Slashdot Mirror

China is authoritarian; some of the laws are strict by our standards, but if you obey them and mind your own business, you'll probably be left alone.

not according to this bloke who's farm is being illegally confiscated because of property values in china..

Aside from the fact that the Army had no reason whatever to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed"

How about we just correct this outright. The Iraqis were armed and they were not civilians.
 

"When I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there," he said. "You just don't walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight."

Source

See, for example: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=64864 or http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/02/2010-06-02_the_hidden_death_in_the_gulf.html

I am sure BP is doing everything it can to stop the oil gushing out, despite what all the (sometimes idiotic, very amusing) armchair engineers are saying is the "obvious" thing to do.

However, it seems the real battle that will have the greatest impact on the future of this is over who controls the media now, and that's where BP needs to get its hands tied.

Except he didn't disobey orders -- he was on a bicycle down the street and couldn't have heard orders from a foot officer up the block -- nor was he doing anything different than all the other cyclists -- and Officer Patrick Hogan was convicted of assault for what he did. He also lied about it until the video came out. Nice of you to leave out the facts, apologist bootlicking shill. And oh, he was a jock in high school. Figures. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/02/19/2009-02-19_nypd_fires_rookie_cop_caught_on_youtube_.html

The woman is from LA and is a Californian. A California woman is suing Google after she was hit by a car while following directions provided by Google Maps on her cell phone, according to AOL News.

HA HA HA! Makes sense to me that you are dumb and obnoxious. The Jew joke is just cliched to hell. Come up with something more funny next time moron.

Maybe one can buy a Derivative from Goldman Sachs on this issue; while it is still legal to sell products that are known to fail to an unsuspecting public.

Ah, the thought of comparing a postman reading mail to rape. I wonder what moral relativism will look like for my grandchildren. Oh, and in the UK they arrest you for just about anything these days. I'm sure you know about the guy arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/05/03/2010-05-03_gay_cop_arrests_preacher_for_saying_homosexuality_is_a_sin.html

Everyone is already as aware as they need to be! Stop spending money on awareness and start spending it on research!

Most breast cancer cases are curable, but mammograms are still a must

If breast cancer is detected early, the survival rate is above 90%.

Because of screening, about 25% of breast cancer is caught early at the stage of non-invasive cancer, which is very treatable. Studies show that mammography reduces the risk of death from breast cancer by 15%.

Doctors recommend annual mammograms for women over the age of 40, or starting earlier if you are at elevated risk. "It's still alarming how many women don't get mammograms or skip for years at a time," says Dr. Elisa Port. [The chief of breast surgery at Mount Sinai] " "Mammograms are essential."

I'm not aware of any place which rounds upwards to the nearest hour

You are not aware, therefor it must be BS...

At any rate, I think it was libertarians who were into everything being solved by contract not by regulation

Yes, a contract. A contract with the worker, not their union. Surely, workers are entitled (by freedom of association) to form any groups, etc. But no one — neither the giant automakers nor the nanny-hiring families — must be legally-bound to hire union-only. And any union-won contracts to that effect must be studied with the anti-monopoly bias.

Let's keep it simple this time: are you aware of such a situation where anyone anywhere was sued for changing their pizzeria, or ordering more Italian than Chinese? Or do you think that repeating the same falsehood

It is not any more of a "falsehood" than any other caricature. Individual consumers' tastes in food aren't (yet?) targeted, but the employers' tastes in employees already are. I argue, that these aren't different from each other.

When you call for a food delivery, you are employing the restaurant. If we were to consistently apply the same laws to all employers, we'd have to study such food-ordering habits for signs of bigotry in the same way, personnel-hiring of companies is already studied by Attorney Generals.

This is reality... and speaking of someone being out of touch with reality, where have you been?

Zero-tolerance has led to some of the most idiotic decisions ever made but for some reason it’s still haunting us.

For example, a 9 year old boy nearly gets suspended for playing with a 2” long plastic gun during lunch; he had equipped a LEGO police officer figurine, which he apparently was particularly fond of since his dad was a police officer, with the tiny weapon. The owner of the culprit (a LEGO figurine holding a plastic axe) was treated less strictly since the principal deemed the toy axe less “threatening” than the toy gun.

Let's say banning salt in New York? and having a $1000 fine if you break that "law" http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_assault_on_salt_an_insult_chefs.html

Thats remember me the recent news on Google investing in a company that tries to predict future, and markets and automated software are all about trying to somewhat predict future in that particular area. Predicting the orbit of an asteroid is possible, you have most if not all the relevant data, and usually you cant change anything of it. Predicting people behavioiur,specially when you are people too and could affect the final outcome (specially in markets) enters in the gray area. And if over that, you don't care about the possibility typos, mistakes, stupidity or just crazyness instead of intended actions, you are in hot water, specially if most of the others do the same based in the same input. And probably should add malice too, if the system is vulnerable just because there are those automated responses ready for making a disaster.

Why should the catholic church try to fix it self, when blaming others has worked so well.

Granted it may just cause disbelief in most if you blame it on the jews or homosexuality in some, but far more will believe it, especially in developing countries, the only place the church is still growing. And no I am not going to say that this proofs only non-educated people believe in god. That would not be nice. It would be the truth, but not nice.

Oh and remember, the mafia isn't real, it is a plot by communism to disrupt the west. Oh and the shroud, it is real. Never mind that nobody in the bible mentioned it. You think people would have noticed or not have bothered with the bloody shroud left on a decaying body. Mind you, there is a perfectly sensible reason why nobody at the time noticed it, IT DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN!

Denial, it is must be a wonderful place to live.

It's 100% legal for a woman to walk topless down the streets of New York City.

These links say different

http://naturistaction.org/StatesFrames/State_Laws_Frames/New_York_Laws/body_new_york_laws.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/24/2009-08-24_halfnude_women_march_by_park_for_right_to_bare_breasts_ya_cant_top_this.html

And you believe what you see on TV?

As an American who has still spent most of my life in the US I am not going just by what I see on TV. That said to go onto something, like Judge Judy, and embarrass yourself shows greed. The mere fact people have been doing this since People's Court and there is now Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown and whoever else now shows there are more than a handful of greedy people happy to sue for stupid things.

Really? You got some figures on that?

It's obviously not a case of everyone being a religious nut but Sarah Palin, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh supporters are proof of growing religious extremism. I'm not doing the research for you. It's shouldn't be news that Christians have been viewing 9/11 as an attack on their way of life and have been pushing harder to protect it.

Then there's the attacks on evolution being taught in school.

It's naive to think Christianity isn't more extreme in the US. Hell, some Christians use the fact they're more religious than Europeans as the reason Europe is apparently suffering because they've apparently forsaken God and the US is number one because it's a Christian nation.

Two of the three were politicians and one of those has been convicted of a crime for his writings. Hardly great examples.

The point being that the BNP is full of criminal thugs and neo-Nazis and he is still allowed to run for office and his party can still have European Parliament members. This is after hanging out with David Duke, praising the Waffen SS among other things.

About the only thing you can't do is go around denying the holocaust in Germany or creating games like Wolfenstien in Germany. I don't agree at all with that but I understand why a country responsible for killing so many people (even if most people didn't do it) would take some time to get over it.

Again neither regions are perfect. They're not *that* different either which is no surprise since the US was started by a load of Europeans.

But there are some differences. Europe is happy to have nudity on TV and in public view, better job protection and free healthcare. The US rather have more guns and put its money towards wars which offer no real value for its citizens.

You're wrong. There are no limitations on free speech. Our Constitution is not intended to protect some particular kind of speech, political or other. In fact, it's not designed to protect the free speech of citizens at all.

Our Constitution does not grant citizens free speech, it recognizes our right to free speech as an inalienable right. The point of this document is not to call out specific freedoms that people have, rather it's to grant the government certain powers. If it's not specifically mentioned, rights are presumed to reside with the individual or the state in the US (and state constitutions are similarly framed).

In the case where information is generated by government officials (the police), that information is presumed to be in the public domain except in specific circumstances.

Now it is you who have failed to understand what the constitution has to say about government, and free speech. The first amendment is about prohibiting the government from taking any action against our various rights, including free speech. It does not however recognize any right to anything where that right impinges on other individuals rights. Free Speech is only free when the act of speaking does no harm that would not otherwise have come to pass. If you Bully and taunt someone , to the point of loss for example, then you are responsible for the consequences. The first amendment merely codifies the fact that the government has no standing to complain about anything anyone says. That does not mean that individuals cannot make such complaint, and under those circumstances, the government is justified and required to act on behalf of the individuals, and in their best interests. Up until that point however, the government has no right to act, and our government is supposed to be explicitly prevented from pro-active action by the constitution.

A good way to paraphrase is: The government may punish individuals for what they say, but it must not take action to prevent them from ever saying it in the first place
Censorship is inherently contrary to democracy, because the only way a democracy can function is with an informed electorate, Hence a democracy with censorship is not really a democracy, but rather more of an aristocracy, or worse: a farce.

-=Geoskd

If a man can effectively sell the names of his children, names that the children will be basically forced to keep for their entire lives... Names which could impact their entire development...

Why can't two consenting adults exchange currency, in a private transaction, for the purpose of engaging in anywhere between 5 and 30 minutes of consensual sex?

Or how about for some baseball tickets?

Well, here ya go. Sugar is as addictive as cocaine

If you really care about your workers, which is more important - making sure they make it to work on time, or making sure they have the means to get there in the first place?

Ref: nydailynews.com

"City Council to probe CityTime; timekeeping and payroll system costing city $700M"

"The IT Employee Confidence Index increased 0.6 points to 50.8 in the fourth quarter of 2009, according to a recent survey commissioned by Technisource®, the technology placement division of Spherion Corporation "

"As a technology executive, you are constantly expected to do more with less. Technisource offers specialized IT consulting and outsourcing solutions through The Provali Group®, a division of Technisource launched in March of 2009"

Or maybe it could be a combination of factors, such as: (1) Rush Limbaugh isn't very technologically savvy and (2) he's pushing an ultra-rightwing agenda where "government can do no right" is orthodoxy. Look, there was that time when Limbaugh thought he had a copy of Obama's college thesis. He immediately took it to air as serious news, only to later realize he had been pranked by internet satirists. IIRC when Rush found out he had been punk'd he claimed the "thesis" was 'fake but accurate' (insert heavy sigh). http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/10/25/2009-10-25_limbaugh_falls_for_obama_thesis_hoax__but_is_in_no_rush_to_apologize.html The man just ain't that bright.

Plenty of orthodox rabbis also say donating is permissible (as far as I've heard from members of the New York ultra-orthodox contingent)

It has also been argued that trafficking in human organs on the black market and laundering the money is also religiously permitted (when it saves lives, apparently - the lucrative profits are completely coincidental)...

Do you know how hard it is to get to be a cab driver in some cities?

Do you want to be in a cab with a driver who has no clue about the streets and is just kinda wandering around trying to make it to your destination?

I mean- forget the extra money for a second- do you want to get to the airport, or your meeting, or the broadway play 30 minutes late?

As an FYI, these "cheating" cab drivers are making about $50k.

A driver make around 50,000 per year depending on his shift which is 8 to 12 hours.

Sources: http://411newyork.org/guide/2008/03/30/new-york-taxi-cab-driver-salary/

Meanwhile
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/02/05/2009-02-05_nyc_so_costly_you_need_to_earn_six_figur.html
N.Y.C. so costly you need to earn six figures to make middle class
A New Yorker would have to make $123,322 a year to have the same standard of living as someone making $50,000 in Houston.
In Manhattan, a $60,000 salary is equivalent to someone making $26,092 in Atlanta.

---

And we are going to begrudge them a few bucks in fares? $26,092 is just above the federal poverty level. (cost of living is so bad in new york that they are starting to calculate poverty levels differently because "poverty level" is actually in the low $30k's in NYC).

---

The arrogance and sense of entitlement of the wealthy and my fellow boomers really makes me irritated sometimes.

Might not be lead ... maybe it's cadmium.

i was kind of disgusted by a recent story i read in the new york daily news

it was a story of a public school janitor who bilked his school's petty cash fund for janitorial services to the tune of $30K

to, among other frivolties, send his kid to private school (irony meter off the charts)

but that's not the real story in this story. the real story here is that this janitor made $86K a year?!

some sort of 40 year tenure you say? no, he was there for only 5 years

how does it make sense that a janitor is making $86K a year considering the average new york city school teacher's salary?

i don't understand how this makes sense to anyone in the new york city school system

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/03/04/2010-03-04_custodians_rap_cleaned_city_out_of_30g.html

The school custodian really cleaned house, officials say.

The Manhattan man is accused of stealing nearly $30,000 from the city to pay his sons' private school tuition and other personal expenses, city investigators said Wednesday.

Edwin Hendricks, 42, worked for nearly five years at Manhattan's Thurgood Marshall Academy before investigators discovered he was cutting checks from his custodial account.

And Hendricks did himself no favors when confronted by investigators.

He told them he "normally only stole money around the end of the year" when they asked about $4,000 in checks he'd written to employees - including his sister - and cashed himself around Christmas 2008.

Hendricks also compared himself favorably with a custodian who stole $100,000 from the city. "At least I'm not as bad," he told investigators.

The custodian claimed he intended to reimburse the city for the $1,400 made out to Solebury School in Pennsylvania, as well as for a $150 political donation to the Committee to Reelect Congressman Ed Towns.

Hendricks said he was willing to reimburse the city for the money and ultimately admitted to taking $14,000, though investigators think he collected $15,000 more.

Hendricks, who makes $86,000 a year, has been reassigned to a borough office and did not return a call seeking comment.

"We will seek his termination," said city Education Department spokeswoman Margie Feinberg.

most of the birthers are right wing.

False. Just like Truthers, most of them have a mixture of beliefs that really defy labeling (read the full manifesto of the Dallas plane guy). It's just another generalization you want to apply for convenience.

Well for one thing, not all right wingers (ie republicans/libertarians)

Now you claim Libertarians are "right-wingers" (by your use obviously a derogatory term)? They are the ones that got Obama elected. Read comments in Reason articles before the election to see just how confused you really are on that point.

Well for one thing, not all right wingers (ie republicans/libertarians) deny AGW. Approximately 25% acknowledge some degree of the phenomenon.

Quite a large conceptual leap there, you made from AGW to "phenomenon" which I am betting you imply as some degree of climate warming. The two are totally separate issues, and the arguments about what to DO even if AGW is true is another still.

The CRU hack frothing as the prime example of this.

Because obviously people that obstruct FIOA requests are to be trusted in all respects. Because obviously people with code that simply makes up data sets are to be trusted. Sorry, but there are a lot of reasons why in fact that was a very big deal - not for the accuracy of the data itself nearly so much as the ability to trust the people who were interpreting what the data says. That's why people like yourself are so mystified as to the uproar, because you are blinding willing to trust the Giant Spaghetti Monster of AGW, his noodly appendages tweaking the atmosphere into a warming froth.

Some of us cannot proceed of faith alone, especially when the high priests are busy defrocking themselves.

The problem is that this error was found not by an AGW "skeptic"

Actually it was questioned many times before they realized they had made the mistake. How is anyone else supposed to have found the EXACT CAUSE of the error when they were refused access to any data?

ew dispute that there are scientists out there that don't agree with the AGW consensus, the same can be said of Evolutionary theory

Nice jump there to equate people studying a highly inexact "science" with almost no ability to predict backwards or forwards, with a handful of crackpots that argue against a well-prooved theory with tons of working proof behind it.

the vast vast vast majority of skeptics are not in relevant fields and have not actually done any relevant research on the topic

The trouble is there is no "relevant field", a person strong in physics is just as well qualified to comment since the very field of "climatologists" is totally new, and as I said pretty much utterly unproved - with the leaders of the field shown to basically be supporting claims that helped them obtain tons of funding.

The same applies to both sides of the issue, it just seems that the vast majority of AGW "skeptics" aren't holding up their end of the bargain.

You choose to only read what agrees with you then.

" Fatties are now using it to vent rage over how cruel the world is for discriminating against them for being fat. "

Fat celebrities, not your regular jo' smuck. Besides Kevin's not that fat, at least not compared to my notion of "too fat to fly" (see photo).

I'm glad Kevin's getting the word out because apparently Southwest has a habit of kicking off big guys, and it's ironic Kevin twitted the "too fat to fly" diet because a UK couple, weighing 530 lbs combine, really did lose weight after being "too fat to fly"

Alabama is the home of US Senator Richard Shelby, who is currently single-handedly holding all of President Obama's nominations hostage for pork-barrel earmarks to his home state. Let the retaliation begin!

This is hacking like sawing your front door out from the frame is picking the lock. Yes, they got in.

Or, perhaps, like coming home from a trip, kicking in your front door in Cambridge, and having the neighbors watch in amusement. With any luck, none of them would call 911 and tell the police that someone is busting into the house next door. Likewise, you will be losing your PC or notebook, but you will have some time to change your network and online passwords etc, if you're paying attention and not bound and gagged in the cave next door. Your hard drive, however, is fair game. Truecrypt means never having to say 'what password'?

And you'll WISH they were the Cambridge police.

Of course, if they're serious, you're dead already.

'If the most prosperous nation on Earth is not going to lead the charge back to the moon and on to Mars, then greatness is probably behind us.

Why are you talking about Finland?

The US has a serious non-political cultural attitude problem making you yourself your own biggest enemy.

To a degree, they couldn't.

Every PAC contribution had to be "freely" given, and, even then, the PAC had to account for each dollar it received. On top of that, each individual could only give $5,000.

Back during the primary, and big hulabaloo happened when a PAC setup to support Hillary was receiving money from folks who had never given a cent.

It turned out that a wealthy individual(Norman Hsu) was picking names out of the phone book and donating in their name.

In the US, the lowest average educational metrics or scores pretty much all come from the larger urban areas within the public school system. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking, this is the case. It is so bad in some areas they have contrived to cook the scoring, giving higher than deserved grades to schools. Your largest urban area, even after massaging the metrics, still scores in the bottom five percent of the state's overall scores.

Here is one reference: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/09/09/2009-09-09_bloombergs_bogus_school_report_cards_destroy_real_progres

more

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-06-20-dropout-rates_x.htm

You might want to check your typical urban elitist prejudices against a little research first.

Let's show the world what the US can do when disaster strikes.

Yes.. let's

disaster - result

disaster - result

disaster - result? Still waitin' on that one.

As for Haiti? Look at who's been meddling all this time.

Us. We've been meddling, and not in a good way. We can't change the past, all we can do is try harder to do the right thing in the future.

Let's show the world what the US can do when disaster strikes.

Yes.. let's

disaster - result

disaster - result

disaster - result? Still waitin' on that one.

As for Haiti? Look at who's been meddling all this time.

That's a pretty crazy exaggeration/analogy. You are practically comparing the 100's of small startup tech companies who rent suites at CES to hookers or swindlers. Nice.

It's almost as if such a thing is illegal in most cities! Maybe the analogy of that to illegal activities isn't so far off the mark, eh?

Yes, he basically did. He continued to publicize the event after it was lawfully shut down. Including falsely stating that Bieber was inside signing autographs after the event was canceled when Bieber never even made it inside.

"James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said."

""They are not allowing me to come into the mall. if you dont leave I and my fans will be arrested as the police just told us," Bieber tweeted."

(emphasis mine)
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/11/21/2009-11-21_island_def_jam_records_exec_.html#ixzz0Xq2XpBMl

All of the sources seem to link back to this NY Daily News article, and specifically, this paragraph:

James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.

If somebody can find a link to those tweets, this accusation has some merit.

James Roppo, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.

For clarifications sake, I don't know if this guy really did send the tweets after the crowd dispersed completely. Its something I heard on another site.

Actually, according NYDailyNews, you're right:
James Roppo, 44, the senior vice president of sales at Island Def Jam Records, sent out Internet messages to over 3,000 fans that Justin Bieber was signing autographs even after police dispersed the crowd, cops said.

this domain name was making the implication that someone committed truly heinous acts, not just par-for-the-course political chicanery.

Regardless of who the target was, doesn't this cross a line that shouldn't be crossed?

"par for the course" politics - yep. injecting hot fuel into racial hatred in politics, on mass media, on a national level, in the most powerful and armed nation, in the middle of wars full of religious and ethnic problems. very innocent, fair political gaming. Glenn Beck calls President Barack Obama a 'racist'. And, nobody is accusing Glenn Beck of having raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

- not Tocqueville or Tytler so we'll say unknown.

How is that any different than a guy and his girlfriend in the car having a fight, or some selfish schmuck stuffing themselves on McDonalds because they can't wait 5 minutes to get to work? There are more accidents caused by eating while driving than any other activity (upwards of 80%).

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/19/2009-07-19_eatdrive_sure_recipe_for_a_crash.html

They should really attack the biggest problems first, no pun intended. People stuffing their face causes more accidents than drunk driving. It's also disgusting because it makes your car stink simply opening the bags in there. My brother's car smells like a KFC that hasn't been cleaned in a couple of weeks.

When my kid acted up in the car, I pulled over and solved the problem. He hasn't done it since ;-)

The bottom line is you have to drive with your kids in the car sometimes, you don't need to drink, eat, smoke, text, talk on the phone and fight with your girlfriend in the car. Discipline is up to each parent. I agree that some people do stupid shit in their cars with their kids in the back screaming. Other people, like me, don't have the problem in the first place.

By your logic, school buses should be the biggest hazard on the road. They account for fewer than 0.33% of accidents.

http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/bus/statistics.html

...but you'd be hard-pressed to find many customers if you didn't have any training or experience.

Yeah, nobody falls for fake doctors!

it does a good job of that most of the time. occasionally it kills and maims. when it does so, it is accidental, not by design. well, even if it is used to kill on purpose, its obviously off label use. they don't put spikes and flamethrowers on toyotas: the INTENT of a car is not to kill. but when a gun meanwhile puts a projectile into an creature's flesh, it is doing EXACTLY what it was designed for

it would be arrogant of me to ask you to stop using your rifle for 100% valid hunting purposes, correct? i also have no doubt that when you pick up a firearm you do it with 100% responsibility, and you would never harm another person, unless they had the clear intent to harm you. the problem comes in when you observe that not everyone is so well-intentioned and responsible as you, and there is no magic wand to tell you from those who don't deserve a firearm. so why must the clearly vast majority of firearm users be obliged to give up their guns for the sake of a minority of assholes?

because the damage the assholes do is out of proportion to the benefit the majority of firearm users receive from guns

in other words, it might be arrogant for me to tell you to put down your gun, but it is also arrogant for you to support a law that means when i walk through the streets of new york, i am under increased danger of being hit by bullet because of knuckleheads. i am under no illusions of hubris or arrogance or having dirty harry fantasies to think i have a good chance of stopping from being hurt by my own use of a firearm. if only we were omniscient. of course, people DO stop themselves from being victimized by using their handguns. if only this represented the majority of cases

outlawing guns won't stop the seriously intent people from getting guns. but such serious and intent people also have specific and quiet and intelligent reasons for getting one. they aren't going to use the gun with abandon, even if their intent is evil. they don't represent the vast majority of problems from gun use: the CASUAL unserious moron. outlawing guns will stop these casual hotheaded knuckleheads from getting a gun most certainly. not completely, but cutting down their access significantly cuts down on their possession significantly: remember, we're not talking about the seriously committed here. and these casual irresponsible assholes are the root problem with guns in society, they represent the whole problem with guns in the first place. and that observation is what shifts the entire verdict to outlawing them

and so i ask rural people to give up their pasttimes, so that us urban people can suffer less slaughter. currently, a minority of rural folk enjoy their firearms, with the side effect being the slaughter of hundreds of urban innocents every year for the sake of the legal structure that allows you a firearm

i'm asking you to sacrifice that for the clearly obvious superior benefit of significant less human death than the smaller benefit of the pasttimes you enjoy with your gun. go bow hunting for crying out loud if you enjoy the thrill of the hunt. its a more honest challenge, makes you feel even more validated and vigorous. i understand that thrill, it is extremely self-affirming in the most noble of senses. why not outlaw bow hunting too? a guy can kill and maim with a bow right? in fact, that just happened in new york city:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/03/19/2009-03-19_arrest_in_bronx_bowandarrow_attack.html

but again, the point is that the technology isn't nearly as potent as handgun: the continuum of acceptable lethality versus unacceptable lethality clearly rules bows as acceptable. one hotheaded asshole can kill maybe one person with a bow with the same time and effort as an equally hotheaded asshole with a handgun can kill ten people. same with knives in england: when that hothead decides to take the world out with himself, he'll slash 3 or 4, rather tha

I drove 8 hours yesterday with a 1.3 year old. Trust me, it is almost impossible to eliminate child distractions. If you don't have kids yourself you won't understand.

I agree with the GP here. Sure, they can make looking at maps illegal, or texting while driving punishable like drunk driving, but they aren't addressing all the possible ways to being distracted. What about reading a paper while driving. A friend of mine got rearended by a man doing that. Or a woman putting on makeup while driving? Or a man shaving while driving? Or driving a dangerously modified vehicle? Or someone eating while driving?

There are simply too many ways to get distracted while driving to eliminate them all with laws. The bottom line is that driving is boring and a waste of time, and we do far too much of it. We should focus instead on better safety systems, and eventually computer controlled cars.

Gee, let's see if I can explain this to an idiot like you.

"Neither": Puppies! Flowers!
"Not for the faint-hearted": Kittens with spike high heels rammed through their skulls
"NSFW": Beautiful ladies with exposed breasts
"Both": Goatse (or TFA)

There's plenty of news that turns your stomach but won't get you fired (needless to say, not for the faint of heart). It'd be nice if the NSFW links were marked as such independent of how revolting or benign they were.

• Snow Leopard in Afghanistan
• Snow Leopard Diary
• LEOPARD PICTURES: Rare Snow Cats Caught by Camera Traps
• Terich Valley: Snow Leopard Survival Issues
• Central Park Zoo visitors go wild for new snow leopards

The NYPD cricket league (set up partly to encourage positive engagement between law enforcement and citizens) may beg to differ.

If she didn't have the berries to say this with her real name attached, or to the model's face, she shouldn't have said it. Dan Rather wouldn't have hidden.

She's not hiding. She's link-baiting. Those two are not the same thing.

She herself admits she's greatly benefited from all the attention (She's been benefiting from the Streisand effect). Before the lawsuit, she was completely unknown. Even her blog had no traffic on it. Now she's appearing on national talk shows and she's becoming a national celebrity (it probably also helps that she's pretty cute).

this is all stupid bluff and bluster

That is my impression too. Apparently these two women already knew and disliked each other offline:

the two women . . . knew each other from Manhattan's fashion scene and reportedly quarreled after Cohen badmouthed Port to her ex-boyfriend.

Now it may be that Port's blog really did harm Cohen's reputation. If so, then all this is justified. But I doubt it - I don't think many people would take anonymous online claims that someone is a "ho" seriously. On the other hand, while anonymity is an important political freedom, this is not what it is intended to protect.

This looks to me like a private spat that has blown way up out of proportion. It does not look to me like something that is worth the court's time. If these two women were yelling at each other in a public street, I don't think the court would care. It appears to me that we have laws designed for career-limiting libels being applied to a tempest in a teapot, wasting public money and resources that could be better used for something more significant. As a consequence, we have precedent for political speech being set by exactly the wrong sort of case.

Our legal systems seem to have real problems coping with the blurring of private and public online. "Private" used to mean something known to a few people, while "public" applied to activities that were widely observed. While anyone can read a blog, before the circus this particular blog was probably more private than public. Similar problems occur with copyright infringement, where formerly accepted activities create massive risk because they are seen as public - though in many cases they may not be any more widely observed than the mixtapes of my youth. (Admittedly it is very hard to tell which infringement online is limited to a few people, and which to a large group. But my point is that communication intended for and witnessed by a small audience is being regulated as if it was published on the front page of the New York Times. This can result in ridiculous judgments and significant waste of public resources.)

Is she from Texas?