You might not want to RTFA. This article is not about the movie. Movies based on comic books have been getting better since the 1990's -- nigh presentable.
TFA is about the same-day-released videogame based on the movie based on the comic book. Hope you have some medication handy.
How is it unreasonably limiting free speech? No one is having their speech limited. The law calls for safeguards to be put in place so the intended audience is the only audience. No one is losing the right to say or post anything. "Indecent Exposure" and "Lewdness" are grosser impediments on free speech than this under every single definition you could possibly formulate within the scope of sanity. Whose rights, exactly, are you trying to preserve? The only right. The ONLY right is the right of a 15 year old to lie about his age. That's called "fraud", son, and is not protected by the first amendment.
Unconstitutional != Stupid
You wonder why the word has lost all meaning? Because you try to make it mean "any law that I, as an American citizen, don't like or don't understand."
I was referring to your line "violation of the constitution" that chumps like you bark out whenever any law is enacted, ever. You don't have a right to murder. You don't have a right to steal. You don't have a right to trespass. You don't have a right to rape. "Essential Liberty" does not include exposing children to pornographic material. If you had bothered to learn anything about Ben Franklin, you would know he's probably clawing his way out of his grave over your hideous misuse of his words. He was, if anything, a prude.
Is the policy of the law stupid? Yes. Credit card to check for age? Idiotic. Is it a constitutional violation? No. A thousand times no. It falls under the very purpose of the constitution.
Perhaps you were born at the age of 35 by getting dropped from a mothership, fully clothed into a cornfield with a healthy circle of friends and a bulging checking account. Children are not psychologically-developed, self-sustaining individuals who are born knowing what's socially acceptable and what's not. The constitution is a system by which laws can only be structured to limit some freedoms in favor of greater freedoms. If indecent exposure and lewdness are constitutional, then what makes keeping pornography behind a beaded curtain unconstitutional? Is it unacceptible to go expose yourself to all the kids down at the elementary? If not, then you retardedly claim that it's your right to hand out pictures of yourself, exposed, to the same kids.
Perhaps you've never known girls attempting suicide from being sexually exploited at young ages or heard of young boys going to juvi for raping their girlfriends in what they thought was some sort of acceptible courtship ritual, but that stuff can be seriously psychologically damaging to kids before they start reaching the proper sexual development cycles. That's what the law was out to prevent -- at the expense of inconveniencing adults.
The law was in place to protect those who are, often enough, incapable of understanding why to avoid such things. Sure, we all used to steal peaks at dirty magazines and draw naked girls when we were growing up, but any psychologist charging more than a nickel an hour can tell you that such curiosity can be easily oversaturated until it becomes dangerous, damaging addiction.
From what I've read and seen in the last few dozen "Greenhouse Effect" and "Global Warming" demonstrations I've witnessed, as well as articles I've read on the matters, the existence of CO2 doesn't chemically warm things, rather it emits low levels of infrared radiation that it initially must absorb (the "greenhouse effect" being an extremely deceptive name, because glass greenhouses block what CO2 doesn't absorb, and allows through what CO2 blocks) but it's potentially "sending back" as much radiation as it allows through. It wouldn't be so popular as a refrigerant/fire extinguisher if it heated things chemically.
In short, I've seen data that shows correlation, but never causation. I'm welcome to being enlightened on this subject if you have material for me to read up on. The global warming "experts" I've talked to have been less than helpful, but they were never chemists.
This link is not work safe. It is worse than porn. It contains an insane amount of lego instruction manuals sorted by year. Don't say I didn't warn you.
"They're a constantly killing coral-destruction machine," said William Nuckols, coordinator for Coastal America, a federal group involved in organizing a cleanup effort that includes county biologists, state scientists and U.S. Army and Navy salvage divers.
I laughed about that line for 10 minutes straight. It's true that no good deed goes unpunished.
If you take a non-biased, fresh look at all the data, there's actually more evidence that says that global warming increases carbon dioxide levels rather than increasing carbon dioxide levels increases global warming. It's still very chicken-egg, but the chickens have never stopped clucking about how they were first, so no one has ever really taken a look at the egg's story.
You speak of days that never truly existed in any of our lifetimes.
Your strawman argument is exceptionally flawed. Evolution is the upstart pseudo-science with pick-and-choose evidence and no proof (incoming: groupthinkers). Intelligent design is rubbish, of course, but "EvOlUtIOn" is rated the most important discovery of the last 1,000 years, according to those polled for "The 100 most Important Scientific Discoveries" (Polled from Discover magazine or Scientific American, I'm not sure).
Evolution is seen, in society, as more important than DNA, Nuclear Fission, Genetics, Thermodynamics, Electricity, Cellular biology, Chemistry, Quantum Physics, Relativity, or any Mathematical formulae discovered over the last 1,000 years. This doesn't signify a hideous retardation in our armchair scientific community? No one has benefited from the study of evolution but those getting paid to study it or write books about it. Genetics? Yes, of course. Evolution? No. Not one single person. Evolution, correct or incorrect, has less scientific importance than the discovery of bananas being rich in potassium.
And somehow you cite Intelligent Design as a sign of a hemmoraging society losing all its common sense and ethics? You, sir, are the very core of the problem.
You mean Bob Marley, Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix, and Al Gore HAVEN'T come back from the dead and signed up for emails with Gmail thousands of times from thousands of different locations?
-Registered Spammer
All the girls I know studying in scientific-type fields (inorganic chemistry, mathematics, etc.) all want to become professors and teachers when they finish. They all seem to insist it's what they want to do.
Most women like different clothes, movies, tv shows, face/bodily-hairiness of mates, soft drinks (diet? ick), and literature than most men. Could it be that 95% of all women possibly have different preferences in how they want to spend 8 hours of their day working than men? Perish the thought. Besides, scientists can be so creepy! Ew.
The law is good. It's only uncostitutional in the pursuit of traitors, terrorists, and lawbreakers. What people forget to see is that the Bill of Rights isn't supposed to be rights for traitors, terrorists, and lawbreakers.
It certainly wasn't written by and in respect to traitors, terrorists, and lawbreakers!
When all of the trees were picking a king, they asked a fruit tree, but he said "I'm too busy making fruit" They asked a shade tree, but he said "I'm too busy providing shelter for animals" Then they asked the thorn bush and he said "Sure thing, jerks. I got nothing better to do" and with his newfound royalty, he promptly burned the other trees to cinders.
The efficient, productive members of society are too busy doing their jobs to devote their time to sit in endless, pointless council meetings, knock elbows with the fat stock, and climb a social-political ladder of vipers. We barely have time for our friends, much less coddling those who would so quickly turn on us as enemies. On a much smaller scale, take a look at typical office management. The man who [might know something but] can't do anything himself is the one in charge over everything.
Are there exceptions? Of course. It's hardly a rule if there are no exceptions.
tl;dr version: Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach? Politics!
There are a myriad of tasks, actions, and activities that you can do in order to achieve effects in and through cyberspace - we're grouping these "things" under the banner Cyber-Electronics as a place holder for now. For example, you and I are engaged in a cyber-electronic engagement right now: I'm answering you through cyberspace, as opposed to in person, in order to achieve the effect of informing you.
Slashdot Mirror
You might not want to RTFA. This article is not about the movie. Movies based on comic books have been getting better since the 1990's -- nigh presentable.
TFA is about the same-day-released videogame based on the movie based on the comic book. Hope you have some medication handy.
How is it unreasonably limiting free speech? No one is having their speech limited. The law calls for safeguards to be put in place so the intended audience is the only audience. No one is losing the right to say or post anything. "Indecent Exposure" and "Lewdness" are grosser impediments on free speech than this under every single definition you could possibly formulate within the scope of sanity. Whose rights, exactly, are you trying to preserve? The only right. The ONLY right is the right of a 15 year old to lie about his age. That's called "fraud", son, and is not protected by the first amendment.
Unconstitutional != Stupid
You wonder why the word has lost all meaning? Because you try to make it mean "any law that I, as an American citizen, don't like or don't understand."
I was referring to your line "violation of the constitution" that chumps like you bark out whenever any law is enacted, ever. You don't have a right to murder. You don't have a right to steal. You don't have a right to trespass. You don't have a right to rape. "Essential Liberty" does not include exposing children to pornographic material. If you had bothered to learn anything about Ben Franklin, you would know he's probably clawing his way out of his grave over your hideous misuse of his words. He was, if anything, a prude.
Is the policy of the law stupid? Yes. Credit card to check for age? Idiotic. Is it a constitutional violation? No. A thousand times no. It falls under the very purpose of the constitution.
Do you know what the Constitution is?
Perhaps you were born at the age of 35 by getting dropped from a mothership, fully clothed into a cornfield with a healthy circle of friends and a bulging checking account. Children are not psychologically-developed, self-sustaining individuals who are born knowing what's socially acceptable and what's not. The constitution is a system by which laws can only be structured to limit some freedoms in favor of greater freedoms. If indecent exposure and lewdness are constitutional, then what makes keeping pornography behind a beaded curtain unconstitutional? Is it unacceptible to go expose yourself to all the kids down at the elementary? If not, then you retardedly claim that it's your right to hand out pictures of yourself, exposed, to the same kids.
Perhaps you've never known girls attempting suicide from being sexually exploited at young ages or heard of young boys going to juvi for raping their girlfriends in what they thought was some sort of acceptible courtship ritual, but that stuff can be seriously psychologically damaging to kids before they start reaching the proper sexual development cycles. That's what the law was out to prevent -- at the expense of inconveniencing adults.
The law was in place to protect those who are, often enough, incapable of understanding why to avoid such things. Sure, we all used to steal peaks at dirty magazines and draw naked girls when we were growing up, but any psychologist charging more than a nickel an hour can tell you that such curiosity can be easily oversaturated until it becomes dangerous, damaging addiction.
From what I've read and seen in the last few dozen "Greenhouse Effect" and "Global Warming" demonstrations I've witnessed, as well as articles I've read on the matters, the existence of CO2 doesn't chemically warm things, rather it emits low levels of infrared radiation that it initially must absorb (the "greenhouse effect" being an extremely deceptive name, because glass greenhouses block what CO2 doesn't absorb, and allows through what CO2 blocks) but it's potentially "sending back" as much radiation as it allows through. It wouldn't be so popular as a refrigerant/fire extinguisher if it heated things chemically.
In short, I've seen data that shows correlation, but never causation. I'm welcome to being enlightened on this subject if you have material for me to read up on. The global warming "experts" I've talked to have been less than helpful, but they were never chemists.
Maybe he means action figures
Did someone say instructions are available elsewhere?
http://www.hccamsterdam.nl/brickfactory/year/index.htm
This link is not work safe. It is worse than porn. It contains an insane amount of lego instruction manuals sorted by year. Don't say I didn't warn you.
"They're a constantly killing coral-destruction machine," said William Nuckols, coordinator for Coastal America, a federal group involved in organizing a cleanup effort that includes county biologists, state scientists and U.S. Army and Navy salvage divers.
I laughed about that line for 10 minutes straight. It's true that no good deed goes unpunished.
If you take a non-biased, fresh look at all the data, there's actually more evidence that says that global warming increases carbon dioxide levels rather than increasing carbon dioxide levels increases global warming. It's still very chicken-egg, but the chickens have never stopped clucking about how they were first, so no one has ever really taken a look at the egg's story.
May I refer to parent as Exhibit A for my GP post.
Those days are long gone
You speak of days that never truly existed in any of our lifetimes.
Your strawman argument is exceptionally flawed. Evolution is the upstart pseudo-science with pick-and-choose evidence and no proof (incoming: groupthinkers). Intelligent design is rubbish, of course, but "EvOlUtIOn" is rated the most important discovery of the last 1,000 years, according to those polled for "The 100 most Important Scientific Discoveries" (Polled from Discover magazine or Scientific American, I'm not sure).
Evolution is seen, in society, as more important than DNA, Nuclear Fission, Genetics, Thermodynamics, Electricity, Cellular biology, Chemistry, Quantum Physics, Relativity, or any Mathematical formulae discovered over the last 1,000 years. This doesn't signify a hideous retardation in our armchair scientific community? No one has benefited from the study of evolution but those getting paid to study it or write books about it. Genetics? Yes, of course. Evolution? No. Not one single person. Evolution, correct or incorrect, has less scientific importance than the discovery of bananas being rich in potassium.
And somehow you cite Intelligent Design as a sign of a hemmoraging society losing all its common sense and ethics? You, sir, are the very core of the problem.
Never trust a man's definition of something when he tells you what it does rather than what it is.
Or perhaps does it mean I'll finally get "P3n1s Shr1nk1ng" pill advertisements? I'm tired of girls only loving me for my 4 lb. penis. :(
You mean Bob Marley, Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix, and Al Gore HAVEN'T come back from the dead and signed up for emails with Gmail thousands of times from thousands of different locations? -Registered Spammer
"Be right back guys, gotta perform some NASA-level rocket science"
All the girls I know studying in scientific-type fields (inorganic chemistry, mathematics, etc.) all want to become professors and teachers when they finish. They all seem to insist it's what they want to do.
Most women like different clothes, movies, tv shows, face/bodily-hairiness of mates, soft drinks (diet? ick), and literature than most men. Could it be that 95% of all women possibly have different preferences in how they want to spend 8 hours of their day working than men? Perish the thought. Besides, scientists can be so creepy! Ew.
Because the only thing academia is good for in CS is removing the ability to think outside the box.
WiiForePlay
What takes nature 530,000 years to perfect in humans...
C4n now r t04lly g3t pwn3d 1n 30- yrs bi teh Interbuttz!!!1!11one1elevn
The law is good. It's only uncostitutional in the pursuit of traitors, terrorists, and lawbreakers. What people forget to see is that the Bill of Rights isn't supposed to be rights for traitors, terrorists, and lawbreakers.
It certainly wasn't written by and in respect to traitors, terrorists, and lawbreakers!
It's the fable from the bible.
When all of the trees were picking a king, they asked a fruit tree, but he said "I'm too busy making fruit"
They asked a shade tree, but he said "I'm too busy providing shelter for animals"
Then they asked the thorn bush and he said "Sure thing, jerks. I got nothing better to do" and with his newfound royalty, he promptly burned the other trees to cinders.
The efficient, productive members of society are too busy doing their jobs to devote their time to sit in endless, pointless council meetings, knock elbows with the fat stock, and climb a social-political ladder of vipers. We barely have time for our friends, much less coddling those who would so quickly turn on us as enemies. On a much smaller scale, take a look at typical office management. The man who [might know something but] can't do anything himself is the one in charge over everything.
Are there exceptions? Of course. It's hardly a rule if there are no exceptions.
tl;dr version:
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach? Politics!
If you understood the answer like you claim, then you didn't understand the question.
It was a direct answer and a simple example.
There are a myriad of tasks, actions, and activities that you can do in order to achieve effects in and through cyberspace - we're grouping these "things" under the banner Cyber-Electronics as a place holder for now. For example, you and I are engaged in a cyber-electronic engagement right now: I'm answering you through cyberspace, as opposed to in person, in order to achieve the effect of informing you.
Reading Comprehension!