Plainly, Mr. Sibal has the best interests of India at heart but, unfortunately, he stopped short of the logical conclusion.
As evident from the fact that "there is some content on the Internet that any normal human being would be offended by", those that are not offended by it are clearly abnormal and have to to be dealt with accordingly. While euthanasia would be the preferred course of action, it could cause logistical problems, as well as adversely affect international relations. Therefore I suggest a time-tested solution pioneered by forward thinking western nations such as Canada and the USA: incarceration, followed by compulsory sterilization. The legal justifications can be based on the 8-1 supreme court decision decision of Buck v. Bell (never overturned) and the implementation modelled on the (now defunct) Eugenics Boards of Alberta and British Columbia.
Yeah, but that's not a very happy version of "survive". At constant 2.4G, you'll have major circulatory, digestive, and bone strength issues. On the other hand, after a few hundred generations, we'd have dwarves that would look right at home in a Tolkien story. Probably be incredibly strong and durable, too. Homo Sapiens Khazad.
No, we won't.
Evolution only works if the "less fit" individuals do not reproduce (or reproduce at a lower rate than the "fitter" ones). I suspect we'd have enough technological and medical advances to alleviate the evolutionary pressure. Plus, s few hundreds of generations sounds like too short of a period.
My argument is that one should not equate thoughtcrime with child abuse.
Obviously you cannot require a conviction for child-abuse (which would be the normal standard) as proof
I require pointing out a specific child (by name, by picture, by geographic region, by money trail, etc.) that was harmed by the producing of the "possession".
Examples:
Yes: A picture of an actual, real child in an abusive (preferably by international law standards) situation. No: A drawing, cartoon or digital art (no matter how sick, depraved or disgusting it is to me or you) No: A picture of an adult that looks, dresses or otherwise appears to be underage (no matter how sick, depraved or disgusting it is to me or you)
Yes: A description of child abuse, with admissible evidence that it refers to actual events. No: A fictional story (no matter how sick, depraved or disgusting it is to me or you)
You are also aware that you can be prosecuted for creating child pornography for taking pictures of your baby.
No, that is wrong. The law says that child pornography is an image designed to be sexually provocative. There was a case years back when the law was brought in where an artist exhibited nude pictures of her children at the beach. The police looked into it and decided not to prosecute. Of course the definition of "sexually provocative" is fuzzy and basically boils down to a judgement call by a jury, but generally speaking photos of your children in the bath or whatever are fine.
Here, the "deleting" the websites from "all search engines" was probably some stupid language the plaintiff put in and the judge either didn't notice it or didn't think about how stupid that language is.
By GP's logic then I could make the argument that the particular kind of censorship in the US that is being critiqued in this thread is also a cultural phenomenon above all else, and that it should be best approached from that perspective of non-judgmental understanding of "US culture" despite anyone's objection that the "culture" is a result of brainwashing, and that the torrent of +5 Insightful morally indignant posts we see in this thread being directed at the US is in fact a manifestation of their ignorance of US culture.
Do we want to go down that path?
Yes, we do.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of the US citizenry will stand for this shit is a "cultural phenomenon" and needs to be addressed before a meaningful change can take place.
As for child pornography specifically the act of creating it is a crime, specifically child abuse.
You are aware that drawing stick figures in a certain way or writing certain words in a certain order is deemed by law to be creating child pornography, right? You are also aware that you can be prosecuted for creating child pornography for taking pictures of your baby.
It seems like a reasonable balance to tolerate possession but prosecute creation. It isn't ideal but it also the best compromise.
Only if the creation involves harming actual, real children.
So you mean you would like to make Americans perfectly at liberty to pay someone else to abuse children sexually, as long as the actual abuse does not happen within American borders (e.g. more than 11 km offshore).
I can only hope you see the problem.
You could have had a good argument if FICTION was not included in the definition of child pornography.
The system should be based on PROOF that a particular instance of a particular activity contributed to child abuse.
A lot of laws and regulations do not make sense to me. That does not mean that there will not be undesirable consequences should I fail to follow them.
Slashdot Mirror
Why create C#? We already had VB, C++, and Java.
Precisely because we had Java.
I just know who's going to be blamed for it.
It's not the manager's decision. It's the owners / board of directors / 1%. The manager is just another one of us.
Except that the managers do not realize it and therefore support the wrong side of the struggle.
Their views may change once they are made redundant.
We have become a feudal oligarchy
Was there any period in modern history that we weren't?
Plainly, Mr. Sibal has the best interests of India at heart but, unfortunately, he stopped short of the logical conclusion.
As evident from the fact that "there is some content on the Internet that any normal human being would be offended by", those that are not offended by it are clearly abnormal and have to to be dealt with accordingly. While euthanasia would be the preferred course of action, it could cause logistical problems, as well as adversely affect international relations. Therefore I suggest a time-tested solution pioneered by forward thinking western nations such as Canada and the USA: incarceration, followed by compulsory sterilization. The legal justifications can be based on the 8-1 supreme court decision decision of Buck v. Bell (never overturned) and the implementation modelled on the (now defunct) Eugenics Boards of Alberta and British Columbia.
Yeah, but that's not a very happy version of "survive". At constant 2.4G, you'll have major circulatory, digestive, and bone strength issues. On the other hand, after a few hundred generations, we'd have dwarves that would look right at home in a Tolkien story. Probably be incredibly strong and durable, too. Homo Sapiens Khazad.
No, we won't.
Evolution only works if the "less fit" individuals do not reproduce (or reproduce at a lower rate than the "fitter" ones). I suspect we'd have enough technological and medical advances to alleviate the evolutionary pressure. Plus, s few hundreds of generations sounds like too short of a period.
You know he'd shut that shit down. Clean up the Fed, slash military expenditures, get us out of the wars. I doubt anyone else would do it.
Nobody who has a chance of "shutting this shit down" will ever be allowed to do that.
How bout they stop worrying about our overtime pay, and start considering getting the career politicians out on the street.
and against the wall.
Found this on the changelog page:
"Currently only 2 dual-radio models are supported, and only by K26 builds: Linksys WRT610Nv2 and Linksys E3000"
However, the latest build was a year ago.
Maybe some of the forks support more models?
I've been very happy with TomatoUSB on the E3000. Only $60 refurb, or $70 new from NewEgg ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124419 ). Simultaneous 2.4/5GHZ g/n, USB port for NAS/Printer, 64MB RAM, gigabit switch.
I didn't know TomatoUSB supported simultaneous dual band.
Both. I was talking about the UK.
In a discussion about a US judge ruling on a US case?
I don't fully understand your argument.
My argument is that one should not equate thoughtcrime with child abuse.
Obviously you cannot require a conviction for child-abuse (which would be the normal standard) as proof
I require pointing out a specific child (by name, by picture, by geographic region, by money trail, etc.) that was harmed by the producing of the "possession".
Examples:
Yes: A picture of an actual, real child in an abusive (preferably by international law standards) situation.
No: A drawing, cartoon or digital art (no matter how sick, depraved or disgusting it is to me or you)
No: A picture of an adult that looks, dresses or otherwise appears to be underage (no matter how sick, depraved or disgusting it is to me or you)
Yes: A description of child abuse, with admissible evidence that it refers to actual events.
No: A fictional story (no matter how sick, depraved or disgusting it is to me or you)
I believe you get the general idea.
Wrong country.
Which one, the US (First 2 links: Arizona, Utah) or Sweden (third link)?
You are also aware that you can be prosecuted for creating child pornography for taking pictures of your baby.
No, that is wrong. The law says that child pornography is an image designed to be sexually provocative. There was a case years back when the law was brought in where an artist exhibited nude pictures of her children at the beach. The police looked into it and decided not to prosecute. Of course the definition of "sexually provocative" is fuzzy and basically boils down to a judgement call by a jury, but generally speaking photos of your children in the bath or whatever are fine.
Maybe I was fuzzy about the arrested / prosecuted angle, but still:
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/are-bathtime-photos-pornographic/
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2010/11/naked-baby-photos-lead-to-parents-arrest.html
http://www.thelocal.se/32400/20110304/
And gives no fuck, because he's getting paid and you all can go suck his dick.
The country (any country) would be much better if every official with such attitude would have aforementioned appendage forcefully ripped off.
Here, the "deleting" the websites from "all search engines" was probably some stupid language the plaintiff put in and the judge either didn't notice it or didn't think about how stupid that language is.
So having incompetent judges is OK now?
By GP's logic then I could make the argument that the particular kind of censorship in the US that is being critiqued in this thread is also a cultural phenomenon above all else, and that it should be best approached from that perspective of non-judgmental understanding of "US culture" despite anyone's objection that the "culture" is a result of brainwashing, and that the torrent of +5 Insightful morally indignant posts we see in this thread being directed at the US is in fact a manifestation of their ignorance of US culture.
Do we want to go down that path?
Yes, we do.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of the US citizenry will stand for this shit is a "cultural phenomenon" and needs to be addressed before a meaningful change can take place.
As for child pornography specifically the act of creating it is a crime, specifically child abuse.
You are aware that drawing stick figures in a certain way or writing certain words in a certain order is deemed by law to be creating child pornography, right? You are also aware that you can be prosecuted for creating child pornography for taking pictures of your baby.
It seems like a reasonable balance to tolerate possession but prosecute creation. It isn't ideal but it also the best compromise.
Only if the creation involves harming actual, real children.
So you mean you would like to make Americans perfectly at liberty to pay someone else to abuse children sexually, as long as the actual abuse does not happen within American borders (e.g. more than 11 km offshore).
I can only hope you see the problem.
You could have had a good argument if FICTION was not included in the definition of child pornography.
The system should be based on PROOF that a particular instance of a particular activity contributed to child abuse.
If they recorded only events that weren't keystrokes, then it wouldn't be a lie. But that is not the case.
So, according to your logic, if the Nazis were to claim that they did not try to exterminate the Romani, that would be a truthful statement?
Why is this patentable?
This.
If you think I am wrong in this please do some searching and find examples.
Nah, just mod him down.
Does that make ANY sense to you though?
A lot of laws and regulations do not make sense to me.
That does not mean that there will not be undesirable consequences should I fail to follow them.
Get a "travel zoom" camera.
Small enough to carry anywhere while very versatile.
Apple 'waited more than 1,200 days to fix the flaw
It's even worse than that
The waited more than a HUNDRED MILLION seconds.
I guess "more than three years" does not cut it anymore.