Although I agree with your sentiment about the OP's attitude, it is an unfortunate fact that protection orders are routinely used by the woman's lawyer in a divorce case. My brother in law is going through a really nasty divorce right now, which his wife initiated when his salary got drastically cut. The first thing she did was file for a protective order against him, on the grounds that she was "afraid" of him. It was granted immediately, since that is policy in most courts, and now he can't enter his own house. Meanwhile, she gets to strip the house of anything of value (like checkbooks, etc.) and he can do nothing about it. And as far as I know, the only "violence" he ever employed was on his high school football team.
Women like this play right into the "they're all lying" crowd, and reinforce the misogynistic views that some abusers have.
It's appropriate you mention the Reformation and Counter Reformation. One of Martin Luther's big peeves was the fact that the Church didn't want average people to read the bible, because it created too much dependence of the local priests, and was inevitably abused. The Church's stated reason was that the bible had to be interpreted by experts so that the laity didn't get confused by the Bible's complexity.
Fast forward a few hundred years - Luther's spiritual descendants (some of them anyway) are doing EXACTLY what the Church said they would do.
Art Rule #1: All artists must have a patron. Art Rule #2: In order to comply with Rule #1, all artists must create art that the patron will support.
If a government funds artists, then the artist will produce what the government approves of. I have a hard time seeing how art that appeals to a soulless bureaucracy can make the lives of a nation's citizens' "richer, more interesting".
Yes, that's the "must retreat" doctrine that has worked it's way into state laws. The problem is this: if you must retreat to somewhere safe, to where does one retreat when in your own home? English common law has recognized that "a man's home is his castle" for close to 1000 years; the home IS the retreat of last resort.
Under your theory, if someone breaks down my door I would need to run out of the house, which leaves me with even LESS protection, or submit to whatever gets inflicted under threat of violence. I mean, sure, the police will show up eventually, but that really doesn't do me a lot of good if I'm dead and my wife raped, or vice-versa.
Remember, even in "Ringworld" Nessus eventually defended himself.
BTW, can I have your address? I have some friends in NZ that need some stuff and, since you are offering...
As for NZ being "nuclear free", bfd. Aside from the production of tasty lamb chops, your country has nothing to offer the world, and has 3 great big countries (US, UK, AUS) that will defend them. You're like that brat in school who irritates everybody, even his big brother, but when someone wants to teach him a lesson he goes squealing back to that same bug brother begging for protection.
And finally, ALL civilians in modern countries defend themselves and their belongings with violence - they simply hire others (police/bodyguards) to do it for them.
The first problem is that subs don't operate at the speeds cars do, and don't react to directional input the way cars do - if one is in command of a sub and you suddenly realize there's an obstacle 500 yards away, the proper command is "Brace for Impact!" not "Full Rudder Right (or left)" (and to the sub geeks out there, I know that's not the correct terminology. Just work with me a minute)
The second problem is that the rules for navigating ships at sea were established hundreds of years before cars even existed, and all seafaring nations follow them. A sea captain doesn't just "decide" which way he will evade an oncoming ship.
As for sub skippers being "daring", yes and no. Attack sub captains need to take greater and greater risks and get closer and closer to the subs they are trailing. But ballistic missile sub captains goal is the opposite - hide, look like the surroundings, blend in, and don't do stupid things that make noise.
Think of the "Dance of the Hours" piece from the original Fantasia, but with the hippos being remarkably better at hiding from the crocodiles.
If one views downloads as goods or services, states typically levy sales taxes. They can only make the seller pay the taxes if the seller has a point-of-presence in that state. And I'm guessing there are a few company owned Apple stores in NY.
"What, you mean like carbon credits? Getting hit by a comet is not the same as pumping pollutants into your neighbor's air. I can't imagine what kind of diseased mind managed to make that connection."
Yeah, but it's not like they were actually at war, right? There's no reason to use passive unless you're trying to sneak around, and unless I'm missing some huge piece of news, the UK and France aren't actively pelting each other with torpedoes at the moment.
That's the same logic that the DC government got spanked on with Heller - Since you only need a gun when your house is being invaded, and it is so dangerous otherwise, it should remain locked or inoperable until immediately needed. Of course, by the time the need is immediate, it's too late.
And I thing the "Troll" mod on your comment is unfair. I believe your logic is faulty, but many, MANY people share it.
Anyway, that's moot since most drivers don't go around with the windows boarded over, trying to sneak up on other cars, as would be the analogy for the subs.
I see you've never driven in DC - with drivers on cell phones angling to get ahead of the other guy in traffic, I'd rather have Ray Charles in his Mercedes.
"You are painting with too broad a brush. All anti-vaccine people do not have autism fears. Some people just don't want the government to dictate the shots that go into their children. The government isn't always right. Be thankful that people are fighting for right to choose what you do with your children."
Ah, yes - the libertarian argument against vaccines. Of course, the government tells you to drive on the right side of the road (and I mean that in both ways, Britons), stop at traffic signals, etc. Why should you be subject to such petty interference in your right to travel?
Libertarianism is great on paper, but I don't think it could make the jump to real life.
The problem is that they ARE learning, but slowly. I figure they will have full understanding about the time that Geeks figure out that "ANYONE could have put it on my HD!" is a lame defense regardless of anyone's technical knowledge.
You are joking, right? because "ironclad proof" and "NO OTHER WAY than the crime for the evidence being there" are not "reasonable doubt. If you don't like it, that's ok, but good luck overturning a nearly thousand year old system of common and criminal law.
Re:Wow! Who ever would have guessed that!?
on
You Are Not a Lawyer
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"Likewise, the presence of a file called "Sympathy For The Devil.mp3" does not mean that I actually have the song. And likewise, the presence of the song on my computer doesn't mean that I put it there (give me 2 minutes access to your windows computer and I can put stuff on there that would ruin your life-- especially with the new ruling that a cartoon of bart simpson screwing marge simpson is child porn)."
While what you say is consistent with the rules of formal logic, that really doesn't matter. The question is, is it reasonable to believe that someone else put that file on your computer, or that a file named "Sympathy For The Devil.mp3" is not the Rolling Stone song. At first glance, I'd say that those assertions are not reasonable. Therefore, your defense will need to show that they are reasonable explanations, by providing evidence that there was an intrusion or that you have a time stamped copy of the file that has something other than that particular song.
You are proving the article author's point - geeks tend to focus on the problem as if it was a formal logic problem, when it is much more.
"Yes, because the way to get out of a 10 foot deep hole that is filling with water is to dig deeper."
The analogy I prefer is trying to raise the level of water in a reservoir by pumping it from the outlet to the inlet - you're actually worse off due to energy costs and leaks. Taking money out of the economy to process it through government hands and put less money back into the economy is insanity. But, since my name isn't Keynes, my opinions don't matter.
The instant cult of personality surrounding Obama is downright scary. Even the press, who helped foster it, is backpedalling by saying things like "He's not the Messiah".
I don't believe that Obama views himself that way, but he's a smart enough politician to harness it to get elected and get his agenda through. But you know what they say about riding the tiger...
"Let us pray that Obama can wipe public references to deities into oblivion." Oh the irony.....
That's right up there with the video of various celebrities pledging to be a "servant to the President". It would be like hearing Penn Gillette saying "I have been graced with the knowledge that God doesn't exist."
A quibble regarding Cloris Leachman. From Wikipedia:
"Cloris Leachman (born April 30, 1926) is an American actress of stage, film and television. She has won eight primetime Emmy Awards--more than any other female performer--and one Daytime Emmy Award. She won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in the 1971 film The Last Picture Show."
Yes, she's well past her prime physically, but she was (and is) quite talented. And telling John Stamos she was going to strap on her Oscar and fuck him with it qualifies her for comedy legend, right there.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I agree with your sentiment about the OP's attitude, it is an unfortunate fact that protection orders are routinely used by the woman's lawyer in a divorce case. My brother in law is going through a really nasty divorce right now, which his wife initiated when his salary got drastically cut. The first thing she did was file for a protective order against him, on the grounds that she was "afraid" of him. It was granted immediately, since that is policy in most courts, and now he can't enter his own house. Meanwhile, she gets to strip the house of anything of value (like checkbooks, etc.) and he can do nothing about it. And as far as I know, the only "violence" he ever employed was on his high school football team.
Women like this play right into the "they're all lying" crowd, and reinforce the misogynistic views that some abusers have.
the scary thing is, I can't tell whether to mod this Insightful or Funny.
Well played, sir!
Or boiling the frog. They tried ti implement a controversial change all at once, and it caused a kerfuffle. Now they will ease it in slowly.
I have the feeling that Zuckerberg's girlfriend wasn't real happy when he tried to introduce her to anal sex.
It's appropriate you mention the Reformation and Counter Reformation. One of Martin Luther's big peeves was the fact that the Church didn't want average people to read the bible, because it created too much dependence of the local priests, and was inevitably abused. The Church's stated reason was that the bible had to be interpreted by experts so that the laity didn't get confused by the Bible's complexity.
Fast forward a few hundred years - Luther's spiritual descendants (some of them anyway) are doing EXACTLY what the Church said they would do.
Welcome to Slashdot, where "Yes, We Can" becomes "We Did What?"
Art Rule #1: All artists must have a patron.
Art Rule #2: In order to comply with Rule #1, all artists must create art that the patron will support.
If a government funds artists, then the artist will produce what the government approves of. I have a hard time seeing how art that appeals to a soulless bureaucracy can make the lives of a nation's citizens' "richer, more interesting".
Yes, that's the "must retreat" doctrine that has worked it's way into state laws. The problem is this: if you must retreat to somewhere safe, to where does one retreat when in your own home? English common law has recognized that "a man's home is his castle" for close to 1000 years; the home IS the retreat of last resort.
Under your theory, if someone breaks down my door I would need to run out of the house, which leaves me with even LESS protection, or submit to whatever gets inflicted under threat of violence. I mean, sure, the police will show up eventually, but that really doesn't do me a lot of good if I'm dead and my wife raped, or vice-versa.
Remember, even in "Ringworld" Nessus eventually defended himself.
BTW, can I have your address? I have some friends in NZ that need some stuff and, since you are offering...
As for NZ being "nuclear free", bfd. Aside from the production of tasty lamb chops, your country has nothing to offer the world, and has 3 great big countries (US, UK, AUS) that will defend them. You're like that brat in school who irritates everybody, even his big brother, but when someone wants to teach him a lesson he goes squealing back to that same bug brother begging for protection.
And finally, ALL civilians in modern countries defend themselves and their belongings with violence - they simply hire others (police/bodyguards) to do it for them.
I've seen Russian porn. They have a long way to go before they match the Japanese.
The first problem is that subs don't operate at the speeds cars do, and don't react to directional input the way cars do - if one is in command of a sub and you suddenly realize there's an obstacle 500 yards away, the proper command is "Brace for Impact!" not "Full Rudder Right (or left)" (and to the sub geeks out there, I know that's not the correct terminology. Just work with me a minute)
The second problem is that the rules for navigating ships at sea were established hundreds of years before cars even existed, and all seafaring nations follow them. A sea captain doesn't just "decide" which way he will evade an oncoming ship.
As for sub skippers being "daring", yes and no. Attack sub captains need to take greater and greater risks and get closer and closer to the subs they are trailing. But ballistic missile sub captains goal is the opposite - hide, look like the surroundings, blend in, and don't do stupid things that make noise.
Think of the "Dance of the Hours" piece from the original Fantasia, but with the hippos being remarkably better at hiding from the crocodiles.
If one views downloads as goods or services, states typically levy sales taxes. They can only make the seller pay the taxes if the seller has a point-of-presence in that state. And I'm guessing there are a few company owned Apple stores in NY.
"What, you mean like carbon credits? Getting hit by a comet is not the same as pumping pollutants into your neighbor's air. I can't imagine what kind of diseased mind managed to make that connection."
Lighten up, Francis.
Communism isn't even what Communists think it means.
That's the same logic that the DC government got spanked on with Heller - Since you only need a gun when your house is being invaded, and it is so dangerous otherwise, it should remain locked or inoperable until immediately needed. Of course, by the time the need is immediate, it's too late.
And I thing the "Troll" mod on your comment is unfair. I believe your logic is faulty, but many, MANY people share it.
I see you've never driven in DC - with drivers on cell phones angling to get ahead of the other guy in traffic, I'd rather have Ray Charles in his Mercedes.
"A head on collision was bound to happen even if they knew the other sub was there. The French drive on the right, the British on the left."
What retard modded this Insightful? Funny, sure. Even Redundant. But FFS, Insightful?
"You are painting with too broad a brush. All anti-vaccine people do not have autism fears. Some people just don't want the government to dictate the shots that go into their children. The government isn't always right. Be thankful that people are fighting for right to choose what you do with your children."
Ah, yes - the libertarian argument against vaccines. Of course, the government tells you to drive on the right side of the road (and I mean that in both ways, Britons), stop at traffic signals, etc. Why should you be subject to such petty interference in your right to travel?
Libertarianism is great on paper, but I don't think it could make the jump to real life.
The problem is that they ARE learning, but slowly. I figure they will have full understanding about the time that Geeks figure out that "ANYONE could have put it on my HD!" is a lame defense regardless of anyone's technical knowledge.
You are joking, right? because "ironclad proof" and "NO OTHER WAY than the crime for the evidence being there" are not "reasonable doubt. If you don't like it, that's ok, but good luck overturning a nearly thousand year old system of common and criminal law.
While what you say is consistent with the rules of formal logic, that really doesn't matter. The question is, is it reasonable to believe that someone else put that file on your computer, or that a file named "Sympathy For The Devil.mp3" is not the Rolling Stone song. At first glance, I'd say that those assertions are not reasonable. Therefore, your defense will need to show that they are reasonable explanations, by providing evidence that there was an intrusion or that you have a time stamped copy of the file that has something other than that particular song.
You are proving the article author's point - geeks tend to focus on the problem as if it was a formal logic problem, when it is much more.
"Yes, because the way to get out of a 10 foot deep hole that is filling with water is to dig deeper."
The analogy I prefer is trying to raise the level of water in a reservoir by pumping it from the outlet to the inlet - you're actually worse off due to energy costs and leaks. Taking money out of the economy to process it through government hands and put less money back into the economy is insanity. But, since my name isn't Keynes, my opinions don't matter.
But I like your analogy as well.
Replace "defense spending" with "mandatory spending" (SS, Medicare, etc) and up the number to over 50%, and you'd have a better argument.
So the WSJ, viewed by slashdotters as a heavily conservative news source, is advocating a position that most slashdotters agree with?
Head explosions commencing in 3...2...1...
The instant cult of personality surrounding Obama is downright scary. Even the press, who helped foster it, is backpedalling by saying things like "He's not the Messiah".
I don't believe that Obama views himself that way, but he's a smart enough politician to harness it to get elected and get his agenda through. But you know what they say about riding the tiger...
That's right up there with the video of various celebrities pledging to be a "servant to the President". It would be like hearing Penn Gillette saying "I have been graced with the knowledge that God doesn't exist."
A quibble regarding Cloris Leachman. From Wikipedia:
"Cloris Leachman (born April 30, 1926) is an American actress of stage, film and television. She has won eight primetime Emmy Awards--more than any other female performer--and one Daytime Emmy Award. She won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in the 1971 film The Last Picture Show."
Yes, she's well past her prime physically, but she was (and is) quite talented. And telling John Stamos she was going to strap on her Oscar and fuck him with it qualifies her for comedy legend, right there.