hasn't the FBI figured out that hiding documents on cold cases long out of date only adds to the suspicion?
The FBI knows what it's doing. If you only fight when you have something to hide, everyone will know you have something to hide when you're fighting. Every time there's a controversy made about it and it turns out to be nothing, people get less suspicious.
That, and they just don't like to have we mortals looking over their shoulders. It's a penis thing.
Weird Al gets permission before he does that. Except in the case of Coolio, but that was apparently the result of miscommunication. So it's not the same.
Parody is not talking over someone else's movie. Parody is making your own movie. It's a very, very, very clear distinction. Whether Lucasfilms was being jerks or not is up for debate, but this has nothing to do with parody.
A vote for Nader may not be a vote for Bush, but a vote for not-Kerry is a vote for not-not-Bush.
The game is pick the winner, and it only allows one winner, so if you only count people playing, you really are either with someone or against them. Bush's idiotic threats and posturing are entirely different.
Unfortunately, you're right about all the other stuff.
That'd be neat, but I'm more hopeful it will put an end to this quantum mechanics stuff that I don't understand. Things are only allowed to be one way at a time, dammit!
You really need to lighten up. I was obviously kidding. I wish I could patronizingly pin down your location based on your lack of sense of humor, but that seems to cross borders. Not that it turned out to be funny, but the worst reaction it deserved was -1, Troll, which we can still hope for.
Being an American, I know nothing of pollution. So I want to ask a question, as I sit here smoking my cigar and blowing the smoke at babies while driving my SUV in circles for no reason. The 767, "the transatlantic workhorse", has a maximum altitude of 41,000 feet. Hurricane clouds get that high all the time, often much higher. How does a transatlantic flight do any damage? And if I haven't made a glaring error there, how bad is 100 times that?
Shuttle launches just suck in general in terms of the environment.
Water vapour is not environmentally safe! H2O is 5 times as effective as CO2 as a green house case. It's about time some one took resposibility and educated the population.
Quick! Somebody! Throw a tarp over the ocean! We don't have much time!
I hadn't confused child molesters with pedophiles. From a protecting-the-kids-from-pedophiles perspective, they have to be both to need protecting from, and that's all I was saying there, and we don't seem to disagree.
I wish you weren't right about the Russia thing. I won't be doing that "lolita" thing, because I'll stick to my usual German pornography, thank you very much, but I'll take your word for it that that happens and agree completely with your solution.
Yeah, I made a little jump, there, but only a very little one. Foot fetishists are only a willing girl away from doing... whatever it is you do with feet. I'm willing to bet kid fetishists are about the same.
Of course I would say the same about the speed limit. Speed limits are supposed to be set to the 85th percentile speed. If it were done properly, then by definition only 15% of people would be speeders, and most of them would have a good reason. So yes, if 50% of people are committing a crime on your road, you've fucked up somewhere.
He was modded troll because he was either a troll or he doesn't understand why you're not allowed to look at child porn. This isn't a "my kids were looking at it, somebody fix it" problem. It's a "this four year old was raped and people want to watch" problem. Child porn isn't something you generally stumble onto, so a voluntary filter is pointless, and I don't think a whole lot of child molesters would just frown and turn it on to avoid being naughty.
You'll get modded down because you're dumb, not because you said something unpopular. Which is not to say that if you weren't dumb, you wouldn't be modded down because you said something unpopular.
While it wasn't your main point and I don't know if you were arguing for it or not, the fact that arresting marijuana users would get 50% of college students arrested and punishing music downloaders would get 80% of college students in trouble should set off an alarm in anyone's head that maybe the law needs to be re-evaluated. (Not necessarily dropped, but definitely re-evaluated.)
Closer to topic, your desire for more government monitoring is scary. But also not the point, and I won't argue it.
(The following is obviously speculation, so if you have facts to refute or support it, I'm all ears.)
Actually on-topic, while the whole child porn thing is disgusting, stopping internet sharing of it is not going to stop the abuse of the children the law aims to protect. The people who do this aren't doing it because they can make money doing it. They're going to be making the porn for themselves whether they can sell it and share it or not. The people consuming it aren't going to stop molesting children if they can't get their dirty pictures.
I'm willing to bet that the number of kids helped by this law is going to be within the margin of butterfly-effects, so let's not waste time and money blocking people from reading melodramatic blogs.
There are better ways to fight child abuse, and they conflict with this one.
More would agree with it if the RIAA hadn't blown all its goodwill suing the wrong people and being mean in general. You don't get a second chance when you're a giant bitch on top of being wrong on your first go.
A computer lab would be great for these kids. It would teach them valuable word processing skills. Pens and pencils are so damn inefficient in the business world that these kids will be thrust into just as soon as they hook up some electricity to anywhere near where they live.
We might as well give them get to work giving them solar powered Tivos while we're at it.
That's true, cameras will deter normal crime. If they're spending that much money deterring purse-snatchers, though, they're much bigger idiots than if they were doing it for terrorists.
But I'm not worried about that. If they want to blow their money on a false sense of security, that's cool. The phone monitoring is horrible on its own, but I'm not going to get my panties bunched. I'm worried about the precedent and the fact that the cameras and phone monitoring equipment aren't going to go away after this, and unnecessary monitoring is always a bad thing.
It's not an infringement for cops to look at you on the street. It's an infringement, moral if not legal, for a cop to follow you and write down everything you do and keep the record indefinitely when he has no reason to think you've committed a crime.
I'm not saying you should do nothing until you can do everything. I'm saying you should do nothing if people are dying of cancer and all you can do is give them arsenic. They're putting up walls made of paper because they don't know how to build walls made of stone, and yes, it would be better to do nothing.
You're right, of course, but I was under the impression that until we got hit, people were sane about it. I thought that until 2001, CCTV cameras were mostly used for non-buzzword crimes. I was hoping the idea of using cameras this way was stupid enough that it had to come from us.
No. I'm not saying we're doing better than Israel, I'm saying there's nothing you can do if someone wants to kill random people, even if you're as good at it as Israel is.
Slashdot Mirror
hasn't the FBI figured out that hiding documents on cold cases long out of date only adds to the suspicion?
The FBI knows what it's doing. If you only fight when you have something to hide, everyone will know you have something to hide when you're fighting. Every time there's a controversy made about it and it turns out to be nothing, people get less suspicious.
That, and they just don't like to have we mortals looking over their shoulders. It's a penis thing.
Weird Al gets permission before he does that. Except in the case of Coolio, but that was apparently the result of miscommunication. So it's not the same.
Parody is not talking over someone else's movie. Parody is making your own movie. It's a very, very, very clear distinction. Whether Lucasfilms was being jerks or not is up for debate, but this has nothing to do with parody.
$20 bucks! Ha! You got taken, my friend. I got three pairs of Oekleys and a brand new Sorny TV for that much when I was there.
A vote for Nader may not be a vote for Bush, but a vote for not-Kerry is a vote for not-not-Bush.
The game is pick the winner, and it only allows one winner, so if you only count people playing, you really are either with someone or against them. Bush's idiotic threats and posturing are entirely different.
Unfortunately, you're right about all the other stuff.
I'm not against it either, I'll just have to make arrangements to go to a different park when I start having secret affairs with celebrities.
Okay, I'm good with that, but can we call it something official-sounding? Like the Slashdot Twice-Melted Server Award?
Can we give these guys some sort of award? Slashdot Medal of Honor or something? That's an impressive amount of nerdness, right there.
That'd be neat, but I'm more hopeful it will put an end to this quantum mechanics stuff that I don't understand. Things are only allowed to be one way at a time, dammit!
You really need to lighten up. I was obviously kidding. I wish I could patronizingly pin down your location based on your lack of sense of humor, but that seems to cross borders. Not that it turned out to be funny, but the worst reaction it deserved was -1, Troll, which we can still hope for.
Being an American, I know nothing of pollution. So I want to ask a question, as I sit here smoking my cigar and blowing the smoke at babies while driving my SUV in circles for no reason. The 767, "the transatlantic workhorse", has a maximum altitude of 41,000 feet. Hurricane clouds get that high all the time, often much higher. How does a transatlantic flight do any damage? And if I haven't made a glaring error there, how bad is 100 times that?
Shuttle launches just suck in general in terms of the environment.
Water vapour is not environmentally safe! H2O is 5 times as effective as CO2 as a green house case. It's about time some one took resposibility and educated the population.
Quick! Somebody! Throw a tarp over the ocean! We don't have much time!
How would you have liked to see the RIAA police their content?
With some humility.
The MPAA and DirecTV suck, too. I don't think you'll get much argument here.
They built a model rocket for a measely 30,000 bucks.
I'm going to wait for somebody to get in one to be impressed, if that's okay.
I hadn't confused child molesters with pedophiles. From a protecting-the-kids-from-pedophiles perspective, they have to be both to need protecting from, and that's all I was saying there, and we don't seem to disagree.
I wish you weren't right about the Russia thing. I won't be doing that "lolita" thing, because I'll stick to my usual German pornography, thank you very much, but I'll take your word for it that that happens and agree completely with your solution.
Yeah, I made a little jump, there, but only a very little one. Foot fetishists are only a willing girl away from doing ... whatever it is you do with feet. I'm willing to bet kid fetishists are about the same.
Of course I would say the same about the speed limit. Speed limits are supposed to be set to the 85th percentile speed. If it were done properly, then by definition only 15% of people would be speeders, and most of them would have a good reason. So yes, if 50% of people are committing a crime on your road, you've fucked up somewhere.
He was modded troll because he was either a troll or he doesn't understand why you're not allowed to look at child porn. This isn't a "my kids were looking at it, somebody fix it" problem. It's a "this four year old was raped and people want to watch" problem. Child porn isn't something you generally stumble onto, so a voluntary filter is pointless, and I don't think a whole lot of child molesters would just frown and turn it on to avoid being naughty.
You'll get modded down because you're dumb, not because you said something unpopular. Which is not to say that if you weren't dumb, you wouldn't be modded down because you said something unpopular.
While it wasn't your main point and I don't know if you were arguing for it or not, the fact that arresting marijuana users would get 50% of college students arrested and punishing music downloaders would get 80% of college students in trouble should set off an alarm in anyone's head that maybe the law needs to be re-evaluated. (Not necessarily dropped, but definitely re-evaluated.)
Closer to topic, your desire for more government monitoring is scary. But also not the point, and I won't argue it.
(The following is obviously speculation, so if you have facts to refute or support it, I'm all ears.)
Actually on-topic, while the whole child porn thing is disgusting, stopping internet sharing of it is not going to stop the abuse of the children the law aims to protect. The people who do this aren't doing it because they can make money doing it. They're going to be making the porn for themselves whether they can sell it and share it or not. The people consuming it aren't going to stop molesting children if they can't get their dirty pictures.
I'm willing to bet that the number of kids helped by this law is going to be within the margin of butterfly-effects, so let's not waste time and money blocking people from reading melodramatic blogs.
There are better ways to fight child abuse, and they conflict with this one.
More would agree with it if the RIAA hadn't blown all its goodwill suing the wrong people and being mean in general. You don't get a second chance when you're a giant bitch on top of being wrong on your first go.
A computer lab would be great for these kids. It would teach them valuable word processing skills. Pens and pencils are so damn inefficient in the business world that these kids will be thrust into just as soon as they hook up some electricity to anywhere near where they live.
We might as well give them get to work giving them solar powered Tivos while we're at it.
That's true, cameras will deter normal crime. If they're spending that much money deterring purse-snatchers, though, they're much bigger idiots than if they were doing it for terrorists.
But I'm not worried about that. If they want to blow their money on a false sense of security, that's cool. The phone monitoring is horrible on its own, but I'm not going to get my panties bunched. I'm worried about the precedent and the fact that the cameras and phone monitoring equipment aren't going to go away after this, and unnecessary monitoring is always a bad thing.
It's not an infringement for cops to look at you on the street. It's an infringement, moral if not legal, for a cop to follow you and write down everything you do and keep the record indefinitely when he has no reason to think you've committed a crime.
I'm not saying you should do nothing until you can do everything. I'm saying you should do nothing if people are dying of cancer and all you can do is give them arsenic. They're putting up walls made of paper because they don't know how to build walls made of stone, and yes, it would be better to do nothing.
You're right, of course, but I was under the impression that until we got hit, people were sane about it. I thought that until 2001, CCTV cameras were mostly used for non-buzzword crimes. I was hoping the idea of using cameras this way was stupid enough that it had to come from us.
No. I'm not saying we're doing better than Israel, I'm saying there's nothing you can do if someone wants to kill random people, even if you're as good at it as Israel is.
If you don't waste all your money putting video cameras in your cities, you can put Geiger counters on your borders.