What are you, Superman? Or have you simply never seen anyone swim?
In the real world, accelerating up to speed, without anything to push off, while swimming can take five to ten seconds. Water is fairly hard to build up momentum in. And recovering from jumping into water can take another three seconds.
As opposed to taking a running dive and already being twenty feet out three seconds later.
You have to yield to all pedestrians in crosswalks (Or, sometimes, only in your lane of the crosswalk, which makes more sense.) Even if they're there illegally.
However, just because you are legally required to yield to them does not mean you will be found legally liable if they leap into the crosswalk in front you and you hit them. They may have technically entered the crosswalk half a second before you hit them, and thus technically you were required to yield to them, but the law does, in fact, recognize the laws of physics and biology and understand that you could not stop in time.
Don't go around trying to make laws say something other than they do. Laws do not decide the guilt of people, courts do, and courts know a lot more than the law. All traffic laws have an implicit '...assuming such actions are physically possible.'.
He wasn't cited, or he wasn't caught? There's a rather large difference. I can't imagine anyone involved in a death while violating a traffic law wouldn't be in trouble.
Yeah, smoking is one of those things that, I'm sorry, I can't get behind any more regulation of.
It's one thing to ban smoking indoors, even in bars and stuff. There is a health issue there, not only for the patrons, but for the workers. OSHA wouldn't let people work in tobacco smoke if that stuff were being produced by the AC unit or stove, but somehow it's okay if it's produced by people? Um, no. So I was for banning it in bars and such. (Although you're right that ventilation systems exist, it seemed that no one actually had them or ran them correctly. Especially in the weirdly-shaped hole-in-the-wall buildings many bars are in. If we actually had required air-quality tests, it would be one thing, but we don't.)
And then...they made people move away from the door. Well, that just seemed a bit cruel for me. I'm sorry, if you think you can get cancer from waking past a smoker outside and smelling them, you're a fool. Smoke, I must point out, goes up. The smell isn't the smoke. You're probably more likely to break your neck because you roll a CRITICAL FAIL walking through a revolving door than get cancer standing five feet away from smoker outdoors for 12 hours a day for 20 years.
And, yeah, people have allergies, but they're more likely to be allergic to perfume, and I don't see anyone banning that.
And now they have to move even father away, or not smoke on the grounds at all, like at hospitals, and it's fairly obviously it's stopped being about stopping the actual dangers of living in tobacco smoke for several hours a day continually, and is now some sort of personal attack on smokers.
I don't smoke. I dislike smoking. I will never smoke. I'm of the opinion that tobacco companies should be nationalized and operated solely as a maintenance operation for existing addicts, with no ads or even branding allowed. They should come in a little white box with information about how to quit printed on it.
But smokers aren't criminals, and abusing them because they're 'stupid' is just malicious.
At least you're thinking about the problem, although apparently you missed the fact that, with just a sales tax, the rich would just suck money out of the economy by living elsewhere. (And they don't bother to do anything as crass as 'buy' things.) And it wouldn't do a thing to change that our cost of living is higher than other countries, so it's still cheaper to make the stuff over there.
Incidentally, there is no way in hell that the paperwork to manage a national sales tax would be cheaper than the paperwork to manage a simple national income tax. The fact our system is not simple is almost entirely the fault of the people pushing a fucking national sales tax, as part of their efforts to avoid all taxes.
In fact, if you want simple, how about an asset tax? Tax the ownership of stocks, bonds, real estate, cars, and airplanes owned by people, and just that. All those things have to be registered with the government anyway, so there's no enforcement needed at all. You'll notice none of the 'simplify tax laws' rich asshats ever suggest anything like that, despite the fact all those things are already subject to nominal taxes, at least at the state level, and it would be insanely easy to put in some sort of added collection and forwarding by the states.
That's because their goal isn't 'simplification', their goal is 'not paying taxes'. Stop buying it. A sales tax is a horrible concept to start with, it's automatically regressive, so much so that you have to rig it to even make it palatable at all, and results no discouragement for hoarding behavior.
Meanwhile, the only way to stop the idiocy of the WTO is to withdraw from the WTO and implement tariffs on imported goods, like we should have had for the last 100 fucking years, and moreover implement labor tariffs, where using labor outside the country for services inside the country also costs money.
'Free trade' is the biggest scam ever. It's fine in general between economic equals, like the US and Canada and the EU, although each specific category should be hammered out individually. But it's a horrible horrible idea between countries with different standards of living.
You know, you really are a complete fucking moron, aren't you? Not only are you a neocon supporter, you apparently think it's unconstitutional for copyright law to exist.
No one is even vaguely arguing that, you idiot. The WTO is stupid to belong to, it is not in the least bit useful, but no one, in the entire history of this country, actually thinks it's unconstitutional, especially not the IP protection parts of it.
And, incidentally, the US isn't turning 'court rulings' or 'constitutionality' over to anyone. The treaty administrators said that to comply with the treaty the legislature has to pass specific laws. Laws that are, in fact, constitutional. There's no 'constitutional' question there at all. If the US doesn't like those requirements they can leave the WTO.
What they are doing, however, is ignoring said treaty requirements when they apply to them, but staying in the treaty and demanding that other countries follow those requirements.
But that's just the kind of person you are. Find something that the government is doing, and just invent a reason that it could possibly be legal, despite that fact that absolutely no one, not even the defenders of that decision, thinks that is slightly a useful argument. You're like 'anti-talking points' man, where instead of repeating the made-up reasons why what is going on is Good(TM), you just make up reasons that no one else thinks is slightly plausible.
Other people's converations:
Everyone else: Bush walked and punched me in the face.
Administration defenders: He suspected you're a terrorist, and he's entitled to do that under the Military Commissions Act of 2006
Everyone else: That's fucking insane.
Administration defenders: Look, here's some part of the law that could be twisted to mean that.
Everyone else: No, it can't.
Administration defenders: Yes it can, to infinite!
Conversation with you:
Everyone else: Bush walked and punched me in the face.
You: He probably thought you were Catholic and was just enforcing the Treaty of Osnabrück of 1648.
Everyone else:...what? Huh?
Exactly. There are too many responders who took 'National Security' seriously.
'National Security' does not exist. There is no such thing in the constitution. The branch in charge of the 'National Defence' is the legislative branch, not the executive.
Almost all actual child porn commercial activity, and there is a hell of a lot less than the FBI likes to pretend, happens in person.
Think about this. The entire concept isn't just something that's illegal because of laws against possession. If you are the original child pornographer, you are selling evidence of you abusing a child. Once the authorities identify you, it's trivial for them to identify the child, and forget being charged with 'child porn', you're going away for repeated sexual assault, which you've handily documented for them. Or, alternately, once the authorities identify the child, finding you is easy.
Almost no child porn is 'deliberate abuse of a child for profit', simply because of how fucking dangerous that is to attempt to unload.
Almost all pictures of 14-17 year-old photographs are probably 'accidentally illegal', either done by the person themselves or someone in a (legal or misdemeanor) relationship with them, someone who'd have less punishment for sex with that person than taking pictures of them. Or from another country, or from before whenever child porn became illegal.
The rest, the photographs and videos of actual child abuse, are pedophiles who record their own activity, and share it with some close friends, who then share it with more, and eventually it ends up with someone who sticks it on DVD and sells it. The original abusers don't do it for money.
Oh, and almost all 'child porn' on Usenet is not actually child porn, it's legal porn pretending to be child porn. Posting child porn publically like that would be insanely stupid, especially as all Usenet services track IP. (Although the commercial ones often don't post them, they still know them.)
Indeed. Who is more likely to repeat their crime and harm someone else, an 18 year-old that:
a) Resorted to violence because he didn't like how a 12 year-old look at him.
b) Took naked pictures of his entirely-legal-to-have-sex-with 17 year-old girlfriend.
c) Streaked as a political protest.
Two of those we stick on a list and keep away from children their entire life. (Oh, yes, you can be a 'sex offender' for 'flashing', and that's what streaking is.) It's fucking stupid.
But try telling people the 'offender' lists are made up of a bunch of people who are not pedophiles. Many of them did things that probably shouldn't be illegal or just misdemeanors, and many more did things that, while we want them to be illegal, there's absolutely no reason to assume they indicate any danger to children.
There doesn't need to be such term. Being attracted to sexually mature people under the age of consent is not any sort of psychological problem. Especially since that differs from state to state.
Or do you think a 19 year-old being attracted to a 16 year-old in my state is perfectly normal, because it's legal for them to have sex with them, but if those same two people moved to Oregon it's some sort of crazy perversion that needs a scientific name? (Maybe we should have a name for the compulsions to illegally turn right on red, while we're at it.)
psychological issues != laws != morality
Being attracted to people who have hit puberty is normal, being attracted to people who have not is not, and the later is a pedophile.
Having sex with people who have hit the age of consent is legal, having sex with people who have not is not, and the later is child molestation or statutory rape.
Those two things are not the same.
...and as for morality, society takes a very dim view of adults who are authority figures having sex with younger people under their authority (Like teachers and students, even non-underages students), or adults who manipulate younger people into sex by taking advantage of their naivety. (Like college students who prey on legal high school girls.) In some circumstances the adult can get punished for this (The authority holders, at least, tend to lose their jobs.), but usually not by the legal system.
Unless they're using Fasterfox, or any of the dozen commercial 'accelerators' that do prefetching on all links, not just the ones marked. (Which incidentally is a slight abuse of the internet, but obviously not one that should result in jail time.)
Desktop antivirus doesn't do this, but there are commercial firewall appliances that do, indeed, watch HTTP streams and scan them. Or block known malicious URLs.
Although it's somewhat mind-blowing they don't watch FTP ones also, considering they already have to watch the FTP control channel to support FTP's braindead reverse connections.
Ah, yes, everyone's lying to and about poor little keineobachtubersie. Here only two week and already the subject of a giant slashdot-spanning conspiracy to, apparently, lie about random shit. Or at least use figures of speech that he or she can't understand. (Remember, folks, I'm 'lying' because I said government provided services were free. Quibbling about the definition of 'free' is one thing, standing there and saying 'You're a proven liar' is another, quite delusional, thing.)
Anyway, keineobachtubersie, you are aware that people can see that I'm a subscriber, have been here eight years, have posted over 6000 comments, have a displayed email address, and get to post with a karma bonus, right? And that you're a freeloader, have posted under 200, no email address, and probably don't have a karma bonus? And let me guess...you had to get a new account because your last one ended up with no karma, right? Because posting that many in your first two weeks really sorta looks like you've been here a while and are just using disposable accounts, when one get karma-crippled you switch to another.
And also people can read your past comments, at least the ones you've posted on your current account, where you're an ass.
You apparently think that because we're both apparently pseudonymous (Although my real name is actually David T. C., as you can see if you follow my homepage URL and as I've mentioned before.) that our reputations are valued equally.
Well, I'm not particularly know for just making things up. Someone did, indeed, send an email to my spamgourmet account, the one displaying here on slashdot, from the account keineobachtubersie@gmail.com. (Ironically, my spamgourmet account forwards back to a gmail account.)
Relevant headers:
Received: (from jqh1@localhost) by gourmet.spamgourmet.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m271HZd2031174 for REDACTED@gmail.com; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 01:17:35 GMT
Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com (rn-out-0910.google.com [64.233.170.184]) by gourmet.spamgourmet.com (8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m271HYbX031132 for <slforri.vadiv.vadiv@neverbox.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 01:17:34 GMT
Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a43so335533rne.10 for <slforri.vadiv.vadiv@neverbox.com>; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:17:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.141.43.5 with SMTP id v5mr277825rvj.49.1204846858399; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:40:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.188.11 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:40:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e763485f0803061540y468cf3bdiebee3cb37f2355a7@mail.gmail.com>
Of course, there's no hope at all for you to admit you sent that, but, hey, I'm not posting this for you, I'm posting it so other people know what's going on.
I thought I'd share since you're a pathetic hit and run fuck, I corrected your reply to me because you said something incorrect, as well as being a douchebag.
The incorrect part you can fix, the douchebag part, well...
At any rate, I thought I'd let you know because it's fun to tell cunts like you off and then spam filter their loser asses.
I win.
I was just ignoring him until he replied to me again, but now I decided to make a record of it. The address he used was: keineobachtubersie@gmail.com
Basically deletionists view with bad eyes everything that is fiction related, and dismiss it.
Good. If someone wants to start a 'fictionpedia' they should go right ahead, but it's actually a little embarrassing when there's more written about Scooby-Doo than the Napoleonic Wars.
WRT to Star Wars, it's one thing to talk about the release dates, and the actors and characters, and have a plot summary, but honest to God there was almost as much in there about that 'universe' as this one last I looked.
The first rule of Usenet is that we don't talk about Usenet in public forums. It's okay to tell your friends and set it up for them, but for God's sake don't go around blabbing about it.
If anyone here wants to know what Usenet is, search on google and look for 'More/Groups'. It's just a bunch of text newsgroups. There's not any sort of humongous binary trading going on on it. You can't get movies or music or TV shows on it, they don't show up sooner than they show up on torrents, and you certainly don't download at full speed instead of having to download piece-by-piece from other people.
No sirree, that doesn't exist at all. It's just a bunch of people talking about Veronica Mars. (Or whatever the hot new show is...Torchwood maybe?)
perhaps you really should exit this conversation before you look like even more of an idiot.
And now it's too late for you to not look like an idiot, but I trust I've made my point.
And here. You'll notice that except for Luxumberg (Which it is populated almost entirely by rich transients and the 'health care' there is half facelifts.), the next most expensive places, Norway and Switzerland are at 2/3 our per capita cost, and there's Austria at slightly above half, and then all the others are at or below half.
Considering that this is one of the most repeated facts when discussing health care in this country, you are either a) a troll pretending not to know it, or b) a fucking moron who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a discussion of health care.
I'd like everyone to do an experiment who believes this idiot. Call up a health insurance company, one that advertises. Don't give them your name, but tell them immediately that you have a pacemaker, and ask if you can get insurance.
Exactly, and some people here, and the courts, need this pounded into their head.
All traffic on the internet is consensual bi-directional. A computer asks another computer to do something, and the second computer does it.
There are only two ways to actually crack machines and get something you shouldn't. 1) Lying about who you are to the other computer, aka, using stolen or guessed accounts and passwords. 2) Sending badly formed data that causes the other computer to make mistakes. Those two things should be, and are, illegal, along with deliberately overloading a computer or network.
Anything else should be, and must be for the internet to work, entirely legal. We cannot be required to 'ask permission', or, rather, we are already required to ask permission, using our damn computers to ask their computers! That's how we get permission, we don't need some sort of extra level of permission.
This is why every single real world analogy breaks. If this was a trespassing analogy, it would be one where every single square yard of the ground was painted with either a 'no trespassing' or 'enter at will' message. And there were a bunch of idiots claiming that there were people trespassing on ground that was painted 'enter at will', because they're too damn stupid to repaint, or only painted a few squares near the door and didn't expect people to wander in from the side.
I'm sorry that technical ineptness on the part of many companies and people has caused them to set their computer computers where the computer will wrongly agree to do things, but, really, tough shit. Even the crappiest password protection will keep most people out and turn the remainder into actual criminals.
Incidentally, Coke's recipe is a trade secret, not a copyright. (You can't copyright recipes anyway.) Trade secrets are only protected from theft and NDA violations. If a company just hands it out willy-nilly, they can't claim any damages if people use it. So if you discovered Coke's recipe like that, aka, legally, you could bottle it and sell it all you want. (Except you couldn't, as part of the ingredients are de-cocained coca leaves and only one plant in the US can legally make them and they're in bed with Coke.)
It'd be one thing if this was private information. If I found out I could view students grades at some school by changing URLs, that's somewhat unethical, just like sitting in a public tree and staring into people's bedrooms is unethical.
But watching something that's provided for others? Hell no. Didn't various baseball stadiums have the 'problem' that you could watch them from nearby rooftops? Didn't they sue and lose?
If you don't know the relative amounts different countries spend on health care per capita, perhaps you really should exit this conversation before you look like even more of an idiot.
The US, to get you started, spends approximately twice as much on health care as every other country in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you, Superman? Or have you simply never seen anyone swim?
In the real world, accelerating up to speed, without anything to push off, while swimming can take five to ten seconds. Water is fairly hard to build up momentum in. And recovering from jumping into water can take another three seconds.
As opposed to taking a running dive and already being twenty feet out three seconds later.
And, yes, a few seconds can make a difference.
You have to yield to all pedestrians in crosswalks (Or, sometimes, only in your lane of the crosswalk, which makes more sense.) Even if they're there illegally.
However, just because you are legally required to yield to them does not mean you will be found legally liable if they leap into the crosswalk in front you and you hit them. They may have technically entered the crosswalk half a second before you hit them, and thus technically you were required to yield to them, but the law does, in fact, recognize the laws of physics and biology and understand that you could not stop in time.
Don't go around trying to make laws say something other than they do. Laws do not decide the guilt of people, courts do, and courts know a lot more than the law. All traffic laws have an implicit '...assuming such actions are physically possible.'.
He wasn't cited, or he wasn't caught? There's a rather large difference. I can't imagine anyone involved in a death while violating a traffic law wouldn't be in trouble.
Yeah, smoking is one of those things that, I'm sorry, I can't get behind any more regulation of.
It's one thing to ban smoking indoors, even in bars and stuff. There is a health issue there, not only for the patrons, but for the workers. OSHA wouldn't let people work in tobacco smoke if that stuff were being produced by the AC unit or stove, but somehow it's okay if it's produced by people? Um, no. So I was for banning it in bars and such. (Although you're right that ventilation systems exist, it seemed that no one actually had them or ran them correctly. Especially in the weirdly-shaped hole-in-the-wall buildings many bars are in. If we actually had required air-quality tests, it would be one thing, but we don't.)
And then...they made people move away from the door. Well, that just seemed a bit cruel for me. I'm sorry, if you think you can get cancer from waking past a smoker outside and smelling them, you're a fool. Smoke, I must point out, goes up. The smell isn't the smoke. You're probably more likely to break your neck because you roll a CRITICAL FAIL walking through a revolving door than get cancer standing five feet away from smoker outdoors for 12 hours a day for 20 years.
And, yeah, people have allergies, but they're more likely to be allergic to perfume, and I don't see anyone banning that.
And now they have to move even father away, or not smoke on the grounds at all, like at hospitals, and it's fairly obviously it's stopped being about stopping the actual dangers of living in tobacco smoke for several hours a day continually, and is now some sort of personal attack on smokers.
I don't smoke. I dislike smoking. I will never smoke. I'm of the opinion that tobacco companies should be nationalized and operated solely as a maintenance operation for existing addicts, with no ads or even branding allowed. They should come in a little white box with information about how to quit printed on it.
But smokers aren't criminals, and abusing them because they're 'stupid' is just malicious.
At least you're thinking about the problem, although apparently you missed the fact that, with just a sales tax, the rich would just suck money out of the economy by living elsewhere. (And they don't bother to do anything as crass as 'buy' things.) And it wouldn't do a thing to change that our cost of living is higher than other countries, so it's still cheaper to make the stuff over there.
Incidentally, there is no way in hell that the paperwork to manage a national sales tax would be cheaper than the paperwork to manage a simple national income tax. The fact our system is not simple is almost entirely the fault of the people pushing a fucking national sales tax, as part of their efforts to avoid all taxes.
In fact, if you want simple, how about an asset tax? Tax the ownership of stocks, bonds, real estate, cars, and airplanes owned by people, and just that. All those things have to be registered with the government anyway, so there's no enforcement needed at all. You'll notice none of the 'simplify tax laws' rich asshats ever suggest anything like that, despite the fact all those things are already subject to nominal taxes, at least at the state level, and it would be insanely easy to put in some sort of added collection and forwarding by the states.
That's because their goal isn't 'simplification', their goal is 'not paying taxes'. Stop buying it. A sales tax is a horrible concept to start with, it's automatically regressive, so much so that you have to rig it to even make it palatable at all, and results no discouragement for hoarding behavior.
Meanwhile, the only way to stop the idiocy of the WTO is to withdraw from the WTO and implement tariffs on imported goods, like we should have had for the last 100 fucking years, and moreover implement labor tariffs, where using labor outside the country for services inside the country also costs money.
'Free trade' is the biggest scam ever. It's fine in general between economic equals, like the US and Canada and the EU, although each specific category should be hammered out individually. But it's a horrible horrible idea between countries with different standards of living.
You know, you really are a complete fucking moron, aren't you? Not only are you a neocon supporter, you apparently think it's unconstitutional for copyright law to exist.
No one is even vaguely arguing that, you idiot. The WTO is stupid to belong to, it is not in the least bit useful, but no one, in the entire history of this country, actually thinks it's unconstitutional, especially not the IP protection parts of it.
And, incidentally, the US isn't turning 'court rulings' or 'constitutionality' over to anyone. The treaty administrators said that to comply with the treaty the legislature has to pass specific laws. Laws that are, in fact, constitutional. There's no 'constitutional' question there at all. If the US doesn't like those requirements they can leave the WTO.
What they are doing, however, is ignoring said treaty requirements when they apply to them, but staying in the treaty and demanding that other countries follow those requirements.
But that's just the kind of person you are. Find something that the government is doing, and just invent a reason that it could possibly be legal, despite that fact that absolutely no one, not even the defenders of that decision, thinks that is slightly a useful argument. You're like 'anti-talking points' man, where instead of repeating the made-up reasons why what is going on is Good(TM), you just make up reasons that no one else thinks is slightly plausible.
Other people's converations:
Everyone else: Bush walked and punched me in the face.
Administration defenders: He suspected you're a terrorist, and he's entitled to do that under the Military Commissions Act of 2006
Everyone else: That's fucking insane.
Administration defenders: Look, here's some part of the law that could be twisted to mean that.
Everyone else: No, it can't.
Administration defenders: Yes it can, to infinite!
Conversation with you: ...what? Huh?
Everyone else: Bush walked and punched me in the face.
You: He probably thought you were Catholic and was just enforcing the Treaty of Osnabrück of 1648.
Everyone else:
Exactly. There are too many responders who took 'National Security' seriously.
'National Security' does not exist. There is no such thing in the constitution. The branch in charge of the 'National Defence' is the legislative branch, not the executive.
Almost all actual child porn commercial activity, and there is a hell of a lot less than the FBI likes to pretend, happens in person.
Think about this. The entire concept isn't just something that's illegal because of laws against possession. If you are the original child pornographer, you are selling evidence of you abusing a child. Once the authorities identify you, it's trivial for them to identify the child, and forget being charged with 'child porn', you're going away for repeated sexual assault, which you've handily documented for them. Or, alternately, once the authorities identify the child, finding you is easy.
Almost no child porn is 'deliberate abuse of a child for profit', simply because of how fucking dangerous that is to attempt to unload.
Almost all pictures of 14-17 year-old photographs are probably 'accidentally illegal', either done by the person themselves or someone in a (legal or misdemeanor) relationship with them, someone who'd have less punishment for sex with that person than taking pictures of them. Or from another country, or from before whenever child porn became illegal.
The rest, the photographs and videos of actual child abuse, are pedophiles who record their own activity, and share it with some close friends, who then share it with more, and eventually it ends up with someone who sticks it on DVD and sells it. The original abusers don't do it for money.
Oh, and almost all 'child porn' on Usenet is not actually child porn, it's legal porn pretending to be child porn. Posting child porn publically like that would be insanely stupid, especially as all Usenet services track IP. (Although the commercial ones often don't post them, they still know them.)
Indeed. Who is more likely to repeat their crime and harm someone else, an 18 year-old that:
a) Resorted to violence because he didn't like how a 12 year-old look at him.
b) Took naked pictures of his entirely-legal-to-have-sex-with 17 year-old girlfriend.
c) Streaked as a political protest.
Two of those we stick on a list and keep away from children their entire life. (Oh, yes, you can be a 'sex offender' for 'flashing', and that's what streaking is.) It's fucking stupid.
But try telling people the 'offender' lists are made up of a bunch of people who are not pedophiles. Many of them did things that probably shouldn't be illegal or just misdemeanors, and many more did things that, while we want them to be illegal, there's absolutely no reason to assume they indicate any danger to children.
I'm fairly fucking suspicious that someone can determine that people in a poorly-generated 75x75 thumbnails is 'underaged' in the first place.
And people end up sending thumbs.db all the time to other people, mostly by accident in compressed files.
There doesn't need to be such term. Being attracted to sexually mature people under the age of consent is not any sort of psychological problem. Especially since that differs from state to state.
Or do you think a 19 year-old being attracted to a 16 year-old in my state is perfectly normal, because it's legal for them to have sex with them, but if those same two people moved to Oregon it's some sort of crazy perversion that needs a scientific name? (Maybe we should have a name for the compulsions to illegally turn right on red, while we're at it.)
psychological issues != laws != morality
Being attracted to people who have hit puberty is normal, being attracted to people who have not is not, and the later is a pedophile.
Having sex with people who have hit the age of consent is legal, having sex with people who have not is not, and the later is child molestation or statutory rape.
Those two things are not the same.
Unless they're using Fasterfox, or any of the dozen commercial 'accelerators' that do prefetching on all links, not just the ones marked. (Which incidentally is a slight abuse of the internet, but obviously not one that should result in jail time.)
That's the point. It's IPv6 only:
$ dig ipv6.google.com aaaa
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;ipv6.google.com. IN AAAA
;; ANSWER SECTION:
ipv6.google.com. 10792 IN CNAME ipv6.l.google.com.
ipv6.l.google.com. 5 IN AAAA 2001:4860:0:2001::68
ipv6.l.google.com. 5 IN AAAA 2001:4860:0:1001::68
If you cooperate in a way that is specifically illegal, um, yeah, you should expect to be sued.
Desktop antivirus doesn't do this, but there are commercial firewall appliances that do, indeed, watch HTTP streams and scan them. Or block known malicious URLs.
Although it's somewhat mind-blowing they don't watch FTP ones also, considering they already have to watch the FTP control channel to support FTP's braindead reverse connections.
Ah, yes, everyone's lying to and about poor little keineobachtubersie. Here only two week and already the subject of a giant slashdot-spanning conspiracy to, apparently, lie about random shit. Or at least use figures of speech that he or she can't understand. (Remember, folks, I'm 'lying' because I said government provided services were free. Quibbling about the definition of 'free' is one thing, standing there and saying 'You're a proven liar' is another, quite delusional, thing.)
Anyway, keineobachtubersie, you are aware that people can see that I'm a subscriber, have been here eight years, have posted over 6000 comments, have a displayed email address, and get to post with a karma bonus, right? And that you're a freeloader, have posted under 200, no email address, and probably don't have a karma bonus? And let me guess...you had to get a new account because your last one ended up with no karma, right? Because posting that many in your first two weeks really sorta looks like you've been here a while and are just using disposable accounts, when one get karma-crippled you switch to another.
And also people can read your past comments, at least the ones you've posted on your current account, where you're an ass.
You apparently think that because we're both apparently pseudonymous (Although my real name is actually David T. C., as you can see if you follow my homepage URL and as I've mentioned before.) that our reputations are valued equally.
Well, I'm not particularly know for just making things up. Someone did, indeed, send an email to my spamgourmet account, the one displaying here on slashdot, from the account keineobachtubersie@gmail.com. (Ironically, my spamgourmet account forwards back to a gmail account.)
Relevant headers:
Received: (from jqh1@localhost) by gourmet.spamgourmet.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m271HZd2031174 for REDACTED@gmail.com; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 01:17:35 GMT
Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com (rn-out-0910.google.com [64.233.170.184]) by gourmet.spamgourmet.com (8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m271HYbX031132 for <slforri.vadiv.vadiv@neverbox.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 01:17:34 GMT
Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a43so335533rne.10 for <slforri.vadiv.vadiv@neverbox.com>; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:17:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.141.43.5 with SMTP id v5mr277825rvj.49.1204846858399; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:40:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.188.11 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:40:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e763485f0803061540y468cf3bdiebee3cb37f2355a7@mail.gmail.com>
Of course, there's no hope at all for you to admit you sent that, but, hey, I'm not posting this for you, I'm posting it so other people know what's going on.
This guy sent me an email four days ago. Just to show you the quality of thought we're dealing with.
This guy sent me this email four days ago:
I thought I'd share since you're a pathetic hit and run fuck, I corrected your reply to me because you said something incorrect, as well as being a douchebag.
The incorrect part you can fix, the douchebag part, well...
At any rate, I thought I'd let you know because it's fun to tell cunts like you off and then spam filter their loser asses.
I win.
I was just ignoring him until he replied to me again, but now I decided to make a record of it. The address he used was: keineobachtubersie@gmail.com
Basically deletionists view with bad eyes everything that is fiction related, and dismiss it.
Good. If someone wants to start a 'fictionpedia' they should go right ahead, but it's actually a little embarrassing when there's more written about Scooby-Doo than the Napoleonic Wars.
WRT to Star Wars, it's one thing to talk about the release dates, and the actors and characters, and have a plot summary, but honest to God there was almost as much in there about that 'universe' as this one last I looked.
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
The first rule of Usenet is that we don't talk about Usenet in public forums. It's okay to tell your friends and set it up for them, but for God's sake don't go around blabbing about it.
If anyone here wants to know what Usenet is, search on google and look for 'More/Groups'. It's just a bunch of text newsgroups. There's not any sort of humongous binary trading going on on it. You can't get movies or music or TV shows on it, they don't show up sooner than they show up on torrents, and you certainly don't download at full speed instead of having to download piece-by-piece from other people.
No sirree, that doesn't exist at all. It's just a bunch of people talking about Veronica Mars. (Or whatever the hot new show is...Torchwood maybe?)
perhaps you really should exit this conversation before you look like even more of an idiot.
And now it's too late for you to not look like an idiot, but I trust I've made my point.
And here. You'll notice that except for Luxumberg (Which it is populated almost entirely by rich transients and the 'health care' there is half facelifts.), the next most expensive places, Norway and Switzerland are at 2/3 our per capita cost, and there's Austria at slightly above half, and then all the others are at or below half.
Considering that this is one of the most repeated facts when discussing health care in this country, you are either a) a troll pretending not to know it, or b) a fucking moron who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a discussion of health care.
I'd like everyone to do an experiment who believes this idiot. Call up a health insurance company, one that advertises. Don't give them your name, but tell them immediately that you have a pacemaker, and ask if you can get insurance.
Exactly, and some people here, and the courts, need this pounded into their head.
All traffic on the internet is consensual bi-directional. A computer asks another computer to do something, and the second computer does it.
There are only two ways to actually crack machines and get something you shouldn't. 1) Lying about who you are to the other computer, aka, using stolen or guessed accounts and passwords. 2) Sending badly formed data that causes the other computer to make mistakes. Those two things should be, and are, illegal, along with deliberately overloading a computer or network.
Anything else should be, and must be for the internet to work, entirely legal. We cannot be required to 'ask permission', or, rather, we are already required to ask permission, using our damn computers to ask their computers! That's how we get permission, we don't need some sort of extra level of permission.
This is why every single real world analogy breaks. If this was a trespassing analogy, it would be one where every single square yard of the ground was painted with either a 'no trespassing' or 'enter at will' message. And there were a bunch of idiots claiming that there were people trespassing on ground that was painted 'enter at will', because they're too damn stupid to repaint, or only painted a few squares near the door and didn't expect people to wander in from the side.
I'm sorry that technical ineptness on the part of many companies and people has caused them to set their computer computers where the computer will wrongly agree to do things, but, really, tough shit. Even the crappiest password protection will keep most people out and turn the remainder into actual criminals.
Incidentally, Coke's recipe is a trade secret, not a copyright. (You can't copyright recipes anyway.) Trade secrets are only protected from theft and NDA violations. If a company just hands it out willy-nilly, they can't claim any damages if people use it. So if you discovered Coke's recipe like that, aka, legally, you could bottle it and sell it all you want. (Except you couldn't, as part of the ingredients are de-cocained coca leaves and only one plant in the US can legally make them and they're in bed with Coke.)
Exactly.
It'd be one thing if this was private information. If I found out I could view students grades at some school by changing URLs, that's somewhat unethical, just like sitting in a public tree and staring into people's bedrooms is unethical.
But watching something that's provided for others? Hell no. Didn't various baseball stadiums have the 'problem' that you could watch them from nearby rooftops? Didn't they sue and lose?
If you don't know the relative amounts different countries spend on health care per capita, perhaps you really should exit this conversation before you look like even more of an idiot.
The US, to get you started, spends approximately twice as much on health care as every other country in the world.