The context is a crossover for marketing. Blizzard (who publishes the WoW online game) contracted with Upper Deck (a card manufacturer) to publish a WoW collectible card game. As a draw for the online folks, they put 100 "points" in each pack of cards, with a promise that those points could be used to purchase items in the WoW online game. So, a lot of online-WoW players ponied up for the cards to get points, before the points and rewards were announced. When Blizzard announced how many points each trinket or doodad cost, the points were so high that people would need to buy thousands of dollars worth of cards before they could amass enough points to get anything but lowball stuff like screensavers/wallpaper. WoW players who bought cards just for the online points are now understandably bent out of shape about it.
> Why would putting Jack Thompson in jail be just? How would it help undo the damage he has done?
Well, putting JT in jail (in this case) would be a response to his doing something that earned him contempt of court, so it would be quite just to punish him for that. For the greater question, it's not relevant whether that would undo anything in the past, since it wouldn't be punishment for what he's done in the past, it's punishment for earning contempt of the court.
> It is perhaps ironic that his use of the legal system has come back to bite him, but it is in no way just.
Again, the contempt charge doesn't stem from his use of the legal system up to now, it stems from his actions in contempt in this case. Ironic it is, but there's no reason to assume it's unjust. It would only be unjust if he didn't do anything to earn contempt of court.
Again to address the larger question, it would be just if his actions in court meant that nobody takes him seriously any more, and this decision will take away from his credibility. That's entirely just, in this case.
I don't normally respond to cowards, but your screed is outright moronic. You talk like a paranoid ten-year-old who has no grasp at all of the technologies and politics involved.
> There are nine nuclear powers (US, Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea). Now that NK and Iran have joined the nuclear club, there will be about 30-40 nuclear powers and the reality is major US and Western cities will get nuked.
Firstly, how you get from nine (or eleven, if you're stupid enough to think that Iran is a nuclear power) to "30-40" is beyond reckoning, but even if you're absolutely right in all of the countries you named (which only adds up to a total of 21 if all of your fevered dreams become reality) U.S. cities are in no more danger of being nuked than before. More on that below.
> Ballistic missiles are even older, the V2 was a ballistic missile that entered... Space.
The V-2 could reach space if you shoot it straight up. As a bomb delivery system, it could reach...London. None of the nations you named are anywhere near close enough to hit the U.S. with that sort of rocket, and despite your hand-wringing, building a rocket that can reach across a signifcant distance takes, well, rocket science. And testing. And that's mighty visible. And none of that nations you listed in your rant except the already-nuclear nine and nations that can comfortably called allies of the U.S. have done any kind of ICBM-capable rocket testing.
> What Space does is allow whatever nation that commands it first (China, India, Iran, whoever) to have absolute dominance over the world.
Are you out of your mind? The U.S. has been actively and publicly working on a missile shield for decades and we're nowhere near successful at it. From whose ass do you think India (or even China) is going to pull the technology needed to protect against retaliation?
> Because China could nuke us and suffer zero retaliation.
Control of Space = nearly foolproof Ballistic Missile Defense.
This is the red flag that made me respond. It's what shows me that you have no clue what you're talking about. Firstly, as I said above, no functional missile defense tech even exists despite many nations actively working the problem. Secondly, have you never heard of a missile submarine (or bombers, for that matter), or are they simply too inconvenient to your paranoia to figure? Both are capable of atmospheric-level strikes, and no space based missile defense system would be useful against either. So, saying that China could nuke us with impunity is foolishness beyond reasoning, and they know that better than you, fortunately for us.
> SOME nation will control Space. That's a given. It's either the US, or China, India, possibly Japan. Choose which nation you want to control it, or be damned.
Yeah, just like some single nation will control the rest of the world. Oops, that's right, that didn't happen either. Why you think that one country will control space is outside my ken, but here's a hint. The first nation that establishes space-based control will lose that advantage when the second nation launches its own controls. The only way to prevent that is to destroy the second nation's control. The second nation would consider that an act of war. Since nobody is going to be able to launch a space-based system that will stop every other nation on Earth cold, that act of war would be picking a fight they can't win. There will be proliferation, much like there is in everything else.
> There is no agreement, no negotiation, no "deal" to be made to stop the militarization of space.
Preventing the militarization of space isn't really needed, but frankly if the U.S. really cared to, they could quite prevent it by signing treaties with the other powers capable of producing such military systems, and then making it economically infeasible to break those treaties. This would be much like what we're doing today, so it's not even a stretch to consider it.
You're still overreaching, because you miss the point of utility. While it's comfortable to say that most people's cars are a luxury, it's simply not true for a large majority of the population of the U.S. no matter how much you say it is. Excepting major cities, most of the U.S. doesn't have a workable mass transit system. Sure, it's easy to say (and rather accurate) that ownership of cars is the reason, but the simple fact is that most commuters drive because it's not reasonable not to drive. For myself, I live nine miles from my job, but I can't walk (nine miles is too far to walk in inclement weather, and takes almost two hours in good weather), I can't bike (the roadways between my house and my work don't have shoulders) and can't use mass transit (there is none). For me, a car is necessary to keep my job. More than half of the U.S. is in my position. Now, explain how many people in the U.S. need fireworks. See the point now? People accept danger in necessary utility much more readily than in unnecessary entertainment. By comparing cars to fireworks just because of the danger level, you fail to acknowledge that cars serve a much more useful purpose than fireworks, so the tolerance level is much higher. Sure, cars kill, and they kill a lot more than fireworks. That doesn't make them comparable because despite your commentary to the contrary, people generally need their cars.
Even in light of the fact that operating an automobile isn't as safe as one would think, you're still really reaching to say that the danger in operating a vehicle is approaching the danger in using fireworks. To take your argument, a moment's distraction can result in a fatal crash, but only in a small number of seconds operating the car (inattention in a parking lot, for example, is very unlikely to result in death, nor a second's inattention in most driving circumstances). Batteries explode, but it's extraordinarily rare and can be labelled a malfunction. Virtually no automobiles are operated in enclosed spaces, so while exhaust fumes are dangerous it's hardly a large percentage of the danger involved in operating a car. More to the point, however, is utility. We tolerate a certain level of danger in automobiles because transportation is a necessity for most people. You'd have a very hard time convincing me that entertainment via explosives is a requirement for very many people. Comparing cars and firecrackers is therefore a rather ludicrous hyperextension.
I agree with the gist of your comment, but you've got a few weak spots to address. .
> shotguns are legal, fully automatic machine pistols are not. Which weapon is more lethal? Every piece of research suggests that shotguns are vastly more lethal and practical under nearly any conceivable set of circumstances (just ask a soldier which they'd rather carry -- a pump-action shotgun or a tec-9).
The machine pistol is far more concealable than a shotgun, even when you saw it off. Also, the pistol goes against "assumed threat" in a way that a shotgun doesn't. If a bank robber pulled out a shotgun, the cops nearby would dive for cover. With a machine pistol, they'd be more likely to stand and shoot since handguns are much less accurate, and they're not expecting a hail of bullets.
> Automobiles are legal, while firecrackers are not.
Automobiles have a primary use that doesn't involve direct endangerment. Firecrackers exist solely to be exploded.
Take the facts you reported, that WND also reported:
1.) YouTube limited access to a video because of users flagging it.
2.) YouTube determined the flagging to be incorrect and removed it.
3.) WND reported on this fact.
Now, from this, they derive the opinion that YouTube (not YouTube users, but the company itself) is censoring content, despite the fact that the article itself states that YouTube removed the flag on review. That's where they went off the rails, and thus where being a reputable news source fell aside to conservative bias.
> Eg, finding the suspect's fingerprints on the murder weapon is circumstantial evidence, but usually very damning circumstantial evidence.
A fingerprint on the murder weapon is corroborating evidence, not circumstantial. It directly connects the suspect to the weapon, and would only be considered circumstantial in the case where the suspect had reason (other than murder) to touch it, like finding a fingerprint on the suspect's own kitchen knife. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that points to the prosecution's case but doesn't directly corroborate it (like a receipt for a gasoline purchase in an arson case, or fibers in a car that match an article of clothing the suspect owns).
You missed the spirit of his comment, pun intended. His comment is that the angry person's life is the second one wasted, after the loss of the first (the victim, assuming the victim and the angry person aren't the same, which would be the case in a murder).
Extremely unlikely. A charge of murder requires proof of intent. The prosecution would need to prove that the kid did the disabling with the intent of preventing the user from calling 911, that he had foreknowledge that calling 911 would be necessary to preserve the victim's life, and that the victim had no other reasonable means for calling for help. That's a pretty steep curve.
Criminal negligence, on the other hand, would be relatively easier to prove.
I was going to comment about the case being a Faraday cage, but in the same comment I was going to point out that lining a wooden case with some mesh or copper foil would do the job just fine. I'd love to have a wooden case for my rig. It would fit the design of my computer room/conservatory quite well. Unfortunately, at the prices this company wants it sits firmly outside my budget.
He said, "An Iraqi man was denied the right to board an airplane because he was wearing a t-shirt with the words "We Will Not Be Silent.""
You said, "He boarded the plane fine. He was just needlessly hassled and made ot change his T-Shirt."
His statement is therefore correct. If the man had been allowed to board the plane still wearing the shirt, you'd have an argument, but it seems he was made to remove the shirt before he was allowed access to the plane, so his statement is correct and valid.
> prove to me that culmination of these skills into making FAKE clothing is worth REAL money.
People are paying Linden dollars (which are convertible to real money) for them. That's all the proof I need to say it's worth real money. Still, the greater point is that people pay for non-corporeal stuff all the time. They pay to play MMO games. They pay for rides on a rollercoaster. They pay to visit a zoo. They pay to watch a boxing match. The simple fact is, if getting cool clothes on an avatar in a game entertains you, and you're willing to pay the equivalent of real money for that entertainment, why shouldn't someone make those virtual duds for you? If you consider the person making virtual clothes in Second Life to be an entertainment provider, it's rather obvious why they can make money. If their designs are so pleasing that lots of Second Life folks want those cool clothes, then it becomes viable. Sure, it relies on Second Life continuing, but then one of those professional hula dancers at some resort in Hawaii relies on the continuing function of the hotel to keep working. If Second Life dries up, she'll have to find another venue where her skills are marketable, or get into another line of work. Sounds like how First Life works for everyone.
Useful Skills List for Second Life clothing design:
1.) Practice designing clothes. Why wouldn't this translate directly to real-world fashion design?
2.) Programming skills. You have to "make" the clothes, mostly by writing the algorithms that generate them. I hear some people pay good money to people who can make computers do stuff.
3.) Marketing and administration. Sure, it's a sandbox, but at least some of the business operations skills you learn in Second Life can carry back to real life.
So, it's not quite as insane as it seems at first blush, eh?
> OK, lets then post the other nine and more importantly OBEY them.
Yeah, because "thou shalt not worship graven images" or perhaps "honor the Sabbath and keep it holy" aren't exclusionary in the least.
Get lost. Your rules don't belong in public places, since the majority of them apply to your own religion. Do you even know them? You can feel free to obey them if you like, but leave them in your church, unless you're willing to accept and obey the rules of other religions as well. Until you can grasp that, you're just a religious bigot.
> You think since the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" along with nine others is not allowed to be posted in or on public property it is now OK to be a thief?
You think since the commandment "Thou shalt hold no gods before me" along with nine others is not allowed to be posted in or on public property it is now OK to be a non-Christian?
Kinda steals your holy thunder, that. This is the reason why the Ten Commandments don't belong in public places. Good work making it so easy to demonstrate.
Of course you're talking about someone who's guilty. That's because it makes your case very convenient. The problem with this idea is twofold. First, you can say all you like that you're talking about the obviously guilty, but there's an awful lot of cases that would fall under the purview of your list that aren't nearly as obvious, and your list provides no safeguard whatsoever against misuse. Second, who says the evidence is irrefutable? Pictures of a felon committing the crime are very convenient, but outside television, the number of cases where ironclad evidence is found unusable is vanishingly small. Much, much more often, it's circumstantial, and if it's insufficient to prove guilt for conviction, then it's out. What's to keep the police from kicking down your door at whim just to see if they can find anything? Sure, it's easy to say that you don't have to worry about it, but why not? When is a police chief going to get mad at you because your son is dating his daughter? Again, if illegally obtaining evidence doesn't preclude it from punishing you, then the protections in the fourth amendment lose a lot of weight.
Sorry, but your list won't encompass the "guilty but we just can't use the obviously damning evidence due to a technicality" and nobody else, so you can comfortably get stuffed.
> ANd it can't dictate where the dfendant can live, only where he can't live.
I wanted to take a special moment to point out just how ridiculous this statement is. Sure he can move far away, but what if the place he goes also has a list, and requires him to register if he's on some other list? Get real.
Again I mention the ones that weren't "attempting to have an affair". There have been several identified who are not married nor involved. What about them?
> Your stereotypes must be correct, after all, aren't all fundamentalist churches just out to get you?
Flase dichotomy on your part. Firstly, it doesn't take all fundamentalist churches to do it, it just takes one. Second, He didn't say "all" in his post either. Again, it just takes a few, and social conservatives are much more likely than social liberals to be offended by BDSM.
Let me toss in a few flaws in your analogy to demonstrate why these two things aren't equivalent, and you can take it from there if you're still somehow confused about why there needs not be a "sole criterion" for such things.
1.) The spread of a musician's music to those who have not paid for it is unlikely to do serious and lasting harm to his reputation. People aren't going to stop inviting him to parties or throw rocks in his window because someone pirated his music.
2.) Having his music pirated is rather unlikely to affect his chances for future employment or association. Nobody is going to turn him down for a job because his music is being distributed illegally.
3.) It's unlikely that his personal relationships (like his marriage) will be adversely affected by people pirating his music.
Also a point is that there are a number of restrictions on the paid distribution of music that don't match in your analogy at all. For example, format shifting is a big bone of contention in music distribution that has no real match in the distributing of personal information.
Still, the crux of the matter is that your analogy is bad because these respondents didn't want their information distributed widely. Said another way, it's unlikely they'd be willing to give it up to anyone who "paid" them, no matter who it was.
Your argument sounds like the "blame the victim" folks who try to excuse rapists. What if even one of the respondents wasn't actually cheating on a current lover? Would that particular person be enough to damn Fortuny? How many would it take before it became wrong?
In short, Fortuny is an asshole, and so are you. "They had it coming to them" is a disgusting cop-out.
> It's getting really hard to filter that crap out.
Then tighten your filter. If you never, ever respond to email from a bank at all under any circumstances, then you'll never fall prey to this sort of thing. Too inconvenient? That's the risk you take, then. Online banking is certainly convenient, but it's inherently less secure.
I didn't present my examples to justify the bombings, I presented them to invalidate his conclusion. I agree that nuclear attacks are horrific, but I refuted that they fit the definition of "largest ever terrorist attack in human history" as he presented it.
Slashdot Mirror
> Or maybe they really are just greedy bastards and know how to exploit the playerbase of the most popular game in the world.
WoW isn't the most popular by a long shot. Take a look at the numbers for Lineage, and you'll see what I mean.
Virg
The context is a crossover for marketing. Blizzard (who publishes the WoW online game) contracted with Upper Deck (a card manufacturer) to publish a WoW collectible card game. As a draw for the online folks, they put 100 "points" in each pack of cards, with a promise that those points could be used to purchase items in the WoW online game. So, a lot of online-WoW players ponied up for the cards to get points, before the points and rewards were announced. When Blizzard announced how many points each trinket or doodad cost, the points were so high that people would need to buy thousands of dollars worth of cards before they could amass enough points to get anything but lowball stuff like screensavers/wallpaper. WoW players who bought cards just for the online points are now understandably bent out of shape about it.
Virg
> Why would putting Jack Thompson in jail be just? How would it help undo the damage he has done?
Well, putting JT in jail (in this case) would be a response to his doing something that earned him contempt of court, so it would be quite just to punish him for that. For the greater question, it's not relevant whether that would undo anything in the past, since it wouldn't be punishment for what he's done in the past, it's punishment for earning contempt of the court.
> It is perhaps ironic that his use of the legal system has come back to bite him, but it is in no way just.
Again, the contempt charge doesn't stem from his use of the legal system up to now, it stems from his actions in contempt in this case. Ironic it is, but there's no reason to assume it's unjust. It would only be unjust if he didn't do anything to earn contempt of court.
Again to address the larger question, it would be just if his actions in court meant that nobody takes him seriously any more, and this decision will take away from his credibility. That's entirely just, in this case.
Virg
I don't normally respond to cowards, but your screed is outright moronic. You talk like a paranoid ten-year-old who has no grasp at all of the technologies and politics involved.
... Space.
> There are nine nuclear powers (US, Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea). Now that NK and Iran have joined the nuclear club, there will be about 30-40 nuclear powers and the reality is major US and Western cities will get nuked.
Firstly, how you get from nine (or eleven, if you're stupid enough to think that Iran is a nuclear power) to "30-40" is beyond reckoning, but even if you're absolutely right in all of the countries you named (which only adds up to a total of 21 if all of your fevered dreams become reality) U.S. cities are in no more danger of being nuked than before. More on that below.
> Ballistic missiles are even older, the V2 was a ballistic missile that entered
The V-2 could reach space if you shoot it straight up. As a bomb delivery system, it could reach...London. None of the nations you named are anywhere near close enough to hit the U.S. with that sort of rocket, and despite your hand-wringing, building a rocket that can reach across a signifcant distance takes, well, rocket science. And testing. And that's mighty visible. And none of that nations you listed in your rant except the already-nuclear nine and nations that can comfortably called allies of the U.S. have done any kind of ICBM-capable rocket testing.
> What Space does is allow whatever nation that commands it first (China, India, Iran, whoever) to have absolute dominance over the world.
Are you out of your mind? The U.S. has been actively and publicly working on a missile shield for decades and we're nowhere near successful at it. From whose ass do you think India (or even China) is going to pull the technology needed to protect against retaliation?
> Because China could nuke us and suffer zero retaliation.
Control of Space = nearly foolproof Ballistic Missile Defense.
This is the red flag that made me respond. It's what shows me that you have no clue what you're talking about. Firstly, as I said above, no functional missile defense tech even exists despite many nations actively working the problem. Secondly, have you never heard of a missile submarine (or bombers, for that matter), or are they simply too inconvenient to your paranoia to figure? Both are capable of atmospheric-level strikes, and no space based missile defense system would be useful against either. So, saying that China could nuke us with impunity is foolishness beyond reasoning, and they know that better than you, fortunately for us.
> SOME nation will control Space. That's a given. It's either the US, or China, India, possibly Japan. Choose which nation you want to control it, or be damned.
Yeah, just like some single nation will control the rest of the world. Oops, that's right, that didn't happen either. Why you think that one country will control space is outside my ken, but here's a hint. The first nation that establishes space-based control will lose that advantage when the second nation launches its own controls. The only way to prevent that is to destroy the second nation's control. The second nation would consider that an act of war. Since nobody is going to be able to launch a space-based system that will stop every other nation on Earth cold, that act of war would be picking a fight they can't win. There will be proliferation, much like there is in everything else.
> There is no agreement, no negotiation, no "deal" to be made to stop the militarization of space.
Preventing the militarization of space isn't really needed, but frankly if the U.S. really cared to, they could quite prevent it by signing treaties with the other powers capable of producing such military systems, and then making it economically infeasible to break those treaties. This would be much like what we're doing today, so it's not even a stretch to consider it.
Virg
You're still overreaching, because you miss the point of utility. While it's comfortable to say that most people's cars are a luxury, it's simply not true for a large majority of the population of the U.S. no matter how much you say it is. Excepting major cities, most of the U.S. doesn't have a workable mass transit system. Sure, it's easy to say (and rather accurate) that ownership of cars is the reason, but the simple fact is that most commuters drive because it's not reasonable not to drive. For myself, I live nine miles from my job, but I can't walk (nine miles is too far to walk in inclement weather, and takes almost two hours in good weather), I can't bike (the roadways between my house and my work don't have shoulders) and can't use mass transit (there is none). For me, a car is necessary to keep my job. More than half of the U.S. is in my position. Now, explain how many people in the U.S. need fireworks. See the point now? People accept danger in necessary utility much more readily than in unnecessary entertainment. By comparing cars to fireworks just because of the danger level, you fail to acknowledge that cars serve a much more useful purpose than fireworks, so the tolerance level is much higher. Sure, cars kill, and they kill a lot more than fireworks. That doesn't make them comparable because despite your commentary to the contrary, people generally need their cars.
Virg
Even in light of the fact that operating an automobile isn't as safe as one would think, you're still really reaching to say that the danger in operating a vehicle is approaching the danger in using fireworks. To take your argument, a moment's distraction can result in a fatal crash, but only in a small number of seconds operating the car (inattention in a parking lot, for example, is very unlikely to result in death, nor a second's inattention in most driving circumstances). Batteries explode, but it's extraordinarily rare and can be labelled a malfunction. Virtually no automobiles are operated in enclosed spaces, so while exhaust fumes are dangerous it's hardly a large percentage of the danger involved in operating a car. More to the point, however, is utility. We tolerate a certain level of danger in automobiles because transportation is a necessity for most people. You'd have a very hard time convincing me that entertainment via explosives is a requirement for very many people. Comparing cars and firecrackers is therefore a rather ludicrous hyperextension.
Virg
I agree with the gist of your comment, but you've got a few weak spots to address.
.
> shotguns are legal, fully automatic machine pistols are not. Which weapon is more lethal? Every piece of research suggests that shotguns are vastly more lethal and practical under nearly any conceivable set of circumstances (just ask a soldier which they'd rather carry -- a pump-action shotgun or a tec-9).
The machine pistol is far more concealable than a shotgun, even when you saw it off. Also, the pistol goes against "assumed threat" in a way that a shotgun doesn't. If a bank robber pulled out a shotgun, the cops nearby would dive for cover. With a machine pistol, they'd be more likely to stand and shoot since handguns are much less accurate, and they're not expecting a hail of bullets.
> Automobiles are legal, while firecrackers are not.
Automobiles have a primary use that doesn't involve direct endangerment. Firecrackers exist solely to be exploded.
Virg
Take the facts you reported, that WND also reported:
1.) YouTube limited access to a video because of users flagging it.
2.) YouTube determined the flagging to be incorrect and removed it.
3.) WND reported on this fact.
Now, from this, they derive the opinion that YouTube (not YouTube users, but the company itself) is censoring content, despite the fact that the article itself states that YouTube removed the flag on review. That's where they went off the rails, and thus where being a reputable news source fell aside to conservative bias.
Virg
> Eg, finding the suspect's fingerprints on the murder weapon is circumstantial evidence, but usually very damning circumstantial evidence.
A fingerprint on the murder weapon is corroborating evidence, not circumstantial. It directly connects the suspect to the weapon, and would only be considered circumstantial in the case where the suspect had reason (other than murder) to touch it, like finding a fingerprint on the suspect's own kitchen knife. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that points to the prosecution's case but doesn't directly corroborate it (like a receipt for a gasoline purchase in an arson case, or fibers in a car that match an article of clothing the suspect owns).
Virg
> Fortunately, I don't believe in a second life.
You missed the spirit of his comment, pun intended. His comment is that the angry person's life is the second one wasted, after the loss of the first (the victim, assuming the victim and the angry person aren't the same, which would be the case in a murder).
Virg
> if the tracks had spelled out "When Can I Come Home?"
Yeah, no kidding. That would be really creepy. It's a good thing they only spell out "When can I co".
Hey......
Virg
> would that kid be put up for murder?
Extremely unlikely. A charge of murder requires proof of intent. The prosecution would need to prove that the kid did the disabling with the intent of preventing the user from calling 911, that he had foreknowledge that calling 911 would be necessary to preserve the victim's life, and that the victim had no other reasonable means for calling for help. That's a pretty steep curve.
Criminal negligence, on the other hand, would be relatively easier to prove.
Virg
I was going to comment about the case being a Faraday cage, but in the same comment I was going to point out that lining a wooden case with some mesh or copper foil would do the job just fine. I'd love to have a wooden case for my rig. It would fit the design of my computer room/conservatory quite well. Unfortunately, at the prices this company wants it sits firmly outside my budget.
Virg
He said, "An Iraqi man was denied the right to board an airplane because he was wearing a t-shirt with the words "We Will Not Be Silent.""
You said, "He boarded the plane fine. He was just needlessly hassled and made ot change his T-Shirt."
His statement is therefore correct. If the man had been allowed to board the plane still wearing the shirt, you'd have an argument, but it seems he was made to remove the shirt before he was allowed access to the plane, so his statement is correct and valid.
Virg
> prove to me that culmination of these skills into making FAKE clothing is worth REAL money.
People are paying Linden dollars (which are convertible to real money) for them. That's all the proof I need to say it's worth real money. Still, the greater point is that people pay for non-corporeal stuff all the time. They pay to play MMO games. They pay for rides on a rollercoaster. They pay to visit a zoo. They pay to watch a boxing match. The simple fact is, if getting cool clothes on an avatar in a game entertains you, and you're willing to pay the equivalent of real money for that entertainment, why shouldn't someone make those virtual duds for you? If you consider the person making virtual clothes in Second Life to be an entertainment provider, it's rather obvious why they can make money. If their designs are so pleasing that lots of Second Life folks want those cool clothes, then it becomes viable. Sure, it relies on Second Life continuing, but then one of those professional hula dancers at some resort in Hawaii relies on the continuing function of the hotel to keep working. If Second Life dries up, she'll have to find another venue where her skills are marketable, or get into another line of work. Sounds like how First Life works for everyone.
Virg
Useful Skills List for Second Life clothing design:
1.) Practice designing clothes. Why wouldn't this translate directly to real-world fashion design?
2.) Programming skills. You have to "make" the clothes, mostly by writing the algorithms that generate them. I hear some people pay good money to people who can make computers do stuff.
3.) Marketing and administration. Sure, it's a sandbox, but at least some of the business operations skills you learn in Second Life can carry back to real life.
So, it's not quite as insane as it seems at first blush, eh?
Virg
> OK, lets then post the other nine and more importantly OBEY them.
Yeah, because "thou shalt not worship graven images" or perhaps "honor the Sabbath and keep it holy" aren't exclusionary in the least.
Get lost. Your rules don't belong in public places, since the majority of them apply to your own religion. Do you even know them? You can feel free to obey them if you like, but leave them in your church, unless you're willing to accept and obey the rules of other religions as well. Until you can grasp that, you're just a religious bigot.
Virg
> You think since the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" along with nine others is not allowed to be posted in or on public property it is now OK to be a thief?
You think since the commandment "Thou shalt hold no gods before me" along with nine others is not allowed to be posted in or on public property it is now OK to be a non-Christian?
Kinda steals your holy thunder, that. This is the reason why the Ten Commandments don't belong in public places. Good work making it so easy to demonstrate.
Virg
Of course you're talking about someone who's guilty. That's because it makes your case very convenient. The problem with this idea is twofold. First, you can say all you like that you're talking about the obviously guilty, but there's an awful lot of cases that would fall under the purview of your list that aren't nearly as obvious, and your list provides no safeguard whatsoever against misuse. Second, who says the evidence is irrefutable? Pictures of a felon committing the crime are very convenient, but outside television, the number of cases where ironclad evidence is found unusable is vanishingly small. Much, much more often, it's circumstantial, and if it's insufficient to prove guilt for conviction, then it's out. What's to keep the police from kicking down your door at whim just to see if they can find anything? Sure, it's easy to say that you don't have to worry about it, but why not? When is a police chief going to get mad at you because your son is dating his daughter? Again, if illegally obtaining evidence doesn't preclude it from punishing you, then the protections in the fourth amendment lose a lot of weight.
Sorry, but your list won't encompass the "guilty but we just can't use the obviously damning evidence due to a technicality" and nobody else, so you can comfortably get stuffed.
> ANd it can't dictate where the dfendant can live, only where he can't live.
I wanted to take a special moment to point out just how ridiculous this statement is. Sure he can move far away, but what if the place he goes also has a list, and requires him to register if he's on some other list? Get real.
Virg
Again I mention the ones that weren't "attempting to have an affair". There have been several identified who are not married nor involved. What about them?
So, screw you instead.
Virg
> Your stereotypes must be correct, after all, aren't all fundamentalist churches just out to get you?
Flase dichotomy on your part. Firstly, it doesn't take all fundamentalist churches to do it, it just takes one. Second, He didn't say "all" in his post either. Again, it just takes a few, and social conservatives are much more likely than social liberals to be offended by BDSM.
Next time log in, coward.
Virg
Let me toss in a few flaws in your analogy to demonstrate why these two things aren't equivalent, and you can take it from there if you're still somehow confused about why there needs not be a "sole criterion" for such things.
1.) The spread of a musician's music to those who have not paid for it is unlikely to do serious and lasting harm to his reputation. People aren't going to stop inviting him to parties or throw rocks in his window because someone pirated his music.
2.) Having his music pirated is rather unlikely to affect his chances for future employment or association. Nobody is going to turn him down for a job because his music is being distributed illegally.
3.) It's unlikely that his personal relationships (like his marriage) will be adversely affected by people pirating his music.
Also a point is that there are a number of restrictions on the paid distribution of music that don't match in your analogy at all. For example, format shifting is a big bone of contention in music distribution that has no real match in the distributing of personal information.
Still, the crux of the matter is that your analogy is bad because these respondents didn't want their information distributed widely. Said another way, it's unlikely they'd be willing to give it up to anyone who "paid" them, no matter who it was.
So, your username is still accurate.
Virg
Your argument sounds like the "blame the victim" folks who try to excuse rapists. What if even one of the respondents wasn't actually cheating on a current lover? Would that particular person be enough to damn Fortuny? How many would it take before it became wrong?
In short, Fortuny is an asshole, and so are you. "They had it coming to them" is a disgusting cop-out.
Virg
> It's getting really hard to filter that crap out.
Then tighten your filter. If you never, ever respond to email from a bank at all under any circumstances, then you'll never fall prey to this sort of thing. Too inconvenient? That's the risk you take, then. Online banking is certainly convenient, but it's inherently less secure.
Virg
I didn't present my examples to justify the bombings, I presented them to invalidate his conclusion. I agree that nuclear attacks are horrific, but I refuted that they fit the definition of "largest ever terrorist attack in human history" as he presented it.
Virg