is bad, the only way an internal Shia coup would've been less violent is if all the Sunni's were already dead or in refugee camps outside Iraq.
Oh, so we're spending 10 billion a month because a Shia coup would have been 'worse'? Give me a break. If they'd undergone a coup, we'd have applauded the new regime, maybe even supported them militarily. Eventually if the bloodshed got REALLY bad we'd start criticising them... but like Rwanda, we'd just issue edicts of 'stern disapproval', and maybe send a bit of symbolic aid, but do little of real consequence.
Just like any we've handled any other regime that's cooperative or at least irrelevant to our commercial/economic interests.
There is no such thing as a "law used inappropriately." If the wording of the law allows that, even in theory, then the law is wrong.
There is practically no law that you can conceive of that won't have exceptional cases that you'll miss when you write it. Or that new technology or circumstances will create situations you didn't fully account for. Nevermind that language itself is too imprecise to even convey precise meaning.
We can't even formulate a completely satisfactory legal definition of 'person'.
Its imperfect even with the best intentions - after you throw in the people that do actively want to subvert the process and its utterly hopeless.
But if we repealed every law that allows, even in theory, an inappropriate use, then we would have no laws at all. I fail to see how that would be an improvement.
The nations you mentioned met one or two of the above, but all of them. Saddam wasn't just a bad guy, he was a monster without rival.
Seems a bit of a cheat if you get to define the shopping list to fit the country you are interested in.
Saddam wasn't just a bad guy, he was a monster without rival.
There are lots of other monsters out there. And in Iraq's case, we waited an awful long time before invading. We waited so long that taking him out caused more damage than he was likely to cause had he been left alone.
The genocide was decades ago. We repulsed the kuwait invasion and that issue had been closed for years. By the time we invaded there were no WMDs... and I'm sure if we topple the Whitehouse and give it a good enough shake we'll find some terrorist sympathizer in there somewhere too.
No, by the time we invaded Iraq, the pretense of doing it to 'stand up for the little guy' was just that... a pretense. Plunging the nation into civil war, and destroying the infrastructure has hardly done the Iraqi citizens any favors. I'm sure they don't miss Saddam much, but it wasn't worth the price we've paid and the price they've paid to get rid of him when they did.
As to a "solution", the first step would be to put some serious effort into determination of what constitutes "consent" and when it is valid (i.e. the person is able to give coherent one) and go from there. This addresses the core isue of "abuse" and also targets a variety of other inane laws which presently use bone-headed measurements as a replacement and does not restrict itself to the issue of sex.
No it doesn't. The reason for example, doctor patient relationships are unethical is due to the imbalance of power. When it comes to adult-children relationships the same imbalance exists. You can argue that I'm presuming that, but as a parent, I'm keenly aware of the incredible power we wield over them, even the 'rebellious teens'.
This of course will never happen because at the core of these laws is in fact a puritanical hypocrisy about sex itself, and they stem from various Christianist religious dogmas involving anything sexual.
These controversies exist non-Christian cultures too.
See above. The reason that I know these people are not about protecting children is because they make no effort whatsoever in attempting resolve the central questions at the core of the issue and are instead opting for knee-jerk, feel-good but wholly irrational, hysterical "laws".
I attribute most of -that- to the fact that there are plenty of irrational hysterical people out there with good intentions but an inability to think critically, and a complete and total lack of understanding of the legal process. Its hardly surprising that their good intentions are so thoroughly subverted.
And when they do recoil in horror at the unintended side effects, they come face to face with the realities of the legal system: The fact that its much easier to pass a law than to fix one. The fact that their ranks are now divided as the power-grabbing-lunatics are now opposed to them, etc.
But most people go into this stuff with good intentions. And the results, as mangled as they are, are generally ok. There are lots of corner cases like a 17-year old taking a picture of his 17 - year old girlfriend where yeah, the lunatic fringe do want it criminalize and are happy that it is illegal...but most of us recognize something unintended got through. But at the same time, I don't want to create a loop hole where child pornographers can get a 12 year old to make the videos and dodge the law. So at the end of the day, I actually support the law.
But I think these kids are still innocent of violating the law. They should have gotten a slap on the wrist, and a warning not to do it.
As for your comments about judges being forced to enforce stupid illogical laws when they are mis-applied. We have mechanisms to mitigate that... we have constitutional challenges, we have jury nullification. The former unfortunately requires a team of lawyers and is beyond reach of the common man. (-that- should be fixed.) And the latter doesn't get used often enough and it should be precedent setting.
Although jury nullification does apparently occur in 3-4% of cases in the US, which actually surprised me.
The real solution though? Passing logical laws? Get real. Professional lawyers writing laws on the even the most uninteresting and uncontroversial subjects rarely manage to close all the loopholes. So that's not a reasonable or realistic expectation... no, I think we need to develop and expand mechanisms to promote 'common sense' interpretation of the laws we have. Because most of them really aren't that bad when applied to the situations they were written to address.
Iraq "knocked the books" out of Kuwait's hands. Iraq "knocked the books" out of Iran's hands. Iraq "knocked the books" out of the Kurd's hands. Saddam used chemical weapons for the last two, as well. Are you against people standing up to bullies on other people's behalf?
Give me a break. Framing it as the US going in for the little guy is laughable.
The US is representing its own interests in Iraq and the middle east. And it is the biggest bully among them, propping up smaller countries in exchange for oil rights.
If they were really concerned about standing up to bullies on other people's behalf they'd have done something in Liberia, Angola, Tibet, Rwanda, North Vietnam, and a dozen other places that were in far more oppressive regimes than Saddam's. But they aren't and suggesting they are indicates you are either a liar or an idiot.
And as I explained your choice to "err" is to "err" on the side of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, no matter how illogical.
Erring on the side of 'what the majority thinks is reasonable' may not be entirely reliable, but it beats the alternatives that you've proposed. Oh wait, you haven't proposed sweet fuck all. Its pretty easy to be critical of our legal system. Its riddled with holes, and I'm all for improving it any way we can. But what do you bring to the table:
Ergo there is no way to produce logical laws. QED. My entire point.
Yeah, that's constructive. Thanks.
Your approach is that of a self-serving authoritarian who wishes to impose his chierarchical ideal of the world upon others using any kind of emotional button he can to sway them to his cause, "poor abused children" in your particular case
I'd have thought someone as clever as you might have managed not to conflate genuinely 'protecting the children' with exploiting the idea of 'protecting the children' to accomplish other causes.
No, you prefer to err on the side of your prejudicies, taboos and other nonsense. If it was "caution" then children (by your own legal definition) would not be put in jail for sending pictures of themselves to their playmates of the same age. Under the charges of "child abuse" where the "abused" child was also the "perpetrator". This is what your bullshit "err on the side of caution" means.
I don't condone any of that, most people don't. In my opinion those are genuine miscarriages of justice, of laws used inappropriately. Hell, the reason those cases even made the headlines is precisely because society by and large DISAGREES with what's happened. Unfortunately the very same laws that prevent 'frothing mob rule' makes it challenging and time consuming to fix problems like that.
There is no such thing as that "line". It is wholly imaginary. It exists because various Child Protection Crusaders could not get their claws on power without some sort of rule which would give the false appearance of "reason".
Indeed, the whole idea that we maybe shouldn't film drug addicted adults having a gang bang with a 5 year old and selling it on the internet is entirely propagated by 'Child Protection Crusaders' seeking power. Sure buddy. Is your tin foil hat on straight? I think those cosmic rays are affecting your brain.
I don't dispute that plenty of 'power seekers' have worn the robes of 'child protection crusaders', but that doesn't mean that every law 'protecting children' is just some 'authoritarian plot' to accrete power.
You are presumptuous about the nature of childhood. You sound as if you cannot remember what it is like to be a helpless child that was pressured into abstinence. You make broad moral claims but you give absolutely zero evidence.
I'm presumptuous? You presume I can't remember my childhood?, that I was pressured into abstinence?! You make equally broad moral claims and give no evidence either. At the very least I'm the majority position, the burden is really on you convince us.
A rhetorical question, but one worth asking; if a parent made the decision that sex is ok for them then would this be OK with you? (I'm assuming the answer to be in the negative, but if you are serious about the issue then you should put some thought into this question).
Parents should be granted leeway in raising their children, and underage sex is complex issue; and there is a reason its not outright illegal. The majority of society really doesn't want it to be, and can't enforce it anyway. So yeah, parents have some discretion. If they take it beyond what is reasonable though I'd be inclined to think the children were in harms way and that the parents were being irresponsible and failing in there role as guardians. (And that would be for society to ultimately judge, not me personally.)
That said, when you say 'the parents say its ok to have sex' That raises the question: sex with whom and under what circumstances? say a 16 year old daughter with an equivalent aged boyfriend/girlfriend and the parents judged them to be mature? Then Yeah sure.
If its 13? I'd start to question the liklihood that the parents judgement was sound.
If, on the other hand, the parents wanted to film 3-generation-incest including grandpa and their 9 year old for the purposes of selling it over the internet? Then no. The child is clearly in harms way.
You are assuming that maturity is a pre-requisite or a requirement for sex. This is an argument I have heard from moralists that offer no scientific quantification of their facts. If in fact maturity is a requirement for sex then the vast majority of 18 to 65 year old adults would not be allowed to have sex.
Maturity is a requirement because sex carries unique risks, in terms of disease, in terms of procreation/unplanned pregnancy/parenthood, in terms of developing a healthy respect for sex and a healthy and positive self image. Its hard to do that as a pre-pubescent child. And while in the throws of hormonal overload, yeah, think it would be somewhat unnatural to completely suppress ones sexuality... but that doesn't mean we ought allow this it to be commercially and pornographically exploited by OTHERS.
Granted democracy is a preferred form of government for me, but I think it is important that people realize the disadvantages of lowest-common-denominator populous thinking. Democracy is no haven for freedom.
If you want total freedom you can choose total isolation (and good luck finding that in this day and age). Otherwise you are just going to have to cope with cultural/societal norms.
If in fact maturity is a requirement for sex then the vast majority of 18 to 65 year old adults would not be allowed to have sex.
Sure if you want to define maturity to be a level of sophistication most adults don't ever reach you could do that. Personally I think that's setting the bar too high.
Although you may not realize this explicitly, you are casting children who don't suppress their sexuality into deviants
Oh give it a rest already. I am doing no such thing. I fully expect children to be curious, to experiment, to engage in sex, and so on as they mature. I however would prefer to shield them as much as possible, and yes, that includes preventing their sexual inexperience and naiveté being exploited wholesale for commercial and pornographic gain before they've even had a chance to form a mature opinion about it. Protect them from being strung out on crack and pimped on street corners.
Do you believe that viewing video tapes of child baptisms is humiliating and degrading to the victims? If not then you are a hypocrite.
Why? Are you arguing that child baptisms are produced for pornographic indulgence? You are really putting a
And I think the same of religion. Since religion does far more harm than sex I am sure you will want it banned (if you are not a hypocrite).
Extremism and intolerance do harm. Religion is just the excuse. You take away religion intolerant extremists will find a new scapegoat.
You are saying that portrayals of violence is less harmful than portrayals of sex.
Really? Is that what I said? I agree that would make for a great rebuttal if I'd actually said that. Too bad I didn't.
For starters, your persistence in reframing the debate in terms of 'sex' and not 'child pornography' is dishonest. And secondly, I said "portrayals of child pornography may be directly harmful to children". Portrayals of violence may also be harmful; I didn't say they were less harmful. But the harm isn't directed squarely at children.
Your dogmatic assumptions are showing, you should watch that!
How about we argue what was actually said, instead of what you evidently imagine was said.
You assumed that: 1) there is a "victim" i.e. the act was not consensual or not wholly fabricated via computer graphics,
1a) Doesn't matter if the act was "consensual". We've deemed that children cannot consent to sex with adults. That the entire nature of being a child is that they are not qualified to make these decisions. This is why they have parents or gaurdians who are responsible for them. If you'd like to debate that point, fine, but its a completely separate debate.
1b) That's not an assumption, that's the context. My response on that point was limited specifically to child pornography involving children. I addressed your CG simulated child porn elsewhere.
2) that the "victim" considers that a violation of their dignity (which is a decision they must make and which might not come out to your liking, see also under "porn stars").
Again: We've deemed that children cannot make that decision for themselves. Porn stars are adults. They can make their own decisions.
Then you assumed that the person (if any) in question is a "child".
Again, that is the context. I was specifically discussing child pornography involving children. So yes, for the purpose of this sentence, there would be a person, and that person would be a child. If you want to watch 30 year olds dressed up as schoolgirls, that's not child pornography, and outside the scope of this discussion. If you want to discuss cgi-children I addressed that separately.
For bonus points: define "child" for the purpose of this discussion in some logical terms.
There are no logical terms. Children mature at different rates in different ways. A 13 year old maybe mature enough to be an adult; I've met 20 year olds who were not. The only reasonable definitions to use are the ones we have, that delineate the transition from child to adult at specific arbitrary age thresholds. I don't think they are particularly GOOD definitions either, but its what we have, and its mostly adequate.
Your thoughts are the bricks of which totalitarian states are built. You find what some perverts fantasize about "icky" and "disguisting" and thus are willing to ignore rampant illogic to see them punished for their "immoral ways". And in the process you enable far more serious crimes to be commited by those whom you empower to be your Moral Purity Police.
I don't think there is anything in that paragraph even worth responding too. Totalitarian states? Moral Purity Police? Who's making dogmatic assumptions here?
This directly contradicts your point above, in which you argued that pervert sickos cannot take care of themselves after watching their version of pornography.
The only contradictions are the one's in your head. I didn't argue that 'pervert sickos' cannot take care of themselves. I argued that amongst the crowd of 'pervert sickos' there are *some* who might not be able to take care of themselves. And if they snap, children are the victims.
The same goes for the small group of people who fantasize about chainsaw murder AND then become unhinged when exposed to it. The *difference* is the victims are generally adults -- so an adult society choosing to allow violent movies to be made/played has made the informed decision to accept that risk.
Children did not choose to accept the risk that some 'pervert sicko' might become harmful if exposed to a pile of 'child porn'.
And of course you do know better then everyone else what is good for children.
Nope. But I do prefer to err on the side of caution. AND my views are enshrined in law precisely because the majority of society agrees on the subject. And at the end of the day, that's how democracy works. Most of us, on the balance of benefits and risks to allowing child porn in any form have deemed the risks outweigh t
instead the mantra, is we lost, go home. we will be left alone if we just let them be. yeah right. anyone here have a bully in middle school?
Yeah.
how well did ignoring him/her work out for you?
Remember the mantra is 'go home'. They never bothered me at home.
and yes, i am saying we arent the bully here. if someone hadnt knocked the books out of our hands we wouldnt have done anything violent.
When exactly did Iraq knock the books out of our hands?
Bad analagy:
If a gun is used in a crime, and you have a body and a bullet, then yeah, you can go and talk to him. And if he doesn't want to talk? He doesn't have to. Unless you arrest him, in which case he gets a lawyer, and you have to release him if you dont' have at least some evidence he did something wrong that you can charge him with.
With these RIAA cases, we don't even have a *crime* here. Nevermind a bullet. Yet the ISP (university) is expected to hand over contact information without so much as blinking.
My neighbor can't wake up one morning, pick a random IP out of his ass, and tell an ISP to hand over the contact information for who ever was using it last night. *That* is very nearly what the RIAA does. Of course they have some vague claim of 'ip infringement' behind it, but provide no evidence of it, and what evidence they might be worthless or even obtained illegaly...
The strawman is all yours: the abhorrent act is the abuse, not the viewing, just like thr chain-saw murder would be, not the movie (or a TV report about it).
No. The straw man is still yours.
The viewing of child porn further degrades and humiliates the victims.
Each viewing is a further violation of their rights and their basic human dignity.
So if the porn was "simulated" (via 3D computer graphics and what not) there would be no crime, right?
Making real children have 'simulated sex' is still abuse. It should still be a crime.
Your point about 3d computer graphics at least has merit, as it can be produced, distributed, and viewed without ever abusing a child. So yes, perhaps from a truly open minded standpoint, it should be legal.
That said, I don't have any particular desire to see it legalized. I'm not personally affected by the fact that it might not be legal, and I don't have any empathy for those who do. I still think its sick and demented. So at the end of the day even if I believed you were right that cg child porn is 'harmless' I'd still be disinclined to legalize it.
And maybe Rambo III does affect some small percentage of people. Maybe some movie did feed into some killers psyche and motivate a real world murder. I don't think its much of a risk myself, but more importantly, adults can take the responsibility for the risk, its up to us to accept and defend ourselves against the risk some wacko wearing a hockey mask is going to try and massacre them thanks to the influence of Jason vs Freddy. Adults can care of themselves.
But as cliche as it may sound, I'm willing to do something extra when children's welfare is involved, to err on the side of caution. They are defenceless, so I don't feel its inappropriate or irrational to take an extra step to defend them. They didn't choose to accept the risk and they can't defend themselves.
It is well documented that the definition of a celsius/centigrade degree was redefined from melting/boiling to being based on absolute zero and the triple point of water, but the above is the only -reason- I've ever heard for WHY it was redefined that way. What have you heard?
The meltwater will be handily at zero celcius until all of the ice has melted - it's a nice simple example of how the temperature remains constant until you get the energy required to change phase.
There's 0 and there's 0.001. I seem to recall that the meltwater surrounding the melting ice has a different level of air saturation that becomes insulating leading to very small temperature variations. Making it hard to pin down the melting temperature past a certain level of precision.
Meanwhile the triple point could be measured reproducibly to within 0.00001K or something like that, which was better than they could get for melting water.
Sort of the same idea for redefining a meter in terms of a wavelength, instead of a metal bar. It could be measured more precisely, and with greater reproducibility.
What is the difference between celsius and centigrade?
In practical terms nothing.
In technical terms 'centigrade' scale is defined as having zero at the melting point of ice, and 100 at the boiling point of water at standard atomopheric pressure. While celsius is defined as the kelvin temperature - 273.15.
The reason for the difference was that the melting point of water is hard to measure precisely, due to the mechanics of melting creating an insulating layer of meltwater around the ice, that you can't simply stir to remove because that would introduce heat...which obviously is counter productive.
So they redefined it in terms of Kelvin which could be measured more precisely, and renamed it to make it unambiguous which definition was being used.
And where does "stat" come from when used in medical dramas?
stat is from the latin 'statim', which just means 'immediately' or 'at once'.