Ahh, I didn't realize divining rod could be used for more than just "a stick which can find water". I thought you meant strictly from a functional stand-point, that this "bomb detector" was as useful for finding bombs, as a divining rod is for finding water. I also did not know if you meant that just this particular device was a divining rod, or that all bomb detectors are divining rods. But it sounds like you just meant this particular device.
Could you please expand upon this? I'm curious what makes this bomb detector a divining rod. Is it because he knew the thing would not work, or because you believe that it is impossible to build a bomb detecting device, or something else?
I can't imagine telling a doctor what to prescribe.
You know what's funny? All of those "you wouldn't want your doctor doing your job, so why are you doing his?" commercials. They start out sounding pretty much like how you seem to feel, but then go on to try and push you to ask your doctor about a particular drug. It's like, but didn't you just say to _not_ do his job? Or is this somehow different, because it technically isn't me, but you, the advertiser, who is doing my doctor's job?
How do I put this..
You said it is easy to be married without involving the state, because you can live together and have sex without involving the state.
I'm saying that I would not call that marriage. I would call that living together and having sex.
But marriage is more than just living together and having sex. Among other things, it means being able to say that this person here, who is not related to me by blood, is family to me, and in all matters involving immediate family only, this person qualifies. And without some kind of authority to back up that claim, it is meaningless.
That's because marriage is more than just living together and having sex. Among the other things you left out, it means being able to say that this person here, who is not related to me by blood, is family to me, and in all matters involving immediate family only, this person qualifies.
No wonder religious nutjobs oppose same-sex marriage. They don't even know what marriage actually means.
Depends what methods we can use to determine its distance over time. We can measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon by bouncing a laser off of retroreflectors left on the moon, with no power source needed on the moon.
Now granted, I don't think we can actually do something like that with the voyager spacecraft...
That argument is like someone putting child porn on anothers computer and then getting them arrested for being child pornographers.
Not really. Punching someone in the face requires you to perform an action. Having someone else put CP on your computer requires you to, well, it doesn't require you to do anything. A person in a coma can have CP put on their computer by another party. A person in a coma cannot very well punch someone in the face.
e-mailing that list to someone and going "OMG LOOK AT THIS" was proof that he knew the seriousness of the list he found. It cannot be argued that he did not know what he was doing.
And if a student finds a gun on school grounds and brings it to the attention of a teacher, that is proof that the student knows the seriousness of that situation. But I fail to see how that justifies throwing the book at the student.
Why can I copy one set of those bits to a format/medium that works better for me but not another set?
Simple. Because the RIAA doesn't own a time machine. Otherwise they'd go back in time and make sure that copy-protection gets built into the CD standard too.
You must be one of those "you don't need guns, and if you disagree with me, well, that just proves my case as to why you don't need guns" people. So I expect my words will be falling on deaf ears, but I'll say them anyway.
AC calmly explaining to Barsteward the notion of defending oneself, of refusing to roll over and letting someone else walk all over them, is not "threatening him with being shot". Actually, if anyone is doing the threatening, it's you and Barsteward, threatening to label us insane for disagreeing with you. Sure, you two may not have the power to make such a threat mean anything, but we're not talking about one or two individuals running around calling people insane. At least, that's not how AC's post came across to me. The way it came across to me is that the person doing the "judging" actually does have the power to do something based on that judgment. And though I often joke about being insane, if someone with the authority to do something about it threatened to have me certified insane, me explaining how I will not sit idly by and let it happen is not evidence of insanity. It is what a rational, level-headed person would do.
Princess Toadstool in Super Mario 2 (though this character is powerless in almost every other Mario game)
Most others, yes, but she can hold her own in the various Mario RPG games.
And to add to that list:
Terra (FF6)
Celes (FF6)
Any of the female characters from Trails in the Sky.
I'm sure I could come up with a few more, but you are right that the number of strong male leads exceeds the number of strong female leads, though I don't think it's quite as dismal as you seem to think it is.
I'm sorry, but what sort of self-centered childishness are you referring to exactly? Is it the self-centered, childish notion that I should be able to keep hundreds of old computer parts in my basement, even though you consider it all to be garbage and am therefore polluting in my own basement?
If this does not scale up well, then please, explain. But at present, it seems perfectly fine to "pollute" on your own property.
This is a free speech issue, that will trump all your little attempts at loopholes, as it should.
I don't blame you for accusing me of attempting to suppress free speech. After all, you don't know me. But if you did, you'd know that I am actually a huge supporter of free speech. But this, I just don't follow what makes it a free speech issue. I'm not going after you because of your message, I'm going after you because you are littering on my property.
Try and hand me a pamphlet on the street corner, at the mall, at the pub, fine.
Knock on my door and try and hand me a pamphlet.. at present seems perfectly fine, but I suppose I could be swayed with a good argument, assuming one exists.
But drop something on my property and then leave? How is that not littering, regardless of what it is that is being dropped on my property?
It's insane that the complaint is you need to tell them who to stop delivering to.
I'm not commenting on that, I'm commenting on the idea that littering on my property somehow counts as a "free speech" issue.
The government has no power to restrict the distribution of racist pamphlets, or for that matter, phone books, just because you don't like them.
And I'm fine with that. But what does that have to do with making it illegal to litter on someone else's property? You're not gonna try and claim that laws against trespassing should be repealed because they "restrict distribution" too, are you?
Trash.. I think the courts can probably figure out a distinction between waste and actual speech.
One man's trash is another man's speech (and vice versa). You call the phone book speech, and claim that that means it is ok to toss phone books in people's driveways against their wishes. Another person calls it trash, and calls that practice littering. So which interpretation is correct? Well, you know that old saying "the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"? If you want to try and hand me something on a street corner, that's fine. If you want to knock on my door and try and hand me something when I answer, that... is probably also fine. But if you are leaving stuff on my property against my wishes? No. Just no.
A lot of Asian and Arab people in my neighborhood are terrified when my dogs run up to greet them, assuming that they're going to be bitten, because they have no cultural referent for 'nice' dogs or 'friendly' dogs.
Why do you think that is the case? While I am neither Asian nor Arab, if you saw my reactions to dogs that I know are friendly, you'd probably think I was terrified of them as well. But it has nothing to do with being terrified. I just don't like their rowdy behavior and being licked all over. And it's not just big dogs, but little ones too. I may not like the dog, but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy stepping on one of its paws.
What is pollution if not littering? Is it ok for me to leave all sorts of junk in my basement when I sell my house? I think so. All I'm doing is hurting how much I can get for the place by not taking care of it beforehand.
Now if this doesn't scale up well, I suppose I would be against polluting on my own property. But right now, seems fine to me.
This is not true -- in many circumstances, a judge can hold you in contempt of court for not revealing an encryption key, and you can sit in jail indefinitely until you cooperate.
Which is a most unfortunate situation. If I had a physical, paper notebook with a bunch of 1's and 0's written on it, it is perfectly fine for me to shut the hell up regarding saying anything about it. So why should that change just because the 1's and 0's are stored on an HDD?
This is especially true if the encrypted information you have the password to gives evidence against someone else, not yourself, which the 5th amendment does not protect against.
That is an interesting scenario.. but as far as I am aware, it is not illegal for me to refuse to testify against someone.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, I didn't realize divining rod could be used for more than just "a stick which can find water". I thought you meant strictly from a functional stand-point, that this "bomb detector" was as useful for finding bombs, as a divining rod is for finding water. I also did not know if you meant that just this particular device was a divining rod, or that all bomb detectors are divining rods. But it sounds like you just meant this particular device.
He sold a divining rod.
Could you please expand upon this? I'm curious what makes this bomb detector a divining rod. Is it because he knew the thing would not work, or because you believe that it is impossible to build a bomb detecting device, or something else?
I can't imagine telling a doctor what to prescribe.
You know what's funny? All of those "you wouldn't want your doctor doing your job, so why are you doing his?" commercials. They start out sounding pretty much like how you seem to feel, but then go on to try and push you to ask your doctor about a particular drug. It's like, but didn't you just say to _not_ do his job? Or is this somehow different, because it technically isn't me, but you, the advertiser, who is doing my doctor's job?
You say you don't want the state involved in marriage
I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion, but I have no problem with the state being involved in marriage.
How do I put this..
You said it is easy to be married without involving the state, because you can live together and have sex without involving the state.
I'm saying that I would not call that marriage. I would call that living together and having sex.
But marriage is more than just living together and having sex. Among other things, it means being able to say that this person here, who is not related to me by blood, is family to me, and in all matters involving immediate family only, this person qualifies. And without some kind of authority to back up that claim, it is meaningless.
That's because marriage is more than just living together and having sex. Among the other things you left out, it means being able to say that this person here, who is not related to me by blood, is family to me, and in all matters involving immediate family only, this person qualifies.
No wonder religious nutjobs oppose same-sex marriage. They don't even know what marriage actually means.
Depends what methods we can use to determine its distance over time. We can measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon by bouncing a laser off of retroreflectors left on the moon, with no power source needed on the moon.
Now granted, I don't think we can actually do something like that with the voyager spacecraft...
That argument is like someone putting child porn on anothers computer and then getting them arrested for being child pornographers.
Not really. Punching someone in the face requires you to perform an action. Having someone else put CP on your computer requires you to, well, it doesn't require you to do anything. A person in a coma can have CP put on their computer by another party. A person in a coma cannot very well punch someone in the face.
I thought he brought it to a news agency.
e-mailing that list to someone and going "OMG LOOK AT THIS" was proof that he knew the seriousness of the list he found. It cannot be argued that he did not know what he was doing.
And if a student finds a gun on school grounds and brings it to the attention of a teacher, that is proof that the student knows the seriousness of that situation. But I fail to see how that justifies throwing the book at the student.
Why can I copy one set of those bits to a format/medium that works better for me but not another set?
Simple. Because the RIAA doesn't own a time machine. Otherwise they'd go back in time and make sure that copy-protection gets built into the CD standard too.
You must be one of those "you don't need guns, and if you disagree with me, well, that just proves my case as to why you don't need guns" people. So I expect my words will be falling on deaf ears, but I'll say them anyway.
AC calmly explaining to Barsteward the notion of defending oneself, of refusing to roll over and letting someone else walk all over them, is not "threatening him with being shot". Actually, if anyone is doing the threatening, it's you and Barsteward, threatening to label us insane for disagreeing with you. Sure, you two may not have the power to make such a threat mean anything, but we're not talking about one or two individuals running around calling people insane. At least, that's not how AC's post came across to me. The way it came across to me is that the person doing the "judging" actually does have the power to do something based on that judgment. And though I often joke about being insane, if someone with the authority to do something about it threatened to have me certified insane, me explaining how I will not sit idly by and let it happen is not evidence of insanity. It is what a rational, level-headed person would do.
Princess Toadstool in Super Mario 2 (though this character is powerless in almost every other Mario game)
Most others, yes, but she can hold her own in the various Mario RPG games.
And to add to that list:
Terra (FF6)
Celes (FF6)
Any of the female characters from Trails in the Sky.
I'm sure I could come up with a few more, but you are right that the number of strong male leads exceeds the number of strong female leads, though I don't think it's quite as dismal as you seem to think it is.
I'm sorry, but what sort of self-centered childishness are you referring to exactly? Is it the self-centered, childish notion that I should be able to keep hundreds of old computer parts in my basement, even though you consider it all to be garbage and am therefore polluting in my own basement?
If this does not scale up well, then please, explain. But at present, it seems perfectly fine to "pollute" on your own property.
This is a free speech issue, that will trump all your little attempts at loopholes, as it should.
I don't blame you for accusing me of attempting to suppress free speech. After all, you don't know me. But if you did, you'd know that I am actually a huge supporter of free speech. But this, I just don't follow what makes it a free speech issue. I'm not going after you because of your message, I'm going after you because you are littering on my property.
Try and hand me a pamphlet on the street corner, at the mall, at the pub, fine.
Knock on my door and try and hand me a pamphlet.. at present seems perfectly fine, but I suppose I could be swayed with a good argument, assuming one exists.
But drop something on my property and then leave? How is that not littering, regardless of what it is that is being dropped on my property?
It's insane that the complaint is you need to tell them who to stop delivering to.
I'm not commenting on that, I'm commenting on the idea that littering on my property somehow counts as a "free speech" issue.
Any sufficiently advanced politics is indistinguishable from humour.
Or would it be:
Any politics is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced humour.
Because "sufficiently advanced politics" sounds like onea them oxymorons.
The government has no power to restrict the distribution of racist pamphlets, or for that matter, phone books, just because you don't like them.
And I'm fine with that. But what does that have to do with making it illegal to litter on someone else's property? You're not gonna try and claim that laws against trespassing should be repealed because they "restrict distribution" too, are you?
Trash.. I think the courts can probably figure out a distinction between waste and actual speech.
One man's trash is another man's speech (and vice versa). You call the phone book speech, and claim that that means it is ok to toss phone books in people's driveways against their wishes. Another person calls it trash, and calls that practice littering. So which interpretation is correct? Well, you know that old saying "the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"? If you want to try and hand me something on a street corner, that's fine. If you want to knock on my door and try and hand me something when I answer, that... is probably also fine. But if you are leaving stuff on my property against my wishes? No. Just no.
A lot of Asian and Arab people in my neighborhood are terrified when my dogs run up to greet them, assuming that they're going to be bitten, because they have no cultural referent for 'nice' dogs or 'friendly' dogs.
Why do you think that is the case? While I am neither Asian nor Arab, if you saw my reactions to dogs that I know are friendly, you'd probably think I was terrified of them as well. But it has nothing to do with being terrified. I just don't like their rowdy behavior and being licked all over. And it's not just big dogs, but little ones too. I may not like the dog, but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy stepping on one of its paws.
What is pollution if not littering? Is it ok for me to leave all sorts of junk in my basement when I sell my house? I think so. All I'm doing is hurting how much I can get for the place by not taking care of it beforehand.
Now if this doesn't scale up well, I suppose I would be against polluting on my own property. But right now, seems fine to me.
Is that the official legal definition? If so, and pardon my french, that's a load of bullshit.
Well, what is polluting if not littering? Is it possible to litter on your own property?
What happens when in 20, 50, 100 years the property changes hands?
One would hope that as part of the sale, the seller would be required to inform the buyer of all the crap that would not be removed.
I believe Mr Rob was trying to make a funny by quoting The Simpsons movie.
Would you pay extra for the ability to skip chapters in a book?
I don't know, what do CliffsNotes generally run compared to the actual book?
EA Executive: You're fired.
^ That is what would happen.
This is not true -- in many circumstances, a judge can hold you in contempt of court for not revealing an encryption key, and you can sit in jail indefinitely until you cooperate.
Which is a most unfortunate situation. If I had a physical, paper notebook with a bunch of 1's and 0's written on it, it is perfectly fine for me to shut the hell up regarding saying anything about it. So why should that change just because the 1's and 0's are stored on an HDD?
This is especially true if the encrypted information you have the password to gives evidence against someone else, not yourself, which the 5th amendment does not protect against.
That is an interesting scenario.. but as far as I am aware, it is not illegal for me to refuse to testify against someone.