I was pointing out that you can derive more than one viewpoint from a statistic depending on what you want to prove. Was there any data to prove whether or not 50 months is any more of a deterrent than 94 months, or that a jail sentence is any deterrent at all? The statistic by itself only shows that groups exposed to porn feel 4 years in jail is enough of a punishment instead of the 8 1/2 years that the other group had.
Or maybe it's the difference between one group of liberal people concept of justice v/s more conservative people wanting punishment. Was there included in the study whether or not the pro-porn people preferred therapy v/s jail time?? Was there any study to show that the non-porn group weren't lying about their porn habits?
The statistic is merely interesting. Now, if it had said the porn group said no jail time, I might buy the correlation. The statistic, as you quoted it, proves nothing. It might make one wonder, and might provoke other studies. But I'm not about to go on an anti-porn legislative bent because of it.
Although I think the distinction goes even further. The connection between playing violent video games and becoming violent (or other negative impacts) is tenuous, but the connection between pornography and misogyny is not. One study (complete with control group) found that men and women exposed to porn recommended a sentence for a rapist of about 1/2 what was recommended by the control group. Connection directly to rape? No. Connection directly to attitudes about rape? Definitely.
All this statistics shows is that people who are exposed to porn have different ideas about rape, not that their idea is 'good' or 'bad'. It could just as well be interpreted that people not exposed to porn have harsher views of any sex act outside of marriage.
Now I see why you quote dead patriots... your post seems to indicate a vocabulary that is too small to create a decent argument yourself without resorting to vulgarity. But hey... if you like guys giving you blowjobs while you wear handcuffs and quote dead patriots, that's fine. Just not my thing.
When Sony fixes the real problem so that I can copy their accursed DVDs to my computer and watch without having to dig through all of my DVDs to find it, then I'll stop vilifying them. Until then, I don't buy them, only rent them.
I cannot open a website in the US and offer slot machines for money. This industry is very tightly controlled and monitored. There is no free trade in the US for gambling of any type (by free trade I mean anyone can startup the business anywhere with the proper license). A few states allow it (i.e. Nevada) and the rest only allow it on non-US soil (i.e. Indian reservations or river boats).
The same cannot be said for other things, like corn, liquor, and cigarettes. I can sell and manufacture all three anywhere in the US with the proper permits, and following local laws (i.e. selling alcohol is forbidden within a certain distance of a church of school in most areas, and completely banned in a few others like Pigeon Forge, Tennessee.)
So, by your very argument, states would still be able to deny off-shore gambling. And, since the WTO has no authority over state laws, the result would be the same.
Laws in the US also only allows certain type of drinking (i.e. must be over 21), certain types of porn, certain types of drugs, and on and on.
If some other country decided to setup an online site to sell booze, child porn, and marijuana over the internet, why wouldn't the same laws apply.
The WTO has overstepped their bounds. This isn't about putting tariffs on coffee or corn, this is about introducing something into a society that has made it illegal. Whether or not the law 'makes sense' is irrelevant. There are many arbitrary laws, such as drinking ages and speed limits. One could argue that making possession of marijuana illegal is also arbitrary since cigarettes and alcohol are also legal.
All jobs are 'dead end' jobs. I don't know of anyone who has worked at one company for 20 years and advanced from mail clerk to a VP.
All jobs bring with them opportunities to learn things, no matter how menial. I worked retail for 6 months to earn some extra cash and somehow managed to gain from it. I improved my interpersonal skills by learning how to say 'hi' to strangers, improved my negotiation skills by learning how to sell service agreements on cheap ass products I knew would break and would be needed. I also learned how to tell my boss 'No, I'm not working this weekend' in a way that wasn't confrontational and allowed me to keep my job until I wanted to quit. I learned how to deal with difficult customers without losing my cool. I look back at it as a good experience and would recommend everyone do it at least once.
I started my work career as an office clerk many years ago and learned how to do my job every day no matter how boring it was while learning new tasks and making myself more valuable. In two years I was able to advance into computer operations. While in operations, I learned how to program and left the company. Then I learned how to do system administration, database administration, and web development.
That first job was 20 years and 8 or 10 different jobs ago. Now I eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches because I want to, not because I have to.
Every job comes with opportunities, it depends on what you are willing to do with it. To paraphrase, the common thread in all of your failed jobs is you.
I have lived in Arizona for over 4 years and have NEVER gone to a voting station, yet I vote in most of the elections. Every election I get a letter with a form that I can fill out to request a ballot be mailed to me. I fill out and return the form, and in a few days get a packet of information that includes a ballot. I believe the ballot is in both English and Spanish, although I don't have one so I can't validate that statement. Of course, they might shred the ballot when I mail it back it for all I know. But that holds true for electronic voting also.
I really have a tough time understanding why states want high-tech voting machines, and what problem they are trying to solve with them.
Let's also not forget the science that showed exposure to sunlight caused skin cancer, and that we should all stop going out in the sun.
Then they discovered that 'Whoops.... going out in the sun creates Vitamin D which PREVENTS other types of cancer. It's OK to go out, just don't get burned'.
Or eggs. Remember the butter/margarine debate?? 'Don't eat butter, it's bad for you. Eat margarine instead' followed by 'Whoops... me bad... margarine is bad too. Eat butter just not too much'.
Our scientists don't have a very good track record in predicting what will happen in complex systems when things change. Decreasing mercury and lead pollution was a good idea, dropping CO2 emissions is also a good idea.
Just step back a minute, breathe, and do what is sane. I heard some groups demanding a 80% reduction in CO2 emissions in 25 years.
Oh well...the democrats (along with the Hollywood bleeding hearts) are back in the US, I'm sure there will be plenty of overreaction to make up for the under reaction for the last 8 years.
You had me in your first two paragraphs, butlost me again. I've run very small supposedly cooperative organizations/clubs and been in other ones, and people just don't get along. Without someone to pull a Captain Picard and say 'Thanks for your input, here is what we are going to do', nothing ever gets done or it is complete chaos. Without a leader, most people just mill about waiting for someone else to take care of things.
We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether GWB adds value or not, but I don't know of a better way of doing it than the way most countries do it today. Some tweaks are needed along the lines of campaign contributions in the US, and the waste of money it involves (I suppose it stimulates the economy though...) to level it out so your average joe can actually get in.
You can't fix global warming until you know what causes it. That doesn't mean you can't reduce global emissions because we know for a fact car pollution is a bad thing and we know what causes it.
You put down sandbags when the river starts to rise, not every day. Once it becomes a regular event, you build dikes and levees.
My call?? Deal with the effects when they start to happen. There. Done. Everything taken care of. When the weatherman can accurately predict weather 10 days from now, I'll trust the scientist to tell me what the temperature will be 20 years from now. Otherwise, we don't even know what we are planning for. Tell me, how high are you going to build these sea walls?? 10 ft? 20 ft? 50 ft?
Protect the elderly and cool our homes?? We have something now, it's called AIR CONDITIONING. It's a marvelous thing we in Phoenix like to use to cool hour homes when, oh I don't know, it gets to 120 degrees. Oh... they can't pay for it?? I'm sure someone will create a air conditioning support welfare system just like the US did for heating oil.
Things change and people adapt, it's been happening for thousands for years. When floods start to slowly occur in places, smart people will move and the idiots will stay (I'd start moving now before property values lower). New York City?? Flooded?? I'm sure if the sea levels start to rise they will do what's been done in other places so well...build dikes and seawalls. It doesn't take 20 years to build a sea wall. The low lying areas will flood out for awhile before they can be built. Shit happens. Property gets destroyed, land becomes useless. Government gives out loans to the idiots that won't move to rebuild, and the smart ones to move. That's been happening for decades across the midwest and south. Or tornadoes. Or hurricanes. Or earthquakes (I'm sure somehow they will be blamed on global warming also.)
Cause if you don't know why, you can make the problem worse. Are you 100% the solution you present will work?? What if it cools it too much and creates a runaway cycle in the cooling direction. It probably won't, but humans seem to have a knack at presenting solutions, such as building dams to generate electricity, only to discover unintended consequences.
Your example about volcanoes is a good example. Knowing why volcanoes erupt provide the means to determine what 'safe' is. Moving the islanders away from Krakatoa into Yellowstone, for example, isn't necessary a good thing.
Same here. I've been to the MS website, read the reviews, even played with it at Staples. Until I have to get it, I ain't getting it.
I'd spend $100 on the upgrade, but not $260 for Ultimate. I could buy a lesser version, but to get both scheduled backups and media center, you have to get Ultimate. For that, I'll wait until SP2 comes out and fixes the first round of bugs.
Or.. if you think you know what needs to be done... put in some real effort get your own ass elected.
Otherwise, it's the same BS heard from all of the people that are really too lazy to do anything real and just whine. I get so god damned sick and tired of hearing all of the whiners say 'oh...if we only just got together, we could change things'.
Get off your ass and do something if you want real change. Checking/punching/clicking a box at election time isn't anything more than every one else does.
Mr. Kellner is free to state his opinion and I am free to ignore it. (Sorry.. couldn't resist)
I seem to recall the NFL trying to stop a church this year from showing the super bowl because they were 1) charging admission (reasonable in my mind) and 2) (this is the important part) using a TV larger than 55 inches. (As I recall, the church was trying to provide a family friendly, non-alcoholic way to watch Budweiser commercials.) Supposedly, if you read the fine print, this is against the license you are granted to watch it. I didn't really research this, so it may be bogus.
I really, really, REALLY, want one of these to go to trial. Following the NFLs line of reasoning, if they put up a notice at the beginning that by watching the super bowl you agree to pay the NFL $5 for every person in the room, then you and I are required to pay it.
I call bull shit on Mr. Kellner and the NFL. Show me one single court case where, after all appeals, the final decision was I can't change channels or am obligated to any contract other than the standard copyright law for any unencrypted over the air broadcast.
It's free for me to watch it over the public airwaves, and copy it with my VCR, DVD, or on my computer. So maybe this isn't really about copyright. Maybe it's about ad revenue. Something the media companies don't get when it's shown on YouTube, or shared no matter what the medium or source.
Yet YouTube gets ad revenue whenever a page is shown....hmmmm...me thinks a smart media company would have a solution here. Create your own page for your own show, and upload the videos in slightly better format than the crappy YouTube format, but still not as good as a direct copy. Work out a deal with YouTube for a percentage of the ad revenue, or put a 10 sec. ad in front of it like NBC does for the shows you can watch on their site and get revenue from that advertiser.
It's like getting caught in a rip tide. You can fight it, but the rip tide won't go away. Or, you can learn to work with it a little bit, ease the fight, and eventually get out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
... who's going to fix it????
I was pointing out that you can derive more than one viewpoint from a statistic depending on what you want to prove. Was there any data to prove whether or not 50 months is any more of a deterrent than 94 months, or that a jail sentence is any deterrent at all? The statistic by itself only shows that groups exposed to porn feel 4 years in jail is enough of a punishment instead of the 8 1/2 years that the other group had.
Or maybe it's the difference between one group of liberal people concept of justice v/s more conservative people wanting punishment. Was there included in the study whether or not the pro-porn people preferred therapy v/s jail time?? Was there any study to show that the non-porn group weren't lying about their porn habits?
The statistic is merely interesting. Now, if it had said the porn group said no jail time, I might buy the correlation. The statistic, as you quoted it, proves nothing. It might make one wonder, and might provoke other studies. But I'm not about to go on an anti-porn legislative bent because of it.
So what you are saying the Bible is just an old newspaper that has gotten some facts wrong just like modern news agencies do.
I can live with that.
Now I see why you quote dead patriots ... your post seems to indicate a vocabulary that is too small to create a decent argument yourself without resorting to vulgarity. But hey ... if you like guys giving you blowjobs while you wear handcuffs and quote dead patriots, that's fine. Just not my thing.
Wow ... I bet you could also have parroted the 'You are either with us, or against us' quote and saved yourself a lot of typing.
"Those who utilize trite sayings from famous people have no worthwhile thoughts of their own" -- me
When Sony fixes the real problem so that I can copy their accursed DVDs to my computer and watch without having to dig through all of my DVDs to find it, then I'll stop vilifying them. Until then, I don't buy them, only rent them.
I cannot open a website in the US and offer slot machines for money. This industry is very tightly controlled and monitored. There is no free trade in the US for gambling of any type (by free trade I mean anyone can startup the business anywhere with the proper license). A few states allow it (i.e. Nevada) and the rest only allow it on non-US soil (i.e. Indian reservations or river boats).
The same cannot be said for other things, like corn, liquor, and cigarettes. I can sell and manufacture all three anywhere in the US with the proper permits, and following local laws (i.e. selling alcohol is forbidden within a certain distance of a church of school in most areas, and completely banned in a few others like Pigeon Forge, Tennessee.)
So, by your very argument, states would still be able to deny off-shore gambling. And, since the WTO has no authority over state laws, the result would be the same.
Laws in the US also only allows certain type of drinking (i.e. must be over 21), certain types of porn, certain types of drugs, and on and on.
If some other country decided to setup an online site to sell booze, child porn, and marijuana over the internet, why wouldn't the same laws apply.
The WTO has overstepped their bounds. This isn't about putting tariffs on coffee or corn, this is about introducing something into a society that has made it illegal. Whether or not the law 'makes sense' is irrelevant. There are many arbitrary laws, such as drinking ages and speed limits. One could argue that making possession of marijuana illegal is also arbitrary since cigarettes and alcohol are also legal.
All jobs are 'dead end' jobs. I don't know of anyone who has worked at one company for 20 years and advanced from mail clerk to a VP.
All jobs bring with them opportunities to learn things, no matter how menial. I worked retail for 6 months to earn some extra cash and somehow managed to gain from it. I improved my interpersonal skills by learning how to say 'hi' to strangers, improved my negotiation skills by learning how to sell service agreements on cheap ass products I knew would break and would be needed. I also learned how to tell my boss 'No, I'm not working this weekend' in a way that wasn't confrontational and allowed me to keep my job until I wanted to quit. I learned how to deal with difficult customers without losing my cool. I look back at it as a good experience and would recommend everyone do it at least once.
I started my work career as an office clerk many years ago and learned how to do my job every day no matter how boring it was while learning new tasks and making myself more valuable. In two years I was able to advance into computer operations. While in operations, I learned how to program and left the company. Then I learned how to do system administration, database administration, and web development.
That first job was 20 years and 8 or 10 different jobs ago. Now I eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches because I want to, not because I have to.
Every job comes with opportunities, it depends on what you are willing to do with it. To paraphrase, the common thread in all of your failed jobs is you.
I have lived in Arizona for over 4 years and have NEVER gone to a voting station, yet I vote in most of the elections. Every election I get a letter with a form that I can fill out to request a ballot be mailed to me. I fill out and return the form, and in a few days get a packet of information that includes a ballot. I believe the ballot is in both English and Spanish, although I don't have one so I can't validate that statement. Of course, they might shred the ballot when I mail it back it for all I know. But that holds true for electronic voting also.
I really have a tough time understanding why states want high-tech voting machines, and what problem they are trying to solve with them.
Let's also not forget the science that showed exposure to sunlight caused skin cancer, and that we should all stop going out in the sun.
.... going out in the sun creates Vitamin D which PREVENTS other types of cancer. It's OK to go out, just don't get burned'.
... me bad ... margarine is bad too. Eat butter just not too much'.
Then they discovered that 'Whoops
Or eggs. Remember the butter/margarine debate?? 'Don't eat butter, it's bad for you. Eat margarine instead' followed by 'Whoops
Our scientists don't have a very good track record in predicting what will happen in complex systems when things change. Decreasing mercury and lead pollution was a good idea, dropping CO2 emissions is also a good idea.
Just step back a minute, breathe, and do what is sane. I heard some groups demanding a 80% reduction in CO2 emissions in 25 years.
Oh well...the democrats (along with the Hollywood bleeding hearts) are back in the US, I'm sure there will be plenty of overreaction to make up for the under reaction for the last 8 years.
You had me in your first two paragraphs, butlost me again. I've run very small supposedly cooperative organizations/clubs and been in other ones, and people just don't get along. Without someone to pull a Captain Picard and say 'Thanks for your input, here is what we are going to do', nothing ever gets done or it is complete chaos. Without a leader, most people just mill about waiting for someone else to take care of things.
We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether GWB adds value or not, but I don't know of a better way of doing it than the way most countries do it today. Some tweaks are needed along the lines of campaign contributions in the US, and the waste of money it involves (I suppose it stimulates the economy though...) to level it out so your average joe can actually get in.
NPR?? Quality??
.. you mean elitist and obscure radio.
Oh
Whatever dude....
Which is less expensive in the US than in most other countries in the world....
You can't fix global warming until you know what causes it. That doesn't mean you can't reduce global emissions because we know for a fact car pollution is a bad thing and we know what causes it.
... they can't pay for it?? I'm sure someone will create a air conditioning support welfare system just like the US did for heating oil.
You put down sandbags when the river starts to rise, not every day. Once it becomes a regular event, you build dikes and levees.
My call?? Deal with the effects when they start to happen. There. Done. Everything taken care of. When the weatherman can accurately predict weather 10 days from now, I'll trust the scientist to tell me what the temperature will be 20 years from now. Otherwise, we don't even know what we are planning for. Tell me, how high are you going to build these sea walls?? 10 ft? 20 ft? 50 ft?
Protect the elderly and cool our homes?? We have something now, it's called AIR CONDITIONING. It's a marvelous thing we in Phoenix like to use to cool hour homes when, oh I don't know, it gets to 120 degrees. Oh
Things change and people adapt, it's been happening for thousands for years. When floods start to slowly occur in places, smart people will move and the idiots will stay (I'd start moving now before property values lower). New York City?? Flooded?? I'm sure if the sea levels start to rise they will do what's been done in other places so well...build dikes and seawalls. It doesn't take 20 years to build a sea wall. The low lying areas will flood out for awhile before they can be built. Shit happens. Property gets destroyed, land becomes useless. Government gives out loans to the idiots that won't move to rebuild, and the smart ones to move. That's been happening for decades across the midwest and south. Or tornadoes. Or hurricanes. Or earthquakes (I'm sure somehow they will be blamed on global warming also.)
Cause if you don't know why, you can make the problem worse. Are you 100% the solution you present will work?? What if it cools it too much and creates a runaway cycle in the cooling direction. It probably won't, but humans seem to have a knack at presenting solutions, such as building dams to generate electricity, only to discover unintended consequences.
Your example about volcanoes is a good example. Knowing why volcanoes erupt provide the means to determine what 'safe' is. Moving the islanders away from Krakatoa into Yellowstone, for example, isn't necessary a good thing.
If you don't know why, you can't fix it. Duh.....
You, kind sir, may be expecting SP1 to actually fix the first round of bugs.
... both are equally valid options)
I, on the other hand, do not.
(Or I fucked up the post
Same here. I've been to the MS website, read the reviews, even played with it at Staples. Until I have to get it, I ain't getting it.
I'd spend $100 on the upgrade, but not $260 for Ultimate. I could buy a lesser version, but to get both scheduled backups and media center, you have to get Ultimate. For that, I'll wait until SP2 comes out and fixes the first round of bugs.
Or .. if you think you know what needs to be done ... put in some real effort get your own ass elected.
Otherwise, it's the same BS heard from all of the people that are really too lazy to do anything real and just whine. I get so god damned sick and tired of hearing all of the whiners say 'oh...if we only just got together, we could change things'.
Get off your ass and do something if you want real change. Checking/punching/clicking a box at election time isn't anything more than every one else does.
Mr. Kellner is free to state his opinion and I am free to ignore it. (Sorry .. couldn't resist)
I seem to recall the NFL trying to stop a church this year from showing the super bowl because they were 1) charging admission (reasonable in my mind) and 2) (this is the important part) using a TV larger than 55 inches. (As I recall, the church was trying to provide a family friendly, non-alcoholic way to watch Budweiser commercials.) Supposedly, if you read the fine print, this is against the license you are granted to watch it. I didn't really research this, so it may be bogus.
I really, really, REALLY, want one of these to go to trial. Following the NFLs line of reasoning, if they put up a notice at the beginning that by watching the super bowl you agree to pay the NFL $5 for every person in the room, then you and I are required to pay it.
I call bull shit on Mr. Kellner and the NFL. Show me one single court case where, after all appeals, the final decision was I can't change channels or am obligated to any contract other than the standard copyright law for any unencrypted over the air broadcast.
Until then, it's still free.
It's free for me to watch it over the public airwaves, and copy it with my VCR, DVD, or on my computer. So maybe this isn't really about copyright. Maybe it's about ad revenue. Something the media companies don't get when it's shown on YouTube, or shared no matter what the medium or source.
Yet YouTube gets ad revenue whenever a page is shown....hmmmm...me thinks a smart media company would have a solution here. Create your own page for your own show, and upload the videos in slightly better format than the crappy YouTube format, but still not as good as a direct copy. Work out a deal with YouTube for a percentage of the ad revenue, or put a 10 sec. ad in front of it like NBC does for the shows you can watch on their site and get revenue from that advertiser.
It's like getting caught in a rip tide. You can fight it, but the rip tide won't go away. Or, you can learn to work with it a little bit, ease the fight, and eventually get out of it.