As long as a kid isn't running and screaming, any good librarian is pleased to see a young person with the interest and ability to utilize the adult section. I dunno, maybe your community library was different. Did you grow up in some repressive fundie backwater?
Actually, no. It was not fundie even at the time when being fundie was really popular.
As for being a backwater, that's debatable. It WAS a lagoon couple of million years ago.
Like I said to the other poster, segregation according to age simply seems neater.
Particularly seeing the sorry state of books in the children's section. AND the noise levels there.
when I was in elementary school the children's section got too damn boring after about a half hour.
I too was raiding the adult section (which basically meant everything besides the stuff for the elementary school kids) pretty early, but I had to use my mother's card for a while.
But I assume that I would at least raise an eyebrow or two had I started picking up Marquis de Sade, Nabokov and whatnot.
Your points are interesting and informative. In the United States however, the government is (or at least is supposed to be) forbidden to restrict the free exercise of speech or expression. This has been interpreted as a ban on censorship (that has been ignored in many places at many times in the US however). As many people have pointed out, this is more an issue of consideration and being empathetic to others. That said, regardless of where, it is always the responsibility of parents to decide what is appropriate for their minor children. When folks make the statement that their children need to be kept from this, therefore the content (whatever it may be) needs to be censored, those parents are trying to make others take on their responsibilities. As a parent, you need to care for and protect your child. You are responsible. By demanding that others curtail their rights because you are unable or unwilling to discharge that responsibility, you're doing it wrong.
In any case, the guy watching porn in the library and refusing to be considerate of others is a jerk and, from a community standpoint, probably needs a good talking to. But it's not a crime to be a jerk, as much as that main pain some of us.
As you are walking past a computer screen on your left..., you see
A guy taking a dump on a paper plate in public while jacking off in front of the screen
You quickly avert your gaze to the right... guess what? No more guy taking a dump on a paper plate in public while jacking off in front of the screen
I won't say, FTFY, but I changed it up a bit. Taking a dump in public is illegal. Mastubating in public or in front of kids is illegal. How is viewing porn free speech and masturbating to that porn NOT free speech. At least by masturbating, you are expressing yourself. You are saying, "I'm really digging this porn!"
Here is an even simpler solution. Rather than making every single patron in the library avert their gaze, how about asking the one asshole to leave. You piss off one person rather than everyone else. You have rights, but your rights do not come at the expense of everyone else's.
I'll preface this by saying IANAL. However, my understanding is that we have (based on the constitution) affirmative rights (that is, rights to do or be or say *stuff*). There are limits to those rights. We do not have negative rights (that is the right to be free from others exercising their rights). Perhaps one of the lawyers around here can clarify the nomenclature and specifics, but AFAIK the upshot is that you don't have the right to limit the rights of others.
Beyond that, TFA made it pretty clear that the material (the porn) was made available (i.e., not blocked) by the library on the computer(s) used by this guy. That makes the administration and disposition of that material the responsibility of the library. Period.
If someone's editorial is right next to the one you're reading, and you don't like it, it's disruptive.
Deal with it.
Sorry, but with your ID, you are not an unbiased topic.
Sorry, but you can deal with looking at porn elsewhere. Free speech does not mean I have to "deal with it". I can't yell N-word in a library. Hell, I can't even TALK in a library. If you are mad because you can't see lemonparty.org, tough shit.
Unfortunately (for you at least -- and fortunately for the rest of us), the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. I suppose I could say STFU, but I won't. Please express yourself in whatever way you find appropriate (without impinging on the rights of others, of course). I may not agree with you, but my agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. Get it now?
Since when is it an inalienable right to watch porn in public? You are told to be quiet in a library and this is not considered a heavy handed repression of free speech, so why shouldn't being told to behave fit the same pattern? Shouting in a library disrupts others, and watching porn in a library disrupts others.
Okay. When you watch [insert whatever crap you watch in the library], I find it disruptive. Stop it! Why are you being disruptive? This isn't about free speech. You're making it impossible for the rest of us to use the library. Geez! WTF is wrong with you?
Ultimately it comes down sadly to two things we seem to be lacking, and that is common courtesy and thoughts for others besides oneself. it wasn't as if anybody was running this guy off, or even making him quit, all that was asked of him was that he switch to a machine in a less highly trafficked area. to me this screams of real life trolling, I can imagine the guy wearing a real life trollface and smirking as the speakers blared 'Suck my fucking cock you filthy fucking whore!"
Maybe there is something to be said for the "baser" way we do things in the south because if someone would have pulled that shit in my local library i can't imagine that guy sitting there more than two minutes before some guy yanked him up out of his seat and said 'WTF is wrong with you? you wanna look at that shit use that machine in the corner, there is fucking kids standing right over there man have some fucking sense!" and that would have been the end of that. if the troll would have called the cops the cops would have told him "Well there are kids just over there and frankly you ought to be thanking the guy that you aren't looking at an indecency to minors charge so i'd suggest you STFU and show some common sense next time".
Sadly we are having to have these kinds of confrontations more often because too many just don't show even the tiniest bit of common sense or common courtesy anymore. Frankly they act little better than animals and for a society to function basic ground rules have to be obeyed in public places. Just as one wouldn't expect to wear a "All niggers must fucking hang" T-Shirt in a public place without starting a confrontation so too should this troll have expected that blasting hardcore porn in the middle of a high traffic area would cause some problems. Honestly i wouldn't be surprised if that was his intention all along, to either take a shot at the lawsuit lotto or to simply be a douchebag. I don't know if its all the GMO food, the plastic in the drinks, or what, but I've noticed lately a hell of a lot more cases of people starting shit in public, even when it gains them nothing or even harms them, just for the sake of starting shit. Its almost like the common sense gene has been bred out of these people.
I agree with you. The guy is clearly a jerk. However, he was engaged in activity that was sanctioned by the library in a place sanctioned by the library for that purpose. Since the guy was a huge asshole, he decided to annoy others with his actions. That said, being an asshole isn't a crime. Sad, perhaps, but true.
You might expect that an accommodation could be made between reasonable people. If not, the library must address the issue as they are the ones ultimately responsible. I wasn't there, but I imagine that emotions ran high. If I was the librarian and the folks complaining about the porn were sufficiently obnoxious, I might tell them to stuff it. I would also probably ask porno guy to be considerate of his fellow library patrons. However, given the scenario presented in the article, the guy was perfectly within his rights to do what he was doing, where he was doing it. When that guy turns out to be a selfish jerk, well...life is rough sometimes.
Yes! It is illegal to show children naked pictures. If he is in the public library viewing porn (nake pictures), then he is certainly exposing children to naked pictures.
It is the responsibility of the Library to make whatever (if any) adjustments to its premises to comply with the law. The only exception, IMHO, is if this guy brought a child to the Library with the express purpose of showing pornography to the child.
I see no reason why this guy shouldn't be arrested under sexual predator laws and put "on the list".
And exactly which law has this guy broken? Please state the specific law since you seem so sure that this person should have his life pretty much ruined. If it were me, I'd want to be *damn* sure.
You are free to say whatever you like. You should NOT be allowed to say it over and over and over again.
Why not? How about this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
One more time...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, by your logic, the above is illegal? Please!
This guy was free to say that he likes porn. He is NOT free to show it to everyone.
Again, that is an issue to take up with the library management. This guy is viewing material sanctioned by the library. If someone is offended by it and the issue can't be worked out informally, it is the library that is responsible, not the person viewing material that was made available by the library and is being consumed in the fashion prescribed by the library.
Also, consumption is NOT speech. He was not stating a viewpoint or petitioning grievences to his government. He was looking at porn.
VIEWING PORN IS NOT SPEECH!
Viewing porn isn't the viewer's speech. It is, however, the speech (according to the Supreme Court -- You know, those folks tasked with deciding what the laws actually mean) of the producers of the porn.
What you are advocating is censorship. You probably don't see it as such, but that's the case. Porn annoys you. Perhaps your favorite political authors annoy other people. What? you say that porn and the political rhetoric of [insert your favorite political philosopher] are two completely different things. Not so, says the Supreme Court and common sense. If you censor one thing, for whatever reason, (in this case, it's the "think of the children" hyperbole), that's the same as censoring anything else ("that one's a terrorist!" "This one is a communist":"this one wants to destroy America", blah, blah, blah).
That's not to say that perhaps the Library's management shouldn't try to accommodate those who are uncomfortable with that particular form of speech and set aside an area for those who are easily offended where that content isn't available -- as long as that doesn't interfere with the free exercise of others' rights.
No they haven't. You cannot tell me that terrorists give a rats ass about how stupid we act. They just want to see our bodies laying out in the street dead shot by children that never received an education. No the "terrorists" that you refer to have not won.
However, the government pig terrorists, that like to use scare tactics to make you give up every single right we've fought for thus far. Yes, those guys are winning by making people fear the first group of terrorists. It all boils down to people having an underlying fear of dying, even though its something you really can't escape.
That's a common problem thinking that there are only two sides to every story, when in reality it's more like n-sides to the story, where (n-5) sides of the story are not that important.
All people seem to just be born as scared-to-death xenophobes, and most just don't learn any better as they age.
I once thought of taking advantage of that and becoming emporer of the US. Then I remembered history and that despots usually get assinated or at least have to live in fear for their lives.
Then I tought, well I could be a multimillionaire radio talke show host and do spots on Fox News. Then I thought better of that too. I'd be rich but I'd be considered an ass clown by folks who matter and being considered a "hero" by the fans, well, it's like being thought of as a god by your dog.
Almost all of the things you mention would probably require a reasonable level of literacy, which you don't appear to have. So I guess it's a good thing you decided not to become "Emporer." Goodness knows, we wouldn't want you to get "assinated." (is that another word for becoming an ass clown?). Lucky you.
rather not have any of them but the sheep will keep voting for the same 2 party's that are from the same coin.
Until we remove the necessity for huge sums of money from political campaigns, the one party (money grubbing scumbags) masquerading as two parties will maintain their stranglehold on our government.
The difference between these two groups of scumbags is, IMHO, that one group will allow the sewers to continue to leak on most of us and the other group wants to rip out the sewers and just dump the raw sewage on us. Given the choices, I'll opt for the leaky sewers for now. Just sayin'
Unless you're drinking the cheap stuff, Scotch on the rocks is a waste. A little bit of room-temperature water is about as far as you can go without killing the taste.
I'll take your word for it. I hate scotch. I'm a To-Kill-ya man myself -- rocks of course, no shots and none of that lime & salt crap either -- that's for women and small children.
When I read the post you were responding to, it was at the
bottom of my screen (had to page down to see your response), but my first thought was "What kind of chucklehead drinks brandy on the rocks? I'm going to have to post something in response".
Thank you for saying everything I was planning on saying, even if you did leave out the chucklehead part....
You're entirely welcome, Avenger.
I suspect that the OP doesn't drink brandy (nor do I, for that matter), but then I guess that doesn't explain why I know that. Perhaps that does make IceBike ignorant of current (say, the last couple centuries) trends in brandy, but that doesn't necessarily make him(her?) a chucklehead, IMHO. As such, why don't we leave that moniker to those having that hypothetical drink?
If I were to hazard a guess, the chuckleheads having the chuckle-fest would probably be drinking a single-malt rather than brandy which, of course, can be drunk neat or on the rocks. Just sayin'
That most/.'s actually believed Obama would run an open and honest administration. Democrats are great on the talk, worse on the walk but liberals will never see it.
But the radical reactionaries who call themselves "conservatives" are so good with walking the walk, are they? Please.
The whole bunch of them are so beholden to the monied interests that it's amazing we still bother to have farcical "elections" instead of auctions.
Don't be silly.
There is no "HAS TO" when the government is involved.
And a one word response of "DENIED" is all you are likely to get, or the Washington equivalent, of a vague promise of having it looked into, followed by a chuckle-fest in the back room over brandy on the rocks.
The whole thing sort of reminds me of one of the typical flame fests here on Slashdot or Usenet. Lots of smelly wet wool. But nobody notices that you "won the internet".
WTF is wrong with you!?! I can't believe that you could say such a thing!!!
Everyone knows that you *never* serve brandy on the rocks. Geez!
Want email privacy? Use PGP on everything and convince all your recipients to do so to, or else they simply can't read what you send them anymore....
"It was pleasant to me to get a letter from you the other day. Perhaps
I should have found it pleasanter if I had been able to decipher it. I
don't think that I mastered anything beyond the date (which I knew) and
the [PGP] signature (which I guessed at). There's a singular and a perpetual
charm in a letter of yours; it never grows old, it never loses its
novelty.... Other letters are read and thrown away and forgotten, but
yours are kept forever -- unread. One of them will last a reasonable
man a lifetime."
-- (with apologies to) Thomas Aldrich
Where's the payoff for the avalanche of poor patents? IBM isn't getting paid, the USPTO isn't better off, so are the politicians getting paid? Why is this system continuing? Two reasons I can see: protection for the largest companies against new start-ups, and getting foreign countries to adopt US Patent laws and extort their corporations. But is that really it, is that the whole game? IBM isn't full of idiots and the politicians are (always) working an angle, so why this continued patent madness?
The payoff is selling it as part of a portfolio of patents to cover other equally obvious stuff, like they're doing with Google now. Jeebus, our IP system is broken!
Of course, it would not be as politically correct to admit that race and crime have such a strong correlation. Perhaps a Chinese GPS manufacturer could capitalize on this and sell into the Western market. The Chinese don't give a rat's ass about PC!
Why not suggest using income data instead. That way you don't come off as a racist scumbag. Just sayin'.
we don't have a right to any particular mode of transportation
You have the right to every possible mode of transportation including ones that haven't even been invented yet, unless a law bars you from it. America started doing it wrong with the "Bill of Rights", and somehow you have gotten it into your heads that you need laws to grant you rights. No, laws take things away. They never give things - except to the government. By default you have the right to absolutely everything except what law prohibits you from doing. Even your "Bill of Rights" is a mistake because now you have lawyers and politicians arguing and nit-picking over words, trying to twist the meaning of those words to take things away from you. At one point it will have been better had it not been written because that same "Bill of Rights" will be used to enslave you. And if not, then there's always international law.
On the other hand there ARE laws that prevent the owner of the mode of transport from barring you from using it on the basis of color, religion, sex, etc. In the case of public transport the vehicle is designed to be used by the public, which includes you.
I hate to break it to you, but you have no "right" to jump on my back and ride me like a pony. You have no "right" to appropriate the conveyances of others and use them at your discretion without express authorization.
As for the law, international or otherwise, "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.." --Robert Heinlein What about you?
Slashdot Mirror
As long as a kid isn't running and screaming, any good librarian is pleased to see a young person with the interest and ability to utilize the adult section. I dunno, maybe your community library was different. Did you grow up in some repressive fundie backwater?
Actually, no. It was not fundie even at the time when being fundie was really popular. As for being a backwater, that's debatable. It WAS a lagoon couple of million years ago.
Like I said to the other poster, segregation according to age simply seems neater. Particularly seeing the sorry state of books in the children's section. AND the noise levels there.
when I was in elementary school the children's section got too damn boring after about a half hour.
I too was raiding the adult section (which basically meant everything besides the stuff for the elementary school kids) pretty early, but I had to use my mother's card for a while. But I assume that I would at least raise an eyebrow or two had I started picking up Marquis de Sade, Nabokov and whatnot.
Your points are interesting and informative. In the United States however, the government is (or at least is supposed to be) forbidden to restrict the free exercise of speech or expression. This has been interpreted as a ban on censorship (that has been ignored in many places at many times in the US however). As many people have pointed out, this is more an issue of consideration and being empathetic to others. That said, regardless of where, it is always the responsibility of parents to decide what is appropriate for their minor children. When folks make the statement that their children need to be kept from this, therefore the content (whatever it may be) needs to be censored, those parents are trying to make others take on their responsibilities. As a parent, you need to care for and protect your child. You are responsible. By demanding that others curtail their rights because you are unable or unwilling to discharge that responsibility, you're doing it wrong.
In any case, the guy watching porn in the library and refusing to be considerate of others is a jerk and, from a community standpoint, probably needs a good talking to. But it's not a crime to be a jerk, as much as that main pain some of us.
As you are walking past a computer screen on your left..., you see A guy taking a dump on a paper plate in public while jacking off in front of the screen
You quickly avert your gaze to the right... guess what? No more guy taking a dump on a paper plate in public while jacking off in front of the screen
I won't say, FTFY, but I changed it up a bit. Taking a dump in public is illegal. Mastubating in public or in front of kids is illegal. How is viewing porn free speech and masturbating to that porn NOT free speech. At least by masturbating, you are expressing yourself. You are saying, "I'm really digging this porn!"
Here is an even simpler solution. Rather than making every single patron in the library avert their gaze, how about asking the one asshole to leave. You piss off one person rather than everyone else. You have rights, but your rights do not come at the expense of everyone else's.
I'll preface this by saying IANAL. However, my understanding is that we have (based on the constitution) affirmative rights (that is, rights to do or be or say *stuff*). There are limits to those rights. We do not have negative rights (that is the right to be free from others exercising their rights). Perhaps one of the lawyers around here can clarify the nomenclature and specifics, but AFAIK the upshot is that you don't have the right to limit the rights of others.
Beyond that, TFA made it pretty clear that the material (the porn) was made available (i.e., not blocked) by the library on the computer(s) used by this guy. That makes the administration and disposition of that material the responsibility of the library. Period.
If someone's editorial is right next to the one you're reading, and you don't like it, it's disruptive.
Deal with it.
Sorry, but with your ID, you are not an unbiased topic.
Sorry, but you can deal with looking at porn elsewhere. Free speech does not mean I have to "deal with it". I can't yell N-word in a library. Hell, I can't even TALK in a library. If you are mad because you can't see lemonparty.org, tough shit.
Unfortunately (for you at least -- and fortunately for the rest of us), the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. I suppose I could say STFU, but I won't. Please express yourself in whatever way you find appropriate (without impinging on the rights of others, of course). I may not agree with you, but my agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. Get it now?
Since when is it an inalienable right to watch porn in public? You are told to be quiet in a library and this is not considered a heavy handed repression of free speech, so why shouldn't being told to behave fit the same pattern? Shouting in a library disrupts others, and watching porn in a library disrupts others.
Okay. When you watch [insert whatever crap you watch in the library], I find it disruptive. Stop it! Why are you being disruptive? This isn't about free speech. You're making it impossible for the rest of us to use the library. Geez! WTF is wrong with you?
'nuff said
Ultimately it comes down sadly to two things we seem to be lacking, and that is common courtesy and thoughts for others besides oneself. it wasn't as if anybody was running this guy off, or even making him quit, all that was asked of him was that he switch to a machine in a less highly trafficked area. to me this screams of real life trolling, I can imagine the guy wearing a real life trollface and smirking as the speakers blared 'Suck my fucking cock you filthy fucking whore!"
Maybe there is something to be said for the "baser" way we do things in the south because if someone would have pulled that shit in my local library i can't imagine that guy sitting there more than two minutes before some guy yanked him up out of his seat and said 'WTF is wrong with you? you wanna look at that shit use that machine in the corner, there is fucking kids standing right over there man have some fucking sense!" and that would have been the end of that. if the troll would have called the cops the cops would have told him "Well there are kids just over there and frankly you ought to be thanking the guy that you aren't looking at an indecency to minors charge so i'd suggest you STFU and show some common sense next time".
Sadly we are having to have these kinds of confrontations more often because too many just don't show even the tiniest bit of common sense or common courtesy anymore. Frankly they act little better than animals and for a society to function basic ground rules have to be obeyed in public places. Just as one wouldn't expect to wear a "All niggers must fucking hang" T-Shirt in a public place without starting a confrontation so too should this troll have expected that blasting hardcore porn in the middle of a high traffic area would cause some problems. Honestly i wouldn't be surprised if that was his intention all along, to either take a shot at the lawsuit lotto or to simply be a douchebag. I don't know if its all the GMO food, the plastic in the drinks, or what, but I've noticed lately a hell of a lot more cases of people starting shit in public, even when it gains them nothing or even harms them, just for the sake of starting shit. Its almost like the common sense gene has been bred out of these people.
I agree with you. The guy is clearly a jerk. However, he was engaged in activity that was sanctioned by the library in a place sanctioned by the library for that purpose. Since the guy was a huge asshole, he decided to annoy others with his actions. That said, being an asshole isn't a crime. Sad, perhaps, but true.
You might expect that an accommodation could be made between reasonable people. If not, the library must address the issue as they are the ones ultimately responsible. I wasn't there, but I imagine that emotions ran high. If I was the librarian and the folks complaining about the porn were sufficiently obnoxious, I might tell them to stuff it. I would also probably ask porno guy to be considerate of his fellow library patrons. However, given the scenario presented in the article, the guy was perfectly within his rights to do what he was doing, where he was doing it. When that guy turns out to be a selfish jerk, well...life is rough sometimes.
Yes! It is illegal to show children naked pictures. If he is in the public library viewing porn (nake pictures), then he is certainly exposing children to naked pictures.
It is the responsibility of the Library to make whatever (if any) adjustments to its premises to comply with the law. The only exception, IMHO, is if this guy brought a child to the Library with the express purpose of showing pornography to the child.
I see no reason why this guy shouldn't be arrested under sexual predator laws and put "on the list".
And exactly which law has this guy broken? Please state the specific law since you seem so sure that this person should have his life pretty much ruined. If it were me, I'd want to be *damn* sure.
You are free to say whatever you like. You should NOT be allowed to say it over and over and over again.
Why not? How about this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
One more time...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, by your logic, the above is illegal? Please!
This guy was free to say that he likes porn. He is NOT free to show it to everyone.
Again, that is an issue to take up with the library management. This guy is viewing material sanctioned by the library. If someone is offended by it and the issue can't be worked out informally, it is the library that is responsible, not the person viewing material that was made available by the library and is being consumed in the fashion prescribed by the library.
Also, consumption is NOT speech. He was not stating a viewpoint or petitioning grievences to his government. He was looking at porn.
VIEWING PORN IS NOT SPEECH!
Viewing porn isn't the viewer's speech. It is, however, the speech (according to the Supreme Court -- You know, those folks tasked with deciding what the laws actually mean) of the producers of the porn.
What you are advocating is censorship. You probably don't see it as such, but that's the case. Porn annoys you. Perhaps your favorite political authors annoy other people. What? you say that porn and the political rhetoric of [insert your favorite political philosopher] are two completely different things. Not so, says the Supreme Court and common sense. If you censor one thing, for whatever reason, (in this case, it's the "think of the children" hyperbole), that's the same as censoring anything else ("that one's a terrorist!" "This one is a communist" :"this one wants to destroy America", blah, blah, blah).
That's not to say that perhaps the Library's management shouldn't try to accommodate those who are uncomfortable with that particular form of speech and set aside an area for those who are easily offended where that content isn't available -- as long as that doesn't interfere with the free exercise of others' rights.
That said, I'm
Or it could be the "innocent typo" spelling...
(geez..+5 Insightful?!?)
Well, I couldn't have modded it up -- and wouldn't have if I could. I'm kind of surprised myself.
One misspelled word = illiteracy! Hooray for the internet and it's totally reasonable expectations!
Actually it was several, along with a variety of grammar and syntax mistakes. Not to mention the delusions of grandeur.
Considering how little priority the USA gives to education, isn't that pretty much one in the same?
I refer you to the American Heritage Dictionary
No they haven't. You cannot tell me that terrorists give a rats ass about how stupid we act. They just want to see our bodies laying out in the street dead shot by children that never received an education. No the "terrorists" that you refer to have not won.
However, the government pig terrorists, that like to use scare tactics to make you give up every single right we've fought for thus far. Yes, those guys are winning by making people fear the first group of terrorists. It all boils down to people having an underlying fear of dying, even though its something you really can't escape.
That's a common problem thinking that there are only two sides to every story, when in reality it's more like n-sides to the story, where (n-5) sides of the story are not that important.
"Understanding is a three-edged sword."
'Emporer' is the american spelling.
Actually, it's not the American spelling. It's the illiterate jackass spelling.
All people seem to just be born as scared-to-death xenophobes, and most just don't learn any better as they age.
I once thought of taking advantage of that and becoming emporer of the US. Then I remembered history and that despots usually get assinated or at least have to live in fear for their lives.
Then I tought, well I could be a multimillionaire radio talke show host and do spots on Fox News. Then I thought better of that too. I'd be rich but I'd be considered an ass clown by folks who matter and being considered a "hero" by the fans, well, it's like being thought of as a god by your dog.
Almost all of the things you mention would probably require a reasonable level of literacy, which you don't appear to have. So I guess it's a good thing you decided not to become "Emporer." Goodness knows, we wouldn't want you to get "assinated." (is that another word for becoming an ass clown?). Lucky you.
rather not have any of them but the sheep will keep voting for the same 2 party's that are from the same coin.
Until we remove the necessity for huge sums of money from political campaigns, the one party (money grubbing scumbags) masquerading as two parties will maintain their stranglehold on our government.
The difference between these two groups of scumbags is, IMHO, that one group will allow the sewers to continue to leak on most of us and the other group wants to rip out the sewers and just dump the raw sewage on us. Given the choices, I'll opt for the leaky sewers for now. Just sayin'
but due to the fact he backed down under real pressure from the lobby groups no he does not need another term.
Think about what you're saying. Maybe Obama isn't the best, but would you rather have Newt as President? Scary!
Why not? The Pepsi I mix it with tastes flat otherwise.
[ducks]
Wishing I had mod points right about now...That was funny. sir!
Unless you're drinking the cheap stuff, Scotch on the rocks is a waste. A little bit of room-temperature water is about as far as you can go without killing the taste.
I'll take your word for it. I hate scotch. I'm a To-Kill-ya man myself -- rocks of course, no shots and none of that lime & salt crap either -- that's for women and small children.
When I read the post you were responding to, it was at the
bottom of my screen (had to page down to see your response), but my first thought was "What kind of chucklehead drinks brandy on the rocks? I'm going to have to post something in response".
Thank you for saying everything I was planning on saying, even if you did leave out the chucklehead part....
You're entirely welcome, Avenger.
I suspect that the OP doesn't drink brandy (nor do I, for that matter), but then I guess that doesn't explain why I know that. Perhaps that does make IceBike ignorant of current (say, the last couple centuries) trends in brandy, but that doesn't necessarily make him(her?) a chucklehead, IMHO. As such, why don't we leave that moniker to those having that hypothetical drink?
If I were to hazard a guess, the chuckleheads having the chuckle-fest would probably be drinking a single-malt rather than brandy which, of course, can be drunk neat or on the rocks. Just sayin'
That most /.'s actually believed Obama would run an open and honest administration. Democrats are great on the talk, worse on the walk but liberals will never see it.
But the radical reactionaries who call themselves "conservatives" are so good with walking the walk, are they? Please.
The whole bunch of them are so beholden to the monied interests that it's amazing we still bother to have farcical "elections" instead of auctions.
Don't be silly. There is no "HAS TO" when the government is involved. And a one word response of "DENIED" is all you are likely to get, or the Washington equivalent, of a vague promise of having it looked into, followed by a chuckle-fest in the back room over brandy on the rocks.
The whole thing sort of reminds me of one of the typical flame fests here on Slashdot or Usenet. Lots of smelly wet wool. But nobody notices that you "won the internet".
WTF is wrong with you!?! I can't believe that you could say such a thing!!!
Everyone knows that you *never* serve brandy on the rocks. Geez!
Want email privacy? Use PGP on everything and convince all your recipients to do so to, or else they simply can't read what you send them anymore ....
"It was pleasant to me to get a letter from you the other day. Perhaps I should have found it pleasanter if I had been able to decipher it. I don't think that I mastered anything beyond the date (which I knew) and the [PGP] signature (which I guessed at). There's a singular and a perpetual charm in a letter of yours; it never grows old, it never loses its novelty .... Other letters are read and thrown away and forgotten, but
yours are kept forever -- unread. One of them will last a reasonable
man a lifetime."
-- (with apologies to) Thomas Aldrich
But they used server located in the US.
If you stand in Mexico and use a remote control car to rob a bank in the US, the US will come after you..and visa versa.
what does Visa have to do with all this?
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain, a Biography
Suppose you were a greedy, power hungry corporate shill. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. --FTF Mr. Clemens
Where's the payoff for the avalanche of poor patents? IBM isn't getting paid, the USPTO isn't better off, so are the politicians getting paid? Why is this system continuing? Two reasons I can see: protection for the largest companies against new start-ups, and getting foreign countries to adopt US Patent laws and extort their corporations. But is that really it, is that the whole game? IBM isn't full of idiots and the politicians are (always) working an angle, so why this continued patent madness?
The payoff is selling it as part of a portfolio of patents to cover other equally obvious stuff, like they're doing with Google now. Jeebus, our IP system is broken!
If TomTom or some other competing GPS device manufacturer wants to implement identical functionality without running afoul of the patent, they can simply use demographic data rather than crime data. Since blacks are at least seven times more likely to commit a violent crime and Hispanics three times more likely, it would be just as good to use neighborhood demographic data as a basis for plotting a safer route.
Of course, it would not be as politically correct to admit that race and crime have such a strong correlation. Perhaps a Chinese GPS manufacturer could capitalize on this and sell into the Western market. The Chinese don't give a rat's ass about PC!
Why not suggest using income data instead. That way you don't come off as a racist scumbag. Just sayin'.
we don't have a right to any particular mode of transportation
You have the right to every possible mode of transportation including ones that haven't even been invented yet, unless a law bars you from it. America started doing it wrong with the "Bill of Rights", and somehow you have gotten it into your heads that you need laws to grant you rights. No, laws take things away. They never give things - except to the government. By default you have the right to absolutely everything except what law prohibits you from doing. Even your "Bill of Rights" is a mistake because now you have lawyers and politicians arguing and nit-picking over words, trying to twist the meaning of those words to take things away from you. At one point it will have been better had it not been written because that same "Bill of Rights" will be used to enslave you. And if not, then there's always international law.
On the other hand there ARE laws that prevent the owner of the mode of transport from barring you from using it on the basis of color, religion, sex, etc. In the case of public transport the vehicle is designed to be used by the public, which includes you.
I hate to break it to you, but you have no "right" to jump on my back and ride me like a pony. You have no "right" to appropriate the conveyances of others and use them at your discretion without express authorization.
As for the law, international or otherwise, "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.." --Robert Heinlein
What about you?