Try to read my earlier posts in this thread. I didnt say they were evil. What's evil? From their point of view it was a calculated risk, but a purely pragmatic one.
You're statement that "ordinary americans don't know what's going on" insinuates that there is some kind of conspiracy to keep them in the dark. Which is patently ridiculous. You didn't specifically use the word evil, but the implication is there.
I'm afraid your knee-jerk reaction very effectively reveals you to be the one with the narrow frame of mind.
I won't even bother with the straw man questions you put up which could easily be answered by a ten year old. Nice try, troll.
Most ordinary American people don't even know or understand what their government are doing, including (especially) most the ones who think they *do* know. The only problem we have with (some) ordinary Americans is their slavish tendency to believe whatever line of bullshit they are fed by the political and corporate establishment on Fox and CNN and disbelieve everybody else.
And just how is it that you know what "ordinary" Americans know? What is an ordinary American? Define that term.
How is it that you alone are able to see what others can't see?
How do we know that you aren't just slavishly believing everything you see on Bartcop?
To cut straight to the chase: I promise you that Washington's invasion of Iraq had nothing at all to do with liberating anyone and everything to do with gaining control of significant oil supplies in order to forestall an imminent and rapid worsening of the ongoing energy crisis.
If that's true, it would have been easier from a logistical and military standpoint to just invade Canada. Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't fall into your narrow political frame of mind that they aren't evil, they just disagree with you?
Mr. Sowell's bio;
Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina and grew up in Harlem. As with many others in his neighborhood, he left home early and did not finish high school. The next few years were difficult ones, but eventually he joined the Marine Corps and became a photographer in the Korean War. After leaving the service, Sowell entered Harvard University, worked a part-time job as a photographer and studied the science that would become his passion and profession: economics.
After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).
In the early '60s, Sowell held jobs as an economist with the Department of Labor and AT&T. But his real interest was in teaching and scholarship. In 1965, at Cornell University, he began the first of many professorships. His other teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles, where he taught in the early '70s and also from 1984 to 1989.
Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil rights to choosing the right college. Moreover, much of his writing is considered ground-breaking -- work that will outlive the great majority of scholarship done today.
Though Sowell had been a regular contributor to newspapers in the late '70s and early '80s, he did not begin his career as a newspaper columnist until 1984. George F. Will's writing, says Sowell, proved to him that someone could say something of substance in so short a space (750 words). And besides, writing for the general public enables him to address the heart of issues without the smoke and mirrors that so often accompany academic writing.
In 1990, he won the prestigious Francis Boyer Award, presented by The American Enterprise Institute.
Currently Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif.
I'd say that you are not only wrong in calling him an idiot, you are a virulent racist. (And a left wing idiot.)
A few things to remember about the National Rifle Association:
Translation, "A few things I've made up about the NRA;"
After Columbine, they organized a rally in Denver.
Wrong. The Denver meeting was already planned, organized and announced long before the Columbine shootings.
After the shooting in Flint, Michigan, they organized a rally in Flint.
Which shooting are you referring to? The little school kid who lived in a crack house?
There was no NRA rally organized there after that shooting.
It was founded the SAME YEAR that the Ku Klux Klan became an official terrorist organization.
The NRA was founded by Union Army officers who were appalled at the state of marksmanship skills displayed by recruits. The timing of the NRA's founding and the Klan's is irrelevant.
Unless you want to talk about how many more Democrats voted against the Civil Rights act of 64 than Republicans.
This isn't a gun safety organization. These are people who want to kill.
You aren't a person who wants to learn the truth of the matter. You are a person who prefers to propagate lies.
I bet you believe that Michael Moore is really a blue collar kinda guy too.
Has anyone considered the chain of custody of the "criminals" hard drive?
Most people in any place I've ever worked leave thier computer on all day long. They never lock the desktop and so anyone can get access to thier computer when they aren't there.
Now imagine a disgruntled employee or student getting access to that computer.
It's not hard to setup a newsreader to an Altopia account and have it download a chunk of alt.illegal.child-porn. You could set this up with a copy of X-news and delete the program without a trace once you were done. We are after all talking about a company owned computer. The control the user has over this machine is not as great as the control he has over his machine at home.
What if he/she pissed off one of the techs? Whatif the tech does a cut-n-paste to//lawprof/c$?
How would we ever know?
I've read the article and yes I know he plead guilty and went to jail.
But what happens if you go straight to the cops and the guy (or gal) is arrested immediately?
It won't matter at all if the person is later found innocent. That person will forever have a blotch on his reputation. In some states, like Michigan, being found "not guilty" doesn't get your named removed from some "sex offender" lists.
When I come across a computer that has a hard drive that is full to capacity, I don't go snooping for the reason immediately. There's no reason to go looking around in folders for "viruses" when a good AV program is available.
I usually inform the user that they have to move or delete some stuff off the drive before I can fix it. Now after the user has told me that they have moved everything off the drive and I'm still seeing a full disk, I'm going to go looking for a cause.
In this case DiskPieis your pal.
I do this because I know that some of that stuff is going to be personal stuff. Finding nude photo's of the CEO's wife on USENET is one thing. Finding them on his hard drive is uncomfortable.
I also work with users who have files that contain sensitive information about clients. I don't want to see that either.
Last but not least, I'm not a cop. I don't play one on TV. And I don't get paid to investigate peoples criminal behavior. If they blatantly hold up proof in front of me that they are doing something wrong, then they've made a problem for me and I will act accordingly. But I do not consider it my place to hunt through someone's hard drive looking for pron.I don't have Pete Townsends' attorneys.
You people are fucking losers. You cannot take a difference of opinion and censoring them (via these stupid "boycotts") only makes you look more pathetic than you actually are (which is, frankly, amazing).
What is really pathetic is watching you trying to wrap your mind around the concept of censorship.
Censorship is an action of government.
A boycott is an action of a private citizen. I am not a government. I refuse to financially support Susan Sarandon.
Susan Sarandon has every right to say what she wants to say. She has no right to expect those who find the things she says to support her.
It only goes to show that when push comes to shove, the morons in America let their true colors shine. Instead of engaging in discussion and debating things, people get all righteous and "boycott" anything that doesn't adhere to their limited narrow view of the world.
"Morons". "Limited narrow view of the world."
This would be an example of discussion and debating?
You are demonstrating what is called, "Argument from intimidation." You cannot handle that someone who thinks like you is being boycotted.
Instead of respecting my right to not support her work, you resort to name calling and what you think is intimidation.
As I've said before, if you fuckwits don't like freedom of speech, please move to Iran or North Korea where you will be welcomed with open arms by your philosophical counterparts.
Unlike one of us in this conversation, I've put body and soul between you and those who would make the world more like Iran and North Korea.
1. Where are the privacy geeks on this? The article says-
"The device is designed to empower a country's authorities with absolute control over the gun's life history, says Van Zyl. When the firearm is issued, it can be "loaded" with one or more authorised users' details. This data is stored in a fixed memory that cannot be changed. And it records each and every shot fired by the IFA."
If you support this, aren't you saying that the TIA is worth it? After all if it just saves one life or solves one crime...
2. How could this gun be accurate?
"The prototype uses a 10-barrel configuration, with two vertical rows of five bullets arranged side-by-side."
So your point of aim changes each and everytime you pull the trigger. Wonderful.
My Kimbers aimpoint never changes. Proper sight alignment puts me in the ten ring each and every time.
With this thing, you have to guess which barrel you are on and how much to adjust for with the sights. That's bad news for innocent bystanders.
- [I]If someone doesn't know that pulling a trigger on a gun is going to get somebody crippled or killed, then I don't think it's the gun that lacks intelligence.[/I]
Use that line to console any parent who has lost a child that was playing with a 'simple' gun. Go on, I dare you.
A parent who lets a child get it's hands on a loaded gun has the intelligence problem. You don't have to tell them that. They just have to remember what their child looked like when it died.
Are you proposing that guns like this peice of garbage be made mandatory to spare someone's feelings?
Wait till the recruits are in a real battle, watching the faces of the people they kill, having that nagging thought that they killed another human who probably didnt even want to be there fighting.
When you are advancing on a position, or someone is advancing on yours, it is unlikely that you will be considering whether or not the other guy wants to be there or not.
Your only thoughts will be on your training and getting out of the situation alive. If your enemy doesn't want to fight and die, he gets to surrender. If he doesn't surrender, he gets to die.
Can't get any simpler than that.
No game I've ever played could ever prepare you for that.
I doubt that the developers of "America's Army" were trying to prepare anyone for the experience of looking a guy in the eye while shoving a bayonet into his gut. There's no way to simulate the smell you get when his bowels loosen up or the stench of a lacerated liver when it's exposed to the air.
But if there was, the first company to produce such a simulator would probably make a billion dollars selling the game to 15yr old Play Station afficiandos.
Microsoft announced today they will be developing a new embedded operating system tentatively named, "Windows AK". This operating system, embedded in microchips will allow handgun users to identify themselves by logging into the handgun's grip. The account names and password will be built on existing WIN2k/NT technology. A gun owner would be able to create different accounts for his family members. Other features include a built in web browser and instant messaging.
It is only in cases where their position is completely bankrupt (teflon coated bullets, undetectable plastic handguns) do they ever seem to move from this tactic
There is no such thing as an undetectable plastic handgun.You are referring to the Glock and the models that have sprung from it's technology. The Glock's frame is made of plastic but the rest of it is made of metal.
Furthermore, the use of teflon on bullets is for lubrication. It doesn't change the ballistics or magically make them more dangerous. It does allow you to shoot a bullet with a harder jacket without wearing out your barrel.
Now that you've done all the heavy research, who's position is bankrupt?
and in each case their initial reaction is allways the same 'they are trying to take away your right own a gun'.
They aren't? The stated goal of most anti-gun activists is precisely that. They either come right out and say, "I would vote to take the right from al of you if I could" (Senator Maxine Waters)or they slowly steal them from you, like they did to New York city.
I find it sickening that you compare learning about perfectly normal bodily functions with watching horror movies.
There is no question that sexual intercourse is a perfectly normal bodily function. But allow me to set your straw man on fire with a dildo shaped flame thrower.
It's when you have to explain to an 8 year old why that man is hammering nails into that womans' breast, why that woman is defecating on that other woman or why that person has thier arm inserted up to the elbow in someones ass that is difficult. See, those aren't what anyone outside of a fetishist would call normal. Do you think that such a thing would enrich a child? Ever try to take a kid to see a "munch"? You aren't going to try and tell me that the only porn on the internet involves intercourse are you?
Trying to restrict information, images, language etc. does not make something go away. Don't pretend it does, that is just stupidity.
Trying to restrict information from a child is not the same as pretending that something doesn't exist. It's not stupid. It's called responsible parenting.
When my kid is 16, I won't be as upset about it as when he is 8. A 16 year old is probably more equipped to handle such information than a younger child. It's amazing that you can't see the difference. Unless it has something to do with your own age and maturity.
Personally, my son isn't going to get Internet access at home until he can prove his research prowess at the library and sustain high grades in math and science. Access is a privilege and must be earned. I don't understand why people think that a kid MUST have Internet access to survive. There's an old saying, "If you don't know how to do it, you don't know how to do it with a computer."
(Also, because of hormone-like food additives, girls occasionally hit puberty at 8 or 9. Do you want to keep them in the dark, or that they "learn" from a "nice uncle" with a bag of sweets in the park?)
What kind of parks do you hang out in? Please tell me how she's going to learn to protect herself by viewing the data offered on www.lolitasex.com. That isn't learning about sex. It certainly isn't liberation. If anything,it's indoctrination to make that "nice Uncle's" life easier.
Party A buys or leases a commodity from Party B.
Party B charges a fee to Party C for just looking at (or listening to)the commodity purchased by Party A.
Are the economic conditions in Finland so bad that the judiciary can be bought off this way?
A Good Moulage kit for disguises. A copy of "Steal This Book" for inspiration. A poster of Lysander Spooner. Gift certificates to local tattoo shoppes. A box of Zig Zags. A bottle of Jellied lantern fuel.
No it isn't. But the responses to this are enlightening. I remember how there was a great clamor to boycott and embargo DeClerk's South Africa. Anyone who had business interests there had to divest themselves. It was the "moral" thing to do. Divestiture was the same as saying, "We don't like how you run your country and we refuse to have anything to do with you." If a company or university didn't divest itself, it was ostracized and or boycotted until it did.
So for years, the US has had a policy regarding the exportation of certain kinds of technology to certain kinds of countries. These certain kinds of countries have a history of slaughtering thier own peasants and enslaving smaller countries. It was as much a "moral" statement as a political one.
Unfortunately, these countries are on Noam Chomsky's list of Approved Nations so people like you oppose opposing them.
Slashdot Mirror
That only Republicans use FUD to get votes?
Democrats: Vote or we’ll kick your ass
http://nypost.com/2014/10/30/d...
VP Biden Says Republicans Are ‘Going to Put Y’all Back in Chains’
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po...
Democrats ‘Shame’ Voters With Mailers
http://online.wsj.com/articles...
This thing needs modules.
Like a C-Cup simulator.
The "reach around and squeeze my buttocks during the hug" simulator should be a big seller too.
Was it Jamie S. Gorelick, Clinton appointee, who banned the sharing of information between the FBI and the CIA?- 6538r.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040429-122228
Why isn't anyone asking why the previous administration didn't take out Bin Laden when they were given a number of opportunities?
This is about Woodwards' new book isn't it? That he's hawking during an election? Oh. Well that explains everything.
You can go back to blaming Bush for everything now. It's all part of the marketing plan.
Try to read my earlier posts in this thread. I didnt say they were evil. What's evil? From their point of view it was a calculated risk, but a purely pragmatic one.
You're statement that "ordinary americans don't know what's going on" insinuates that there is some kind of conspiracy to keep them in the dark. Which is patently ridiculous. You didn't specifically use the word evil, but the implication is there.
I'm afraid your knee-jerk reaction very effectively reveals you to be the one with the narrow frame of mind.
I won't even bother with the straw man questions you put up which could easily be answered by a ten year old. Nice try, troll.
Thank you for making my point for me.
ralphclark (11346)wrote:
Most ordinary American people don't even know or understand what their government are doing, including (especially) most the ones who think they *do* know. The only problem we have with (some) ordinary Americans is their slavish tendency to believe whatever line of bullshit they are fed by the political and corporate establishment on Fox and CNN and disbelieve everybody else.
And just how is it that you know what "ordinary" Americans know? What is an ordinary American? Define that term.
How is it that you alone are able to see what others can't see?
How do we know that you aren't just slavishly believing everything you see on Bartcop?
To cut straight to the chase: I promise you that Washington's invasion of Iraq had nothing at all to do with liberating anyone and everything to do with gaining control of significant oil supplies in order to forestall an imminent and rapid worsening of the ongoing energy crisis.
If that's true, it would have been easier from a logistical and military standpoint to just invade Canada. Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't fall into your narrow political frame of mind that they aren't evil, they just disagree with you?
We should start a pool guessing how long until Slashdot reports that the City of Philadelphia has been K-Lined from Undernet and issued a UDP.
Mr. Sowell's bio;
Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina and grew up in Harlem. As with many others in his neighborhood, he left home early and did not finish high school. The next few years were difficult ones, but eventually he joined the Marine Corps and became a photographer in the Korean War. After leaving the service, Sowell entered Harvard University, worked a part-time job as a photographer and studied the science that would become his passion and profession: economics.
After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).
In the early '60s, Sowell held jobs as an economist with the Department of Labor and AT&T. But his real interest was in teaching and scholarship. In 1965, at Cornell University, he began the first of many professorships. His other teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles, where he taught in the early '70s and also from 1984 to 1989.
Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil rights to choosing the right college. Moreover, much of his writing is considered ground-breaking -- work that will outlive the great majority of scholarship done today.
Though Sowell had been a regular contributor to newspapers in the late '70s and early '80s, he did not begin his career as a newspaper columnist until 1984. George F. Will's writing, says Sowell, proved to him that someone could say something of substance in so short a space (750 words). And besides, writing for the general public enables him to address the heart of issues without the smoke and mirrors that so often accompany academic writing.
In 1990, he won the prestigious Francis Boyer Award, presented by The American Enterprise Institute.
Currently Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif.
I'd say that you are not only wrong in calling him an idiot, you are a virulent racist. (And a left wing idiot.)
A few things to remember about the National Rifle Association:
Translation, "A few things I've made up about the NRA;"
After Columbine, they organized a rally in Denver.
Wrong. The Denver meeting was already planned, organized and announced long before the Columbine shootings.
After the shooting in Flint, Michigan, they organized a rally in Flint.
Which shooting are you referring to? The little school kid who lived in a crack house?
There was no NRA rally organized there after that shooting.
It was founded the SAME YEAR that the Ku Klux Klan became an official terrorist organization.
The NRA was founded by Union Army officers who were appalled at the state of marksmanship skills displayed by recruits. The timing of the NRA's founding and the Klan's is irrelevant.
Unless you want to talk about how many more Democrats voted against the Civil Rights act of 64 than Republicans.
This isn't a gun safety organization. These are people who want to kill.
You aren't a person who wants to learn the truth of the matter. You are a person who prefers to propagate lies.
I bet you believe that Michael Moore is really a blue collar kinda guy too.
Why not?
Oh. You don't want a Black Doctor?
Q: "Are you refusing to cooperate?"
A: "No. Please get your supervisor on the line. Now."
"I'm sorry sir, the supervisor is too busy to talk to you." -
An actual Dell "Customer Care" specialist, to me last month.
Has anyone considered the chain of custody of the "criminals" hard drive?
Most people in any place I've ever worked leave thier computer on all day long. They never lock the desktop and so anyone can get access to thier computer when they aren't there.
Now imagine a disgruntled employee or student getting access to that computer.
It's not hard to setup a newsreader to an Altopia account and have it download a chunk of alt.illegal.child-porn. You could set this up with a copy of X-news and delete the program without a trace once you were done. We are after all talking about a company owned computer. The control the user has over this machine is not as great as the control he has over his machine at home.
What if he/she pissed off one of the techs? Whatif the tech does a cut-n-paste to //lawprof/c$?
How would we ever know?
I've read the article and yes I know he plead guilty and went to jail. But what happens if you go straight to the cops and the guy (or gal) is arrested immediately?
It won't matter at all if the person is later found innocent. That person will forever have a blotch on his reputation. In some states, like Michigan, being found "not guilty" doesn't get your named removed from some "sex offender" lists.
When I come across a computer that has a hard drive that is full to capacity, I don't go snooping for the reason immediately. There's no reason to go looking around in folders for "viruses" when a good AV program is available.
I usually inform the user that they have to move or delete some stuff off the drive before I can fix it. Now after the user has told me that they have moved everything off the drive and I'm still seeing a full disk, I'm going to go looking for a cause. In this case DiskPieis your pal.I do this because I know that some of that stuff is going to be personal stuff. Finding nude photo's of the CEO's wife on USENET is one thing. Finding them on his hard drive is uncomfortable. I also work with users who have files that contain sensitive information about clients. I don't want to see that either.
Last but not least, I'm not a cop. I don't play one on TV. And I don't get paid to investigate peoples criminal behavior. If they blatantly hold up proof in front of me that they are doing something wrong, then they've made a problem for me and I will act accordingly. But I do not consider it my place to hunt through someone's hard drive looking for pron.I don't have Pete Townsends' attorneys.
You people are fucking losers. You cannot take a difference of opinion and censoring them (via these stupid "boycotts") only makes you look more pathetic than you actually are (which is, frankly, amazing).
What is really pathetic is watching you trying to wrap your mind around the concept of censorship.
Censorship is an action of government.
A boycott is an action of a private citizen. I am not a government. I refuse to financially support Susan Sarandon.
Susan Sarandon has every right to say what she wants to say. She has no right to expect those who find the things she says to support her.
It only goes to show that when push comes to shove, the morons in America let their true colors shine. Instead of engaging in discussion and debating things, people get all righteous and "boycott" anything that doesn't adhere to their limited narrow view of the world.
"Morons". "Limited narrow view of the world."
This would be an example of discussion and debating?
You are demonstrating what is called, "Argument from intimidation." You cannot handle that someone who thinks like you is being boycotted.
Instead of respecting my right to not support her work, you resort to name calling and what you think is intimidation.
As I've said before, if you fuckwits don't like freedom of speech, please move to Iran or North Korea where you will be welcomed with open arms by your philosophical counterparts.
Unlike one of us in this conversation, I've put body and soul between you and those who would make the world more like Iran and North Korea.
Too bad Susan Sarandon is in it.
I would have liked to have watched it.
1. Where are the privacy geeks on this? The article says-
"The device is designed to empower a country's authorities with absolute control over the gun's life history, says Van Zyl. When the firearm is issued, it can be "loaded" with one or more authorised users' details. This data is stored in a fixed memory that cannot be changed. And it records each and every shot fired by the IFA."
If you support this, aren't you saying that the TIA is worth it? After all if it just saves one life or solves one crime...
2. How could this gun be accurate?
"The prototype uses a 10-barrel configuration, with two vertical rows of five bullets arranged side-by-side."
So your point of aim changes each and everytime you pull the trigger. Wonderful.
My Kimbers aimpoint never changes. Proper sight alignment puts me in the ten ring each and every time.
With this thing, you have to guess which barrel you are on and how much to adjust for with the sights. That's bad news for innocent bystanders.
A parent who lets a child get it's hands on a loaded gun has the intelligence problem. You don't have to tell them that. They just have to remember what their child looked like when it died.
Are you proposing that guns like this peice of garbage be made mandatory to spare someone's feelings?
Will Blog for Ammo!
"Sendmail Bug Causes Global Worming!"
Sorry.
Wait till the recruits are in a real battle, watching the faces of the people they kill, having that nagging thought that they killed another human who probably didnt even want to be there fighting.
When you are advancing on a position, or someone is advancing on yours, it is unlikely that you will be considering whether or not the other guy wants to be there or not.
Your only thoughts will be on your training and getting out of the situation alive. If your enemy doesn't want to fight and die, he gets to surrender. If he doesn't surrender, he gets to die.
Can't get any simpler than that.
No game I've ever played could ever prepare you for that.
I doubt that the developers of "America's Army" were trying to prepare anyone for the experience of looking a guy in the eye while shoving a bayonet into his gut. There's no way to simulate the smell you get when his bowels loosen up or the stench of a lacerated liver when it's exposed to the air.
But if there was, the first company to produce such a simulator would probably make a billion dollars selling the game to 15yr old Play Station afficiandos.
Microsoft announced today they will be developing a new embedded operating system tentatively named, "Windows AK". This operating system, embedded in microchips will allow handgun users to identify themselves by logging into the handgun's grip. The account names and password will be built on existing WIN2k/NT technology. A gun owner would be able to create different accounts for his family members. Other features include a built in web browser and instant messaging.
There is no such thing as an undetectable plastic handgun.You are referring to the Glock and the models that have sprung from it's technology. The Glock's frame is made of plastic but the rest of it is made of metal.
Furthermore, the use of teflon on bullets is for lubrication. It doesn't change the ballistics or magically make them more dangerous. It does allow you to shoot a bullet with a harder jacket without wearing out your barrel.
Now that you've done all the heavy research, who's position is bankrupt?
and in each case their initial reaction is allways the same 'they are trying to take away your right own a gun'.
They aren't? The stated goal of most anti-gun activists is precisely that. They either come right out and say, "I would vote to take the right from al of you if I could" (Senator Maxine Waters)or they slowly steal them from you, like they did to New York city.
There is no question that sexual intercourse is a perfectly normal bodily function. But allow me to set your straw man on fire with a dildo shaped flame thrower.
It's when you have to explain to an 8 year old why that man is hammering nails into that womans' breast, why that woman is defecating on that other woman or why that person has thier arm inserted up to the elbow in someones ass that is difficult. See, those aren't what anyone outside of a fetishist would call normal. Do you think that such a thing would enrich a child? Ever try to take a kid to see a "munch"? You aren't going to try and tell me that the only porn on the internet involves intercourse are you?
Trying to restrict information, images, language etc. does not make something go away. Don't pretend it does, that is just stupidity.
Trying to restrict information from a child is not the same as pretending that something doesn't exist. It's not stupid. It's called responsible parenting.
When my kid is 16, I won't be as upset about it as when he is 8. A 16 year old is probably more equipped to handle such information than a younger child. It's amazing that you can't see the difference. Unless it has something to do with your own age and maturity.
Personally, my son isn't going to get Internet access at home until he can prove his research prowess at the library and sustain high grades in math and science. Access is a privilege and must be earned. I don't understand why people think that a kid MUST have Internet access to survive. There's an old saying, "If you don't know how to do it, you don't know how to do it with a computer."
(Also, because of hormone-like food additives, girls occasionally hit puberty at 8 or 9. Do you want to keep them in the dark, or that they "learn" from a "nice uncle" with a bag of sweets in the park?)
What kind of parks do you hang out in? Please tell me how she's going to learn to protect herself by viewing the data offered on www.lolitasex.com. That isn't learning about sex. It certainly isn't liberation. If anything,it's indoctrination to make that "nice Uncle's" life easier.
Party A buys or leases a commodity from Party B. Party B charges a fee to Party C for just looking at (or listening to)the commodity purchased by Party A.
Are the economic conditions in Finland so bad that the judiciary can be bought off this way?
A Good Moulage kit for disguises.
A copy of "Steal This Book" for inspiration.
A poster of Lysander Spooner.
Gift certificates to local tattoo shoppes.
A box of Zig Zags.
A bottle of Jellied lantern fuel.
Is the US God?
No it isn't. But the responses to this are enlightening. I remember how there was a great clamor to boycott and embargo DeClerk's South Africa. Anyone who had business interests there had to divest themselves. It was the "moral" thing to do. Divestiture was the same as saying, "We don't like how you run your country and we refuse to have anything to do with you." If a company or university didn't divest itself, it was ostracized and or boycotted until it did.
So for years, the US has had a policy regarding the exportation of certain kinds of technology to certain kinds of countries. These certain kinds of countries have a history of slaughtering thier own peasants and enslaving smaller countries. It was as much a "moral" statement as a political one.
Unfortunately, these countries are on Noam Chomsky's list of Approved Nations so people like you oppose opposing them.