Parents are humans who may not always be aware that their kid can get raped through playing a video game
I hate to break this to you, but children can't be raped through playing a video game. At least, not until the teledildonics technology improves.
Parents are humans that are negligent, stupid, arrogant, ignorant and bad at raising children. That shouldn't excuse unnecessary constraints on the rest of us.
The problem? Have you read the rest of the comments, seen the rate of false entries on the offenders list, considered the excessive and punitive measures on people already punished for their crimes, investigated the alternate activities of someone that has no release through gaming, examined the incidence of revidicism via online gaming and explored whether the answer should be to just ban children from the Internet?
Or are you just knee-jerking into "OMG! Protect the children from this evil and incredibly rare potential threat that wouldn't be a fucking issue if the parents actually did their job properly" ?
Thanks, glad you confirmed that you value society ahead of every child in America.
After all, protecting every child is no more realistic than my suggested approach to achieving it.
Here's another idea, which is very viable: Unleash the entire US nuclear arsenal against the North American continent. No more child abuse.
Or aren't you going to support that one either? Tell you what, you tell me exactly how you're going to achieve the protection of every child, without detriment to society as a whole. Because right now you're suggesting fucking over millions of people without even getting close to your target.
Ignoring the value you ascribe to some sky fairy, I'm happy to let an arbitrary child be sacrificed if it means that the rest of society benefits.
Society loses as a whole if you try and prevent every kid from suffering.
However, if you really want to be certain that no children are ever assaulted, raped, starved, enslaved or otherwise abused, then I do have a solution: Sterilise every single person in the US as they reach puberty and/or enter the country.
Problem solved.
Note: My solution is guaranteed to be effective, but has detriment to society. If you disagree with my approach then you agree that the needs of society take precedence over the protection of a single child.
You put porn in front of a 15 - 30 yr old male and what happens?
The incidence of rape goes down. Go check the research and stats.
But video games don't influence anything?
Maybe, maybe not. But nobody's found any causal link being playing computer games and killing twenty children. An independent honest study is worth doing, although it's going to be a difficult hypothesis to prove.
Unless of course you classify 'violent Video Games' as including "any video system in which the action is user influenced through use of a controller". Apache helicopters and drones definitely cause violence.
Circumcision kills small boys. Circumcision mutilates small boys. Circumcision is an assault. Circumcision has no verified medical benefits across the general population. Circumcision benefits people with specific medical conditions.
Those are all facts. Less factual evidence includes: Circumcision in the US is often based on "I want my son to look like me" Circumcision in the US is often based on "As my son's mother, I want him to have a pretty penis"
In other news, I'm a little worried by how much I know about cutting off part of a male human.
Mainly because the $1Bn penalty is completely fucking irrelevant until the Appeal court has had its say. Whereas an all-encompassing injunction would've been pretty harsh.
the ridiculous veridict is only because Hogan convinced the other members of the jury that there was patent infringement and that prior art didn't count.
Oh, come on. That's not entirely true.
Hogan also convinced the jury that Samsung's patents didn't count because there _was_ prior art.
I don't think "pay us to show you things that have been uploaded to Instagram" == "sell your photos, name, location, and comments to third parties".
Perhaps, but the what you quoted does.
a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos [...] in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions
Nowhere does it restrict those promotions to Instagram, and it's pretty hard to be "a business or other entity" without being a third party in that context.
Or to quote Instagram's Terms of Use,
you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service
A royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide licence is exactly
"sell your photos, name, location, and comments to third parties".
All very interesting points, but luckily they're almost all covered by laws that predate the Internet.
Don't harass people, it's illegal. Don't commercially exploit someone's image, it's approximately illegal (ask a lawyer). Don't doctor a photo of someone to defame them, it's actionable. Don't invade their privacy, it's illegal.
..or for rather less than that you can go to one of several professional photography sites that will host your photos and give you far more control over how.
I wont name the one I use, although I'm sure they'd love me to. I upgraded to be a "Power User", and I'm only paying $40/year. For that I can use my own domain name, configure the site as I choose (layout, aesthetics, printing support, inclusion in blogs, etc) and still benefit from their hosting and photo presentation software (they provide multiple sizes, and/or let me restrict the ones that can be viewed/downloaded, and apply your aesthetics to their mobile version of the site so that people can see your photos on a mobile device - which with a 1280x768 screen is not the crap experience it used to be).
I do pay for my photo site. I pay for the domain name used to find it too.
Oh, and I pay for my own email server, I'm happy for my work to be used on wikipedia and I contribute to various online communities free of charge. I even help pay runnings costs for some of them.
I don't use fucking facebook. I also own my own photos. Which is nice.
I must admit, I was admiring all of the people correcting him on the difference between a ".22LR" and a ".223" - or 5.56x45 or whatever.
Small blob of metal travelling quickly + small child frankly isn't going to end well. Nitpicking about the specific blob and its speed seems mostly pointless.
The IRA used to shoot a lot of people, but used bombs when they wanted a high body count. In Afghanistan the locals happily don police uniforms to shoot a couple of soldiers but roll out a car bomb if they want a high body count.
Slashdot Mirror
Parents are humans who may not always be aware that their kid can get raped through playing a video game
I hate to break this to you, but children can't be raped through playing a video game. At least, not until the teledildonics technology improves.
Parents are humans that are negligent, stupid, arrogant, ignorant and bad at raising children. That shouldn't excuse unnecessary constraints on the rest of us.
The problem? Have you read the rest of the comments, seen the rate of false entries on the offenders list, considered the excessive and punitive measures on people already punished for their crimes, investigated the alternate activities of someone that has no release through gaming, examined the incidence of revidicism via online gaming and explored whether the answer should be to just ban children from the Internet?
Or are you just knee-jerking into "OMG! Protect the children from this evil and incredibly rare potential threat that wouldn't be a fucking issue if the parents actually did their job properly" ?
Thanks, glad you confirmed that you value society ahead of every child in America.
After all, protecting every child is no more realistic than my suggested approach to achieving it.
Here's another idea, which is very viable: Unleash the entire US nuclear arsenal against the North American continent. No more child abuse.
Or aren't you going to support that one either? Tell you what, you tell me exactly how you're going to achieve the protection of every child, without detriment to society as a whole. Because right now you're suggesting fucking over millions of people without even getting close to your target.
I own some RAM that's held state for approximately 38 years so far.
It's pretty. I have it framed and on the wall in my spare room.
I think you may have a problem.
Seek professional help. Please.
Ignoring the value you ascribe to some sky fairy, I'm happy to let an arbitrary child be sacrificed if it means that the rest of society benefits.
Society loses as a whole if you try and prevent every kid from suffering.
However, if you really want to be certain that no children are ever assaulted, raped, starved, enslaved or otherwise abused, then I do have a solution: Sterilise every single person in the US as they reach puberty and/or enter the country.
Problem solved.
Note: My solution is guaranteed to be effective, but has detriment to society. If you disagree with my approach then you agree that the needs of society take precedence over the protection of a single child.
Which is my point.
You put porn in front of a 15 - 30 yr old male and what happens?
The incidence of rape goes down. Go check the research and stats.
But video games don't influence anything?
Maybe, maybe not. But nobody's found any causal link being playing computer games and killing twenty children. An independent honest study is worth doing, although it's going to be a difficult hypothesis to prove.
Unless of course you classify 'violent Video Games' as including "any video system in which the action is user influenced through use of a controller". Apache helicopters and drones definitely cause violence.
Circumcision kills small boys.
Circumcision mutilates small boys.
Circumcision is an assault.
Circumcision has no verified medical benefits across the general population.
Circumcision benefits people with specific medical conditions.
Those are all facts. Less factual evidence includes:
Circumcision in the US is often based on "I want my son to look like me"
Circumcision in the US is often based on "As my son's mother, I want him to have a pretty penis"
In other news, I'm a little worried by how much I know about cutting off part of a male human.
Not necessarily a false diagnosis. It is possible to have more than one issue.
I still read it, but when I do read one of its articles and go 'wtf' it does indeed usually have Orlowski's name attached.
I read The Inquirer too. High degree of overlap but different perspectives, writing styles and focus.
Laugh. Welcome to the British view of this shit.
El Reg does dumb down its headlines, but the content is more ironic than moronic. (Well, except one specific journalist).
If it helps any, look up their use of "Chocolate factory". Shit, just scroll up on Slashdot for their references to fondleslabs.
Just because you aren't used to these terms doesn't invalidate them.
Oddly, yes.
Mainly because the $1Bn penalty is completely fucking irrelevant until the Appeal court has had its say. Whereas an all-encompassing injunction would've been pretty harsh.
Some of this evidence Samsung destroyed
Oh? I hadn't heard about that. Which evidence was this?
Note: Before you even fucking mention emails, compare the dates from which Samsung's emails are available and from which Apple's emails are available.
the ridiculous veridict is only because Hogan convinced the other members of the jury that there was patent infringement and that prior art didn't count.
Oh, come on. That's not entirely true.
Hogan also convinced the jury that Samsung's patents didn't count because there _was_ prior art.
I don't think "pay us to show you things that have been uploaded to Instagram" == "sell your photos, name, location, and comments to third parties".
Perhaps, but the what you quoted does.
a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos [...] in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions
Nowhere does it restrict those promotions to Instagram, and it's pretty hard to be "a business or other entity" without being a third party in that context.
Or to quote Instagram's Terms of Use,
you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service
A royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide licence is exactly
"sell your photos, name, location, and comments to third parties".
Sensationalist article appears to be spot on.
All very interesting points, but luckily they're almost all covered by laws that predate the Internet.
Don't harass people, it's illegal. Don't commercially exploit someone's image, it's approximately illegal (ask a lawyer). Don't doctor a photo of someone to defame them, it's actionable. Don't invade their privacy, it's illegal.
Stick to ERPs :)
I wont name the one I use, although I'm sure they'd love me to. I upgraded to be a "Power User", and I'm only paying $40/year. For that I can use my own domain name, configure the site as I choose (layout, aesthetics, printing support, inclusion in blogs, etc) and still benefit from their hosting and photo presentation software (they provide multiple sizes, and/or let me restrict the ones that can be viewed/downloaded, and apply your aesthetics to their mobile version of the site so that people can see your photos on a mobile device - which with a 1280x768 screen is not the crap experience it used to be).
I do pay for my photo site. I pay for the domain name used to find it too.
Oh, and I pay for my own email server, I'm happy for my work to be used on wikipedia and I contribute to various online communities free of charge. I even help pay runnings costs for some of them.
I don't use fucking facebook. I also own my own photos. Which is nice.
I was merely answering the question of "Why would you own.."
I would own one because damnit, they're fun. Noisy, but fun.
I must admit, I was admiring all of the people correcting him on the difference between a ".22LR" and a ".223" - or 5.56x45 or whatever.
Small blob of metal travelling quickly + small child frankly isn't going to end well. Nitpicking about the specific blob and its speed seems mostly pointless.
Ah, but compare ease with efficiency.
The IRA used to shoot a lot of people, but used bombs when they wanted a high body count. In Afghanistan the locals happily don police uniforms to shoot a couple of soldiers but roll out a car bomb if they want a high body count.
See also: Pakistan, Palestine/Israel, Iraq, etc.
One of the problems with this is that the military is capable of quelling almost any civilian uprising today, given technology.
Ah, the fucking irony.
Yeah, I've heard all the stupid arguments about "soldiers wouldn't shoot civilians". History denies that. Syria [...]
Yes. Syria. Where soldiers shoot civilians and yet haven't quelled a citizen uprising. Despite having tanks, artillery, modern air support..
Get a fucking clue.
A shotgun, "pretty typical for hunting small game". Insane.
Well then, just what the fuck would you use for shooting pheasants and rabbits?
In the UK we use shotguns.
Sorry, you think DSM has even the most remote connection to real-world mental issues?
Shit, every person on the planet falls under at least one of the 'sexual disorders'. (I fall under several, but that's a topic for another day).
Oh look, I can find evidence on the matter too: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autistic-spectrum-disorder/Pages/Introduction.aspx
No. Because it's fun to play with.
I like playing with cars, bows and women too, all of which are known to be lethal when misused.