If a pedo never touches a real child, they can have all the thoughts they want, I really don't care...
Not according to the anon above. If they have the evil thoughts, they WILL harm children because, uhh.. something something about pedophiles in jail, not that any of that actually had value to the outside world.
It is kind of like the "conservative religious" stance on abortion. They will fight like hell to make sure the mother has to carry the child to term but refuse to do anything to make the child's life better after it is born.
It's because they feel extra strongly that parents have an exceptional duty to raise a child properly, and no one, no one else is obligated to lift a finger. Indeed, doing so may even be considered interfering. But it's not about spilling blood for spilling blood's own sake -- it's about punishing failings. And it's a belief that people are morally -better- when they're self reliant, rather than being reliant on others. They are decidedly NOT "it takes a village" people.
At that point, wouldn't it be better if the child were not born at all?
They would agree, but would then counter that the parents made the choice when they had sex. At that point, you're committed to raising a child properly. So they will consider abortion to be murder, a crime that should be prevented above all others. Now, most people disagree that that's where the choice is made, but your frequent anti-abortion conservative is going to think that way.
Yup, also went to Roman Catholic high school, was also taught that God created sex specifically and only for having children, and that any other use of sex was a perversion of God's intent. That's really what they believe.
If you tried to make a listening device that was sensitive enough to hear crossbows, you'd have a few thousand false positives for every true positive, even if all murderers switched to crossbows.
That crossbow is a little harder to conceal in your pants as you walk down the street, though.
How is the law going to differentiate between a sex robot that looks like a "young but over the age of consent" individual and a sex robot that portrays an individual just on the other side of that line
The same way that it does with pictorial content.
In other words, the law will deal with it poorly and inconsistently.:-)
Focusing on the drugs themselves is thus treating the symptoms, and poorly, while ignoring the causes of the illness.
Ahhh, therein lies the rub... its MUCH more lucrative to treat symptoms. Symptoms, may return. If you cure the person, they stop being a source of revenue ?
Treating the symptoms has usually been much, MUCH easier to do than curing the problem. We know how to treat symptoms, but "curing addiction" is much trickier, more individual, and is sometimes impossible.
The thing is, we are really good at getting people through the physical withdrawal when we want to be. It can even be accomplished painlessly while the patient is in deep sedation if necessary. It's only done that way for people who can afford private clinics mostly because our society has a real punitive bloodlust just below the surface.
I think it's more our society has the attitude "you got yourself into this mess, don't take things from me to get out of it." Rightly or wrongly, we see the choice to be an addict as a personal failing. And although the following attitude has greatly decreased over the last decades or half-century, we also still believe that others should suffer the consequences of an intentional action rather than having to bail them out.
TL;DR gateway drugs are real - almost nobody start injecting heroin from day one.
Few people start injecting heroin from day one, but it's equally false to say that pot "leads to" heroin, which is what the "gateway drug" argument always boiled down to.
Or, as a friend of mine put it: "I'm always amused when those Star Trek TNG episodes showed people using the holodeck and it was always like.. talking to dead philosophers, visiting King Arthur, solving a Sherlock Holmes mystery. Here's what the holodeck would REALLY be used for: porn, porn, impossible sex, porn. You'd have to wash it out after every use."
It's cowardly for gay people to march in Pride parades and proclaim tolerance and then stand by while others with different sexual preferences are also persecuted.
The false equivalence between being gay and molesting children is absolutely disgusting. Go troll somewhere else, no reasonable person thinks they're the same thing.
First, how many people actually choose their gender by the month? Unless you're talking some particular form of mental illness, that simply doesn't happen.
Tisk tisk! It's 2017, you're no longer allowed to call someone's "gender preferences" a mental illness. How often they want to change it is none of your business, you're just expected to support and approve of it.
Jesus slashdot, seriously? You've never heard of the drug alcohol? It's quite popular. Some of us discovered drinking it gets you drunk. Sure, beer doesn't taste as good as soda or orange juice, but clearly that doesn't mean it serves no purpose at all.
I think the OP knows very well what alcohol is. He just thinks any beer is better than that Budweiser piss-water. I love alcohol, but I'll happily accept water over Bud.
No where in the constitution are corporate rights mentioned.
Because the Constitution doesn't differentiate between a corporation and a collection of individuals, and a collection of individuals has the same rights as a single person. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that rights can be removed from a group yet be retained by the individual. That corporations aren't mentioned in the Constitution is inconsequential, as it's an inherently limiting document. The Federal Government only has the powers that the Constitution explicitly grants. The Citizens United ruling, for a common example, stated that a corporation does not lose Freedom of Speech because it's a corporation. The more controversial part of it is that money == speech, which is certainly debatable. But to deny a corporation an individual right seem, on the face of it, unconstitutional.
Here's a thought, people, like yourselves, don't seem to care that people who once were able to afford insurance, now cannot. Had Choice of insurance, and now do not. Had a doctor they liked, but now do not.
And on the other side, I had a number of poor friends who had no insurance, zilch, nothing before, and do now. And a few who couldn't afford to leave a job they hated because they would lose their insurance and then be denied new coverage due to a "preexisting condition."
But the best part of it, from the insurance company standpoint, is they can do whatever the hell they want, then blame Obamacare for it, and everyone will believe them. Did you think premiums were not going to go through the roof? The insurance companies had been raising them higher and higher before the ACA went into effect, what we've seen since then is mere continuation. It sure lets the industry redirect blame, though. That's the biggest gift the ACA gave them.
Well, the Affordable Care Act passed with reconciliation, it shouldn't surprise that attempts to dismantle it are also going through reconciliation rather than standard procedure.
I believe this is due to nowadays better hardware performances. Back then, games had often to be optimized in plain assembly and took longer to develop.
But games used to also be developed by much smaller teams. Today's AAA game comes with a Hollywood-sized budget that goes to the salaries of specialists -- environmental artists, texture creators, effects artists, sound effects, voice actors. Except for indy games, we're long past the point where the big games are developed by a single person or a small team. Twenty-thirty years ago, a game character could have been created by a single person. Were games better optimized for hardware in the old days? Yes, but honestly it didn't take THAT much more time, nor was it much more expensive, and games were simply simpler and more limited. Even if you spent a man-year doing nothing but optimizing, that was.. what, $50k? This is what allowed publishers to publish versions of a game for many many different platforms (I had computer magazines where publishers would often show a grid of screenshots, with 9 screenshots for 9 platforms).
I'm actually distrustful of the claim that games in the 1980s and earlier took longer (or at least, were more expensive, that often goes hand in hand) to develop, but unfortunately those figures are difficult to come by, while MSRPs of various games are more widely known. I will note that at least the staffing levels of some older games are known -- Super Mario Bros had a staff of seven people. The Legend of Zelda has nine credits, though not everyone who works on a game or movie always gets an official credit. Tetris was originally made by one person, but its development is so confused that it's hard to tell how many people touched it in the first five years.
Today's indie game is a bit more like the games of old in terms of staffing, although in both games and movies the "mid-budget" production has disappeared; nowadays there is either low budget or high, with little middle-ground.
Simple. because the Public sector works off of my dime, not the free market. See Milton Friedman for arguments, who did a remarkable job expressing concerns over exactly the problems that unionized government jobs have caused.
I guess I'm getting more confused. Are you against public sector unions then? That sounds more plausible, but your original post seemed to imply that you were for public-sector unions but against private-sector ones.
Sorry, but I'm not going to attempt to summarize Friedman in a Slashdot post.
I would say that I'm barely familiar with Milton's theories (if even that), but I thought Friedman was strongly against public sector unions, which he once likened to economic black holes.
Nintendo is the only console company that makes money on the hardware and software. Everyone else sells hardware as a loss leader for software. Ever wonder why new video games are $60 a pop?
A few years ago I remember leafing through my old "Family Computing," noted the $35-$50 price that new games from most places were selling back in 1988, and I plugged it into an inflation calculator. If games were as expensive now as they used to be, we would be paying $75-$110 for every game these days.
Did you read the linked blog, or is this snark for the snark of snark? All the blog entry said was that it was funny the product was getting good press while they were going public, as this was evidence of something shady going on and not the history of just about every company that has gone public in the last 30 years.
So that means someone could shoot someone else at point blank or otherwise close range, and get away with it, because the report won't trigger the system?
Well if they can "get away with it" now, then yes. It just means the current system of investigations takes effect.
I have to wonder how much of Trevor Noah sucking is because of the writers.
It's the writers leaving and all the good correspondents (like Oliver and Samantha Bee, Jason Jones, etcetc) leaving as well. The new guys are horrible actors and unfunny comedians.
Slashdot Mirror
If a pedo never touches a real child, they can have all the thoughts they want, I really don't care...
Not according to the anon above. If they have the evil thoughts, they WILL harm children because, uhh.. something something about pedophiles in jail, not that any of that actually had value to the outside world.
Ah yes, the crazy unsupported-by-anything refugee hysteria machine continues on.
It is kind of like the "conservative religious" stance on abortion. They will fight like hell to make sure the mother has to carry the child to term but refuse to do anything to make the child's life better after it is born.
It's because they feel extra strongly that parents have an exceptional duty to raise a child properly, and no one, no one else is obligated to lift a finger. Indeed, doing so may even be considered interfering. But it's not about spilling blood for spilling blood's own sake -- it's about punishing failings. And it's a belief that people are morally -better- when they're self reliant, rather than being reliant on others. They are decidedly NOT "it takes a village" people.
At that point, wouldn't it be better if the child were not born at all?
They would agree, but would then counter that the parents made the choice when they had sex. At that point, you're committed to raising a child properly. So they will consider abortion to be murder, a crime that should be prevented above all others. Now, most people disagree that that's where the choice is made, but your frequent anti-abortion conservative is going to think that way.
Yup, also went to Roman Catholic high school, was also taught that God created sex specifically and only for having children, and that any other use of sex was a perversion of God's intent. That's really what they believe.
If you tried to make a listening device that was sensitive enough to hear crossbows, you'd have a few thousand false positives for every true positive, even if all murderers switched to crossbows.
That crossbow is a little harder to conceal in your pants as you walk down the street, though.
How is the law going to differentiate between a sex robot that looks like a "young but over the age of consent" individual and a sex robot that portrays an individual just on the other side of that line
The same way that it does with pictorial content.
In other words, the law will deal with it poorly and inconsistently. :-)
Focusing on the drugs themselves is thus treating the symptoms, and poorly, while ignoring the causes of the illness.
Ahhh, therein lies the rub... its MUCH more lucrative to treat symptoms.
Symptoms, may return. If you cure the person, they stop being a source of revenue ?
Treating the symptoms has usually been much, MUCH easier to do than curing the problem. We know how to treat symptoms, but "curing addiction" is much trickier, more individual, and is sometimes impossible.
The thing is, we are really good at getting people through the physical withdrawal when we want to be. It can even be accomplished painlessly while the patient is in deep sedation if necessary. It's only done that way for people who can afford private clinics mostly because our society has a real punitive bloodlust just below the surface.
I think it's more our society has the attitude "you got yourself into this mess, don't take things from me to get out of it." Rightly or wrongly, we see the choice to be an addict as a personal failing. And although the following attitude has greatly decreased over the last decades or half-century, we also still believe that others should suffer the consequences of an intentional action rather than having to bail them out.
TL;DR gateway drugs are real - almost nobody start injecting heroin from day one.
Few people start injecting heroin from day one, but it's equally false to say that pot "leads to" heroin, which is what the "gateway drug" argument always boiled down to.
The future will be glorious!
Or, as a friend of mine put it: "I'm always amused when those Star Trek TNG episodes showed people using the holodeck and it was always like.. talking to dead philosophers, visiting King Arthur, solving a Sherlock Holmes mystery. Here's what the holodeck would REALLY be used for: porn, porn, impossible sex, porn. You'd have to wash it out after every use."
It's cowardly for gay people to march in Pride parades and proclaim tolerance and then stand by while others with different sexual preferences are also persecuted.
The false equivalence between being gay and molesting children is absolutely disgusting. Go troll somewhere else, no reasonable person thinks they're the same thing.
First, how many people actually choose their gender by the month? Unless you're talking some particular form of mental illness, that simply doesn't happen.
Tisk tisk! It's 2017, you're no longer allowed to call someone's "gender preferences" a mental illness. How often they want to change it is none of your business, you're just expected to support and approve of it.
Budweiser is never OK. It serves no purpose.
Jesus slashdot, seriously? You've never heard of the drug alcohol? It's quite popular. Some of us discovered drinking it gets you drunk. Sure, beer doesn't taste as good as soda or orange juice, but clearly that doesn't mean it serves no purpose at all.
I think the OP knows very well what alcohol is. He just thinks any beer is better than that Budweiser piss-water.
I love alcohol, but I'll happily accept water over Bud.
You managed to do both you illiterate cuntfaced fuckwit. Nothing worse than a grammar nazi who doesn't know words.
Everywhere outside of the UK, the word is "whine," not "whinge." Whinge is a british colloquialism.
No where in the constitution are corporate rights mentioned.
Because the Constitution doesn't differentiate between a corporation and a collection of individuals, and a collection of individuals has the same rights as a single person. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that rights can be removed from a group yet be retained by the individual. That corporations aren't mentioned in the Constitution is inconsequential, as it's an inherently limiting document. The Federal Government only has the powers that the Constitution explicitly grants. The Citizens United ruling, for a common example, stated that a corporation does not lose Freedom of Speech because it's a corporation. The more controversial part of it is that money == speech, which is certainly debatable. But to deny a corporation an individual right seem, on the face of it, unconstitutional.
Here's a thought, people, like yourselves, don't seem to care that people who once were able to afford insurance, now cannot. Had Choice of insurance, and now do not. Had a doctor they liked, but now do not.
And on the other side, I had a number of poor friends who had no insurance, zilch, nothing before, and do now. And a few who couldn't afford to leave a job they hated because they would lose their insurance and then be denied new coverage due to a "preexisting condition."
But the best part of it, from the insurance company standpoint, is they can do whatever the hell they want, then blame Obamacare for it, and everyone will believe them. Did you think premiums were not going to go through the roof? The insurance companies had been raising them higher and higher before the ACA went into effect, what we've seen since then is mere continuation. It sure lets the industry redirect blame, though. That's the biggest gift the ACA gave them.
Well, the Affordable Care Act passed with reconciliation, it shouldn't surprise that attempts to dismantle it are also going through reconciliation rather than standard procedure.
Your first assumption is correct, and confirmed by your own knowledge of the person I suggested you read :)
Well then it sounds like I was just misinterpreting your first post. Carry on then. :-)
It DID sound intriguing though, if I found someone in favor of government unions but against private ones. That was breaking my brain just a bit.
I believe this is due to nowadays better hardware performances. Back then, games had often to be optimized in plain assembly and took longer to develop.
But games used to also be developed by much smaller teams. Today's AAA game comes with a Hollywood-sized budget that goes to the salaries of specialists -- environmental artists, texture creators, effects artists, sound effects, voice actors. Except for indy games, we're long past the point where the big games are developed by a single person or a small team. Twenty-thirty years ago, a game character could have been created by a single person. Were games better optimized for hardware in the old days? Yes, but honestly it didn't take THAT much more time, nor was it much more expensive, and games were simply simpler and more limited. Even if you spent a man-year doing nothing but optimizing, that was.. what, $50k? This is what allowed publishers to publish versions of a game for many many different platforms (I had computer magazines where publishers would often show a grid of screenshots, with 9 screenshots for 9 platforms).
I'm actually distrustful of the claim that games in the 1980s and earlier took longer (or at least, were more expensive, that often goes hand in hand) to develop, but unfortunately those figures are difficult to come by, while MSRPs of various games are more widely known. I will note that at least the staffing levels of some older games are known -- Super Mario Bros had a staff of seven people. The Legend of Zelda has nine credits, though not everyone who works on a game or movie always gets an official credit. Tetris was originally made by one person, but its development is so confused that it's hard to tell how many people touched it in the first five years.
Today's indie game is a bit more like the games of old in terms of staffing, although in both games and movies the "mid-budget" production has disappeared; nowadays there is either low budget or high, with little middle-ground.
Simple. because the Public sector works off of my dime, not the free market. See Milton Friedman for arguments, who did a remarkable job expressing concerns over exactly the problems that unionized government jobs have caused.
I guess I'm getting more confused. Are you against public sector unions then? That sounds more plausible, but your original post seemed to imply that you were for public-sector unions but against private-sector ones.
Sorry, but I'm not going to attempt to summarize Friedman in a Slashdot post.
I would say that I'm barely familiar with Milton's theories (if even that), but I thought Friedman was strongly against public sector unions, which he once likened to economic black holes.
Nintendo is the only console company that makes money on the hardware and software. Everyone else sells hardware as a loss leader for software. Ever wonder why new video games are $60 a pop?
A few years ago I remember leafing through my old "Family Computing," noted the $35-$50 price that new games from most places were selling back in 1988, and I plugged it into an inflation calculator. If games were as expensive now as they used to be, we would be paying $75-$110 for every game these days.
Did you read the linked blog, or is this snark for the snark of snark?
All the blog entry said was that it was funny the product was getting good press while they were going public, as this was evidence of something shady going on and not the history of just about every company that has gone public in the last 30 years.
So that means someone could shoot someone else at point blank or otherwise close range, and get away with it, because the report won't trigger the system?
Well if they can "get away with it" now, then yes. It just means the current system of investigations takes effect.
Well, that's you. I've never understood the "solution to every problem is more government" approach you totalitarians love, myself.
So... no laws, ever? For anyone? At all?
Because the examples the OP listed about Phoenix, AZ sound as reasonable and "minimal government."
I have to wonder how much of Trevor Noah sucking is because of the writers.
It's the writers leaving and all the good correspondents (like Oliver and Samantha Bee, Jason Jones, etcetc) leaving as well. The new guys are horrible actors and unfunny comedians.