Why don't they work? Someone harasses, you take the same measures as anyone else, no matter what their religion, race, ethnic origin, culture, sexual orientation or gender identity etc - you take them to court for harassment. The same law works for everyone - even white males.
An extra, non-structural envelope (it doesn't actually lift the craft, unlike the inner bladder/cell/gasbag) can weigh a lot less. It only has to support it's own weight.
Alternatively, there's no reason not to fill the entire interior that contains the lifting cells with nitrogen. Anyone needing to access the interior can do the same as farmers on pig farms do when going into the sludge pits or firemen in burning buildings - Self Contained Breathing Apparatus..
Hydrogen does NOT "explode" when it leaks from a dirigible.
The Hindenburg would not have burned the way it did except for the coating that they applied to the exterior fabric, which turned out to be chemically unstable and subject to static buildup. A flame-retardant fabric would have not allowed the spread of any fire as quickly, and if the interior had been filled with N2 there would have been no fire.
Then Yahoo isn't implementing RFC 5233, " Sieve Email Filtering: Subaddress Extension". Since yours is a paid account, I guess you don't always get what you pay for, and you can't use subaddressing to tag emails so you know who leaked your addy.
Subaddressing is the practice of augmenting the local-part of an
[RFC2822] address with some 'detail' information in order to give
some extra meaning to that address. One common way of encoding
'detail' information into the local-part is to add a 'separator
character sequence', such as "+", to form a boundary between the
'user' (original local-part) and 'detail' sub-parts of the address,
much like the "@" character forms the boundary between the local-part
and domain.
Typical uses of subaddressing might be:
o A message addressed to "ken+sieve@example.org" is delivered into a
mailbox called "sieve" belonging to the user "ken".
o A message addressed to "5551212#123@example.com" is delivered to
the voice mailbox number "123" at phone number "5551212".
Since you can't use either on in absolute pure form, it's generally 8% to 12% (i've posted links elsewhere) in practice. Even 8% is a huge difference in performance when you are looking at moving cargo by air. 8% more capacity is the difference between profit and bankruptcy for airlines. That's why they keep packing more people like sardines.
The nitrogen envelope doesn't just contribute to safety - it's also a slight lifting gas (3%), so adding it imposes no weight penalty.
We use explosive gases all the time. There's no reason, given both the much better economics of hydrogen supply vs helium supply, that we can't find ways to mitigate the risks. Also, you won't get an explosion in an airship filled with hydrogen. It will burn only where the gas is in contact with oxygen - in other words, outside air. Watch the Hindenburg - it didn't explode, even though the outer skin was covered with an unstable, highly flammable coating that was susceptible to static buildup via friction with air. Without this, the Hindenburg would not have burned - any loss of hydrogen would have simply escaped through vents. It was the continuous burning of the fabric that ignited the hydrogen. Without an ignition source, nothing would have happened.
You seem to forget that the nitrogen envelope weighs less than the equivalent volume filled with air. 3% less by volume, because nitrogen weighs 15% less than oxygen. There is no weight penalty for the envelope, since nitrogen is a weak lifting gas. Also, all things considered, hydrogen still has an 8% to 12% lift advantage to helium. 8% can be the difference between profit and loss for a business. link
The economic case for hydrogen is much better. Hydrogen doesn't need to be transported - it can and is generated anywhere you have water and electricity, as needed. Given that it's cheaper and a better lifting gas, if we are thinking of using it in compressed form in road vehicles operated by the average Joe, we can certainly use it in uncompressed form in airships operated by specialized crew.
The envelope would have FAR less volume then the hydrogen cell. Besides, pure nitrogen is also 3% lighter than air, which also has oxygen, which is heavier then nitrogen by about 15%.
A small quantity of oxygen is absolutely no danger, same as you can throw a match into a full tank of gasoline, or if you throw it into a pool of diesel, it goes out. Can't do that with an almost empty tank because there's enough oxygen to sustain combustion.
Gee, it's almost like women just aren't interested in the tech fields and there just aren't qualified female applicants out there.
But that can't be true, because that would be admitting that there are innate differences between the sexes and that's just not PC to talk about.
There's enough evidence that there are innate differences between the sexes. Some of it is from socialization, some of it is genetic, some of it is epigenetic. We can only affect the first of those three factors.
In this paper, I argue that the phenomenon of handedness can provide insight
into some of the issues surrounding economists’ recent exploration of early biological
and environmental influences on people’s long-run outcomes. I review prior
research showing that left- and right-handed individuals have different brain structures,
particularly with regard to language processing. Using fivedatasets from the
United States and the United Kingdom, I show that, consistent with prior research,
both maternal left-handedness and poor infant health increase the likelihood of
a child being left-handed. Thus, handedness can be used to explore the long-run
effects of differential brain structure generated in part by genetics and in part by
poor infant health.
Lefties exhibit economically and statistically significant human capital deficits
relative to righties, even conditional on infant health and family background.
Compared to righties, lefties score a tenth of a standard deviation lower on measures
of cognitive skill and, contrary to popular wisdom, are not overrepresented at the
high end of the distribution. Lefties have more emotional and behavioral problems,
have more learning disabilities such as dyslexia, complete less schooling, and work in
occupations requiring less cognitive skill. Differences between left- and right-handed
siblings, which offer a way of controlling for qualities of family upbringing, are similar
in magnitude. Interestingly, lefties with left-handed mothers show no cognitive deficits
relative to righties. Some of these facts have been documented previously, though
not across the range of datasets used here.
Lefties also have 10–12percent lower annual earnings than righties, roughly
equivalent to the return to a year of schooling in these samples. A large fraction of
this gap can be explained by observed differences in cognitive skills and emotional
or behavioral problems. Lefties work in more manually intensive occupations than
do righties, further suggesting that their primary labor market disadvantage is
cognitive rather than physical. This paper is the first to document these patterns
There's enough evidence right here on slashdot - no need to look further:-)
Though if you make the mistake of going on Facebook, you'll find so much evidence of open hate that it will leave you wondering about whether large swaths of the human race aren't deserving of a major extinction event.
[deleted rant with examples of Facebook's various contributions to the Internet Hate/Rage Machine. I'll just say that they reached a new low when they repeatedly censored posts with a picture of a cancer survivor showing how she camouflaged the scars with tattoos because it showed a breast - a breast that didn't even exist.]
Facebook is a cesspool. In this respect it caught up to Craigslist a long time ago.
Like any cesspool (or politics), the big chunks float to the top. So, trying to attract everyone, you're going to get every kind of "big chunk of sh*t" going, same as the hate storms on twitter.
Cater to a specific demographic, and you're only going to get a limited amount of those chunkies. Social media is doomed (which is a good thing, since even the name is a lie - it's really anti-social media).
LGBT people and atheists don't usually have a massive great chip on their shoulder and go out and riot if they don't get what they think they're owed by society.
They don't riot, they litigate.
Would you rather people take assholes to court or just cut to the chase and punch them in the face?
Some of us would rather encourage civilized behavior than be part of the problem.
They only give points for traditionally disadvantaged groups who are visibly different. Female, check. Non-white, check. That hardly captures all the ways people are different from one another, and it doesn't even take into account other ways people are discriminated against that are easily visible. Ageism is rampant at Facebook, and this program has it built right into it. Ignoring half the population because they are too old for you and then complaining about a shortage because you don't want to hire older people is discrimination, and yet this program reinforces it to everyone's detriment except the H1Bs.
Actually, we could do so safely. Sure, hydrogen burns, but only in the presence of oxygen. An envelope filled with N2 around each hydrogen cell would make a Hindenburg-style explosion pretty much impossible.
Also, because the H2 molecule, being composed of two atoms, is twice as large as the He atom (helium doesn't pair with itself to form molecules), which only has one atom, it will take MUCH longer for the hydrogen to escape through the pores of the gas bag/lifting cell. Now because a hydrogen atom is 4x lighter than a helium atom, a volume of hydrogen molecules is still halt the weight of the same volume of helium atoms.
The atomic weight of a helium atom (4.002) is approximately four times that of an individual hydrogen atom (1.007), but since gaseous hydrogen is a diatomic molecule containing two hydrogen atoms (H2), helium gas is only twice as heavy as hydrogen gas.
Hydrogen is cheaper, gives more lift, and you can even make it on site from electrolysis of H2O, same as some large volume muffler shops do to get the oxygen for their oxy-acetylene torches because it works out cheaper than bottled compressed O2.
LZ-126/U.S.S. Los Angeles gives a real world example of the difference between operating the same ship with helium versus hydrogen.
When the German-built LZ-126 flew from Germany to the United States for delivery to the U.S. Navy in 1924 it was inflated with hydrogen, and the ship made the flight from Friedrichshafen, Germany to Lakehurst, New Jersey — 5,006 miles — nonstop. When the United States Navy operated the same ship with helium, as U.S.S. Los Angeles, its range was limited to 3,925 statute miles and it could not have made the same transatlantic flight. And never again did the ship fly as long as it did on its delivery flight with hydrogen, which lasted 81 hours, 32 minutes; ZR-3’s longest flight with helium was a little over 48 hours.
Not only does helium suck as a lifting gas, if the Hindenburg had used helium instead of hydrogen,. it would have never got ff the ground.
Pretty stupid because Android phones don't run any version of Java, and even if they were going after Java ME's market, there's nothing wrong with going after someone else's market. Agreements not to do so are illegal because they are anti-trust violations. Besides, Java ME was not for the desktop market, that was Java SE.
Now if you want to run Java on, say, a Chromebook, you have to actually install Java, as described here, and it will run Java for linux.
Nowhere did you say that the kid downloading the pics can be charged with possession of kiddie porn,
Sh*t, another lie. Here's what I wrote:
Both the kid uploading and the kid downloading can be charged with possession of kiddie porn.
Seems to me that when you write "You really don't have a grasp on the discussion here, do you?", you need to invest in a mirror. You have demonstrated twice that you can't grasp simple sentences, and are just making things up, throwing crap around in the hope that some sticks. Go vote for Drumpf - he's your kind of loser.
Children includes teenagers, and it's far more likely that parents will be snooping on their teenagers than on their 5-year-olds when it comes to sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll. And snooping on your kids IS creepy. It's also setting a bad example for your kids. Talk to them instead. If you can't talk to them, look in the mirror, because you're the bigger problem.
someone cheats on you, it's not that hard to dump them
That is, if you don't mind up giving half of what you've spent your life earning...
I;m an atheist, but I agree with the Bible when it says that it's better to have a dry crust on a rooftop than a mansion and a bad partner.
You have to accept some responsibility, if only for making a bad decision in the first place. Hopefully you'll recognize it the second or third time you go through the process, and make better choices.
Just like you will have learned to get a pre-nup, or just shack up, or move to a jurisdiction that defaults to partnership of aquests only (you only split what was acquired during the marriage, which is fair). Marriage is so passé anyway. It's 2016.
Think of how your children would feel if they caught you doing that sort of sh*t, reading their diaries, installing spyware to track them, etc.
That's considered responsible and good parenting in 2016.
Not in most advanced countries. If you can't just sit down with them and discuss your worries without first snooping around, you've already failed as a parent, and they have every right not to trust you or be honest with you because you've betrayed their trust. Kids learn by example, and the most influential example is their parents. You being a snoop teaches them that it's okay to snoop, there are no boundaries to it, not even in the family, and that trust is for wimps and fools.
What next - turn into a stalker because you think your spouse or your kid is screwing around? Even if you find out it's the case, the only rational response is the one I already gave above - sit down and discuss it with them - which you should have done before becoming another Inspecteur Clouseau type.
I would say that I did not buy a recurring license, so why should I not have the right to continue to enjoy the benefits of the license I paid for, same as I can use a book or any other copyrighted material for as long as I want once I've paid my license.
They want to use copyright law, no problem. Make them choke on it. I have physical possession of those copyrighted bits, I paid for them, and to deprive me of using them is piracy.:-)
Most civilized places have done away with adultery laws. We don't want the Christian Taliban stoking the fires when there's a problem in a relationship, screaming "adultery adultery." There are two options, both of which are rational: split (amicably as possible) or fix the problems on both sides of the relationship. Bringing antiquated laws into it is a hindrance, not a help.
The states that still have adultery laws on the books, I've already posted about how they are mostly a joke, not enforced, and not enforceable. A $10 fine for adultery is a hall pass, not a penalty. "Cheat as much as you want, so long as you paid the fines, you've 'done the time.'" It's the same as states that don't count anal penetration by the man's penis of a woman's anus as sex - "I did not have sex with that woman." So gay anal sex isn't sex, male-female sex isn't sex, lesbians engaging in cunnilingus isn't sex, blow jobs aren't sex... take your stupid laws and shove them.
I would say that the adult who can't sit down with their child and discuss their suspicions without first snooping around gathering evidence to nail them with has already f*cked their kid over. You're as bad as the parents whose kids won't phone them for a lift if they've had too much to drink because they know you won't talk about it rationally, and that following your rules is more important than whether they get home alive or not.
We spend good money advertising that kids should always be able to call their parents for a lift and that the parents should keep it in proper perspective. Seems your neck of the woods hasn't gotten to that point yet.
Same as a lot of other things where ignorance reigns supreme.
The kid, who is UPloading kiddie porn, can be charged.
Nowhere did you say that the kid downloading the pics can be charged with possession of kiddie porn, putting a lie to your claim in your reply that you said:
Perhaps YOU need to take your own advice and read your own posts? Or invest in a time machine so you can fix things retroactively.
And if you download that same pic, especially if you believed that was what was going on, you can be charged. You had intent. You had the pics. You are not a cop doing it as part of your job. That's all that's needed.
Here it's against the law even for a private investigator, or the spouse, to stake out the family home to catch someone cheating. Privacy of the family dwelling beats suspicions every time.
As for monitoring, etc., why not go for prevention instead? To use your gun example, bring up your kids in such a fashion that they're not going to go off half-cocked with a gun when they have a conflict. I don't scream "where are the parents" when a kid does a school shooting - I already know they're almost certainly gun nuts themselves, leading by bad example that firearms are a great equalizer. And lately, there's also a good chance that they're dead, the first victim of their own stupidity. #DarwinAward.
The same applies to internet use, driving a car, sex, or any other activity where common sense behavior can be taught. You should assume that at some point they're going to use the internet, drive a car, have sex, and you should be preparing them to do so in a safe manner. And if you think you can stop your kids from having sex until they're adults by monitoring them, you're an idiot.
Your job as a parent isn't to boost your ego by turning them into mini-me clones, but to prepare them to be able to handle life on their terms, whatever they decide those terms should be. It's called respect, and you can't teach it, but if you show it to them they can catch it from you.
Adultery is bad. Really bad. Worse-than-rape bad
You have obviously never been sexually assaulted. If you had been, you would know that it's far worse than finding out you're being cheated on. So, to quote you, "You're probably retarded. This is friendly advice: Do some research before looking like an idiot on the internet."
People like you almost deserve to be cheated on - your lack of understanding of others is justification enough to kick you straight to the curb because there's something seriously wrong with your values. Adulterers you can kick out, or make their lives miserable by NOT kicking them out. Or you can fix whatever was broken ON BOTH SIDES. Can't do any of that after a sexual assault. What you can do is let the courts make you a victim a second time. Not just reliving it, but telling it in detail all the while the other side is trying to make it look like it wasn't that bad and it was your fault anyway. Even if you didn't need therapy after the assault, you almost certainly will after the trial.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't they work? Someone harasses, you take the same measures as anyone else, no matter what their religion, race, ethnic origin, culture, sexual orientation or gender identity etc - you take them to court for harassment. The same law works for everyone - even white males.
An extra, non-structural envelope (it doesn't actually lift the craft, unlike the inner bladder/cell/gasbag) can weigh a lot less. It only has to support it's own weight.
Alternatively, there's no reason not to fill the entire interior that contains the lifting cells with nitrogen. Anyone needing to access the interior can do the same as farmers on pig farms do when going into the sludge pits or firemen in burning buildings - Self Contained Breathing Apparatus..
Hydrogen does NOT "explode" when it leaks from a dirigible.
The Hindenburg would not have burned the way it did except for the coating that they applied to the exterior fabric, which turned out to be chemically unstable and subject to static buildup. A flame-retardant fabric would have not allowed the spread of any fire as quickly, and if the interior had been filled with N2 there would have been no fire.
Then Yahoo isn't implementing RFC 5233, " Sieve Email Filtering: Subaddress Extension". Since yours is a paid account, I guess you don't always get what you pay for, and you can't use subaddressing to tag emails so you know who leaked your addy.
Subaddressing is the practice of augmenting the local-part of an [RFC2822] address with some 'detail' information in order to give some extra meaning to that address. One common way of encoding 'detail' information into the local-part is to add a 'separator character sequence', such as "+", to form a boundary between the 'user' (original local-part) and 'detail' sub-parts of the address, much like the "@" character forms the boundary between the local-part and domain.
Typical uses of subaddressing might be:
Or it's a way to fight back against a culture that sees intimidation against certain people as normal and acceptable.
Since you can't use either on in absolute pure form, it's generally 8% to 12% (i've posted links elsewhere) in practice. Even 8% is a huge difference in performance when you are looking at moving cargo by air. 8% more capacity is the difference between profit and bankruptcy for airlines. That's why they keep packing more people like sardines.
The nitrogen envelope doesn't just contribute to safety - it's also a slight lifting gas (3%), so adding it imposes no weight penalty.
We use explosive gases all the time. There's no reason, given both the much better economics of hydrogen supply vs helium supply, that we can't find ways to mitigate the risks. Also, you won't get an explosion in an airship filled with hydrogen. It will burn only where the gas is in contact with oxygen - in other words, outside air. Watch the Hindenburg - it didn't explode, even though the outer skin was covered with an unstable, highly flammable coating that was susceptible to static buildup via friction with air. Without this, the Hindenburg would not have burned - any loss of hydrogen would have simply escaped through vents. It was the continuous burning of the fabric that ignited the hydrogen. Without an ignition source, nothing would have happened.
No - it was triggered by complaints by assholes. The posters were so notified.
You seem to forget that the nitrogen envelope weighs less than the equivalent volume filled with air. 3% less by volume, because nitrogen weighs 15% less than oxygen. There is no weight penalty for the envelope, since nitrogen is a weak lifting gas. Also, all things considered, hydrogen still has an 8% to 12% lift advantage to helium. 8% can be the difference between profit and loss for a business. link
The economic case for hydrogen is much better. Hydrogen doesn't need to be transported - it can and is generated anywhere you have water and electricity, as needed. Given that it's cheaper and a better lifting gas, if we are thinking of using it in compressed form in road vehicles operated by the average Joe, we can certainly use it in uncompressed form in airships operated by specialized crew.
The envelope would have FAR less volume then the hydrogen cell. Besides, pure nitrogen is also 3% lighter than air, which also has oxygen, which is heavier then nitrogen by about 15%.
A small quantity of oxygen is absolutely no danger, same as you can throw a match into a full tank of gasoline, or if you throw it into a pool of diesel, it goes out. Can't do that with an almost empty tank because there's enough oxygen to sustain combustion.
Gee, it's almost like women just aren't interested in the tech fields and there just aren't qualified female applicants out there.
But that can't be true, because that would be admitting that there are innate differences between the sexes and that's just not PC to talk about.
There's enough evidence that there are innate differences between the sexes. Some of it is from socialization, some of it is genetic, some of it is epigenetic. We can only affect the first of those three factors.
I don't see them calling for an end to economic discrimination against left-handed people, even though it's easy to see ho's left-handed.
In this paper, I argue that the phenomenon of handedness can provide insight into some of the issues surrounding economists’ recent exploration of early biological and environmental influences on people’s long-run outcomes. I review prior research showing that left- and right-handed individuals have different brain structures, particularly with regard to language processing. Using fivedatasets from the United States and the United Kingdom, I show that, consistent with prior research, both maternal left-handedness and poor infant health increase the likelihood of a child being left-handed. Thus, handedness can be used to explore the long-run effects of differential brain structure generated in part by genetics and in part by poor infant health.
Lefties exhibit economically and statistically significant human capital deficits relative to righties, even conditional on infant health and family background. Compared to righties, lefties score a tenth of a standard deviation lower on measures of cognitive skill and, contrary to popular wisdom, are not overrepresented at the high end of the distribution. Lefties have more emotional and behavioral problems, have more learning disabilities such as dyslexia, complete less schooling, and work in occupations requiring less cognitive skill. Differences between left- and right-handed siblings, which offer a way of controlling for qualities of family upbringing, are similar in magnitude. Interestingly, lefties with left-handed mothers show no cognitive deficits relative to righties. Some of these facts have been documented previously, though not across the range of datasets used here.
Lefties also have 10–12percent lower annual earnings than righties, roughly equivalent to the return to a year of schooling in these samples. A large fraction of this gap can be explained by observed differences in cognitive skills and emotional or behavioral problems. Lefties work in more manually intensive occupations than do righties, further suggesting that their primary labor market disadvantage is cognitive rather than physical. This paper is the first to document these patterns
There's enough evidence right here on slashdot - no need to look further :-)
Though if you make the mistake of going on Facebook, you'll find so much evidence of open hate that it will leave you wondering about whether large swaths of the human race aren't deserving of a major extinction event.
[deleted rant with examples of Facebook's various contributions to the Internet Hate/Rage Machine. I'll just say that they reached a new low when they repeatedly censored posts with a picture of a cancer survivor showing how she camouflaged the scars with tattoos because it showed a breast - a breast that didn't even exist.]
Facebook is a cesspool. In this respect it caught up to Craigslist a long time ago.
Like any cesspool (or politics), the big chunks float to the top. So, trying to attract everyone, you're going to get every kind of "big chunk of sh*t" going, same as the hate storms on twitter.
Cater to a specific demographic, and you're only going to get a limited amount of those chunkies. Social media is doomed (which is a good thing, since even the name is a lie - it's really anti-social media).
LGBT people and atheists don't usually have a massive great chip on their shoulder and go out and riot if they don't get what they think they're owed by society.
They don't riot, they litigate.
Would you rather people take assholes to court or just cut to the chase and punch them in the face?
Some of us would rather encourage civilized behavior than be part of the problem.
They only give points for traditionally disadvantaged groups who are visibly different. Female, check. Non-white, check. That hardly captures all the ways people are different from one another, and it doesn't even take into account other ways people are discriminated against that are easily visible. Ageism is rampant at Facebook, and this program has it built right into it. Ignoring half the population because they are too old for you and then complaining about a shortage because you don't want to hire older people is discrimination, and yet this program reinforces it to everyone's detriment except the H1Bs.
Actually, we could do so safely. Sure, hydrogen burns, but only in the presence of oxygen. An envelope filled with N2 around each hydrogen cell would make a Hindenburg-style explosion pretty much impossible.
Also, because the H2 molecule, being composed of two atoms, is twice as large as the He atom (helium doesn't pair with itself to form molecules), which only has one atom, it will take MUCH longer for the hydrogen to escape through the pores of the gas bag/lifting cell. Now because a hydrogen atom is 4x lighter than a helium atom, a volume of hydrogen molecules is still halt the weight of the same volume of helium atoms.
The atomic weight of a helium atom (4.002) is approximately four times that of an individual hydrogen atom (1.007), but since gaseous hydrogen is a diatomic molecule containing two hydrogen atoms (H2), helium gas is only twice as heavy as hydrogen gas.
Hydrogen is cheaper, gives more lift, and you can even make it on site from electrolysis of H2O, same as some large volume muffler shops do to get the oxygen for their oxy-acetylene torches because it works out cheaper than bottled compressed O2.
LZ-126/U.S.S. Los Angeles gives a real world example of the difference between operating the same ship with helium versus hydrogen. When the German-built LZ-126 flew from Germany to the United States for delivery to the U.S. Navy in 1924 it was inflated with hydrogen, and the ship made the flight from Friedrichshafen, Germany to Lakehurst, New Jersey — 5,006 miles — nonstop. When the United States Navy operated the same ship with helium, as U.S.S. Los Angeles, its range was limited to 3,925 statute miles and it could not have made the same transatlantic flight. And never again did the ship fly as long as it did on its delivery flight with hydrogen, which lasted 81 hours, 32 minutes; ZR-3’s longest flight with helium was a little over 48 hours.
Not only does helium suck as a lifting gas, if the Hindenburg had used helium instead of hydrogen,. it would have never got ff the ground.
You can always get them to operating temperature by setting them on fire ... Oh, wait ...
It doesn't, but you can make it work with linux, which is really the underlying OS. ChromeOS is more of a shell or desktop environment.
Pretty stupid because Android phones don't run any version of Java, and even if they were going after Java ME's market, there's nothing wrong with going after someone else's market. Agreements not to do so are illegal because they are anti-trust violations. Besides, Java ME was not for the desktop market, that was Java SE.
Now if you want to run Java on, say, a Chromebook, you have to actually install Java, as described here, and it will run Java for linux.
This is just lawyers running the meter.
Nowhere did you say that the kid downloading the pics can be charged with possession of kiddie porn,
Sh*t, another lie. Here's what I wrote:
Both the kid uploading and the kid downloading can be charged with possession of kiddie porn.
Seems to me that when you write "You really don't have a grasp on the discussion here, do you?", you need to invest in a mirror. You have demonstrated twice that you can't grasp simple sentences, and are just making things up, throwing crap around in the hope that some sticks. Go vote for Drumpf - he's your kind of loser.
"This is how it was presented, Mr. Judge." "Seems reasonable that they presented it that way so that you would be disinclined to read it. Not valid!"
Children includes teenagers, and it's far more likely that parents will be snooping on their teenagers than on their 5-year-olds when it comes to sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll. And snooping on your kids IS creepy. It's also setting a bad example for your kids. Talk to them instead. If you can't talk to them, look in the mirror, because you're the bigger problem.
Damn straight. Same with computers, unless you want to have to clean them out afterwards.
someone cheats on you, it's not that hard to dump them
That is, if you don't mind up giving half of what you've spent your life earning...
I;m an atheist, but I agree with the Bible when it says that it's better to have a dry crust on a rooftop than a mansion and a bad partner.
You have to accept some responsibility, if only for making a bad decision in the first place. Hopefully you'll recognize it the second or third time you go through the process, and make better choices.
Just like you will have learned to get a pre-nup, or just shack up, or move to a jurisdiction that defaults to partnership of aquests only (you only split what was acquired during the marriage, which is fair). Marriage is so passé anyway. It's 2016.
Think of how your children would feel if they caught you doing that sort of sh*t, reading their diaries, installing spyware to track them, etc.
That's considered responsible and good parenting in 2016.
Not in most advanced countries. If you can't just sit down with them and discuss your worries without first snooping around, you've already failed as a parent, and they have every right not to trust you or be honest with you because you've betrayed their trust. Kids learn by example, and the most influential example is their parents. You being a snoop teaches them that it's okay to snoop, there are no boundaries to it, not even in the family, and that trust is for wimps and fools.
What next - turn into a stalker because you think your spouse or your kid is screwing around? Even if you find out it's the case, the only rational response is the one I already gave above - sit down and discuss it with them - which you should have done before becoming another Inspecteur Clouseau type.
I would say that I did not buy a recurring license, so why should I not have the right to continue to enjoy the benefits of the license I paid for, same as I can use a book or any other copyrighted material for as long as I want once I've paid my license.
They want to use copyright law, no problem. Make them choke on it. I have physical possession of those copyrighted bits, I paid for them, and to deprive me of using them is piracy. :-)
Most civilized places have done away with adultery laws. We don't want the Christian Taliban stoking the fires when there's a problem in a relationship, screaming "adultery adultery." There are two options, both of which are rational: split (amicably as possible) or fix the problems on both sides of the relationship. Bringing antiquated laws into it is a hindrance, not a help.
The states that still have adultery laws on the books, I've already posted about how they are mostly a joke, not enforced, and not enforceable. A $10 fine for adultery is a hall pass, not a penalty. "Cheat as much as you want, so long as you paid the fines, you've 'done the time.'" It's the same as states that don't count anal penetration by the man's penis of a woman's anus as sex - "I did not have sex with that woman." So gay anal sex isn't sex, male-female sex isn't sex, lesbians engaging in cunnilingus isn't sex, blow jobs aren't sex ... take your stupid laws and shove them.
I would say that the adult who can't sit down with their child and discuss their suspicions without first snooping around gathering evidence to nail them with has already f*cked their kid over. You're as bad as the parents whose kids won't phone them for a lift if they've had too much to drink because they know you won't talk about it rationally, and that following your rules is more important than whether they get home alive or not.
We spend good money advertising that kids should always be able to call their parents for a lift and that the parents should keep it in proper perspective. Seems your neck of the woods hasn't gotten to that point yet.
Same as a lot of other things where ignorance reigns supreme.
The kid, who is UPloading kiddie porn, can be charged.
Nowhere did you say that the kid downloading the pics can be charged with possession of kiddie porn, putting a lie to your claim in your reply that you said:
Perhaps YOU need to take your own advice and read your own posts? Or invest in a time machine so you can fix things retroactively.
And if you download that same pic, especially if you believed that was what was going on, you can be charged. You had intent. You had the pics. You are not a cop doing it as part of your job. That's all that's needed.
Here it's against the law even for a private investigator, or the spouse, to stake out the family home to catch someone cheating. Privacy of the family dwelling beats suspicions every time.
As for monitoring, etc., why not go for prevention instead? To use your gun example, bring up your kids in such a fashion that they're not going to go off half-cocked with a gun when they have a conflict. I don't scream "where are the parents" when a kid does a school shooting - I already know they're almost certainly gun nuts themselves, leading by bad example that firearms are a great equalizer. And lately, there's also a good chance that they're dead, the first victim of their own stupidity. #DarwinAward.
The same applies to internet use, driving a car, sex, or any other activity where common sense behavior can be taught. You should assume that at some point they're going to use the internet, drive a car, have sex, and you should be preparing them to do so in a safe manner. And if you think you can stop your kids from having sex until they're adults by monitoring them, you're an idiot.
Your job as a parent isn't to boost your ego by turning them into mini-me clones, but to prepare them to be able to handle life on their terms, whatever they decide those terms should be. It's called respect, and you can't teach it, but if you show it to them they can catch it from you.
Adultery is bad. Really bad. Worse-than-rape bad
You have obviously never been sexually assaulted. If you had been, you would know that it's far worse than finding out you're being cheated on. So, to quote you, "You're probably retarded. This is friendly advice: Do some research before looking like an idiot on the internet."
People like you almost deserve to be cheated on - your lack of understanding of others is justification enough to kick you straight to the curb because there's something seriously wrong with your values. Adulterers you can kick out, or make their lives miserable by NOT kicking them out. Or you can fix whatever was broken ON BOTH SIDES. Can't do any of that after a sexual assault. What you can do is let the courts make you a victim a second time. Not just reliving it, but telling it in detail all the while the other side is trying to make it look like it wasn't that bad and it was your fault anyway. Even if you didn't need therapy after the assault, you almost certainly will after the trial.