Because addicts of certain substances don't just sit in their living room, they run out of money, and in order to avoid complete withdrawl, break into your grandma and granpappies house and bust thier skulls for the monthly check. You can deny it happens, but it does happen. I personally know a meth head who did this. Point being, some substances, when abused, have far reaching consequences that affect people other than the users.
Because making these drugs illegal 1) increases the price a hundredfold and 2) forces any users to deal with very nasty criminals.
Deal with "drug" abuse the same way you deal with alcohol abuse, and you'd still have addicts, but a lot less associated crime and violence.
If people want to fuck themselves up, there is very little the police can do to stop them.
While the DEA has in the past, and likely will in the future done some stupid and mindless things, it doesn't appear that this is the case in this instance
It does to me. It won't stop real meth cooks for a minute. It just covers the DEA's asses and fucks up a legitimate businessman selling a potentially life-saving product.
he could put a little more thought into the product, seal off the iodine in sintered glass or some other method that allowed water to pass over the crystals but did not allow for removal or tampering
Yeah, because a meth cook could never work out how to break a glass capsule.
And it would cost a lot more and probably price it out of the market (for those who actually wanted to purify water).He has been filling the iodine bottles by hand in his shed, and doesn't have an R&D facility or make his own glassware.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't required noisemakers on bicycles for the same reason
Probably because bicycles are much less likely to kill pedestrians, even if they hit them. Something that cyclists really try to avoid, since they will suffer at least as much in any collision, unlike car drivers who can turn a dozen pedestrians or cyclists into roadkill and just suffer a dented fender.
Copyright does not require reasonability... blah blah blah.
How perceptive. Thanks for explaining that.
There exist ways to protest unreasonable copyright owners without breaking the law.
Who is "protesting"? I'm just circumventing them. Nothing I do would have any impact on the *AAs. There are approximately 10 million movie blogs; I'm sure that they will care deeply if I gave them a poor review. And in any case, I rarely download movies. It's TV shows that take years or never get here, and what Joe Blogger thinks about a TV show is even less important. By the time it gets here it's probably already been cancelled. (I'm still waiting for the 5th season of Babylon 5 -- don't spoil me.)
I have absolutely no legal means within reason to access these programs.
So you don't see them. I am against copyright (as it exists now) but at least I am aware that it isn't a human right to see them.
Who said anything about a "human right to watch TV"? You're creating an absurd straw man.
The OP, like myself, feels there has been no reasonable legal method ot access these shows provided. So I feel no compunction in using methods that are illegal, according to some American companies and their lackeys in government. I know I'm not harming the owners (who aren't the same as the creators) of these shows, despite their absurd claims of untold billions in losses.
Legally, I'm wrong. Morally, I have not a twinge of guilt.
That water will prevent dehydration is common sense. If anyone is capable of reading a label, and knows what the word 'dehydration" means, they know this. It's about as helpful as labelling bread, say, as "Helps to prevent starvation". Equally true, equally inane.
I guess the implication is that ONLY the special kind of water so labelled is a "cure" for dehydration, and that nasty, free, tapwater isn't. Bottled water firms already have created a huge industry by making tapwater seem not only unfashionable, but dangerous. So screw them and let them just sell on the shape of the bottle, which is the only distinguishing feature as far as I'm concerned.
But well who needs to know the answer to those basic questions anyway.
Obviously not you, since they're all answered in TFA.
"And without any indication on how the video is used. Who stores the video, and how? How long is it stored? Watched on random basis or in case of reported problems only? So many unknowns here, hard to give an opinion on it.
Whether you actually believe these answers another matter, but for FUCK'S SAKE, THEY WERE ALL IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOU MORON.
police would only locate footage, stored on a CCTV hard drive for 28 days, if it was needed for a police investigation.
Because terrorists want western society to become a police state, or dictatorship, or whatever isn't free. Their goal is to incite fear of freedom,
Bullshit. Al-qaeda et al, don't care what kind of government you have at home. You're all infidels, you're going to hell regardless. They want to influence your policy in the Middle East. Either simply to make you butt out and let them install fundamentalist governments; or to provoke you into such violent overreactions that you are thrown out by your former allies. That's what they want, they don't give a fuck about you and your civil rights either way. Just getting your army out of their way is their aim.
Sure, after that they'd like to convert the whole world to Islam, by the sword if necessary, but that's for the next generation.
Sanitation and Hygiene (household bleach, soap, towels, etc.)
Clothing and Bedding (a change of clothes for each family member and blankets)
Important documents (copies of your driverâ(TM)s license, passport, and birth certificate to name a few)
First Aid supplies (although youâ(TM)re a goner if a zombie bites you, you can use these supplies to treat basic cuts and lacerations that you might get during a tornado or hurricane)
Okay, where is the shotgun/machete/baseball or cricket bat for dispatching zombies? -- I do like Darryl's crossbow on Walking Dead. He can usually retrieve the bolt and it's not hard to make more, and they're silent.
1) Google does it if a business ASKS THEM TO. You're unlikely to get close ups of bank vaults or diamond trading firms.
2) They don't take photos where the owner tells them not to.
3) Bad guys can stick on a moustache, or pay someone to scope the place out -- with special attention to security features probably NOT shown by Googlecam. People wander around with a phone in their hand all the time, trivial to set it to take photos or video.
Jumped the Shark. I just love that expression. Funny thing is that most who use it, didn't see the "Happy Days" episode it was coined after when they were kids -- you'd have to be in your early 40's at least to have seen it.
Unless they saw a rerun or on Youtube. Anyway, by that reasoning no one should use expressions from old movies (I was shocked, shocked... ), let alone the Bible, Shakespeare...
"photographs will 'capture nothing different to what a customer would see" - which is what they'd say about visitors to your home and it is obviously way too far.
Complete bullshit.
People can't walk in off the street to your home and take photos. They can in (most) businesses, and post them on their blogs, Twitter, etc, etc.
And in any case, the "inside photos" are only being taken WITH THE EXPRESS PERMISSION AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS, (from TFA:"Business photos are being gathered by a team of Google trusted photographers with permission from the businesses involved") because they want to publicise their business. It's a form of ADVERTISING. If you run a sex cam business from your bedroom, you may ask them to visit your home. Otherwise, probably not.
Back in the 90s Norton Utilities (for DOS) and Norton Commander were on my boot floppy and I could solve any problem (on our 286s and XTs) with them.
When they were taken over by Symantec, I quickly gave up on their huge bloatware.
I still use Far (a NC work-alike) made by RARlabs as my primary way of managing files and running apps.
The people proposing the space elevator aren't idiots either, but that doesn't mean it's ever going to be practical to build it.
The balloons are 20 km up. The space elevator is 30,000 km or so long. The first is feasible, the second requires a breakthrough or two in materials science. In any case I was responding to the wanker who thought that he was the first to consider the weight of the pipe.
Not sure how they're going to pump water 20km up in the air though. It would need a hell of a pump and an even more hellish pipe to hold the pressure. What size balloon could even lift that much? I suspect they haven't thought their cunning plan all the way through...
You might suspect that if you assumed the Cambridge University scientists that proposed it were idiots.
Why can't a Hollywood movie be shot in a national park without permits? As long as the shoot isn't damaging the park, or interfering with other people's use of it
Have you ever seen a Hollywood movie shooting on location? Hundreds of crew, trucks, generators, lights, etc, etc.
But it's unmanned so doesn't have to be as safe as a crewed one, thus cheaper. Also you don't have to develop a huge, very safe rocket that you'd need otherwise to launch a crewed mission to the asteroids or Mars.
TFA says they released a list with thousands of identities of pedophiles that haunt these sites. Why don't the authorities of the countries they reside in arrest them? Not many governments condone raping children.
It's a fucking CHILD PORN SITE. No one is going to use their real name. If they find actual names, just because someone registered as "George W Bush" isn't really proof than the person owning that name was the registrant.
Downside of course is if it's done by NASA, they won't let a gram of material off the face of the Moon, and no government in their right mind would allow a catapult on the Moon that has the potential to drop bigassed rocks & metal chunks weighing over 100 tons on Earth.
Every rocket that goes up will come down, at miles per secopnd, and could be targettd to make a big mess.
No difference really. And stuff launched from the Moon would take days to get here. We might not be able to stop them (though lasers are possible) but you would have time to evacuate, and attack the launch site.
How many other TV series from that time period can you name? I can only think of The Addams Family
Doctor Who; The Prisoner; Steptoe and Son; Softly, Softly; Monty Python; A for Andromeda; The Saint; Danger Man;Thunderbirds; Till Death Us Do Part; Gilligan's Island; Hawaii Five-O, The Man from UNCLE, I Dream of Jeannie; Mission Impossible; Get Smart; The Streets of San Francisco; The Fugitive; The Wild, Wild West; Gunsmoke; Bonanza; The Dick van Dyke Show;...
Slashdot Mirror
Because addicts of certain substances don't just sit in their living room, they run out of money, and in order to avoid complete withdrawl, break into your grandma and granpappies house and bust thier skulls for the monthly check. You can deny it happens, but it does happen. I personally know a meth head who did this. Point being, some substances, when abused, have far reaching consequences that affect people other than the users.
Because making these drugs illegal 1) increases the price a hundredfold and 2) forces any users to deal with very nasty criminals.
Deal with "drug" abuse the same way you deal with alcohol abuse, and you'd still have addicts, but a lot less associated crime and violence.
If people want to fuck themselves up, there is very little the police can do to stop them.
While the DEA has in the past, and likely will in the future done some stupid and mindless things, it doesn't appear that this is the case in this instance
It does to me. It won't stop real meth cooks for a minute. It just covers the DEA's asses and fucks up a legitimate businessman selling a potentially life-saving product.
he could put a little more thought into the product, seal off the iodine in sintered glass or some other method that allowed water to pass over the crystals but did not allow for removal or tampering
Yeah, because a meth cook could never work out how to break a glass capsule.
And it would cost a lot more and probably price it out of the market (for those who actually wanted to purify water).He has been filling the iodine bottles by hand in his shed, and doesn't have an R&D facility or make his own glassware.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't required noisemakers on bicycles for the same reason
Probably because bicycles are much less likely to kill pedestrians, even if they hit them. Something that cyclists really try to avoid, since they will suffer at least as much in any collision, unlike car drivers who can turn a dozen pedestrians or cyclists into roadkill and just suffer a dented fender.
Copyright does not require reasonability... blah blah blah.
How perceptive. Thanks for explaining that.
There exist ways to protest unreasonable copyright owners without breaking the law.
Who is "protesting"? I'm just circumventing them. Nothing I do would have any impact on the *AAs. There are approximately 10 million movie blogs; I'm sure that they will care deeply if I gave them a poor review. And in any case, I rarely download movies. It's TV shows that take years or never get here, and what Joe Blogger thinks about a TV show is even less important. By the time it gets here it's probably already been cancelled. (I'm still waiting for the 5th season of Babylon 5 -- don't spoil me.)
I have absolutely no legal means within reason to access these programs.
So you don't see them. I am against copyright (as it exists now) but at least I am aware that it isn't a human right to see them.
Who said anything about a "human right to watch TV"? You're creating an absurd straw man.
The OP, like myself, feels there has been no reasonable legal method ot access these shows provided. So I feel no compunction in using methods that are illegal, according to some American companies and their lackeys in government. I know I'm not harming the owners (who aren't the same as the creators) of these shows, despite their absurd claims of untold billions in losses.
Legally, I'm wrong. Morally, I have not a twinge of guilt.
I guess the implication is that ONLY the special kind of water so labelled is a "cure" for dehydration, and that nasty, free, tapwater isn't. Bottled water firms already have created a huge industry by making tapwater seem not only unfashionable, but dangerous. So screw them and let them just sell on the shape of the bottle, which is the only distinguishing feature as far as I'm concerned.
But well who needs to know the answer to those basic questions anyway.
Obviously not you, since they're all answered in TFA.
"And without any indication on how the video is used. Who stores the video, and how? How long is it stored? Watched on random basis or in case of reported problems only? So many unknowns here, hard to give an opinion on it.
Whether you actually believe these answers another matter, but for FUCK'S SAKE, THEY WERE ALL IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOU MORON.
police would only locate footage, stored on a CCTV hard drive for 28 days, if it was needed for a police investigation.
An oddly coy title. Obviouly it's a simple typo for "When Geeks Fuck, Are They More Likely To Have Autistic Kids?"
Because terrorists want western society to become a police state, or dictatorship, or whatever isn't free. Their goal is to incite fear of freedom,
Bullshit. Al-qaeda et al, don't care what kind of government you have at home. You're all infidels, you're going to hell regardless. They want to influence your policy in the Middle East. Either simply to make you butt out and let them install fundamentalist governments; or to provoke you into such violent overreactions that you are thrown out by your former allies. That's what they want, they don't give a fuck about you and your civil rights either way. Just getting your army out of their way is their aim.
Sure, after that they'd like to convert the whole world to Islam, by the sword if necessary, but that's for the next generation.
First of all, you should have an emergency kit in your house
Okay, where is the shotgun/machete/baseball or cricket bat for dispatching zombies? -- I do like Darryl's crossbow on Walking Dead. He can usually retrieve the bolt and it's not hard to make more, and they're silent.
1) Google does it if a business ASKS THEM TO. You're unlikely to get close ups of bank vaults or diamond trading firms.
2) They don't take photos where the owner tells them not to.
3) Bad guys can stick on a moustache, or pay someone to scope the place out -- with special attention to security features probably NOT shown by Googlecam. People wander around with a phone in their hand all the time, trivial to set it to take photos or video.
Jumped the Shark. I just love that expression. Funny thing is that most who use it, didn't see the "Happy Days" episode it was coined after when they were kids -- you'd have to be in your early 40's at least to have seen it.
Unless they saw a rerun or on Youtube. Anyway, by that reasoning no one should use expressions from old movies (I was shocked, shocked... ), let alone the Bible, Shakespeare...
"photographs will 'capture nothing different to what a customer would see" - which is what they'd say about visitors to your home and it is obviously way too far.
Complete bullshit.
People can't walk in off the street to your home and take photos. They can in (most) businesses, and post them on their blogs, Twitter, etc, etc.
And in any case, the "inside photos" are only being taken WITH THE EXPRESS PERMISSION AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS, (from TFA:"Business photos are being gathered by a team of Google trusted photographers with permission from the businesses involved") because they want to publicise their business. It's a form of ADVERTISING. If you run a sex cam business from your bedroom, you may ask them to visit your home. Otherwise, probably not.
It's about the only useful product they make.
Back in the 90s Norton Utilities (for DOS) and Norton Commander were on my boot floppy and I could solve any problem (on our 286s and XTs) with them.
When they were taken over by Symantec, I quickly gave up on their huge bloatware. I still use Far (a NC work-alike) made by RARlabs as my primary way of managing files and running apps.
The people proposing the space elevator aren't idiots either, but that doesn't mean it's ever going to be practical to build it.
The balloons are 20 km up. The space elevator is 30,000 km or so long. The first is feasible, the second requires a breakthrough or two in materials science. In any case I was responding to the wanker who thought that he was the first to consider the weight of the pipe.
Not sure how they're going to pump water 20km up in the air though. It would need a hell of a pump and an even more hellish pipe to hold the pressure. What size balloon could even lift that much? I suspect they haven't thought their cunning plan all the way through...
You might suspect that if you assumed the Cambridge University scientists that proposed it were idiots.
RTFM.
Why can't a Hollywood movie be shot in a national park without permits? As long as the shoot isn't damaging the park, or interfering with other people's use of it
Have you ever seen a Hollywood movie shooting on location? Hundreds of crew, trucks, generators, lights, etc, etc.
But it's unmanned so doesn't have to be as safe as a crewed one, thus cheaper. Also you don't have to develop a huge, very safe rocket that you'd need otherwise to launch a crewed mission to the asteroids or Mars.
Ummm ... create original material instead of trying to cash in on other people's fame?
So, you believe there should be no right to parody without the source's permission? If not, what is your point?
TFA says they released a list with thousands of identities of pedophiles that haunt these sites. Why don't the authorities of the countries they reside in arrest them? Not many governments condone raping children.
It's a fucking CHILD PORN SITE. No one is going to use their real name. If they find actual names, just because someone registered as "George W Bush" isn't really proof than the person owning that name was the registrant.
Downside of course is if it's done by NASA, they won't let a gram of material off the face of the Moon, and no government in their right mind would allow a catapult on the Moon that has the potential to drop bigassed rocks & metal chunks weighing over 100 tons on Earth.
Every rocket that goes up will come down, at miles per secopnd, and could be targettd to make a big mess.
No difference really. And stuff launched from the Moon would take days to get here. We might not be able to stop them (though lasers are possible) but you would have time to evacuate, and attack the launch site.
set up the system to record the girls locker room
Pics or it didn't happen.
Really, if it did, copies would have survived and be on the web forever after.
Schools have a duty to keep out unauthorized and dangerous outsiders.
And fingerprinting kids on school buses does that how?
How many other TV series from that time period can you name? I can only think of The Addams Family
Doctor Who; The Prisoner; Steptoe and Son; Softly, Softly; Monty Python; A for Andromeda; The Saint; Danger Man;Thunderbirds; Till Death Us Do Part; Gilligan's Island; Hawaii Five-O, The Man from UNCLE, I Dream of Jeannie; Mission Impossible; Get Smart; The Streets of San Francisco; The Fugitive; The Wild, Wild West; Gunsmoke; Bonanza; The Dick van Dyke Show; ...
If you did, would you use the same ghost writer?