It's a case where the people who wrote the law had an intention: to make it illegal to sexually solicit a minor across the internet.
...seriously. The last guy I discussed lay legalisms with gave a "you can rape kids, as long as you're straight" defense into their statement. You avoided the obvious idiocy.
However, if you don't mind, I think I see one little flaw in your argumentation...
Along comes this case, about a guy who unquestionably solicited sex with a minor, but ooops, technicality, he can't be prosecuted because he didn't use "email".
See......he can't be prosecuted for using email because he didn't use email.
He can still be prosecuted for soliciting sex with a minor if he solicited sex with a minor....that's the key difference in the rule of law, here.
Now, Florida has a whacky definition of email which includes unseen contents in the packet header, among several other problems, which makes this a little bit more legal than it should be...
Were that not the case, however - I'd consider "he cannot be prosecuted for using email because he didn't use email" to be extremely vital to the legal system, myself. It's sort of like "menacing with a firearm without a firearm," or "murder without killing anybody," or the like....wouldn't want that...
Initial disclaimer : I do not intend to produce nor claim a legal degree over the internet, and nothing in this post should be taken as legal advice. By reading this post, you agree to absolve the author of all liabilities or claims arising from any situation....now, let the fun begin.
...the law was intended to address the problem of paedophiles soliciting minors for sex over the internet.
So... it is your intent, then, to support the sexual assault of minors by non-pedophiles?
Before you (or another) tries to argue that it isn't possible, look up a definition... let alone orientation/assault demographics on the subject......and this line is one good illustration of why manufacturing a "spirit" of badly-written laws is a really, really dumb idea.
If your sentence was codified into law, the "spirit" or "intent" would appear to be to adress the status of persons, and not specific actions. This would, quite immediately, lead to "I'm not a pedophile, I'm just some guy who raped a kid" as a fully legal defense to a law drafted on that statement....can you perhaps see, now, why it is much, much better to write, in very specific terms, "a person commits the crime of X if they undertake the action of Y," with very specific clarifiers, rather than just blurting out whatever comes to mind, and distorting the law all willy-nilly?...because if we used the "intent" you gave in interpreting the law, "I'm not queer - I'm just a rapo" would instantly become an airtight defense.
In my book, that's probably not a good thing. IMO, you handed up an ideal example of why precision is good - and intent is bad... because your stated intent was to attack queers, rather than outlaw solicitation, and that's a giant free pass to walk through should it ever become law.
That said?
Furthermore there already existed in Florida law a LEGAL (not technical) definition of email that encompassed any person-to-person electronic distribution of content. Why this is a controversial ruling here I don't know.
Mostly, in past messages, because people didn't look up the highly-flawed definition of email, which led to the strong appearance of the judge throwing out the rule of law - which is bad, period.
A much, much, MUCH more interesting reason for it to be controversial, IMO, is that it makes being assigned the the IP 70.85.67.75 - as well as several hundred others - a criminal offense, which is a hint as to where, how, and why the original definition is fundamentally flawed in a legal, not a technical, sense.
Have fun figuring out why *that's* the law as written - but it is.;)
This is exactly the reason that people hate lawyers.
...the inverse is exactly why people hate governmental corruption.
A person has the god-damned right to look up "Is this illegal." Not "what would the reverend phelps say," not "would some bureaucratic official get pissy"......just "is this legal, yes or no."
The minute one cannot get an absolute yes-or-no answer simply by reading the law, one has abandoned the rule of law for abject tyranny, with no recourse to law whatsoever.
Does it produce undesireable results sometimes? Sure!
...but let me abandon concern for legality when deciding to confiscate your earthly posessions and execute you, and we'll see just how quickly you - and your lawyer - plead for a return to legality.
P.S. The nanotechnology hype is over. It has been for some time now. All nanotech products I've seen so far is an anti-fog, anti-rain spray for your cars widscreen. Just like the dot-com bubble it didn't live up to the high expectations that (mostly American) scientists created.
...and yet, neither programming nor factory automation stand quite fully "left behind in the mists of time."
You're right, though, in that it's (IMO) a very apt comparison - a very useful field being shat upon by hype injected by those unscrupulous souls outright-embezzling from whatever venture capitalist didn't have a clue what they were talking about - and ever since about 2-3 years ago with the media promotional influx, what people referred to as "nanotech" suddenly became "crap that didn't meet much of the criteria of nanotech."
...but, like the dot-com, that doesn't mean that nanotech is anywhere NEAR dead, far from it - just that the real thing is at risk of being hurt when a useless hype bubble finally pops.
There's this little problem with replication called "energy", and the laws of thermodynamics. Making order out of disorder requires energy to be expended. Exactly where is all the energy going to come from to turn everything into "grey goo"?
...as catalysts only catalyze exothermic reactions, these would be the (generally, the only) reactions utilized.
...if one presume "grey goo" as the stipulated endpoint, it would be a well-catalyzed "grey goo" of maximal disorder. If one drop the "grey goo" demand from the thought experiment, we end up with such charming uselessness as converting all nitrogen to ammonia (iron catalyst, I believe, in the presence of hydrogen)... or all carbon into carbon dioxide (say, potassium permanganate, possibly with a ketone catalyst to kick the last carboxylic stub)...
...but all in all, if grey goo there be, it would be a grey goo of increased entropy... much as nuclear reactions tend to drive anything toward the "grey goo" of iron.
...the exception is a photocatalyst, but I really doubt we'll break out the "intricate series of solar-powered nanolasers" until well after we've explored the more normative, exothermic machinations.
Nanotechnology (n) : the utilization of the techniques of manufacturing Really Good Drugs(tm) to implement the ideas you had while on those Really Good Drugs(tm).
...and three weeks of manic frenzy later, my molecules of crack cocaine had robotic arms.
If you'd like to know how to do this, it's pretty easy, actually.
Mine a random long-chain organic acid from, say, flax-seed oil.
Next, you need to put in more work than any chemist would want to do... form the amine of the first carbon (HCl + RCOOH -> (R-1)CClCOOH + NH3), the nitroalkane or carboxolic side-chain of the second, the amine of the third, etc...
...finally, halogenate the last carbon... if my vague memory serves, HS2Cl2 tends to show preference for halogenation of the terminal carbon of a carboxolic acid...
...and this is where the fun comes in. "Crack," e.g. freebase coke, is benzoic acid ecognovimide. You can do this with anything with a phenyl group (the benzene of benzoic acid), or use a different coupling mechanims...
...take two mols of your extremely-modified carboxolic acid with a halogen on the terminal carbon, one mol of your aromatic "body" of the beast, and a dash of a lewis acid catalyst, such as aluminum chloride...
...a bit of heat and stirring later, it'll have these long organic "arms" coming off the side, complete with carboxolic "claw" for the reversable "grabbing" of alkaline groups... and here's the best part...
...in distilled water, the nitrate and the amine groups will try (desperately) to salt with one another -distorting the bond angles and "contracting" the robotic arm... but in saline solution, it will be slightly more likely to "salt" with the electrolyte - extending or "relaxing" the robotic arm...
...and that, my friends, is how you make a series of crack-cocaine molecules with user-controllable robotic arms... or, any other organic group one wants to bind them to. For the really, really, REALLY bored - instead of binding to a phenyl group, you can just wash the end precursor in sodium hydroxide to form the terminal alcohol, and cook with H2SO4 to create long fibers of electrolyte-reactive polymer, which is far more useful, actually, than "robocrack"...
...and now you know some Really Important Things(tm), such as the fact that "(rti)" stands for "Random text inside"... or, that this is how those "burnout druggies" that your mom warned you not to become are ruling your world when they're not programming computers... or...
...nonetheless - I know how to make the "actual nanotech worthy to be afraid of," and it's not anything I posted in this thread. I feel the world would be a safer place if I posted simple nuclear instructions in easy-to-understand arabic, than if I started broadcasting the recipie, structure, or principles of the crap, which is why this is instead a complete recipie for electrolyte-reactive polymer fiber, which is "mostly harmless," and whose use is governed as far as I'm concerned wholly under the GPL.
Have fun in your basement, kiddies - though like the GPL says, ya do it at your own risk...
...and as a final random offtopic... the crap in the article doesn't count as nanotech in the average hobbyists book, either. It's a field driven by geekdom on the molecular-hacking level - and "making a fine precipitate" is downright boring (and archaic - dissolve salt, add alcohol)... and more importantly, does not have robotic arms, legs, sensors, or spaceguns which would really turn a geek on.
Now, if you'll pardon me - I, for one, welcome the challenge of designing our eventual nanorobotic overlords.;)
what would be better than a bomb that goes off and you breathe in particles that can easily penetrate your organs
...one of the non-globally-catastrophic ideas for nanowarfare was pretty simple; organ-targeted nuclear microweapons.
Step 1 : pick a molecule that binds to a specific receptor of localized nature; the CB1 cannabinoid receptor, for instance, is almost exclusively contained in the CNS, while the CB2 provides most of the body-side anandamide operations, I believe.
Step 2 : halogenate a random carbon. How do you do this? Boil it in chlorine, bromine, hydrochloric acid, what have one. Bonus points if it has something easily-substitutable, like an aromatic group (X2 + (FeX2 or AlX3), where "X" is any halogen) or a carboxyl group with a cute little beta carbon (HX + RCOOH)
Step 3 : rinse in a reduced metal whose nucleus is heavy enough to have a desireable half-life...
...and, thanks to the existance of a half-life, one is able to say that X amount of nuclei will detonate quite specifically in organ Y over timespan Z at any time for the life of the molecule.
Mind you - not only is this probably already heavily frowned upon by most international law, qualifying as both an unlawful chemical/pharmacological and a radiologically pollutant weapon designed to spread terror...
...but (aside from the ability to select one's target from a broader list) - it isn't all that new; from little boy and fat man in japan, radioisotopes of iodine have tended to concentrate, regretably, in the thyroid.
...this just adds the choice of nuking a specific brain region, or the gastrointestinal tract - or, grotesquely enough, one could even probably specifically target just any existant placenta, which is so horiffically against the laws of war that it canot be described - while leaving both the rest of the targeted body (gee, your own soldiers need transplants?) and the surrounding countryside intact.
...sick fuckin' shit, as is war, and already illegal... but, it is a bit better than one or two other toys theoretically existant...
...and, hey, it's not really that different from nerve gas in its lethality, though not as quick, usually. It just allows for organ-harvesting your enemy's forces fairly freely, as the organs not bound to are relatively unharmed and uncontaminated.
...nanotechnological engineering and nanorobotics - the real thing, damnit - is one of my hobbies......which makes all the bullshit surrounding it somewhere along the lines of "mothafukin' hilarious."
The first thing to keep in mind is that - due to the amount of hype being poured and finaced into this little bubble-about-to-burst-once-it-gets-its-financial-b ackers - most of what random talking heads call "nanotechnology" doesn't meet a hobbyist's minimal criteria....for example...
"We know from animal studies that very, very fine particles, particles with high surface area, lead to a greater inflammatory response than the same amount of larger particles."
Translation : "I chopped a line of meth a little finer than usual before coming out here, and it burned more."
See - precipitating a statistically-monomolecular crystal is an old, old chemists parlor trick, used mostly for either amusement - "yes, this small brooch has, statistically, exactly ONE molecule of sapphire under the plastic! Just one, not more, not less!"......or, as the author notes in his "meth-related burn" schtick - for faster absorbtion.
This is no more "1337 n4n0t3k" any more than "HTML-without-even-jscript" qualifies as "I r ur h4x0r g0d."
We also know that they can enter the lining of the lungs and get through to the blood and enter other organs.
Read : "After snorting finely-powdered meth, I then proceeded to vaporize a little crack."
Same principle. How the @#$^% do these people think this is "news??"
There is some evidence that nanoparticles can move into the brain along the olfactory nerve, so this is completely circumventing the blood-brain barrier."
...and in the DMT enthusiast's world, this is occasionally used to move a gigantic flippin crystal from the pouches above the upper lip, into the nerve, and into the brain - bypassing enzymatic processing in the liver...
Every single soluable molecule becomes a disassociate, monomolecular ion in solution. This is not new, this is not remarkable, this is X,000-BC technology.
From the amateur hobbyists perspective, it doesn't really count as nanotech until you engineer the flippin' machine one atom or so at a time, and intelligently at that.
The grad student's trick of designing a castle, or their initials, or whatever, in a giant freakin' molecular polycyclic structure?
Nanotech, albeit nonfunctional amusement.
"Dude, I chopped my coke 'till it was fluffy?"
Not nanotech.
Simple....and the ironic thing is, m'self and some dawgs I run with accidentally designed a nanorobotic warfare device that we promptly refused to synth. Brutal little things, the sort of grotesque atrocity which could not only destroy all organic life, but prevent any future reseeding of organic molecules for eternity. It actually has use in the nanorobotic card-top industrial factory, but... we sorta tabled it immediately. Not worth it.
...this speaker, however, hasn't even touched on the most basic of nanotechnology - yet.
~sigh~
Much like "herbal supplements," overfunded hype makes bullshit out of even the most interesting things.:(
How do you know that's actually her in the supposed voice clip?
...among other things, extended phone conversation. Or, for that matter, knowing her employer...
I hope the group discovers the truth about this girl--whether it be some 45 year old man or some innocent girl.
So... you DO claim to support the targeting of minors who have broken no law?
When I discuss my reasoning on something, you turn and call me a liar...
...probably because you, umm, made proveably fraudulent allegations as to the statements of others?
You do realize, I hope, that others can read these posts. They aren't fooled by your misrepresentations of what I say--because what I said is right above for them to read.
That is, quite honestly, my precise hope.
They'll be able to compare your assertion that she's talking about "being sexually abused and loved it" with "it did not even occur to me for a while that the thing at age five had been sexual. It just seemed uncomfortable and weird."
They'll be able to compare your waffling about targeting minors.
They'll be able to look at your going from "they shouldn't target minors who have committed no crime" to "Why are you so set on the fact that I care at all about this supposed 16 year old "girl" and his relationship with this group? I don't care..." - quite a bit of waffling there.
They'll be able to examine quite a few things, in fact.
And as for lawfulness--the law does not respect status--it is illegal to have child porn whether you are a twelve year old boy or a 45 year old woman.
I'm sorry, did you just accuse a teen girl who has committed no crime of trafficking in child pornography?
Can you point to some really hard evidence - like, say, a fucking conviction - or is this randomized shit-spewing just another case of being damn glad that everyone else can read the degree - often criminal, it seems - to which you lie out your ass when you have nothing to say?
or you are the pornogropher.
Can you provide evidence that I have manufactured one piece of child pornography?
I'm sure the FBI would love to hear it - and I say that with ease because your groundless allegations are utter bullshit....so, you see...
You do realize, I hope, that others can read these posts. They aren't fooled by your misrepresentations of what I say--because what I said is right above for them to read.
...it is your rabid tendancy to completely make up shit about other people when you have nothing to say which is exactly why I'm so damned glad that it's there in public for everyone to read.
Ja? Das ist klar? Gut...
Moving on to answer... the only substance I can find, and no, accusing random people of allegations of crime unfounded does not qualify as "substance," I'm afraid...
As for this 1.2 billion that did nothing illegal--then how'd you get this count?
1. Go back up a few pages.
2. Look for the link from ccoso.org
3. Multiply by 6.5 billion.
Of course, it's only most, not all, that have done nothing illegal - but the fact of "most" is evidencable by extrapolating what happens when 1 in 5 people is on a prosecuted crime spree. Didn't happen like that. Simple.
Also, I find it odd that you sympathize with her, the molested, and are so hateful of these groups who intend to catch adults.
:)
Instead of attacking the source of, perhaps, 90+% of all child sexual abuse in America, our "family-loving" government has spent fortunes on "good touch, bad touch" programs." So much easier to pretend th
Verizon would have had a much harder case telling another ISP that they don't like the customers they have... if they were only providing layer 2 connectivity between the ISP and and the customer I then agree that there is no legal right or worry for Verizon to disconnect the circuit...
By my understanding, that is exactly what happened, which leads into...
Now that you bring up the point that it was through a hosting ISP, I really don't get the point that this somehow put them out of business, when there are millions of hosting ISP in the world that they could have very quickly and easily moved the site to. I have at least 3 hosting ISPs that I use, and it usually only takes 72 hours of DNS propagation to move a site, not counting any administrative issues from the NIC
So either I am missing something here or they either were to dumb to know they could host elsewhere or they couldn't find anyone willing to host them, but I doubt that since there are far worse sites hosted on the internet then what they had on their site.
Actually, the websites themselves were online in Sweden in - I believe - less than five minutes.
They're currently down again during transfer to another server, as the Swedish operation was simply a honeypot to get notarized carbon-copies of slander, fraud, unlawful threat, and other criminal behavior associated with the assailing group, rather than the permanent host, but yes......the sites were back online rather rapidly. The hosting company and ISP are what are out of business - apparently, permanently, unless they ship all the hardware to another province where there is competition. They currently have a website which they don't host, but their entire network was "kicked off the 'net" by the backbone.
Kinda... kills the ability to run a company, even if all your customers have no problem getting hosting elsewhere. Completely off-topic, it's kind of ironic that a hosting company and ISP is no longer able to even host their own corporate webpage.
I also don't count so called hosting ISPs as ISPs. If they aren't providing circuits/infrastructure you aren't an ISP in my opinion. From what I can see from Epifora's website all they do is host servers.
I don't know all the hardware details. I do know that, after leaving MCI-controlled routing, there were about 5 or 6 hops to the actual server.
Incidentally, and completely off topic, epifora ran as a darknet which didn't respond to any ping, so it was pretty easy to tell whose was whose just by counting "those last several hops which gave no response on a tracert"......but I don't know the hardware details, and would be unable to tell anyone for certain whether those hops on a tracert were all in the same warehouse (though it'd seem odd to do more than maybe one hop) or a full-scale WAN, or how many or what sort of services were provided in the course of multistage routing... so I don't know that much......unfortunately. Wish I could provide more of the hard tech specs from an insider's perspective. Too bad I don't work for the company.
...at times, at least, they were lost in plain sight. From the roundness of the earth, to the power of rubbed amber - it often tends that they are not so much lost, as the people were lost from them.;)
Not all that different than today. Consider the vast gap between the scientific community, the marketplace in general, and the neighbor down the street.
The first works with the building blocks of matter. The second sells carriages and armaments based on 50,000 year old "fire technology." The latter couldn't forge bronze or use a fire drill if their life depended on it.
"...and with one innocently-typed line, Y.A.B. accidentally founded an evil online cult which would one day grow to plunge the whole earth into a reign of darkness..."
heh....whether that prophecy is true or not, have faith you're going to end up overquoted.;) ALOT.
Until you introduced me to these groups, I'd never heard of them.
For additional reading - might I suggest, say, the original article, which this thread is about, perhaps?
I can tell yout that I am not against the idea of trapping pedophiles...
Even the large majority who have committed no crime? Why have law, then? Why not just screen everyone via GSR or plethysmographic response, and execute the "impure," to the tune of 1.2 billion lives destroyed in ethnic cleansing?
I'm afraid you can't have it both ways, sir. Law - irrespective of status - or, genocide, irrespective of law. I'm afraid you can't have both... and perhaps the time has come for you to either declare your choice... or hold to it, sir.
As for the groups' alleged targetting of young children--you fail to note that they aren't intentionally targetting children.
Except, of course, for the fact that they claim to have her information - which only allows the option that they are deliberately and intentionally targeting a minor, I'm afraid.
Personally, from reading "her" blog about how "she" enjoyed "her" sexual abuse...
You can download the voiceclip and snip the snotty quotes, thank you. She sounds younger than she is, unfortunately, but her gender is not in doubt.
More importantly, however......my knowledge of both her personal history, and her blog, strongly suggest that you are quite deliberately lying about her statements.
Why are you doing so? What is your vested interest?
Whatever the answer, your assertions are known to be and proveably false. She, in fact, quite explicitly stated that she did not, in fact, enjoy the sexual violence against her in her childhood....why are you lying?
Also there is no requirement that you have to be connected to a Tier1...
...now I'm interested. Can you tell me more about the technical details of providing content without utilization of any internet backbone? I'm certainly interested - might be useful to free speech advocates everywhere.
Again, I see no reason they had to peer with a Tier 1 monopoly there are plenty of ISPs in Canada, they chose to choose one that wasn't completely under Canadian law, which I find a suspicious choice to begin with, but as I do not know all the facts here it is just a suspicion.
...while the backbone provider was rather multinational, the hosting ISP, Epifora, Inc, was incorporated entirely within canada and exclusively under Canadian law....so if the RMCP had any trouble, they would've just gone after the ISP, which was 100% local, rather than the backbone provider.
I didn't see anywhere in the article that stated there were no other ISPs, which I would find very strange and backwards if it was.
Epifora, Inc, provided most of the low-level hosting and mid-level routing, although I don't know all the details... but they claim there is no other backbone in the Montreal area....admittedly, I'm also not entirely certain where to go checking... I've aqquired knowledge of a few backbone providers by simple network-mapping, but short of accidentally discovering a machine in the area which belongs to a competitor, I don't exactly know how to map whether they do business in the area or not; I've just heard that MCI is the backbone carrier monopoly....which would make them rather a bottleneck in the system, if they cannot be routed around.
In any case, I thank you for your charming and wonderfully informative posts.
dangers of cookies have been overblown for a long time.
That... depends on how one do it.
It's true that their usual and legitimate uses - login cookies, preference cookies, etc - are more a danger to the site that swallows the poison cookie than that which issues one......but then there's the "well-funded opponent" case - such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy which was bringing this to light......and if I had several million dollars in bribes, I'm sure I could get a *lot* of excessive information by recieving cookie #12537 from an ad embedded in the url... say...
...especially if the last retrieval of cookie #12537 was from advertising on a political site I, erm, "disapproved of." Like, say, NORML or Erowid, in the ONDCP case.
...but that said?
Is this really an area we need more laws about?
I dunno... I'm sort of a fan of using the weak as the canary and human shields of the strong, personally. Let people that *don't* choose to accept or decline each cookie get assasinated for "providing material support" to "terrorists" via ad impressions; it'll give me some breathing room as they clog the bloodlust of the state.
...after all, law has never much stopped a government nor large enough corporation. Why not let those weaker than you take the fall?
Therefore, it is not subject to the common carrier ruling. General Tier1 Providers always have provided at their discretion peering with other providers usually free to other Tier1 providers and at a cost to non Tier1 providers, although the free part seems to be going away.
...does this mean I can sue the backbone if someone downloads my copyrighted material?
Fascinating...
In any case, what you say may be correct. If it is, the MPIAA and RIAA are overjoyed, and it should be radically easy to slam any backbone we choose. Thank you for the input in the advisory position; it is an interesting take.
If this provider had no other choice but to peer with Verizon Business this may be an issue but as alot of other providers have peering between the US and Canada this isn't.
Actually, I was told that MCI is the only tier1 provider in the Montreal area. If you could find a competition to the monopoly, I'd be interested to hear it.
Not knowing what is on their website, I am only guessing here, but since alot of porn of even US legal type is illegal in Canada, my guess is that that is why they aren't going through them.
Actually, all sites on the ISP were porn-free by the ISP's ToS.
Unfortunately, that ISP is now dead, having been shut out of business by the selection of the Tier 1 monopoly for the region.
Yeah--I'm sure you're out there trying to "protect the children."
On occasion... and while I'm advertising "flaws of the regieme," click here.
Tell me again what you were chatting about with that 14 year old girl.
16, dear, 16... though we've been chatting for a year or two......and to answer your question - mostly politics.
I'm sure you were trying to console her as she was viciously attacked by this vigilante criminal hate group...
Actually, I was drafting a comprehensive media management response which she opted to discard... but thanks for asking.
...this vigilante criminal hate group who targetted her for soliciting sex over the internet.
Umm...
Read the links again.
She didn't solicit sex over the internet, and that's not what she was targeted for.
I guess I just have a hard time believing there are pedophile hate groups out there targetting children. Of course, you didn't link to any evidence of your most unusual claims...
False. Click the little underlined things.
The links you did give involved targetting adults, not children...
::ahem::
Other news, ostensibly 16 year old {edit} ella has been indentified, with only a autheticated photo preventing full contact information being posted here. As soon as the photo comes in, up everything goes. Address. Telephone. Stay tuned.
And even if you did show evidence that some weird group was targetting 14 year old kids trying to have sex with 14 year old kids...
Actually, the minors targeted have not been trying to have sex with... anyone... as far as any of the claims involved have asserted.
Like are you trying to make out me to be "the bad guy" because if I {assert support for the vigilante criminal groups which target children}, then I must therefore sympathize with these "vigilante criminal groups" that I've never heard of that target and harass some 14 year old girl you're chatting with?
Yes, I did edit the quote a bit, because that's exactly the point......I didn't exactly ask you to support any action. I did, however, question your blind support for the criminal organization named in the article.
Frankly, I suppose that makes all the difference. Much as from the start, the question has been more one of whether the "vigilance comittee" model of ethnic cleansing for those who committed no crime is a morally valid one. If memory serves, you supported and defended an organization which had illegally targeted children in interstate stalking and harassment in the course of doing so....your current message gives the tone that you have reversed this opinion.
Yes, but since the ISP side doesn't fall under the common carrier rules.
The Verizon subsidiary was the tier 1 monopoly provider. The ISP, otoh, did not boot them....you're right that this difference is crucial. Verizon, however, was the backbone carrier, not the ISP.
"Last time I knew, Mr. Jack Kevorkian does not have his medical license. It was pulled."...but does he have his degree? $10 on the 'net will get you the initials "Dr." in front of your name.;)
You sound very much like the schizophrenic I observed the other day in court who had violated a restraining order against his mother after laying off his lithium for too long.
...off-topic - he wasn't schizophrenic; lithium is used pretty exclusively for bipolar depression. He'd be on quetiapine or olenazapine or similar if he were schizophrenic....nonetheless...
You started on topic, then rambled into a speech about . . . I'm not sure . ..
Luckily, the rest of the world will also be reading, so quite bluntly, dodging the issue won't help......but to answer your direct question...
. . . who is trying to hurt this young girl?
That would be one or two goons who tend to claim affiliation with PJ.
It seems that when one takes it upon themselves to record chats in which the overlord of PJ discredits himself - especially when they make it into the wikipedia article - PJ goons have no qualms whatsoever about targeting law-abiding minors in criminal attacks.
You know - that very same criminal hate group which is the topic of the entire thread. Frankly, I'd rather expect you to be a little more up on the topic - at least enough to be aware that the wiki article exists - before discussing......but I guess that's just me.
I longer see any point in responding to your posts, as you either don't grasp what I'm saying...... Because this response made no sense whatsoever.
How... charming of you. You assert that you don't grasp anything I said - quite literally - while trying to project....anyways... if I remember my "grasp of what you were saying."
1) You tried to assert a grotesquely flawed and clinically inaccurate definition in an apparent attempt to hide the excesses of hate groups.
2) I proceeded to call you on the invalidity of using such as definition....and then...
3) You pussed the fuck out with the message above. Poorly at that.
So basically, since you don't grasp simple english...
Because this response made no sense whatsoever.
..as you yourself noted. So... a much-simpler summary, just for you.
1) Definitional exclusion of the victims of violence from being counted is invalid.
2) As noted and established, the targeted class is at minimum 1.2 billion in number, many of whom are children.
3) You may either explain support for the impact of criminal hate groups on over a billion completely innocent lives - or, you may cede.
...I'll start with a little basically-off-topic semantics...
Here is where your arguments analogizing homosexuality to pedophelia fail.
You are invited to link to where I have made such analogy.
"let's say a woman engineers a bridge. Does it really flippin' matter one way or another to whether or not the bridge is useful if she's queer or not?" "...being queer really doesn't matter. It doesn't change the value of an action one bit."
...it's a little-known fact that neither the word "gay" nor "queer" has changed its meaning. Something is either the "normative case" - in the full weight of the feminist theory of the presumed class - or else it is "queer;" as you can see, the meaning hasn't actually changed since about the 1600s or so, though this isn't much known outside political circles and sexual queer blocs....if we presume that there exists the person who does not like the paederotic, then it is an undeniable fact that an individual of paederotic orientation is "queer;" if that individual is well-adjusted, self-confident and self-accepting, then they are a "gay queer." If they are depressed, morose, self-hating, et al, then they're usually referred to as an "Uncle Tom" or "Judenrat," but the more formal term would be "assimilationist queer," followed by such charming terms as "sweater-wearing asshole," et al...
In none of these cases, however, would the individual be "homosexual" - or in the full greek, of teliohomoerotic orientation... at least, not unless they had multiple, concurrent sexual orientation, which would be a completely seperate topic....so, yes, the babyfucker is pretty queer...
(but not homosexual)
Of course...
I guess I'm getting you confused with other people replying to my posts.
...since you mistook me for someone else, it doesn't matter anyways.:) Pretty understandable... I have a hard time keeping the 300-odd replies seperate, myself....but aside from the tangent... down to business?
Now's your time to ignore other arguments I've made...
Apparently... and you've left the door well open for me...
...the actions involved in being a pedophile involve abuse of children.
...
...society is not wrong for treating pedophile's different based on this--they won't accept the abuse of children...
...
The only pedophiles that must live with this fear are those who have acted on their desire to abuse children. In other words--true pedophiles.
...and not only has this opened up the door for freely ignoring the argumentation of your message - in fact, invited it - neither is this the only door it has invited......let's play a little game of logic for just one second. Let us - just for machievellian argumentation - define homosexuality as "the forcible rape of a heterosexual male by another man in prison, coupled with associate psychological abuse in the course of rape."
Now...
You'll note they do analogize to homosexuality. It's definitely a flawed analogy.
...if one is choosing to operate under such a flawed definition of homosexuality - then would it be a flawed analogy with... your... asserted definition of "pedophilia?"
I propose it's not; that the atrocity of sadistic rape is, well, the atrocity of sadistic rape, by tautology... and under such deliberate misdefinitions of both would they be... identical.
Of course, most people would hold the temporarily-stipulated misdefinition of homosexuality to be... a misd
No, I imagine to someone like you, who signed up just to post to this story, presumably because of all the attention boylove.com was getting, you have quite a different perspective on the matter.
Ad-hom is the last refuge of the profoundly chickenshit, you know...
While we're at it... to the best of my knowledge, there is no "boylove.com," nor to the best of my knowledge has there ever been......nonetheless... please. By all means... just because you can't find "the beachead" doesn't mean you shouldn't continue throwing yourself where you think it is. In fact? It's the fact that you couldn't find it in the dark, even when it takes very little in the simplest of deduction to know that's not it, that implies you should just keep throwing yourself exactly where you are...
Looks like someone took freshmen year Intro to Logic and decided to try and impress the adults. 'A' for effort there, sport.
Thanks.
Incidentally, it was advanced gradeschool logic, followed (much) later with formal boolean algebra in the course of programming... but that still doesn't change the underlying facts.
Contrary to your assertion, the existance of a in set b means neither that all, nor even most, of b are in set a.
This is why it was an -nt message, and if you frankly can't read an obvious two-word point as to something you were obviously confused about without reams of snide commentary, I'm going to have to ask you to log off and sign up for that Intro to Logic class, yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
However, if you don't mind, I think I see one little flaw in your argumentation...
See...
He can still be prosecuted for soliciting sex with a minor if he solicited sex with a minor.
Now, Florida has a whacky definition of email which includes unseen contents in the packet header, among several other problems, which makes this a little bit more legal than it should be...
Were that not the case, however - I'd consider "he cannot be prosecuted for using email because he didn't use email" to be extremely vital to the legal system, myself. It's sort of like "menacing with a firearm without a firearm," or "murder without killing anybody," or the like.
So... it is your intent, then, to support the sexual assault of minors by non-pedophiles?
Before you (or another) tries to argue that it isn't possible, look up a definition... let alone orientation/assault demographics on the subject...
If your sentence was codified into law, the "spirit" or "intent" would appear to be to adress the status of persons, and not specific actions. This would, quite immediately, lead to "I'm not a pedophile, I'm just some guy who raped a kid" as a fully legal defense to a law drafted on that statement.
In my book, that's probably not a good thing. IMO, you handed up an ideal example of why precision is good - and intent is bad... because your stated intent was to attack queers, rather than outlaw solicitation, and that's a giant free pass to walk through should it ever become law.
That said?
Mostly, in past messages, because people didn't look up the highly-flawed definition of email, which led to the strong appearance of the judge throwing out the rule of law - which is bad, period.
A much, much, MUCH more interesting reason for it to be controversial, IMO, is that it makes being assigned the the IP 70.85.67.75 - as well as several hundred others - a criminal offense, which is a hint as to where, how, and why the original definition is fundamentally flawed in a legal, not a technical, sense.
Have fun figuring out why *that's* the law as written - but it is.
A person has the god-damned right to look up "Is this illegal." Not "what would the reverend phelps say," not "would some bureaucratic official get pissy"...
The minute one cannot get an absolute yes-or-no answer simply by reading the law, one has abandoned the rule of law for abject tyranny, with no recourse to law whatsoever.
Does it produce undesireable results sometimes? Sure!
You're right, though, in that it's (IMO) a very apt comparison - a very useful field being shat upon by hype injected by those unscrupulous souls outright-embezzling from whatever venture capitalist didn't have a clue what they were talking about - and ever since about 2-3 years ago with the media promotional influx, what people referred to as "nanotech" suddenly became "crap that didn't meet much of the criteria of nanotech."
Nanotechnology (n) : the utilization of the techniques of manufacturing Really Good Drugs(tm) to implement the ideas you had while on those Really Good Drugs(tm).
...and three weeks of manic frenzy later, my molecules of crack cocaine had robotic arms.
...finally, halogenate the last carbon... if my vague memory serves, HS2Cl2 tends to show preference for halogenation of the terminal carbon of a carboxolic acid...
...and this is where the fun comes in. "Crack," e.g. freebase coke, is benzoic acid ecognovimide. You can do this with anything with a phenyl group (the benzene of benzoic acid), or use a different coupling mechanims...
...take two mols of your extremely-modified carboxolic acid with a halogen on the terminal carbon, one mol of your aromatic "body" of the beast, and a dash of a lewis acid catalyst, such as aluminum chloride...
...a bit of heat and stirring later, it'll have these long organic "arms" coming off the side, complete with carboxolic "claw" for the reversable "grabbing" of alkaline groups... and here's the best part...
...in distilled water, the nitrate and the amine groups will try (desperately) to salt with one another -distorting the bond angles and "contracting" the robotic arm... but in saline solution, it will be slightly more likely to "salt" with the electrolyte - extending or "relaxing" the robotic arm...
...and that, my friends, is how you make a series of crack-cocaine molecules with user-controllable robotic arms... or, any other organic group one wants to bind them to. For the really, really, REALLY bored - instead of binding to a phenyl group, you can just wash the end precursor in sodium hydroxide to form the terminal alcohol, and cook with H2SO4 to create long fibers of electrolyte-reactive polymer, which is far more useful, actually, than "robocrack"...
...and now you know some Really Important Things(tm), such as the fact that "(rti)" stands for "Random text inside"... or, that this is how those "burnout druggies" that your mom warned you not to become are ruling your world when they're not programming computers... or...
...nonetheless - I know how to make the "actual nanotech worthy to be afraid of," and it's not anything I posted in this thread. I feel the world would be a safer place if I posted simple nuclear instructions in easy-to-understand arabic, than if I started broadcasting the recipie, structure, or principles of the crap, which is why this is instead a complete recipie for electrolyte-reactive polymer fiber, which is "mostly harmless," and whose use is governed as far as I'm concerned wholly under the GPL.
...and as a final random offtopic... the crap in the article doesn't count as nanotech in the average hobbyists book, either. It's a field driven by geekdom on the molecular-hacking level - and "making a fine precipitate" is downright boring (and archaic - dissolve salt, add alcohol)... and more importantly, does not have robotic arms, legs, sensors, or spaceguns which would really turn a geek on.
;)
If you'd like to know how to do this, it's pretty easy, actually.
Mine a random long-chain organic acid from, say, flax-seed oil.
Next, you need to put in more work than any chemist would want to do... form the amine of the first carbon (HCl + RCOOH -> (R-1)CClCOOH + NH3), the nitroalkane or carboxolic side-chain of the second, the amine of the third, etc...
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Have fun in your basement, kiddies - though like the GPL says, ya do it at your own risk...
Now, if you'll pardon me - I, for one, welcome the challenge of designing our eventual nanorobotic overlords.
Step 1 : pick a molecule that binds to a specific receptor of localized nature; the CB1 cannabinoid receptor, for instance, is almost exclusively contained in the CNS, while the CB2 provides most of the body-side anandamide operations, I believe.
Step 2 : halogenate a random carbon. How do you do this? Boil it in chlorine, bromine, hydrochloric acid, what have one. Bonus points if it has something easily-substitutable, like an aromatic group (X2 + (FeX2 or AlX3), where "X" is any halogen) or a carboxyl group with a cute little beta carbon (HX + RCOOH)
Step 3 : rinse in a reduced metal whose nucleus is heavy enough to have a desireable half-life...
Mind you - not only is this probably already heavily frowned upon by most international law, qualifying as both an unlawful chemical/pharmacological and a radiologically pollutant weapon designed to spread terror...
The first thing to keep in mind is that - due to the amount of hype being poured and finaced into this little bubble-about-to-burst-once-it-gets-its-financial-
"We know from animal studies that very, very fine particles, particles with high surface area, lead to a greater inflammatory response than the same amount of larger particles."
Translation : "I chopped a line of meth a little finer than usual before coming out here, and it burned more."
See - precipitating a statistically-monomolecular crystal is an old, old chemists parlor trick, used mostly for either amusement - "yes, this small brooch has, statistically, exactly ONE molecule of sapphire under the plastic! Just one, not more, not less!"...
This is no more "1337 n4n0t3k" any more than "HTML-without-even-jscript" qualifies as "I r ur h4x0r g0d."
Read : "After snorting finely-powdered meth, I then proceeded to vaporize a little crack."
Same principle. How the @#$^% do these people think this is "news??"
Every single soluable molecule becomes a disassociate, monomolecular ion in solution. This is not new, this is not remarkable, this is X,000-BC technology.
From the amateur hobbyists perspective, it doesn't really count as nanotech until you engineer the flippin' machine one atom or so at a time, and intelligently at that.
The grad student's trick of designing a castle, or their initials, or whatever, in a giant freakin' molecular polycyclic structure?
Nanotech, albeit nonfunctional amusement.
"Dude, I chopped my coke 'till it was fluffy?"
Not nanotech.
Simple.
~sigh~
Much like "herbal supplements," overfunded hype makes bullshit out of even the most interesting things.
So... you DO claim to support the targeting of minors who have broken no law?
That is, quite honestly, my precise hope.
They'll be able to compare your assertion that she's talking about "being sexually abused and loved it" with "it did not even occur to me for a while that the thing at age five had been sexual. It just seemed uncomfortable and weird."
They'll be able to compare your waffling about targeting minors.
They'll be able to look at your going from "they shouldn't target minors who have committed no crime" to "Why are you so set on the fact that I care at all about this supposed 16 year old "girl" and his relationship with this group? I don't care..." - quite a bit of waffling there.
They'll be able to examine quite a few things, in fact.
I'm sorry, did you just accuse a teen girl who has committed no crime of trafficking in child pornography?
Can you point to some really hard evidence - like, say, a fucking conviction - or is this randomized shit-spewing just another case of being damn glad that everyone else can read the degree - often criminal, it seems - to which you lie out your ass when you have nothing to say?
Can you provide evidence that I have manufactured one piece of child pornography?
...so, you see...
I'm sure the FBI would love to hear it - and I say that with ease because your groundless allegations are utter bullshit.
Ja? Das ist klar? Gut...
Moving on to answer... the only substance I can find, and no, accusing random people of allegations of crime unfounded does not qualify as "substance," I'm afraid...
1. Go back up a few pages.
2. Look for the link from ccoso.org
3. Multiply by 6.5 billion.
Of course, it's only most, not all, that have done nothing illegal - but the fact of "most" is evidencable by extrapolating what happens when 1 in 5 people is on a prosecuted crime spree. Didn't happen like that. Simple.
Instead of attacking the source of, perhaps, 90+% of all child sexual abuse in America, our "family-loving" government has spent fortunes on "good touch, bad touch" programs." So much easier to pretend th
By my understanding, that is exactly what happened, which leads into...
Actually, the websites themselves were online in Sweden in - I believe - less than five minutes.
They're currently down again during transfer to another server, as the Swedish operation was simply a honeypot to get notarized carbon-copies of slander, fraud, unlawful threat, and other criminal behavior associated with the assailing group, rather than the permanent host, but yes...
Kinda... kills the ability to run a company, even if all your customers have no problem getting hosting elsewhere. Completely off-topic, it's kind of ironic that a hosting company and ISP is no longer able to even host their own corporate webpage.
I don't know all the hardware details. I do know that, after leaving MCI-controlled routing, there were about 5 or 6 hops to the actual server.
Incidentally, and completely off topic, epifora ran as a darknet which didn't respond to any ping, so it was pretty easy to tell whose was whose just by counting "those last several hops which gave no response on a tracert"...
...at times, at least, they were lost in plain sight. From the roundness of the earth, to the power of rubbed amber - it often tends that they are not so much lost, as the people were lost from them. ;)
Not all that different than today. Consider the vast gap between the scientific community, the marketplace in general, and the neighbor down the street.
The first works with the building blocks of matter. The second sells carriages and armaments based on 50,000 year old "fire technology." The latter couldn't forge bronze or use a fire drill if their life depended on it.
So too, history.
"...and with one innocently-typed line, Y.A.B. accidentally founded an evil online cult which would one day grow to plunge the whole earth into a reign of darkness..."
heh.
For additional reading - might I suggest, say, the original article, which this thread is about, perhaps?
Even the large majority who have committed no crime? Why have law, then? Why not just screen everyone via GSR or plethysmographic response, and execute the "impure," to the tune of 1.2 billion lives destroyed in ethnic cleansing?
I'm afraid you can't have it both ways, sir. Law - irrespective of status - or, genocide, irrespective of law. I'm afraid you can't have both... and perhaps the time has come for you to either declare your choice... or hold to it, sir.
Except, of course, for the fact that they claim to have her information - which only allows the option that they are deliberately and intentionally targeting a minor, I'm afraid.
You can download the voiceclip and snip the snotty quotes, thank you. She sounds younger than she is, unfortunately, but her gender is not in doubt.
More importantly, however...
Why are you doing so? What is your vested interest?
Whatever the answer, your assertions are known to be and proveably false. She, in fact, quite explicitly stated that she did not, in fact, enjoy the sexual violence against her in her childhood.
Epifora, Inc, provided most of the low-level hosting and mid-level routing, although I don't know all the details... but they claim there is no other backbone in the Montreal area.
In any case, I thank you for your charming and wonderfully informative posts.
That... depends on how one do it.
It's true that their usual and legitimate uses - login cookies, preference cookies, etc - are more a danger to the site that swallows the poison cookie than that which issues one...
http://www.nowhere.net/profile?username=anick&fir
I dunno... I'm sort of a fan of using the weak as the canary and human shields of the strong, personally. Let people that *don't* choose to accept or decline each cookie get assasinated for "providing material support" to "terrorists" via ad impressions; it'll give me some breathing room as they clog the bloodlust of the state.
Fascinating...
In any case, what you say may be correct. If it is, the MPIAA and RIAA are overjoyed, and it should be radically easy to slam any backbone we choose. Thank you for the input in the advisory position; it is an interesting take.
Actually, I was told that MCI is the only tier1 provider in the Montreal area. If you could find a competition to the monopoly, I'd be interested to hear it.
Actually, all sites on the ISP were porn-free by the ISP's ToS.
Unfortunately, that ISP is now dead, having been shut out of business by the selection of the Tier 1 monopoly for the region.
On occasion... and while I'm advertising "flaws of the regieme," click here.
16, dear, 16... though we've been chatting for a year or two...
Actually, I was drafting a comprehensive media management response which she opted to discard... but thanks for asking.
Umm...
Read the links again.
She didn't solicit sex over the internet, and that's not what she was targeted for.
False. Click the little underlined things.
Other news, ostensibly 16 year old {edit} ella has been indentified, with only a autheticated photo preventing full contact information being posted here. As soon as the photo comes in, up everything goes. Address. Telephone. Stay tuned.
Actually, the minors targeted have not been trying to have sex with... anyone... as far as any of the claims involved have asserted.
Yes, I did edit the quote a bit, because that's exactly the point...
Frankly, I suppose that makes all the difference. Much as from the start, the question has been more one of whether the "vigilance comittee" model of ethnic cleansing for those who committed no crime is a morally valid one. If memory serves, you supported and defended an organization which had illegally targeted children in interstate stalking and harassment in the course of doing so.
The Verizon subsidiary was the tier 1 monopoly provider. The ISP, otoh, did not boot them.
"Last time I knew, Mr. Jack Kevorkian does not have his medical license. It was pulled." ...but does he have his degree? $10 on the 'net will get you the initials "Dr." in front of your name. ;)
'specially in "doctorate of theology" degrees.
Luckily, the rest of the world will also be reading, so quite bluntly, dodging the issue won't help...
That would be one or two goons who tend to claim affiliation with PJ.
It seems that when one takes it upon themselves to record chats in which the overlord of PJ discredits himself - especially when they make it into the wikipedia article - PJ goons have no qualms whatsoever about targeting law-abiding minors in criminal attacks.
You know - that very same criminal hate group which is the topic of the entire thread. Frankly, I'd rather expect you to be a little more up on the topic - at least enough to be aware that the wiki article exists - before discussing...
How... charming of you. You assert that you don't grasp anything I said - quite literally - while trying to project.
1) You tried to assert a grotesquely flawed and clinically inaccurate definition in an apparent attempt to hide the excesses of hate groups.
2) I proceeded to call you on the invalidity of using such as definition.
3) You pussed the fuck out with the message above. Poorly at that.
So basically, since you don't grasp simple english...
1) Definitional exclusion of the victims of violence from being counted is invalid.
2) As noted and established, the targeted class is at minimum 1.2 billion in number, many of whom are children.
3) You may either explain support for the impact of criminal hate groups on over a billion completely innocent lives - or, you may cede.
Then again? I suppose you did the latter.
In none of these cases, however, would the individual be "homosexual" - or in the full greek, of teliohomoerotic orientation... at least, not unless they had multiple, concurrent sexual orientation, which would be a completely seperate topic.
(but not homosexual)
Of course...
Apparently... and you've left the door well open for me...
Now...
I propose it's not; that the atrocity of sadistic rape is, well, the atrocity of sadistic rape, by tautology... and under such deliberate misdefinitions of both would they be... identical.
Of course, most people would hold the temporarily-stipulated misdefinition of homosexuality to be... a misd
Ad-hom is the last refuge of the profoundly chickenshit, you know...
While we're at it... to the best of my knowledge, there is no "boylove.com," nor to the best of my knowledge has there ever been...
Have fun.
Thanks.
Incidentally, it was advanced gradeschool logic, followed (much) later with formal boolean algebra in the course of programming... but that still doesn't change the underlying facts.
Contrary to your assertion, the existance of a in set b means neither that all, nor even most, of b are in set a.
This is why it was an -nt message, and if you frankly can't read an obvious two-word point as to something you were obviously confused about without reams of snide commentary, I'm going to have to ask you to log off and sign up for that Intro to Logic class, yourself.
Thank you.
No text...