gonmf

I agree that child pornography should not be illegal to possess, only to make or profit from the distribution.

My theory goes: if you're not a pedophile, I don't think stumbling upon child porn will make you one, just like watching violent movies won't make you a violent person. If you are a pedophile already then seeing child porn may be a way out of actually harming children, just like watching gore movies be a way out for some sexual fetish with corpses.

We should be going after abusers (obviously) and people who actually profit from distribution, which add an incentive for child abuse even for people who are not pedophiles, just desperate for money.

Having pictures on your computer without an intent that could cause harm should not be illegal.

I'd imagine the host website needs to ask for the permission to share specific data with a third party named XYZ Startup, that will use that data for language/country segmentation or whatever is they do, and if the user denies that right then random ads are shown instead.

It's a simple issue, bar entities that should not have conflicts of interest from accepting gifts/investment/etc that could create a conflict of interest.

It is appalling how US senators are allowed to receive gifts or be compensated in creative ways by companies.

Oh yes, imagine the silence of people peacefully talking with each other and forming their own opinions, and come election time change the government. Having opinions without being told by the opinions makers, crushing.

Imagine the property that wasn't destroyed, the lives that weren't lost, the sides that didn't become more and more polarised.

Hate crimes are nonsense. If something wasn't a crime without the hate part, why should it be with it, when hating others is legal.

Obviously people having opinions in an internet forum is much more important.

On a more serious note, Tor was meant to be used by people that want to say something that may run counter to the general, approved, discourse. That was a very ironic statement.

You do not have to face the response, if the response is violence or hacking, because those activities are illegal.

Talking on the internet and organizing legal, peaceful, rallies, is fine in my book.

The US really doesn't care about freedom of speech anymore, which is spreading to the internet, and everyone is giddy to deal the last nail in the coffin.

I feel the labels are switched in this picture http://erikrood.com/Posts/renter_home_income.png

This is great news!

I don't want to be a downer but that statistic doesn't seem to be backed by anything. And yes, Portuguese in Brazil were also christian, of course, but there is a certain "what the eyes don't see, the heart can't feel" feeling about it. Public opinion and the church would care much less what happened far away, months away. Many countries would abolish slavery at "home" but tolerate it in the colonies.

The rest of the developed world affords it by paying up to 60% in taxes, like where I live, and still seeing private doctors if you don't want to wait months.

And Israel is notoriously omitted.

I think part of it is also availability. We know, as consumers, the average price of certain goods, and in an effort to save money, avoid spending when it seems obscene, without looking at the bigger picture. If the average price of mobile apps was 40$, and your equivalent app was sold by 20$, it would sell like hotcakes.

In comparison I can buy t-shirts for 5$ so I would never pay 25 for one.

I thought this too!

At some point you will need to convert fiat into cryptocurrency and vice-versa, and the companies that provide that service legally will require your identification.

AFAIK the African slave trade is not a visible topic on Lisbon because it was a very small part of it. While Portugal trafficked millions of people across the Atlantic, very few would be sent to Europe, since the Christian faith didn't see it with good eyes, and there was much more demand for hard labor in the "new world".

Maybe they calculate the likelihood of each health condition, using machine learning. Most people on the internet would check the first two articles, read and focus entirely on their ambiguous descriptions, and make up their mind.

Everytime I feel compelled to serialize data with relationship information, all I have to do is look at the extra file size -- with all the namespaces and trivial definitions -- and I immediately trash the idea.

I do like separate data files and schema files, though I haven't seen them pop up in a while.

As someone who has quite the extensive experience with Prolog, I can best summarize that there are some types of programming problems at which it excels: deduction, ordering, discrete constraint problems, etc; and at everything else an imperative language is often simpler to use to achieve the same end result.

Wow this was buried fast.

I agree. I see no issue with one country informing another that terrorists may be plotting an attack and how to prevent it. Today it feels like being told that every thing to come out of Trump is wrong and every hacker or unpopular opinion is Russian.

I mean come on, is an article with pictures such as:

https://lisacharlotterost.github.io/pic/170509_Republica_Tal...

worth discussing? What's next, the right-wing field sharing articles of IQ across racial groups?

The article is literally false. strncpy is safer than strcpy. The argument of the author is it still has room for abuse.

There was also the enslavement of Germans for over a decade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_...

Not officially, but there is a general, fabricated consensus for it. Just like in this story Russia hasn't made a law to prohibit political solicitation but LiveJournal still applied it.

1) They currently do not have an element of choice. And it would actually be very difficult or impossible to proportionate them a full choice since they would have to know what their lives would be like if outside the island, or with a modernized island.

2) Human beings fear the unknown (quite rightly so, often).

3) You can make the relativity argument all day. I personally believe that a person that is confined to an island in pre-agricultural civilization does not live a life as fulfilling as one that can access vast amounts of information on the internet, can read thousands of texts written over a span of 3 millenia on every topic imagined, can hear Antonio Vivaldi [1], almost void of unnecessary or unusual suffering and privation, for over twice the lifetime.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z39KxbbtCC0

Yes, we should. We think we know better. We have senses and can measure ways in which the quality of life of man and animals can be ascertained, and we can conclude that these people will live much shorter, worse, unfulfilling lives, than those of people born elsewhere on average. If not the first generation, at least the following.

It is because we are culturally timid and racist that we still hold to the idea of the noble savage [1], and condemn their children to their wretched lives. A child not knowing what it's missing is no excuse to let her suffer, when we are in position to help.

Regime change operations and invasions have little to do with this unless they come from the sincere effort to improve their people's lives. And when the intention is sincere and the execution well planned, it works, and you can tell by the quality of life of countries like Japan and South Korea.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

Right now, somewhere in that island is a child that wished she could live to be older than 30, while we culturally sensitive outsiders do not dare disturb her way of life.

An interesting article but I was left guessing why either the US or Israel would attack a military airport near Damascus and why doesn't anyone bat an eyelid. I wasn't aware either of these countries was at war with Syria.

There are many minor inconsistencies in this otherwise interesting and accessible piece, but I think a fundamental one is that the citizens of a country are not valued the same as foreign citizens. It could be argued one of the purposes of the state itself is to put its citizens above all else. So it stands to reason that one can conceive of letting foreigners suffer economic privation rather than cut local salaries 1%; or spy on foreigners freely but require court orders for locals, etc.