Hint: The reason children bully isn't because they simply don't and 'can't' understand they're doing something wrong. We also already expect children to understand it's wrong to murder, rape, stab, steal and more. It's hardly a stretch to say, OK, physically punching someone is wrong. We also teach them that various wrong things are wrong, whereas bullying we do not - we simply shrug and say 'kids will be kids' - you seem to honestly bizarrely and absurdly think that the only available options are 'scarlet As', and doing absolutely nothing like we do now. (If I were to venture a guess, I'd guess you bullied someone at school... in which case of course you'd feel that way.) I won't even being to address the idiocy of your 'scarlet A' comment.. don't waste our time with straw men, thanks.
Should the police and the courts be given the appropriate amount of time to determine if there is sufficient evidence, or if a crime has in fact been committed
In theory yes, but the problem with bullying is that the legal system doesn't protect it sufficiently.. there is this double standard. The exact same behaviors that would be considered criminal just a few years later is dismissed as 'normal' (and you're told to 'ignore it') at school level. This is primarily when vigilantism becomes attractive - when the formal justice system fails to protect victims.
What should happen is that more forms of bullying should be criminalized, and the penalties should be harsher - e.g. physical assault should be treated more often as an adult crime and teens should be tried as adults for committing physical assault. And as with committing crime as an adult, there should be harsher consequences that follow you through life. Currently when leaving school, there are no negative consequences for bullies at all - not even a modicum of shame in the workplace (this is why I support more 'name and shame' efforts for even past bullies).
Unfortunately, much like battered wife syndrome, without formal recourse, desperate victims are sometimes forced and driven to either tragically commit suicide, or occasionally, take out their own tormentors in the worst cases (e.g. some school shootings). At least in the latter, if there is a silver lining, it's that there is some manner of repercussion for the perpetrators - that is what is sorely needed.
You can't really be this stupid? What about the soldiers on the receiving side of the "offense", should they best not carry guns? For every "offense" there is someone being attacked. You are surely just trolling, because nobody can be that stupid.
This is why I think training is important... if you're serious about carrying a gun for self-defense, you should also be serious about practicing regularly (doing defensive-use gun courses if you can), and getting into the mindset, so that it's easier when you're in a situation. (Sometimes you're lucky and just drawing the gun is enough to make attackers retreat - but one shouldn't rely on luck.) Your "best bet" is also not just to aim and hope you hit "something", but to try something like the "two to the chest, one to the head" mantra.
No mentally stable, non-self-loathing woman with options will choose to be come a prostitute.
If this was true though (it isn't), then why are you so scared to legalize it? Since if it's true, then legalizing it would make little difference as it wouldn't be entered into voluntarily. It seems what you're afraid (as that's the only reason to apply force) is that some mentally stable women with options will indeed choose prostitution.
The problem is that the happy hooker is a lie, pretty woman is not reality-TV. No mentally stable, non-self-loathing woman with options will choose to be come a prostitute.
I won't necessarily accuse you of lying, but multiple studies show the opposite of what you claim in places where prostitution has been legalized (most of the negative aspects of prostitution are precisely because it's illegal):
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16398/ "Sex workers interviewed in 2003 (after legalisation) were compared to a prior study of this population conducted in 1991 (before official regulation of the sex industry)."... "Overall, the sex workers reported roughly equivalent job satisfaction to Australian women" I.e. legalized prostitution workers have the same job satisfaction as other working women.
http://newswire.uark.edu/article.aspx?id=16181 “The findings suggest that these women are not forced into the prostitution market but rather choose to enter it for many of the same reasons that people enter the conventional job market – money, stability, autonomy and even job satisfaction.”
Actually it would probably mostly just kill off all the technician's spermies, but for most datacenter technicians that probably wouldn't be an issue anyway
Even a moderately isolated and shielded data center that sticks to mostly directional transmission should have none of these problems. Look up omnidirectional vs directional antenna. Considering that even off the shelf 802.11ac in the appropriate configuration can offer speeds of nearly 7Gbit/s I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac) I somehow think you're not really understanding the nature of what is being discussed, I don't see why this should be an issue. They aren't talking about shoving a pile of cheap omnidirectional home routers in the data center.
You don't understand how it works. Your radio causes vibrations and oscillations in the same magnetic harmonic frequencies as the transmission. These vibrations upset the natural rest state oscillation harmonics present in All Living Things, these negative and deathly vibrations cause cancer. Life Crystals oscillating in the same Resonant Frequencies absorb these energies and give off life-giving restorative vibrations.
RTFA - "Biodegradable fiber optic" does make "the tiniest shred of difference" when you're talking about microscopic medical communications devices within the body. Unless you think it makes no difference to just leave strands of ordinary glass fiber all over your internals?
This won't be easily manufactured on a large scale. It will not be as fast as fiber optics or electricity. It will degrade during use.
Lol, you didn't even read the article did you? One of the features is that could "degrade during use" because one of their envisioned applications is using it for communications for medical devices and/or medical imaging within the body (as e.g. it's far thinner than fiber and can be broken down and re-absorbed by the body). And for this application is doesn't need to be as fast.
That threat is present in virtually all prostitution
You know what's really a threat of bodily harm? A bunch of cops pointing their guns at a prostitute and forcefully arresting her in order to throw her in a cage.
Bodily harm is already illegal... so if a customer assaulted a prostitute, and prostitution were legal, then as with anything else it would be a simple matter of prosecute the person who committed the assault.
This is like saying ban florists because occasionally florists get assaulted.
What's even worse is that prostitutes are often victimized by the police too (or taken advantage of, e.g. forced to trade sexual favors etc.). Legalizing prostitution would also help to address that problem.
Prostitution is a victimless crime (that is why it MUST ultimately be legalized if we're ever to live in a moral society - we cannot continue to barbarically throw innocent girls in jail in name of "justice"). It also makes publishing the list nothing but an assault on innocent people.
Yes, the most interesting thing to note is how Western leaders like Gillard stand up not in defense of the individual liberties of the citizens they claim to represent, but against them. "WE need," she claims, "to clamp down on OUR OWN citizens liberties"... this is just an excuse for further consolidation of power and restrictions of rights.
That's the part I don't get, how does a gun protect?
If guns can't help protect you then why do cops carry them? Why do soldiers need to carry them?
Unless you happen to be able to hit the bullet the aggressor fires at you, it's not really a good item for defense.
Here are just a small subset of people who are only alive today because a gun is a good item for defense: http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense/.. maybe you can ask them.
Question for you, if you have a daughter someday, would you insist and prefer that she walk around unarmed and defenseless against rapists and other attackers?
If you think that using a gun makes you a man, you're a very small man indeed.
Let me confirm, you are saying a man who protects and defends the lives of his wife and children is "a very small man indeed"? I don't know, I guess I work on a different definition.
The government has no business trying to reduce obesity.
It is the business of the farmer to keep his cattle healthy, in order to maximize the productive value of his stock. Whether the cattle enjoy freedom is irrelevant to the farmer.
Some school districts are already enforcing the use of cattle tracking technologies to track children. How much clearer can the farmers make it for us. Moo..
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies
The only time these two individuals ever did anything related to the chain of events was when they friended, or accepted a friend request, from this choir group in the first place. If you're saying that they shouldn't have done that unless they were 'ready and willing' to own, that's fine.
Lol, you don't even know what the central point of the article is, but that doesn't stop you from blowing massive amounts of hot air. This isn't how it works - you don't have to "accept" these requests, in fact, you don't even get informed that you're being added to the group - you just quietly and automatically become a member of the group when a friend adds you. You might only even notice it months later when you go edit your 'groups'. And you can't even turn it off.
Slashdot Mirror
On re-read, I see I even wrote "teens" in my original post, it wasn't even ambiguous ... so Chirs is actually probably just trolling.
Thanks, I was about to post that that was just a lame strawman. It's not even worthy of a response.
Hint: The reason children bully isn't because they simply don't and 'can't' understand they're doing something wrong. We also already expect children to understand it's wrong to murder, rape, stab, steal and more. It's hardly a stretch to say, OK, physically punching someone is wrong. We also teach them that various wrong things are wrong, whereas bullying we do not - we simply shrug and say 'kids will be kids' - you seem to honestly bizarrely and absurdly think that the only available options are 'scarlet As', and doing absolutely nothing like we do now. (If I were to venture a guess, I'd guess you bullied someone at school ... in which case of course you'd feel that way.) I won't even being to address the idiocy of your 'scarlet A' comment .. don't waste our time with straw men, thanks.
Should the police and the courts be given the appropriate amount of time to determine if there is sufficient evidence, or if a crime has in fact been committed
In theory yes, but the problem with bullying is that the legal system doesn't protect it sufficiently .. there is this double standard. The exact same behaviors that would be considered criminal just a few years later is dismissed as 'normal' (and you're told to 'ignore it') at school level. This is primarily when vigilantism becomes attractive - when the formal justice system fails to protect victims.
What should happen is that more forms of bullying should be criminalized, and the penalties should be harsher - e.g. physical assault should be treated more often as an adult crime and teens should be tried as adults for committing physical assault. And as with committing crime as an adult, there should be harsher consequences that follow you through life. Currently when leaving school, there are no negative consequences for bullies at all - not even a modicum of shame in the workplace (this is why I support more 'name and shame' efforts for even past bullies).
Unfortunately, much like battered wife syndrome, without formal recourse, desperate victims are sometimes forced and driven to either tragically commit suicide, or occasionally, take out their own tormentors in the worst cases (e.g. some school shootings). At least in the latter, if there is a silver lining, it's that there is some manner of repercussion for the perpetrators - that is what is sorely needed.
For offence, you numbnut.
You can't really be this stupid? What about the soldiers on the receiving side of the "offense", should they best not carry guns? For every "offense" there is someone being attacked. You are surely just trolling, because nobody can be that stupid.
This is why I think training is important ... if you're serious about carrying a gun for self-defense, you should also be serious about practicing regularly (doing defensive-use gun courses if you can), and getting into the mindset, so that it's easier when you're in a situation. (Sometimes you're lucky and just drawing the gun is enough to make attackers retreat - but one shouldn't rely on luck.) Your "best bet" is also not just to aim and hope you hit "something", but to try something like the "two to the chest, one to the head" mantra.
No mentally stable, non-self-loathing woman with options will choose to be come a prostitute.
If this was true though (it isn't), then why are you so scared to legalize it? Since if it's true, then legalizing it would make little difference as it wouldn't be entered into voluntarily. It seems what you're afraid (as that's the only reason to apply force) is that some mentally stable women with options will indeed choose prostitution.
The problem is that the happy hooker is a lie, pretty woman is not reality-TV. No mentally stable, non-self-loathing woman with options will choose to be come a prostitute.
I won't necessarily accuse you of lying, but multiple studies show the opposite of what you claim in places where prostitution has been legalized (most of the negative aspects of prostitution are precisely because it's illegal):
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16398/ ... "Overall, the sex workers reported roughly equivalent job satisfaction to Australian women"
"Sex workers interviewed in 2003 (after legalisation) were compared to a prior study of this population conducted in 1991 (before official regulation of the sex industry)."
I.e. legalized prostitution workers have the same job satisfaction as other working women.
http://newswire.uark.edu/article.aspx?id=16181
“The findings suggest that these women are not forced into the prostitution market but rather choose to enter it for many of the same reasons that people enter the conventional job market – money, stability, autonomy and even job satisfaction.”
Yeah, I guess the fact that it could save your life is not that important compared to the concerns you raise.
I was going to suggest a brown ribbon for prostate cancer awareness.
Interestingly though, I see someone already picked light blue ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer#Society_and_culture
Actually it would probably mostly just kill off all the technician's spermies, but for most datacenter technicians that probably wouldn't be an issue anyway
Even a moderately isolated and shielded data center that sticks to mostly directional transmission should have none of these problems. Look up omnidirectional vs directional antenna. Considering that even off the shelf 802.11ac in the appropriate configuration can offer speeds of nearly 7Gbit/s I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac) I somehow think you're not really understanding the nature of what is being discussed, I don't see why this should be an issue. They aren't talking about shoving a pile of cheap omnidirectional home routers in the data center.
You don't understand how it works. Your radio causes vibrations and oscillations in the same magnetic harmonic frequencies as the transmission. These vibrations upset the natural rest state oscillation harmonics present in All Living Things, these negative and deathly vibrations cause cancer. Life Crystals oscillating in the same Resonant Frequencies absorb these energies and give off life-giving restorative vibrations.
RTFA - "Biodegradable fiber optic" does make "the tiniest shred of difference" when you're talking about microscopic medical communications devices within the body. Unless you think it makes no difference to just leave strands of ordinary glass fiber all over your internals?
This won't be easily manufactured on a large scale. It will not be as fast as fiber optics or electricity. It will degrade during use.
Lol, you didn't even read the article did you? One of the features is that could "degrade during use" because one of their envisioned applications is using it for communications for medical devices and/or medical imaging within the body (as e.g. it's far thinner than fiber and can be broken down and re-absorbed by the body). And for this application is doesn't need to be as fast.
That threat is present in virtually all prostitution
You know what's really a threat of bodily harm? A bunch of cops pointing their guns at a prostitute and forcefully arresting her in order to throw her in a cage.
Bodily harm is already illegal ... so if a customer assaulted a prostitute, and prostitution were legal, then as with anything else it would be a simple matter of prosecute the person who committed the assault.
This is like saying ban florists because occasionally florists get assaulted.
What's even worse is that prostitutes are often victimized by the police too (or taken advantage of, e.g. forced to trade sexual favors etc.). Legalizing prostitution would also help to address that problem.
Prostitution is a victimless crime (that is why it MUST ultimately be legalized if we're ever to live in a moral society - we cannot continue to barbarically throw innocent girls in jail in name of "justice"). It also makes publishing the list nothing but an assault on innocent people.
Yes, the most interesting thing to note is how Western leaders like Gillard stand up not in defense of the individual liberties of the citizens they claim to represent, but against them. "WE need," she claims, "to clamp down on OUR OWN citizens liberties" ... this is just an excuse for further consolidation of power and restrictions of rights.
That's the part I don't get, how does a gun protect?
If guns can't help protect you then why do cops carry them? Why do soldiers need to carry them?
Unless you happen to be able to hit the bullet the aggressor fires at you, it's not really a good item for defense.
Here are just a small subset of people who are only alive today because a gun is a good item for defense: http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense/ .. maybe you can ask them.
Question for you, if you have a daughter someday, would you insist and prefer that she walk around unarmed and defenseless against rapists and other attackers?
If you think that using a gun makes you a man, you're a very small man indeed.
Let me confirm, you are saying a man who protects and defends the lives of his wife and children is "a very small man indeed"? I don't know, I guess I work on a different definition.
The government has no business trying to reduce obesity.
It is the business of the farmer to keep his cattle healthy, in order to maximize the productive value of his stock. Whether the cattle enjoy freedom is irrelevant to the farmer.
Some school districts are already enforcing the use of cattle tracking technologies to track children. How much clearer can the farmers make it for us. Moo ..
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies
Unfortunately we got both.
The only time these two individuals ever did anything related to the chain of events was when they friended, or accepted a friend request, from this choir group in the first place. If you're saying that they shouldn't have done that unless they were 'ready and willing' to own, that's fine.
Lol, you don't even know what the central point of the article is, but that doesn't stop you from blowing massive amounts of hot air. This isn't how it works - you don't have to "accept" these requests, in fact, you don't even get informed that you're being added to the group - you just quietly and automatically become a member of the group when a friend adds you. You might only even notice it months later when you go edit your 'groups'. And you can't even turn it off.