You've given examples but not addressed the point, why is sex more censor-worthy than violence? Simply because of some subjective definition of "Art"?
So lets take your art claim and run with it:
Exposing a child to violent dismemberment is ok so long as you're telling a great story in the process?
But letting them see 2 people having sex is *worse* because you didn't also show all the time spent courting the woman, taking her out to eat, getting a loan for a car, buying a house and paying bills?
We already do the same thing for porn, you have to be 18 to buy it. If someone wants to argue seriously that violence isn't as harmful as depictions of sex, and therefor doesn't require an age limit, i'm all ears.
Until then, this law is actually a step in a less hypocritical direction, albeit an even more ridiculous one since limiting access to information based on content is both more offensive and more dangerous than anything a teenager could see in a video game.
Ohhh sorry, can't mod yourself down. However we would also accept a pie in the face, glass of water dumped over the head, or the popular "stand on the kitchen table and try to do a backflip".
Nah, we should level an American city that isn't being useful anymore and build a waterpark. For future reference, this is the same solution I have proposed to end the israeli-palestinian conflict.
What specification? All I see are a bunch of phones and iPods being sold that can video call each other. I see no specification that anyone else could follow even if they wanted to, even Google.
Web sites aren't "channels". If we let them get away with turning the internet into another fucking channel lineup of large websites, all of humanity is fucked.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time this sort of thing happened, I remember it didn't end well for the fellow. What was his name?
Oh well. Good luck, baby snake.
If i remember correctly, the last time this happened it didn't end well.
The word you are looking for is principal.
You've never talked to a principle before? They're very set in their ways.
"serious crimes" like uploading a picture of your friend smoking weed, or your "5 days shy of 18" girlfriend in her underwear.
Those 3 have been conspiring in secret to fatten my ass for the last 15 years. Nothing new.
You've given examples but not addressed the point, why is sex more censor-worthy than violence? Simply because of some subjective definition of "Art"?
So lets take your art claim and run with it:
Exposing a child to violent dismemberment is ok so long as you're telling a great story in the process?
But letting them see 2 people having sex is *worse* because you didn't also show all the time spent courting the woman, taking her out to eat, getting a loan for a car, buying a house and paying bills?
We already do the same thing for porn, you have to be 18 to buy it. If someone wants to argue seriously that violence isn't as harmful as depictions of sex, and therefor doesn't require an age limit, i'm all ears.
Until then, this law is actually a step in a less hypocritical direction, albeit an even more ridiculous one since limiting access to information based on content is both more offensive and more dangerous than anything a teenager could see in a video game.
Your comparison doesn't make much sense. Try something with a car instead.
Ohhh sorry, can't mod yourself down. However we would also accept a pie in the face, glass of water dumped over the head, or the popular "stand on the kitchen table and try to do a backflip".
Did you have fun playing?
Nah, we should level an American city that isn't being useful anymore and build a waterpark. For future reference, this is the same solution I have proposed to end the israeli-palestinian conflict.
No I don't have a newsletter.
Yes, because most of my systems don't have PCI slots. It would definitely be noticeable.
By which I mean the summary is in error.
That's what they want you to think.
in these recessionary times
*drink*
They didn't make their own JVM, it's HotSpot.
Apparently you can translate them though and they'll "run".
There are already full SIP apps in the market, you're saying Google is going to cripple their own Voice app to make carriers happy?
Interface builder is needed, i'm tired of trying to write UI's in relational XML.
What specification? All I see are a bunch of phones and iPods being sold that can video call each other. I see no specification that anyone else could follow even if they wanted to, even Google.
Linus will rise again?
I knew he was a god, no mortal could call the OpenBSD guys "Masturbating monkeys" and live to tell about it.
P.S.
Fuck.
Web sites aren't "channels". If we let them get away with turning the internet into another fucking channel lineup of large websites, all of humanity is fucked.
And yet, they're engaged in interstate commerce, unlike most individuals. Puts them in a bit of a different situation.
It's very easy to fall in love with this stuff once you're on it.
I said the same thing about coke in the 70's....
I guess what i'm saying is, no one loan money to AOL until they admit they have a problem.
An "above-board" market for exploits?
Who exactly is planning on buying these things and NOT planning to do something illegal with them?
And 101010 is binary for 42...
And if you add 4+2 you get 6........
How many years has Ubuntu been around? 6. Not a coincidence people.