um... no. Not in cases of major crimes it isn't. It would be better if we lived in a world where these things weren't needed. But we don't. Innocent people need to be watched by the police so that guilty people can't go free.
[This is the last time I will warn about...
SPOILERS]
Rory is actually less useless than Mickey was before he went to the parallel world and got all competent. Rory seems to fluctuate between Tin Dog and Companion. Like he did the whole Nesting Consciousness for 2000 years to protect her thing and he held off the Dalek with his hand gun. Twice. Basically I feel they're trying to have it both ways with Rory by making him both the wuss Mickey and the badass Mickey without losing either and it's making him just a poorly written character. They keep telling us he's useless and then have him do things.
I'd prefer they just made him a competent if somewhat bumbling character since the useless wuss character is kind of a one trick pony that Russel already showed us the trick for.
And I agree about the more kiddy theme. I feel the whole season can be summed up with the term "Rainbow Daleks" it's Fisher Price: My first Doctor.
Well she knew it was his first encounter in the library because he doesn't know who she is. But she flat out says in the Smith episode that "I have pictures of every single one of your faces" so I'd assume that the pictures are in order.
Actually, since he's so young it would make sense that they could keep him on for longer as he could have more time to age while still being a marketable age to be attractive (since they seem to want an attractive Doctor). Therefore the idea of him leaving early would be ironic.
I agree with this entirely. I didn't like Smith or the new season really until around the finale. It seemed a bit kiddy, like Fisher Price: my first doctor. And
(spoiler alert)
they brought the fiance back. He's going to be a character for at least the start of the next season. Though I didn't like how he was basically just a white Mickey.
A hole in the ground?! Back in my day we'd have killed for a hole in the ground. We had to do our PHD programs at the bottom of a lake WITHOUT air tanks, and we paid for the privilege. And we were damn grateful for the opportunity.
And that is WHY I included almost. My point is that the majority of the population engages in drug use of some sort and I'd go so far as to say the majority, though less vast engages, at least occasionally, in recreational drug use (including alcohol and cigarettes). Seeking pleasure and taking the easiest route are both inherent to human nature and mood altering substances cater to both of these things.
First off, I assume a lot of people are idiots. Second off, it's more like a free sample than advertising. Third off, humans are spectacularly bad at factoring long term health effects into decision making processes. Look at the number of people who smoke as an example. Also, it's Gateway != being pushed through the gateway. Think more, showing someone where the gateway is and then showing them a specially chosen sneak peek of what's on the other side
As for the heath effect argument: what about the audio file called "pot"? it's very easy to argue that the consequences of marijuana are all but nonexistent and, in fact, there are health benefits. I can show you dozens of people that say exactly that. Now the consequences are much less severe the audio file could increase the chance of the people trying an illegal substance.
It's a theory with studies that both support and denounce it and while it uses the same principle as the slippery slope that doesn't invalidate it. You can't use guilt by association to discredit any argument involving gradiation. If someone watches the Dr. Horrible Singalong Blog and they enjoy it, they're more likely to go out and watch a full television series by Whedon. It's not a slippery slope, it's common sense. If someone listens to an mp3 called "cocaine" that advertises as "producing similar effects to actual cocaine" (as the audio files in question are and do) and they enjoy it they are more likely to try actual cocaine.
I am not saying they should be outlawed. That would be dumb. I am saying that the concept that they might make some users more likely to try actual drugs is not completely ridiculous.
that's a strawman. Did you even RTFA? The audio files are being sold and marketed as a drug substitute/legal high and have names like "cocaine" and "heroin. If someone started selling sugar as "the legal cocaine: guaranteed rush" it'd raise some protests as well.
Slashdot Mirror
No. They need reasonable suspicion.
Watching a site for illegal content then going to the ISP and asking who is accessing it is EXACTLY like patrolling the streets.
protip: If you publicly announce your intention to commit a violent crime the police have probable cause to go to your house and detain or arrest you.
It's better to have police patrol the street looking for crime than to not have them doing that.
Straw man. The relevant analogy would be police being able to enter my house with a warrant.
How about when someone posts online that they plan to go shoot up their school the next day?
I'm pretty sure the cops patrol and watch the highways and, with a warrant, can go into your home if there are reports of crimes there.
Are you implying it would be better if they couldn't/didn't?
um... no. Not in cases of major crimes it isn't. It would be better if we lived in a world where these things weren't needed. But we don't. Innocent people need to be watched by the police so that guilty people can't go free.
... people start using it for child pornography transfer and other things that SHOULD be illegal.
Right, that's 2 brazen strawmans in a row. I'm done with you.
until they get to stuff that you can't tell if it's bad from the thumbnail and have to click in on...
ESPECIALLY if it rained 10000 spoons while they were trying to cut the cake.
[This is the last time I will warn about...
SPOILERS]
Rory is actually less useless than Mickey was before he went to the parallel world and got all competent. Rory seems to fluctuate between Tin Dog and Companion. Like he did the whole Nesting Consciousness for 2000 years to protect her thing and he held off the Dalek with his hand gun. Twice. Basically I feel they're trying to have it both ways with Rory by making him both the wuss Mickey and the badass Mickey without losing either and it's making him just a poorly written character. They keep telling us he's useless and then have him do things.
I'd prefer they just made him a competent if somewhat bumbling character since the useless wuss character is kind of a one trick pony that Russel already showed us the trick for.
And I agree about the more kiddy theme. I feel the whole season can be summed up with the term "Rainbow Daleks" it's Fisher Price: My first Doctor.
No. It's situational irony "[situational irony] describes a discrepancy between the expected result and actual results when enlivened by perverse appropriateness."
Well she knew it was his first encounter in the library because he doesn't know who she is. But she flat out says in the Smith episode that "I have pictures of every single one of your faces" so I'd assume that the pictures are in order.
Actually, since he's so young it would make sense that they could keep him on for longer as he could have more time to age while still being a marketable age to be attractive (since they seem to want an attractive Doctor). Therefore the idea of him leaving early would be ironic.
Well she said the same about Tennant. I think it's more a reference to her knowing the doctor from like... decades/centuries into his future.
The first doctor wore a fez. It was cool.
I agree with this entirely. I didn't like Smith or the new season really until around the finale. It seemed a bit kiddy, like Fisher Price: my first doctor. And
(spoiler alert)
they brought the fiance back. He's going to be a character for at least the start of the next season. Though I didn't like how he was basically just a white Mickey.
A hole in the ground?! Back in my day we'd have killed for a hole in the ground. We had to do our PHD programs at the bottom of a lake WITHOUT air tanks, and we paid for the privilege. And we were damn grateful for the opportunity.
And what are the working poor and the middle class in this analogy of yours? Or are the people w
And that is WHY I included almost. My point is that the majority of the population engages in drug use of some sort and I'd go so far as to say the majority, though less vast engages, at least occasionally, in recreational drug use (including alcohol and cigarettes). Seeking pleasure and taking the easiest route are both inherent to human nature and mood altering substances cater to both of these things.
First off, I assume a lot of people are idiots. Second off, it's more like a free sample than advertising. Third off, humans are spectacularly bad at factoring long term health effects into decision making processes. Look at the number of people who smoke as an example. Also, it's Gateway != being pushed through the gateway. Think more, showing someone where the gateway is and then showing them a specially chosen sneak peek of what's on the other side
As for the heath effect argument: what about the audio file called "pot"? it's very easy to argue that the consequences of marijuana are all but nonexistent and, in fact, there are health benefits. I can show you dozens of people that say exactly that. Now the consequences are much less severe the audio file could increase the chance of the people trying an illegal substance.
It's a theory with studies that both support and denounce it and while it uses the same principle as the slippery slope that doesn't invalidate it. You can't use guilt by association to discredit any argument involving gradiation. If someone watches the Dr. Horrible Singalong Blog and they enjoy it, they're more likely to go out and watch a full television series by Whedon. It's not a slippery slope, it's common sense. If someone listens to an mp3 called "cocaine" that advertises as "producing similar effects to actual cocaine" (as the audio files in question are and do) and they enjoy it they are more likely to try actual cocaine.
I am not saying they should be outlawed. That would be dumb. I am saying that the concept that they might make some users more likely to try actual drugs is not completely ridiculous.
that's a strawman. Did you even RTFA? The audio files are being sold and marketed as a drug substitute/legal high and have names like "cocaine" and "heroin. If someone started selling sugar as "the legal cocaine: guaranteed rush" it'd raise some protests as well.