"It is not not believed that the perpetrators of this attack obtained access to sensitive information" if they had ATT certainly would not tell anybody... and if they were REALLY good ATT wouldn't know.
I mean.xxx does in some sense acknowledge that people market pron. ( is there any sane person who dosn't know that? ) It also should make it MUCH easier for people who want to avoid seeing pron to not be spammed by it. Is it censorship to not look at things I don't want to and now allow them to be seen by people using equipment I have authority over? ( Assuming of coarse the equipment is not paid for by public funds who's business is it what I do and do not allow on my networks and equipment).
It seems to me.xxx meets a legitimate content labeling goal that can make everyone's life easier because we all understand what kind of 'information' should be labeled in that way and can act appropriately.
I'm sorry have I missed something, what does the term exists mean in this context? Don't all ideas and mathematical constructs , including dreams exist? If they didn't we would not have words to describe them, because no one would ever have experienced them. Is there some definition for the word exists that doesn't require recourse to metaphysics for it's definition? I mean you might say occupies objectively measurable space time , but isn't that a pre-requisite for experimentally derived data?
There are various data recover apps out there for this purpose. The problem is complicated by files being zipped. it is possible to dump the files as binary images then manually edit the binaries of the individual files in a hex editor etc. so that the can be read by software that works with a given format. However, I'm not sure if or how well that will worked with compressed files. Are they encrypted as well? The problems are not 'unsolvable' but can very quickly move into the realm of needing a supercomputer and a other specialized equipment.
There are of coarse companies that do this professionally and charge $$ for it , how much are the files worth.
following are few things that might help out. Good luck.
A better question is what do you think will happen if the mother from above has made it abundantly clear that she want to be KEPT ALIVE for as long is technically possible. I can tell you what happens , the state, or the hospital, petitions to have her wishes overridden, on the grounds she could not possibly have foreseen her current condition and would not have meant to stay alive in them, even against the families wishes. That has happened already in this country. You can't say people have a 'choice' when they are only given one option.
This fellow is about half right. However, suicide is expressly forbidden in the Christian bible 'you shall not commit murder' does not have an exception for self.
However, certainly killing ones self is an insult to God, your fellow man , and an act of extreme cowardice, especially for someone claiming to be a Christian. it is in fact a kind of denial that God exist and an assertion of the idea that man should control his own destiny and life.
You are taking my sentence out of context. There is no 'should' if there is no morality. Ethics is the science of defining 'should' and 'should' not , aka 'right' and 'wrong'. And as you pointed out all laws first begin with a discussion of ethics.
There is no such thing as atheistic ethics no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' without God, because that implies laws that extend beyond what physically exists. so there can be no valid argument from a non-religious standpoint for or against a law.
Your statement only makes sense if YOU are at least in practice an atheist. I am not and respectfully disagree. The statement 'There is no single and universal morality' is a soft phrase for 'there is no such thing as morality'. Because a morality that is not universal is not a morality at all. One thing is clear of all non-atheist, we may disagree about what specifically is moral, but we all agree there is such a thing as morality.
Prior to the deportation of the Jews the Nazi's wiped out all of the disabled people in their country with the preported 'right to die with dignity' The 'right to die' has been a common euphemism for 'right to state assisted murder' of the eugenics supports of Nazi , communists, fascist, and for years.
Not just can occur, usually does occur, read some history or look at the Netherlands. Already in this country a 'living will' is written for people who are 'wards of the state' in nursing homes , in the state of Minnesota , that ensures that if they suffer from depression and refuse to eat , they are very likely to die, because they will not be given food involuntarily and will never be given anti-biotics ( they are both 'life support'). I'm not just talking about what 'might' happen, I'm talking about what has and is happening as well.
Which religion do you know of that would ensure a person committing suicide is in a better place? In general judeo-Christan philosophy assumes someone committing suicide has greatly endangered their chances of salvation and is likely not in a better place. Hindu and Buddhist don't believe a suicide is better off. Atheist believe the person is just plan gone ( i guess you might say that is better , but they are not in 'a place' of any kind).
in general the term 'in a better place' is a Christan euphemism for heaven. Most Christians believe suicides is a overt rejection of God's plan for your life that if you are fully responsible for ( aka not suffering from insanity or significant duress from say fear of pain) and unrepentant of ( possibly while laying in a pool of blood at the last moments of death) you have chosen to separate yourself from God by committing suicide and will wind up in hell.
The idea that just because people do it all the time it should be legal is ridiculous. people steal and murder all the time too. To try and prevent suicide is the best way for the government to respect the individual and to ensure individual liberty. As you have pointed out , just because it is illegal , doesn't mean it doesn't happen. What it means is government is not in the position of deciding , who is worthy of living. It is much better for the government to have a built in preference for life, because otherwise it will have built in preference for death.
are you suggesting the neglect you are complaining bout is 'wrong'... arguing for assisted suicide runs counter to your argument. rejecting assisted suicide gives better hope of countering the culture that allows for the abuse you are complaining bout.
>>Right... Because legalizing marriage put law makers in the position of deciding who I have to marry, right? >>Which explains why there's so much opposition to legalizing gay marriage - if that happens we'll all be required to marry same-sex partners.
Are you suggesting there would be an argument about "if'" same-sex marriage should be legal if the state was NOT the one deciding who was getting married ? It is ONLY because the state IS deciding that there is an argument at all. If marriage was a purely private matter , as opposed to a legal issue , there would be no need for an argument. So YES the state decides who can be married and that is WHY there is an argument now. The state doesn't just prevent same-sex couples from getting married. It also prevents parents from marring children ( consenting adults or not) , it prevents first cousins from getting married and it would let you marry your Dog either. All of these things happen in other cultures.
Religion is the only legitimate basis for politics. All laws force some smaller group to do what a larger group thinks is 'moral'. I challenge you to define the term 'human rights' without reference to either law or morality. There is no such thing.
I have worked in many nursing homes and seen many dementia patients. They have all died quietly and none of them suffered particularly, cancer patients suffer a great deal more. I remember one woman who managed to lock a prayer into her mind. Long after she had lost all consistences of her environment and should no longer of been able to speak she kept reciting the prayer. There was something noble and heroic about that last battle that set an example i will always remember, which just goes to show , even if you don't think you have anything left to contribute, you still can set a good example.
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die, and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way. Those in 'charge' of the weak , the disabled, and children, decide if those vulnerable groups are wroth allowing to live. The short of it is suicide is and should be illegal because it is immoral , if you don't believe in morality then there is no foundation for any law, and arguing about what 'should' or 'should not be' legal is vacuous, because thing only are or are not and there is no such thing as 'should be'.
Making suicide legal is giving the 'right' to decide when to die to the government , not the person, because the government will always decide , who is eligible for that 'right'. More so , it destroys protection for the vulnerable and the week, because it de-facto places the 'guardian' ( often the state) of a person in the place of deciding if they 'would want' to live.
Suicide is mans attempt to keep control of what he never had any control of. Himself. Legal suicide is an invitation for the 'state' to decide who is worthy to live and die because it immediately puts law makers in the position of deciding who's life is worthy of being required to live. As has always happened in the past legal suicide will not be fully voluntary for long , because it will be used as an excuse to not take care of those people who choose not to use the 'option' when they are no longer 'worthy' of support.
What goal is Italy progressing towards? How does this slow it's completion of that goal? if so by how much? The loaded phrase' slows down progress' assumes people first agree on a destination, which may not be the case.
Do you believe in evaluation? If so , then if 51% of Americans disagree and that puts the nation at an evolutionary disadvantage , survival of the fittest will take it's coarse. Nowhere is it written in Darwinian theory that 'correct belief' aromatically is a 'best adaptation'. That argument makes since from say a Judea-Christian perspective but not a Darwinian one.
It is entirely possible that believing things that are not 'factually correct' can provide an evolutionary advantage to a group. Are you smart enough to know if it will or won't ? should we then perhaps make you king, since you obviously know better then the majority of Americans, what best serves the public good? The whole point of a democracy and to a lesser extent a democratic republic is that the question , 'should we allow' is decided by majority vote in the assumption that if we are jointly stupid , we all suffer and hopefully it is harder for a majority to be stupid then a single individual.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who refuse to regulate themselves, will force society to regulate them , or destroy society.
"It is not not believed that the perpetrators of this attack obtained access to sensitive information" ... and if they were REALLY good ATT wouldn't know.
if they had ATT certainly would not tell anybody
I mean .xxx does in some sense acknowledge that people market pron. ( is there any sane person who dosn't know that? )
It also should make it MUCH easier for people who want to avoid seeing pron to not be spammed by it.
Is it censorship to not look at things I don't want to and now allow them to be seen by people using equipment I have authority over?
( Assuming of coarse the equipment is not paid for by public funds who's business is it what I do and do not allow on my networks and equipment).
It seems to me .xxx meets a legitimate content labeling goal that can make everyone's life easier because we all understand what kind of 'information' should be labeled in that way and can act appropriately.
I'm sorry have I missed something, what does the term exists mean in this context?
Don't all ideas and mathematical constructs , including dreams exist? If they didn't we would not have words to describe them, because no one would ever have experienced them.
Is there some definition for the word exists that doesn't require recourse to metaphysics for it's definition?
I mean you might say occupies objectively measurable space time , but isn't that a pre-requisite for experimentally derived data?
There are various data recover apps out there for this purpose. The problem is complicated by files being zipped. it is possible to dump the files as binary images then manually edit the binaries of the individual files in a hex editor etc. so that the can be read by software that works with a given format. However, I'm not sure if or how well that will worked with compressed files. Are they encrypted as well?
The problems are not 'unsolvable' but can very quickly move into the realm of needing a supercomputer and a other specialized equipment.
There are of coarse companies that do this professionally and charge $$ for it , how much are the files worth.
following are few things that might help out. Good luck.
http://content.dell.com/us/en/slgov/slg-solutions-digital-forensics.aspx?ST=forensics%20recovery%20software&dgc=ST&cid=69093&lid=1744642&acd=snYi17OBJ,7688660482,901rb36697
http://www.x-ways.net/
http://www.winhex.com/winhex/
A better question is what do you think will happen if the mother from above has made it abundantly clear that she want to be KEPT ALIVE for as long is technically possible. I can tell you what happens , the state, or the hospital, petitions to have her wishes overridden, on the grounds she could not possibly have foreseen her current condition and would not have meant to stay alive in them, even against the families wishes. That has happened already in this country.
You can't say people have a 'choice' when they are only given one option.
This fellow is about half right.
However, suicide is expressly forbidden in the Christian bible 'you shall not commit murder'
does not have an exception for self.
However, certainly killing ones self is an insult to God, your fellow man , and an act of extreme cowardice, especially for someone claiming to be a Christian.
it is in fact a kind of denial that God exist and an assertion of the idea that man should control his own destiny and life.
i agree, but assisted suicide sure makes it a lot easier for those in power to eliminate those they don't value.
You are taking my sentence out of context. There is no 'should' if there is no morality. Ethics is the science of defining 'should' and 'should' not , aka 'right' and 'wrong'. And as you pointed out all laws first begin with a discussion of ethics.
There is no such thing as atheistic ethics no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' without God, because that implies laws that extend beyond what physically exists.
so there can be no valid argument from a non-religious standpoint for or against a law.
Your statement only makes sense if YOU are at least in practice an atheist. I am not and respectfully disagree. The statement 'There is no single and universal morality' is a soft phrase for 'there is no such thing as morality'. Because a morality that is not universal is not a morality at all. One thing is clear of all non-atheist, we may disagree about what specifically is moral, but we all agree there is such a thing as morality.
Prior to the deportation of the Jews the Nazi's wiped out all of the disabled people in their country with the preported 'right to die with dignity'
The 'right to die' has been a common euphemism for 'right to state assisted murder' of the eugenics supports of Nazi , communists, fascist, and for years.
Not just can occur, usually does occur, read some history or look at the Netherlands.
Already in this country a 'living will' is written for people who are 'wards of the state' in nursing homes , in the state of Minnesota , that ensures that if they suffer from depression and refuse to eat , they are very likely to die, because they will not be given food involuntarily and will never be given anti-biotics ( they are both 'life support'). I'm not just talking about what 'might' happen, I'm talking about what has and is happening as well.
Which religion do you know of that would ensure a person committing suicide is in a better place?
In general judeo-Christan philosophy assumes someone committing suicide has greatly endangered their chances of salvation and is likely not in a better place.
Hindu and Buddhist don't believe a suicide is better off.
Atheist believe the person is just plan gone ( i guess you might say that is better , but they are not in 'a place' of any kind).
in general the term 'in a better place' is a Christan euphemism for heaven. Most Christians believe suicides is a overt rejection of God's plan for your life that if you are fully responsible for ( aka not suffering from insanity or significant duress from say fear of pain) and unrepentant of ( possibly while laying in a pool of blood at the last moments of death) you have chosen to separate yourself from God by committing suicide and will wind up in hell.
The idea that just because people do it all the time it should be legal is ridiculous. people steal and murder all the time too.
To try and prevent suicide is the best way for the government to respect the individual and to ensure individual liberty. As you have pointed out , just because it is illegal , doesn't mean it doesn't happen. What it means is government is not in the position of deciding , who is worthy of living. It is much better for the government to have a built in preference for life, because otherwise it will have built in preference for death.
are you suggesting the neglect you are complaining bout is 'wrong' ... arguing for assisted suicide runs counter to your argument. rejecting assisted suicide gives better hope of countering the culture that allows for the abuse you are complaining bout.
>>Right... Because legalizing marriage put law makers in the position of deciding who I have to marry, right?
>>Which explains why there's so much opposition to legalizing gay marriage - if that happens we'll all be required to marry same-sex partners.
Are you suggesting there would be an argument about "if'" same-sex marriage should be legal if the state was NOT the one deciding who was getting married ?
It is ONLY because the state IS deciding that there is an argument at all. If marriage was a purely private matter , as opposed to a legal issue , there would be no need for an argument. So YES the state decides who can be married and that is WHY there is an argument now. The state doesn't just prevent same-sex couples from getting married. It also prevents parents from marring children ( consenting adults or not) , it prevents first cousins from getting married and it would let you marry your Dog either. All of these things happen in other cultures.
I wasn't referring to the Nazi's try ancient Rome, various 'native cultures' , and the modern Netherlands, where it is illegal to kill your own child if you 'feel' their life won't be worth living?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/11/author-pratchett-plans-his-own-suicide/
Religion is the only legitimate basis for politics. All laws force some smaller group to do what a larger group thinks is 'moral'.
I challenge you to define the term 'human rights' without reference to either law or morality. There is no such thing.
I have worked in many nursing homes and seen many dementia patients. They have all died quietly and none of them suffered particularly, cancer patients suffer a great deal more. I remember one woman who managed to lock a prayer into her mind. Long after she had lost all consistences of her environment and should no longer of been able to speak she kept reciting the prayer. There was something noble and heroic about that last battle that set an example i will always remember, which just goes to show , even if you don't think you have anything left to contribute, you still can set a good example.
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die, and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way. Those in 'charge' of the weak , the disabled, and children, decide if those vulnerable groups are wroth allowing to live.
The short of it is suicide is and should be illegal because it is immoral , if you don't believe in morality then there is no foundation for any law, and arguing about what 'should' or 'should not be' legal is vacuous, because thing only are or are not and there is no such thing as 'should be'.
Making suicide legal is giving the 'right' to decide when to die to the government , not the person, because the government will always decide , who is eligible for that 'right'. More so , it destroys protection for the vulnerable and the week, because it de-facto places the 'guardian' ( often the state) of a person in the place of deciding if they 'would want' to live.
http://catholicexchange.com/2011/06/14/154594/
Suicide is mans attempt to keep control of what he never had any control of. Himself.
Legal suicide is an invitation for the 'state' to decide who is worthy to live and die because it immediately puts law makers in the position of deciding who's life is worthy of being required to live. As has always happened in the past legal suicide will not be fully voluntary for long , because it will be used as an excuse to not take care of those people who choose not to use the 'option' when they are no longer 'worthy' of support.
What goal is Italy progressing towards? How does this slow it's completion of that goal? if so by how much?
The loaded phrase' slows down progress' assumes people first agree on a destination, which may not be the case.
Do you believe in evaluation? If so , then if 51% of Americans disagree and that puts the nation at an evolutionary disadvantage , survival of the fittest will take it's coarse.
Nowhere is it written in Darwinian theory that 'correct belief' aromatically is a 'best adaptation'. That argument makes since from say a Judea-Christian perspective but not a Darwinian one.
It is entirely possible that believing things that are not 'factually correct' can provide an evolutionary advantage to a group. Are you smart enough to know if it will or won't ?
should we then perhaps make you king, since you obviously know better then the majority of Americans, what best serves the public good?
The whole point of a democracy and to a lesser extent a democratic republic is that the question , 'should we allow' is decided by majority vote in the assumption that if we are jointly stupid , we all suffer and hopefully it is harder for a majority to be stupid then a single individual.