Slashdot Mirror

And it should be blatantly obvious that intent, insomuch as the law concerns itself with it, is determined by objectively measurable criteria... and in this case, as I had repeatedly stated, that criteria would be giving informed consent.

I know what you stated. But if the law were literally as you spelled out, public photography of just about anything would be taboo. Obviously that is not in the public interest.

As I just mentioned to someone else, if the law everywhere were as you say, pictures such as THESE would be impossible.

Nah. I'll just take a picture of it. If you don't like that, I suggest not doing whatever it is you object to having photographs of.

"Of course people lie... which is why any serious photographer who is wanting to take nude pictures would get consent for such in writing first, so it cannot later be controverted. A photographer can, however just as easily lie that he or she was allegedly given permission when they were not as a subject can later deny that they ever gave permission even after they did."

You are again just reinforcing my point. Intent is generally hard to establish. Things in public are generally okay to photograph. The whole point here is where the line is to be drawn.

Because the recommended policy I suggested of assuming that there is no consent to photograph what is underneath a person's clothes being the default condition in the first place, the photographer gains absolutely nothing by not explicitly gaining such consent in writing when he or she does not know the subject *EXTREMELY* well.

I disagree. What about, for example, Picture #3 on this page? It would have been impossible.

If it's in public, I'm going to take a picture of it. If you don't like it, tough luck.

uses the theory of evolution?

Outside of biology, evolution has informed our understanding of chemistry, psychology, cognitive science, computer science (especially artificial intelligence), linguistics, economics, math (especially game theory), and doubtless many others. As an example, the principles of natural selection inspired the creation of genetic algorithms, which have been widely used to tackle hard optimization problems.

How many countries has NK invaded in the last 100 years?

One (South Korea). There was this minor scuffle called the Korean War back in the fifties. Perhaps you might have heard of it.

How many people have they killed?

Lots.

If anything, they are much more peaceful

You tell that to the people who were kidnapped from Japan to train North Korean spies.

It's a small, poor country, they are not a real threat.

A small, poor country with nuclear weapons, spends over 30% of its GDP on the military, has a history of threats to turn Seoul into a "sea of fire,", not to mention torpedoing South Korean ships and shelling South Korea (only a few miles from Incheon International Airport, mind you) Just the kind of small, poor, safe neighbor you want to have in your backyard.

If need be NK could be crushed in a few days.

If it were that easy, it'd have been done already. Even if all of their missiles fail (leaving them unable to attack Japan), they can still easily decimate Seoul, as it's within artillery range of the North Korean border. NK also happens to have an unholy relationship to China, which is fed up with NK's antics, but is still geopolitically wedded to that nation. China will most likely be forced to intervene against any Western efforts to dislodge the Dear Leader.

Last time I checked launching satellites doesn't goes against any treaty signed by NK

They broke their agreement over nuclear development. That's why no one trusts them.

no nation has the right to tell another sovereign nation it can't research rocketry or launch rockets into the ground.

When that same nation comes begging for food which it can't buy because it spent all of its lunch money on rockets, we sure as hell do have the right to tell them how not to spend their money! And that is true even if the same nation doesn't keep threatening to take military action against the very same people offering aid.

The vast majority of my learning has been through participation in discussion. I found books too dry for learning, nor did I retain much from them. I also didn't handle lecture well, because things go in one ear and out the other.

I don't think you actually disagree with me. You note you didn't handle lecture well, and thats what I criticized (a guy talking and you just taking notes.) I agree with discussion being a powerful learning tool. It's one of the most powerful tools for learning, but one thats hard to afford (you need extremely small student group for each teacher to implement effectively in the classroom, or have direct conversations with a mentor.) It's also the reason why study groups are effective.

Lectures work best if you take notes, especially by hand. Note-taking prevents information from going "in one ear and out the other" because, like discussion, you activate more areas of your brain as you take notes; think of it as having a discussion with your notebook; I don't know anyone who can write as fast as a lecturer talks, so you have to be constantly deciding what to write down instead of letting your mind drift around. This doesn't just work at school. When I go to a baseball game (for pleasure, anyway, rather than to schmooze with clients), I try to get a scorecard and track every play. I've found that I remember the details of those games much better that the ones where I kicked back and drank a beer. (And I remember *any* game that I actually attended better than the ones I watch on TV, so try to actually attend class, not depend on someone else's retransmission.)

Baseball scorecards are optimized for taking notes on baseball games. Likewise, at a lecture you should use Cornell Notes, a tools optimized for taking notes at lectures. There are thousands of web site dedicated to this, so research it yourself at http://www.google.com/search?q=%22cornell+notes%22.

Finally, if you don't believe me then look at what others have to say. For example, http://brainz.org/brain-hacks/ claims (in bullet point 3) that "Taking notes by hand instead of typing them, will help you retain the information more effectively, as the pressure points activated by holding a pen are linked to the creative and memory centers of the brain." If that sounds a bit unbelievable, research reported at http://www.mpiweb.org/magazine/pluspoint/20110124/Taking_Notes backs up the claim.

Oh, bullshit. I'm sure it's exhilarating to push the +1 Insightful moderation, but I live in an actual police state. If I went to city hall with a group of people waving signs, we'd have the People's Armed Police up in our grill faster than you can say "Jiminy Cricket". I just cringe when Americans make idiot statements like yours.

You mean.. like this?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-06.htm http://brainz.org/30-cases-extreme-police-brutality-and-blatant-misconduct/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbfA5q0QaNI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwN-t3A_044 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxRcvHqbIZc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkBdOaR871o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vW36qt1SbE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeYg0qCn11U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwkVMT6m7zg

The list goes on and on and on and I don't have all damned night to educate you (assuming you're capable of learning). Maybe next time you should keep your ignorant mouth shut. When it comes to America have no clue what you're talking about.

> Did you also resent having your money taken at gunpoint to go into Iraq? Afghanistan?

Damn right I do! Neither Iraq nor Afganistan have any ambition to invade the US, nor did they ever. We're in Iraq to control the oilfields and to build huge military bases there. We do that to keep telling the Middle East to do our bidding and to create profits for Haliburton and its ilk. We're in Afganistan because US oil companies want to build a pipeline there. Or, at least, they did, before it became obvious that Afganistan will never become the sort of stable country where such a project can succeed. Neither of these goals does anything to enhance my personal safety and security. They're just about the power elite grabbing more power. Why should I pay for that?

> To fund your local fire and police departments?

To fund them to oppress and terrorize us? If you have ever had to deal with the police, you'd swear not to ever, under any circumstances, call them again. And as for the fire department, why should I pay to put out your fire? In most cases, it will have been your own stupid fault for leaving candles around (it's the single major cause of fires).

> To provide clean drinking water in your community?

Clean drinking water is not free. Maybe you don't know that if you live in an apartment, since the landlord pays the city water bill for you. Out in the country many people have their own wells and don't have to pay for water. If the city government did not provide the water service, someone would start a company doing it if it were cheaper to do so than to have everyone install their own well.

> To provide education for the children in your neighborhood?

Who's providing education? The quality of public schooling is atrocious. And with all the government propaganda children are exposed to in public schools, there is no friggin way I'm sending my child there, and I certainly don't recommend anyone else to do so. Instead get together with your neighbors and homeschool your kids. If you stagger your days off, four adults could educate their children while working full time. Your kids will likely have a better relationship with you and be happier too, if you just spend more time with them.

> It is THE COMMUNITY that you live in, that allows for a rule of law, so that when your neighbor
> decides that he doesn't love you as much as he loves his other neighbors and decides that he
> should roll up in your house and take all your possessions in the dead of night, that there
> is a system in place to protect you from that.

Contrary to what you government advocates belive, most people respect private property. I have no interest in robbing my neighbors, and I know they have no interest in robbing me. If you live in a neighborhood where they do, maybe it's time to move.

Furthermore, you don't need an official police force to prevent such things, even if you do decide you need to. Back in the middle ages, a small village in the middle of nowhere would have been able to handle the above situation just fine. The neighbors get together and confront the thief, and he'll probably apologize and never do it again.

If you really want to have a police force, a private police force works much better than a squad of government goons. For an example see the special police of San Francisco; it's a private police force (although it does have official recognition), funded entirely through subscriptions by individuals and business in the area.

> The COMMUNITY is what allows you to live a non-third-world existence.

The lack of excessive population growth is what allows me to live a non-third-world

Yes they are victims.

The 14 Most Ridiculous Lawsuits Filed by the RIAA and the MPAA
http://brainz.org/14-most-ridiculous-lawsuits-filed-riaa-and-mpaa/

The extortion campaign is creating an entire generation of *IAA haters.