They have enough bandwidth & server capacity to handle the traffic. They slowly grew to be huge, but when its huge numbers jump to another site that hasn't had the same growth period, *SPLAT*
I'm starting to believe that psychiatrists are all idiots or scammers. All of these different "disorders" have mostly the same symptoms & actions. I have over half of those listed in the link, but then it says "Excludes Asperger's Syndrome," which has pretty much the exact same symptoms. There are about 20 "different disorders" that all present the same problems, but psychiatrists have an economic incentive to tell us they are all different and have different causes. Conveniently, they claim they can treat all of them, if only they can find the right drug for you to buy. Unfortunately for you, the drugs all cost $400 a bottle and there are a few dozen to go through before finding the one that "works" (the one powerful enough to keep you sufficiently fucked up constantly so you forget how much life sucks).
Cynical? Naw, it's a "personality disorder," it's not my fault! Blame the brain! Somewhere along the line of history, it seems to have forgotten which chemicals go where, leading to these "imbalances" we hear so many commercials about. Strange how they have become so much more prevalent in high-stress, low-nutrition times. Nope, it's a condition that just "happens."
> Your ideas of actions that do not affect anyone are different from others apparantly.
Yes, I understand the concept of "stupidity in masses." However, you are not a "mass of people" and therefore have no excuse.
To answer it in the way you meant it, though, ideas can and usually are wrong in some way. "Society" also thinks Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Christ. They are wrong there too. Without lieing, there is NO WAY you can argue that smoking a joint with a friend in my apartment adversely affects anyone other than my friend and myself. I believe any contrary answer you can come up with is either bullshit or too tenuous a connection to be true. If you have a real one, bring it on.
Otherwise, you are just a worthless, unloved troll of a person/slashdotter. Not that that's always bad.
> I know plenty of guys who would be real gentle with your ass.
Is that a proposition? Come on, big boy, whip it out & show the goods.
Yes, actually, it does (trespassing laws notwithstanding). It means that they can stand anywhere and say whatever they want (again, notwithstanding certain free speech abridging laws and "protection" laws).
Oh, he said "Two lawyers ran for president," Edwards wasn't "running" for anything. After posting, I realized he might have been referring to other parties or primaries, but couldn't think of who he would have meant.
> but the DeCSS case took place in a nation other than the U.S.
Wasn't it a complaint based on US laws? I thought the US kinda' poked its way into Finnish (?was that where it was?) law because the MPAA had a hissyfit that people could actually watch their movies.
You do not "own" me in any way, so you are misusing a misspelled/l337-1z3d word.
No, murder isn't allowed in a "free" society, but things that do not affect anyone else should be.
I don't need to attempt insulting your intelligence, you do it quite nicely by yourself. Failure or success, however, is not the goal. The goal is to put my opinion out there in a coherent manner. Ergo, I have not failed, YFI.
BTW, I don't have any problems with your lifestyle, but I'm not gay, so I'll keep my ass, thank you. There's plenty of other guys' asses out there that you could p0wn though. Enjoy.
Okay, while I was technically right, I forgot that laws don't apply to law enforcement, who can do whatever they want, right or wrong, when it suits their agenda.
> What does your statement have to do with my statement? > > > the US is not a free society because we do not let people smoke pot. [...] here in the US, apparantly the majority think its a good law.
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, or is it just trouble remembering what you actually said?
Since "powned" is not even a word, I'll assume the first. Or did you mean pawned? I've never offered myself as collateral on a loan.
Unfortunately, courts (in the U.S. at least, have no knowledge of others) are very limited in their philosophy expertise. The only "critical thinking" they know how to do is interpreting laws, not judging their fairness or the philosophical reachings of them. Hell, as far as they are concerned, the law of the US is the laws of nature and until the laws change, everyone on earth must follow those arbitrary rules.
Yes, they have "issues" realizing that other countries are supposed to have sovereignty and different views, God forbid. I mean that literally. They command their god to forbid acknowledging different cultures. Because Christianity worked so well for some of them, it MUST be the optimum solution.
> This argument strikes me as altogether too clever and certainly presents a remarkably discouraging portrait of the Slashdot reader as easily frightened, voyeuristic, pedophilic.
This argument strikes me as a clever way of calling anyone who agrees with him a paedophile. A smooth, subtle ad-hominem, IMO. So you have never looked at an accident on the side of the road, or anything gruesome -- otherwise you are just sensationalizing grotesque photos that desensitize peoples' thoughts on death, making them more careless and dangerous. See, I can make shit up too. What if their families were to see photos of their dad's car accident in the paper? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Ban photos from newspapers. And magazines. Ban anything which might make us feel remotely uncomfortable.
As for voyeuristic... Uh... that's pretty much what ALL porn is. That's the point. Watching people have sex. Unless you are extremely egotistical, a porn star, or otherwise "talented," watching yourself have sex is a rather humbling and/or awkward experience. So yeah, watching others have sex (who know how to make it look good for a camera) is voyeuristic.
And you say "easily frightened," but you are spreading that fear yourself by making sure everyone who reads this thread equates Freenet with paedophiles. It would be hard for you to argue otherwise because "think of the children," even though you dismissed it as ancillary to your point, was pretty much your only argument presented. That and "anonimity is bad because people can do things without being policed by (a) biased organization(s)." Okay, I added my own bias to it, but it's essentially the same. JUST LIKE YOU ADDED YOUR OWN BIAS TO YOUR INTERPRETATION. Neither one means what we claim it's supposed to mean.
> I retain this freedom everywhere it seems but in Freenet.
What? You DO have that freedom. Don't run a Freenet node and you're safe.
Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it?" Evidently you don't believe in free speech quite as fervently as others do: to the point of guaranteeing someone's right to free speech that they personally disagree with. BTW, before you make any assumptions, that statement is regarding the KKK, not pornography, but the answer is roughly the same.
> In other words: Yes, if the school had educated the kids on the do's and dont's of sex, the school would then have the right to expel her.
I would take that farther... If the school had told them that videotaping themselves having sex would get them expelled, then they would have the right. if they just informed them about sex disregarding school policy, they still had no right to do that -- unless it was on school property, the video showed something that represented the school (uniform, etc), or was in any way "affiliated," there is no good case. It's not the school's problem.
She's a good argument for the theory that any woman can be hot, given a good makeup artist. Hell, WITH the makeup I didn't find her particularly attractive (not that she's UNattracitve in any way).
Could your positive proof of the lie have incriminated you in some other way? Did you end up winning the case? If not, you could atempt an appeal on the grounds that you had incompetent counsel (although, being a traffic violation it would be of arguable value and merit).
If you did win the case, perhaps he knew that you had a good enough case and didn't want to "waste the court's time" with possibly inconsequential objections. If a lawyer makes a habit of raising a lot of objections (even if they are all perfectly valid), a judge may look down upon that or at least get annoyed with him.
Slashdot Mirror
> that would be a little like calling the sun a big ball of fire. Accurate, but so unrefined as to seem utterly childish.
Ummm, it's a story about magic, trolls, elves, etc. It's already childish.
They have enough bandwidth & server capacity to handle the traffic. They slowly grew to be huge, but when its huge numbers jump to another site that hasn't had the same growth period, *SPLAT*
easy enough
"Pretentious? Moi?"
Everything has "value." Just because you don't derive the same value, it is not necessarily devoid if it.
I'm starting to believe that psychiatrists are all idiots or scammers. All of these different "disorders" have mostly the same symptoms & actions. I have over half of those listed in the link, but then it says "Excludes Asperger's Syndrome," which has pretty much the exact same symptoms. There are about 20 "different disorders" that all present the same problems, but psychiatrists have an economic incentive to tell us they are all different and have different causes. Conveniently, they claim they can treat all of them, if only they can find the right drug for you to buy. Unfortunately for you, the drugs all cost $400 a bottle and there are a few dozen to go through before finding the one that "works" (the one powerful enough to keep you sufficiently fucked up constantly so you forget how much life sucks).
Cynical? Naw, it's a "personality disorder," it's not my fault! Blame the brain! Somewhere along the line of history, it seems to have forgotten which chemicals go where, leading to these "imbalances" we hear so many commercials about. Strange how they have become so much more prevalent in high-stress, low-nutrition times. Nope, it's a condition that just "happens."
> No joke intended.
No substance intended.
> Your ideas of actions that do not affect anyone are different from others apparantly.
Yes, I understand the concept of "stupidity in masses." However, you are not a "mass of people" and therefore have no excuse.
To answer it in the way you meant it, though, ideas can and usually are wrong in some way. "Society" also thinks Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Christ. They are wrong there too. Without lieing, there is NO WAY you can argue that smoking a joint with a friend in my apartment adversely affects anyone other than my friend and myself. I believe any contrary answer you can come up with is either bullshit or too tenuous a connection to be true. If you have a real one, bring it on.
Otherwise, you are just a worthless, unloved troll of a person/slashdotter. Not that that's always bad.
> I know plenty of guys who would be real gentle with your ass.
Is that a proposition? Come on, big boy, whip it out & show the goods.
WOW, Thanks for informing me that he has killed millions! I will inform the authorities about our MASSIVELY murderous /.er.
resoonsible? Can you try just a BIT?
Yes, actually, it does (trespassing laws notwithstanding). It means that they can stand anywhere and say whatever they want (again, notwithstanding certain free speech abridging laws and "protection" laws).
Oh, he said "Two lawyers ran for president," Edwards wasn't "running" for anything. After posting, I realized he might have been referring to other parties or primaries, but couldn't think of who he would have meant.
> but the DeCSS case took place in a nation other than the U.S.
Wasn't it a complaint based on US laws? I thought the US kinda' poked its way into Finnish (?was that where it was?) law because the MPAA had a hissyfit that people could actually watch their movies.
No, I don't have any Credit Cards, actually.
You do not "own" me in any way, so you are misusing a misspelled/l337-1z3d word.
No, murder isn't allowed in a "free" society, but things that do not affect anyone else should be.
I don't need to attempt insulting your intelligence, you do it quite nicely by yourself. Failure or success, however, is not the goal. The goal is to put my opinion out there in a coherent manner. Ergo, I have not failed, YFI.
BTW, I don't have any problems with your lifestyle, but I'm not gay, so I'll keep my ass, thank you. There's plenty of other guys' asses out there that you could p0wn though. Enjoy.
You think THAT'S wierd, he wants to impregnate his wife! Good god, what a sicko.
Okay, while I was technically right, I forgot that laws don't apply to law enforcement, who can do whatever they want, right or wrong, when it suits their agenda.
> What does your statement have to do with my statement?
> > > the US is not a free society because we do not let people smoke pot. [...] here in the US, apparantly the majority think its a good law.
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, or is it just trouble remembering what you actually said?
Since "powned" is not even a word, I'll assume the first. Or did you mean pawned? I've never offered myself as collateral on a loan.
> Where did you get the idea that it's illegal to crack encryption?
Well, the DeCSS case made a heck of an argument to that end.
I agree. In US courts, AFAIK, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissable.
Unfortunately, courts (in the U.S. at least, have no knowledge of others) are very limited in their philosophy expertise. The only "critical thinking" they know how to do is interpreting laws, not judging their fairness or the philosophical reachings of them. Hell, as far as they are concerned, the law of the US is the laws of nature and until the laws change, everyone on earth must follow those arbitrary rules.
Yes, they have "issues" realizing that other countries are supposed to have sovereignty and different views, God forbid. I mean that literally. They command their god to forbid acknowledging different cultures. Because Christianity worked so well for some of them, it MUST be the optimum solution.
I think we need a -1 pedantic mod.
Even if it doesn't affect karma (like funny mods).
> This argument strikes me as altogether too clever and certainly presents a remarkably discouraging portrait of the Slashdot reader as easily frightened, voyeuristic, pedophilic.
This argument strikes me as a clever way of calling anyone who agrees with him a paedophile. A smooth, subtle ad-hominem, IMO. So you have never looked at an accident on the side of the road, or anything gruesome -- otherwise you are just sensationalizing grotesque photos that desensitize peoples' thoughts on death, making them more careless and dangerous. See, I can make shit up too. What if their families were to see photos of their dad's car accident in the paper? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Ban photos from newspapers. And magazines. Ban anything which might make us feel remotely uncomfortable.
As for voyeuristic... Uh... that's pretty much what ALL porn is. That's the point. Watching people have sex. Unless you are extremely egotistical, a porn star, or otherwise "talented," watching yourself have sex is a rather humbling and/or awkward experience. So yeah, watching others have sex (who know how to make it look good for a camera) is voyeuristic.
And you say "easily frightened," but you are spreading that fear yourself by making sure everyone who reads this thread equates Freenet with paedophiles. It would be hard for you to argue otherwise because "think of the children," even though you dismissed it as ancillary to your point, was pretty much your only argument presented. That and "anonimity is bad because people can do things without being policed by (a) biased organization(s)." Okay, I added my own bias to it, but it's essentially the same. JUST LIKE YOU ADDED YOUR OWN BIAS TO YOUR INTERPRETATION. Neither one means what we claim it's supposed to mean.
> I retain this freedom everywhere it seems but in Freenet.
What? You DO have that freedom. Don't run a Freenet node and you're safe.
Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it?" Evidently you don't believe in free speech quite as fervently as others do: to the point of guaranteeing someone's right to free speech that they personally disagree with. BTW, before you make any assumptions, that statement is regarding the KKK, not pornography, but the answer is roughly the same.
What happens when the majority believes one way because their government lied to them about the thing in question for years? That is not freedom.
> In other words: Yes, if the school had educated the kids on the do's and dont's of sex, the school would then have the right to expel her.
I would take that farther... If the school had told them that videotaping themselves having sex would get them expelled, then they would have the right. if they just informed them about sex disregarding school policy, they still had no right to do that -- unless it was on school property, the video showed something that represented the school (uniform, etc), or was in any way "affiliated," there is no good case. It's not the school's problem.
Yeah, Idiot... The one who could realize that rape doesn't happen to JUST WOMEN.
She's a good argument for the theory that any woman can be hot, given a good makeup artist. Hell, WITH the makeup I didn't find her particularly attractive (not that she's UNattracitve in any way).
Could your positive proof of the lie have incriminated you in some other way? Did you end up winning the case? If not, you could atempt an appeal on the grounds that you had incompetent counsel (although, being a traffic violation it would be of arguable value and merit).
If you did win the case, perhaps he knew that you had a good enough case and didn't want to "waste the court's time" with possibly inconsequential objections. If a lawyer makes a habit of raising a lot of objections (even if they are all perfectly valid), a judge may look down upon that or at least get annoyed with him.
Nevertheless I'd be pretty P.O.ed too.