I agree with him. They only have themselves to blame for picking AT&T in the first place. If they wanted good honest service then they had every reason to believe that AT&T was the last place they would find it.
Will this law change anything though? Right now, they have to have 18+ games shipped to them or order online. In countries where 18+ is completely legal, we do the same.
In Canada and the US, for example, 18+ games are completely legal (no special restrictions as far as I know). But that does not mean that a single brick and mortar store has anything to do with them. While we were able to convince the government that games are the same as movies, parents continue to think otherwise.
"points out that users pay good money to ISPs for those 'free' sites."" Since when is paying the ISP equivalent to paying a website for its free content? He does realise the these ISPs do not give a royalty of these funds to all free sites, right?
Just because I pay my taxes does not mean that I am in my rights to steal stuff.
Ah, so you disagree with a significant portion of the world that blasphemy against Allah should have a death penalty?
And lets get this straight. A 16 year old sending risky photos of herself to her 16 yo boyfriend should be impaled on a giant stake, until death? Or is it just the boyfriend who should be killed?
You cannot. You cannot at any age. And children are more likely then any other group to be "tricked" into something. I am not saying that there are no good reasons for paedophilia laws or that they should not exist in some form. But even cockroaches can make decisions and consent to mating.
And we are not even really talking about consenting to sex, a lot of kiddie porn is made of children old enough to legally consent to sex with similar aged children, and child porn does not have to include sex. This is consent to be photographed/video taped. Not that they cannot be coerced into that as well.
Going off on a tangent. The logical direction of both of our opinions would be: children should need the consent of their legal guardians. Which seems like a decent idea in theory to me.
About pre-pubescent sexuality, well it does exist, if in a different from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexuality#Early_childhood).
"The question is that with necrophilia, bestiality, and underage sex, it is questionable whether or not one party is capable of truly giving consent, and if that is the case, then they would be considered coerced under all circumstances."
Personally, I think that argument is only valid for pedo. We already have systems in place to consent to things being done to bodies. You can donate your body to science (why not sell it to fetish sex company instead). And for animals there are two main arguments. 1) Their are few laws against killing and torturing animals. Hell we have whole races bread into slavery and murder millions of animals every day for food and other uses. And of the species that we do not enslave, we hunt for sport or at the very least kill in large number as collateral damage. It seems pretty ridiculous to be able to do all that then then care if we rape them when genocide is commonplace. 2) While most animals to not have the IQ of an adult human they are more then able to communicate their desire to mate with there own species. Any human would be more then able to pick on their language and tell if an animal was willing.
"Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia.""
They can consent, it is just that they law does not care if they do, in this case. And I disagree, "voluntary pedophilia" seems like a completely reasonable term.
Lets try to get this straight. It is not that a 17 year old is not able to make informed decisions, it is just that the law does not care about their opinions.
If they banned all content that was illegal there would not be much/any left. Of course it is a slippery slop. What happens when Muslims ask for all any anti Muslim content to be banned? What if Ireland asks for all any Christian content to be banned. What if China asks for all anti government content to be banned? What about gay porn?
And who defines child porn? Even the US states cannot agree on a single age of consent and an age limit is not universal.
"[P]rostitution, adultery" Adultery obviously should be legal, why involve the government in the affairs of a marriage? Prostitution is legal in most countries.
So if a person is infertile then they are not alive? Or if we genetically changed a person so that their offspring was a clone of them (no variations) then they would not be a life form?
While I like this ruling, I completely disagree that ISPs have no control. They do not have the same type of control as television, but they have the ability to control everything if they saw fit. And are exercising more and more control all the time.
Oh, well that is simple enough. I am surprised with the prevalence of cell phones that most languages do not already have a cell phone font. And I would imagine that if is currently impossible to write words in some language on a cell phone then that means that no one who only speaks that language has a cell phone.
Or do many many people use a cell phone only for calling and are unable to use it for anything else because they cannot even read the text that the cell phone uses?
I don't understand the problem. The bible at its core is just words. It does not matter what font you use, it does not matter what size or format you use. It is like all other books, or even most websites. They talk about notes, but that is a single special case that seem like you could solve in an afternoon.
Your right, you cannot become a SE in any worthwhile college without a course or two mentioning testing and specifically the job of Software Test Engineer. That is stuff they start teaching in SE 101.
But if your job is to test then you are not going to just fiddle with the program for a while and then give it a pass. As a professional tester you come up with boundary cases and test rigorously. And it is not necessarily on a gui level.
I had no idea that existed. the simple grammar, words, and short sentences seem like a strange rule. Like I said Wikipedia is too complex for the non expert in many fields but the problem is not because they use too long words. I cannot imagine that many people benefiting from simple English, all in all it is not a particularly easy subject but we all do get quite a lot of practice. If you are too young/stupid to understand the English language used in Wikipedia then you will not have much hope for the content.
But I assume they target the content towards the non expert as well as simplifying the language.
But if the teacher and the text book has been teaching a specific doctrine and using specific formulates then you can not just change all of that for the test. It is not student hand-holding, it is testing stuff that is not being taught.
What? that is ridiculous. Jefferson was a serious, vocal, outspoken hater of Christianity and the God of the bible (and all others). And while he had no problem with teachings of love they neighbour and other such niceties of Christianity he was more or less a deist. He was not opposed to a god of nature, just to all gods of men.
Some Sources: Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Well of course they believed in a deity, at that time in that place their Atheism really did not have many good arguments going for it. And all of your other arguments follow from them believing in a creator god. But someone who says "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." is more or less on the precipice of Atheist. Just like how Charles Darwin was a religious man but was open to the idea of evolution instead of god when he saw the evidence. If you believe in a god but have zero faith, such that any valid argument would sway you from faith then are you not in reality an atheist? At least in a more or less, kind-of, maybe, using some definitions sort of way.
I know quite a few students in my university were, mildly (nothing official), suspected of cheating because we all used some really strange method of testing if a register was equal to 0 (in some hardware language). Well the prof had told us all this very interesting, long, and memorable story about how this guy had used this same method to speed up some compiler.
If you have 1 curriculum taught by 1 teacher to many students, it is no wonder that many people answer the questions the same way.
Wikipedia is like the worst site to go to for equations and school help. 100% of the time unlike all other sites, they use different syntax and often strange slightly different formulas for math type stuff or just horribly long winded, confusing, and stupid definitions and explanations for all other subject matter then the prof/book/other math/science sites.
I think the problem is that the technical, not for laymen, articles of Wikipedia are written by experts for experts and as such really are not at all helpful for students who are learning dumbed down versions of the same stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
It does not matter. You cannot patent life so even if these farmers are using second generation Monsanto seed on purpose they are doing nothing wrong.
I agree with him. They only have themselves to blame for picking AT&T in the first place.
If they wanted good honest service then they had every reason to believe that AT&T was the last place they would find it.
Will this law change anything though?
Right now, they have to have 18+ games shipped to them or order online. In countries where 18+ is completely legal, we do the same.
In Canada and the US, for example, 18+ games are completely legal (no special restrictions as far as I know). But that does not mean that a single brick and mortar store has anything to do with them. While we were able to convince the government that games are the same as movies, parents continue to think otherwise.
I don't think the point was to demonstrate their skill at hacking.
Yes, I do.
Enlighten me.
"points out that users pay good money to ISPs for those 'free' sites.""
Since when is paying the ISP equivalent to paying a website for its free content?
He does realise the these ISPs do not give a royalty of these funds to all free sites, right?
Just because I pay my taxes does not mean that I am in my rights to steal stuff.
Ah, so you disagree with a significant portion of the world that blasphemy against Allah should have a death penalty?
And lets get this straight. A 16 year old sending risky photos of herself to her 16 yo boyfriend should be impaled on a giant stake, until death? Or is it just the boyfriend who should be killed?
You cannot. You cannot at any age.
And children are more likely then any other group to be "tricked" into something. I am not saying that there are no good reasons for paedophilia laws or that they should not exist in some form.
But even cockroaches can make decisions and consent to mating.
And we are not even really talking about consenting to sex, a lot of kiddie porn is made of children old enough to legally consent to sex with similar aged children, and child porn does not have to include sex.
This is consent to be photographed/video taped. Not that they cannot be coerced into that as well.
Going off on a tangent. The logical direction of both of our opinions would be: children should need the consent of their legal guardians. Which seems like a decent idea in theory to me.
About pre-pubescent sexuality, well it does exist, if in a different from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexuality#Early_childhood).
And for blasphemy against Allah, of course.
Any interference by Google, even if it is just a generic disclaimer, put on a specific search is a political agenda.
"The question is that with necrophilia, bestiality, and underage sex, it is questionable whether or not one party is capable of truly giving consent, and if that is the case, then they would be considered coerced under all circumstances."
Personally, I think that argument is only valid for pedo.
We already have systems in place to consent to things being done to bodies. You can donate your body to science (why not sell it to fetish sex company instead).
And for animals there are two main arguments.
1) Their are few laws against killing and torturing animals. Hell we have whole races bread into slavery and murder millions of animals every day for food and other uses. And of the species that we do not enslave, we hunt for sport or at the very least kill in large number as collateral damage. It seems pretty ridiculous to be able to do all that then then care if we rape them when genocide is commonplace.
2) While most animals to not have the IQ of an adult human they are more then able to communicate their desire to mate with there own species. Any human would be more then able to pick on their language and tell if an animal was willing.
"Children can't legally or emotionally consent to sex; there's no such thing as "voluntary pedophilia.""
They can consent, it is just that they law does not care if they do, in this case.
And I disagree, "voluntary pedophilia" seems like a completely reasonable term.
Lets try to get this straight. It is not that a 17 year old is not able to make informed decisions, it is just that the law does not care about their opinions.
If they banned all content that was illegal there would not be much/any left.
Of course it is a slippery slop. What happens when Muslims ask for all any anti Muslim content to be banned? What if Ireland asks for all any Christian content to be banned. What if China asks for all anti government content to be banned? What about gay porn?
And who defines child porn? Even the US states cannot agree on a single age of consent and an age limit is not universal.
"[P]rostitution, adultery"
Adultery obviously should be legal, why involve the government in the affairs of a marriage?
Prostitution is legal in most countries.
So if a person is infertile then they are not alive?
Or if we genetically changed a person so that their offspring was a clone of them (no variations) then they would not be a life form?
While I like this ruling, I completely disagree that ISPs have no control.
They do not have the same type of control as television, but they have the ability to control everything if they saw fit.
And are exercising more and more control all the time.
Oh, well that is simple enough.
I am surprised with the prevalence of cell phones that most languages do not already have a cell phone font.
And I would imagine that if is currently impossible to write words in some language on a cell phone then that means that no one who only speaks that language has a cell phone.
Or do many many people use a cell phone only for calling and are unable to use it for anything else because they cannot even read the text that the cell phone uses?
I don't understand the problem.
The bible at its core is just words. It does not matter what font you use, it does not matter what size or format you use.
It is like all other books, or even most websites.
They talk about notes, but that is a single special case that seem like you could solve in an afternoon.
Your right, you cannot become a SE in any worthwhile college without a course or two mentioning testing and specifically the job of Software Test Engineer.
That is stuff they start teaching in SE 101.
But if your job is to test then you are not going to just fiddle with the program for a while and then give it a pass.
As a professional tester you come up with boundary cases and test rigorously.
And it is not necessarily on a gui level.
I had no idea that existed.
the simple grammar, words, and short sentences seem like a strange rule. Like I said Wikipedia is too complex for the non expert in many fields but the problem is not because they use too long words.
I cannot imagine that many people benefiting from simple English, all in all it is not a particularly easy subject but we all do get quite a lot of practice.
If you are too young/stupid to understand the English language used in Wikipedia then you will not have much hope for the content.
But I assume they target the content towards the non expert as well as simplifying the language.
But if the teacher and the text book has been teaching a specific doctrine and using specific formulates then you can not just change all of that for the test.
It is not student hand-holding, it is testing stuff that is not being taught.
What? that is ridiculous.
Jefferson was a serious, vocal, outspoken hater of Christianity and the God of the bible (and all others). And while he had no problem with teachings of love they neighbour and other such niceties of Christianity he was more or less a deist. He was not opposed to a god of nature, just to all gods of men.
Some Sources:
Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Well of course they believed in a deity, at that time in that place their Atheism really did not have many good arguments going for it.
And all of your other arguments follow from them believing in a creator god.
But someone who says "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." is more or less on the precipice of Atheist.
Just like how Charles Darwin was a religious man but was open to the idea of evolution instead of god when he saw the evidence.
If you believe in a god but have zero faith, such that any valid argument would sway you from faith then are you not in reality an atheist? At least in a more or less, kind-of, maybe, using some definitions sort of way.
YES.
I know quite a few students in my university were, mildly (nothing official), suspected of cheating because we all used some really strange method of testing if a register was equal to 0 (in some hardware language).
Well the prof had told us all this very interesting, long, and memorable story about how this guy had used this same method to speed up some compiler.
If you have 1 curriculum taught by 1 teacher to many students, it is no wonder that many people answer the questions the same way.
Wikipedia is like the worst site to go to for equations and school help.
100% of the time unlike all other sites, they use different syntax and often strange slightly different formulas for math type stuff or just horribly long winded, confusing, and stupid definitions and explanations for all other subject matter then the prof/book/other math/science sites.
I think the problem is that the technical, not for laymen, articles of Wikipedia are written by experts for experts and as such really are not at all helpful for students who are learning dumbed down versions of the same stuff.