I think it's high time that all new houses were built with cameras recording all the activity in the house for two years. Don't worry though, because the government will only review the footage if you are accused of child pornography.
It may be possible to retrofit old houses and this should be done as much as is practical, there is nothing we shouldn't do to protect children from these predators.
i'd pay good money to see the RIAA lot fragged by a rocket jump/gauntlet to the face combo like. that really would make my life complete.You are talking about ingame right?
Don't overreact to this. Recent studies suggest that DHMO may be an intergral part of our planets ecological balance. Read the Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide page before doing anything rash like calling for a ban.
http://www.armory.com/~crisper/DHMO/
More to the point, if there was a causation running on the other direction you would expect the numbers of violent crimes per capita to grow, not decrease.
Sure there may be other factors 'countering' the supposed influence of violent games, but it would have to be a hell of a factor.
My personal belief is that society as a whole is becoming less tolerant of violent behaviour causing a slow drop in the violent crime stats. Video games (like Violent TV, Heavy Metal, Rap Music, Rock and Roll etc) are not really an influence in either direction.
Hell, the idea getting lost in a fantasy world created by new media goes back at least as far 1615 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote the poor guy in the story was driven to believe he was a knight errant through reading too many books about knights errant. That theory is just as ridiculous now as it was then.
The templars were the bad guys in Assassins Creed, so it's harder to spin. I just hope that the media dosn't get to this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar_and_popular_culture#Games
Just leave the poor unloved troll alone.
While I feel that comparisons between the digital world and the physical world are often full of inaccuracies, I was lead down the path of making the comparison to Self Storage units.
I hope we can all agree that the Owner of a self storage service should Co-Operate with law enforcement if they have a search warrant. However shouldn't allow 3rd parties access to the units because they feel aggrieved with the client of the unit. And finally defiantly shouldn't be responsible for anything illegal stored in the unit.
I think that is a pretty fair comparison to what Hotfile is doing here. But the metaphor doesn't translate to the sorts of services that want to index your music files, then provide you with access to them via a streaming service where the server only holds one copy of the media.
My modified analogy is a bank. Someone turns up to store an object. The service (in this case the bank) inspects it, validates it, then keeps a record of it being stored. Then the client some time later goes to use the object they are given another one, very similar to the first but not the same one.
I feel the that essentially the locker services that run an index like that are becoming the banks of digital files, and as such we should be looking at banks for a starting point to the obligations / limitations of obligation to ensure that the data submitted to them is legitimate.
I have no idea on the viability of the news of the world, but given the sad song that most people pushing dead paper seem to be singing, is this just a convenient excuse for them to prune the business?
Ooh are we solving child porn at any cost? I have a good one: Compulsary sterialisation for everyone. No children: no child porn. Problem completely solved in 16 years.
I'm about halfway through the memo, and so far, I haven't seen any argument that can't be rebutted easily.
Fantastic! Care to share? (because if ICE can't rebutt every single one of them they are going to get smacked down.)
I don't think I'm asking too much of you here: as you said, it's easy.
the inevitable (but highly questionable) "computer fraud" charges
I think the usefulness of the computer fraud laws (as proven by how often they come up) means we should extend them to other kinds of media. I propose a "Paper Fraud" law. Then if a computer was used to print a fraudulent document we can charge criminals under both laws.
What assumption did I make?
Seeing as you Everything after the word "perhaps".
We arn't hearing about it because at just over 10 a day they are isolated incidents, not a systematic abuse of the system and its lack of oversight at all.
See? Transparency is absolutely critical, just not for them. If they were transparent, perhaps few people would pay attention to them.
I think you are somewhat misguided as how 'whistle blowing' works. The deal is this: If you tell a whistle blowing organisation something that you feel the public needs to know, but you can't tell them directly because you fear for your job/life/whatever they will never give even a hint as to where the information came from.
If any organisation that wants to help people blow the whistle on anything DOES give up this information it loses all credibility to anyone else who was considering releasing information for the public good.
So contrary to your thesis a lack of transparency is essential to wikileaks operation.
So.. you are too lazy to even google it yourself. Well done for trashing your own arguement
It's a perfectly nice place to visit, ... *snip*
Funny.. that's how it feels living in the United States
Given the retarded security the US has put in place with travel most people I speak with attempt to avoid even visiting. It's seen as a nasty chore to vist the states now, not something to look foward to.
Well you obviously have it all thought through. If someone points out that the country you are living in is doing something that looks ridiculous to the rest of the world the answer is to go somewhere else where it isn't pointed out.
Well done.
Actually, whether the medical concerns are big or small is important to this argument. If the risk is small they can claim the gain outweighs the risk. If the risk is large, they can't.
I recall someone doing the math using the TSAs radiation numbers on the increased risk of cancer due to a single dose of one of these scanners. They then compared it to the risk of being killed by terrorist action on any given aircraft flight. The numbers were approximately the same, so (if the math was right) effectivly the TSA, at optimistic estimate, is doubleing the chance of death from a single aircraft flight.
I am sad I cannot recall the source to double check the numbers, but if anyone else wanted to start over with the math I would be very interested.
NO ONE will ever fly in the states again and this will result in a catastrophic collapse of the united states economy.
Fixed that for you.
You can't compete with free
If you could people would be making money selling bottled water.