Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
qubes is not a safe OS to use, its permanent not live like tails so if anything does get into your main OS then the whole system is fucked until u wipe the drive. That and its a pain in the ass to configure and your whole system is locked to one computer, u cant take it with u like tails.
If EKS servers can see the content that they store, then presumably
1. The servers and operators will become targets for storing massive amounts of CP or whatever illegal content
2. The servers could filter or remove certain kinds of content (obv 2 solves 1)
We then extend our protocol so that queries have
information-theoretic protection if a limited number of
servers collude, as before, but still retain computational
protection if they all collude. We also extend the protocol
to provide information-theoretic protection to the contents
of the database against collusions of limited numbers of the
database servers, at no additional communication cost or
increase in the number of servers.
And if the EKS servers store everything, how do they reduce their database size when they get too large? Throw the oldest stuff overboard first?
But the good thing about using EKS is that the underlying system could be used for a lot more than this. We could have "blogs" that are tagged with a single string for keyword search, and let only the owner of the blog edit it (over the mix network) but anybody else gain access to it via EKS. We can also have arbitrary files uploaded via the mix network and downloaded via EKS with actual keyword searches
Where are these blogs and files stored? On the EKS servers? And they don't know which specific files they are storing? In that case, it's like having Freenet on Tor?
I also think it would be more of a system for people with slightly more knowledge of how things work, for instance, having to search for hashes etc, Can you imagine the posts in the forum with all the newbies asking about it? It would be chaos.
Rocknessie +1000
Ayn Rand was a semi-psychotic whackjob on speed. Just watch her in interviews on youtube, certifiable amph'ed out psycho.
Quality criteria that made you a "hero" in Rand's eyes:
a) Have a lot of money
b) Shit on those that have less money than you
c) Don't in any way associate with or recognize the benefits of government
Meaning, the sheister banksters that crashed the world economy in 06/07/09 she would have been perfectly fine with, after all, they didn't use a bat or a gun to get their way, which were her sole simpleton criteria of defining "force"...
As for Atlas shrugged, one of the worst contrived, long-winded, pseudo-allegorical, (unintentionally) simplistic, badly written pieces in the history of writing itself.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.
You have failed to find a solid ground upon which to stake your opinions. Please take a moment to see yourself in the 3rd person. You are not promoting understanding with your discussion tactics, you only appear interested in more detailed discussion. Sometimes that's useful. Regarding this subject, now is not yet one of those times. You have been wrong since you began this discussion, and it's depressing to see how many are willing to unquestioningly follow your wastefully deep dive into so clear-cut of a discussion territory.Quote from: What kmfkewm is doingnavel-gazing
noun
complacent self-absorption; concentration on a single issue at the expense of a wider view.
Are you trying to say that my attitude towards the abuse of kids for the sexual pleasure of adults is the result of "cultural conditioning"? No it isnt.
Your logic is weird. You are saying that because something is not illegal in some other place it should not be illegal here. Well does the same then apply to the routine use of torture in some other places? In the end you cannot justify something simply because some other people do it, as a human you have choices about what you do and you must make your own mind up about whether something is right or wrong.
Abusing the innocence of children, which may affect the whole rest of their lives, for sexual pleasure is simply very wrong. They cant defend themselves. We should protect our kids, not sell them to others for sex. I take it you dont have kids. well I hope you dont anyway.
Applying some logic of my own; I would say that you would only have spent all this time and effort arguing for the legalisation of paedophilia if you yourself are a paedophile. So tell us, is that the case?
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:
Forensic testimony in alleged child pornography cases commonly asserts that Tanner stage (TS) 4 breast development, characterized by secondary mounding of the areola that is obliterated in TS 5, is evidence of age <18 years. Clinical experience does not support this notion, but there are no relevant studies. We sought to estimate how frequently TS 4 might be interpreted from nonclinical images by individual forensic experts.
METHOD:
Published images of 547 adult women were independently examined by the authors and classified as having TS 4 or TS 5 breast development.
RESULTS:
There was concordance among all 4 of the examiners for 17 of the images, agreement of 3 of the examiners on another 36 images, of 2 examiners on 39 images, and 53 images were designated TS 4 by only 1 examiner, for a total of 153 (26.5%) images that could have been considered by a single forensic expert to represent TS 4.
CONCLUSIONS:
A substantial number of adults have persistent TS 4 breast development. This observation, and the frequent difficulty distinguishing TS 4 from TS 5, even by adolescent development specialists, especially in nonclinical images, renders testimony based on this distinction invalid. Without clinical relevance for distinguishing these advanced stages of breast development, they should both be considered indicative of full maturation. Testimony based on this inappropriate test of maturity should no longer be allowed.
) .
.
I honestly don't get how you don't see the difference.
One is made using a live human who has endured sexual abuse
One is made by a computer.
I can't go out and make a snuff film and record it, then say, "it's just an image now" as the picture evidences an actual crime. I can, however, me a render of whatever celebrity I want getting murdered because the act never took place.
I'm going to have to politely discontinue this discussion as it seems to be circular. Somewhere, somehow we are losing each other.
QuoteDo you have a superiority complex? This is a discussion, yet you are telling me that I'm supposed to learn a lesson from you.
Are you not trying to teach me a lesson about the morality of CP as well? Debate is about teaching people why you are correct, you are trying to educate me as to why you are correct and I am trying to educate you as to why I am correct. So I did indeed try to teach you a lesson that would allow you to understand why what I am saying is correct.QuoteThis isn't the first allegation of condescension, as it exists quite vividly with the poster above me as well.
I was a bit too mean to that poster, although in fairness he was a bit of a jackass and seemed to not recall his original post despite quoting it.QuotePlease don't think that people are dim-witted or incapable of thought solely because they don't see things your way. People here come from all walks of life, and some of us are quite educated as scientists, mathematicians, writers, and other professions in which logical thought is paramount. Pretentiousness does not a good argument make.
Scientists, mathematicians, writers and other professions also have members who believe in gods , they may be quite capable of logical thought in many instances but they are still illogical in others. I don't doubt that some of the people who are trying to argue against me are quite intelligent, but it doesn't mean they are thinking rationally about this particular issue, and indeed I would claim that they are allowing emotion to cloud their cognitive abilities.QuoteFurthermore, your argument using the number 4 is largely a mischarecterization. The number 4 exists solely as a mental entity with no actual embodiment in a corporeal form. I am not discussing numbers, as they are not sentient nor sapient. This would be akin to saying, "You kill roaches? so why not kill humans!" While valid in and of itself, this argumentation style is a gross oversimplification in an attempt to invalidate a similar--but startlingly more complex--argument.
And this is where you are wrong
I think this argument shows the fundamental flaw of purely logical systems that void humanity as a key aspect. The image in questionQuoteYou seem to think that numbers representing CP files are moral to look at if they are derived from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, even if the result is the same number produced by a child molester with a camera.Yes.QuoteI fail to see how these numbers are moral if they come from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, but not if they come from a camera, considering they are otherwise identical numbers just as 4 is 4.
This argument is fine within itself, but it ignores the fact that the camera is obviously not the only entity. The child had to be coerced into the act in order for the camera to take the picture. This is fundamentally different than a render, in which no child need be present. One does not need a real, sentient primer; however, the other does. If the camera rendered the picture on its own, then this would be completely aligned with the argument at hand--but that's not the case.
Do you have a superiority complex? This is a discussion, yet you are telling me that I'm supposed to learn a lesson from you.
This isn't the first allegation of condescension, as it exists quite vividly with the poster above me as well.
Please don't think that people are dim-witted or incapable of thought solely because they don't see things your way. People here come from all walks of life, and some of us are quite educated as scientists, mathematicians, writers, and other professions in which logical thought is paramount. Pretentiousness does not a good argument make.
Furthermore, your argument using the number 4 is largely a mischarecterization. The number 4 exists solely as a mental entity with no actual embodiment in a corporeal form. I am not discussing numbers, as they are not sentient nor sapient. This would be akin to saying, "You kill roaches? so why not kill humans!" While valid in and of itself, this argumentation style is a gross oversimplification in an attempt to invalidate a similar--but startlingly more complex--argument.
. The number 4 translates to a series of colored pixels via some algorithm. All images are binary sequences. All binary sequences can be represented as decimal numbers. The only difference between a CP image and the number 4 is its distance from 0. So any discussion of CP is fundamentally a discussion of numbers. You seem to think that numbers representing CP files are moral to look at if they are derived from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, even if the result is the same number produced by a child molester with a camera. I fail to see how these numbers are moral if they come from a PRNG or 3D rendering software, but not if they come from a camera, considering they are otherwise identical numbers just as 4 is 4. If a child molester obtains such a number by taking a photograph of a molestation, you say that the people who view the image produced by this number are immoral for doing so and should be arrested, but if someone views the image produced from the same number it is moral if the original "source" of the number is a PRNG (Source in quotation marks as numbers actually exist independently of anything and are intrinsic to reality). I just don't see how this can be, what is special about one instance of a number or another?
i'm interested in the concept of a blind market, where the market admins don't know what products are being sold. (This reduces their liability as well.) They only know that buyer1 sent 3 BTC to vendor2 for product <hash3>, or something along those lines. If the market were compromised, LE would only see a series of anonymous transactions for unknown products. The only ones they could deduce would be transactions that they were personally involved in as buyers or sellers.
Now we have the exact opposite. Instead of hiding buyer stats from the admins, they are publicly exposed.
KMF, what is the ETA on that decentralized market?
