It's not a trap question. You're vehemently against child porn, correct? What I described is child porn. Do you support such prosecution or not. Yes or No.

And yes, your desire to break bones and report to the FBI anyone that dares even discuss whether child porn laws are appropriate speaks volumes about your common sense.

Stop dodging the question. You've made it quite clear that you are adamantly against child porn, whether it be production, distribution, or just possession. It therefore follows that you believe that if a 16 year old girl takes a nude sexual picture of herself in the mirror, she should be charged with production and possession of child pornography.

In that hypothetical scenario, do you support prosecuting that 16 year old girl? Yes or No. BTW, if you say no, then you (by your own statements) are enabling sexual predators to rape a child. If you say yes you lack enough common sense for anyone to bother taking any more of your comments seriously.

Wait... so you want to physically harm people just for making a simple argument on a text-based web site? That's pretty fucked up. You should seek counseling.

And also: I assume since you're sooo anti-child porn that you also support prosecuting teenagers who possess and distribute pictures of themselves. Because it's black and white right? Right and wrong? And child pornography, as everyone has told you... err I mean as everyone knows, is horrible terrible stuff. So we should lock those teens away for victimizing themselves. Right? Right?!?

Wait, are you talking about any pictures of humiliation? Because if we could make it a federal felony to possess pictures of when I shat my pants in 2nd grade, that would be great.

Or does only the sexual stuff matter?

Well, well, aren't you a rational one. I can't imagine why you're having trouble getting your points across.

You seem angry. Maybe you watched too many Hulk tv shows when you were younger?

No, I'm saying your analogy was false because the only way someone would be charged with paying for a snuff film is it they paid someone to commit a crime. Hence the conspiracy.

The same would not hold true in the vast majority of child pornography situations, where a person may be paying for it or simply downloading it well after the abuse has occurred, and wouldn't know the actual child abuser at all. If you wanted to revamp the laws to fit with your snuff film example, then all the current child pornography possession and distribution laws would be off the books.

I love how this argument is trotted out and then denied, depending on the context.

Ask why child porn possession is a bad thing? ----> It's a multi-billion dollar industry, the financial incentive causes more abuse of children
Ask why the exact opposite is argued in MPAA/RIAA situations -----> It's not really about money, it's about demand. The mere knowledge that there is demand causes more abuse of children

All studies completed by family first and christian groups I'm sure. Do you realize that sex crimes in general have gone down in the last twenty years? Do you know what went up in the last twenty years? Pornography consumption, thanks to the internet. A lot.

I have trouble understanding this logic. Someone who seeks out a picture of a child being abused (say on a free p2p network) are just as responsible as the person who actually abused the child? There's no difference to you? Really?

Maybe, under a conspiracy charge, yes. Yet if you were just seeking out snuff tapes you wouldn't be charged. Or if you just possess snuff tapes. Or even if you pay someone for snuff tapes after the fact. By that logic we could charge people with conspiracy to commit sexual abuse of a child if they were paying for a child to be abused before it actually occurred, and thus our current child porn laws would be unnecessary. Otherwise your analogy is completely false.

I disagree. The bugs in 4.0 were so glaring that there was no need for user feedback. For instance, keyboard shortcuts for things such as the terminal didn't work (and still didn't work in 4.1). This isn't something you need user feedback on. The KDE team deliberately chose to ignore obvious bugs in their software and still release it as being out of beta.

That's not the way I remember it at all. I think they were very forthcoming about it being a beta-ish release after the release when they started receiving heavy criticism.

A bit of quirkiness is fine, but having the next major release of one of the most used linux desktop environments be an unusable buggy mess is an entirely different matter.

Terribly sorry that I wish to contribute to the discussion with something other than glowing praise for KDE4. The naming conventions are not a big deal, you're right, but it's another example IMO of how the KDE team is losing perspective on the important things (stability, usability, user feedback), and instead chasing windmills (social desktop, new paradigms, grand marketing strategies) which so far have shown little measure of success.

Which is why naming it "beta" would have been just fine. Frankly, I don't think the KDE team were very receptive to user feedback after 4.0; I think the wave of harsh criticism and trolling caused them to be a little more inflexible about their version of the "new paradigm".

From what I recall, the vast majority of the beta-ish, eat-your-children talk was made after the initial release, while facing a storm of criticism. I remember there being lots of hype prior to the release. I also remember the concerns about 4.0 beta, when the general answer seemed to be: "it's still beta, a lot of these bugs will be ironed out". There was little stability change from the beta stage of the project to the "final" 4.0 stage.

Then there's a simple solution. If it's blatantly obvious that your software project won't be stable for day-to-day use for at least 6 months or more (as was the case with KDE4.0), then classify it as a beta. Don't tarnish the brand itself (as both MS and KDE did).

I think opera moved off of QT in its latest release. But point taken.

I already understood what they were trying to accomplish with their silly renaming... and gawd, that convoluted explanation only makes it worse. Why is the KDE team spending so much time creating arbitrary new naming conventions? No one cares. IMO it comes off as pompous. Similar to when they were insisting that a .0 release signifies extreme beta or alpha quality software.