Why not have different URLs for the different domains. http://hotmail.com/ for hotmail users, http://mail.msn.com/ for msn.com users and so on and so forth. Why in the fuck would you use hotmail for 6 different domans' users?
Get in a physical altercation with a dumbass druggie, possibly lose, have them grab your sidearm, get shot by a douche bag and leave a widow and a kid with emotional problems. OR Tase the dumbass and see your kid graduate college, retire on a modest income, see grandkids at thanksgiving, etc.
It cops are involved in one on one confrontations how often? How often are four or five of them beating the shit out of a suspect?
Law enforcement is supposed to be a hard job. The less idle time cops have, the less likely they'll be to push for more powers to violate our civil rights.
That's a false dichotomy. The police (and you or I for that matter) have every right to use deadly force against someone who is charging with a knife. It'll be a lot harder to explain why a cop shot an unarmed white guy while he was heckling John Kerry.
I said I was against animals being killed at all, tortured or otherwise!
Assuming that you live in a free country, that's your choice. I do not agree. The thing that I'm sure we both agree about is that animals shouldn't be tortured. That is a right of all living things.
And you come back with "oh it is fine to kill innocent animals... they are not REALLY alive, you know?... my smallest, tiniest *cells* are more 'alive' than a full-grown intelligent chimpanzee or cow!". Bravo!!!
I said no such thing. Pay attention next time.
And by extension, if the emborys are not being tortured, I guess you are fine with their being killed? Please explicitly confirm so.
Not only are you an idiot, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
I bet you know nothing about the groundbreaking genetic work done by Gregor Mendel. Go ahead and google for him. You'll find out both his profession and where he did his work.
The point that I'm making is that religious people have long taken part in scientific research. Ethics may be influenced by religion, but it does not require it.
But that is a very Christian belief, isn't it? i.e. humans being the only "really" alive beings!
Nonsense. One does not have to be a Christian to have ethics. It's not about who is or who is not "alive" it's about what rights an organism has. Even animals that we use for food have the right not to be tortured. Millions of people across the country will be eating Turkey this week, I doubt that many of them think it would be ok to torture those turkeys before they're slaughtered for food.
So basically the American Government is just enforcing a "Christian" belief, while paying lip service to the idea of being secular, "religious equality" and "separation of state and the church".
I'm not a Christian and I agree with the Bush administration on this issue.
Encryption keys are supposed to be kept as secure as possible; it strikes me as insane to let them touch the swiss-cheesiest app on the machine.
Yeah, but when you've got insecure apps on a machine what else can be secure? If your web browser is sufficiently insecure, what's to stop a buffer overflow from giving someone access to a file that you haven't specifically opened?
I never understood this idea, so popular on slashdot, that downloading stuff that you didn't pay for is somehow not stealing.
Because stealing requires that the "victim" incur an actual loss, not merely a theoretical one.
Can anybody fill me in as to why downloading music without paying for it is ok?
That's a separate issue. It's not "OK", but it's not stealing either. To illustrate the point that I'm making, take the following example. If someone seduces and has sex with someone else's spouse, they have done something that I think most of us would consider wrong but was it rape?
The recording industry has tried to pretend that copyright infringement is the same as someone putting a gun to your head and taking your wallet. It's not.
Don't anybody even suggest raising rates to reduce consumption, that's anti-progress!
It's not just anti-progress, it's fucking stupid. It would be like over taxing food to get people lose weight. If they can't afford to buy as much food, they'll eat less.
Your job as an officer or executive of a company is to maximize shareholder value while obeying the law and business ethics. All of these things are supposed to be done. It's in a company's best financial interests to take care of their customers because that's where revenue comes from. If your customers abandon you because of your shady dealings or you lose millions of dollars in a lawsuit or the government steps in to micromanage your business, then the shareholders are going to be quite upset.
so probably a violation of TOS and breaking of some rules by logging in as other people.
No matter what the TOSAdvisor on AOL told you, TOS are not laws. They at best are a contract, if you breach a contract you have to pay money. You don't go to jail for breaking a contract with a private entity.
But I helpfully bolded the parts you missed - your standard issue boob grab is for the male's satisfaction, not the female's. Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it with intent to arouse her...didn't think so.
I don't know how YOU do it, but I've found that many women become quite aroused if their breasts are fondled. And on it's face it goes beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton't intent was to "arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"
Ah, I see we come to the part of the conversation where you make up shit to back up your baseless talking points.
You're so fond of Google, google for "Bill Clinton disbarred", you'll get over 100,000 results. Know why? Because he lied.
Then remember that her case was thrown out because even if what she said was true, it didn't amount to harassment.
That's a separate issue. Having a case that the courts ultimately determine to be without merit doesn't mean that the defense gets to lie under oath.
I guess you missed the part where that could easily be renewed.
You must not have been paying attention. The Democrats didn't want it renewed and the Republicans didn't care to renew it. Your definition of "easily" isn't very accurate.
Clinton was found not guilty by the Senate, whereas Libby was found guilty by a jury, in charges brought by a Bush appointed prosecutor before a Bush appointed judge. Clinton was caught up in a pathetic witch hunt to drive him out of office. Libby was convicted because a serious crime was committed: outing a covert agent working on nuclear non-proliferation.
Blah, blah, blah... Like I said, you supported your guy even though he was obviously guilty. I'm supporting mine.
Right, and you responded by claiming that one of Bush's criminal programs wasn't as bad as some totally unrelated, seemingly randomly selected, type of abuse committed in other places ignoring the fact that another of Bush's criminal programs is doing exactly what you claimed his actions were not as bad as.
So if I understand what you're saying, one company(Yahoo) giving a government(China) access to information(Someone's name) is random compared with a company(AT&T) giving a government(USA) access to information(telephone calls & logs).
It said: Sexual relations occur "when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky]."
Clinton admitted to fondling her breasts. His only defense is that he didn't intend to arouse or gratify either his own or her sexual desire.
I can't read his mind, but it's obvious that the intent of fondling someone's breasts is intended to arouse and gratify.
Secondly, even if he did lie, it's not perjury because the lie happens to be relevant to the case at hand.
Wrong again. In the Paula Jones case, he was accused of seeking oral sex from a subordinate. The Violence Against Women Act, (which Clinton himself signed)make it legal to try to establish a pattern of behavior on the part of an accused sexual harrasser. If you're accused of seeking sexual favors from your subordinates, it's certainly relevant if you have actually received sexual favors from your subordinates.
As the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it wouldn't have been perjury if he lied through his teeth.
Bullshit. He was disbarred for perjury.
Witness tampering: weak allegations from Republicans.
When he told Monica, that if she denied the affair then no one could prove otherwise, that's exactly what he was doing.
Obstruction of justice: just what justice was Clinton obstructing, exactly?
Paula Jones's right to justice. She had the right (because of a law that he signed) to establish a pattern of behavior on his part. He lied and denied her that. His lie was obstruction of justice.
You had the same god damn people who called for Clinton's impeachment over supposed perjury passionately calling for a pardon of Scooter Libby's perjury conviction.
Call it payback. You supported your guy even though he was as guilty as sin, so how can you expect us to do any different?
Where's the special prosecutor with a vendetta and $60 million to burn?
I guess you missed that part where congress didn't renew the law that provided the special prosecutor.
The congress has a responsibility to impeach such behavior because failing to do so condones the illegal behavior.
Exactly. Let one President get away with perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury then just look at what the next one does.
Slashdot Mirror
Lara Croft changed things?
I guess you must have missed Samus.
LK
Preserved soft tissue...Dino-Jerky!
Think about it. After 80 million years, you know it's tender.
LK
That's not an impossible idea. How about "Land of Nod"?
I just googled for myself and I see that some Asscock has my name on myspace and yahoo 360.
There are over 15000 hits on my name, but for some reason this guy has the top two.
I'm pissed.
LK
Why not have different URLs for the different domains. http://hotmail.com/ for hotmail users, http://mail.msn.com/ for msn.com users and so on and so forth. Why in the fuck would you use hotmail for 6 different domans' users?
LK
Obviously you are not a cop,
Maybe his parents were married.
Get in a physical altercation with a dumbass druggie, possibly lose, have them grab your sidearm, get shot by a douche bag and leave a widow and a kid with emotional problems. OR Tase the dumbass and see your kid graduate college, retire on a modest income, see grandkids at thanksgiving, etc.
It cops are involved in one on one confrontations how often? How often are four or five of them beating the shit out of a suspect?
Law enforcement is supposed to be a hard job. The less idle time cops have, the less likely they'll be to push for more powers to violate our civil rights.
LK
That's a false dichotomy. The police (and you or I for that matter) have every right to use deadly force against someone who is charging with a knife. It'll be a lot harder to explain why a cop shot an unarmed white guy while he was heckling John Kerry.
LK
Exhibit A: A little too gay for me.
Exhibit B: A little too uptight for me.
LK
I agree they have, however they go looking for God in science whereas the typical athiest scientist or engineer just wants to know how it works.
So what? Why does it matter if faith is someone's inspiration for studying things?
Don't even get me started on intelligent design.
I don't remember bringing that up. It's a separate issue.
Besides everyone knows the one true god is the flying spaghetti monster. Long may his noodly appendage flap upon us!
I can only assume that you think I'm a Christian and are trying to bait me. I'm not and you can't.
LK
I said I was against animals being killed at all, tortured or otherwise!
... my smallest, tiniest *cells* are more 'alive' than a full-grown intelligent chimpanzee or cow!". Bravo!!!
Assuming that you live in a free country, that's your choice. I do not agree. The thing that I'm sure we both agree about is that animals shouldn't be tortured. That is a right of all living things.
And you come back with "oh it is fine to kill innocent animals... they are not REALLY alive, you know?
I said no such thing. Pay attention next time.
And by extension, if the emborys are not being tortured, I guess you are fine with their being killed? Please explicitly confirm so.
Spell it correctly and I'll answer.
LK
Where are you going to find Randall Waterhouse, America Shaftoe and a bunch of secret admirers to run the joint?
Yeah, I've heard this story somewhere before.
here would be a few basic rules such as no WMD, no full human cloning, no human chimera, and human experimenting.
If you impose any conditions, what makes you any better than George Bush?
LK
Not only are you an idiot, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
I bet you know nothing about the groundbreaking genetic work done by Gregor Mendel. Go ahead and google for him. You'll find out both his profession and where he did his work.
The point that I'm making is that religious people have long taken part in scientific research. Ethics may be influenced by religion, but it does not require it.
LK
But that is a very Christian belief, isn't it? i.e. humans being the only "really" alive beings!
Nonsense. One does not have to be a Christian to have ethics. It's not about who is or who is not "alive" it's about what rights an organism has. Even animals that we use for food have the right not to be tortured. Millions of people across the country will be eating Turkey this week, I doubt that many of them think it would be ok to torture those turkeys before they're slaughtered for food.
So basically the American Government is just enforcing a "Christian" belief, while paying lip service to the idea of being secular, "religious equality" and "separation of state and the church".
I'm not a Christian and I agree with the Bush administration on this issue.
LK
Encryption keys are supposed to be kept as secure as possible; it strikes me as insane to let them touch the swiss-cheesiest app on the machine.
Yeah, but when you've got insecure apps on a machine what else can be secure? If your web browser is sufficiently insecure, what's to stop a buffer overflow from giving someone access to a file that you haven't specifically opened?
LK
I never understood this idea, so popular on slashdot, that downloading stuff that you didn't pay for is somehow not stealing.
Because stealing requires that the "victim" incur an actual loss, not merely a theoretical one.
Can anybody fill me in as to why downloading music without paying for it is ok?
That's a separate issue. It's not "OK", but it's not stealing either. To illustrate the point that I'm making, take the following example. If someone seduces and has sex with someone else's spouse, they have done something that I think most of us would consider wrong but was it rape?
The recording industry has tried to pretend that copyright infringement is the same as someone putting a gun to your head and taking your wallet. It's not.
LK
Don't anybody even suggest raising rates to reduce consumption, that's anti-progress!
It's not just anti-progress, it's fucking stupid. It would be like over taxing food to get people lose weight. If they can't afford to buy as much food, they'll eat less.
LK
No, both are important.
Your job as an officer or executive of a company is to maximize shareholder value while obeying the law and business ethics. All of these things are supposed to be done. It's in a company's best financial interests to take care of their customers because that's where revenue comes from. If your customers abandon you because of your shady dealings or you lose millions of dollars in a lawsuit or the government steps in to micromanage your business, then the shareholders are going to be quite upset.
LK
Fuck every single one of you.
No thanks. Your mom wore me us out.
LK
so probably a violation of TOS and breaking of some rules by logging in as other people.
No matter what the TOSAdvisor on AOL told you, TOS are not laws. They at best are a contract, if you breach a contract you have to pay money. You don't go to jail for breaking a contract with a private entity.
LK
I hope that he doesn't drop the virtual soap.
LK
But I helpfully bolded the parts you missed - your standard issue boob grab is for the male's satisfaction, not the female's. Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it with intent to arouse her...didn't think so.
I don't know how YOU do it, but I've found that many women become quite aroused if their breasts are fondled. And on it's face it goes beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton't intent was to "arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"
Ah, I see we come to the part of the conversation where you make up shit to back up your baseless talking points.
You're so fond of Google, google for "Bill Clinton disbarred", you'll get over 100,000 results. Know why? Because he lied.
Then remember that her case was thrown out because even if what she said was true, it didn't amount to harassment.
That's a separate issue. Having a case that the courts ultimately determine to be without merit doesn't mean that the defense gets to lie under oath.
I guess you missed the part where that could easily be renewed.
You must not have been paying attention. The Democrats didn't want it renewed and the Republicans didn't care to renew it. Your definition of "easily" isn't very accurate.
Clinton was found not guilty by the Senate, whereas Libby was found guilty by a jury, in charges brought by a Bush appointed prosecutor before a Bush appointed judge. Clinton was caught up in a pathetic witch hunt to drive him out of office. Libby was convicted because a serious crime was committed: outing a covert agent working on nuclear non-proliferation.
Blah, blah, blah... Like I said, you supported your guy even though he was obviously guilty. I'm supporting mine.
LK
Right, and you responded by claiming that one of Bush's criminal programs wasn't as bad as some totally unrelated, seemingly randomly selected, type of abuse committed in other places ignoring the fact that another of Bush's criminal programs is doing exactly what you claimed his actions were not as bad as.
So if I understand what you're saying, one company(Yahoo) giving a government(China) access to information(Someone's name) is random compared with a company(AT&T) giving a government(USA) access to information(telephone calls & logs).
WTF is wrong with you?
No, it wasn't.
Clinton admitted to fondling her breasts. His only defense is that he didn't intend to arouse or gratify either his own or her sexual desire.
I can't read his mind, but it's obvious that the intent of fondling someone's breasts is intended to arouse and gratify.
Secondly, even if he did lie, it's not perjury because the lie happens to be relevant to the case at hand.
Wrong again. In the Paula Jones case, he was accused of seeking oral sex from a subordinate. The Violence Against Women Act, (which Clinton himself signed)make it legal to try to establish a pattern of behavior on the part of an accused sexual harrasser. If you're accused of seeking sexual favors from your subordinates, it's certainly relevant if you have actually received sexual favors from your subordinates.
As the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it wouldn't have been perjury if he lied through his teeth.
Bullshit. He was disbarred for perjury.
Witness tampering: weak allegations from Republicans.
When he told Monica, that if she denied the affair then no one could prove otherwise, that's exactly what he was doing.
Obstruction of justice: just what justice was Clinton obstructing, exactly?
Paula Jones's right to justice. She had the right (because of a law that he signed) to establish a pattern of behavior on his part. He lied and denied her that. His lie was obstruction of justice.
You had the same god damn people who called for Clinton's impeachment over supposed perjury passionately calling for a pardon of Scooter Libby's perjury conviction.
Call it payback. You supported your guy even though he was as guilty as sin, so how can you expect us to do any different?
Where's the special prosecutor with a vendetta and $60 million to burn?
I guess you missed that part where congress didn't renew the law that provided the special prosecutor.
LK
Too bad Clinton didn't actually do any of those.
Did I say "Clinton" in that post? The fact that I didn't, yet you still thought of him should tell you something.
LK
The congress has a responsibility to impeach such behavior because failing to do so condones the illegal behavior.
Exactly. Let one President get away with perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury then just look at what the next one does.
LK