How does his arrest have rights implications? He violated parole. The fact that he published the film just made it very visible - I'm guessing his parole officer would have been unlikely to notice that he was using an alias if he hadn't done it in such a visible way. It's like a murderer releasing a video of his latest murder, after the victim was ruled a 'natural' death. He won't be arrested for posting the video, but for crimes made known BY the video.
So doing things that piss people off is now equal to inciting a riot? So if a new law causes a riot all the politicians that voted for it will be jailed?
I think he started giving out false names BEFORE people wanted to kill him. Sure NOW he has a good reason to do it, but that was his own choice. He knew that he was prohibited from using aliases for his past crimes, so prison shouldn't come as much of a shock to him (at least until the muslim inmates figure out who he is).
Well a 13/14 year old is more then capable of traveling alone. So why not let the swimmer know when the practice is moved or canceled, then let him/her decide on who to notify next?
The whole thing would be easy to fix. Just require the company to offer the workers 10% more then what the CEO earns (including bonuses and stock options). If they can't get a worker under those terms, then sure, import someone.
If the US government passes a law that sets price caps, then Gasprom would have to either obey them, or leave the US. What is so strange about that.
And I don't see any kind of a conflict with the statement about Internet not being under the control of any one government. If a government wants to control the Internet inside it's own borders it can certainly try.
Private industry is extremely efficient at providing as little as possible for as much money as possible. So from the standpoint of owners it's very efficient.
The government on the other hand is good at providing large scale service for a lot of money. So if you look at it as a business, it's grossly inefficient. But the difference is that the 'owners' of the government are at the same time also customers, so they mostly end up better off, since they also get much better service from the government then they would from a private party.
If all they can say is who voted, then why not? As long as you don't put them in the voting booths, all they can see is that you showed up, and what name you voted under (by comparing the list of voters to the videotape).
But what if your boss demands you show him both your vote and the shadow vote? If once you enter your 'shadow' password the true vote becomes unverifiable, then they will be able to see that from you only having one vote that you can show them. And if you can switch between votes by reusing your passwords then there isn't a way to actually verify how your vote was recorded. What if the system has a 'bug' which makes any vote for the opposition a 'shadow' vote, and any vote for the guy currently in power a 'real' vote? If the verification of both votes looks the same, then you can't tell which is counted as real.
What exactly are you going to need money for? I'm guessing that beer and hookers will not be available until the Wongs arrive, and there won't be much else in the way of luxuries. Even food variety will probably be about zero.
I don't think an ICBM can hit a carrier. Sure it's accurate, but as far as I know ICBMs don't have any ability to actually home into a moving target. And a carrier will nearly always be moving, to enable it to launch and recover planes if for no other reason.
I think the beam of light would still travel away from you at the speed of light (by your perception), since the time dilation would slow down your personal time that much.
Doesn't warp drive effectively change the distance between those two points? So point A and point B are closer together for a while, you move between them, then let them resume their original positions.
My guess is that the manned portion of the space program is too visible. Since it's visible the politicians feel compelled to interfere and start bold new programs, while scrapping the programs of their predecessors (since they are obviously just wastes of money).
Meanwhile the unmanned probes are boring enough that even politicians don't bother them.
Well the problem, at the moment, is that manned space flight IS mostly useless. There is very little being done that couldn't be done by machines, while spending money that could be better spent doing new things.
Yes probes are cautious, but they are cheap and can be done relatively quickly, before NASA-s next budget scarps all their work and gives them a new goal. Also, a person on Mars could do a lot, but think how much stuff you'd need to send with him/her. A much larger craft so they don't go completely crazy on the way there, food/water and all the tools a person would need to actually run tests that include more then saying : Yes, it's pretty red out here. When combined, the cost would be several orders higher then all the probes sent as well. And even if you send a person that volunteers to stay on Mars, you'd still need to keep sending regular supply runs, or listen to them slowly dying when they starve to death. And that would tie up most space exploration funds for the next generation or so, while the person would run out of things to do pretty soon.
So where do we draw the line? If they start rioting whenever a person who is not muslim is elected president in the US, should only muslims be allowed to run? If they go berserk when a woman has an abortion should we start stoning women just to keep them calm?
Yes the video is a pointless pile of crap, but that's no reason to censor it. Think about how much other crap is available on youtube. And for just about anything you can find people that are against it. (how DARE they post this inferior animation, I think i'm going to go burn my neighbor.) If we start censoring everything people might object to, then we can burn down all the libraries tomorrow, since they'll be empty anyway.
Rape of a child does not have to involve neither force nor coercion. Someone a child trusts could probably have sex with the child without the child realizing that anything wrong was going on. So if someone's instincts are telling them that a child is a valid sexual target, then my guess is that raping a child is much less of a taboo then raping an adult. I'm not saying that it's right, but then their brains aren't 'right' either.
Thing about a relationships between a 19 year olds and a 17 year olds. They (probably) know that it's illegal, but does that stop many of them? So if a pedophiles brain is wired to view 10 year olds as valid sexual partners, is there that much of a difference to him/her? They 'love' their intended partner, the partner is 'willing', so why not go for it?
Yes, in 99% of the cases they will probably be able to resist (or we'd have a lot more child abuse going on, if the quantity of child porn users is any indication), but why not make it safer for the children involved? If pedophilia became something that was 'open', then the number of times they'd have an opportunity for a 'moment of weakness' would fall to near zero.
One of the grand-grand-**-parents talked about how many pedophiles join the clergy. The problem here is not that they are pedophiles, but that they are often placed in positions of authority with children. Which greatly increases the number of chances that something will happen. If those same pedophiles were open about their 'problem', at least with their superiors, then they could be placed in positions where they wouldn't be working with children, but still be productive members of society.
Think of them as alcoholics - they know they shouldn't drink all the time. But don't ask me to pity an alcoholic truck driver that goes into a bar to get a glass of water, gets drunk, crushes a family and their car, then has to spend the rest of his life in jail. The principle is the same : If you know you've got a problem with something then avoid it, don't temp fate when the consequences of failiure will be borne by others.
It does matter. The same actions from that mean a relationship between adults mean rape when a child is involved. Unlike regular rape, pedophiles can abuse a child without any violence or threats involved. So most of the reasons people don't rape others become blurred - since their feelings tell them that the child is a 'valid' sexual partner, and if the child 'agrees', there is not that much of a difference from a normal sexual encounter - except of course that the child can't consent to it - but I'm guessing that's a fact that they easily forget (I'm not excusing their actions, but they are different from a regular rape).
How did gay people become accepted? Right now the only pedophiles the public knows are the ones that abuse/kill children. What if pedophiles started coming out of the closet, and the public saw that they were regular, law abiding people.
As for the difference from 'normal' lust, the problem is that there is no way for them to satisfy their lust except (at least statutory) rape. The object of their lust can never consent to have sex with them.
And on the topic of discrimination : why not use the same kind of laws that shield homosexuals? If pedophilia could be recognized as just another sexual orientation, then why not amend existing laws that are already in place?
Of course, if a pedophile offends, they become a criminal, so any discrimination against them should be perfectly legal.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone might slip in the pool of blood and guts he's likely to become soon.
How does his arrest have rights implications? He violated parole. The fact that he published the film just made it very visible - I'm guessing his parole officer would have been unlikely to notice that he was using an alias if he hadn't done it in such a visible way.
It's like a murderer releasing a video of his latest murder, after the victim was ruled a 'natural' death. He won't be arrested for posting the video, but for crimes made known BY the video.
So doing things that piss people off is now equal to inciting a riot? So if a new law causes a riot all the politicians that voted for it will be jailed?
Peace through superior shanks!
I think he started giving out false names BEFORE people wanted to kill him. Sure NOW he has a good reason to do it, but that was his own choice. He knew that he was prohibited from using aliases for his past crimes, so prison shouldn't come as much of a shock to him (at least until the muslim inmates figure out who he is).
Well a 13/14 year old is more then capable of traveling alone. So why not let the swimmer know when the practice is moved or canceled, then let him/her decide on who to notify next?
The whole thing would be easy to fix. Just require the company to offer the workers 10% more then what the CEO earns (including bonuses and stock options). If they can't get a worker under those terms, then sure, import someone.
Well the solution is simple, pay him with tax money, then recover it from those responsible.
If the US government passes a law that sets price caps, then Gasprom would have to either obey them, or leave the US. What is so strange about that.
And I don't see any kind of a conflict with the statement about Internet not being under the control of any one government. If a government wants to control the Internet inside it's own borders it can certainly try.
Well it depends on your definition of efficient.
Private industry is extremely efficient at providing as little as possible for as much money as possible. So from the standpoint of owners it's very efficient.
The government on the other hand is good at providing large scale service for a lot of money. So if you look at it as a business, it's grossly inefficient. But the difference is that the 'owners' of the government are at the same time also customers, so they mostly end up better off, since they also get much better service from the government then they would from a private party.
If all they can say is who voted, then why not? As long as you don't put them in the voting booths, all they can see is that you showed up, and what name you voted under (by comparing the list of voters to the videotape).
But what if your boss demands you show him both your vote and the shadow vote? If once you enter your 'shadow' password the true vote becomes unverifiable, then they will be able to see that from you only having one vote that you can show them. And if you can switch between votes by reusing your passwords then there isn't a way to actually verify how your vote was recorded. What if the system has a 'bug' which makes any vote for the opposition a 'shadow' vote, and any vote for the guy currently in power a 'real' vote? If the verification of both votes looks the same, then you can't tell which is counted as real.
So why do you support another dictatorship that is if anything worse then Iran? The Saudis don't exactly give their women any rights either.
What exactly are you going to need money for? I'm guessing that beer and hookers will not be available until the Wongs arrive, and there won't be much else in the way of luxuries. Even food variety will probably be about zero.
And how well would it do against torpedoes?
I don't think an ICBM can hit a carrier. Sure it's accurate, but as far as I know ICBMs don't have any ability to actually home into a moving target. And a carrier will nearly always be moving, to enable it to launch and recover planes if for no other reason.
I think the beam of light would still travel away from you at the speed of light (by your perception), since the time dilation would slow down your personal time that much.
Doesn't warp drive effectively change the distance between those two points? So point A and point B are closer together for a while, you move between them, then let them resume their original positions.
My guess is that the manned portion of the space program is too visible. Since it's visible the politicians feel compelled to interfere and start bold new programs, while scrapping the programs of their predecessors (since they are obviously just wastes of money).
Meanwhile the unmanned probes are boring enough that even politicians don't bother them.
Well the problem, at the moment, is that manned space flight IS mostly useless. There is very little being done that couldn't be done by machines, while spending money that could be better spent doing new things.
Yes probes are cautious, but they are cheap and can be done relatively quickly, before NASA-s next budget scarps all their work and gives them a new goal. Also, a person on Mars could do a lot, but think how much stuff you'd need to send with him/her. A much larger craft so they don't go completely crazy on the way there, food/water and all the tools a person would need to actually run tests that include more then saying : Yes, it's pretty red out here. When combined, the cost would be several orders higher then all the probes sent as well.
And even if you send a person that volunteers to stay on Mars, you'd still need to keep sending regular supply runs, or listen to them slowly dying when they starve to death. And that would tie up most space exploration funds for the next generation or so, while the person would run out of things to do pretty soon.
So where do we draw the line? If they start rioting whenever a person who is not muslim is elected president in the US, should only muslims be allowed to run? If they go berserk when a woman has an abortion should we start stoning women just to keep them calm?
Yes the video is a pointless pile of crap, but that's no reason to censor it. Think about how much other crap is available on youtube. And for just about anything you can find people that are against it. (how DARE they post this inferior animation, I think i'm going to go burn my neighbor.) If we start censoring everything people might object to, then we can burn down all the libraries tomorrow, since they'll be empty anyway.
Rape of a child does not have to involve neither force nor coercion. Someone a child trusts could probably have sex with the child without the child realizing that anything wrong was going on. So if someone's instincts are telling them that a child is a valid sexual target, then my guess is that raping a child is much less of a taboo then raping an adult.
I'm not saying that it's right, but then their brains aren't 'right' either.
Thing about a relationships between a 19 year olds and a 17 year olds. They (probably) know that it's illegal, but does that stop many of them? So if a pedophiles brain is wired to view 10 year olds as valid sexual partners, is there that much of a difference to him/her? They 'love' their intended partner, the partner is 'willing', so why not go for it?
Yes, in 99% of the cases they will probably be able to resist (or we'd have a lot more child abuse going on, if the quantity of child porn users is any indication), but why not make it safer for the children involved? If pedophilia became something that was 'open', then the number of times they'd have an opportunity for a 'moment of weakness' would fall to near zero.
One of the grand-grand-**-parents talked about how many pedophiles join the clergy. The problem here is not that they are pedophiles, but that they are often placed in positions of authority with children. Which greatly increases the number of chances that something will happen. If those same pedophiles were open about their 'problem', at least with their superiors, then they could be placed in positions where they wouldn't be working with children, but still be productive members of society.
Think of them as alcoholics - they know they shouldn't drink all the time. But don't ask me to pity an alcoholic truck driver that goes into a bar to get a glass of water, gets drunk, crushes a family and their car, then has to spend the rest of his life in jail.
The principle is the same : If you know you've got a problem with something then avoid it, don't temp fate when the consequences of failiure will be borne by others.
Nope, they couldn't make it happen. They fooled him by making a hologram of the entire universe and putting him in it. (That's not a joke)
It does matter. The same actions from that mean a relationship between adults mean rape when a child is involved. Unlike regular rape, pedophiles can abuse a child without any violence or threats involved. So most of the reasons people don't rape others become blurred - since their feelings tell them that the child is a 'valid' sexual partner, and if the child 'agrees', there is not that much of a difference from a normal sexual encounter - except of course that the child can't consent to it - but I'm guessing that's a fact that they easily forget (I'm not excusing their actions, but they are different from a regular rape).
How did gay people become accepted? Right now the only pedophiles the public knows are the ones that abuse/kill children. What if pedophiles started coming out of the closet, and the public saw that they were regular, law abiding people.
You understood me correctly.
As for the difference from 'normal' lust, the problem is that there is no way for them to satisfy their lust except (at least statutory) rape. The object of their lust can never consent to have sex with them.
And on the topic of discrimination : why not use the same kind of laws that shield homosexuals? If pedophilia could be recognized as just another sexual orientation, then why not amend existing laws that are already in place?
Of course, if a pedophile offends, they become a criminal, so any discrimination against them should be perfectly legal.