While Apple is very restrictive and controlling, they aren't as controlling as many imply about running your own/custom apps on phones.
You can sign up for a free developer account and sign apps onto your iDevices for free. ( 3-apps at least, for 1 week at a time )
If you pay for a developer account you can sign many more apps to run on your devices as you like. This includes apps that would not pass the store approvals.
I agree it is a hassle to have to install apps that way, but at least they do allow it.
The actual article title is "How Would the Publishing World Respond to Lolita Today?" The title here is a small bit from the article. Unless the submitter here is the author I don't think it's appropriate to link this article under this title.
The article consists of the story of how Lolita was published in the US mixed with background on the political setting of the era it was published in.
The overall claim of the article seems to be that Lolita is still politically interesting and sparks debate.
I disagree with this conclusion. The world is all too fond of sexuality, and especially with controversial sexuality.
I am actually the author of a somewhat popular website involving written erotica, and what I've found is that controversial erotica is wildly popular regardless of the specific content. You could publish all manner of twisted crap today and it would mostly be met with praise.
There are, of course, puritanical haters that will go out of their way to whine and cry about it, but the world has reached a point where it is broadly understood that written erotica is freedom of speech and trying to ban it or make it stop is pointless.
> the world has reached a point where it is broadly understood that written erotica is freedom of speech and trying to ban it or make it stop is pointless.
Unfortunately, this isn't entirely true, even today.
From what I know, it is getting appealed to a higher court, so yes and no. The verdict will be in sooner or later, and at that point, we will know. But, I'll also argue that this never should have gotten to a trial, it is appalling that the police think this is something someone should get charged for to begin with.
The other case is also going up for appeal, from what I've read, although I don't know how the higher court will respond to it.
Alright. This is a fair point. I go way out of my way to discourage underage visitors to the erotica website I run, and I do agree that there is tremendous sensitivity in the current era towards the notion of anything sexual involving children.
Despite that, I don't think such sensitivity is unreasonable. I do believe that children are sexual from quite an early age, and that that should be accepted and encouraged from a sexual wellness perspective, but simultaneously I think children are abused very frequently even in this era and we should continue to do everything we can to protect them from abuse.
I still see plenty of "stories of my childhood" on erotica websites, and I don't see anyone going out of their way to shut them down. Example: solotouch ( not my website, but a common example with many such stories )
Another legal example that comes to mind is the man who was convicted for importing obscene hentai manga. I personally believe hentai should be considered free speech but that is certainly not the case in the legal arena right now.
My point remains that I believe the world is very accepting of many types of erotica that I had previously thought would be highly frowned upon.
I will point out that under the miller test ( the main law concerning this in the US ), textual material that is artistically meaningful as writing does not constitute illegal writing. I myself shy away from writing any erotica describing explicit sexual activity of minors, but I still believe it to be legal if written well enough... I does though fail 2 of the 3 prongs on the miller test:
1. The average person would agree that description of explicit child sexual activity is illegal. ( fiction wise at least; I think accounts of childhood activity may be deemed acceptable by many normal folk )
2. Description of child sexual activity is patently offensive.
In the case of Lolita, for the most part, the book isn't terribly explicit in nature. It also ensures its legality by being an instance of well written fiction.
Other applicable law is "activity contributing to the delinquency of minors". So, it isn't unreasonable for something that is otherwise legal to be illegal ( for good reason ) if it is used to encourage minors to engage in sexual activity ( with adults or for the entertainment of adults )
Essentially, the world is very accepting of erotica in many forms. The world simultaneously has many laws to attempt to protect children while maintaining the general acceptance.
Some things which people write or draw are certainly repugnant, extremely repugnant, including some particular forms of hentai manga, and if someone were actually acting out the activities described within, then I would want them to go to prison for a very long time.
But, committing a terrible act, and writing about it from a fictional perspective are completely different things. I don't think people are so brainless as to blindly follow what is happening in a hentai manga.
Someone doesn't simply "become" the sort of person who would do that, just by consuming fictional material, and if they're using purely fictional material, it could be even argued they're actively avoiding it.
The actual risk factors for abuse (and not merely creating / consuming prohibited content) I know of are:
Some people have poor mental health. Being unable to express yourself and having to shut things in would not help. Luckily, we have many ways to improve someone's mental health. Mental health can also improve if someone has supportive friends. This could be considered the main factor.
There are people who look for substitutes for a partner and unscrupulously pick that.
Someone may be physically incapable of feeling anything to adults and only to children. A recent scientific paper said that some address their loneliness by creating dolls and talking to them to keep them company. Banning and prohibiting things might frustrate them, but it wouldn't actually solve anything, other than making it clear that they have nothing to lose.
I am sure there are other possible factors, but I don't think I have ever seen "I saw it in a book" mentioned as one. Even Dr. Seto, who is a leading expert in this area, believes that those who would abuse, are those who would have abused either way, irregardless of this content being available.
As a response to your dead comment, not only do they not have feelings towards adults in any meaningful sense, other than making a friend, but they actually feel disgust and revulsion towards sexual settings involving adults. In a way, it is as if their sexual axis has been inverted, and instead of being disgusted by one, they're instead disgusted by the other.
It's also not a belief. The science has put it clearly that such people exist. Saying otherwise is to deny the science. Not only can the science measure someone's response to material, but even their neuronal response to it. It _is_ a spectrum, so there are types who aren't that bad off, and perhaps, even ones who are lightly touched by it. But, the idea that it is purely a form of deviance and twisting is flawed.
There are pieces of anecdotal science (studies on small samples of people who report it helping them not have to commit crime), a country level study on crime in the Czech Republic, and expert opinions from half a dozen experts which would suggest that at worst it is neutral and at best it reduces crime.
Most importantly, there has never been evidence that it causes crime. This property has largely been assumed, and has never been tested in such a fashion, despite a lot of people assuming it has been tested and produced such results. There is an exception where prisoners wanting to get early parole / better conditions play along with flawed studies.
According to Dr. Seto, those who commit crimes are largely antisocial individuals who were leaning and moving in that direction to begin with. And that they ultimately would have reached that conclusion.
At most, I might advise putting a content warning on a site or a piece that explains that it is a piece of fiction, and that it should be not be enacted. But, I've never seen actual evidence, only conjecture, that that it could be a problem. It's just not listed in actual psych profiles.
And while I will condemn someone acting out the crimes, condemning someone for consuming / producing a piece of media is going to feel like an adversarial attack on them (which fuels in-group bias, meeting up with like-minded people, distancing, and conspiracy theories), and it ultimately just deprives them of pleasure, without any real gain (and that is in the best case).
If someone does feel it is making them really likely to do something that they shouldn't, I would strongly advise that they don't read it, and I don't feel that a level-headed individual would just run all the way to doing a crime.
As for those reviews, I would have to know what they actually say. But, people say all sorts of things when they're "horny". And critics will critic.
What's wtf about it? It's biologically accurate. What they mean is you shouldn't tell a teen that sex is bad and evil and their instincts for sexual contact are not bad and evil.
I agree with your points, but the wording in the post is very vague. If they mean teens, they should say teens directly, rather than using the word "children" which is easy to misunderstand.
It’s a little awkward to comment on moderation but I want to say I’m glad to see this comment visible again after it was marked dead, because it is an interesting contribution and there’s no reason to snuff it out.
Lolita isn't erotica, which puts this in a different context. This is like comparing BDSM pornography to rape scenes in film. The latter is going to have a different audience and intent and might be more controversial to ratings agencies and production companies.
You might sound like someone who doesn't understand 'freedom of speech'.
This does not allow you to do whatever you want.
In germany for example it is written like this:
"These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour."
And its not different in the USA, you have limitations as well as the general good is more important than your personal.
"The world is all too fond of sexuality, and especially with controversial sexuality."
And what distrubs me the most on your comment: Just because their are pedophiles, doesn't make pedophiles okay. Yes i used here the extrem form of 'controversial sexuality' but to be clear: you should know your boundaries in comparison to the normal society. Just because you are part of that sub group of people, in my circles 'controversial sexuality' is not typical at all.
You have a responsibility and just because you can and some other are having the same moral compass as you have, doesn't make your niche okay on a moral/society point of view.
And it could be that your 'controversial sexuality' is actually okay but how you express yourself, it feels already that you crossed a line i wouldn't.
For something to be wrong you have to prove a harm. Limitations to speech are because the harm of that speech weighs more than the chilling effect of suppressing it.
Fictional stories and images on the internet have no relationship with reality. There are no victims, there is no one harmed. You don't have to like the content, that is fine, but there is no good argument about bad morals or government intervention unless you're proving actual harm.
I also have a dislike for punishing someone for the acts of someone else. If someone who commits a crime, just so happens to have a particular book, it doesn't mean all the owners of that particular book should be punished for their transgressions.
It's an unpleasant form of collective punishment. And it means that all of them have to suffer for something which has nothing to do with them.
> [Freedom of speech] rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour.
You seem to imply that controversial written erotica shouldn’t be covered by freedom of speech protections, as it would be in the name of protecting children. Do you think censoring it would reduce the incidence of child abuse? If so, would banning videogames like GTA reduce the incidence of shootings or traffic rule violations?
> in my circles 'controversial sexuality' is not typical at all
It seems like the author of the comment you’re replying to might be in a unique position to gauge what controversial sexuality might be of interest to your circles even if yourself aren’t privy to it due to its controversial nature.
Efficiently wielding weapons is not terribly difficult. It just takes practice. My parents bought a number of guns and became quite proficient at firing them accurately within 2 years.
I have many relatives and friends who are amazing at skiing. My cousin posts pictures every winter of the sick lines he skis down.
I'm neither an excellent marksman nor skier, but I don't think it would be difficult to become excellent at both given an excessive amount of free time within a few years.
I can though drive a manual very well, own a sports car, and have no fear of drifting it.
A coworker of mine was a pro skydiver, and recommended it to everyone. I've met other skydivers as well; it's supposedly easy and affordable.
Another coworker owned his own plane. Planes are costly but he wasn't James Bond rich...
My brother-in-law owns a few hundred guns including fully automatic weapons.
Being James Bond is a bit idiotic in real life as he engages in a lot of high risk stuff, but it is certainly doable.
I don't believe in the spec at all, because as pointed out in the article, the spec is not precise enough. The spec also puts undue burden on the parser.
The spec should absolutely say whether the first or last key has precedence when duplicate keys appear. I don't think the spec should simply demand the parser to error on duplicate keys as that isn't helpful. If such an error exists, there should still be a way to parse the structure and get the data. A duplicate key shouldn't cause complete parse failure. It is recoverable.
To resolve the problem with people placing comments into dummy values ( or duplicate keys ), the JSON spec really needs to implement a feature set key / flag key. Something like:
{
"_flags":["comments"],
...
}
This would allow for extensions to be reasonably supported aside from the fact that none of the parsers will initially do anything with this extra key.
Another flag would be "plainstrings", which would tell the parser NOT to parse escapes in any way and just deliver string data as is. This is what my parser does, as there are too many pitfalls in parsing escapes consistently, and you then also have to code in how to write those escapes back out. This may be passing the back onwards, but I view it as division of responsibilities. Why should the parser be responsible for and required to understand unicode and all its complexities?
Another flag would be "type.[some type]" to indicate presence of a type and the need to be able to parse it. The way I implemented this in my parser is this:
{
key: [type name].[type representation]
}
For example, hex data:
{
key: x.4FE310B2
}
These sorts of things would address the issues brought by the article.
Who am I, though, kidding... Cooperation doesn't exist in the community, no one will change their parsers to do as I suggest, and I'm likely to get downvoted just sharing my ideas. Carry on uncaring world.
out of curiosity, how you manage to get the first key, instead of the last? Because it seems to me, it would be less logic/ easier for a parser to always return the last.
First key comes up with a 3rd party performance library for go.. If you are parsing a stream, etc, it is always possible to have situations where you can stop reading when you get a first answer, but then you don't really know if the stream is valid JSON at all.
What motivation would Google have to pay any attention to this request?
The only one I can imagine is that Google wants to get some positive PR out of it. Other than that it seems to me like Google will just ignore this as they ignore anything else they don't see as in their benefit to exert effort on.
I agree that adding error checking at every possible error location and then passing up those errors is tedious, but it is a direct result of Golang essentially being a "modern C".
In the case you describe it sounds like it was particularly painful due to the multi-threaded nature of the software.
You didn't call it out directly but I feel like the inability of Golang to do polymorphism makes it more difficult.
If the result of something is simply a message, and that message can be either a normal data type or an error, then you don't need to always additionally return an optional error. This is why I prefer the idea of message passing languages over direct procedural languages.
It is still possible to do this somewhat in Golang using channels and/or queues, channels can tend to get clogged and freeze up in my experience.
I've had good experiences using Mangos ( Golang nanomsg implementation ). If you use inproc queues, you can do multi-threading in a language portable way. Then, if you decide to replace a processing component with something other than Golang, it is relatively easy to do so.
They publish a tiny minority of those systems that they are forced to due to the licenses of components they use in those systems.