Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I beg to differ. (Score 1) 370

We are not talking about production or distribution. We are talking about simple possession. Your argument is invalid, and furthermore, please do feel free to tell me how drunk driving deaths and beatings from drunk mommies and daddies are less harmful than masturbating to a photograph of child sex acts. I'm all ears.

They're not, and if every single drop of alcohol you drank was distilled from a drunk driver beating a drunk mommy and daddy, you'd have a valid comparison.

Comment: Re:I beg to differ. (Score 1) 370

Your argument would also apply to the consumption of alcoholic beverages, which results in far more harm than kiddie porn. Also note that if distribution of it is illegal but possession is not, such "fostering" is also generally illegal the second it involves transferring said porn to someone else.

How does consumption of alcohol, which occasionally produces a negative outcome, compare with the production of kiddie porn, which always produces a negative outcome, an exploited child?

Distribution charges are generally filed against the person providing something, not the person receiving something.

Comment: Re:Ross Anderson (Score 1) 370

Ross Anderson posted an interesting thought about this decision and credit agencies:

The European Court of Justice decision in the Google case will have implications way beyond search engines. ... a favourite trick is to blacklist people with credit reference agencies, even while disputes are still in progress (or even after the bank has actually lost a court case).

While this finding impacts that problem, it is not the right way to tackle that problem. That problem consists of factually incorrect material that should not be there. This finding explicitly indicates that a party can demand that links to factually true reports that are still available to view online must be taken down. It goes far beyond the scope of reason.

Comment: Re:I beg to differ. (Score 2) 370

The vast majority of kiddie porn is swapped freely among people on P2P networks/darknets. The people who would exploit children will do it anyway. Tell me again how it is that this encourages "more" exploitation of children? You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Find a community of like minded people in which to share your interest fosters and normalizes your interest, whether that interest is antique cars, steam engines, British fine cuisine, or kiddie porn. There are some interests we do not want to foster and normalize.

Comment: Oblig car analogy (Score 1, Insightful) 132

by Ioldanach (#46621307) Attached to: Linux 3.14 Kernel Released

You guys keep working on that. Meanwhile Apple will continue selling millions more Macbooks and Mac Pro's to hard core developers, scientists and engineers who have work to do and need a computer to get it done with.

  • Apple: sportscar; moves you around quick and looks good while you do it. Useful for a lot of personal tasks.
  • Windows: suv; a bit bloated and gas guzzling but reliable for basic user-level grunt work.
  • Linux: truck; From tractor-trailer on down to pickup truck, great at heavy lifting but it has to be fairly stripped down (e.g., android) in order to do useful user-level work. Most people wouldn't use the heavy versions of it, but for those of us who need it, it is indispensable.

Comment: Re:Homeopathic principles (Score 1) 173

by Ioldanach (#46594479) Attached to: Homeopathic Remedies Recalled For Containing Real Medicine

So we might ask why they labelled it "homeopathic" when it has such a high fraction of active ingredient. Our guess is "marketing": The company that packages it wants to sell to the not-insignificant fraction of the population that believes in homeopathic cures. The doctors probably just grin, knowing that it's meaningless, but also knowing that a good number of traditional "folk" remedies are actually useful, as long as the problem is minor and precisely-measured medicine isn't required.

A "medicine" marked "homeopathic" is technically regulated by the FDA, but isn't tested for safety or effectiveness.

Comment: Re:Homeopathic principles (Score 3, Interesting) 173

by Ioldanach (#46593355) Attached to: Homeopathic Remedies Recalled For Containing Real Medicine

If they aren't diluted, they aren't homeopathic. Holistic, maybe.

Why don't you simply google for homeopathic medicals and check yourself?

I'm well aware of the theoretical basis of homeopathic medicine, but even so I already refreshed my memory with google and a few sites both supporting and debunking it. I even included a link to wikipedia in my original. If you want to dispute my claim, provide a citation and not a "google it yourself" response.

Homeopathy is based on the idea that a substance that causes the symptoms in normal quantities cures the symptoms in smaller quantities. Hence the dilution.

Oscillococcinum, one of the most common of these quack remedies, typically comes in 200C dilution. A C dilution is a 1/100th dilution, so 200C is 1/(100^200) dilution rate.

Then it is not a "homeopathic" medical but nonsense.

Quite a lot of homeopathic products use the C dilutions, in surprisingly high numbers. Of course, there are also a number of products that use small numbers of X (1/10th) dilutions as well. The 3X-6X dilutions do result in a product that contains the active ingredient. Of course, if I started with a 1g sample of a drug, say, tacrolimus, and performed a 3X dilution on it, I'd end up with a 1mg product. This isn't homeopathy, because that is well with in the dose-response curve for that drug and the drug at that level produces a direct and specific response in line with its properties.

Comment: Re:Homeopathic principles (Score 1) 173

by Ioldanach (#46592749) Attached to: Homeopathic Remedies Recalled For Containing Real Medicine

That is wrong.

First off all plenty of homeopathic medicals are not diluted at all.

If they aren't diluted, they aren't homeopathic. Holistic, maybe.

Those that get diluted get repeatedly diluted by a factor of TEN not HUNDRED.

And this is NOT repeated 100 times, the maximum AFAIK is 23.

Oscillococcinum, one of the most common of these quack remedies, typically comes in 200C dilution. A C dilution is a 1/100th dilution, so 200C is 1/(100^200) dilution rate.

Comment: Re:So what am I paying for? (Score 4, Informative) 466

What exactly does my cable bill give me then, if not access to services on the web?

It gives you access to services on the web, but they have to pay their connectivity bill, too. If the company they chose doesn't have a good connection to your company, though, then your experience with that company will suffer.

In Netflix's case, they chose Cogent, and Cogent wants to take advantage of peering arrangements that presume data will cross their links to other providers in both directions equally, but they want to send far more data than they receive. But they don't want to pay the transit fees that would normally incur.

Comment: Re:Not how it works? (Score 1) 466

"But it's not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked,' Hasn't that how the internet has been? If someone calls me to play a song they wrote over the phone should they pay a fee to provide me that entertainment over the phone?

They had to pay for their phone connection and you had to pay for yours. (We'll ignore the possibility of long distance charges.) If they went with a cut rate provider, though, their end might be choppy and not provide you with quality entertainment.

Comment: Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (Score 1) 466

Put another way:

* Netflix pays for their bandwidth * Customers pay for their bandwidth

And yet, AT&T wants more money because they think they have the right to charge Netflix more to pass through their tollbooth.

In a typical peering arrangement, both sides of the link pass roughly equal amounts of data to the other side. Netflix, however, gives Cogent so much data that the peering links are lop sided. Cogent delivers a lot of content, and receives very little. In such an unbalanced situation, the side with more data to serve typically pays a transit fee for the use of the other network.

Cogent doesn't want to pay the transit fee. If they had to pay the transit fee, they'd have to pass that along to Netflix, and Netflix would have to raise the rates they charge their subscribers.

+ - GCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.

GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.

In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally."

Link to Original Source

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.

Working...