"We're 5 posts in because I saw these subtle connections and others didn't."
You're a fucking liar. You made a mistake, and changed your argument. Your original argument had nothing to do with your current argument, so stop lying.
"I'm not the one here stamping my feet..."
Um, yes you are. You're wrong and continue to change your point, insisting it was your original point all along, even though it's clear that's a lie.
The only thing you showed is that you'll lie and obfuscate as much as necessary to preserve what little self-worth you have left.
"The Wikipedia article first cites the same report without any more proof, it then goes on to say Some murderers have in various instances recorded their acts on video; however, the resultant footage is not usually considered to be a snuff film because it is not made for the express purpose of distribution."
No, actually it doesn't. The sentence you bolded DOES NOT REFER TO THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. Have someone read it to you and explain it, as you seem to be having trouble on your own.
The link I gave you makes it clear that the guy WAS distributing, so your point is wrong and moot.
Keep trying, you'll fail, but it's fun to watch someone be totally wrong and try to spin it.
All you need to do is provide proof that the guy WASN'T selling snuff and you'll be set. WHERE IS THAT PROOF GUY? WELL?
"There is a large distinction between copying files unique to you or your computer, and media files that reside on both your computer and thousands of others."
"Your argument is based on supposition and innuendo (not to mention ad hominem comments!) not proof."
Then YOUR response to evidence that shows you are wrong, and cannot disprove, is
"don't you think that if there *had* been actual "snuff" films, the media would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops?!"
Who the hell are you to accuse anyone of basing an argument on "supposition and innuendo" when that is the totality of your response to evidence you can't refute?
But the best was this
"Paging Messers Pott and Kettle-Black"...!
Hmm, it seems like do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do is your M.O.
"You said something dumb because you misread the quote you thought made your point. Stop pretending and just admit it."
How fucking sad are you that 5 attempts to change your point later you finally found something that you think proves your point, and you crow about it.
We all saw what the OP was. Why won't you just admit you said something wrong and stupid? You did, and it was, so what's the fucking holdup?
"ROFL! Sorry, *who* was making comments about being "pointed and confrontational"?!"
I was because that's what was happening. I give what I get, stop being a twat about it. "'Paging Messers Pott and Kettle-Black'...!"
OOOH a stupid snarky comment fit for a 14 year old girl. Very high quality.
"If you have proof: Show it."
How fucking stupid are you? SLAVERY exists you fucking moron. People's lives are REGULARLY traded for common everyday items or money. They are regarded as less than cattle, they are property. They are abused in every possible way.
But NO, snuff films? NO FUCKING WAY!! Because you've never seen proof.
First, nice try with changing your argument, but no, you don't get to do that. You said something stupid and wrong, stop trying to change it now. Second, where does it say that the FCC uses these technologies? You already said in this very thread that you "wouldn't be surprised" if they used them now you're trying to pass off your assumption as fact.
You said something dumb because you misread the quote you thought made your point. Stop pretending and just admit it.
"No, the problem is that almost all cellphones on the market now have user replaceable batteries"
And the iPhone is just like every other cell phone, right?
"That has been the expectation for the average user for at least the past decade."
And by expectation, you mean assumption. And you know what they say about assuming, it makes you look like a fucking idiot.
So iPhone complainers ASSUMED the iPhone was just like other phones (dumb) and they ASSUMED that Apple wouldn't repeat a previous mistake (dumb) and then bought the phone without an answer to the question of battery replacement (dumb) and are now blaming Apple.
No sir, I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. The people who bought it are pissed because they didn't do their homework and got stuck and need someone to blame, nothing more.
"For someone like myself who has a nice 46" LCD, the Wii is just a waste of money. $250 is too much for a low power game console that looks like shit on my $2000 television."
That's funny, I have a Wii, and it looks great. Of course, I have a 120" screen and a $32,000 Runco projector. Maybe your problem is your shitty 2k LCD.
Yes, but NIST is not the FCC. Is it really so difficult for you to grasp the idea that two completely separate government agencies exist, and do not agree 100% on everything that they do?
NIST is not the FCC. Repeat that until you get it.
If you attempted to get this information before you bought, and were unable to, you can complain, but only a little. It should have been a warning sign that you were unable to get the information from Apple.
If you didn't bother to ask, tough titties. It's not Apple's fault you were too short sighted to seek out important information.
You can get as pointed and confrontational as you like, but one thing is certain, and you can't refute it.
People have weird tastes, and some of those people have money. Again, if you think that snuff doesn't exist even though there is a market for it, you're just too stupid to continue discussing this with.
"Absence of proof, especially after 30 years looking, is good enough to counter this sort of FUD argument."
No, it sure the fuck isn't. You think so, but you also think snuff doesn't exist even though there is a market for it.
If you genuinely believe that they don't exist when there is a market for them, you're a fool.
"Excuse me shouting, but in 30 years of searching by police agencies worldwide..."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Again, if there are people willing to buy them, then claiming they don't exist so decisively is ridiculous.
"Not really. Even though this is about cellular and wi-fi networks "meshing" together,"
Yes really. Why say "not really" then agree with me?
"the term "mesh network" specifically refers to a network where all nodes are also routers."
And doesn't appear anywhere in this article or the summary. So why bring it up?
"Sorry to be pedantic but I'm suspicious of manufacturers changing definitions."
You're not pedantic, you're just wrong. And RTFA, you'll notice (as I said in my original post) that the term "mesh network" appears nowhere in the article. The manufacturers aren't changing anything, and the person who used the term mesh used it acceptably.
Sorry to call you out for being completely wrong, but I hate people like you who start their response with "not really" only to post a totally incorrect reply based on their wrong assumptions and ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
"everything i say is about maximizing our rights"
By eliminating them. Well, you have the doublespeak down.
Now tell me how it's for my own good and you'll be all set.
What?
How about trying again and this time, not making a stupid analogy that doesn't apply at all.
You won't be able to, but try. In the meantime, come to the realization that you're wrong and they aren't different.
"the fascist's response is to reach for guns and bombs"
That's funny, I thought the fascists response would be to begin culling the rights of the populace.
Like you want to do.
"We're 5 posts in because I saw these subtle connections and others didn't."
You're a fucking liar. You made a mistake, and changed your argument. Your original argument had nothing to do with your current argument, so stop lying.
"I'm not the one here stamping my feet..."
Um, yes you are. You're wrong and continue to change your point, insisting it was your original point all along, even though it's clear that's a lie.
The only thing you showed is that you'll lie and obfuscate as much as necessary to preserve what little self-worth you have left.
When are you running for office?
"The Wikipedia article first cites the same report without any more proof, it then goes on to say Some murderers have in various instances recorded their acts on video; however, the resultant footage is not usually considered to be a snuff film because it is not made for the express purpose of distribution."
No, actually it doesn't. The sentence you bolded DOES NOT REFER TO THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. Have someone read it to you and explain it, as you seem to be having trouble on your own.
The link I gave you makes it clear that the guy WAS distributing, so your point is wrong and moot.
Keep trying, you'll fail, but it's fun to watch someone be totally wrong and try to spin it.
All you need to do is provide proof that the guy WASN'T selling snuff and you'll be set. WHERE IS THAT PROOF GUY? WELL?
Right. You lose. Again.
"However, the real issue is whether there exists porn feature non-consenting _adults_ "
Says who? You? The issue is "snuff" nothing more.
The adult qualifier is YOURS and is meaningless. If you have some input that isn't irrelevant, please give it.
Otherwise, keep your arbitrary assertions to yourself.
You're the loser who is dismissing evidence because it proves you're wrong.
No wonder you want to stifle debate, I won and you can't take it.
"*What* "evidence I can't refute"? I just have refuted it because it is *not* evidence, it *is* simply supposition and innuendo."
PROVE IT. It sure looks like evidence.
No, it's an official police report that you can't refute, so you discount it. Sorry, that's evidence whether you like it or not.
As to proof, PROVE that the article I gave you is wrong. Prove that the guy DIDN'T sell a snuff film.
I'll wait patiently for YOUR proof.
You lose, you're wrong, and now you're just pathetic.
"There is a large distinction between copying files unique to you or your computer, and media files that reside on both your computer and thousands of others."
What is it?
"So, what's it like being a bigot?"
Well, I can tell you it looks great. Of course I have a high end sound system too, so it sounds just as good. Overall, I'd have to say it's not bad.
And doesn't you calling me a bigot make you a bigot too? OOPS!
Keep posting AC, it's really as good as you'll ever get.
You are so brazen as to say THIS to me
"Your argument is based on supposition and innuendo (not to mention ad hominem comments!) not proof."
Then YOUR response to evidence that shows you are wrong, and cannot disprove, is
"don't you think that if there *had* been actual "snuff" films, the media would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops?!"
Who the hell are you to accuse anyone of basing an argument on "supposition and innuendo" when that is the totality of your response to evidence you can't refute?
But the best was this
"Paging Messers Pott and Kettle-Black"...!
Hmm, it seems like do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do is your M.O.
That's just embarrassingly sad for you.
"You said something dumb because you misread the quote you thought made your point. Stop pretending and just admit it."
How fucking sad are you that 5 attempts to change your point later you finally found something that you think proves your point, and you crow about it.
We all saw what the OP was. Why won't you just admit you said something wrong and stupid? You did, and it was, so what's the fucking holdup?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,37 5883,00.html
_ murders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_films#Recorded
There you go.
"If you have proof: Show it."
I did, now let's see whether you're man enough to admit you were completely wrong. Because you were.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,37 5883,00.html
_ murders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_films#Recorded
There you go, I will happily accept your mea culpa at your convenience.
You were wrong. Be a man and admit it.
"ROFL! Sorry, *who* was making comments about being "pointed and confrontational"?!"
I was because that's what was happening. I give what I get, stop being a twat about it.
"'Paging Messers Pott and Kettle-Black'...!"
OOOH a stupid snarky comment fit for a 14 year old girl. Very high quality.
"If you have proof: Show it."
How fucking stupid are you? SLAVERY exists you fucking moron. People's lives are REGULARLY traded for common everyday items or money. They are regarded as less than cattle, they are property. They are abused in every possible way.
But NO, snuff films? NO FUCKING WAY!! Because you've never seen proof.
Again, how fucking stupid are you?
"You paid $32k for a projector? Some salesman is wiping your assjuice off his cock right now."
That's what stupid people who don't know what a Runco is say. They're wrong just like you are. And since it was a business expense for a showroom...
Well, I see why you posted AC. I wouldn't want anyone to know I'd said something moronic like you just did either.
And also, if YOUR ass makes juice, you may want to get that looked at by a doctor...
First, nice try with changing your argument, but no, you don't get to do that. You said something stupid and wrong, stop trying to change it now. Second, where does it say that the FCC uses these technologies? You already said in this very thread that you "wouldn't be surprised" if they used them now you're trying to pass off your assumption as fact.
You said something dumb because you misread the quote you thought made your point. Stop pretending and just admit it.
"No, the problem is that almost all cellphones on the market now have user replaceable batteries"
And the iPhone is just like every other cell phone, right?
"That has been the expectation for the average user for at least the past decade."
And by expectation, you mean assumption. And you know what they say about assuming, it makes you look like a fucking idiot.
So iPhone complainers ASSUMED the iPhone was just like other phones (dumb) and they ASSUMED that Apple wouldn't repeat a previous mistake (dumb) and then bought the phone without an answer to the question of battery replacement (dumb) and are now blaming Apple.
No sir, I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. The people who bought it are pissed because they didn't do their homework and got stuck and need someone to blame, nothing more.
"For someone like myself who has a nice 46" LCD, the Wii is just a waste of money. $250 is too much for a low power game console that looks like shit on my $2000 television."
That's funny, I have a Wii, and it looks great. Of course, I have a 120" screen and a $32,000 Runco projector. Maybe your problem is your shitty 2k LCD.
So, what's it like being low-rent?
"NIST is a government agency."
Yes, but NIST is not the FCC. Is it really so difficult for you to grasp the idea that two completely separate government agencies exist, and do not agree 100% on everything that they do?
NIST is not the FCC. Repeat that until you get it.
"Even if you go the "market" argument, doesn't that sort of fall apart when you examine it from a market standpoint?"
Not even a little.
You're still wrong, have a nice weekend.
"Millions of phone buyers did not look for this."
Fixed that for you.
If you attempted to get this information before you bought, and were unable to, you can complain, but only a little. It should have been a warning sign that you were unable to get the information from Apple.
If you didn't bother to ask, tough titties. It's not Apple's fault you were too short sighted to seek out important information.
You can get as pointed and confrontational as you like, but one thing is certain, and you can't refute it.
People have weird tastes, and some of those people have money. Again, if you think that snuff doesn't exist even though there is a market for it, you're just too stupid to continue discussing this with.
"Absence of proof, especially after 30 years looking, is good enough to counter this sort of FUD argument."
No, it sure the fuck isn't. You think so, but you also think snuff doesn't exist even though there is a market for it.
You're wrong. Get over it.
"1) SNUFF MOVIES ARE A MYTH!"
If you genuinely believe that they don't exist when there is a market for them, you're a fool.
"Excuse me shouting, but in 30 years of searching by police agencies worldwide..."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Again, if there are people willing to buy them, then claiming they don't exist so decisively is ridiculous.
"Not really. Even though this is about cellular and wi-fi networks "meshing" together,"
Yes really. Why say "not really" then agree with me?
"the term "mesh network" specifically refers to a network where all nodes are also routers."
And doesn't appear anywhere in this article or the summary. So why bring it up?
"Sorry to be pedantic but I'm suspicious of manufacturers changing definitions."
You're not pedantic, you're just wrong. And RTFA, you'll notice (as I said in my original post) that the term "mesh network" appears nowhere in the article. The manufacturers aren't changing anything, and the person who used the term mesh used it acceptably.
Sorry to call you out for being completely wrong, but I hate people like you who start their response with "not really" only to post a totally incorrect reply based on their wrong assumptions and ignorance.