"I don't think it should be blown up to be a case of 'violation', spam is just annoying, not violating. "
It may not be a violation of earth-shattering proportions, but its certainly a violation of trust of at least some weight. They asked the question before if people wanted information sent to them, good or bad, and people sent "no." The biggest issue with all this is the paper-thin excuse (if, indeed, this is not a hoax) that eBay seems to be floating to people: that due to an "error." What a crock! The fact that they would be attempting to pass off such an obvious lie just to meet their marketing quotas increases the underhandedness of the deed. I mean, its one thing to say: "We need the money!" versus "OOps! Obviously there was a problem because you don't want to hear from us!"
An action like this begs to ask why do they even give people the chance to opt out of correspondence, if they can change the rules whenever they want. Other than trying to pull a fast one over people's eyes.
Hey.. God _rested_ on the seventh day. Do we wanna be giving days to lollygagging deities? Yeah yeah, I know s/he did a lot those first six days. But if s/he just went that one extra mile, we might finally have those polka-dotted, winged, 110 volt unicorns that can toast both bagels AND bread at the same time that we've all been waiting for. Sheesh.
Maybe it oughta be "SlackerDay." A day we can all celebrate.
"Individual nations would decide what to name each month, under Flansburg's plan. And the seven days of the week would simply be named after numbers -- Oneday for Monday, Twoday for Tuesday, and so on. Flansburg suggested Sunday be Godsday, and each month be named after a virtue. "
Heh, and this plan will be enacted on "HellHathFrozenOverDay" in the month of "Never"...
A few of years ago I used to work for a leading Political Memorabilia manufacturer and retailer who put out a lot of the popular political buttons and paraphenalia of the 80s and 90s. One day we were charged to try to find some new ones, and being the good girl that I am, I suggested a couple. The one people liked the most said:
"Nixon In 2000 - You can't keep a good man down!" with an image of Nixon's hand breaking through his grave "Thriller" style;)
FACE has been used to remove people who were passively sitting across the street from abortion clinics holding protest signs.
I'm not saying that sometimes the law isn't sometimes over- or mis-utilized, but... isn't this the exception instead of the rule? I'd be willing to bet for each instance when its enforced incorrectly, there are significant number of peaceful and lawful abortion protests that go off without problems, allowing those people who are Pro-Life to let their views be heard. Right?
There's nothing in the worly quite like a good "Lewinski".
Thank God... a Clinton reference. Now the scorecard is complete. YAHTZEE!
Clarity is best achieved at the ends of the spectrum. Either a right is absolute or it isn't.
I think the problem is that you don't believe in absolute rights, though. Just for the ones you believe in.
So then you can have all of the sodomy you want as long as you can find a willing woman? That is the same deal that I get. The fact that you may not want a woman is immaterial. Some people want children, is that a violation of the equal protection clause?
The fact is, LK, that Sodomy laws by and large (if not entirely) are unneeded legislation if its not hurting another person, in which case I think we can all agree it would be considered rape. If its two consenting adults, regardless of the sex, how is this hurting anything? Maybe those icky sodomy-germs can ooze through closed doors and infect passersby as they walk by the evil sodomy houses across America. Ew! Sodomy! Ew, it makes me wanna puke, lets make legislation! Ewewewewew! Frankly... its immature to think that something should be considered illegal because it grosses others out. But I bet it doesn't gross LK out. I'm sure he has a very intelligent, well-read, well-researched, well-founded reason why sodomy is bad which doesn't fall back on emotion or that pesky zip-zaggin' morality meter. Right?
You're not going to get away with playing that word game with me. Fetus means baby. What you're doing is equivalent to saying that "It's not a baby, it's a baby!".
If we want to be really anal about it (hee hee, get it? Anal? I just mentioned Sodomy and then I said anal. LK, I hope that's ok with you. Need something to calm ya down?) the definition reads thusly from Merriam-Webster:
"an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually
three months after conception to birth" (emphasis mine)
So... if we decide that "developing" doesn't mean "developED" for your argument, a fetus isn't a fetus until the third month. So.. you don't have a problemw ith abortions before its a fetus, do ya? Or is ther a sub-fetus or sub-sub-fetus that I'm missing somewhere?
Science is able to tell us that the baby is a separate and distinct person from the mother because they have different genetic codes. Science is able to tell us that the mother's body recognizes the baby as a foreign entity because of her immunological response to the presence of the baby.
Ok, I'm gonna get extreme here.. 'cause our pal LK loves extremity. Fine.. the gestating sub-sub-sub-sub-fetus has a different genetic code and elicits a immunological response. But is it really a "person?" Don't get me wrong.. I'm not an evil gal with an axe out there for babies (although I'm sure you think I am). At that point its a bundle of cells, at the whim of that body's ability to sustain it. If its a person, and if that body rejects the baby? Is it then murder? Or rather, manslaughter.. since the woman really wasn't directly responsible for her child's slaughter? Or what if the gestating child somehow is hurting the mother, and endangering her life? Whatr if that baby, when brought to term (against the wishes of the mother), ends up with that mother's death? If that baby was a person, and is considered to be equal in the eyes of the law... shouldn't IT be charged with something? I mean.. as you said, its a person. Or maybe the baby being charged in the 5th precinct is too extreme... could the church that pressured the woman to birth the child be charged with manslaughter?
The fact of the matter is, for good or for ill, our laws are meant to protect those beings which have found its way OUT of the womb and are a part of society. If that sounds harsh and cold and heartless to you, I apologize.
Why should people be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to any type of murder? Would fvor trusting people to do the right thing when it comes to deciding when Grandma has lived long enough and should be put out of her misery? After all it's a moral and value judgement as to whether an elderly person's life is still worth living.
Well, again.. it would depend on your definition of living. Once grandma is unable to make decisions for herself because se's in an unrevivable coma and can be kept alive against her body's will through the use of technology alone... I think grandma would agree that its time to exit stage left.
Ever heard of NAMBLA? Am I to assume that you're just as much in favor as their right to the pursuit of happiness?
NAMBLA involves laws regarding the "age of consent." As far as I know its illegal in pretty much every state that an adult individual can not be in a physical relationship with a minor. I have no problems with laws which are created to protect a child from being taken advantage of. Which is the case of NAMBLA. Now if it were two adult males.. no.. no problem at all. Think before you type.
Take it up with Susan B. Anthony, she is the first person that I've seen who called it child murder.
And I have to agree with Susan B. Anthony on all of her views, even if some of the others don't necessarily make as much sense as others? Or do you believe that if a person is right about one thing, they are automatically right about everything else? Mega-Dittoes, Rush!
I'm illustrating your absurdity by being absurd.
Oh, you were being absurd? Thank GOD... I was afraid you might actually BELIEVE that crap you were slingin'!
FACE. It's illegal to protest an abortion clinic if someone inside "feels threatened" by you being there. It's a federal crime that could land you in federal prison and get you a 6 figure fine.
Well, I guess when you have protestors later killing the doctors performing the abortions, you get the ball taken away. This is what FACE says:
FACE makes it illegal to use force, the threat of force, or "physical
obstruction" intentionally to
"injure"
"intimidate"
"interfere with," or
attempt to injure/intimidate/interfere with
someone because that person is engaged in "obtaining or providing
reproductive health services," as those terms are defined in the statute.
The same prohibition applies to these same acts committed against someone "lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship."
Finally, the law punishes anyone who intentionally damages or destroys a
facility because it provides reproductive health services, or who "intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of
religious worship."
So, not only does it block VIOLENT (violence being defined as both physical and MENTAL) and aggressive protesting at Abortion Clinics, but.. *gasp*... religious institutions. So.. its not all bad after all, is it?
I'm not the one who has a problem. [About MTV]
Hey, I'm not the one saying I'm worried to see two guys kissing on it. YOu did.
I'd sacrifice the "right" to sodomy and infanticide if it means preserving my right to free speech and self defense.
So you're practicing "sodomy"? Or you feel you have the right to give up other people's rights to meet your own agenda and beliefs? Its not your life; you do not have the right in our society to then tell people what they can and cannot do.
Your love of bringing up extreme cases to bolster your own argument just illuminates the lack of depth to your own. I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but maybe you should use your brain a bit as well.
The budget surplus that Gore's looking to spend on the geezers relies upon a projected increase in the economy. In order to have the money in the first place, the economy has to GROW!
While GWB's massive tax break isn't nailed to a positive economic forecast as well? "Read My Lips.. No New Taxes.. " The fact is, according to the current Secretary of Treasury, if Bush's tax plan is realized, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by the time someone who is 42 now retires! Oh yeah, now _THAT'S_ a good idea! (http://www.wa shi ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7719-2000Oct24.html)
I nearly forgot, to some people being able to tell a lie well is more important than the ability to tell the truth.
You know... I'd much rather have a President who might utter a white lie who has experience dealing with international leaders and is actually somewhat respected than a bumbling fool who can't remember said leader's names without flash cards in his pocket.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you don't have a right to sodomy.
What's that whole.. "pursuit of happiness" thing I hear so much about...
To choose murder? [Re: Abortion] That's why he gets my vote.
Ahhh, the "murder" card! Touche! Didn't see _that_ one coming!
Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. Do you ask Jewish people not to wear certain articles of head covering when they're in your presence? Would you ask me to cover the Hex on my chest if we were swimming at the same public pool? Would you ask a muslim woman to remove that silly little veil so that you can see who you're talking to?
Why yes, I do. Every time. What a, if I may say so, stupid thing to say. But you seem to have taken simplistic arguments to an artform. Someone wearing a yarmulke does not impinge on others. A schoolwide prayer session does. I don't think many people would (at least I wouldnt) have a problem with individuals taking time out to pray, but when its mandated by a group which has power (either in numbers or influence) over others.. well, then you have a problem if its in a public place.
Are you seriously asking ME that? Socially, absolutely. Back when it was not a federal crime to protest the wrong type of business.
Federal Crime to protest a business? Huh? Be a little more vague and mysterious, please.
Back when the tree huggers and dirt kissers didn't have the ability affect public policy because the people in charge weren't in bed with them.
And even with those icky huggers and kissers (which is what people do in bed), the economy has thrived.. unlike the recession which came before. PUCKER UP!
Back when I didn't have to worry about flipping channels only find to hairy faces lip locked on MTV.
I'm sorry you are scared to watch MTV. Maybe you should see a therapist about that...
Back when no mainstream politician had the audacity to suggest taking over 1/7 of the US economy or suggest that I pay for someone to murder her own child.
No, they'd rather they just take over other people's lives and tell them how they should live. That's the ticket!
I'd love it. Please give me the good old days.
You can have them. Hey.. don't lose hope. You've still got Nick At Nite!
Why would I care about their running mates, very few vice presidents do anything useful. Once in a while a swing vote in the senate, and it has happened that the president died in office. Both are rare enough not to affect my vote.
9 VPs in the history of the United States have succeeded to the Presidency after the death of the former President or his resignation (John Tyler, Millard Filmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Gerald Ford). And that's not counting George Bush and Richard Nixon who were Vice President at one time before they were President. That's 11 VPs who later became President... that's over than 1/4th of ALL Presidents! I don't know if I would consider that rare, especially when you consider that from 1900 on, 9 of the 17 presidents were Vice Presidents first. That's over *50%*!!
With the overpowering clout of the two party system, which is doutbful to change suddenly, the VP president is just as important as the Prez.
And at the risk of sounding really rude... I can't really see how someone can know about the third parties and be completely ignorant as to the tickets for the two major parties. Not unless they have blinders on or something, and frankly... that's just as bad as people who vote blindly for the Dems or Republicans.
If someone is seriously concerned with the election, they ought to know at least the basics of each (mostly-major) party and their platform: Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Natural Law, Reform, Constitution/Tax-Payer, Green, and so on. Its one of the only ways someone can vote INFORMEDLY, and not just knee-jerkedly.
Seems its more than just the answering machine blitz, but also a urinal blitz. Thank God I don't have to worry about that one!
ABC's 'Norm' Catches Audience with Their Trousers Down
NEW YORK (Reuters) - In a promotional campaign for one of its TV comedies, the ABC network may have redefined the concept of bathroom humor.
The U.S. network's idea is to catch the ear of young men during a quiet, relaxed and attention-grabbing moment -- while they are relieving themselves at the urinal.
Don't pay taxes on your house or car and what happens after a while? It gets seized and possibly auctioned. No big suprise here.
Yeah, but that's because that's the government.
I have no problem of the dropping of the domain, but I DO have a problem with the re-auctioning off of the name. When you don't pay your telephone bill, and you lose the #, it isn't auctioned off as far as I am aware. Its added back into the pool of other telephone numbers and maybe they sick creditors/lawyers/whatever at you. They don't say "hmmmm, what do I bid for 555-1212." If we had more than one telephone company giving out local numbers, versus just one entity holding a pool of all possible #s for the region (I believe I am right in this assumption), you sure as Hell would think the others would go up in arms if a competitor decided that a number was theirs and theirs alone to distribute.
And even if Network Solutions says that they have the rights to that domain name, they certainly don't have the rights to get any more than $35 bucks a year! Because its been "broken in"? Sheesh!
Has there ever been a major news story on these guys and these sorts of decisions of theirs? Any journalists in the house going after them? Arrrggghh!!
Re:Based On Anemic Ticket Sales...Disney Factor?
on
Review: 'Titan A.E.'
·
· Score: 1
I don't care enough to go dig for it, but it might explain low ticket sales (well, above and beyond any quality issues).
Conspiracy theories aside, Titan A.E. was in more theaters than any new movie coming out last weekend with 2,733. Shaft was right behind at 2,377, and Boys and Girls at 1,983. Fantasia 2000 had a meager 1,313. I had another friend tell me that he was sad that the movie didn't have many theaters (he saw it on Saturday and liked it, I've decided if I see it, it'll either be for free or on video).
What is it with these theories that people are out to 'get' this movie? Maybe I'm overstating the phenomenon, but I've heard it a lot lately...
Here's to hoping X-Men doesn't share the same fate as its FOX Animated brethren...
Here's a semi-interesting thought: If NSI now, supposedly, "owns" all the domain names in their database... what is it, then, that the those people who bought a domain through another party (cybersquatter) for oodles of money actually got? Is this now just a total loss for them, seeing that they really don't own anything tangible (as tangible as a domain name really is)?
One thing about the issue of "cybersquatting?" How would NSI (or anyone) necessarily be able to tell if a domain someone owns, and isn't doing anything with, is actually "squatting," and not just mired in procrastination/other projects and just hasn't been able to move forward yet.
Yeah, true... a lot of squatters may have one of those "Heyyyy you can buy this domain name for X dollars, just contact us.." but a lot of other squatters may not do that. How do you separate those people from the people (like myself) who own a number of domain names (one of which will be transferred to CORE or TUCOWS in the near future, after reading that article) but haven't been able to get going on their plans yet? Can NSI decide, unilaterally, that "Well, they aren't doing anything with it... lemme just -yank- that away."
Well, maybe that is an exaggeration of what they might do.. but I wouldn't put it past them, either.
You know. I feel so unloved because I seem not to be on anyone's address book. How sad.
However... I have decided to create a human version of this Trojan, and am currently walking around the office and calling people in my Visor's DB, telling people "ILOVEYOU!" and then urging them to do the same with everyone they know. The entire office is now full of chattering ILOVEYOU!s, and the phone system is about to collapse.
I hope to bring down Bell Atlantic, Sprint, MCI, and AT&T this way.
That'll teach them not to put me on their address book!
I would also like to read paper over computer screen but when you think of all the paper that could be saved by putting bookd online i will put up with a little eye strain.
Yeah, but say the LoC or whomever puts all their books online. Those trees have already been converted to paper. No trees will be saved by doing this; only by beginning to publish new books and 're-issues' electronically will alleviate that problem. Besides... even if all their stuff IS put online, do you really believe that the general public will be willing to sit down and read entire books on their monitors? Or is it more realistic to think that, instead, people will just download the file and print it on their own computer... thereby INCREASING the amount of paper used.
I think people need to remember also that a big part of the LoC also is the cataloguing of books and allowing people to search for Dewey Decimal references and get those books at their local library/university. I live in DC, and I I've haven't once actually gone to the LoC and picked up books there. I've searched their catalog numerous times, but always got the book I wanted from other sources. Yeah, LoC has a lot of obscure things as well, but truly how many of those wouldn't be able to be collected through the library sharing system we already have?
I really don't think we should be 'pooh-poohing' the amount of time, effort, and money that this would take and label those against it currently as 'luddites' (granted I found those quotes about arrogance et al. pretty crazy). I think that this may be done in the future, but that's a lot of money to spend on something which still should be talked out to see just how useful it would be in our current world.
Re:Offtopic, but Useful Information for Nerds
on
Battlefield Earth
·
· Score: 2
A trick like this is kinda like the ever-lasting flame of a paper bag filled with shit that you leave on your enemy's doorstep. No matter what he/she does, it'll never go out.:) Lemme explain what I mean:
Living in Washington, DC, I sometimes pass by the CoS in Dupont Circle every once and a while. On nice days, a bunch of Scientologists often stand outside, giving away their free personality tests and beckoning people inside to watch their 'free movie.' A friend of mine actually did decide to see what its like 'on the other side,' and watchd the movie (which is pretty crappy, he said), and took the test. Yeah, he got the same 'creative type' prognosis and the junk mail. But the SCARY thing is that he has yet to be able to get OFF their list, even after moving three times!! Somehow, the mail has just followed him from place to place to place. He's called them to remove him, but no dice. Haven't talked to him in a few months, but he had signed up a few years ago.
Well, since Ben Edlund is currently working on a pilot of a new live-action Tick series on Fox, maybe there's a chance. But the name I keep hearing thrown around is Patrick Warburton, "Puddy" from Seinfeld, as the live action Tick (all rumors and wishes, of course, but a good idea:) ). Supposedly someone had asked him before about playing The Tick and he said he'd love to do it. Bruce would probably, IMO, be better as Die Fledermaus .:)
I doubt that Comet is sufficiently large that more than two or three people read the source;
I can see that, sure. I'm not saying people aren't looking at the source, neccessarily. But, I don't really think someone would program in this kind of tracking code, using a unique ID, and not tell his/her buddies: "Hey, lookie what I did." There had to be some sort of confab where the programmer(s) explained what it did and how, unless we are to assume some maverick activity going on. Maybe there was a major communication gap somewhere, but someone, somewhere had to say "This would be a neat little thing" when it was being designed. I just can't neccessarily see a programmer putting in something like this and not wanting to let someone know for whatever reason, unless someone told them to do it.
They're aware of the problem, and they're aware that we're aware of the problem. If it goes away now, I'll be happy.
I wholeheartedly agree, until there's a next time...
Call me cynical, but I'd be really gosh-durned surprised if this was an 'accident.' Maybe when it was first implemented, the designer didn't think out the ethical implications first, and just thought it would be a cool idea to track people using a unique ID based on hardware. I can believe that, but somewhere down the line to rolling the product out (whether Comet Systems was grassroots or more long-in-the-tooth at the time) someone would have had to pipe up and say: "Hey, dontcha think someone might have a problem with this?" Once that happens, it leaves the realm of "accident" and is knocking on the door of "intent."
The information they are gathering may seem to be benign, but its just another step towards making us all akin to tagged animals in the wild, tracking and analyzing our every move. All Comet needs to know is people have downloaded (and maybe use) their software... they don't need to know that someone used it at so-and-so's site, and then jumped somewhere else.
If they say they aren't using the data for these purposes, and there is no other good reason to have it (or less intrusive ways of getting it), they shouldn't have it in the first place. Period, paragraph, end of story.
Slashdot Mirror
If it wasn't about her being so darned attractive to computer geek guys, we'd never have these problems. ;)
"I don't think it should be blown up to be a case of 'violation', spam is just annoying, not violating. "
It may not be a violation of earth-shattering proportions, but its certainly a violation of trust of at least some weight. They asked the question before if people wanted information sent to them, good or bad, and people sent "no." The biggest issue with all this is the paper-thin excuse (if, indeed, this is not a hoax) that eBay seems to be floating to people: that due to an "error." What a crock! The fact that they would be attempting to pass off such an obvious lie just to meet their marketing quotas increases the underhandedness of the deed. I mean, its one thing to say: "We need the money!" versus "OOps! Obviously there was a problem because you don't want to hear from us!"
An action like this begs to ask why do they even give people the chance to opt out of correspondence, if they can change the rules whenever they want. Other than trying to pull a fast one over people's eyes.
"He's in convulsions from waiting too long in the emergency room! Quickly, beam me Pimp Wars, STAT! C'mon... we can get through this..."
Who knows whos pulling Georges strings.
Dick "Gepetto" Cheney!
Hey.. God _rested_ on the seventh day. Do we wanna be giving days to lollygagging deities? Yeah yeah, I know s/he did a lot those first six days. But if s/he just went that one extra mile, we might finally have those polka-dotted, winged, 110 volt unicorns that can toast both bagels AND bread at the same time that we've all been waiting for. Sheesh.
Maybe it oughta be "SlackerDay." A day we can all celebrate.
Heh, and this plan will be enacted on "HellHathFrozenOverDay" in the month of "Never"...
A few of years ago I used to work for a leading Political Memorabilia manufacturer and retailer who put out a lot of the popular political buttons and paraphenalia of the 80s and 90s. One day we were charged to try to find some new ones, and being the good girl that I am, I suggested a couple. The one people liked the most said:
;)
"Nixon In 2000 - You can't keep a good man down!" with an image of Nixon's hand breaking through his grave "Thriller" style
I'm not saying that sometimes the law isn't sometimes over- or mis-utilized, but... isn't this the exception instead of the rule? I'd be willing to bet for each instance when its enforced incorrectly, there are significant number of peaceful and lawful abortion protests that go off without problems, allowing those people who are Pro-Life to let their views be heard. Right?
There's nothing in the worly quite like a good "Lewinski".Thank God... a Clinton reference. Now the scorecard is complete. YAHTZEE!
Clarity is best achieved at the ends of the spectrum. Either a right is absolute or it isn't.I think the problem is that you don't believe in absolute rights, though. Just for the ones you believe in.
The fact is, LK, that Sodomy laws by and large (if not entirely) are unneeded legislation if its not hurting another person, in which case I think we can all agree it would be considered rape. If its two consenting adults, regardless of the sex, how is this hurting anything? Maybe those icky sodomy-germs can ooze through closed doors and infect passersby as they walk by the evil sodomy houses across America. Ew! Sodomy! Ew, it makes me wanna puke, lets make legislation! Ewewewewew! Frankly... its immature to think that something should be considered illegal because it grosses others out. But I bet it doesn't gross LK out. I'm sure he has a very intelligent, well-read, well-researched, well-founded reason why sodomy is bad which doesn't fall back on emotion or that pesky zip-zaggin' morality meter. Right?
You're not going to get away with playing that word game with me. Fetus means baby. What you're doing is equivalent to saying that "It's not a baby, it's a baby!".If we want to be really anal about it (hee hee, get it? Anal? I just mentioned Sodomy and then I said anal. LK, I hope that's ok with you. Need something to calm ya down?) the definition reads thusly from Merriam-Webster:
So... if we decide that "developing" doesn't mean "developED" for your argument, a fetus isn't a fetus until the third month. So.. you don't have a problemw ith abortions before its a fetus, do ya? Or is ther a sub-fetus or sub-sub-fetus that I'm missing somewhere?
Science is able to tell us that the baby is a separate and distinct person from the mother because they have different genetic codes. Science is able to tell us that the mother's body recognizes the baby as a foreign entity because of her immunological response to the presence of the baby.Ok, I'm gonna get extreme here.. 'cause our pal LK loves extremity. Fine.. the gestating sub-sub-sub-sub-fetus has a different genetic code and elicits a immunological response. But is it really a "person?" Don't get me wrong.. I'm not an evil gal with an axe out there for babies (although I'm sure you think I am). At that point its a bundle of cells, at the whim of that body's ability to sustain it. If its a person, and if that body rejects the baby? Is it then murder? Or rather, manslaughter.. since the woman really wasn't directly responsible for her child's slaughter? Or what if the gestating child somehow is hurting the mother, and endangering her life? Whatr if that baby, when brought to term (against the wishes of the mother), ends up with that mother's death? If that baby was a person, and is considered to be equal in the eyes of the law... shouldn't IT be charged with something? I mean.. as you said, its a person. Or maybe the baby being charged in the 5th precinct is too extreme... could the church that pressured the woman to birth the child be charged with manslaughter?
The fact of the matter is, for good or for ill, our laws are meant to protect those beings which have found its way OUT of the womb and are a part of society. If that sounds harsh and cold and heartless to you, I apologize.
Why should people be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to any type of murder? Would fvor trusting people to do the right thing when it comes to deciding when Grandma has lived long enough and should be put out of her misery? After all it's a moral and value judgement as to whether an elderly person's life is still worth living.Well, again.. it would depend on your definition of living. Once grandma is unable to make decisions for herself because se's in an unrevivable coma and can be kept alive against her body's will through the use of technology alone... I think grandma would agree that its time to exit stage left.
NAMBLA involves laws regarding the "age of consent." As far as I know its illegal in pretty much every state that an adult individual can not be in a physical relationship with a minor. I have no problems with laws which are created to protect a child from being taken advantage of. Which is the case of NAMBLA. Now if it were two adult males.. no.. no problem at all. Think before you type.
Take it up with Susan B. Anthony, she is the first person that I've seen who called it child murder.And I have to agree with Susan B. Anthony on all of her views, even if some of the others don't necessarily make as much sense as others? Or do you believe that if a person is right about one thing, they are automatically right about everything else? Mega-Dittoes, Rush!
I'm illustrating your absurdity by being absurd.Oh, you were being absurd? Thank GOD... I was afraid you might actually BELIEVE that crap you were slingin'!
FACE. It's illegal to protest an abortion clinic if someone inside "feels threatened" by you being there. It's a federal crime that could land you in federal prison and get you a 6 figure fine.Well, I guess when you have protestors later killing the doctors performing the abortions, you get the ball taken away. This is what FACE says:
FACE makes it illegal to use force, the threat of force, or "physical obstruction" intentionally to
- "injure"
- "intimidate"
- "interfere with," or
- attempt to injure/intimidate/interfere with
someone because that person is engaged in "obtaining or providing reproductive health services," as those terms are defined in the statute.The same prohibition applies to these same acts committed against someone "lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship."
Finally, the law punishes anyone who intentionally damages or destroys a facility because it provides reproductive health services, or who "intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship."
(Taken from The FACE FAQ)So, not only does it block VIOLENT (violence being defined as both physical and MENTAL) and aggressive protesting at Abortion Clinics, but.. *gasp*... religious institutions. So.. its not all bad after all, is it?
I'm not the one who has a problem. [About MTV]Hey, I'm not the one saying I'm worried to see two guys kissing on it. YOu did.
I'd sacrifice the "right" to sodomy and infanticide if it means preserving my right to free speech and self defense.So you're practicing "sodomy"? Or you feel you have the right to give up other people's rights to meet your own agenda and beliefs? Its not your life; you do not have the right in our society to then tell people what they can and cannot do.
Your love of bringing up extreme cases to bolster your own argument just illuminates the lack of depth to your own. I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but maybe you should use your brain a bit as well.
While GWB's massive tax break isn't nailed to a positive economic forecast as well? "Read My Lips.. No New Taxes.. " The fact is, according to the current Secretary of Treasury, if Bush's tax plan is realized, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by the time someone who is 42 now retires! Oh yeah, now _THAT'S_ a good idea! (http://www.wa shi ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7719-2000Oct24.html )
I nearly forgot, to some people being able to tell a lie well is more important than the ability to tell the truth.You know... I'd much rather have a President who might utter a white lie who has experience dealing with international leaders and is actually somewhat respected than a bumbling fool who can't remember said leader's names without flash cards in his pocket.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you don't have a right to sodomy.What's that whole.. "pursuit of happiness" thing I hear so much about...
To choose murder? [Re: Abortion] That's why he gets my vote.Ahhh, the "murder" card! Touche! Didn't see _that_ one coming!
Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. Do you ask Jewish people not to wear certain articles of head covering when they're in your presence? Would you ask me to cover the Hex on my chest if we were swimming at the same public pool? Would you ask a muslim woman to remove that silly little veil so that you can see who you're talking to?Why yes, I do. Every time. What a, if I may say so, stupid thing to say. But you seem to have taken simplistic arguments to an artform. Someone wearing a yarmulke does not impinge on others. A schoolwide prayer session does. I don't think many people would (at least I wouldnt) have a problem with individuals taking time out to pray, but when its mandated by a group which has power (either in numbers or influence) over others.. well, then you have a problem if its in a public place.
Are you seriously asking ME that? Socially, absolutely. Back when it was not a federal crime to protest the wrong type of business.Federal Crime to protest a business? Huh? Be a little more vague and mysterious, please.
Back when the tree huggers and dirt kissers didn't have the ability affect public policy because the people in charge weren't in bed with them.And even with those icky huggers and kissers (which is what people do in bed), the economy has thrived.. unlike the recession which came before. PUCKER UP!
Back when I didn't have to worry about flipping channels only find to hairy faces lip locked on MTV.I'm sorry you are scared to watch MTV. Maybe you should see a therapist about that...
Back when no mainstream politician had the audacity to suggest taking over 1/7 of the US economy or suggest that I pay for someone to murder her own child.No, they'd rather they just take over other people's lives and tell them how they should live. That's the ticket!
I'd love it. Please give me the good old days.You can have them. Hey.. don't lose hope. You've still got Nick At Nite!
9 VPs in the history of the United States have succeeded to the Presidency after the death of the former President or his resignation (John Tyler, Millard Filmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Gerald Ford). And that's not counting George Bush and Richard Nixon who were Vice President at one time before they were President. That's 11 VPs who later became President... that's over than 1/4th of ALL Presidents! I don't know if I would consider that rare, especially when you consider that from 1900 on, 9 of the 17 presidents were Vice Presidents first. That's over *50%*!! With the overpowering clout of the two party system, which is doutbful to change suddenly, the VP president is just as important as the Prez.
And at the risk of sounding really rude... I can't really see how someone can know about the third parties and be completely ignorant as to the tickets for the two major parties. Not unless they have blinders on or something, and frankly... that's just as bad as people who vote blindly for the Dems or Republicans.
If someone is seriously concerned with the election, they ought to know at least the basics of each (mostly-major) party and their platform: Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Natural Law, Reform, Constitution/Tax-Payer, Green, and so on. Its one of the only ways someone can vote INFORMEDLY, and not just knee-jerkedly.
Seems its more than just the answering machine blitz, but also a urinal blitz. Thank God I don't have to worry about that one!
ABC's 'Norm' Catches Audience with Their Trousers Down
NEW YORK (Reuters) - In a promotional campaign for one of its TV comedies, the ABC network may have redefined the concept of bathroom humor.
The U.S. network's idea is to catch the ear of young men during a quiet, relaxed and attention-grabbing moment -- while they are relieving themselves at the urinal.
Yeah, but that's because that's the government.
I have no problem of the dropping of the domain, but I DO have a problem with the re-auctioning off of the name. When you don't pay your telephone bill, and you lose the #, it isn't auctioned off as far as I am aware. Its added back into the pool of other telephone numbers and maybe they sick creditors/lawyers/whatever at you. They don't say "hmmmm, what do I bid for 555-1212." If we had more than one telephone company giving out local numbers, versus just one entity holding a pool of all possible #s for the region (I believe I am right in this assumption), you sure as Hell would think the others would go up in arms if a competitor decided that a number was theirs and theirs alone to distribute.
And even if Network Solutions says that they have the rights to that domain name, they certainly don't have the rights to get any more than $35 bucks a year! Because its been "broken in"? Sheesh!
Has there ever been a major news story on these guys and these sorts of decisions of theirs? Any journalists in the house going after them? Arrrggghh!!
Conspiracy theories aside, Titan A.E. was in more theaters than any new movie coming out last weekend with 2,733. Shaft was right behind at 2,377, and Boys and Girls at 1,983. Fantasia 2000 had a meager 1,313. I had another friend tell me that he was sad that the movie didn't have many theaters (he saw it on Saturday and liked it, I've decided if I see it, it'll either be for free or on video).
What is it with these theories that people are out to 'get' this movie? Maybe I'm overstating the phenomenon, but I've heard it a lot lately...
Here's to hoping X-Men doesn't share the same fate as its FOX Animated brethren...
(here is the link to box office results.)
Oh, and instead of seeing TAE, I ended up seeing Chicken Run as a sneak... now _that_ is a great movie!
Here's a semi-interesting thought: If NSI now, supposedly, "owns" all the domain names in their database... what is it, then, that the those people who bought a domain through another party (cybersquatter) for oodles of money actually got? Is this now just a total loss for them, seeing that they really don't own anything tangible (as tangible as a domain name really is)?
One thing about the issue of "cybersquatting?" How would NSI (or anyone) necessarily be able to tell if a domain someone owns, and isn't doing anything with, is actually "squatting," and not just mired in procrastination/other projects and just hasn't been able to move forward yet.
Yeah, true... a lot of squatters may have one of those "Heyyyy you can buy this domain name for X dollars, just contact us.." but a lot of other squatters may not do that. How do you separate those people from the people (like myself) who own a number of domain names (one of which will be transferred to CORE or TUCOWS in the near future, after reading that article) but haven't been able to get going on their plans yet? Can NSI decide, unilaterally, that "Well, they aren't doing anything with it... lemme just -yank- that away."
Well, maybe that is an exaggeration of what they might do.. but I wouldn't put it past them, either.
You know. I feel so unloved because I seem not to be on anyone's address book. How sad.
However... I have decided to create a human version of this Trojan, and am currently walking around the office and calling people in my Visor's DB, telling people "ILOVEYOU!" and then urging them to do the same with everyone they know. The entire office is now full of chattering ILOVEYOU!s, and the phone system is about to collapse.
I hope to bring down Bell Atlantic, Sprint, MCI, and AT&T this way.
That'll teach them not to put me on their address book!
I would also like to read paper over computer screen but when you think of all the paper that could be saved by putting bookd online i will put up with a little eye strain.
Yeah, but say the LoC or whomever puts all their books online. Those trees have already been converted to paper. No trees will be saved by doing this; only by beginning to publish new books and 're-issues' electronically will alleviate that problem. Besides... even if all their stuff IS put online, do you really believe that the general public will be willing to sit down and read entire books on their monitors? Or is it more realistic to think that, instead, people will just download the file and print it on their own computer... thereby INCREASING the amount of paper used.
I think people need to remember also that a big part of the LoC also is the cataloguing of books and allowing people to search for Dewey Decimal references and get those books at their local library/university. I live in DC, and I I've haven't once actually gone to the LoC and picked up books there. I've searched their catalog numerous times, but always got the book I wanted from other sources. Yeah, LoC has a lot of obscure things as well, but truly how many of those wouldn't be able to be collected through the library sharing system we already have?
I really don't think we should be 'pooh-poohing' the amount of time, effort, and money that this would take and label those against it currently as 'luddites' (granted I found those quotes about arrogance et al. pretty crazy). I think that this may be done in the future, but that's a lot of money to spend on something which still should be talked out to see just how useful it would be in our current world.
ARGH! That's it. Its a CoS plot: that submit button is too close to the preview. Damn body thetan messin' up my life again.
Someone earlier mentioned the terrible clip they showed on Leno a few days ago. I got to see it on the air (and it really must be SEEN to be believed), but the guys who run XenuTv.com also put it online. You can see it at http://209.241.48.234/us/battlefield.htm. If that's an inkling of what the rest of the movie is like... I think the new weather report in Hollywood will include "occasional showers of plummeting Warner Brothers executives from above." Oh yeah, did I mention that supposedly the movie in its current (and probably FINAL) form is 145 minutes long?
A trick like this is kinda like the ever-lasting flame of a paper bag filled with shit that you leave on your enemy's doorstep. No matter what he/she does, it'll never go out. :) Lemme explain what I mean:
Living in Washington, DC, I sometimes pass by the CoS in Dupont Circle every once and a while. On nice days, a bunch of Scientologists often stand outside, giving away their free personality tests and beckoning people inside to watch their 'free movie.' A friend of mine actually did decide to see what its like 'on the other side,' and watchd the movie (which is pretty crappy, he said), and took the test. Yeah, he got the same 'creative type' prognosis and the junk mail. But the SCARY thing is that he has yet to be able to get OFF their list, even after moving three times!! Somehow, the mail has just followed him from place to place to place. He's called them to remove him, but no dice. Haven't talked to him in a few months, but he had signed up a few years ago.
Just a PSA. :)
Well, since Ben Edlund is currently working on a pilot of a new live-action Tick series on Fox, maybe there's a chance. But the name I keep hearing thrown around is Patrick Warburton, "Puddy" from Seinfeld, as the live action Tick (all rumors and wishes, of course, but a good idea :) ). Supposedly someone had asked him before about playing The Tick and he said he'd love to do it. Bruce would probably, IMO, be better as Die Fledermaus . :)
I can see that, sure. I'm not saying people aren't looking at the source, neccessarily. But, I don't really think someone would program in this kind of tracking code, using a unique ID, and not tell his/her buddies: "Hey, lookie what I did." There had to be some sort of confab where the programmer(s) explained what it did and how, unless we are to assume some maverick activity going on. Maybe there was a major communication gap somewhere, but someone, somewhere had to say "This would be a neat little thing" when it was being designed. I just can't neccessarily see a programmer putting in something like this and not wanting to let someone know for whatever reason, unless someone told them to do it.
They're aware of the problem, and they're aware that we're aware of the problem. If it goes away now, I'll be happy.
I wholeheartedly agree, until there's a next time...
The information they are gathering may seem to be benign, but its just another step towards making us all akin to tagged animals in the wild, tracking and analyzing our every move. All Comet needs to know is people have downloaded (and maybe use) their software... they don't need to know that someone used it at so-and-so's site, and then jumped somewhere else.
If they say they aren't using the data for these purposes, and there is no other good reason to have it (or less intrusive ways of getting it), they shouldn't have it in the first place. Period, paragraph, end of story.