We who have grown up in the United States have always had war images shown to us as kids, from the forties up to present day. So of course young men will gravitate towards drawing guns, after all, they are 'cool'. He'll also make drawings of cars and motorcycles and (gasp!) naked women. So what?
For the beginner, don't use balls as you'll always be chasing the dropped ones. Use bean bags, or three hackey sacks. Start off holding two in one hand, one in the other. Throw one of the two into the air and, as it begins to descend, throw the one in your other hand into the air and catch the first one. Repeat. In the beginning you'll notice a tendency to throw them away from yourself, and walking forward trying to catch them. Try to keep your throws close to your body. When you catch one, that's called a "jug", catching 2 or more more is "juggling".
I'm sure glad they weren't this paranoid when I was a kid. I remember sketching various nuclear weapon designs and discussing them with my physics teacher after class. I suppose it was OK because I didn't have a supply of fissionable material.
As a teenager in the 70's, a friend and I used to make smoke bombs from kitchen supplies, learned how to do it from Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book". We were curious, learned a little about chemistry, and hurt no one. The article doesn't go into detail, citing the youth being underage as the reason. It sure sounds like sensational reporting due to recent events. I hope this kid doesn't get a record over this.
If the nun's in catholic school had ever caught me and saw my drawings of jets and WWI planes shooting parachutists and each other, they wouldn't have called the police. Instead I would have gotten multiple slaps to the face. (And then, you couldn't hit them back, either!) School is different today from what us neckbeards experienced.
I agree with you on many of your points. It is a 'fine' line being drawn here, and it could grow into stripping of law abiding citizens rights, that will bear watching. The recidivist rate among convicted molestors is rather high, and so is a real concern. My feeling is that there needs to be a review process performed, many young people still do not have a fully formed 'moral compass' at age 18, and sexting a contemporary should not automatically be cause to place them in the sex offender category. By and large, the people on that list are on it for good reason, and I see there is good cause for their online activities to be monitored and if need be, controlled. This is new territory for us, and the entire process will need 'tweaking' as time goes on. While not perfected, it is a positive step towards protecting children from known 'deviants' when online, and it wouldn't distress me much if this plan went national.
Well, your opinion that it's a stupid law is just that, your opinion. While it's not a perfect system to protect the innocent from being harmed, it is a system. Would you have us go back to the dark days where the Sanduskys of this life can molest children with impunity? It's new territory, and that many taxpayers wish to have more laws to protect the innocent says quite a lot. There's an AC post somewhere here that's obviously from someone who is from an 'unenlightened' country, he feels women run this country and looks forward to the death of America due to its unmanly law system. I don't want to live in his chaotic country, and I'm very glad to see these laws evolving to fit the obvious need. (BTW, can you please use the 'f' word more in your posts? It helps us to differentiate the serious posters from the unhinged ranters.:-)
That shouldn't excuse unnecessary constraints on the rest of us.
Are you a registered sex offender? If you are, "boo frickin' hoo" that you can't interact with kids online in N.Y. If you're not on the list, it has no bearing on your life.
Parents are humans who may not always be aware that their kid can get raped through playing a video game. They're worried about a lot in this life, they don't know it all. Government must be able to use legal means to protect its citizens. If I were on the list, and couldn't play a game because of it, you know what? I'd get over it. Lots of games out there, the offenders will need to play single player off-line games, or denied the communicating ability. I stand by my statements, including tough titties for someone who finds themselves on the list. They should have been more careful. You continue your ranting, I'm signing off of this.
WTF dude? You're making a big deal about whether or not sex offenders get to play video games with little kids. Block them online, make 'em pay for ankle monitoring if they're high level or throw them back in stir. Tech is a dual edged sword that molesters ARE using to prey on the country's kids. Now it's possible to take them out of the online system. What's the problem here?
No they are not under "review" They have been invalidated pending appeals by Apple. Also SternisheFan, the appeal you quoted is about the injuction request, not the patent.
Yeah, I noticed I goofed right after I posted, I'll try de-modding me. Was waiting for someone to catch my gaff. You win the +5 internets,:-)
Apple is appealing this. From USA Today: SAN FRANCISCO -- Apple today filed notice of appeal in its battle with Samsung, in which a judge this week denied its injunction request.
The highly anticipated move comes after U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh late Monday rejected Apple's request, stating the company has not been able to show that Samsung's actions support a ban of its products.
Apple is taking the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit along with "all other orders, rulings, findings, and conclusions underlying and related to that order," according to the court filing.
Judge Koh stated Monday, "Apple's evidence does not establish that any of Apple's three design patents covers a particular feature that actually drives consumer demand."
The judge's ruling came after a San Jose jury in August found Samsung violated six of Apple's patents and awarded a whopping $1 billion in damages. Jurors had sided with Apple in deciding that Samsung had violated key designs covering iPads and iPhones. Apple shares closed 0.87% lower at $521.73.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/12/20/apple-samsung-iphone-ipad-patents/1783017/
That one kid has worth. He/she may not be you, or your kid, or your sibling's, or your neighbors, but every human life has value, including a single one. God values that one kid. (Wrong site to bring up God I'm well aware,, but here we are.) It's incumbent upon a civilized society to do all it can to protect children from predators. Which kid do we sacrifice first?
Any of you guys have a better solution??? This is a start, and if it keeps ONE kid from being damaged, then imo it is worth it! Now if anyone who feels that they are unjustly labled as a s.o., then they should be able to an appeal to clear their name. Until they are taken off the list, I'm playing the world's smallest violin just for them! They don't get to play WoW with little kids. End of discussion! By and large, the people on a s.o. list have done things that mean they cannot be trusted to be in some parts of society, including living near schoolyards, going online. Now I think once you've raped, kidnapped, robbed, used a weapon in any crime, or a host of other crimes I won't list you you should permanently give up a number of rights afforded other citizens. Tough titties!, as the mama cat said to her kittens when they complained their milk was too warm.
If you read tfa, a 12 year old boy was 'groomed' for a period of months by a sex offender using a Playstation. After gaining the youth's trust the sexual assaults began. Sex offenders do not belong around kids at all, it's too big a damn risk to take.
Slashdot Mirror
AOL was too an ISP, you paid monthly for your dial-up connection. Or am I forgetting something?
We who have grown up in the United States have always had war images shown to us as kids, from the forties up to present day. So of course young men will gravitate towards drawing guns, after all, they are 'cool'. He'll also make drawings of cars and motorcycles and (gasp!) naked women. So what?
For the beginner, don't use balls as you'll always be chasing the dropped ones. Use bean bags, or three hackey sacks. Start off holding two in one hand, one in the other. Throw one of the two into the air and, as it begins to descend, throw the one in your other hand into the air and catch the first one. Repeat. In the beginning you'll notice a tendency to throw them away from yourself, and walking forward trying to catch them. Try to keep your throws close to your body. When you catch one, that's called a "jug", catching 2 or more more is "juggling".
My friend used to flip his cat "Alley" all the time, doing a full somersault, and the cat loved it! He'd jump back up into his arms to do it again.
I'm sure glad they weren't this paranoid when I was a kid. I remember sketching various nuclear weapon designs and discussing them with my physics teacher after class. I suppose it was OK because I didn't have a supply of fissionable material.
As a teenager in the 70's, a friend and I used to make smoke bombs from kitchen supplies, learned how to do it from Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book". We were curious, learned a little about chemistry, and hurt no one. The article doesn't go into detail, citing the youth being underage as the reason. It sure sounds like sensational reporting due to recent events. I hope this kid doesn't get a record over this.
If the nun's in catholic school had ever caught me and saw my drawings of jets and WWI planes shooting parachutists and each other, they wouldn't have called the police. Instead I would have gotten multiple slaps to the face. (And then, you couldn't hit them back, either!) School is different today from what us neckbeards experienced.
Mail Online link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2250548/Nasa-reveals-new-spacesuit--designed-fan-Buzz-Lightyear.html
Slashgear link: http://www.slashgear.com/nasa-testing-on-prototype-z-1-space-suit-is-complete-20261770/
HuffingtonPost U.K. link: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mobileweb/2012/12/21/nasa-new-space-suit-buzz-lightyear-toy-story_n_2343677.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
I agree with you on many of your points. It is a 'fine' line being drawn here, and it could grow into stripping of law abiding citizens rights, that will bear watching. The recidivist rate among convicted molestors is rather high, and so is a real concern. My feeling is that there needs to be a review process performed, many young people still do not have a fully formed 'moral compass' at age 18, and sexting a contemporary should not automatically be cause to place them in the sex offender category. By and large, the people on that list are on it for good reason, and I see there is good cause for their online activities to be monitored and if need be, controlled. This is new territory for us, and the entire process will need 'tweaking' as time goes on. While not perfected, it is a positive step towards protecting children from known 'deviants' when online, and it wouldn't distress me much if this plan went national.
(lol) Happy holidays to you sir. :-)
Well, your opinion that it's a stupid law is just that, your opinion. While it's not a perfect system to protect the innocent from being harmed, it is a system. Would you have us go back to the dark days where the Sanduskys of this life can molest children with impunity? It's new territory, and that many taxpayers wish to have more laws to protect the innocent says quite a lot. There's an AC post somewhere here that's obviously from someone who is from an 'unenlightened' country, he feels women run this country and looks forward to the death of America due to its unmanly law system. I don't want to live in his chaotic country, and I'm very glad to see these laws evolving to fit the obvious need. (BTW, can you please use the 'f' word more in your posts? It helps us to differentiate the serious posters from the unhinged ranters. :-)
That shouldn't excuse unnecessary constraints on the rest of us.
Are you a registered sex offender? If you are, "boo frickin' hoo" that you can't interact with kids online in N.Y. If you're not on the list, it has no bearing on your life.
Parents are humans who may not always be aware that their kid can get raped through playing a video game. They're worried about a lot in this life, they don't know it all. Government must be able to use legal means to protect its citizens. If I were on the list, and couldn't play a game because of it, you know what? I'd get over it. Lots of games out there, the offenders will need to play single player off-line games, or denied the communicating ability. I stand by my statements, including tough titties for someone who finds themselves on the list. They should have been more careful. You continue your ranting, I'm signing off of this.
WTF dude? You're making a big deal about whether or not sex offenders get to play video games with little kids. Block them online, make 'em pay for ankle monitoring if they're high level or throw them back in stir. Tech is a dual edged sword that molesters ARE using to prey on the country's kids. Now it's possible to take them out of the online system. What's the problem here?
I remember mechanical counters on VCRs. Mechanical digital clocks.
When I was a kid we had to get up to change the channel, and we only had 4 channels, that all ran news at the same time, and we liked it.
When I was a kid, my older sister made me get up to change the channel. :-)
Call me when you have a realistic solution, I'll be here...
No they are not under "review" They have been invalidated pending appeals by Apple. Also SternisheFan, the appeal you quoted is about the injuction request, not the patent.
Yeah, I noticed I goofed right after I posted, I'll try de-modding me. Was waiting for someone to catch my gaff. You win the +5 internets, :-)
Apple is appealing this. From USA Today: SAN FRANCISCO -- Apple today filed notice of appeal in its battle with Samsung, in which a judge this week denied its injunction request. The highly anticipated move comes after U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh late Monday rejected Apple's request, stating the company has not been able to show that Samsung's actions support a ban of its products. Apple is taking the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit along with "all other orders, rulings, findings, and conclusions underlying and related to that order," according to the court filing. Judge Koh stated Monday, "Apple's evidence does not establish that any of Apple's three design patents covers a particular feature that actually drives consumer demand." The judge's ruling came after a San Jose jury in August found Samsung violated six of Apple's patents and awarded a whopping $1 billion in damages. Jurors had sided with Apple in deciding that Samsung had violated key designs covering iPads and iPhones. Apple shares closed 0.87% lower at $521.73. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/12/20/apple-samsung-iphone-ipad-patents/1783017/
That one kid has worth. He/she may not be you, or your kid, or your sibling's, or your neighbors, but every human life has value, including a single one. God values that one kid. (Wrong site to bring up God I'm well aware,, but here we are.) It's incumbent upon a civilized society to do all it can to protect children from predators. Which kid do we sacrifice first?
> This is a start, and if it keeps ONE kid from being damaged, then imo it is worth it!
Is it, really? How many adults must suffer to prevent harm to one child? Give us an estimate please.
Three.
Yeah, I'm thinking about back in the day of old vcr's, I guess. On those, the clock and timer and counter leds were all separate. I'm old. :-(
Blinking 12:00 was a design defect. If I don't want another clock it should stay blank, not annoying. Modern microwaves finally got this.
Protip: Stick a 2" piece of electrical tape over the flashing 12:00. FTFY.
Any of you guys have a better solution??? This is a start, and if it keeps ONE kid from being damaged, then imo it is worth it! Now if anyone who feels that they are unjustly labled as a s.o., then they should be able to an appeal to clear their name. Until they are taken off the list, I'm playing the world's smallest violin just for them! They don't get to play WoW with little kids. End of discussion! By and large, the people on a s.o. list have done things that mean they cannot be trusted to be in some parts of society, including living near schoolyards, going online. Now I think once you've raped, kidnapped, robbed, used a weapon in any crime, or a host of other crimes I won't list you you should permanently give up a number of rights afforded other citizens. Tough titties!, as the mama cat said to her kittens when they complained their milk was too warm.
Read the article for your answer!
If you read tfa, a 12 year old boy was 'groomed' for a period of months by a sex offender using a Playstation. After gaining the youth's trust the sexual assaults began. Sex offenders do not belong around kids at all, it's too big a damn risk to take.
... internet service for life!? *ducks*