I'm about 99% certain that there was, in fact, CP on the Megaupload servers.
Just head over to Motherless sometime (warning: you will probably need to burn your harddrive afterward). Megaupload was probably at least that bad; search/rs/ for MU links if you really want to check (then again, maybe/rs/ has started removing MU links by now).
Stop the merry-go-round of uploading, reporting, and deleting, at any point in time; it is almost certain there is illegal stuff that had been uploaded and not yet been deleted.
I'd like to suggest that Gov. Jan Brewster takes that bill and commits a lewd or lascivious act with it. Preferably one which inflicts physical harm to the people who signed it.
I've noticed that while the prices are pretty high for my wallet, it is sometimes worth it. I tend to get pretty stressed up in my work and sometimes there is nothing better to relieve stress than to spend a night with a nice professional... with no other obligations at all (aside from common courtesy, obviously).
Minus the likelihood of sex, and with the obligation to continue to maintain common courtesy in the future, that is basically what friends are for. If you have nobody to unwind with and enjoy an evening with when you're stressed, except by paying a woman to be your companion for the evening, I pity you.
That's an interesting theory, but I like my theory better.
I have always maintained that the existence of Target is a response to the fact that I can walk in to a Wal-Mart and find airguns, spring guns, and hunting equipment, but I typically won't seem to find the raunchiest Unrated/R-rated editions of movies there. So I can walk in to a Target, where they don't even have cap pistols, but you can get the Unrated edition of the latest Not Another Teen Porno. (And if you appreciate irony at all, note the fact that the Target mascot is a dog with a bull's-eye painted on its head.)
I theorize that someone, somewhere, believes that children become violent due to exposure to weapons, but thinks that they are unlikely to want to emulate all of the unsafe sex that they'll see on the boob tube.
The subjective linear scale of how attractive I find someone is not exactly perfectly parallel to the subjective linear scale of how beautiful I think they are. And neither of the two is necessarily correlated perfectly to the subjective linear scale of whether or not I'd like to have sex with them.
According to the PCWorld article, a rumor about him went viral and ended up on Google. He claims the rumor is completely without merit, but the internet took it and ran with it. Now, when you type his name in Google, the auto-completion suggests a few more keywords and recommends that you may want to visit a bunch of sites which, he claims, are slandering him. And while I don't normally blame a search engine for indexing something, I have to say he kinda has a point.
Google already censors certain explicit words in the auto-completion... e.g. I type "Glenn Beck mur" and it's suggesting "Glenn Beck murdered girl in 1990", but I can type "Glenn Beck raped" and watch as the auto-completion goes mysteriously silent. (Doesn't seem to have a problem with "rape", though. Just "raped". Mysterious.) So my opinion is that the right thing to do would be to accomodate this guy's request, remove the auto-complete words that would be defamatory in nature, but at the same time not censor those sites from the search results.
Perhaps someone who's Japanese could enlighten us as to how much they value the name they were given at birth. It's probably a bit more than you'd expect, and then some.
"The auto-complete function in Google's search bar fills in crimes when my client's name is entered,"... a false story about him containing allegations apparently spread across various sites, which were then indexed by the search giant
So basically you type "Glenn Beck" and it suggests that you add "murdered girl in 1990" to the search. Except that the guy's actual name and the crimes were, of course, withheld.
What? Did you even read the same summary as I did? Wait - don't answer that.
He's complaining because when you type his name into google, the auto-completion suggests adding words to the end of your search, which leads you to ten thousand or so pages that indicate he's a criminal.
Go before the match starts. You need to go in the middle of a game? Sorry, you are now playing with a time limit: How long can you hold it? If you leave, you forfeit.
That would make chess much more interesting, IMHO.
Of course it has: Motivation is an easy way to show that you intended (planned) to do it. If you have a motive, then the case can be made that you planned it. However, what motivated you to plan it is completely irrelevant: the pertinent fact is, something motivated you to plan it.
The difference between motive and intent is simple: Motive is why you killed them. Intent is whether you planned it. People do stupid things rashly with completely stupid motives, but premeditating a murder requires a psychopathic denial of the humanity of the victim so as to ultimately condition yourself to execute your plan. Society considers this to be much worse than a rash action which resulted in someone's death.
Other than to show intent, the motive itself is irrelevant. Intent is the only thing that matters.
Not only have I never seen two men making out in public, I can't remember the last time I saw a man and woman making out in public. A quick peck on the lips, maybe, and even that can draw unwanted and embarrassing attention.
It is simply not the sort of thing that people often do in public, unless you're in a bar populated by drunk twenty-somethings who seem to be waiting for the next excuse to suck face with a drunk member of the opposite sex.
Slashdot Mirror
It would only be involuntary if I didn't like it.
I have a voluntary attempt to change blood flow like that... in my pants!
Yeah, and putting them in the correct order is so easy. A child could do it.
Or a paranoid parent who thinks everyone else is chester the molseter.
No, not "or". GP's statement was obviously intended to include them.
I'm about 99% certain that there was, in fact, CP on the Megaupload servers.
Just head over to Motherless sometime (warning: you will probably need to burn your harddrive afterward). Megaupload was probably at least that bad; search /rs/ for MU links if you really want to check (then again, maybe /rs/ has started removing MU links by now).
Stop the merry-go-round of uploading, reporting, and deleting, at any point in time; it is almost certain there is illegal stuff that had been uploaded and not yet been deleted.
Arizona annoys me.
I'd like to suggest that Gov. Jan Brewster takes that bill and commits a lewd or lascivious act with it. Preferably one which inflicts physical harm to the people who signed it.
I've noticed that while the prices are pretty high for my wallet, it is sometimes worth it. I tend to get pretty stressed up in my work and sometimes there is nothing better to relieve stress than to spend a night with a nice professional... with no other obligations at all (aside from common courtesy, obviously).
Minus the likelihood of sex, and with the obligation to continue to maintain common courtesy in the future, that is basically what friends are for. If you have nobody to unwind with and enjoy an evening with when you're stressed, except by paying a woman to be your companion for the evening, I pity you.
If your idea of "working" is "lay there and look purty while I do all the sweating".
That's an interesting theory, but I like my theory better.
I have always maintained that the existence of Target is a response to the fact that I can walk in to a Wal-Mart and find airguns, spring guns, and hunting equipment, but I typically won't seem to find the raunchiest Unrated/R-rated editions of movies there. So I can walk in to a Target, where they don't even have cap pistols, but you can get the Unrated edition of the latest Not Another Teen Porno. (And if you appreciate irony at all, note the fact that the Target mascot is a dog with a bull's-eye painted on its head.)
I theorize that someone, somewhere, believes that children become violent due to exposure to weapons, but thinks that they are unlikely to want to emulate all of the unsafe sex that they'll see on the boob tube.
The subjective linear scale of how attractive I find someone is not exactly perfectly parallel to the subjective linear scale of how beautiful I think they are. And neither of the two is necessarily correlated perfectly to the subjective linear scale of whether or not I'd like to have sex with them.
If you think that the colon is somehow connected to the cunt, you're doing it wrong.
ads that said things like "Single gay male in NYC? Want to be?"
The fuck exactly are they thinking when they ask that?
"Single gay male not in NYC: Want to move to NYC?"
"Single gay female in NYC: Want to become male?"
"Single hetero male in NYC: Want to go gay?"
"Non-single gay male in NYC: Wanna ditch that dude?"
I'm clutching at straws here. I really can't figure out who their demographic is.
According to the PCWorld article, a rumor about him went viral and ended up on Google. He claims the rumor is completely without merit, but the internet took it and ran with it. Now, when you type his name in Google, the auto-completion suggests a few more keywords and recommends that you may want to visit a bunch of sites which, he claims, are slandering him. And while I don't normally blame a search engine for indexing something, I have to say he kinda has a point.
Google already censors certain explicit words in the auto-completion... e.g. I type "Glenn Beck mur" and it's suggesting "Glenn Beck murdered girl in 1990", but I can type "Glenn Beck raped" and watch as the auto-completion goes mysteriously silent. (Doesn't seem to have a problem with "rape", though. Just "raped". Mysterious.) So my opinion is that the right thing to do would be to accomodate this guy's request, remove the auto-complete words that would be defamatory in nature, but at the same time not censor those sites from the search results.
But that would have implied that they had one to begin with.
Perhaps someone who's Japanese could enlighten us as to how much they value the name they were given at birth. It's probably a bit more than you'd expect, and then some.
You can, but hit-and-run homicides are frowned upon.
Now that's a bizarre twist to that metaphor...
"Excuse me - do you have an unborn daughter in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"
"Happy to see you. Would you like to be introduced to Brutal Killingspree?"
No. PC World has a better article with a bit more detail.
"The auto-complete function in Google's search bar fills in crimes when my client's name is entered," ... a false story about him containing allegations apparently spread across various sites, which were then indexed by the search giant
So basically you type "Glenn Beck" and it suggests that you add "murdered girl in 1990" to the search. Except that the guy's actual name and the crimes were, of course, withheld.
What? Did you even read the same summary as I did? Wait - don't answer that.
He's complaining because when you type his name into google, the auto-completion suggests adding words to the end of your search, which leads you to ten thousand or so pages that indicate he's a criminal.
The only remaining question is, what's his name?
That's what he said.
what if someone needs to go the bathroom
Go before the match starts. You need to go in the middle of a game? Sorry, you are now playing with a time limit: How long can you hold it? If you leave, you forfeit.
That would make chess much more interesting, IMHO.
No... Mini
Of course it has: Motivation is an easy way to show that you intended (planned) to do it. If you have a motive, then the case can be made that you planned it. However, what motivated you to plan it is completely irrelevant: the pertinent fact is, something motivated you to plan it.
The difference between motive and intent is simple: Motive is why you killed them. Intent is whether you planned it. People do stupid things rashly with completely stupid motives, but premeditating a murder requires a psychopathic denial of the humanity of the victim so as to ultimately condition yourself to execute your plan. Society considers this to be much worse than a rash action which resulted in someone's death.
Other than to show intent, the motive itself is irrelevant. Intent is the only thing that matters.
Not only have I never seen two men making out in public, I can't remember the last time I saw a man and woman making out in public. A quick peck on the lips, maybe, and even that can draw unwanted and embarrassing attention.
It is simply not the sort of thing that people often do in public, unless you're in a bar populated by drunk twenty-somethings who seem to be waiting for the next excuse to suck face with a drunk member of the opposite sex.