This is why you rig your basement with bombs, so that when the police enter without a legal search warrant obtained from a judge (as required by the Constitution), then you get set off the bomb and teach all who are watching a lesson: Don't Ignore the Supreme Law.
Back to drugs:
I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own home. To paraphrase Jefferson, whether my neighbors shoot-up or drink one drug, many drugs, or no drugs matters not to me. It does not harm my body, my property, nor my rights. Therefore my neighbor, in the privacy of his own home, can do whatever he wants.
In other words, we should treat all drugs the same way we treat alcohol. You can drink yourself dead if that's what you want to do, but if you leave your home then you'll be restricted (arrested for drunkenly conduct or DUI).
Even if it is going to "end of life", I still don't see why they need to disable the security protection. If Microsoft did that with XP, in order to try to get people to move to Vista, people would scream bloody murder.
But because this is Firefox, for some reason it's okay where if MS did it, people would call foul. Double standard.
I don't know. Why is it I can walk into Barnes & Noble right now and find photobooks filled with naked uderage models? Answer: Because nudity is not verboten. These photos are protected under the First Amendment.
If the UK is so strict that it qon't even allow nudity, then its laws need to be changed to more reasonable like the U.S. (where nude photos are allowed).
Judas Priest. Doesn't anyone read the article? QUOTE: "When NetEnforcers finds goods for sale below minimum advertised price (MAP)..... if the seller isn't an authorized dealer -- NetEnforcers says other tactics are used to try to force a lowball price off the Internet. In these cases, they can allege that the discounter's use of the product's name or image constitutes trademark or copyright infringement"
In other words, they make up a bunch of lies just so they can enforce MAP upon people who are not bound by any such contract.
Stop mislabeling this image as "porn". Standing around without clothing is NOT porn. Sex is porn; this is just simple nudity. OH. And in the U.S. "simulated child porn" is 100% legal because there are no children involved. I don't know if the same is true in the UK, but if it isn't the laws should be rewritten. Adults dressed as children, or CGI simulations of children, is not child anything. To coin a phrase: "No children were harmed during the filming"
Even if it is going to "end of life", I still don't see why they need to disable the security protection. If Microsoft did that with XP, in order to try to get people to move to Vista, people would scream bloody murder.
But because this is Firefox, for some reason it's okay where if MS did it, people would call foul. Double standard.
Just because someone's dying is no excuse for them to not pay for their music. I think the MAFIAA is acting in the artists' best interests and the interests of all concerned./end sarcasm
I disagree. I already tried Firefox 3 and it ran very poorly, so that's why I went back to Firefox 2.
IMHO rahter than disable the feature, thereby making users vulnerable to scams, the correct solution is to upgrade the anti-phishing to v2. Toturn it off completely is somewhat akin to a AntiVirus 2.0.0.19 program deciding to turn-off its scanner, to force users to move to AntiVirus 3. The ends do NOT justify leaving users vulnerable to attack.
I have a right to testdrive a car before laying-down my money.
Similarly I should have a right to testdrive Galactica 1980 or any other tv show, prior to laying down $50-100 to buy it. Alternatively, I should have the right to ask for refund when I discover it's crap.
The current system where you have to buy something to discover its crap, and have no choice but to be stuck with that loss of funds, is bullshit. No other industry works on that principle and neither should the TV show or gaming industry.
.
Finally, I can not lay my hands on any part where I insulted you. You're making a strawman argument.
You people are naive because you lack selling experience. I've had several Ebay auctions yanked, and there was nothing wrong with them, except some "netenforcer" felt like it (using Ebay's VERO program). It's similar to how a DMCA claim can be used to take down a awebsite even if there's nothing wrong with the website.
Well if you bothered to read the frakking article, you'd know that NetEnforcers use Ebay's VERO program to remove seller's listed items. That's how my DVD listing was removed, even though it violated nothing except some NetEnforcer with too much time on his/her hands.
That's fine. I'd also tell the jury that I think Michaelangelo's David, an image of an underage body without clothes, is also beautiful. I would remind the jury that it was the great British author Shakespeare who observed, "What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable."
And beautiful.
I am not ashamed to say that I think the human form is the the work of the Master, the Almighty God, and if I must serve time in jail for admiring my Creator's work, then so be it. My conscious is clear and my God is just, and it is YOU gentlemen and ladies who will someday have to stand before the great Judge of the world, and explain why you sentenced an innocent man to prison who had committed no moral crime, no mortal sin.
I offer this final thought from Pope John Paul the Second, the Bishop of Rome, the See of Peter, the Rock upon which Christ built his church: "Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered, and preserve intact its splendor. And its beauty." To call the unclothed human form a "sin" is to insult God himself.
If the 4998 other images do not involve penetration with a penis, dildo, fingers, or other object, there is NO sex and there is NO victim of childhood rape. The little 10 year old girl (now a 40 year old women) was not harmed by this photograph, just as Brooke Shields was not harmed when she was filmed naked at age 10-11.
Nudity is not a crime. Nudity is our natural state.
>>>if an adult woman was in the same pose with her genitals only just hidden by a photoshop trick, I expect that many people would agree that it is a "sexual pose".
I wonder how these assholes bathe themselves? After all, they musn't let themselves see their naked bodies! That's obsecne! Maybe they wear blindfolds.
Thanks for you opinion, but the facts speak for themselves: There's no sex; there's no penetration of anything anywhere. Therefore it's not illegal under U.S. law. UK law may be more strict but in the States nudity is not forbidden.
They already have. They falsely told Ebay that my store-bought DVD was an illegal copy, and the sale got yanked. So yes they can block my and your private sales.
I didn't sign a contract, so I'm not bound by Minimum Pricing, but that doesn't stop NetEnforcers. They falsely tell Ebay or Amazon that my PS3 sale violates copyright, and thereby get my listing removed.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why you rig your basement with bombs, so that when the police enter without a legal search warrant obtained from a judge (as required by the Constitution), then you get set off the bomb and teach all who are watching a lesson: Don't Ignore the Supreme Law.
Back to drugs:
I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own home. To paraphrase Jefferson, whether my neighbors shoot-up or drink one drug, many drugs, or no drugs matters not to me. It does not harm my body, my property, nor my rights. Therefore my neighbor, in the privacy of his own home, can do whatever he wants.
In other words, we should treat all drugs the same way we treat alcohol. You can drink yourself dead if that's what you want to do, but if you leave your home then you'll be restricted (arrested for drunkenly conduct or DUI).
Probably not for another year; I'll upgrade then. In the meantime I'll have the security with 2.0.0.18 that 2.0.0.19 does not provide.
>>> Idiot.
Immature. Leave the insults in the playground.
>>>Mozilla needs to strongly persuade people to move away from the old version.
And they do this by leaving Firefox 2 users "vulnerable to browser exploits" by disabling the security. Bassbackwards.
Even if it is going to "end of life", I still don't see why they need to disable the security protection. If Microsoft did that with XP, in order to try to get people to move to Vista, people would scream bloody murder.
But because this is Firefox, for some reason it's okay where if MS did it, people would call foul. Double standard.
I challene you to visit domai.com (NSFW) and tell me what's indecent about those images (naked human beings).
I don't know. Why is it I can walk into Barnes & Noble right now and find photobooks filled with naked uderage models? Answer: Because nudity is not verboten. These photos are protected under the First Amendment.
If the UK is so strict that it qon't even allow nudity, then its laws need to be changed to more reasonable like the U.S. (where nude photos are allowed).
Judas Priest. Doesn't anyone read the article? QUOTE: "When NetEnforcers finds goods for sale below minimum advertised price (MAP)..... if the seller isn't an authorized dealer -- NetEnforcers says other tactics are used to try to force a lowball price off the Internet. In these cases, they can allege that the discounter's use of the product's name or image constitutes trademark or copyright infringement"
In other words, they make up a bunch of lies just so they can enforce MAP upon people who are not bound by any such contract.
>>>the use of child porn
Stop mislabeling this image as "porn". Standing around without clothing is NOT porn. Sex is porn; this is just simple nudity. OH. And in the U.S. "simulated child porn" is 100% legal because there are no children involved. I don't know if the same is true in the UK, but if it isn't the laws should be rewritten. Adults dressed as children, or CGI simulations of children, is not child anything. To coin a phrase: "No children were harmed during the filming"
Even if it is going to "end of life", I still don't see why they need to disable the security protection. If Microsoft did that with XP, in order to try to get people to move to Vista, people would scream bloody murder.
But because this is Firefox, for some reason it's okay where if MS did it, people would call foul. Double standard.
Well of course.
Just because someone's dying is no excuse for them to not pay for their music. I think the MAFIAA is acting in the artists' best interests and the interests of all concerned. /end sarcasm
P.S.
I'm currently at 2.0.0.12 and 2.0.0.18 will be final update. I'm not going to xxxx.19 if thry're going to disable my protection. Froget that.
I disagree. I already tried Firefox 3 and it ran very poorly, so that's why I went back to Firefox 2.
IMHO rahter than disable the feature, thereby making users vulnerable to scams, the correct solution is to upgrade the anti-phishing to v2. Toturn it off completely is somewhat akin to a AntiVirus 2.0.0.19 program deciding to turn-off its scanner, to force users to move to AntiVirus 3. The ends do NOT justify leaving users vulnerable to attack.
I have a right to testdrive a car before laying-down my money.
Similarly I should have a right to testdrive Galactica 1980 or any other tv show, prior to laying down $50-100 to buy it. Alternatively, I should have the right to ask for refund when I discover it's crap.
The current system where you have to buy something to discover its crap, and have no choice but to be stuck with that loss of funds, is bullshit. No other industry works on that principle and neither should the TV show or gaming industry.
.
Finally, I can not lay my hands on any part where I insulted you. You're making a strawman argument.
You people are naive because you lack selling experience. I've had several Ebay auctions yanked, and there was nothing wrong with them, except some "netenforcer" felt like it (using Ebay's VERO program). It's similar to how a DMCA claim can be used to take down a awebsite even if there's nothing wrong with the website.
Well if you bothered to read the frakking article, you'd know that NetEnforcers use Ebay's VERO program to remove seller's listed items. That's how my DVD listing was removed, even though it violated nothing except some NetEnforcer with too much time on his/her hands.
That's fine. I'd also tell the jury that I think Michaelangelo's David, an image of an underage body without clothes, is also beautiful. I would remind the jury that it was the great British author Shakespeare who observed, "What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable."
And beautiful.
I am not ashamed to say that I think the human form is the the work of the Master, the Almighty God, and if I must serve time in jail for admiring my Creator's work, then so be it. My conscious is clear and my God is just, and it is YOU gentlemen and ladies who will someday have to stand before the great Judge of the world, and explain why you sentenced an innocent man to prison who had committed no moral crime, no mortal sin.
I offer this final thought from Pope John Paul the Second, the Bishop of Rome, the See of Peter, the Rock upon which Christ built his church: "Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered, and preserve intact its splendor. And its beauty." To call the unclothed human form a "sin" is to insult God himself.
If the 4998 other images do not involve penetration with a penis, dildo, fingers, or other object, there is NO sex and there is NO victim of childhood rape. The little 10 year old girl (now a 40 year old women) was not harmed by this photograph, just as Brooke Shields was not harmed when she was filmed naked at age 10-11.
Nudity is not a crime. Nudity is our natural state.
This debating is pointless. We need to go back to the key issue:
- Was this little girl (now a 40-year-old woman) harmed by being photographed naked? Did a man force sex upon her?
The answer is no. Nobody's harmed,
therefore no virtim and no rights violated.
>>>if an adult woman was in the same pose with her genitals only just hidden by a photoshop trick, I expect that many people would agree that it is a "sexual pose".
I wonder how these assholes bathe themselves? After all, they musn't let themselves see their naked bodies! That's obsecne! Maybe they wear blindfolds.
Stupid frakkers.
Thanks for you opinion, but the facts speak for themselves: There's no sex; there's no penetration of anything anywhere. Therefore it's not illegal under U.S. law. UK law may be more strict but in the States nudity is not forbidden.
>>>They won't block your sale.
They already have. They falsely told Ebay that my store-bought DVD was an illegal copy, and the sale got yanked. So yes they can block my and your private sales.
Hmmm. No wonder Thomas Jefferson advised the Supreme Court could not be trusted.
I didn't sign a contract, so I'm not bound by Minimum Pricing, but that doesn't stop NetEnforcers. They falsely tell Ebay or Amazon that my PS3 sale violates copyright, and thereby get my listing removed.
That should not be allowed.