mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: Video Integration #34969 10/07/03 04:06 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
Watchdog Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
I don't like the thought of mIRC becoming a Microsoft type product!

You speak FOR voice whilst AGAINST video. The programme that currently supports voice is kVirc which was originally a product for Unix based OS's. So how would putting this in mIRC make it like a Micro$oft product? Stop flaming suggestions - you have no valid reason as to why any of this should be excluded from mIRC.

Re: Video Integration #34970 10/07/03 04:53 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Yeah I agree with Prizm, don't say because _people you know_ are prejudiced implies we all are. When I meet someone I form opinions on them based on the way they act, their level of intelligence, and their personality. Not based on their skin color, religion, the clothes they wear, or their gender. Don't over generalize things here. Furthermore, I've yet to hear anyone ever complain that the many IM programs with voice/video chat should remove it as it promotes discrimination. Webcams have existed for years and to my knowledge such issues never actually arose. This is an issue people on this forum created, and if thats not the case, show some proof of it? And even if you can find proof, I can find you proof that even without cameras and microphones it exists. For example, there are scripts that detect *.aol.com users and ban them on sight. Just because some users of AOL are stupid immediately implies they all are? Thats prejudiced. This is an issue that has occurred on IRC long before anyone proposed video/voice chat support. So it is clear that discrimination is going to exist regardless of whether you can see who you are talking to.

Until I see evidence to the contrary I'm going to believe the link between discrimination and video/voice chat is just a lie. And I doubt anyone can provide any strong evidence to prove me wrong.

Re: Video Integration #34971 10/07/03 06:27 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
N
Narusegawa_Naru Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
N
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
As racoon stated I wasnt reffering to any ONE person but our society. Clothes (meaning mostly social standing) was merly one example. Theres literly hundreds of ways to discriminate against. I find that gender and sexual orientation are some of the more prevelent on IRC.

Racoon I agree with you and i object to anyone (female or a male pretending to be female) ebtering a certain gender dominated area and using the opposite gender to gain favors. I find it funny however that on irc men have no problem pretending to be women but would they do it IRL? I could just see some of them trotting down the street wearing a dress smile

One more thing Prizm why again am i "ignorant"? because you didnt agree with my view? If so is it bidirectional if I dont agree with yours?

Codemaster the statement was made as a whole if i meant you i would have named you personally. Im sure there are alot of people just like you who dont judge or go out of thier way to avoid it. However were all humans and as such we do judge. Even if its a lesser amount. As racoon stated why do we have designer anything and high dollar cars etc.. One method of denoting social standing is by possesions and those who would be considered by some to be higher up can and have looked down upon those who dont shop for example at Gap. But again thats only one area of discrimination theres many and theres many type of people. Noone on this board (or any board) can say they have actually met everyone on the planet and deduced the exact level of discrimination but we make generalizations based on our experiences. I dont want anyone to become angry or take any of this personal that wasnt the purpose of the post. Only that some people perhaps need to be made aware that it is real adn happens everyday. Only then can we stop it (well maybe slow it down)

As for your part about "..a lie" a lie? to be a lie this means the original poster would have to know for a fact that discrimnation based on ones appearance (or sound) is completly impossible yet claim it anyway. This would make it a lie. Aside from that its neither fact nor a lie its one persons belief based on thier own experiences. As for your evidence all i can really say is open your eyes. Anytime you ever see anyone judge another person based on thier appearance theres your proof. It doesnt matter if they saw them on the street or on a web cam its the same thing.

Last edited by Narusegawa_Naru; 10/07/03 06:38 PM.

Have Fun smile
Re: Video Integration #34972 10/07/03 08:53 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
I didn't say discrimination is a lie, discrimination certainly exists. I said that the idea that webcams will lead logically to discrimination is made up. Why is it when use of webcams have ever come up on this forum, on other IRC client's forums, and for other protocols, no one ever uses the "it will lead to discrimination" excuse? Because it is bunk. No one has proved otherwise. When I said it could be done with a webcam and a website I was told that requires an understanding of HTTP. Since when? I setup a website with a php script that lets anyone just click the "upload picture" button and the picture is added. Where is the technical know-how in that? Oh and also, seeing as how the argument is you can fake your text, not your voice, I have a program that can turn a man's voice into a rather convincing woman's voice. I also have filters that can distort a voice, and things that can synthesize a voice from text. If you want to trick someone into thinking you have a different voice than you really do, it's not all that hard. Then people are saying how voice/video will be used for age/sex verification for ops. So this means that all channels will allow no one except mIRC users to be ops? Because I don't know of any other clients supporting video chatting. And some clients can't, i.e. terminal clients such as ircii, epic, bitchx, irssi, etc. People who use those clients will be disallowed from being ops since they can't verify their age/sex? Also what about people (and you can even see some here) who don't like to upgrade? Only people using the most recent version of mIRC will be ops? And people who like old/dead clients such as pirch will never be ops? I fail to see a link here. Then what about people who have a firewall and therefore can't dcc voice/video? Those people can't be ops either? I fail to see dcc voice/video leading to "if you don't prove you are male and over 20 years old, you can't be an op" because such a thing wouldn't be discrimination against women and young people, it would be discrimination against non-mIRC users, and I don't see that happening.

Could a webcam lead to discrimination? Sure. But should we ignore the feature simply because a few bad people are going to take advantage of it? I think not.

Re: Video Integration #34973 10/07/03 09:07 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
N
Narusegawa_Naru Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
N
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
I agree i never said it will lead to discrimination only the poeeability that it could. Then again so can plain text. As for limiting who can get ops etc.. every channel already has thier own limits on who can get ops and when this would be just another one. As with many things there are good and bad uses. DCC can be used to send both legitimate and illegal files etc.. As for adding it or not to me its just a personal taste. Personally id preffer more scripting abilities such as for switch/case etc.. perhaps then work on other things.

I know that theres probably tons of non scripting users who could care less about 'for' etc.. but there are tons who would like to see it. For non scripting users they got multiserver how many posts did we see for that? What about more controls etc.. I would just like to see the scripter get a few more things before diving right into something as involved as video/voice. I only say 'as involved' because im fairly certain it would alot easier to implement 'for' than it would video chat etc..

Ultimately its not up to me however although im certain i do have at least a small voice (as with any other user that posts here).

Again allow me to be perfectly clear. I was not reffering to any one person and im certainly not accusing anyone of being a biggot etc.. Only that it exists and im certain that video/voice would simply be another method for those people to express that. As racoon said earlier there is a dll for video chat if someone finds its a must (altho it would require scripting knowledge) at least in the meantime they have that but ive never seen a fully functional (without flaws) switch/case or for. anyhow im off to work thanks for your opinions bye bye.


Have Fun smile
Re: Video Integration #34974 10/07/03 09:11 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Well I would like to see things like switch and for, however like you said these are "minor" things. Scripters would upgrade to get such features, however if the mIRC versions.txt for the next version read:
1. Added for loops
2. Added switch statements

And that was it, the majority of non-scripting users wouldn't bother upgrading. Also seeing as how such things are probably easy the implement, it means Khaled most likely won't spend much time on them therefore freeing his time to work on more in depth ideas and there are a few complex suggestions which could occupy him for a while.

Re: Video Integration #34975 10/07/03 11:19 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
N
Narusegawa_Naru Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
N
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 195
yeah i wouldnt want to see "just" some script additions and there sure are some other neet things he could add on top of it but my only question is i cant understand whats held up the for and other this long. certainly there not too difficult to add and could have been added long ago (even in the 16 bit version) Perhaps maybe a minor build bugfix (with the addition of the for etc..) would be in order. 6.04? Its been a while since we've had a new version wich makes me think something big is coming. I know some people think khaled is just getting tired of it but i dont. (maybe he is but i dont see him giving it up any time soon).

Wasnt mserv actually not even hinted at being added for the version but was anyway? He has a way of surprising people like that lol. Sadly we had to see 250 billion posts before we got it. so for for for for. let me contribute to the for effort lol.


Have Fun smile
Re: Video Integration #34976 11/07/03 05:37 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,659
Raccoon Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,659
* Raccoon wonders if this /switch suggestion has anything to do with parcing -swi+ch parameters passed to an alias.

Well, perhaps Voice/Video wont bring around any more stereotyping than we already see with other new technologies, but it will certainly change IRC in a big way. IRC before DCC was all about Internet Relay Chat, and warez only had a place on bulletin boards and Usenet. Now the top 100 IRC channels are all file sharing channels.

I've attached a screen cap of a typical Yahoo!Chat room list. I would prefer these rooms (and users) stay on Yahoo!

(This image contains explicit language. Insert child safety label here.)
Note: [v00] == users with mics (voice), [w00] == users with webcams.

- Raccoon


Well. At least I won lunch.
Good philosophy, see good in bad, I like!
Re: Video Integration #34977 11/07/03 03:52 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Well lets look at this from a different perspective. There are channels that engage in illegal activities. As of now, authorities can't get much info without a warrant, they can just get the IP (assuming the network doesn't have hostmasking) and not much more. Now consider something like a child porn room. An undercover cop joins and pretends to be a 13 year old girl who wants to see a webcam of one of the ops in the channel (who is most likely a ~40 year old guy). In the past, the only thing cops could do to track the guy down were stage fake meetings (which would likely have ended in rape if it were a real meeting), and then catch the guy. Webcams change that a bit. The cops convince the guy to show himself on a webcam. Using this, along with his IP to get a rough estimate of where he is located, they can track this person down much more easily. If you look at it like that, webcams on IRC could lead to a safer chatting experience.

Re: Video Integration #34978 11/07/03 04:18 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,265
P
pheonix Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
P
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,265
then if he is a dirty pervert like you said, he probably wont even show his face.


new username: tidy_trax
Re: Video Integration #34979 11/07/03 04:20 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Umm well thank you for your lies about me being a pervert. And in any case, there are several photos of me online already.

Re: Video Integration #34980 11/07/03 04:21 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,265
P
pheonix Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
P
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,265
like you said, i didnt call you a pervert :tongue:


new username: tidy_trax
Re: Video Integration #34981 11/07/03 04:22 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 843
P
Poppy Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
P
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 843
I think he meant the '40 year old guy' in your example, not you!


Never compare yourself to others - they're more screwed up than you think.
Re: Video Integration #34982 11/07/03 04:23 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Err sorry misread your post, didn't see the "said" in there smile

Re: Video Integration #34983 11/07/03 04:23 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,265
P
pheonix Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
P
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,265
i did.


new username: tidy_trax
Re: Video Integration #34984 11/07/03 09:12 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,659
Raccoon Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,659
I don't quite understand where this "40 y/o pervert" has broken any laws by simply having his webcam on. Where is it written that if a kid stumbles into a room of naked adults, that those adults are guilty of some crime.

It would be different if the adult went into #pokemon showing his dick to kids, but you're talking about an under cover FBI agent specifically joining adult channels. If people choose to leave their webcams open for anyone to view, they have no control over denying someone who wishes to say they're 13... nor should they have to. 13 y/o's don't belong in adult areas, and parents have to take a certain level of responsibility for their actions (or lack of) when they leave their kids unsupervised.

I'm counter-aruging that the presence of adult channels on IRC is not going to make things safer because FBI agents are not (can not) going to clean up after these channels.

- Raccoon


Well. At least I won lunch.
Good philosophy, see good in bad, I like!
Re: Video Integration #34985 11/07/03 11:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
C
codemastr Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Try reading what I said:

... Now consider something like a child porn room. ...

As I clearly said, I was referring to a channel that exists to distribute child pornography. So if you want to rebut my argument, at least make your counterargument relate to my original scenario.

Re: Video Integration #34986 12/07/03 09:13 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,659
Raccoon Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,659
Your mention of a "child porn room" escaped me, when you went on to describe reverse-child porn.

Even in that situation an op in #SexWithKids has done nothing illegal by allowing people to view his cam. It's the possession of elicit materials depicting children in sexual situations which is illegal. Being naked in front of a cam while re-enacting one's youth is not. </lawyer>

My arguement is that adults don't need webcams to be busted for posession of child porn. Owning a webcam doesn't make them any more suspect, nor does it help the FBI to clean up the internet. Perhaps if Video intergration allowed the FBI to set up #KidsWithWebcams channels to attract perverts, that's a different story.

- Raccoon


Well. At least I won lunch.
Good philosophy, see good in bad, I like!
Re: Video Integration #34987 13/07/03 08:42 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,237
T
The_Game Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
T
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,237
Ok I think I have a stupid question, but, um what does the original post have to do with the entrapment of perverts by the government? Somewhere I must have missed it...

Re: Voice andd Video Integration #34988 13/07/03 06:53 PM
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2
Y
Yaze Offline OP
Bowl of petunias
OP Offline
Bowl of petunias
Y
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2
Well i didn t though the voice/video post would come to discrimination and/or sexual arguments...
I said it as a feature, don t want to use it then don't...
I still don't get why people seem to care about insults on mirc, from my point of view i am just there to have fun and exchange ideas and i though voice/video would be a great way to improve that...
But i guess some people are just too immature to make a difference between IRC and the real life...

'Chaos, panic and disorder... My work here is done.'


"Chaos, panic and disorder... My work here is done"
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3