I keep thinking of Buckminster Fuller(inventor of Bucky Balls - fullerene molecules) and McMaster-Carr one of the most awesome sites on the internet, where you can find nearly anything.
I was going to say, if you have them sign a waiver and record it, then you're making a film and still paying them, which is not illegal. Which id odd, because then you have to film yourself with a prostitute to make the act legal.
Its exactly like why felons do not need to register their guns with the government. Since it is illegal for a felon to have a gun, the registration would violate his 5th amendment rights. Hence, criminals get more protection than law-abiding citizens.
I don't know how the adult/erotic services was ever allowed. I figure they are facilitating a crime, and illegal industry, whether explicitly knowing or not.
Now, that is not to say that I think the government is in the right. I think it is futile that states prohibit the worlds oldest profession. I personally don't think states should bar women from making ends meet. If you are unmarried and not spreading disease, who are you doing wrong? It is about as logic as banning marijuana. If you have them
I also don't know why CL just doesn't turn off the offending sections in cities/states that take offense.
That being said, I did try to use the service once to find adult services for a friend's birthday party (adult oriented, but completely within the law). But I was not successful. A lot of what I saw advertised was blatantly illegal in my locality.
Can someone please fill in in on 1) how its not a crime to carry prostitute's ads, and 2) if there is some Safe Harbor provision?
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides "no state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This means to me that we are all equal and that a chosen profession does not grant anyone any additional rights than those not of the profession. (Licenses, like the BAR, MD, etc not withstanding. We're not talking about the ability to practice law or write a prescription, but rather protection of rights)
Journalists have been getting unequal protection for some time. We need to extend those "rights" to everyone if we are to live in a free society.
From someone (me) who has been in many accidents, all I can say is that speed has never been a factor, and I am routinely substantially over the limit.
- In one accident, she did not follow the "yield sign" and merged into me. - In another accident, the work truck in front of me swerved out of my lane to reveal a stalled vehicle on the open road. (He should have pushed his car to the side and started it there) - In another accident, I was driving down the load and a car was attempting to make a left onto the road I was on. This required crossing my lane. A truck was in front of me turning into where the car was. The car did not see me behind the truck and pulled out into traffic. - In another accident, a driver after a rain hydroplaned, spun out, hit the median, bounced across 4 lanes of traffic and in the ensuing stoppage I found myself under another car.
Fortunately, no one was ever hurt. But what I take away from this is that speed doesn't kill by itself. No one has ever died from driving too fast. Speed can only kill when some other mistake creates the accident. Speed then elevates the amount of energy in play. The one exception is speeding around a turn where the lateral Gs create under steer or loss of control. I'd still consider this an error of judgement, rather than flat out a speed problem because different cars have different cornering characteristics. My 2-door can take some turns at 60MPH. My van can't. Is it raw 'speed' or just error of the driver? Given my other accidents, its driver error.
That's why you need the Cirroc, the Unfrozen Caveman Laywer. He's old as dirt itself, and he's damn good. The one thing he does know is sharing music files is not a crime...
Now that the RIAA is putting the ISPs in charge of policing the net, how am I supposed to have any recourse when I am downloading Nine Inch Nails' work WITH PERMISSION? But not just in Australia! I've seen him domestically in the US, and he has repeated the statement many times, from Philadelphia, to Red Rocks (that I personally know of)
How do we expect:
that we have proper recourse
that the ISPs are up2date with every musicians' sharing policies?
I blame (and commend Trent) for making the RIAA look like buffoons once again.
The new word to bring the English language to 1,000,000 words is "noob". In hot contention is "defriend" (as in MySpace or FaceBook parlance) It is no wonder that people are calling the tower "hard-drive"? The tech industry is spinning new words almost daily.
Note: Consideration of a "new word "requires 25,000 uses in television.
Some people don't have a large investment in geekery. I don't see why they guy who mows my neighbor's lawn should have to keep up on the FPM/EDO/DRAM/DDRAM transition. I am not required by my automechanic to keep up on the latest in variable valve timing techniques.
Convicted by no action of their own, just observation of a brain scan.
This has serious consequences. Anyone can observe an action. Only a few can read brain scans. We must trust those that can read brain scans that what they say about them are correct.
We can now be a criminal due to a technology so advanced that the defendant has no ability to defend himself. It is essentially guilt by decree from the gifted (aka royalty).
I took Human Evolution in college. I really liked it. But there is some phallic fascination with brain case size as being a important factor in approximating intelligence.
We have parrots that are as intelligent as 4-year olds. We have bears that are dumber. We have cephalopods that have a lot of intelligence in a few cm^3. Brain case volume to me, does not seem to have a determining factor in intelligence.
The density of brain matter would seem to be relevant as we look at brain function in terms of neural complexity. As density increases required volume decreases. And since to soft tissue survive, we have no idea of neural density. It seems that neural density would be a much better proxy for intelligence - particularly when looking in the same genus. (As opposed to cephalopods which have an entirely different brain morphology)
The real problem is we buy, on the free market, insecure products. The real solution is to not buy insecure software. This is nearly impossible, but if we had heterogeneous environment, we could switch to OSX or Linux without any hassle. The problem is people don't want to pay the "Mac premium" so why do you think they'd pay $10 to have a safe computer?
The battle lines are fought in compilers. No one should be using null-terminated, bounds-unchecked strings. We need intelligent string and array classes. We have them We need to use them more.
We then need signed binaries - every DLL and EXE needs to be signed.
The only remaining problem after you've removed errant programming is the trojan aspect, and this should be enforced at the OS level as well as the browser level. You should not be able to connect to an IP address containing trojans and download binary files.
Those few steps - all in the hands of your OS vendor - are the steps they need to do. They will do them if you're willing to pay for them. But as we've seen our OS gets zip-opening capability before it gets a virus scan.
This whole secondary market of virus products should not exist. The secondary market is a band aid because the issues aren't being addressed. One could wounder they are being created just so there is a secondary industry. This allows the primary vendor to reduce price and have the virus scan vendor be an optional expense. One which doesn't factor in at the register, but does factor into the TCO.
There has been a disturbing shift in congress that has happened over the past oh, century or so. Though, I am not naive enough to think its only recent. Its just that now, it is rampant.
There was a time when congress acted responsibly, and I mean by that that they cared about the laws they passed. They worried about things like constitutionality, and if they had the authority to even pass such laws. But circa WWII, I've noticed a change that in mentality that says "let the courts sort it out". While it is is in the jurisdiction of the courts to sort it out, the courts are meant to be our last line of defense from oppressive laws. Not the first. The legislative branches have turned into bill factories pushing out bills as fast as they can be voted on them. The measure of government isn't how many bills it can pass.
I cannot believe that a member of congress, who believes in the constitution, would ever introduce legislation so patently contradictory to any right in the Bill of Rights. This should be grounds for impeachment as far as I am concerned...
I thought barn-yard animals had to be in specially zoned areas, particularly in the city or industrial complexes. I think out in the 'burbs, where you have residential owners, you can own them as pets, but not as livestock?
Obama is bringing "cost-effective" medicine to the U.S. I hope it is only a matter of time before they start it with cost-effective security too. Sure, you can spend billions on drug enforcement, but when a successful prosecution & punishment costs tens of billions more, you have to evaluate if incarceration is the best avenue, or if at-home therapy and treatments reduce relapse rates at considerably lesser cost.
From a security stand point, you fix the holes that are too expensive to fix after they've been exploited. Everything else is just a cost of doing business. The FAA has used this approach for procedures for some time, with great success.
Infact, it seems that withdraw from video games kills you. Ask those Chinese people (in China) that walked out of internet cafes after 24hr+ gaming sessions and died. They should have kept playing.
Having been raised protestant, I can see the idea of these "sin" taxes being a good thing. However since switching to Buddhism (which only has 4 sins, but a lot of FSM style "I rather you didn't"s), I have to question if the use of the sin tax is being wielded the best.
In a really free country with total separation of church and state, the Judeao-Christian set of sins should not be the defacto standard. Rather, they should be set by what is truly great for society. The problem is, that any tax is government control. The only real tax a country can have is a flat tax on consumption. But therein lies the problem. If you tax consumption, you adversely affect the GDP.
Could it be that there are is a set of taxes which won't bog down GDP and still not attempt to control the population? Well, there will always be some control, but we need to structure the taxes in such a way as to direct the person to not bog down the country. Here, I suggest a tax on borrowing. We'd turn the country around in no time if you had to borrow 10-20% more to pay the taxes on it. People would wait longer, and scrutinize their borrowing if they would immediately "be in the hole" (negative equity). Another area is in medical, where a tax on late-term care (when you wait too long and have a bigger more expensive problem than if you just came in when you knew something was wrong). Toxic pollution taxes.
In short, any situation we want to destroy, we tax. Rather than what we do today, where we tax what we need. 20% cellphone taxes in NYC. 20% income tax, taxes on water, electricity and gas. Property taxes (you have to live somewhere, unless you're on a boat). If we really wanted to make this country great, we'd tax what we want to destroy. Not what we are made out of, even if that includes sin.
That was for federal taxes. (For video games, the Federal government could claim authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution or the First-Sale Doctrine, if coming in from outside the US, and additionally subject to tariffs)
The states can do whatever they want as long as it does not violate their own state constitution.
Well the Constitution has two types of tax: Direct and indirect. There has only ever been one direct tax that I know about, so we'll put that out of view.
The indirect tax (excise or tariff) is on the happening event. It can only be evoked when someone or something is doing something. Your current oil and tobacco taxes are on the manufacture or importation of these things. These specific two examples also have transfer liability clauses that allow the tax liability to be transferred to the buyer, thereby making it seem that it is on something, but really you're paying for a tax that was generated some time ago, because you pay the tax it incurred at production when you pay at the register.
Your income tax therefore is not a tax on the income per se, it is a tax on the receiving of income. The tax is generated by the reception, the amount of tax is then measured by the amount of income. If you never receive anything that is "income" (loans, etc) there is no "income" event, and therefore you do not need to worry about the tax liability.
With the absolutely crazy tax on cigarettes, which are popular across all financial/socio-economic demographics (except maybe genetic) most lower income will have to give it up or smoke themselves into the poor house.
I guess Obama didn't like the idea of poor people doing along with himself.
Slashdot Mirror
I had no idea I was generating that much traffic. I'll try to cut back.
I keep thinking of Buckminster Fuller(inventor of Bucky Balls - fullerene molecules) and McMaster-Carr one of the most awesome sites on the internet, where you can find nearly anything.
If you have them [rest of sentence missing]
I was going to say, if you have them sign a waiver and record it, then you're making a film and still paying them, which is not illegal. Which id odd, because then you have to film yourself with a prostitute to make the act legal.
Its exactly like why felons do not need to register their guns with the government. Since it is illegal for a felon to have a gun, the registration would violate his 5th amendment rights. Hence, criminals get more protection than law-abiding citizens.
I don't know how the adult/erotic services was ever allowed. I figure they are facilitating a crime, and illegal industry, whether explicitly knowing or not.
Now, that is not to say that I think the government is in the right. I think it is futile that states prohibit the worlds oldest profession. I personally don't think states should bar women from making ends meet. If you are unmarried and not spreading disease, who are you doing wrong? It is about as logic as banning marijuana. If you have them
I also don't know why CL just doesn't turn off the offending sections in cities/states that take offense.
That being said, I did try to use the service once to find adult services for a friend's birthday party (adult oriented, but completely within the law). But I was not successful. A lot of what I saw advertised was blatantly illegal in my locality.
Can someone please fill in in on 1) how its not a crime to carry prostitute's ads, and 2) if there is some Safe Harbor provision?
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This means to me that we are all equal and that a chosen profession does not grant anyone any additional rights than those not of the profession. (Licenses, like the BAR, MD, etc not withstanding. We're not talking about the ability to practice law or write a prescription, but rather protection of rights)
Journalists have been getting unequal protection for some time. We need to extend those "rights" to everyone if we are to live in a free society.
From someone (me) who has been in many accidents, all I can say is that speed has never been a factor, and I am routinely substantially over the limit.
- In one accident, she did not follow the "yield sign" and merged into me.
- In another accident, the work truck in front of me swerved out of my lane to reveal a stalled vehicle on the open road. (He should have pushed his car to the side and started it there)
- In another accident, I was driving down the load and a car was attempting to make a left onto the road I was on. This required crossing my lane. A truck was in front of me turning into where the car was. The car did not see me behind the truck and pulled out into traffic.
- In another accident, a driver after a rain hydroplaned, spun out, hit the median, bounced across 4 lanes of traffic and in the ensuing stoppage I found myself under another car.
Fortunately, no one was ever hurt. But what I take away from this is that speed doesn't kill by itself. No one has ever died from driving too fast. Speed can only kill when some other mistake creates the accident. Speed then elevates the amount of energy in play. The one exception is speeding around a turn where the lateral Gs create under steer or loss of control. I'd still consider this an error of judgement, rather than flat out a speed problem because different cars have different cornering characteristics. My 2-door can take some turns at 60MPH. My van can't. Is it raw 'speed' or just error of the driver? Given my other accidents, its driver error.
That's why you need the Cirroc, the Unfrozen Caveman Laywer. He's old as dirt itself, and he's damn good. The one thing he does know is sharing music files is not a crime...
Now that the RIAA is putting the ISPs in charge of policing the net, how am I supposed to have any recourse when I am downloading Nine Inch Nails' work WITH PERMISSION? But not just in Australia! I've seen him domestically in the US, and he has repeated the statement many times, from Philadelphia, to Red Rocks (that I personally know of)
How do we expect:
I blame (and commend Trent) for making the RIAA look like buffoons once again.
The new word to bring the English language to 1,000,000 words is "noob". In hot contention is "defriend" (as in MySpace or FaceBook parlance) It is no wonder that people are calling the tower "hard-drive"? The tech industry is spinning new words almost daily.
Note: Consideration of a "new word "requires 25,000 uses in television.
Some people don't have a large investment in geekery. I don't see why they guy who mows my neighbor's lawn should have to keep up on the FPM/EDO/DRAM/DDRAM transition. I am not required by my automechanic to keep up on the latest in variable valve timing techniques.
You'd do well to look up fMRI and lie detector. Because they are proposing using fMRIs as lie detectors based on localized brain activity.
Convicted by no action of their own, just observation of a brain scan.
This has serious consequences. Anyone can observe an action. Only a few can read brain scans. We must trust those that can read brain scans that what they say about them are correct.
We can now be a criminal due to a technology so advanced that the defendant has no ability to defend himself. It is essentially guilt by decree from the gifted (aka royalty).
I took Human Evolution in college. I really liked it. But there is some phallic fascination with brain case size as being a important factor in approximating intelligence.
We have parrots that are as intelligent as 4-year olds. We have bears that are dumber. We have cephalopods that have a lot of intelligence in a few cm^3. Brain case volume to me, does not seem to have a determining factor in intelligence.
The density of brain matter would seem to be relevant as we look at brain function in terms of neural complexity. As density increases required volume decreases. And since to soft tissue survive, we have no idea of neural density. It seems that neural density would be a much better proxy for intelligence - particularly when looking in the same genus. (As opposed to cephalopods which have an entirely different brain morphology)
The real problem is we buy, on the free market, insecure products. The real solution is to not buy insecure software. This is nearly impossible, but if we had heterogeneous environment, we could switch to OSX or Linux without any hassle. The problem is people don't want to pay the "Mac premium" so why do you think they'd pay $10 to have a safe computer?
The battle lines are fought in compilers. No one should be using null-terminated, bounds-unchecked strings. We need intelligent string and array classes. We have them We need to use them more.
We then need signed binaries - every DLL and EXE needs to be signed.
The only remaining problem after you've removed errant programming is the trojan aspect, and this should be enforced at the OS level as well as the browser level. You should not be able to connect to an IP address containing trojans and download binary files.
Those few steps - all in the hands of your OS vendor - are the steps they need to do. They will do them if you're willing to pay for them. But as we've seen our OS gets zip-opening capability before it gets a virus scan.
This whole secondary market of virus products should not exist. The secondary market is a band aid because the issues aren't being addressed. One could wounder they are being created just so there is a secondary industry. This allows the primary vendor to reduce price and have the virus scan vendor be an optional expense. One which doesn't factor in at the register, but does factor into the TCO.
Mod +1 Meme
There has been a disturbing shift in congress that has happened over the past oh, century or so. Though, I am not naive enough to think its only recent. Its just that now, it is rampant.
There was a time when congress acted responsibly, and I mean by that that they cared about the laws they passed. They worried about things like constitutionality, and if they had the authority to even pass such laws. But circa WWII, I've noticed a change that in mentality that says "let the courts sort it out". While it is is in the jurisdiction of the courts to sort it out, the courts are meant to be our last line of defense from oppressive laws. Not the first. The legislative branches have turned into bill factories pushing out bills as fast as they can be voted on them. The measure of government isn't how many bills it can pass.
I cannot believe that a member of congress, who believes in the constitution, would ever introduce legislation so patently contradictory to any right in the Bill of Rights. This should be grounds for impeachment as far as I am concerned...
I thought barn-yard animals had to be in specially zoned areas, particularly in the city or industrial complexes. I think out in the 'burbs, where you have residential owners, you can own them as pets, but not as livestock?
I wonder what amount of penetration is needed to get a three-way OSX commercial of PC, Mac, and Tux.
I can just see it now: a bearded unix geek (like Stallman), wearing a tuxedo, and Mac saying to him "You're not fooling anyone"
PC is hiding, warning Mac, "Careful, he'll steal your [intellectual property] secrets!"
TWITTER FLU?
Obama is bringing "cost-effective" medicine to the U.S. I hope it is only a matter of time before they start it with cost-effective security too. Sure, you can spend billions on drug enforcement, but when a successful prosecution & punishment costs tens of billions more, you have to evaluate if incarceration is the best avenue, or if at-home therapy and treatments reduce relapse rates at considerably lesser cost.
From a security stand point, you fix the holes that are too expensive to fix after they've been exploited. Everything else is just a cost of doing business. The FAA has used this approach for procedures for some time, with great success.
Loop-back connector.
Infact, it seems that withdraw from video games kills you. Ask those Chinese people (in China) that walked out of internet cafes after 24hr+ gaming sessions and died. They should have kept playing.
(Totally tongue-in-cheek)
Having been raised protestant, I can see the idea of these "sin" taxes being a good thing. However since switching to Buddhism (which only has 4 sins, but a lot of FSM style "I rather you didn't"s), I have to question if the use of the sin tax is being wielded the best.
In a really free country with total separation of church and state, the Judeao-Christian set of sins should not be the defacto standard. Rather, they should be set by what is truly great for society. The problem is, that any tax is government control. The only real tax a country can have is a flat tax on consumption. But therein lies the problem. If you tax consumption, you adversely affect the GDP.
Could it be that there are is a set of taxes which won't bog down GDP and still not attempt to control the population? Well, there will always be some control, but we need to structure the taxes in such a way as to direct the person to not bog down the country. Here, I suggest a tax on borrowing. We'd turn the country around in no time if you had to borrow 10-20% more to pay the taxes on it. People would wait longer, and scrutinize their borrowing if they would immediately "be in the hole" (negative equity). Another area is in medical, where a tax on late-term care (when you wait too long and have a bigger more expensive problem than if you just came in when you knew something was wrong). Toxic pollution taxes.
In short, any situation we want to destroy, we tax. Rather than what we do today, where we tax what we need. 20% cellphone taxes in NYC. 20% income tax, taxes on water, electricity and gas. Property taxes (you have to live somewhere, unless you're on a boat). If we really wanted to make this country great, we'd tax what we want to destroy. Not what we are made out of, even if that includes sin.
Addendum.
That was for federal taxes. (For video games, the Federal government could claim authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution or the First-Sale Doctrine, if coming in from outside the US, and additionally subject to tariffs)
The states can do whatever they want as long as it does not violate their own state constitution.
Well the Constitution has two types of tax: Direct and indirect. There has only ever been one direct tax that I know about, so we'll put that out of view.
The indirect tax (excise or tariff) is on the happening event. It can only be evoked when someone or something is doing something. Your current oil and tobacco taxes are on the manufacture or importation of these things. These specific two examples also have transfer liability clauses that allow the tax liability to be transferred to the buyer, thereby making it seem that it is on something, but really you're paying for a tax that was generated some time ago, because you pay the tax it incurred at production when you pay at the register.
Your income tax therefore is not a tax on the income per se, it is a tax on the receiving of income. The tax is generated by the reception, the amount of tax is then measured by the amount of income. If you never receive anything that is "income" (loans, etc) there is no "income" event, and therefore you do not need to worry about the tax liability.
He's already broken it.
With the absolutely crazy tax on cigarettes, which are popular across all financial/socio-economic demographics (except maybe genetic) most lower income will have to give it up or smoke themselves into the poor house.
I guess Obama didn't like the idea of poor people doing along with himself.