Forgot your password?

Comment: If it works, leave it alone. (Score 3, Insightful) 88

by TapeCutter (#48190441) Attached to: Help ESR Stamp Out CVS and SVN In Our Lifetime
Like the so called "death of the mainframe", the death of CVS is still a long way off. From a business POV moving a large well managed CVS repository to something else is simply not worth the effort in most cases. I look after CVS repository for ~25 devs, some of the (active) code has been there for well over a decade. We looked long and hard at git, the benefits are not enough to justify turning the whole shop upside down for a few months. Physically converting the repository is just part of problem, there's also the automated build and tracking scripts that depend on CVS. You can also add to that the down time for at least half the devs to learn the new system - it's quite disturbing how many experienced devs only have a marginal understanding of source control in the first place.

Of course if you're starting a new repository then use the shinny new hammer with the rubber grip.

Comment: Re:Distasteful stuff, but should not be illegal (Score 1) 247

by cold fjord (#48190361) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

The problem is there are not enough pedophiles to prosecute. The state has been forced to "create" pedophiles.

That doesn't really seem to be the problem. It is more like something approaching the opposite.

Rotherham child abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited, report finds

Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal is tip of iceberg, says police chief

There will be more Rotherham-style child sexual exploitation scandals unearthed in the coming months as the “stone is lifted” on the scale of abuse perpetrated on the young, one of Britain’s top police officers has warned.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 3, Interesting) 247

by cold fjord (#48188877) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

No. But such is the moral panic over child molestation in the UK that no-one dare stand up and defend him.

I don't think you could build a good case that "moral panic" over child molestation is the biggest problem the UK has in this regard, viz:

Rotherham child abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited, report finds

Prof Jay said: "No-one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited over the full inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013."

Revealing details of the inquiry's findings, Prof Jay said: "It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered."

The inquiry team found examples of "children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone ....

The report found: "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."

Failures by those charged with protecting children happened despite three reports between 2002 and 2006 which both the council and police were aware of, and "which could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham".

No indeed, it appears the "moral panic" you are looking for is not about child molestation.

Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal is tip of iceberg, says police chief

There will be more Rotherham-style child sexual exploitation scandals unearthed in the coming months as the “stone is lifted” on the scale of abuse perpetrated on the young, one of Britain’s top police officers has warned.

Children are being abused an hour after being groomed online, Rotherham sex abuse scandal expert warns

Paedophiles are abusing children in real life within an hour of grooming them online, the professor who led the investigation into the Rotherham sex abuse scandal has warned.

Professor Alexis Jay, who compiled a report into how gangs of mainly Asian men groomed, terrorised and abused 1,400 girls as young as 11 in Rotherham over a 16-year period said sex abuse went on undetected in many other areas across Britain.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 247

by cold fjord (#48188675) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Similarity to child pornography? Is there really someone so stupid that they cannot tell the difference between a cartoon drawing and a real child?

We are already well into the era of digital art being more or less indistinguishable from photographs without close or expert examination. You can disagree with the law, but I expect that one of the considerations is forestalling having to sort through the maze of identifying exactly what it is beyond being child pornography.

Is it original digital art?
Is it a digitally manipulated photograph?
Is it a digital photograph?
Is it digital art produced from a photograph?

In the mind of the pedophile they all serve the same purpose: to arouse lust towards children. I don't think stimulating sexual lust towards children is something society finds acceptable.

Comment: Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) (Score 1) 126

by UnknownSoldier (#48188005) Attached to: Google Changes 'To Fight Piracy' By Highlighting Legal Sites

Yes, the ridiculous length is indeed a problem.

The "evils" of copyright was debated back in 1841 !!

"The easiest form of parochialism to fall into is to assume that we are smarter than the past generations, that our thinking is necessarily more sophisticated. This may be true in science and technology, but not necessarily so in wisdom."
  -- "Macaulay on Copyright"

Comment: Re:Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) (Score 3, Informative) 126

by UnknownSoldier (#48187569) Attached to: Google Changes 'To Fight Piracy' By Highlighting Legal Sites

Correct. The dirty secret of Copyright is that it was invented by --> Publishers <-- to maintain control by preventing other publishers from making a profit !!

I've posted about this in the past ...

"The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books. The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute. Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books."


"Pope Alexander VI issued a bull in 1501 against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time."


"The first copyright privilege in England bears date 1518 and was issued to Richard Pynson, King's Printer, the successor to William Caxton. The privilege gives a monopoly for the term of two years. The date is 15 years later than that of the first privilege issued in France. Early copyright privileges were called "monopolies," ...


"In England the printers, known as stationers, formed a collective organization, known as the Stationers' Company. In the 16th century the Stationers' Company was given the power to require all lawfully printed books to be entered into its register. Only members of the Stationers' Company could enter books into the register. This meant that the Stationers' Company achieved a dominant position over publishing in 17th century England"

History of Copyright Law

+ - Britain May "Go Medieval" On Terrorists And Charge Them With High Treason ->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "The British government have been discussing charging Britons that swear allegiance and fight for ISIS with the crime of high treason under the medieval era Treason Act of 1351. It is estimated that between 500 — 1,500 Britons fought for ISIS. Civil rights activists consider the idea “ludicrous” although it is unclear if they think there is a free speech or conscience issue. Treason was punishable by death until 1998. The last person to be executed for treason by Britain was William Joyce who was hung for his role as the Nazi propagandist "Lord Haw-Haw.""
Link to Original Source

Comment: Yeah, Good Luck with That (TM) (Score 5, Insightful) 126

by UnknownSoldier (#48187041) Attached to: Google Changes 'To Fight Piracy' By Highlighting Legal Sites

When "piracy" became hijacked from meaning the naval context, copying was rampant. In the 80's as kids we couldn't afford all the games so we (illegally) shared them. Hell, I got into computers simply because it was a fun challenge to "krack" software. In the 90's In college/university we used BBS's, FSP (how many know about _that_ protocol!!), FTP with hidden directories containing control characters, IRC with XDCC, binary newsgroup with split .RARs., in 2000's we used Torrents and/or P2P such as Emule, etc. It wasn't until years later did we learn that piracy = lack of respect for the author's distribution. As adults we buy things because we want to support the author(s) to produce more. And if it is crap we vote with our wallet -- and tell others to not buy it.

What is kind of ironic and completely counter-intuitive is that those who pirate tend to spend more but that is a discussion for another day. (Part of the problem is that certain "assets" are not even available to be legally purchased, etc.)

IMHO Piracy begins AND ends with education. Futurama's Bender made fun of this "archaic philosophy" that "Sharing is illegal" by joking "You wouldn't steal X, right? Or would I !" meme along with the popular "You wouldn't download car?" Because most people are able to separate the issue from money vs freedom. i.e. Artists want to share their creations. Consumers want to share those same creations -- that is what culture does -- preserves "popular" art in whatever medium. Unfortunately the context behind those same reason's don't always sync up. You have bands like The Who who don't care about "bootlegging"; other sellout bands like Metallica that only care about the money and could care less if fans help "market" the band.

Kids these day's aren't stupid. They are questing the status quo that: "Why is illegal sharing illegal? Because of arbitrary financial reasons??" id software created the shareware model -- give part of the game away for free, customers can spend money to buy the rest. These days Humble Bundles let people pay what they want. IMHO this is the correct way to do things. Compromise between 2 conflicting ideals. Open Source or Creative Commons is another approach.

Google making it harder to find digital goods is not going to change a dam thing. Google wasn't around when we were kids and piracy was rampant. Removing a search engine will only drive the process back underground when it peaked with The Pirate Bay in the mid 2000's.

Piracy has existed since the beginning of the network. Any technological means to try to remove it is like pissing in the ocean. Yeah good luck with that !

Comment: Re:Intellectual Property (Score 2) 64

by Immerman (#48186839) Attached to: 3-D Printed "Iron Man" Prosthetic Hands Now Available For Kids

Yes, but copyright only applies if you copied the scene/characters directly from a Disney still shot. If you instead drew a bunch of Disney characters doing something of your own, copying only the general style and appearance, then you're not violating copyright, you're violating the independently registered character trademarks. It's like if you decided to publish a novel about "Tom Sawyer and the Sword in the Sorcerer's Stone" - so long as the actual story was all your own you wouldn't be running afoul of copyright. At least not in the old days, before all the progress the copyright maximalists have made. These days I wouldn't be quite so certain.

Moreover if you're putting the characters on the outside of a building, where they can be seen by people driving by, then they're inherently being used as advertising as well as decoration, and should absolutely expect to be shut down for commercial abuse of trademark.

Comment: Re:Much as I despise trolls (Score 2) 448

by cold fjord (#48185773) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

No need to feel sorry, that constitution didn't apply to America. After the British government failed to apply to the American colonists the rights secured to Britons in the Glorious Revolution the American colonists ultimately decided to have an even more glorious revolution of their own and write a constitution that applied to them.

As to the "written Constitution" of the UK....

The UK constitution

The UK constitution is often described as an 'unwritten constitution', but it is best described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified' (Budge et al, 1998).

It is derived from a number of sources. Its principal source is statute law, i.e., laws passed by the UK Parliament.

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.