It provided the proof for the pedophilia that didn't exist when they started with the 2-year plea deal.
Kissing a boy on the lips does not make one a pedophile. It means that he didn't want people using it in his sentencing. Considering that people's emotions would make them think he is a pedophile even if he isn't*, I think it's actually quite a rational course of action to try to get the court to not use it as evidence.
* I dunno, he may be, I'm just saying that hiding the kiss from sentencing isn't evidence of him being a pedophile.
You have made an illogical argument, the way Glenn Beck makes conclusions, and people like you are the reason people burned witches hundreds of years ago (or now put people who haven't abused children on sex offender lists).
When you go to many countries, the men wrap their arms around each other when walking down the street. Manly men kiss each other on the cheeks. And yes, sometimes they kiss a boy or girl on the lips. Hell, I kiss my boy dogs on the lips... does that make me guilty of gay pedo-bestiality?
Now, don't get me wrong... he may be child predator and watch child pornography... I don't know. The point is, the evidence is not there. We only know he kissed a boy on the lips (weird, maybe, but not necessarily sexual), and a mere snippet of child pornography which was seemingly only used to fuck with someone else, not for sexual gratification (I would laugh if someone pointed to 3 porn pictures and called it a "porn collection").
So when you say "by most accounts he IS a pedophile", you are just using your emotion to make judgement instead of reason, which can potentially ruin people's lives.
Every time there is a push to reduce our privacy rights online, it's ALWAYS in the guise of child pornography. I mean seriously, how serious of a problem is it? Why does law enforcement need to know I go to slashdot.com daily or watch porn every other day? Why don't they just store data for child pornography sites?
And anyways, what is your proposed solution to this hypothetical problem? Legislate that companies have to pay interns? Congrats, you havent made it easier for folks to get experience; youve now made it impossible for some people to hone their skills if they really were that mediocre.
1. There's already legislation that you can't make people work for free. 2. People can hone their skills at minimum wage. 3. You seem to be making free market arguments, but in a free market, mediocre people fall to the bottom (or at least not the top). This discussion is about how people make money off of less fortunate people's time and work without paying them.
Unpaid internships are also mandatory in the medical field. Every potential nurse and doctor works hundreds of hours in hospitals before they're allowed to graduate.
My sister, a doctor, just finished her schooling. As far as doctors go, internships are paid. They are not paid $100K/year, but they certainly are paid. She will now go into a field where she will make $200K/year.
Now, don't get me wrong... she was only paid $50K/year as an intern, but that by no means is free... in fact, that's ABOVE average for an American. She also has hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay back for medical school.
That being said, doctors do not do free internships. That would be stupid.
We already missed Pi Day
on
Happy Tau Day
·
· Score: 1
Think of it, dunno, like the quests on WoW. Nobody would run across half the continent and back just for the sake of running across half the continent and back. But throw in a reward, and it becomes fun.
When I make a Star Wars reference at work, I get a congrats.
When you make a WoW reference in the context of kids learning a programming language, you get a congrats.
Hey listen, you have some good points, but you are obviously WAAAAAY biased. I mean, come on, are you saying you can't teach programming concepts in a.NET language? You seem to be mad that.NET language programs make UI building easy. You just talked about a bunch of languages that make pretty pictures and visual feedback. But the fact that.NET has BETTER interface builders than all of the other languages makes you mad for some reason. You can program lots of stuff in.NET languages without using framework generators. You can still program the Fibonacci sequence function in.NET. You can still program functional programming.
You are going way overboard in your dislike of interface builders in saying that one can't program and learn input/logic/output with.NET.
What you are implying is that it is OK to steal from rich people because they have lots of money. I know that's probably not something you agree with, but that is the result of letting somebody steal something from you and then saying they shouldn't fight back for it because they already have more money than most others.
I hear you about being used to whatever you grow up with... my point is, people who have used both tend to prefer Fahrenheit for saying what the weather is outside. Not just my own observations but everyone else I talk to. Well, this one Indian guy I work with thinks it's crazy that temperature can change 30 degrees in a day, but he still likes it better.
Even if he/she does have health insurance, and he/she is happy with it, it has no bearing on the problem at hand, which is that there are major problems with the U.S. healthcare system.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying, but I just want to point out that the incredibly inflated costs for things like $50 aspirins that cost 1 cent aren't there because hospitals are trying to get rich from these schemes. They have to charge it to pay for the things like the people who come to the emergency room and don't pay.
It's similar to the fact that text messaging in the U.S. might cost $20/month even though the cost to the cell phone companies is negligible. In reality, it's part of their economics where the call to customer service is free to the customer but costs them $10 a call.
In other words, it's not a la carte because they can't charge everything a la carte. So they have to charge more for some things in order to pay for the others.
Ah, I knew it! You are quite privileged and biased. Listen to what you're saying from an outside perspective.
First of all, it's great that you are a hard worker and you were smart enough to be able to go to college. Not everyone is.
Two, you may have been able to get $100/month insurance, but that is not the case for most people. Read through the comments here, many people pay $400/month and some even have to pay $1500/month. That is for one person. You won't find many comments with a cost higher than $1500/month because that's out of the realm of affordability.
Give up the iPod and the frat parties and accept some responsibility.
That is what you think of the rest of the country who disagrees with you. The reason they don't have health insurance is because they party and buy superfluous things. That is what you want to believe, but that is not the real world. You aren't smart for being able to buy health insurance for $100/month, you are lucky. If you really can't put your brain around what I'm saying, think about this: All of the people who are dissatisfied with health care are mad about something... but if health care were really just $100/month, less than my cable/internet monthly bill, then they would be quite satisfied and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Everyone I know has health care they're happy with and none of them want the federal government interfering with it.
You are probably privileged. I can tell from the statements you made, about how when you're young you are on your parents and then you later have a career. This is the path of a upper-middle class person. And the part about federal government interfering with it is quite biased FAR towards the American political right... as you can see from this entire Slashdot conversation, many people want to interfere with it. Before you ask, yes I have great health coverage. And yes, I'm quite privileged, 100K/year salary. We're talking about people who AREN'T who we are.
Well, you're attacking the wrong target. Sure, specialists don't need $600,000/year, but you probably don't know what doctors do. I personally know many, including my sister and my brother. They work RIDICULOUS hours until they are 35. I mean, 120 hour weeks!!!!! That's crazy. Once they are about 30, they are working 100 hour weeks. They don't get paid real money (i.e. $150K+) until they are 35. By that time they have taken on $100K-$200K worth of debt.
The doctors who drive Ferraris are probably 60 years old and tend to be the specialists or plastic surgeons, some of whom are definitely overpaid. But the statement, They are getting those privileges on our backs is completely without merit. They work harder than 99% of the American workforce and are smarter than 90%. And that is not a hyperbole - how many people work 120 hour work weeks? How many people make it into med school each year?
Everything you said is true for the first two paragraphs. My sister and her husband (whom she met in medical school) are both doctors. She is a general practitioner, and he is a specialist (neurologist). Now that they've had their first baby, she is going to work part-time (which in medical terms is 40 hours a week), and therefore make less money, and will let her husband be the breadwinner to pay for both of their med school costs.
Whether it's the right path or not, universal healthcare will exacerbate the effects of that shortage.
There is nothing in your post to give any evidence of this statement. Nor do I believe it is correct. In fact, it is likely that a single payer system would pay less for specialists, which means that there is less reason for 70% of doctors to work as specialists. Anyways, there is tons of factors involved, but in any case I'd like to see a lot more evidence of why it would exacerbate the problem instead of making it better or not affecting it at all.
I'm totally not trolling here, but... Fahrenheit is SO much better for temperatures, at least as far as humans go for discussing the weather. As someone who has lived briefly in Europe and someone who lives here, I can say that the metric system is better for everything else (I still can't remember cups and pints and gallons sometimes when cooking). But Celcius SUCKS for telling the temperature outside. It is much more easy and descriptive to say "60s" or "70s" or even "lower 90s" (in Fahrenheit) than it is to say it in Celcius. You simply don't get enough granularity with Celcius, you have to say "27 Celcius" or "30 Celcius". And temperatures change a lot over the course of the day, so it is aggravating.
Even my 7th grade teacher talked about how the definition of middle class was going to change (this was, eh, 15 or 20 years ago). She talked about how we were going to become the way Britain's class structure works: the have's and the have-not's. I'm don't really I buy this, but in any case the point is that I think the definition is always changing and it worries people, and always has.
I think it is better to say that there are four classes of people, not three: 1. Poor enough to not pay taxes and receive welfare. 2. Poor enough to worry about money sometimes or consistently. 3. Rich enough to not worry about necessities in relation to money (food, gas, rent, etc.) 4. Rich... really rich. (this can also be subjective, but let's just say it's top 5% of a society)
We call these lower class, lower-middle class, upper-middle class, and upper class. In general, the middle class includes 2 and 3. I think it's best to stop grouping 2 and 3 together as "middle class", at least in current American society. Indeed, my definitions aren't that great, because if you interpreted this literally, you would surely come up with a group between 2 and 3. But the point still stands that 2 and 3 are considered "middle class" but to me seem worlds apart.
I can tell you, as a member of 3, I have more in common with 4 than 2. I'm not trying to be superior; I'm trying to state that I think it is incorrect, socioculturally, to group me with 2. (My apologies if this is coming out the wrong way)
The general solutions to these overpopulation claims is for the poorer/not western countries to grow at a slower rate, or their populations decreasing.
Good point. No one here is mentioning the fact that many industrialized nations have a steady population. In fact, very close to 0% growth. The extreme case, Japan, has a extremely negative growth rate.
1. Population density is not at issue here. 2. While someone may think there are far too many of group A than group B, and that particular person is in group B, I don't think it's necessarily because they don't like group A. The point here is that there is a reasonable argument, and evidence to back it up, that group A should have the same amount of children as group B instead of more.
Dude, you've hit the mark. It reminds me of a story about how the Soviet leadership showed this show made by CBS in the early 80's about poor people, in order to show their people that their country was better than the U.S. It turns out it backfired, because the portrayal of the poor Americans showed that even poor Americans had televisions and air conditioning. The Soviet leadership was so out of touch that they didn't realize that the poor Americans were better off than the poor Soviets.
On another point, this is a reason I want to live to be 120... so I can see all the wonders we're going to come up with.
We've cut back on driving because gas is so expensive.
What makes you believe that you're middle class?
Although you make a good point, the middle class range is large (and hard to define). People who make ~$40K a year are average, and people who make $30K a year are still middle class. If you make $30K/year it would be wise to cut down on driving, and such a wise move would not make you no longer middle class.
As someone who considers themselves upper-middle class (statistically I'm well above average), I don't even think about gas prices really. I guess my point is that if you don't cut back on driving when gas gets more expensive, that probably means you are upper middle class or higher.
Slashdot Mirror
comulent
Nope, cromulent. :)
It provided the proof for the pedophilia that didn't exist when they started with the 2-year plea deal.
Kissing a boy on the lips does not make one a pedophile. It means that he didn't want people using it in his sentencing. Considering that people's emotions would make them think he is a pedophile even if he isn't*, I think it's actually quite a rational course of action to try to get the court to not use it as evidence.
* I dunno, he may be, I'm just saying that hiding the kiss from sentencing isn't evidence of him being a pedophile.
You have made an illogical argument, the way Glenn Beck makes conclusions, and people like you are the reason people burned witches hundreds of years ago (or now put people who haven't abused children on sex offender lists).
When you go to many countries, the men wrap their arms around each other when walking down the street. Manly men kiss each other on the cheeks. And yes, sometimes they kiss a boy or girl on the lips. Hell, I kiss my boy dogs on the lips... does that make me guilty of gay pedo-bestiality?
Now, don't get me wrong... he may be child predator and watch child pornography... I don't know. The point is, the evidence is not there. We only know he kissed a boy on the lips (weird, maybe, but not necessarily sexual), and a mere snippet of child pornography which was seemingly only used to fuck with someone else, not for sexual gratification (I would laugh if someone pointed to 3 porn pictures and called it a "porn collection").
So when you say "by most accounts he IS a pedophile", you are just using your emotion to make judgement instead of reason, which can potentially ruin people's lives.
Every time there is a push to reduce our privacy rights online, it's ALWAYS in the guise of child pornography. I mean seriously, how serious of a problem is it? Why does law enforcement need to know I go to slashdot.com daily or watch porn every other day? Why don't they just store data for child pornography sites?
And anyways, what is your proposed solution to this hypothetical problem? Legislate that companies have to pay interns? Congrats, you havent made it easier for folks to get experience; youve now made it impossible for some people to hone their skills if they really were that mediocre.
1. There's already legislation that you can't make people work for free.
2. People can hone their skills at minimum wage.
3. You seem to be making free market arguments, but in a free market, mediocre people fall to the bottom (or at least not the top). This discussion is about how people make money off of less fortunate people's time and work without paying them.
Hey man, I don't have any mod points, but I just wanted to say your comments are spot on.
Unpaid internships are also mandatory in the medical field. Every potential nurse and doctor works hundreds of hours in hospitals before they're allowed to graduate.
My sister, a doctor, just finished her schooling. As far as doctors go, internships are paid. They are not paid $100K/year, but they certainly are paid. She will now go into a field where she will make $200K/year.
Now, don't get me wrong... she was only paid $50K/year as an intern, but that by no means is free... in fact, that's ABOVE average for an American. She also has hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay back for medical school.
That being said, doctors do not do free internships. That would be stupid.
I was thinking we already had a Tau Day article on Slashdot, but searched revealed that 3/14 was Pi day: http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/03/14/1329210/Happy-Pi-Day
Think of it, dunno, like the quests on WoW. Nobody would run across half the continent and back just for the sake of running across half the continent and back. But throw in a reward, and it becomes fun.
When I make a Star Wars reference at work, I get a congrats.
When you make a WoW reference in the context of kids learning a programming language, you get a congrats.
Hey listen, you have some good points, but you are obviously WAAAAAY biased. I mean, come on, are you saying you can't teach programming concepts in a .NET language? You seem to be mad that .NET language programs make UI building easy. You just talked about a bunch of languages that make pretty pictures and visual feedback. But the fact that .NET has BETTER interface builders than all of the other languages makes you mad for some reason. You can program lots of stuff in .NET languages without using framework generators. You can still program the Fibonacci sequence function in .NET. You can still program functional programming.
You are going way overboard in your dislike of interface builders in saying that one can't program and learn input/logic/output with .NET.
What you are implying is that it is OK to steal from rich people because they have lots of money. I know that's probably not something you agree with, but that is the result of letting somebody steal something from you and then saying they shouldn't fight back for it because they already have more money than most others.
I hear you about being used to whatever you grow up with... my point is, people who have used both tend to prefer Fahrenheit for saying what the weather is outside. Not just my own observations but everyone else I talk to. Well, this one Indian guy I work with thinks it's crazy that temperature can change 30 degrees in a day, but he still likes it better.
Do you have health insurance?
You just made a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Even if he/she does have health insurance, and he/she is happy with it, it has no bearing on the problem at hand, which is that there are major problems with the U.S. healthcare system.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying, but I just want to point out that the incredibly inflated costs for things like $50 aspirins that cost 1 cent aren't there because hospitals are trying to get rich from these schemes. They have to charge it to pay for the things like the people who come to the emergency room and don't pay.
It's similar to the fact that text messaging in the U.S. might cost $20/month even though the cost to the cell phone companies is negligible. In reality, it's part of their economics where the call to customer service is free to the customer but costs them $10 a call.
In other words, it's not a la carte because they can't charge everything a la carte. So they have to charge more for some things in order to pay for the others.
Ah, I knew it! You are quite privileged and biased. Listen to what you're saying from an outside perspective.
First of all, it's great that you are a hard worker and you were smart enough to be able to go to college. Not everyone is.
Two, you may have been able to get $100/month insurance, but that is not the case for most people. Read through the comments here, many people pay $400/month and some even have to pay $1500/month. That is for one person. You won't find many comments with a cost higher than $1500/month because that's out of the realm of affordability.
Give up the iPod and the frat parties and accept some responsibility.
That is what you think of the rest of the country who disagrees with you. The reason they don't have health insurance is because they party and buy superfluous things. That is what you want to believe, but that is not the real world. You aren't smart for being able to buy health insurance for $100/month, you are lucky. If you really can't put your brain around what I'm saying, think about this: All of the people who are dissatisfied with health care are mad about something... but if health care were really just $100/month, less than my cable/internet monthly bill, then they would be quite satisfied and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Everyone I know has health care they're happy with and none of them want the federal government interfering with it.
You are probably privileged. I can tell from the statements you made, about how when you're young you are on your parents and then you later have a career. This is the path of a upper-middle class person. And the part about federal government interfering with it is quite biased FAR towards the American political right... as you can see from this entire Slashdot conversation, many people want to interfere with it. Before you ask, yes I have great health coverage. And yes, I'm quite privileged, 100K/year salary. We're talking about people who AREN'T who we are.
Well, you're attacking the wrong target. Sure, specialists don't need $600,000/year, but you probably don't know what doctors do. I personally know many, including my sister and my brother. They work RIDICULOUS hours until they are 35. I mean, 120 hour weeks!!!!! That's crazy. Once they are about 30, they are working 100 hour weeks. They don't get paid real money (i.e. $150K+) until they are 35. By that time they have taken on $100K-$200K worth of debt.
The doctors who drive Ferraris are probably 60 years old and tend to be the specialists or plastic surgeons, some of whom are definitely overpaid. But the statement, They are getting those privileges on our backs is completely without merit. They work harder than 99% of the American workforce and are smarter than 90%. And that is not a hyperbole - how many people work 120 hour work weeks? How many people make it into med school each year?
Everything you said is true for the first two paragraphs. My sister and her husband (whom she met in medical school) are both doctors. She is a general practitioner, and he is a specialist (neurologist). Now that they've had their first baby, she is going to work part-time (which in medical terms is 40 hours a week), and therefore make less money, and will let her husband be the breadwinner to pay for both of their med school costs.
Whether it's the right path or not, universal healthcare will exacerbate the effects of that shortage.
There is nothing in your post to give any evidence of this statement. Nor do I believe it is correct. In fact, it is likely that a single payer system would pay less for specialists, which means that there is less reason for 70% of doctors to work as specialists. Anyways, there is tons of factors involved, but in any case I'd like to see a lot more evidence of why it would exacerbate the problem instead of making it better or not affecting it at all.
I'm totally not trolling here, but... Fahrenheit is SO much better for temperatures, at least as far as humans go for discussing the weather. As someone who has lived briefly in Europe and someone who lives here, I can say that the metric system is better for everything else (I still can't remember cups and pints and gallons sometimes when cooking). But Celcius SUCKS for telling the temperature outside. It is much more easy and descriptive to say "60s" or "70s" or even "lower 90s" (in Fahrenheit) than it is to say it in Celcius. You simply don't get enough granularity with Celcius, you have to say "27 Celcius" or "30 Celcius". And temperatures change a lot over the course of the day, so it is aggravating.
Even my 7th grade teacher talked about how the definition of middle class was going to change (this was, eh, 15 or 20 years ago). She talked about how we were going to become the way Britain's class structure works: the have's and the have-not's. I'm don't really I buy this, but in any case the point is that I think the definition is always changing and it worries people, and always has.
I think it is better to say that there are four classes of people, not three:
1. Poor enough to not pay taxes and receive welfare.
2. Poor enough to worry about money sometimes or consistently.
3. Rich enough to not worry about necessities in relation to money (food, gas, rent, etc.)
4. Rich... really rich. (this can also be subjective, but let's just say it's top 5% of a society)
We call these lower class, lower-middle class, upper-middle class, and upper class. In general, the middle class includes 2 and 3. I think it's best to stop grouping 2 and 3 together as "middle class", at least in current American society. Indeed, my definitions aren't that great, because if you interpreted this literally, you would surely come up with a group between 2 and 3. But the point still stands that 2 and 3 are considered "middle class" but to me seem worlds apart.
I can tell you, as a member of 3, I have more in common with 4 than 2. I'm not trying to be superior; I'm trying to state that I think it is incorrect, socioculturally, to group me with 2. (My apologies if this is coming out the wrong way)
The general solutions to these overpopulation claims is for the poorer/not western countries to grow at a slower rate, or their populations decreasing.
Its just a rich mans intellectual racism.
Wrong. You may be speaking for yourself, however.
Good point. No one here is mentioning the fact that many industrialized nations have a steady population. In fact, very close to 0% growth. The extreme case, Japan, has a extremely negative growth rate.
1. Population density is not at issue here.
2. While someone may think there are far too many of group A than group B, and that particular person is in group B, I don't think it's necessarily because they don't like group A. The point here is that there is a reasonable argument, and evidence to back it up, that group A should have the same amount of children as group B instead of more.
Dude, you've hit the mark. It reminds me of a story about how the Soviet leadership showed this show made by CBS in the early 80's about poor people, in order to show their people that their country was better than the U.S. It turns out it backfired, because the portrayal of the poor Americans showed that even poor Americans had televisions and air conditioning. The Soviet leadership was so out of touch that they didn't realize that the poor Americans were better off than the poor Soviets.
On another point, this is a reason I want to live to be 120... so I can see all the wonders we're going to come up with.
We've cut back on driving because gas is so expensive.
What makes you believe that you're middle class?
Although you make a good point, the middle class range is large (and hard to define). People who make ~$40K a year are average, and people who make $30K a year are still middle class. If you make $30K/year it would be wise to cut down on driving, and such a wise move would not make you no longer middle class.
As someone who considers themselves upper-middle class (statistically I'm well above average), I don't even think about gas prices really. I guess my point is that if you don't cut back on driving when gas gets more expensive, that probably means you are upper middle class or higher.