If by "experience" you mean being molested by someone and/or having sexually explicit photos taken of them for distribution to other molesters for wanking purposes, then yeah, I'm pretty intent on protecting them from that type of experience.
I could not have said it better myself. But I'm going to try anyway.
Science is comprised of those conjectures that can be falsified but which have withstood any and all attempts to do so. A conjecture that is not testable cannot be falsified and is therefore not part of science. The testable conjectures that cannot be falsified, no matter how hard we try, are what we call scientific theories. Science is a method of finding the truth by excluding all that is not true. Consensus has nothing to do with it.
So when someone starts talking about consensus in science, they are demonstrating not only their own ignorance of the topic at hand, but of the philosophy of science itself.
Only dogma, superstition, and untestable ideologies claim consensus, which is really nothing more than implied peer pressure, to back up their claims. Appeals to the crowd or to false authority are logical fallacies and are fundamentally invalid.
The reason is that most of the people who enjoy the rights and freedoms that come with being an American have never had to fight for them. They see their fundamental human rights as an indulgence from the state. They see themselves not as citizens but as subjects.
The lessons of the past are lost on the present because the struggles and challenges that served to teach those lessons are no longer with us.
If the average American had to fight and kill to be free, this kind of bullshit would be gone.
Level 2 is small things that are considered to be morally bad but did not harm anyone such as child pornography. Which has 2 years of tracking and is not wiped off your record but would not be publicly listed.
Are you out of your fucking mind???????
Child pornography is the sexual equivalent of snuff films. To say that it does not hurt anyone is dishonest in the extreme.
People who traffic in child pornography are a party to the abuse that created it and should be punished accordingly.
In normal criminal cases of any significance it is a JURY that convicts, not a judge. Bench trials are the exception. The judge has an incentive to throw the book at the creep during sentencing. He also has an incentive to avoid having his rulings or the trial itself overturned on appeal. He is the referee, not an offensive lineman.
What you write about judges is true about prosecutors however. They don't care about the truth, only about whether they have a case that they can convince a jury with. They are LAWYERS, legal mercenaries. If they cared about the truth they'd be philosophers.
Please have the honesty to be consistent about the lies you repeat.
"Global Warming" does not mean climate change of any kind. It especially does not mean Global cooling.
If "Climate Change" is the new canard then it sounds to me like the crypto-marxist pseudo-environmentalists have modified their scam.
Unable to defeat freedom and capitalism through economic arguments, they switched to pseudo-environmentalism. The screamed to all who would listen that the earth was dying and that it was all our fault and the only solution was policies that would prevent the retard the spread of free markets into 3rd world nations, thereby preventing them from developing into healthy, thriving democracies with strong economies. All in the hope that their true religion, communism, would make a comeback before freedom and democracy became undefeatable around the world.
Now that their disingenuous bullshit is failing to correspond with reality, they're moving the goal posts yet again and working to cook up a new fraud to perpetrate.
The useful idiots will always be fooled, and some people will be fooled temporarily, but the left will never be able to fool everyone.
Now maybe it is just me, but doesn't it seem plausible that a huge ball of nuclear fire situated somewhere nearby might be causing changes to the earth's climate?
I don't know what you would call this object, and I don't think there is any evidence that it exists, but if it did exist then slight changes in its energy output would probably result in changes to earth's climate as well.
I know this sounds completely insane. I mean there aren't any such object out there right?
Yet another weapon that can be used to beat kids over the head.
If I were one of these kids I'd refuse the laptop. I wouldn't want anything to do with a tool intended to limit what I had access to and punish me for being more intelligent than my state-employed babysitters.
I'm 36 years old by the way and I'm not living in my parent's basement either. Just because I'm not a kid anymore doesn't mean I subscribe to the school of thought that says kids need to be "protected" from most things. That is a cowardly cop-out from parents who cannot be bothered to raise their children. If parents set a good example for their children and work to teach them what is right, then what those kids might find online or see in a movie or hear in a song will be all but irrelevant.
Kids need parents, not arbitrary proscriptions on what they can look at.
Drugs make you stupid, they interfere with your ability to think clearly. Many damage a person's sense of self and objectivity. There is no upside to be had by taking them. They will also get you arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated.
If someone is stupid enough to be carrying drugs while driving around in a vehicle that shows up as a bogie on a cop's internal radar then I have no sympathy.
I have a friend who has many stories to tell of his misadventures as the driver of a VW Bus with a huge deadhead sticker on the back. Cops pulled him over several times a month and always asked if he had any weapons or drugs on him. As soon as he stopped driving a perp-mobile and self-advertising as a probable dope fiend, they stopped paying attention to him. He bought a truck and has not been pulled over in almost 5 years now.
If someone gets busted from a "random" traffic stop, odds are they were attracting the wrong kind of attention. Doing drugs is stupid, but if you're going to be that kind of stupid, at least be smart about it and don't advertise the fact that you're a loser.
If you're looking to back up Unix, Mac, and Windows systems, then check out Bacula:
http://www.bacula.org/en/
I've got this running on 7 systems at work. Some use tapes, while others back up to a RAID array. It is fast, stable, and robust. It does not rely on Samba, NFS, or any other services. It has its own file and storage daemons. It will also do VSS backups of Windows clients, allowing open files to be backed up.
The only way to solve the problem of irresponsible behavior is to ensure that the full impact of the consequences of that behavior falls upon that person or persons.
The problem is that civilization trumps natural selection. Humans that would otherwise have perished are protected from the consequences of their own folly and encouraged to breed. Over time the impact of these useless lemmings builds up until the civilization is either conquered from without, or collapses from within.
Hopefully genetic engineering will solve this problem, but we're not there yet.
This is what happens when society's understanding of responsibility becomes corrupted.
Communist 5th columnists have been working very hard to poison our society with the notion of "group responsibility." Instead of individuals being responsible for their actions alone, secondary and tertiary participants in that action are made to shoulder the blame as well, regardless of whether they were aware of their participation or not.
When Chernobyl blew up, everyone who worked at the plant was punished, even people who were not there at the time and had absolutely no responsibility for the disaster whatsoever. The concept of "group responsibility" was and is a central part of communist ideology. In the Soviet Union it kept everyone paranoid and distrustful, making the society as a whole easier for the thugs at the top to abuse and oppress.
The same insanity has been creeping into our society as well. Suing a store because it sold a perfectly legal device to someone who then used it to commit a crime is absurd and abusive. That case should have been dismissed with prejudice and the lawyer representing the plaintiff censured, if not disbarred.
Anytime someone starts talking about the benefits of legalizing ALL drugs, I always think back to what happened in China because of opium.
That being said, there is a difference between legalization in the sense of society and the state endorsing the use of something, and legalization in the sense of it simply being something that you won't be hauled off to jail for.
The use of hard drugs should NEVER be socially acceptable because such use is NOT harmless.
It should also be noted that it is not the laws against drug use that keep most people from messing with drugs, but the understanding that being a drug user is a dirty shameful obscene thing to be. The old saying that "only losers use drugs" carries a lot of punch. When society forgets this fact, drugs become a much larger problem. That is what happened in China, and it nearly destroyed them. They were so bad off that falling under the jackboot of a communist thugocracy was actually an improvement. The communists solved the heroin problem by dragging the people involved in it AND THEIR ENTIRE FAMILY out into the street and shooting them in the back of the head. Now obviously that was evil, but it was also highly effective.
It should also be noted that the drug laws aren't about the substances themselves, but about the kinds of people who use them. The law doesn't try to prohibit heroin, it tries to prohibit the kind of person who would use heroin. This is an important distinction. The law against speeding attempts to prevent the action of driving too fast. The drug laws attempt to eliminate a particular state of being, that of the drug-user. This is why laws against drugs like Marijuana are still on the books. The drug itself isn't what inspires these laws, but the public perception of the kinds of people who use the drug. The word Pothead doesn't bring to mind a respectable citizen. The word causes most people to imagine a high school dropout sitting in his parent's basement getting high all day. That kind of a person is undesirable in the extreme. But you can't just outlaw useless idiot losers, so instead society outlaws the substance that is associated with them and that is believe to make them into losers.
As for hard drugs, just let the idiots kill themselves with them. If you give a meth user enough meth, the problem solves itself, especially if that meth user has not had any children.
The problem with drugs like meth and crack is not that they kill, but that they take too long to do it and create too much collateral damage. The best thing to do with meth addicts is to shine a bright spotlight on them so that they might serve as a warning to others. These drugs are nothing but a slow-motion Darwin Award.
Illicit Drugs: The synthetic alternative to natural selection.
Now that I realize that Sarah Palin is unaware of the benefits of esoteric research into the lifecycle of the fruit fly, I have no choice but to vote for Obama/Biden.
Obama may be a dyed in the wool hard core crypto-marxist with deep ties to communist terrorists, organized voter fraud, and campaign finance fraud, and Biden may be a leftist flunkie, but there is no way I can vote for a candidate who can't appreciate the significance of fruit fly research to the public good.
In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve.
The idea of censoring the internet, especially for the laughable justification that its "for the children" simply indicates to me that the people of Australia need to start taking responsibility for their government and elect candidates who will not pull this kind of crap.
Don't get fooled into thinking that "the government" did this. It was the people of Australia who elected politicians who are doing it. It is up to the people of Australia to un-elect those politicians, by force if necessary.
This sounds like pop psychology to me. Is this journal an "A pub?" Is it even a high B? Funny how the description was spun to make leftists look vital and engaging, while conservatives are portrayed as pedestrian or even boorish.
I'm a staunch small-L Libertarian (which to leftists is indistinguishable from a conservative) and my home is usually quite neat and tidy. But in most other respects the description of a "liberal" abode matches mine. My home is filled with books, music, art, musical instruments, nice furniture, and two cats. I suspect that if one of the people behind this supposed study were to enter my home, they'd assume I was a leftist, at least until they started peering over the titles on my bookshelf.
I will say this however, the leftists where I work do tend to be the most messy, even slovenly in some cases.
The way I see it, the way that someone deals with the environment under their control says a lot about them. If someone can't even manage to keep their own space functional, then how can they handle the other aspects of life? People who take responsibility for themselves tend to embrace ideas derived from the concept of personal responsibility. People who avoid taking responsibility for themselves will embrace ideas that downplay or go against the concept of personal responsibility. So it isn't surprising that people who can't manage to take responsibility for their own living and working spaces would be most likely to embrace a philosophy that tells them they shouldn't have to.
It isn't that conservatives and republicans are not concerned about the environment. It's that we've been around the block enough times to recognize that most "environmentalists" are just watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.
Caring about the environment shouldn't require that one embrace destructive policies derived from thinly veiled Marxist ideology.
Non-profit doesn't mean non-competitive. Debian has always been a geeks only version of Linux precisely because it doesn't seek to meet the needs of anyone else, whereas Ubuntu does.
Slashdot Mirror
If by "experience" you mean being molested by someone and/or having sexually explicit photos taken of them for distribution to other molesters for wanking purposes, then yeah, I'm pretty intent on protecting them from that type of experience.
The most wonderful virtue of democracy is that people get the government and society that they deserve.
Things are this bad specifically because WE have allowed them to be this way. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Sic vis pacem para bellum.
I could not have said it better myself. But I'm going to try anyway.
Science is comprised of those conjectures that can be falsified but which have withstood any and all attempts to do so. A conjecture that is not testable cannot be falsified and is therefore not part of science. The testable conjectures that cannot be falsified, no matter how hard we try, are what we call scientific theories. Science is a method of finding the truth by excluding all that is not true. Consensus has nothing to do with it.
So when someone starts talking about consensus in science, they are demonstrating not only their own ignorance of the topic at hand, but of the philosophy of science itself.
Only dogma, superstition, and untestable ideologies claim consensus, which is really nothing more than implied peer pressure, to back up their claims. Appeals to the crowd or to false authority are logical fallacies and are fundamentally invalid.
What's the frequency Kenneth???
The reason is that most of the people who enjoy the rights and freedoms that come with being an American have never had to fight for them. They see their fundamental human rights as an indulgence from the state. They see themselves not as citizens but as subjects.
The lessons of the past are lost on the present because the struggles and challenges that served to teach those lessons are no longer with us.
If the average American had to fight and kill to be free, this kind of bullshit would be gone.
Level 2 is small things that are considered to be morally bad but did not harm anyone such as child pornography. Which has 2 years of tracking and is not wiped off your record but would not be publicly listed.
Are you out of your fucking mind???????
Child pornography is the sexual equivalent of snuff films. To say that it does not hurt anyone is dishonest in the extreme.
People who traffic in child pornography are a party to the abuse that created it and should be punished accordingly.
In normal criminal cases of any significance it is a JURY that convicts, not a judge. Bench trials are the exception. The judge has an incentive to throw the book at the creep during sentencing. He also has an incentive to avoid having his rulings or the trial itself overturned on appeal. He is the referee, not an offensive lineman.
What you write about judges is true about prosecutors however. They don't care about the truth, only about whether they have a case that they can convince a jury with. They are LAWYERS, legal mercenaries. If they cared about the truth they'd be philosophers.
...government is the problem.
Government regulation and got us into this mess. There is no reason to believe that more of it will get us out.
I really don't understand what motivates you to lie and construct straw man arguments. Is intellectual honesty and integrity so difficult?
A disbelief in anthropogenic planetary warming is not an implied argument for the destruction of the environment.
"Exactly when did you stop beating your wife?"
Please have the honesty to be consistent about the lies you repeat.
"Global Warming" does not mean climate change of any kind. It especially does not mean Global cooling.
If "Climate Change" is the new canard then it sounds to me like the crypto-marxist pseudo-environmentalists have modified their scam.
Unable to defeat freedom and capitalism through economic arguments, they switched to pseudo-environmentalism. The screamed to all who would listen that the earth was dying and that it was all our fault and the only solution was policies that would prevent the retard the spread of free markets into 3rd world nations, thereby preventing them from developing into healthy, thriving democracies with strong economies. All in the hope that their true religion, communism, would make a comeback before freedom and democracy became undefeatable around the world.
Now that their disingenuous bullshit is failing to correspond with reality, they're moving the goal posts yet again and working to cook up a new fraud to perpetrate.
The useful idiots will always be fooled, and some people will be fooled temporarily, but the left will never be able to fool everyone.
Now maybe it is just me, but doesn't it seem plausible that a huge ball of nuclear fire situated somewhere nearby might be causing changes to the earth's climate?
I don't know what you would call this object, and I don't think there is any evidence that it exists, but if it did exist then slight changes in its energy output would probably result in changes to earth's climate as well.
I know this sounds completely insane. I mean there aren't any such object out there right?
Excuse me why I go put on some sunscreen...
Yet another weapon that can be used to beat kids over the head.
If I were one of these kids I'd refuse the laptop. I wouldn't want anything to do with a tool intended to limit what I had access to and punish me for being more intelligent than my state-employed babysitters.
I'm 36 years old by the way and I'm not living in my parent's basement either. Just because I'm not a kid anymore doesn't mean I subscribe to the school of thought that says kids need to be "protected" from most things. That is a cowardly cop-out from parents who cannot be bothered to raise their children. If parents set a good example for their children and work to teach them what is right, then what those kids might find online or see in a movie or hear in a song will be all but irrelevant.
Kids need parents, not arbitrary proscriptions on what they can look at.
Drugs make you stupid, they interfere with your ability to think clearly. Many damage a person's sense of self and objectivity. There is no upside to be had by taking them. They will also get you arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated.
If someone is stupid enough to be carrying drugs while driving around in a vehicle that shows up as a bogie on a cop's internal radar then I have no sympathy.
I have a friend who has many stories to tell of his misadventures as the driver of a VW Bus with a huge deadhead sticker on the back. Cops pulled him over several times a month and always asked if he had any weapons or drugs on him. As soon as he stopped driving a perp-mobile and self-advertising as a probable dope fiend, they stopped paying attention to him. He bought a truck and has not been pulled over in almost 5 years now.
If someone gets busted from a "random" traffic stop, odds are they were attracting the wrong kind of attention. Doing drugs is stupid, but if you're going to be that kind of stupid, at least be smart about it and don't advertise the fact that you're a loser.
If you're looking to back up Unix, Mac, and Windows systems, then check out Bacula:
http://www.bacula.org/en/
I've got this running on 7 systems at work. Some use tapes, while others back up to a RAID array. It is fast, stable, and robust. It does not rely on Samba, NFS, or any other services. It has its own file and storage daemons. It will also do VSS backups of Windows clients, allowing open files to be backed up.
EXACTAMUNDO!!!
The only way to solve the problem of irresponsible behavior is to ensure that the full impact of the consequences of that behavior falls upon that person or persons.
The problem is that civilization trumps natural selection. Humans that would otherwise have perished are protected from the consequences of their own folly and encouraged to breed. Over time the impact of these useless lemmings builds up until the civilization is either conquered from without, or collapses from within.
Hopefully genetic engineering will solve this problem, but we're not there yet.
This is what happens when society's understanding of responsibility becomes corrupted.
Communist 5th columnists have been working very hard to poison our society with the notion of "group responsibility." Instead of individuals being responsible for their actions alone, secondary and tertiary participants in that action are made to shoulder the blame as well, regardless of whether they were aware of their participation or not.
When Chernobyl blew up, everyone who worked at the plant was punished, even people who were not there at the time and had absolutely no responsibility for the disaster whatsoever. The concept of "group responsibility" was and is a central part of communist ideology. In the Soviet Union it kept everyone paranoid and distrustful, making the society as a whole easier for the thugs at the top to abuse and oppress.
The same insanity has been creeping into our society as well. Suing a store because it sold a perfectly legal device to someone who then used it to commit a crime is absurd and abusive. That case should have been dismissed with prejudice and the lawyer representing the plaintiff censured, if not disbarred.
Anytime someone starts talking about the benefits of legalizing ALL drugs, I always think back to what happened in China because of opium.
That being said, there is a difference between legalization in the sense of society and the state endorsing the use of something, and legalization in the sense of it simply being something that you won't be hauled off to jail for.
The use of hard drugs should NEVER be socially acceptable because such use is NOT harmless.
It should also be noted that it is not the laws against drug use that keep most people from messing with drugs, but the understanding that being a drug user is a dirty shameful obscene thing to be. The old saying that "only losers use drugs" carries a lot of punch. When society forgets this fact, drugs become a much larger problem. That is what happened in China, and it nearly destroyed them. They were so bad off that falling under the jackboot of a communist thugocracy was actually an improvement. The communists solved the heroin problem by dragging the people involved in it AND THEIR ENTIRE FAMILY out into the street and shooting them in the back of the head. Now obviously that was evil, but it was also highly effective.
It should also be noted that the drug laws aren't about the substances themselves, but about the kinds of people who use them. The law doesn't try to prohibit heroin, it tries to prohibit the kind of person who would use heroin. This is an important distinction. The law against speeding attempts to prevent the action of driving too fast. The drug laws attempt to eliminate a particular state of being, that of the drug-user. This is why laws against drugs like Marijuana are still on the books. The drug itself isn't what inspires these laws, but the public perception of the kinds of people who use the drug. The word Pothead doesn't bring to mind a respectable citizen. The word causes most people to imagine a high school dropout sitting in his parent's basement getting high all day. That kind of a person is undesirable in the extreme. But you can't just outlaw useless idiot losers, so instead society outlaws the substance that is associated with them and that is believe to make them into losers.
As for hard drugs, just let the idiots kill themselves with them. If you give a meth user enough meth, the problem solves itself, especially if that meth user has not had any children.
The problem with drugs like meth and crack is not that they kill, but that they take too long to do it and create too much collateral damage. The best thing to do with meth addicts is to shine a bright spotlight on them so that they might serve as a warning to others. These drugs are nothing but a slow-motion Darwin Award.
Illicit Drugs: The synthetic alternative to natural selection.
What a lovely straw man you have constructed.
Now that I realize that Sarah Palin is unaware of the benefits of esoteric research into the lifecycle of the fruit fly, I have no choice but to vote for Obama/Biden.
Obama may be a dyed in the wool hard core crypto-marxist with deep ties to communist terrorists, organized voter fraud, and campaign finance fraud, and Biden may be a leftist flunkie, but there is no way I can vote for a candidate who can't appreciate the significance of fruit fly research to the public good.
In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve.
The idea of censoring the internet, especially for the laughable justification that its "for the children" simply indicates to me that the people of Australia need to start taking responsibility for their government and elect candidates who will not pull this kind of crap.
Don't get fooled into thinking that "the government" did this. It was the people of Australia who elected politicians who are doing it. It is up to the people of Australia to un-elect those politicians, by force if necessary.
This sounds like pop psychology to me. Is this journal an "A pub?" Is it even a high B? Funny how the description was spun to make leftists look vital and engaging, while conservatives are portrayed as pedestrian or even boorish.
I'm a staunch small-L Libertarian (which to leftists is indistinguishable from a conservative) and my home is usually quite neat and tidy. But in most other respects the description of a "liberal" abode matches mine. My home is filled with books, music, art, musical instruments, nice furniture, and two cats. I suspect that if one of the people behind this supposed study were to enter my home, they'd assume I was a leftist, at least until they started peering over the titles on my bookshelf.
I will say this however, the leftists where I work do tend to be the most messy, even slovenly in some cases.
The way I see it, the way that someone deals with the environment under their control says a lot about them. If someone can't even manage to keep their own space functional, then how can they handle the other aspects of life? People who take responsibility for themselves tend to embrace ideas derived from the concept of personal responsibility. People who avoid taking responsibility for themselves will embrace ideas that downplay or go against the concept of personal responsibility. So it isn't surprising that people who can't manage to take responsibility for their own living and working spaces would be most likely to embrace a philosophy that tells them they shouldn't have to.
This is far more likely to be caused by leftist voter fraud than anything else, especially considering where it happened.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080914/NEWS03/809140383
It isn't that conservatives and republicans are not concerned about the environment. It's that we've been around the block enough times to recognize that most "environmentalists" are just watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.
Caring about the environment shouldn't require that one embrace destructive policies derived from thinly veiled Marxist ideology.
You're making my point for me.
Non-profit doesn't mean non-competitive. Debian has always been a geeks only version of Linux precisely because it doesn't seek to meet the needs of anyone else, whereas Ubuntu does.