You mean that wasn't GP's point? "If we the public have got nothing to hide, we should allow ourselves to be filmed 24/7, eh? So by your own logic Mr Police Officer, you must have something to hide."
Again, native English speaker. Or are you trying to say that native English speakers tend to develop accents as if English were _not_ their native language the moment they set foot in a country with a non-English language as the dominate language?
I'm confused. Are you saying that your "greetings, thank-yous, pleases, goodbyes and how are yous?" are or are not token words exchanged in set formulas? Because if that's not an admission that they are (you're only doing it because it gets you something, not because it's a nice thing to do), then I don't know what is.
Ok, now I'm confused. So you really meant "goodbye"? I thought you were saying that it was a "good buy", as in, "good item to purchase, lets me browse/. when on the toilet". Especially with the comma indicating a separation between "goodbuy" and the rest of it.
That doesn't prove GP wrong, if anything it simply further proves GP's point. GP said "turn it off", not "turn it off with exceptions for things people typically do, like visit YouTube or do online banking".
It was unwisely put between your desk and the restroom. It's no secret not everyone washes their hands after relieving themselves
Wait, so you needed to use the print scanner to exit the restroom? I can certainly believe that such stupidity exists (back when I was in college the dorm emergency exit doors would not open until about 15 seconds after you tried opening them), but just wanted to verify that that is how it was for you.
Actually, lets expand upon my previous post a bit.
$1.19 per coffee.
52 * 5 = 260 weekdays per year.
$1.19 * 260 = $309.40 spent on coffee per year.
$600.00 - $309.40 = $290.60 for other stuff.
Lets assume $5 per person per meal.
For just yourself, $290.60 / $5 = 58.12, so little over once a week. I guess maybe that could be considered a bit much. But add in your SO and maybe a kid, and that goes down to about 1.5 times a month ($290.60 / $15 = 19.37, or 1.61 per month).
I don't know about you, but that doesn't really seem like a lot.
I do not believe that my moral code is the absolute correct moral code. Just want to say that up front.
Absolutely a country has the moral right to decide that it's citizens are not allowed to see porn just like it has the moral right to make any other decision to protect and provide for it's citizens.
So yeah, you're saying they have the right to "protect" other people from pornography, which in the context of the topic (complete and utter banning from letting anyone see it) implies that looking at pornography is damaging, regardless of if the looker wants to see it.
And no where did I say a person's moral code changed on their geographic location, only that the morality of any given event does not change on the geographic location in which it occurs. Again, I agree that there is no way humans can come to a consensus on what is and is not moral, but as a firm believer that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", there are also certain unalienable immoralities, making Event X just as immoral in Country A where it is against the law, as it is in Country B where it is allowed.
Uh, you realize that that is only $1.64 a day? I don't go there, but it sounds like just a coffee is $1.19. Throw in the occasional breakfast sandwich, or maybe lunch, and I could easily see someone surpassing $600 when they don't really go there that often.
Are you really trying to say that looking at pornography is damaging to the person doing the looking, even when they want to look?
And no, there really aren't multiple shades of morality. If you take event X, it's morality changes only from other events surrounding and/or leading up to it (for example, the sequence of events leading up to killing someone would have a say in if that killing was moral), not from the geographic location in which it occurred.
However, I will concede that, for any event X, humans are piss poor at being able to determine if X was indeed moral or not.
And yet you still got it completely wrong. Just because a test of a hypothesis comes back positive, does not prove the hypothesis true. However, if the test comes back negative, that does prove the hypothesis false!
Awesome, I'm the first person to point this out, and I'm somehow redundant. Yet the second person to do so is marked as Interesting? Goddess I do love/.:P
I think you misunderstand. I believe GP means you've just turned onto a street. The GPS map lists 3 lefts ahead of you, the second of which is fake, but it does not know it. It wants you to take the third left from it's perspective, but from yours it would only be the second.
Alternatively, GP never said it was a GPS giving the directions.
That's all well and good, except no where in TFA does it state they were using it anywhere before they learned of it in 2003*.
To correct your analogy, it'd be like Ted looking at OMG DRM Pawnies Organizer X from this other company, thinking "hey, this is pretty good", and then using it without licensing it.
*Actually, TFA doesn't say much of anything. Medien Patent Verwaltung filed suit against WB, but they listed one of WB's patents as the infringing patent, and now they will be refiling with the proper patent listed. So we don't really know at this time if they really are infringing on a patent of Medien Patent Verwaltung's.
Which is why we need to do away with bleeps entirely. Leaving it up to the viewer to interpret what the bleeped word could be is far more dangerous. For instance, when you saw my subject, how did you read it? I forget where I heard it, but that was used as an example of why some words are bleeped while others aren't. But as we can clearly see from the other postings here, the current list of bleeped words is still too large, if the title of this show is being interpreted as worse than it really is.
It could be that this won't work when a page from Site B tries to load in a window/tab opened by a page from Site A, but there's this thing called a "target" that can be specified in HTML forms. By clicking a link that utilizes a "target", a new window/tab opens up, and any other link that references the same "target" will also open in that same window/tab.
Intelligence of the kind humans process has gotten us off this mudball. Maybe there are "better" kinds of intelligence, but in the extreme long term (5 billion years or so), this most certainly represents an evolutionary advantage over any other species living today.
You seem to be confusing what governments should* be doing with what they actually do. But don't feel bad, I'm sure lots of people do that.:)
*I'm not here to say if that is, in fact, what they should be doing. Simply stating that your post makes no sense. GP talks about what they should do, and you come in saying "you're wrong because they actually do this other thing". It'd be like saying "it is not the function of a car to bring you from point A to point B, because all cars eventually stop working".
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that it's only OK to be nice to people if it hurts me to do so?
The only way what I said could possibly mean that is if doing something "because it's a nice thing to do" is somehow detrimental to the doer.
But I don't think that's what you mean.
Also, I seem to have read more in cyp43r's post than was actually there, seeing an implied "in order to get something" that wasn't actually there.
Until they repeal that amendment. If they can do it to the 18th...
You mean that wasn't GP's point? "If we the public have got nothing to hide, we should allow ourselves to be filmed 24/7, eh? So by your own logic Mr Police Officer, you must have something to hide."
Indeed.
Did you know it's been on for nine years now? It honestly shocked me when I'd heard that.
Again, native English speaker. Or are you trying to say that native English speakers tend to develop accents as if English were _not_ their native language the moment they set foot in a country with a non-English language as the dominate language?
On the opposite end, my mother spent a lot of time telling me to "just say you're sorry", and now, sometimes it feels like it has no meaning.
They cost me little, and get me lots.
I'm confused. Are you saying that your "greetings, thank-yous, pleases, goodbyes and how are yous?" are or are not token words exchanged in set formulas? Because if that's not an admission that they are (you're only doing it because it gets you something, not because it's a nice thing to do), then I don't know what is.
Ok, now I'm confused. So you really meant "goodbye"? I thought you were saying that it was a "good buy", as in, "good item to purchase, lets me browse /. when on the toilet". Especially with the comma indicating a separation between "goodbuy" and the rest of it.
That doesn't prove GP wrong, if anything it simply further proves GP's point. GP said "turn it off", not "turn it off with exceptions for things people typically do, like visit YouTube or do online banking".
It was unwisely put between your desk and the restroom. It's no secret not everyone washes their hands after relieving themselves
Wait, so you needed to use the print scanner to exit the restroom? I can certainly believe that such stupidity exists (back when I was in college the dorm emergency exit doors would not open until about 15 seconds after you tried opening them), but just wanted to verify that that is how it was for you.
Actually, lets expand upon my previous post a bit.
$1.19 per coffee.
52 * 5 = 260 weekdays per year.
$1.19 * 260 = $309.40 spent on coffee per year.
$600.00 - $309.40 = $290.60 for other stuff.
Lets assume $5 per person per meal.
For just yourself, $290.60 / $5 = 58.12, so little over once a week. I guess maybe that could be considered a bit much. But add in your SO and maybe a kid, and that goes down to about 1.5 times a month ($290.60 / $15 = 19.37, or 1.61 per month).
I don't know about you, but that doesn't really seem like a lot.
Absolutely a country has the moral right to decide that it's citizens are not allowed to see porn just like it has the moral right to make any other decision to protect and provide for it's citizens.
So yeah, you're saying they have the right to "protect" other people from pornography, which in the context of the topic (complete and utter banning from letting anyone see it) implies that looking at pornography is damaging, regardless of if the looker wants to see it.
And no where did I say a person's moral code changed on their geographic location, only that the morality of any given event does not change on the geographic location in which it occurs. Again, I agree that there is no way humans can come to a consensus on what is and is not moral, but as a firm believer that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", there are also certain unalienable immoralities, making Event X just as immoral in Country A where it is against the law, as it is in Country B where it is allowed.
Uh, you realize that that is only $1.64 a day? I don't go there, but it sounds like just a coffee is $1.19. Throw in the occasional breakfast sandwich, or maybe lunch, and I could easily see someone surpassing $600 when they don't really go there that often.
Are you really trying to say that looking at pornography is damaging to the person doing the looking, even when they want to look?
And no, there really aren't multiple shades of morality. If you take event X, it's morality changes only from other events surrounding and/or leading up to it (for example, the sequence of events leading up to killing someone would have a say in if that killing was moral), not from the geographic location in which it occurred.
However, I will concede that, for any event X, humans are piss poor at being able to determine if X was indeed moral or not.
And yet you still got it completely wrong. Just because a test of a hypothesis comes back positive, does not prove the hypothesis true. However, if the test comes back negative, that does prove the hypothesis false!
Awesome, I'm the first person to point this out, and I'm somehow redundant. Yet the second person to do so is marked as Interesting? Goddess I do love /. :P
I think you misunderstand. I believe GP means you've just turned onto a street. The GPS map lists 3 lefts ahead of you, the second of which is fake, but it does not know it. It wants you to take the third left from it's perspective, but from yours it would only be the second.
Alternatively, GP never said it was a GPS giving the directions.
That's all well and good, except no where in TFA does it state they were using it anywhere before they learned of it in 2003*.
To correct your analogy, it'd be like Ted looking at OMG DRM Pawnies Organizer X from this other company, thinking "hey, this is pretty good", and then using it without licensing it.
*Actually, TFA doesn't say much of anything. Medien Patent Verwaltung filed suit against WB, but they listed one of WB's patents as the infringing patent, and now they will be refiling with the proper patent listed. So we don't really know at this time if they really are infringing on a patent of Medien Patent Verwaltung's.
Does that really impact you in your parents basement? ;)
PTC != FCC.
"It's the [BLEEP] van [BLEEP] show! Staring [BLEEP] van [BLEEP]!"
Which is why we need to do away with bleeps entirely. Leaving it up to the viewer to interpret what the bleeped word could be is far more dangerous. For instance, when you saw my subject, how did you read it? I forget where I heard it, but that was used as an example of why some words are bleeped while others aren't. But as we can clearly see from the other postings here, the current list of bleeped words is still too large, if the title of this show is being interpreted as worse than it really is.
It could be that this won't work when a page from Site B tries to load in a window/tab opened by a page from Site A, but there's this thing called a "target" that can be specified in HTML forms. By clicking a link that utilizes a "target", a new window/tab opens up, and any other link that references the same "target" will also open in that same window/tab.
Intelligence of the kind humans process has gotten us off this mudball. Maybe there are "better" kinds of intelligence, but in the extreme long term (5 billion years or so), this most certainly represents an evolutionary advantage over any other species living today.
You seem to be confusing what governments should* be doing with what they actually do. But don't feel bad, I'm sure lots of people do that. :)
*I'm not here to say if that is, in fact, what they should be doing. Simply stating that your post makes no sense. GP talks about what they should do, and you come in saying "you're wrong because they actually do this other thing". It'd be like saying "it is not the function of a car to bring you from point A to point B, because all cars eventually stop working".