Hello, nice to meet you! I think I've met your friend before, but I don't quite...Mr. Strawman, is it?
Lawnmowers cut things, hands included. Coffee is hot, and it can sear skin just like any other kind of hot water. Reasonable people expect these things. Reasonable people should not expect that their phone, which is designed to be placed next to the head to make phone calls, could explode if the screen cracks. A reasonable person might expect some kind of danger to the person using the phone if one had, say, run the phone over with a car, and if that's what these people were doing then maybe they got what one would expect. But if it was caused by a minor shock or a particularly heavy guy sitting on it, the design of the phone should not be such that it would explode.
I may have to find the torrents just to be certain.
Anything in the name of science!
Maybe it's just me and a small minority of people, but while I don't find the aforementioned movies to be my cup of tea I also don't feel that these are particularly extreme...and, frankly, I can think of quite a few Hollywood movies with worse depictions in them, just without the real sex that apparently makes these movies "far worse". Plus, the scenes in Ass Clowns 3 sound hilarious.
If you were arrested for looking at someone, then asked in court if you indeed committed an "act of observation", would you lie and say you never looked or say you looked but that you had every right to do so?
Straw man aside, here's the exact article and summary wording
...pleaded guilty in March to a felony charge of conspiracy to distribute obscene material through the mail and over the Internet
Note that if they claimed the material was not obscene they could have pleaded not guilty...what they did instead was concede some material as obscene, non-protected speech and take a plea deal for a reduced sentence. Without seeing the videos I can't say for sure if what they were doing was truly criminal (the article is a little vague) and that they made the best decision for themselves, though I highly doubt that I would agree with the DOJ on this one.
Err...they plead guilty to crimes and went to prison. That doesn't mean it doesn't truly fall under protected speech, but in their case they sort of forfeited their ability to challenge this at the highest level.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way
By the logic in this thread I would suggest that is is alcohol we should take off the market. After all, it damages your liver and all kinds of alcohol can be purchased WITHOUT the advice and guidance of a professional. Furthermore, it is understood that you need to take care when taking medicine; otherwise why would you need a prescription to take much of it. However, it is not the same for alcohol.
I wouldn't go that far, and I find a small problem with your reasoning. While it's true that the warnings against taking too much acetaminophen are printed clearly on the drug facts label while the alcohol containers have only the vague "may cause health problems" warning, the effects of taking too much alcohol can be readily seen. One becomes aware of intoxication, people feel physically sick, and, ultimately, the person is fully aware that they're hurting themselves. All of this can occur in a single night during which little liver damage takes place, and the person can use their sickness as a warning against further abuse or ignore it; it's their choice.
Taking too much Tylenol, on the other hand, does not manifest itself right away. As long as the headache goes away a lot of people will say "screw the warning, I want to feel better so I'll take six...it's never hurt me before". And so without recognizing the problem and despite being warned, people take too much and can't feel their consequences until it's too late.
Personally I'm not in favor of banning either drug, and I really wish the government would just keep providing the warnings as they always have and leave it to the people to ignore them.
So name the studies. Alcohol damages the liver as it's broken down and so does acetaminophen, and it follows that taking both at the same time is even worse (not to mention possible interactions and metabolic interference caused by alcohol.
I fail to see how the sister was incorrect about the dangers of mixing the two drugs, though I do wonder how much the risk of liver disease is truly increased.
Sure, not every parent can be expected to be a genius, but if you're going to let children use a computer on the internet, you have responsibilities to act as a sysadmin.
I'm sorry: are you joking? So many people can't even act as their own sysadmin to the point that there's little difference between a child inadvertantly downloading tons of malware and the parents' own activities. No, no: the ordinary person's computer will only be safe when the next "version" of the internet is only accessable through cryptic terminal commands and the only people online are the ones who know what they're doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Hello, nice to meet you! I think I've met your friend before, but I don't quite...Mr. Strawman, is it?
Lawnmowers cut things, hands included. Coffee is hot, and it can sear skin just like any other kind of hot water. Reasonable people expect these things. Reasonable people should not expect that their phone, which is designed to be placed next to the head to make phone calls, could explode if the screen cracks. A reasonable person might expect some kind of danger to the person using the phone if one had, say, run the phone over with a car, and if that's what these people were doing then maybe they got what one would expect. But if it was caused by a minor shock or a particularly heavy guy sitting on it, the design of the phone should not be such that it would explode.
Of course you shouldn't expect it not to break. But an explosion? That's unacceptable.
I think the real problem isn't government use: it's the use by estranged spouses who make their former partners' lives a living hell.
not only of our basic freedoms that we FOUGHT and DIED for
Then how are you posting?
I'll take them.
Seriously, they don't have one good tech guy who could wipe the drives/check the internals for rogue hardware?
I propose we use the Irish children.
...in Israel?
The solution? Type really, really fast.
...which is what the last version of Firefox added with "Private Browsing".
Hah, yeah. Though I don't mind that so much. My only grade less than an A throughout my K-12 years was a B in handwriting.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the summary, but isn't the multisearch deal part of the Ubuntu add-on, not Firefox itself?
Or limit one child per family...
And because they're pretty awesome-looking bricks.
Who reads the summary? The title's all you need!
No, and I'm sure there will be some people wanting to know if their mail is going to be delivered by Beowulf Cluster.
I, for one, welcome our mail-delivering, Beowulf Cluster overlords.
Who is this Noone fellow?
Your attitude shows the typical american attitude -- if its not like us, its bad or weird.
Or, really, just the natural human response...which is not exclusive to Americans.
I may have to find the torrents just to be certain.
Anything in the name of science!
Maybe it's just me and a small minority of people, but while I don't find the aforementioned movies to be my cup of tea I also don't feel that these are particularly extreme...and, frankly, I can think of quite a few Hollywood movies with worse depictions in them, just without the real sex that apparently makes these movies "far worse". Plus, the scenes in Ass Clowns 3 sound hilarious.
If you were arrested for looking at someone, then asked in court if you indeed committed an "act of observation", would you lie and say you never looked or say you looked but that you had every right to do so?
Straw man aside, here's the exact article and summary wording
...pleaded guilty in March to a felony charge of conspiracy to distribute obscene material through the mail and over the Internet
Note that if they claimed the material was not obscene they could have pleaded not guilty...what they did instead was concede some material as obscene, non-protected speech and take a plea deal for a reduced sentence. Without seeing the videos I can't say for sure if what they were doing was truly criminal (the article is a little vague) and that they made the best decision for themselves, though I highly doubt that I would agree with the DOJ on this one.
Err...they plead guilty to crimes and went to prison. That doesn't mean it doesn't truly fall under protected speech, but in their case they sort of forfeited their ability to challenge this at the highest level.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us, we had nothing before us,
we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way
By the logic in this thread I would suggest that is is alcohol we should take off the market. After all, it damages your liver and all kinds of alcohol can be purchased WITHOUT the advice and guidance of a professional. Furthermore, it is understood that you need to take care when taking medicine; otherwise why would you need a prescription to take much of it. However, it is not the same for alcohol.
I wouldn't go that far, and I find a small problem with your reasoning. While it's true that the warnings against taking too much acetaminophen are printed clearly on the drug facts label while the alcohol containers have only the vague "may cause health problems" warning, the effects of taking too much alcohol can be readily seen. One becomes aware of intoxication, people feel physically sick, and, ultimately, the person is fully aware that they're hurting themselves. All of this can occur in a single night during which little liver damage takes place, and the person can use their sickness as a warning against further abuse or ignore it; it's their choice.
Taking too much Tylenol, on the other hand, does not manifest itself right away. As long as the headache goes away a lot of people will say "screw the warning, I want to feel better so I'll take six...it's never hurt me before". And so without recognizing the problem and despite being warned, people take too much and can't feel their consequences until it's too late.
Personally I'm not in favor of banning either drug, and I really wish the government would just keep providing the warnings as they always have and leave it to the people to ignore them.
So name the studies. Alcohol damages the liver as it's broken down and so does acetaminophen, and it follows that taking both at the same time is even worse (not to mention possible interactions and metabolic interference caused by alcohol.
I fail to see how the sister was incorrect about the dangers of mixing the two drugs, though I do wonder how much the risk of liver disease is truly increased.
Sure, not every parent can be expected to be a genius, but if you're going to let children use a computer on the internet, you have responsibilities to act as a sysadmin.
I'm sorry: are you joking? So many people can't even act as their own sysadmin to the point that there's little difference between a child inadvertantly downloading tons of malware and the parents' own activities. No, no: the ordinary person's computer will only be safe when the next "version" of the internet is only accessable through cryptic terminal commands and the only people online are the ones who know what they're doing.
/semiTongueInCheekStatement
Though if by "successful" they mean "successful at making their users' lives more difficult one bizarre error at a time", I'd say they're spot on.