I don't think laws should be passed based on what victims would like or dislike. That's not exactly the same as justice, the point of laws. In my humble opinion, justice is about preventing people from becoming victims, and trying to make it right when there are victims. People viewing the abuse and masturbating to it isn't the main reason why victims of child porn are victims. It's the abuse, not the viewing, that is the problem.
The second line about creating demand, I also disagree with. Prohibition seems to work only in very limited contexts, like preventing individual citizens from buying material useful for making nuclear weapons. Drugs, porn, sex, alchohol, cigarettes etc, prohibition only seems to increase the value of the stuff that is sold. And, I suppose, prevents the government from profiting off of the sale through taxes, which come to think of it might be an argument in favor of keeping child porn illegal.
Lastly, legalizing the sale or distribution of child porn which is already out there, while coming down extremely hard on the producers could in theory change the economics such that it's no longer profitable to make new child porn.
(Obligatory disclaimer that I'm completely fine with child porn continuing to be completely illegal, just that I think the rationale for it is questionable. My rationale too: I've failed to even convince myself with this post.)
It mentioned in the sublinked article that PETA had actually provided for a research fellowship. That involves actually giving out money to promote research. A two pronged approach seems reasonable in theory: give money directly to research, but dangle a prize out there to attract attention to the goal and attract more money than you would have directly.
Lets be honest, if there's one thing PETA is very effective at, it's PR. If there's another thing PETA is good at, it's getting more money flowing.
A lot of my dislike of PETA is based on my impression that they're doing it more for attention than genuine concern for animals. The euthanizing seems to fit with that, killing animals that aren't attractive to make room for new animals which might gain sympathy. Much like I assume they do with attractive celebrity spokespeople who have gone past their prime. Another reason I dislike them is that they seem theistic in their defense of animals. Wanting to end all animal testing (which I assume they still do) to me doesn't sound like a reasoned position, it sounds like they don't care to consider that will completely stop medical progress for people.
That they actually have reservations about it suggests it's actually more about the animals, that they're doing something they hate because they realize they need to.
Or it's just PR for a well-mocked hypocrisy. I don't know. Just I'm less sure it's 100% about providing attention for starlets and socialites.
"Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility." -Ambrose Bierce
The whole point of a corporation is to pretend it's not individual people doing something, it's a entity called the corporation. The other essential part of the corporation is it can evaporate instantly when needed, with very little of the profits evaporating. This is not true of pot smokers, which is why it works for pot smokers but not for corporations. Everyone has been pretending it for so long that holding the individuals responsible is unthinkable in politics, and has been for as long as I've been alive.
That said, some profits would evaporate with the corporation, it's not a painless procedure, so I would have preferred that.
"Finding out" is different than "predicted." It's all well and good to assume that what happens in one trench is not going to be true in other trenches, given the isolation, but you don't really know unless you go to the other trenches.
Also, skimming the wiki article on the london subway mosquitoes you might be referring to, it looks more like the mosquitoes diverged by taking advantage of a new niche, not reproductive isolation. They evolved because it's fairly warm year round, there are people in them, and few predators. It mentions that they have been found in subway systems throughout the world. If the creatures in one trench have a range of above a trench, a reasonable hypothesis would be that they fill all trenches as they're one of the few things that can live there, and that most trenches would be filled with similar life.
You assume the story is about the radioactivity of Japanese children, rather than the technological innovation. A reasonable assumption given the motto "Slashdot: News for Japanese Parents. News about radioactive children."
Any time I "buy" all the microtransaction purchases, I feel like I'm cheating. There's no challenge anymore and I usually delete it. Not just games either is the weird part. A paint program for my 2 year old, after he couldn't bring up the "type in your password to buy this thing" screen anymore he was bored of it.
Perhaps it's just that as a general rule, apps that have microtransactions suck in other ways, and even if you pay nothing for them, it's not worth it.
I see. Those are indeed two different numbers that you typed out there. Good work AC! Or is this like a fight? I'm thinking the 1.5% would win if it came to fisticuffs. I'd give it ten to one odds in fact. 0.15% may have an extra numeral in there, but I don't think the zero is worth much in the ring.
Or is it you want to DISCUSS the differences? There's a decimal place of difference. I might start out with Khan Academy if you need further explanation of maths. I don't know if they do percentages and decimal place explanation.
This person was not moving at the time. On top of that, if the phone had been a Garmin GPS instead of a phone the ticket would never have been issued even though the user would have been using both devices in the same way.
I think that's giving more credit to the cop than is deserved. As you said, the guy was stopped. The cop is already ignoring the spirit of the law. I doubt the cop would pay attention to the specific lettering of the law which would draw a distinction between GPS only and cell phones.
You can easily imagine a scenario where you run out of air in your lungs as the bubbles keep floating in front of your face in the helmet.
Google tells me that the average lung holds 6.3 quarts. Judging by how unpleasant half a sipful of water inhaled can be, that sounds literally like torture, but is 1.5 quarts enough to drown in? I guess this probably hasn't been tested in microgravity...
Caution when it comes to heritable changes should be the default mode. Thalidomide provides a good example of why "Sure, try it on unborn children and see what happens" should not be the default. But certainly TRIALS should be allowed if animal studies don't provide any reason to think we're going to create Parasite Eve or create new heritable diseases.
Er, yeah, I WAS trying to make a straw man denigrating... someone. I WASN'T just attempting to make a humorous monologue there, I totally had a valid insightful point!
The guy evidently couldn't handle fame and trolls. Doesn't sound like he's up to the task of pulling a King Candy Crush and taking a legal scorched earth policy.
And you presumably imagine that stupidity means something close to "deserves to die." And you evidently imagine yourself to be not stupid. I'm sure that just world fallacy will never steer you wrong.
To balance nature a bit from the overplanting of pine by the lumber industry and to ensure a future supply of hardwood for NICE things like furniture, guitars, baseball bats, etc.
We'll have plenty of cardboard from Ikea, plenty of plastic guitar hero guitars, and plenty of aluminim for bats for the next few centuries. No problem that I can see.
Yes, I'm sure the guys at the bar were taking a principled stand here.
"Listen *hic* lady... you need to *hic* read sche... shnedr... schnieder on security. Or is it *hic* Krebbs? Listen, here's the thing *hic* when I go out in public *hic* I don't expect anonymimitiy through obscurity... I mean security... but your wearable glasses camera makes it easeir for *hic* yahoo... NO (slaps self) stupid! I mean Google and the NSA to invade my privacy. Look *hic* at CCCTVs in england. Yeah. That's it. (barfs)"
I don't know, I think all the cultists who are murderously upset at this actress probably already know about it. I'm skeptical that Al qaeda reads "The Verge."
Good point, but aren't phones already useful in that regard? I can connect my phone via bluetooth, tethering, or USB to anything I could think of needing cell phone capabilities temporarily.
Why a module though? And why hot-swappable? I can't imagine the module having a whole lot of price advantage. I'd imagine most of the price comes from the hardware specific to satphone capabilities, not the rest of the phone, so you'd be saving money on the least expensive part.
As far as hot-swappable, why the hell would anyone suddenly need to switch over to satphone without turning off the phone? Sea-captains in the middle of really hot phone sex as they head out to sea?
You're missing maturity. Specifically, the maturity to realize that trolling in online forums is a waste of time and not ultimately fulfilling. Why don't you go read a book or call a friend if you're bored?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think laws should be passed based on what victims would like or dislike. That's not exactly the same as justice, the point of laws. In my humble opinion, justice is about preventing people from becoming victims, and trying to make it right when there are victims. People viewing the abuse and masturbating to it isn't the main reason why victims of child porn are victims. It's the abuse, not the viewing, that is the problem.
The second line about creating demand, I also disagree with. Prohibition seems to work only in very limited contexts, like preventing individual citizens from buying material useful for making nuclear weapons. Drugs, porn, sex, alchohol, cigarettes etc, prohibition only seems to increase the value of the stuff that is sold. And, I suppose, prevents the government from profiting off of the sale through taxes, which come to think of it might be an argument in favor of keeping child porn illegal.
Lastly, legalizing the sale or distribution of child porn which is already out there, while coming down extremely hard on the producers could in theory change the economics such that it's no longer profitable to make new child porn.
(Obligatory disclaimer that I'm completely fine with child porn continuing to be completely illegal, just that I think the rationale for it is questionable. My rationale too: I've failed to even convince myself with this post.)
One word: iagreewithyourpostandlovemyaeropressbutthinkthat'sactuallytwowordssmooshedtogether.
It mentioned in the sublinked article that PETA had actually provided for a research fellowship. That involves actually giving out money to promote research. A two pronged approach seems reasonable in theory: give money directly to research, but dangle a prize out there to attract attention to the goal and attract more money than you would have directly.
Lets be honest, if there's one thing PETA is very effective at, it's PR. If there's another thing PETA is good at, it's getting more money flowing.
A lot of my dislike of PETA is based on my impression that they're doing it more for attention than genuine concern for animals. The euthanizing seems to fit with that, killing animals that aren't attractive to make room for new animals which might gain sympathy. Much like I assume they do with attractive celebrity spokespeople who have gone past their prime. Another reason I dislike them is that they seem theistic in their defense of animals. Wanting to end all animal testing (which I assume they still do) to me doesn't sound like a reasoned position, it sounds like they don't care to consider that will completely stop medical progress for people.
That they actually have reservations about it suggests it's actually more about the animals, that they're doing something they hate because they realize they need to.
Or it's just PR for a well-mocked hypocrisy. I don't know. Just I'm less sure it's 100% about providing attention for starlets and socialites.
"Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility." -Ambrose Bierce
The whole point of a corporation is to pretend it's not individual people doing something, it's a entity called the corporation. The other essential part of the corporation is it can evaporate instantly when needed, with very little of the profits evaporating. This is not true of pot smokers, which is why it works for pot smokers but not for corporations. Everyone has been pretending it for so long that holding the individuals responsible is unthinkable in politics, and has been for as long as I've been alive.
That said, some profits would evaporate with the corporation, it's not a painless procedure, so I would have preferred that.
"Finding out" is different than "predicted." It's all well and good to assume that what happens in one trench is not going to be true in other trenches, given the isolation, but you don't really know unless you go to the other trenches.
Also, skimming the wiki article on the london subway mosquitoes you might be referring to, it looks more like the mosquitoes diverged by taking advantage of a new niche, not reproductive isolation. They evolved because it's fairly warm year round, there are people in them, and few predators. It mentions that they have been found in subway systems throughout the world. If the creatures in one trench have a range of above a trench, a reasonable hypothesis would be that they fill all trenches as they're one of the few things that can live there, and that most trenches would be filled with similar life.
You assume the story is about the radioactivity of Japanese children, rather than the technological innovation. A reasonable assumption given the motto "Slashdot: News for Japanese Parents. News about radioactive children."
Any time I "buy" all the microtransaction purchases, I feel like I'm cheating. There's no challenge anymore and I usually delete it. Not just games either is the weird part. A paint program for my 2 year old, after he couldn't bring up the "type in your password to buy this thing" screen anymore he was bored of it.
Perhaps it's just that as a general rule, apps that have microtransactions suck in other ways, and even if you pay nothing for them, it's not worth it.
I see. Those are indeed two different numbers that you typed out there. Good work AC! Or is this like a fight? I'm thinking the 1.5% would win if it came to fisticuffs. I'd give it ten to one odds in fact. 0.15% may have an extra numeral in there, but I don't think the zero is worth much in the ring.
Or is it you want to DISCUSS the differences? There's a decimal place of difference. I might start out with Khan Academy if you need further explanation of maths. I don't know if they do percentages and decimal place explanation.
This person was not moving at the time. On top of that, if the phone had been a Garmin GPS instead of a phone the ticket would never have been issued even though the user would have been using both devices in the same way.
I think that's giving more credit to the cop than is deserved. As you said, the guy was stopped. The cop is already ignoring the spirit of the law. I doubt the cop would pay attention to the specific lettering of the law which would draw a distinction between GPS only and cell phones.
You can easily imagine a scenario where you run out of air in your lungs as the bubbles keep floating in front of your face in the helmet.
Google tells me that the average lung holds 6.3 quarts. Judging by how unpleasant half a sipful of water inhaled can be, that sounds literally like torture, but is 1.5 quarts enough to drown in? I guess this probably hasn't been tested in microgravity...
a lot of these people are bad people and deserve what they get and will never be normal
Ask yourself why it is we don't just kill them and be done with it, and you'll have an answer as to why we shouldn't do solitary confinement.
Caution when it comes to heritable changes should be the default mode. Thalidomide provides a good example of why "Sure, try it on unborn children and see what happens" should not be the default. But certainly TRIALS should be allowed if animal studies don't provide any reason to think we're going to create Parasite Eve or create new heritable diseases.
Er, yeah, I WAS trying to make a straw man denigrating... someone. I WASN'T just attempting to make a humorous monologue there, I totally had a valid insightful point!
The guy evidently couldn't handle fame and trolls. Doesn't sound like he's up to the task of pulling a King Candy Crush and taking a legal scorched earth policy.
Not surprising to you. You're not the audience that needs to listen. The fox news crowd is the ones that should be listening.
(PS, by "Fox news crowd" I explicitly do not mean conservatives.)
And you presumably imagine that stupidity means something close to "deserves to die." And you evidently imagine yourself to be not stupid. I'm sure that just world fallacy will never steer you wrong.
To balance nature a bit from the overplanting of pine by the lumber industry and to ensure a future supply of hardwood for NICE things like furniture, guitars, baseball bats, etc.
We'll have plenty of cardboard from Ikea, plenty of plastic guitar hero guitars, and plenty of aluminim for bats for the next few centuries. No problem that I can see.
Yes, I'm sure the guys at the bar were taking a principled stand here.
"Listen *hic* lady... you need to *hic* read sche... shnedr... schnieder on security. Or is it *hic* Krebbs? Listen, here's the thing *hic* when I go out in public *hic* I don't expect anonymimitiy through obscurity... I mean security... but your wearable glasses camera makes it easeir for *hic* yahoo... NO (slaps self) stupid! I mean Google and the NSA to invade my privacy. Look *hic* at CCCTVs in england. Yeah. That's it. (barfs)"
I don't know, I think all the cultists who are murderously upset at this actress probably already know about it. I'm skeptical that Al qaeda reads "The Verge."
Good point, but aren't phones already useful in that regard? I can connect my phone via bluetooth, tethering, or USB to anything I could think of needing cell phone capabilities temporarily.
I'm confused as to why aesthetics are such a big deal about phones. You look at the screen, not the back of the phone, right?
Why a module though? And why hot-swappable? I can't imagine the module having a whole lot of price advantage. I'd imagine most of the price comes from the hardware specific to satphone capabilities, not the rest of the phone, so you'd be saving money on the least expensive part.
As far as hot-swappable, why the hell would anyone suddenly need to switch over to satphone without turning off the phone? Sea-captains in the middle of really hot phone sex as they head out to sea?
You say the potential for misuse outweighs any benefit, but then suggest we go back to at least one of them? I am confuse.
You're missing maturity. Specifically, the maturity to realize that trolling in online forums is a waste of time and not ultimately fulfilling. Why don't you go read a book or call a friend if you're bored?