He said nothing about crediting Wikileaks with the wave of unrest in the Middle East. He said you could draw parallels between them. The rest is just the submitter's fantasy.
What???! Claiming two things are similar is the same as claiming one caused the other! Didn't you know? That's why every time you say someone is like a Nazi, you're also blaming that person for causing the Holocaust!
If you were 15 or less years old, Power Rangers would have first aired before you were born.
There's this thing we have in the 21st Century called reruns...
There's this thing we have in education called reading comprehension...
Sorry, fishexe, that was too good an example of Muphry's Law to pass up.:)
Cheers,
Not applicable. GP's clear implication was that someone under 15 should not be familiar with a show that old. "first" could easily be read in that context to refer to the beginning of the series in contrast to the rest of the series, as opposed to referring to the initial showing of an episode in contrast to repeat showings. But hey, go on insulting people for committing errors they're not actually committing as long as you want, it's a free country.
It's oppressive to have any law that requires police consent to be recorded in public places. Preventing citizens from creating evidence that might contradict police statements is, in essence, allowing the police to do whatever they want. We have a Constitution in order to put checks on the authorities, not on the citizenry. If that's how NH law defines wiretaps, then that part of the law needs to be repealed.
Yea, because nobody has an individual number associated with them like a physical address, home telephone number, cell phone number, social security number, driver's license number, etc. The Christian right-wing hasn't blown up over that stuff yet, so why would they care if you had an IPv6 address?
I assumed he was referring more to the mandatory tattoo part of the plan. The body is the temple of the soul, man...the body is the temple of the soul.
I wonder if there's some variation of Megan's Law requiring him to register with the local police department and notify all his neighbors with computers?
I think that kind of law is a good idea. Except, instead of his physical neighbors, he should have to notify all his virtual neighbors. That is, everybody he's capable of conveniently spamming. And he should be required to notify them by email. I really, really like where this is going.
In general, the libertarian-leaning Slashdot population is quick to criticize the Megan's laws. But now that it is about something important... SPAM!... well, those principles all go out the window, huh?
Perhaps the Slashdotters criticizing Megan's laws and the Slashdotters advocating them for spammers are different people with different viewpoints. Our community is neither monolithic nor uniform, we don't all speak with one voice.
Cause someone sending out spams is equivalent to raping children.
(Actually, most people on the Megan's Law list are folks who got caught peeing behind a bar -- er, exposed themselves to children who live in ally ways.)
So in other words, slashdot just compared spamming to peeing in public, and then you accused them of comparing it to raping children. Stay classy, digitalsushi.
All his neighbors? You mean everyone on the Internet? World's way smaller when your definition of harm (e.g. spam) can be accomplished without leaving home.
On the other hand, if all the world is his neighbor, and he's obligated to contact all his neighbors in a timely manner to notify them he's a serial spammer, and the only efficient way to do that is email...don't we have a name for emailing everyone on the planet?
I believe you mean he'll have to change his name to Robert' ); DROP TABLE Students;
He can go by Bobby Tables for short, but changing his official name to that won't kill any databases.
As long as you keep spouting this crap, I'll keep treating you as the child you are.
Good to see that the proponents of full corporate personhood have no better argument than ad hominem attacks.
Looks like the little child needs to read up on what an ad hominem attack means. There is a difference between a mean insult and an ad hominem.
Well, you used it in lieu of making an argument in that first paragraph. I'd say that qualifies as an ad hominem.
I don't say you are wrong because you act like a child.
Not in so many words, but it was implied. Ad hominems are almost always implied. You never hear someone say, "You're wrong because you're such a Nazi!" They stop at "You're such a Nazi!"
They are if they're given Fourteenth Amendment rights. Read the Fourteenth Amendment, for Christ's sake. To quote the exact same Wikipedia article you've just told me twice to read, "In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons."
And why do you think that the only rights a person has are granted by the Fourteenth Amendment?
I never made any such assumption. There are many rights people are considered to have, coming from many sources. The one key right given by the Fourteenth Amendment is the right to have all the rights that anyone else has under the law. It's called equal protection. Having a Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection automatically extends all the other rights from all other sources to you.
Here's the critical logic flaw you are making.
You might want to learn logic before you go around saying things like that.
Corporations in the US have some rights like a person. You jump from that limited observation to the conclusion that government is "treating non-persons as having equal rights with living, flesh-and-blood persons"
No I don't. I never even used anything resembling that logic. I was perfectly fine with corporations having the right to own property, the right to buy and sell property, and the right to form binding contracts, just the same as a person would enjoy those rights. I specifically said all those things in my last post. You insist on blatantly misreading me so that you can continue to use insults in lieu of actually dealing with my argument. The observation I jumped from to the conclusion that government is treating corporations as having equal rights with living, flesh-and-blood persons, is the right to be guaranteed all the rights given to any other person (also known as the right to equal protection).
Corporations can't be enslaved, can't vote, and can't marry, for example.
Well, they can't be enslaved and can't marry by definition, not because the law denies them the right. The voting thing is temporary, wait for Citizens United II for that to change.
it won't go away until our government stops treating non-persons as having equal rights with living, flesh-and-blood persons.
As long as you keep spouting this crap, I'll keep treating you as the child you are.
Good to see that the proponents of full corporate personhood have no better argument than ad hominem attacks.
Once again, corporate personhood is a legal machine, a process, a fiction.
Limited corporate personhood was a legal fiction to allow corporations the essential functions of owning and transacting with property and forming contracts (in their own name rather than in some natural person's name), without which they could not fulfill their basic functions. That's very different from the type of corporate personhood that followed Santa Clara Country v. Southern Pacific.
Corporations aren't being treated as having equal rights with living flesh-and-blood persons. You are simply wrong here.
They are if they're given Fourteenth Amendment rights. Read the Fourteenth Amendment, for Christ's sake. To quote the exact same Wikipedia article you've just told me twice to read, "In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons."
Slashdot Mirror
He said nothing about crediting Wikileaks with the wave of unrest in the Middle East. He said you could draw parallels between them. The rest is just the submitter's fantasy.
What???! Claiming two things are similar is the same as claiming one caused the other! Didn't you know? That's why every time you say someone is like a Nazi, you're also blaming that person for causing the Holocaust!
If you were 15 or less years old, Power Rangers would have first aired before you were born.
There's this thing we have in the 21st Century called reruns...
There's this thing we have in education called reading comprehension...
Sorry, fishexe, that was too good an example of Muphry's Law to pass up. :)
Cheers,
Not applicable. GP's clear implication was that someone under 15 should not be familiar with a show that old. "first" could easily be read in that context to refer to the beginning of the series in contrast to the rest of the series, as opposed to referring to the initial showing of an episode in contrast to repeat showings. But hey, go on insulting people for committing errors they're not actually committing as long as you want, it's a free country.
Hagbard, is that you?
It's oppressive to have any law that requires police consent to be recorded in public places. Preventing citizens from creating evidence that might contradict police statements is, in essence, allowing the police to do whatever they want. We have a Constitution in order to put checks on the authorities, not on the citizenry. If that's how NH law defines wiretaps, then that part of the law needs to be repealed.
If you were 15 or less years old, Power Rangers would have first aired before you were born.
There's this thing we have in the 21st Century called reruns...
Yea, because nobody has an individual number associated with them like a physical address, home telephone number, cell phone number, social security number, driver's license number, etc. The Christian right-wing hasn't blown up over that stuff yet, so why would they care if you had an IPv6 address?
I assumed he was referring more to the mandatory tattoo part of the plan. The body is the temple of the soul, man...the body is the temple of the soul.
I can think of six hundred sixty-six reasons why that will never come to pass at least in countries with a strong Christian right-wing.
Well, I suppose the religious right will block the kitten blood part of it.
I wonder if there's some variation of Megan's Law requiring him to register with the local police department and notify all his neighbors with computers?
I think that kind of law is a good idea. Except, instead of his physical neighbors, he should have to notify all his virtual neighbors. That is, everybody he's capable of conveniently spamming. And he should be required to notify them by email. I really, really like where this is going.
Why did you have to post anonymously, and thus deprive me of the chance to give you Karma?
They'll be jacking their jobs in within a week.
I don't think it'll be the slashdot traffic that will make them do this.
That depends on whether goatse guy starts posting again.
In general, the libertarian-leaning Slashdot population is quick to criticize the Megan's laws. But now that it is about something important... SPAM! ... well, those principles all go out the window, huh?
Perhaps the Slashdotters criticizing Megan's laws and the Slashdotters advocating them for spammers are different people with different viewpoints. Our community is neither monolithic nor uniform, we don't all speak with one voice.
Cause someone sending out spams is equivalent to raping children.
(Actually, most people on the Megan's Law list are folks who got caught peeing behind a bar -- er, exposed themselves to children who live in ally ways.)
So in other words, slashdot just compared spamming to peeing in public, and then you accused them of comparing it to raping children. Stay classy, digitalsushi.
All his neighbors? You mean everyone on the Internet? World's way smaller when your definition of harm (e.g. spam) can be accomplished without leaving home.
On the other hand, if all the world is his neighbor, and he's obligated to contact all his neighbors in a timely manner to notify them he's a serial spammer, and the only efficient way to do that is email...don't we have a name for emailing everyone on the planet?
This may be a better idea than we thought!
So when he was in prison, spam went down how much?
Oh, right, it went up. Yeah, that worked really well, didn't it?
Go figure.
Not that I have much sympathy for the man, but he did serve his sentence, sending spam isn't a sex offense...
Clearly you and I have not been receiving the same type of spam.
The Slashdot post makes it sound like the guy is evil.
What makes you think he's not?
But then Virus writers steal and destroy.
That depends on the virus.
Her in New Mexcico, they are insanely aggressive and simply BAD at the art of driving. Here, you NEVER use your signals...
In Las Vegas, we called that Sunday driving! During rush hour in Sin City, you'd get curbstomped by Mormon bushwhackers just for daring the onramps...
Tianjin for the win!
As they say in China, "Chukou jiu bu fangbian." ("exits are not convenient")
Come on, people, it's spam, not eating babies.
Come to think about it, I have a modest proposal for solving the spam problem...
I don't condone killing him or a database for computer offenders by any means.
Ah, he will have to change his name to Bobby Tables http://xkcd.com/327/
I believe you mean he'll have to change his name to Robert' ); DROP TABLE Students;
He can go by Bobby Tables for short, but changing his official name to that won't kill any databases.
The spams can never injured me or kill me. The guns can. So many people have been killed with guns. Never a single one with spam.
...yet.
Really? The people to whom a company's profits are distributed don't profit when the company distributes more money to them?
List of Companies Convicted of Felony Offenses in the United States
A list 14 counter-examples. I think that proves my point.
As long as you keep spouting this crap, I'll keep treating you as the child you are.
Good to see that the proponents of full corporate personhood have no better argument than ad hominem attacks.
Looks like the little child needs to read up on what an ad hominem attack means. There is a difference between a mean insult and an ad hominem.
Well, you used it in lieu of making an argument in that first paragraph. I'd say that qualifies as an ad hominem.
I don't say you are wrong because you act like a child.
Not in so many words, but it was implied. Ad hominems are almost always implied. You never hear someone say, "You're wrong because you're such a Nazi!" They stop at "You're such a Nazi!"
They are if they're given Fourteenth Amendment rights. Read the Fourteenth Amendment, for Christ's sake. To quote the exact same Wikipedia article you've just told me twice to read, "In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons."
And why do you think that the only rights a person has are granted by the Fourteenth Amendment?
I never made any such assumption. There are many rights people are considered to have, coming from many sources. The one key right given by the Fourteenth Amendment is the right to have all the rights that anyone else has under the law. It's called equal protection. Having a Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection automatically extends all the other rights from all other sources to you.
Here's the critical logic flaw you are making.
You might want to learn logic before you go around saying things like that.
Corporations in the US have some rights like a person. You jump from that limited observation to the conclusion that government is "treating non-persons as having equal rights with living, flesh-and-blood persons"
No I don't. I never even used anything resembling that logic. I was perfectly fine with corporations having the right to own property, the right to buy and sell property, and the right to form binding contracts, just the same as a person would enjoy those rights. I specifically said all those things in my last post. You insist on blatantly misreading me so that you can continue to use insults in lieu of actually dealing with my argument. The observation I jumped from to the conclusion that government is treating corporations as having equal rights with living, flesh-and-blood persons, is the right to be guaranteed all the rights given to any other person (also known as the right to equal protection).
Corporations can't be enslaved, can't vote, and can't marry, for example.
Well, they can't be enslaved and can't marry by definition, not because the law denies them the right. The voting thing is temporary, wait for Citizens United II for that to change.
it won't go away until our government stops treating non-persons as having equal rights with living, flesh-and-blood persons.
As long as you keep spouting this crap, I'll keep treating you as the child you are.
Good to see that the proponents of full corporate personhood have no better argument than ad hominem attacks.
Once again, corporate personhood is a legal machine, a process, a fiction.
Limited corporate personhood was a legal fiction to allow corporations the essential functions of owning and transacting with property and forming contracts (in their own name rather than in some natural person's name), without which they could not fulfill their basic functions. That's very different from the type of corporate personhood that followed Santa Clara Country v. Southern Pacific.
Corporations aren't being treated as having equal rights with living flesh-and-blood persons. You are simply wrong here.
They are if they're given Fourteenth Amendment rights. Read the Fourteenth Amendment, for Christ's sake. To quote the exact same Wikipedia article you've just told me twice to read, "In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons."