There was a very famous case in the UK where an associasion of homeopaths sued a journalist for libel after he wrote an article pointing out that their medicines are nothing but water and utterly ineffective.
Ignoring the start menu side of things for now... Vista-and-seven's search just really, really sucks. The ability to search within files is gone, which is really annoying. It also completly fails at searches which return large numbers of results. Just yesterday someone asked if I could search my huge collection of furry porn for [YOUDON'TWANTTOKNOW] - Vista returned just a couple of pagefulls, when I knew there was more. I had to use my linux system to search, which found hundreds of results - and that on a very simple filename-only search, nothing that should be difficult.
Worst part for me is when the list of quickly-launchable programs changes (as it often does) and so key sequences no longer do what they did before. By the time I'm used to them, it's changed again.
I work at a school, and I notice there is an endless stream of new web-proxy services around for the purpose of getting access to games. All ad-supported. Obnoxious things, putting everything in frames with ads around, but they do get you what you want. No use on media lockers, but they'll get you to torrent sites easily enough.
Because there are thousands more anonymous pricks all around the world willing to set up a new site. Remember Sharereactor? When a major pirate site falls, a hundred rise from the ashes.
I'd just blame it on their pathological hate of any form of regulation. I'm sure a few of them would abolish the police and just give everyone guns for self-defence if they could.
A mixture of ignorance, paranoia and just plain hate.
They start off with "The OBAMINATION Dictatorship is planning to squelch the Civil War that will come next Summer by starting to CENSOR FREE SPEECH on the Internet!" And then somehow get worse.
Lawrence would apply to a law that actually made oral sex illegal (I refer to these in a subsequent post, pointing out that some states keep this on the books officially but don't even try to enforce it in light of Lawrence), but doesn't apply to age-of-consent.
The specific case I was thinking of was Genarlow Wilson. Sentenced to ten years in jail for having oral sex with a girl only two years younger than himself - but, if they had had vaginal sex, it wouldn't have been a crime. Different ages of consent for different acts due to badly-worded state law.
But they are 'sodomy laws' - the blowjobs and anal sex are handled by the same law. You can't just abolish the oral part alone, because the ACLU would have a field day showing the world how stupid and biggoted that state is. Remember that in some parts of the US, a substantial minority of the population believes that homosexuals should be arrested and imprisoned for crimes against nature. So the 'Buttfucker enablement act' isn't going to sit will with the voters.
IIRC, the oral-illegal case in that particular state was a result of a badly worded attempt to lower the age of consent from eighteen to sixteen - the law passed, but was worded to specifically refer only to vaginal intercourse. So for oral, the old term applied. The state (I forget which one) has now corrected this, but it failed to make the change retroactive, so there are still a few people in jail for what would be legal if committed today.
On a related note, some states do still have laws in force that ban oral and anal sex, defining both as sodomy. Unenforceable now - they'd be struck down in court the moment someone mentioned Lawrence - but they stay on the books because no politician wants to go down in state history as the one who made oral sex officially legal.
The law doesn't always make sense. I got to see a police representative come to give teens a school lecture on sexting a couple of weeks ago - and he confirmed to them what many suspected: It's legal for them to have sex at seventeen, but illegal for them to see it. He jokingly suggested they wear a blindfold during the act.
It can get a lot sillier in the US though, due to the potential for federal, state and local laws to interact. You end up with situations where it's perfectly legal for a couple to have vaginal sex, but if they have oral sex then they can both go to jail for statutory rape.
Depends on the lawyer. Public defenders are generally kept overworked to the point where they just don't have time to make a defence. That's the way the state likes it - every time a person gets found innocent of a criminal charge, it makes the police look like idiots. Unacceptable.
The bestiality thing is a bit of a joke, because it was already effectively illegal under broader animel cruelty laws - and with the precident to back up that interpretation too. Making a law to explicitly outlaw it is really just moral grandstanding - publicly attacking some icky sex thing to boost the Family Friendly credentials of a few politicians, even though it doesn't actually change a thing.
A) What happens when you take the teenage libido and give them all camera phones? Then just stir in some of the drama typical of first relationships, when every crush feels like true love.
B) Usually someone eventually reports it.
They also used a bit of good old propaganda. You can find some nice stories in the bible about how super-terrible-evil people like the Canaanites were, sacrificing babies and so forth. After any successful war, the victors will set about insulting the vanquished to make the killing seem more justified.
If you read on, God actually says *exactly* why he did that. It was a publicity stunt. He wanted to give the Jews a story they would tell for generations, so they would never forget the debt they owed their God.
But did they solve the origin problem? If God made the universe, then where did God come from? It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that matter and energy just popped into existance from nowhere, but it's a much bigger stretch to suppose that an intelligent and powerful entity popped into existance fully-formed.
God/Jesus isn't just evil. He is the greatest extreme of evil. Look at the plan:
1. Create rules which, by his own admission, are so strict that they cannot be followed.
2. Decree that anyone who violates these rules will be punished by nothing less than eternal torture. Unimaginable agony inflicted upon them without rest as hours become days, days become years, and years become millenia for ever and ever. Even for something so tiny as saying 'no, your bum doesn't look big in that.'
3. Proudly proclaim that you don't want to torture everyone for eternity, but he is a just god and sinners must be punished.
4. Create a loophole by which a person can escape all punishment, but only by agreeing to worship him. For added dick-points, base the loophole around punishing the one completly innocent person in their place.
There is evil, and there is.... holy fucking shit evil. Hitler had *nothing* on that guy. God is every human evil combined, and multiplied by infinite time. I can't even find a good analogy for how evil that it, because nothing else even comes close.
I'm not sure how valid this is, but I've heard some suggestions that 'one flesh' is a sort of archaic legal term. It means 'one legal entity' - refering to how the woman ceases to be the legal property of her parents and becomes the legal property of her husband, with him taking on the responsibility to care for her and the right to command her.
Then go all the way. Dump the OT. Stop teaching it in churches. Leave it out of bibles, and make it just an interesting thing for historians. Almost every single negative thing about Christianity comes from the OT, and almost everything good from the NT.
Said hebrew deity still does get a child sacrifice later on. The agreement to sacrifice a child was entered into accidentially, yes... but God noticeably didn't do anything to get the girl out of the situation, and she was killed happy in her devotion.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a very famous case in the UK where an associasion of homeopaths sued a journalist for libel after he wrote an article pointing out that their medicines are nothing but water and utterly ineffective.
Ignoring the start menu side of things for now... Vista-and-seven's search just really, really sucks. The ability to search within files is gone, which is really annoying. It also completly fails at searches which return large numbers of results. Just yesterday someone asked if I could search my huge collection of furry porn for [YOUDON'TWANTTOKNOW] - Vista returned just a couple of pagefulls, when I knew there was more. I had to use my linux system to search, which found hundreds of results - and that on a very simple filename-only search, nothing that should be difficult.
Worst part for me is when the list of quickly-launchable programs changes (as it often does) and so key sequences no longer do what they did before. By the time I'm used to them, it's changed again.
I work at a school, and I notice there is an endless stream of new web-proxy services around for the purpose of getting access to games. All ad-supported. Obnoxious things, putting everything in frames with ads around, but they do get you what you want. No use on media lockers, but they'll get you to torrent sites easily enough.
Because there are thousands more anonymous pricks all around the world willing to set up a new site. Remember Sharereactor? When a major pirate site falls, a hundred rise from the ashes.
"Considering that nothing seems to get cached anymore"
Caching screws up their usage counters, and thus ad-money.
I'd just blame it on their pathological hate of any form of regulation. I'm sure a few of them would abolish the police and just give everyone guns for self-defence if they could.
... they scare me.
A mixture of ignorance, paranoia and just plain hate.
They start off with "The OBAMINATION Dictatorship is planning to squelch the Civil War that will come next Summer by starting to CENSOR FREE SPEECH on the Internet!" And then somehow get worse.
Lawrence would apply to a law that actually made oral sex illegal (I refer to these in a subsequent post, pointing out that some states keep this on the books officially but don't even try to enforce it in light of Lawrence), but doesn't apply to age-of-consent.
The specific case I was thinking of was Genarlow Wilson. Sentenced to ten years in jail for having oral sex with a girl only two years younger than himself - but, if they had had vaginal sex, it wouldn't have been a crime. Different ages of consent for different acts due to badly-worded state law.
Southern hemisphere. The seasons are inverted compared to the north - summer in the US brings winter weather in Aus, and vice versa.
But they are 'sodomy laws' - the blowjobs and anal sex are handled by the same law. You can't just abolish the oral part alone, because the ACLU would have a field day showing the world how stupid and biggoted that state is. Remember that in some parts of the US, a substantial minority of the population believes that homosexuals should be arrested and imprisoned for crimes against nature. So the 'Buttfucker enablement act' isn't going to sit will with the voters.
IIRC, the oral-illegal case in that particular state was a result of a badly worded attempt to lower the age of consent from eighteen to sixteen - the law passed, but was worded to specifically refer only to vaginal intercourse. So for oral, the old term applied. The state (I forget which one) has now corrected this, but it failed to make the change retroactive, so there are still a few people in jail for what would be legal if committed today.
On a related note, some states do still have laws in force that ban oral and anal sex, defining both as sodomy. Unenforceable now - they'd be struck down in court the moment someone mentioned Lawrence - but they stay on the books because no politician wants to go down in state history as the one who made oral sex officially legal.
The law doesn't always make sense. I got to see a police representative come to give teens a school lecture on sexting a couple of weeks ago - and he confirmed to them what many suspected: It's legal for them to have sex at seventeen, but illegal for them to see it. He jokingly suggested they wear a blindfold during the act.
It can get a lot sillier in the US though, due to the potential for federal, state and local laws to interact. You end up with situations where it's perfectly legal for a couple to have vaginal sex, but if they have oral sex then they can both go to jail for statutory rape.
A lot of districts make those laws to be deliberatly impossible to obey, with the intention of driving sex offenders as far away as possible.
Depends on the lawyer. Public defenders are generally kept overworked to the point where they just don't have time to make a defence. That's the way the state likes it - every time a person gets found innocent of a criminal charge, it makes the police look like idiots. Unacceptable.
The bestiality thing is a bit of a joke, because it was already effectively illegal under broader animel cruelty laws - and with the precident to back up that interpretation too. Making a law to explicitly outlaw it is really just moral grandstanding - publicly attacking some icky sex thing to boost the Family Friendly credentials of a few politicians, even though it doesn't actually change a thing.
A) What happens when you take the teenage libido and give them all camera phones? Then just stir in some of the drama typical of first relationships, when every crush feels like true love.
B) Usually someone eventually reports it.
They also used a bit of good old propaganda. You can find some nice stories in the bible about how super-terrible-evil people like the Canaanites were, sacrificing babies and so forth. After any successful war, the victors will set about insulting the vanquished to make the killing seem more justified.
If you read on, God actually says *exactly* why he did that. It was a publicity stunt. He wanted to give the Jews a story they would tell for generations, so they would never forget the debt they owed their God.
But did they solve the origin problem? If God made the universe, then where did God come from? It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that matter and energy just popped into existance from nowhere, but it's a much bigger stretch to suppose that an intelligent and powerful entity popped into existance fully-formed.
I'm not so sure. How many children have imaginary friends? It is human nature to attribute human-like characteristics and motivation to things.
God/Jesus isn't just evil. He is the greatest extreme of evil. Look at the plan:
1. Create rules which, by his own admission, are so strict that they cannot be followed.
2. Decree that anyone who violates these rules will be punished by nothing less than eternal torture. Unimaginable agony inflicted upon them without rest as hours become days, days become years, and years become millenia for ever and ever. Even for something so tiny as saying 'no, your bum doesn't look big in that.'
3. Proudly proclaim that you don't want to torture everyone for eternity, but he is a just god and sinners must be punished.
4. Create a loophole by which a person can escape all punishment, but only by agreeing to worship him. For added dick-points, base the loophole around punishing the one completly innocent person in their place.
There is evil, and there is.... holy fucking shit evil. Hitler had *nothing* on that guy. God is every human evil combined, and multiplied by infinite time. I can't even find a good analogy for how evil that it, because nothing else even comes close.
I'm not sure how valid this is, but I've heard some suggestions that 'one flesh' is a sort of archaic legal term. It means 'one legal entity' - refering to how the woman ceases to be the legal property of her parents and becomes the legal property of her husband, with him taking on the responsibility to care for her and the right to command her.
Then go all the way. Dump the OT. Stop teaching it in churches. Leave it out of bibles, and make it just an interesting thing for historians. Almost every single negative thing about Christianity comes from the OT, and almost everything good from the NT.
Said hebrew deity still does get a child sacrifice later on. The agreement to sacrifice a child was entered into accidentially, yes... but God noticeably didn't do anything to get the girl out of the situation, and she was killed happy in her devotion.