I assume Amber was refusing to walk through the TSA body-scanner and had thus been subjected to the full-body search?
And people say there is no value to such searches. Look at the advances in science we are getting. Thanks, TSA!
i would like to buy a 5 watt mobile UHF radio and a 5 watt UHF base station and both can use external antennas of my choice so i can RX/TX a few miles out on them.
Would you like 40 or 50 watts? That's a typical ham mobile power in the UHF band. Get thyself a ham license and have at it.
Oh, you want to talk commercial topics? Pssst, most, if not all, and at least many, UHF ham radios can be "opened up" and will cover the GMRS/FRS frequencies. Remove a jumper/0 ohm SMD resistor and bingo. Go to mods.dk for info. Don't tell the FCC.
I'm not quite sure why the hell you'd have subsequent encounter with things like power tools. Most people would learn the first time.
Well, a guy with a lost thumb and a broken toe would have "initial encounter" for cutting off his thumb with the circular saw, and "subsequent encounter" for dropping it on his foot when he grabbed his thumb to stop the bleeding.
I suffer from T43616D (Underdosing of caffeine, subsequent encounter) every morning. A few dozen cups of coffee later, and I'm fine.
Be careful, your insurance company may want to subrogate its costs by suing a decaf coffee company. Personally I suffer from "T408X6D - Underdosing of lysergide [LSD], subsequent encounter". I'm going to present that symptom at my next checkup just to see if I can get it resolved.
Is there a code for when you trip over, trying to run away from a turtle?
Be more specific. Tripping over what? You must differentiate between tripping over a log, a bog, a dog, a cog, a frog, or a balrog. Or just tripping over your own two feet, which is the common failure mode in most slasher movies.
Does anyone else think that this changes the odds of them getting the data entered correctly from 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 140,000?
You obviously stopped reading my post a bit too early. For your convenience, I'll recap for you with fewer and shorter words:
Don't be an ass.
BTW, I think a loss of sales is a fantastic motivation for companies.
Obviously, you didn't understand what I wrote. Let me use smaller words for you.
I already bought the piece of crap. They didn't lose a sale. They have the money. They don't CARE that it doesn't work.
Happy customers are repeat customers,
The chance of losing a repeat sale doesn't matter to them. Otherwise they'd refund my money and make me a happy customer. The game company doesn't care and the place I bought the game from doesn't care. I was rather explicit in telling the latter face to face that they were losing a pretty good customer over a $40 game that they could repackage and resell for $35 or more as "used", but they didn't care. I told them "never coming back". They watched me walk out and moved on to dealing with the next complaint.
It's in a company's best interest to make the customer as happy as possible (within reason).
You think so. Obviously they don't agree with you. If they did, they'd work to have happy customers, even if that meant refunding the money for something that doesn't work.
If you have an issue with a company, don't support them.
That does absofuckinglutely nothing to solve the problem. I already don't support them. Look what that's gotten me. I still have a game I cannot play, and they still have my money. Tell me, wise ass smart fella, how does this problem get resolved? What is my club that will force this company to refund my money? What are the magic words? No, "please" doesn't do it. "I'm never buying anything from you again unless..." doesn't do it. Wanna take a shot at it, smart guy?
If you pay them for the next game they make, then you're rewarding that behavior.
You've ignored or missed the point completely. I've ALREADY REWARDED THE BEHAVIOUR BY PAYING THEM FOR A GAME THAT DOESN'T WORK. Done deal. They simply don't care. You can't play our game, tough shit. We've deposited your check, you ain't getting it back. That money is ours, sucka! "The next game they make" is always the next game, and it's irrelevant to getting this one to work.
In my experience, truly happy customers intuitively know that their purchase drives the development of new games,
Explain the difference between the money the company gets from happy customers and from customers they've screwed. Are the "happy customer dollars" warm and fuzzy and filled with jelly donuts and Jolt Cola to feed the sugar high of the developers, in any way different than the "you suck, I hate you" money that they've refused to refund to unhappy customers? No. It isn't. My dollar buys the same number of donuts that the happy customer dollar does. They SIMPLY DO NOT CARE.
In any case, your comment is irrelevant. I don't care what "truly happy customers" feel, the issue is what companies that make games feel towards their customers, both happy and unhappy. The happy ones they love. The unhappy ones they don't give a shit about. They don't have to give a shit, because they already have the money. If you don't buy anything else from them they'll never know it, because they aren't keeping track. Nobody at the fine company is sitting there with the database going "oh, look, Obfuscant bought a game last week and he hasn't bought another one. I wonder why? Is he unhappy? Do we need to do something better to make him happy?" No, that's a fantasy that maybe you believe, but I know better. On the other hand, there IS someone who reads the email that says "Oh, Obfuscant is unhappy because the game we sold him doesn't work and he wants his money back. Ha ha ha ha! No. Too bad."
That's right. It's dollars. Or loss of dollars, to be more precise.
And now that companies refuse to refund anything for a game that doesn't run at all, there is no financial motive for them to give a fuck. You bought it, they have the money, end of story.
Irrelevant. What you agree or disagree with isn't how the local prosecutor will determine what to prosecute.
Furthermore, I really don't think filtering the website and hiding it from view would do anything.
Ummm, it would prevent such things from appearing without direct action to view them. You would not be fooled by a goat.se link in/., for example, if goat.se is filtered from your browser. Any web content from a.xxx domain would be essentially non-existant if a browser filters out.xxx requests.
If it is truly illegal, then perhaps shutting it down would be a better course of action.
Please confirm, you are suggesting shutting down websites based on the legality of minors viewing the content? Do you also believe that liquor stores should be closed down because they might sell something to a minor?
Right. They might not even be offended by it. I don't really care if a minor views pornography.
Well, again, your opinion of the laws isn't what is relevant, it is how the laws exist and enforced that matters. A parent of a minor may very well have a different opinion than yours, and her opinion counts when the minor is hers.
I think the.xxx TLD is a stupid idea, but as long as it is 100% optional, I'm not too opposed to it.
The only difference between us in this regard is I don't oppose it at all.
Pretty much common sense, I don't believe there was a single person in my electronics class in highschool that needed to "learn" how to solder.
How much solder is too much? How much is not enough? How often do you clean the tip? Do you clean it before you shut it off? What does a good solder joint look like? More important, what does a bad solder joint look like? How can you tell a bad solder joint when using ROHS solder and they all look like bad joints?
How do you remove bridges? How do you keep from creating them in the first place? How do you solder SMD? How do you unsolder SMD? Do you "fill in the hole" when the hole is larger than the pin? How do you make a via? How close do you clip the leads after soldering?
For hobby operations, it's pretty much "common sense". For commercial users, learning to solder is important.
Rape is nonconsensual. This was consensual, because attempting to travel by air is implies consent. Thus, no crime.
Yes, I understand the argument that would be used by the TSA and their employees. What we are talking about is what the blogger called the TSA employee. She called her a rapist in the literal, legal sense of the word. She wasn't speaking rhetorically or with any degree of hyperbole. The Hawaii case would not apply because the Hawaii case dealt with someone who used the word "rape" in reference to a situation which had no physical contact at all, and no sexual or genital involvement of any kind. That was "rhetorical hyperbole" that would result in a reasonable person knowng that the target of the "rape" claim wasn't a true rapist.
If you stand up and shout "you raped me" and supply details that include "sticking fingers" in various sexual organs, then you truly are calling someone a rapist, and you cannot then say "oh, I was speaking with 'rhetorical hyperbole'...". The lawyer for this blogger is an ass for trying to pull that wool over anyone's eyes.
Now, I'm sure that if this ever gets to court, the defense of "truth" when making what would otherwise be libelous statements will be shot down very quickly by the plaintiff, using either the "didn't happen that way so it wasn't" or "consent was given by entering the line" arguments. Or maybe something more inventive. But that's something that may or may not happen, and not worth arguing about here.
That likely goes for any website in existence, not just "pornographic" websites.
That's true. There are, however, few kinds of websites where simply displaying an image can be considered a crime under certain circumstances. Nazi paraphenalia images in Germany, I think, is one. Pornography to a minor is another.
Anything can potentially offend anyone at any time
Oh, forgive me. I didn't realize that displaying porn to a minor was just a case of offending the minor.
I don't think things need to be automatically filtered (or something similar) because of that.
I didn't imagine that you thought I was saying otherwise. I was responding to the "stuff down your throat, just leave the website" comment. It doesn't matter if you then leave the website, the images have already been "stuffed down your throat", and into your cache.
For that reason, I think anything that can help those who want to filter such material is good. If a simple block on.xxx allows that, I'm all for it.
She hasn't filed rape charges because she doesn't believe she was raped, and does claim that it was rape.
If she claims it was rape, then does she not believe her own claim? How can she not believe it was rape and yet honestly claim it was?
Again, she never called Ms. Magee a rapist,
But you just said: "She specifically says that she screamed "You raped me" at the woman...". Is that NOT calling her a rapist?
Just what kind of looney definitions are we working with when you can say "you raped me" to someone and NOT be calling them a rapist? Is a rapist not "someone who commits the act of rape"? How can she not believe she was raped, after screaming "you raped me" at someone, and still claim that she was raped?
It's about unreasonable it is to require that a government employee actually violate your body for the simple reason that you are boarding a plane.
Because it wasn't "for the simple reason". If that was "the simple reason", then EVERYONE who was boarding a plane would get the same treatment. There was another reason, obviously. Whether that reason was sufficient to justify the search doesn't change the fact there was a reason.
Anyone who honestly listens to Rush for any significant length of time knows that he, himself, is the last person to call himself a "reporter". That you would consider that he doesn't do "reporting" as any kind of slam against him shows you don't know what he says.
Bias is a cry of wolf from a kid who has done nothing but scream about wolves for his entire life.
Then you'll never say that Fox News has a bias, right?
As for your argument that they "knew what they were getting into and elected to go flying anyways", first, you don't know that you will be selected for gate-rape until the TSO waves you over.
You don't know you WILL be, but you know it is possible. You entered the line knowing what could happen. That's the argument, not "you knew it would happen". Ditto for random gate checks.
Um, no, the way I read it they were consistently trying to make the case that a reasonable person would consider it to be so much like actual rape that calling it rape was actually justified, if slightly hyperbolic.
From the linked article, the words of the defense attorney:
"Your client aggressively pushed her fingers into my client's vulva. I am certain that she did not expect to find a bomb there. She did this to humiliate my client, to punish her for exercising her rights, and to send a message to others who might do the same. It was absolutely a sexual assault, perpetrated in order to exercise power over the victim. We agree with Ms. Alkon's characterization of this crime as "rape," and so would any reasonable juror."
They describe the action, then agree that it would be correctly characterized as the crime of "rape".
Then try to claim that she was speaking rhetorically and didn't mean the actual crime.
The criminal defense equivalent would be the attorney standing up in court saying "my client didn't do it, and if my client did do it it wasn't my client that did it." In an auto analogy, the car salesman is saying "this car will go 100 MPH easy, but it probably won't go 100 MPH at all."
Additionally, they argue that even if it were not rape, the first amendment provides protection against hyperbole.
The problem with that argument is that the woman did not make that statement as hyperbole, she meant the literal, legal definition of rape. There is no question in anyone's mind (or shouldn't be after reading the description of events) that she wasn't speaking rhetorically, she was speaking about the actual act. The defense even begins by making that claim. They argue that the act was rape (not "rhetorical hyperbole" rape.)
In the Hawaii case they cite, it is clear that the person claiming "rape" was speaking rhetorically, since there is no possible connection between "seeking an easement to access property" and the nonconsentual act of rape. No reasonable person would come away from the Hawaii case thinking that the neighbor was an actual rapist.
In this case, the intent was that people believe that the TSA agent was a true rapist. By responding to the claim, the TSA agent is implicitely claiming that the act was not, whether because the act didn't occur as reported or for some other reason it does not meet the legal definition. That will be a matter for the courts to decide, and a waste of time arguing prior. Neither side will change their mind based on "was too, was not" arguments.
This "rhetorical hyperbole" defense seems like nothing more than a grown-up version of the "it was only a joke" defense when someone on Usenet says something insulting and is trying to backpedal. I would hope that any judge that gets involved would throw such nonsense out and judge the case on the merits: is the speech protected because it is the truth?
Very easily, once you realize that just because you can buy something, doesn't make it right.
"It is immoral to buy things because buying things is immoral" is a tautology. And an opinion. Why is it immoral? I can grow cotton plants in my backyard, harvest, spin, weave, and sew myself a shirt. Or I can buy one. Why is buying a shirt instead of growing it myself immoral?
It is completely fucking immoral,
Yes, you said that. Why is it immoral?
as the entire game basically breaks down into who's willing to spend the most.
Ok. So I'll ask again, why is this immoral? The game was written by and belongs to someone else, so why do you think you get to define what the "good" rules are? The rules are known up-front. You know ahead of time what those rules are. If you don't like the rules, don't play. It really is that simple.
Is this a case of "I want to play that game by the rules I want to play them by, I don't care what the game authors want, and any rule I don't like is immoral?" (Ok, "unethical", but you get the idea.)
If you are grossly overcharging in the face of no competition, then that is immoral.
No, if you are grossly overcharging at any time, that's immoral. That's a tautology due to the use of the terms "gross" and "immoral".
If you are charging outrageous amounts of interest (usury), then that is immoral.
Here we have a bit of help from the legal system which defines maximum limits for interest for commercial transactions, and thus "usury" isn't a tautology for "outrageous" or "immoral". However, you may consider a 25% interest rate for a loan to an extremely bad risk "outrageous"; a mathematician may realize that the 25% rate is necessary for loans to such persons in order to cover the expected losses from failures to repay, and the borrower may accept such terms because he needs the money and nobody else will loan it to him at a better rate.
However, if you use microtransactions for things that completely alter the balance of the game, and essentially allow someone to pay to win, then that is immoral.
Why? If you know ahead of time that things that will alter the balance of the game are for sale and you choose to play the game anyway, why is that sale "immoral"? It may be immoral to make such sales secretly, but if the rules are clear that you can buy what you want, how can that be immoral?
Charity worked quite well until displaced / squeezed out by the government.
Case in point: a local community services organization is being forced to reduce services because the funding from the city (taxpayer dollars) is being cut. Prior to this, they didn't have to make themselves known to the community at large because the money they got was coerced from everyone and allocated to them by a few people they were able to convince to "donate".
Had they been a true charity all along, their name and function would have been, by necessity, in front of the people they wanted money from, and more people would be likely to donate. Nobody donates money to a group they've never heard of. It really is that simple.
When taxpayer dollars go to charity, taxpayers have no moral incentive to donate more. Their donations are enforced by the government. They even get little check boxes on their tax forms that let them feel good about donating a dollar or two or three, and in return they feel they've done their part. If more needs to be done, well, you know, the government will do it.
I know, bad juju to reply to myself, but talking about T-mobile and data brings up a question I need an answer to.
T-Mobile's email to SMS gateway takes email to my phone and converts it to SMS. It sends it from a range of "phone numbers" between 3000 and 4999, and keeps track of the backwards mapping so I can reply by SMS to that number and the message is mailed back to the original sender.
But -- every SMS app for Android I've found throws away that sending number and pulls the email address out of the body of the SMS. They assume I want to send an EMAIL when I reply, and cannot because I currently don't have a 3G data connection. And I don't WANT to send an email, I want an SMS.
Does anyone know an Android SMS app that can handle this simple thing? And if it could be told NEVER to use MMS, that would be icing on the cake.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume Amber was refusing to walk through the TSA body-scanner and had thus been subjected to the full-body search? And people say there is no value to such searches. Look at the advances in science we are getting. Thanks, TSA!
Mary Kay Leteurneau thanks you, Missouri!
i would like to buy a 5 watt mobile UHF radio and a 5 watt UHF base station and both can use external antennas of my choice so i can RX/TX a few miles out on them.
Would you like 40 or 50 watts? That's a typical ham mobile power in the UHF band. Get thyself a ham license and have at it.
Oh, you want to talk commercial topics? Pssst, most, if not all, and at least many, UHF ham radios can be "opened up" and will cover the GMRS/FRS frequencies. Remove a jumper/0 ohm SMD resistor and bingo. Go to mods.dk for info. Don't tell the FCC.
I'm not quite sure why the hell you'd have subsequent encounter with things like power tools. Most people would learn the first time.
Well, a guy with a lost thumb and a broken toe would have "initial encounter" for cutting off his thumb with the circular saw, and "subsequent encounter" for dropping it on his foot when he grabbed his thumb to stop the bleeding.
I suffer from T43616D (Underdosing of caffeine, subsequent encounter) every morning. A few dozen cups of coffee later, and I'm fine.
Be careful, your insurance company may want to subrogate its costs by suing a decaf coffee company. Personally I suffer from "T408X6D - Underdosing of lysergide [LSD], subsequent encounter". I'm going to present that symptom at my next checkup just to see if I can get it resolved.
Is there a code for when you trip over, trying to run away from a turtle?
Be more specific. Tripping over what? You must differentiate between tripping over a log, a bog, a dog, a cog, a frog, or a balrog. Or just tripping over your own two feet, which is the common failure mode in most slasher movies.
Does anyone else think that this changes the odds of them getting the data entered correctly from 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 140,000?
If the computer says it's a bad idea, and backs that up with evidence, might it not actually be a bad idea?
I can't answer that, Dave.
You obviously stopped reading my post a bit too early. For your convenience, I'll recap for you with fewer and shorter words:
Don't be an ass.
BTW, I think a loss of sales is a fantastic motivation for companies.
Obviously, you didn't understand what I wrote. Let me use smaller words for you.
I already bought the piece of crap. They didn't lose a sale. They have the money. They don't CARE that it doesn't work.
Happy customers are repeat customers,
The chance of losing a repeat sale doesn't matter to them. Otherwise they'd refund my money and make me a happy customer. The game company doesn't care and the place I bought the game from doesn't care. I was rather explicit in telling the latter face to face that they were losing a pretty good customer over a $40 game that they could repackage and resell for $35 or more as "used", but they didn't care. I told them "never coming back". They watched me walk out and moved on to dealing with the next complaint.
It's in a company's best interest to make the customer as happy as possible (within reason).
You think so. Obviously they don't agree with you. If they did, they'd work to have happy customers, even if that meant refunding the money for something that doesn't work.
If you have an issue with a company, don't support them.
That does absofuckinglutely nothing to solve the problem. I already don't support them. Look what that's gotten me. I still have a game I cannot play, and they still have my money. Tell me, wise ass smart fella, how does this problem get resolved? What is my club that will force this company to refund my money? What are the magic words? No, "please" doesn't do it. "I'm never buying anything from you again unless..." doesn't do it. Wanna take a shot at it, smart guy?
If you pay them for the next game they make, then you're rewarding that behavior.
You've ignored or missed the point completely. I've ALREADY REWARDED THE BEHAVIOUR BY PAYING THEM FOR A GAME THAT DOESN'T WORK. Done deal. They simply don't care. You can't play our game, tough shit. We've deposited your check, you ain't getting it back. That money is ours, sucka! "The next game they make" is always the next game, and it's irrelevant to getting this one to work.
In my experience, truly happy customers intuitively know that their purchase drives the development of new games,
Explain the difference between the money the company gets from happy customers and from customers they've screwed. Are the "happy customer dollars" warm and fuzzy and filled with jelly donuts and Jolt Cola to feed the sugar high of the developers, in any way different than the "you suck, I hate you" money that they've refused to refund to unhappy customers? No. It isn't. My dollar buys the same number of donuts that the happy customer dollar does. They SIMPLY DO NOT CARE.
In any case, your comment is irrelevant. I don't care what "truly happy customers" feel, the issue is what companies that make games feel towards their customers, both happy and unhappy. The happy ones they love. The unhappy ones they don't give a shit about. They don't have to give a shit, because they already have the money. If you don't buy anything else from them they'll never know it, because they aren't keeping track. Nobody at the fine company is sitting there with the database going "oh, look, Obfuscant bought a game last week and he hasn't bought another one. I wonder why? Is he unhappy? Do we need to do something better to make him happy?" No, that's a fantasy that maybe you believe, but I know better. On the other hand, there IS someone who reads the email that says "Oh, Obfuscant is unhappy because the game we sold him doesn't work and he wants his money back. Ha ha ha ha! No. Too bad."
It's not complaints that motivate companies.
That's right. It's dollars. Or loss of dollars, to be more precise.
And now that companies refuse to refund anything for a game that doesn't run at all, there is no financial motive for them to give a fuck. You bought it, they have the money, end of story.
I don't necessarily agree with those laws.
Irrelevant. What you agree or disagree with isn't how the local prosecutor will determine what to prosecute.
Furthermore, I really don't think filtering the website and hiding it from view would do anything.
Ummm, it would prevent such things from appearing without direct action to view them. You would not be fooled by a goat.se link in /., for example, if goat.se is filtered from your browser. Any web content from a .xxx domain would be essentially non-existant if a browser filters out .xxx requests.
If it is truly illegal, then perhaps shutting it down would be a better course of action.
Please confirm, you are suggesting shutting down websites based on the legality of minors viewing the content? Do you also believe that liquor stores should be closed down because they might sell something to a minor?
Right. They might not even be offended by it. I don't really care if a minor views pornography.
Well, again, your opinion of the laws isn't what is relevant, it is how the laws exist and enforced that matters. A parent of a minor may very well have a different opinion than yours, and her opinion counts when the minor is hers.
I think the .xxx TLD is a stupid idea, but as long as it is 100% optional, I'm not too opposed to it.
The only difference between us in this regard is I don't oppose it at all.
CW's a lot harder than electrical theory.
What's "CW"? Isn't that a TV network?
Or do you mean all those people who have intermittent PTT buttons on their radios?
Pretty much common sense, I don't believe there was a single person in my electronics class in highschool that needed to "learn" how to solder.
How much solder is too much? How much is not enough? How often do you clean the tip? Do you clean it before you shut it off? What does a good solder joint look like? More important, what does a bad solder joint look like? How can you tell a bad solder joint when using ROHS solder and they all look like bad joints?
How do you remove bridges? How do you keep from creating them in the first place? How do you solder SMD? How do you unsolder SMD? Do you "fill in the hole" when the hole is larger than the pin? How do you make a via? How close do you clip the leads after soldering?
For hobby operations, it's pretty much "common sense". For commercial users, learning to solder is important.
Rape is nonconsensual. This was consensual, because attempting to travel by air is implies consent. Thus, no crime.
Yes, I understand the argument that would be used by the TSA and their employees. What we are talking about is what the blogger called the TSA employee. She called her a rapist in the literal, legal sense of the word. She wasn't speaking rhetorically or with any degree of hyperbole. The Hawaii case would not apply because the Hawaii case dealt with someone who used the word "rape" in reference to a situation which had no physical contact at all, and no sexual or genital involvement of any kind. That was "rhetorical hyperbole" that would result in a reasonable person knowng that the target of the "rape" claim wasn't a true rapist.
If you stand up and shout "you raped me" and supply details that include "sticking fingers" in various sexual organs, then you truly are calling someone a rapist, and you cannot then say "oh, I was speaking with 'rhetorical hyperbole'...". The lawyer for this blogger is an ass for trying to pull that wool over anyone's eyes.
Now, I'm sure that if this ever gets to court, the defense of "truth" when making what would otherwise be libelous statements will be shot down very quickly by the plaintiff, using either the "didn't happen that way so it wasn't" or "consent was given by entering the line" arguments. Or maybe something more inventive. But that's something that may or may not happen, and not worth arguing about here.
That likely goes for any website in existence, not just "pornographic" websites.
That's true. There are, however, few kinds of websites where simply displaying an image can be considered a crime under certain circumstances. Nazi paraphenalia images in Germany, I think, is one. Pornography to a minor is another.
Anything can potentially offend anyone at any time
Oh, forgive me. I didn't realize that displaying porn to a minor was just a case of offending the minor.
I don't think things need to be automatically filtered (or something similar) because of that.
I didn't imagine that you thought I was saying otherwise. I was responding to the "stuff down your throat, just leave the website" comment. It doesn't matter if you then leave the website, the images have already been "stuffed down your throat", and into your cache.
For that reason, I think anything that can help those who want to filter such material is good. If a simple block on .xxx allows that, I'm all for it.
She hasn't filed rape charges because she doesn't believe she was raped, and does claim that it was rape.
If she claims it was rape, then does she not believe her own claim? How can she not believe it was rape and yet honestly claim it was?
Again, she never called Ms. Magee a rapist,
But you just said: "She specifically says that she screamed "You raped me" at the woman ...". Is that NOT calling her a rapist?
Just what kind of looney definitions are we working with when you can say "you raped me" to someone and NOT be calling them a rapist? Is a rapist not "someone who commits the act of rape"? How can she not believe she was raped, after screaming "you raped me" at someone, and still claim that she was raped?
It's about unreasonable it is to require that a government employee actually violate your body for the simple reason that you are boarding a plane.
Because it wasn't "for the simple reason". If that was "the simple reason", then EVERYONE who was boarding a plane would get the same treatment. There was another reason, obviously. Whether that reason was sufficient to justify the search doesn't change the fact there was a reason.
I don't ever remember Rush Limbaugh doing anything resembling "reporting," btw.
Anyone who honestly listens to Rush for any significant length of time knows that he, himself, is the last person to call himself a "reporter". That you would consider that he doesn't do "reporting" as any kind of slam against him shows you don't know what he says.
Bias is a cry of wolf from a kid who has done nothing but scream about wolves for his entire life.
Then you'll never say that Fox News has a bias, right?
The whole point of the .xxx TLD is that all porn sites will move to it under pressure of the law.
I've heard of no such law. Where is it written?
Now you're just being an ass.
No more so than people who say "we've already gone through the arguments" as if simply saying that was sufficient to prove their point.
They have an option: leave the website.
After the images are displayed. You can't unring a bell. You can't unsee some of the things you find on some websites.
As for your argument that they "knew what they were getting into and elected to go flying anyways", first, you don't know that you will be selected for gate-rape until the TSO waves you over.
You don't know you WILL be, but you know it is possible. You entered the line knowing what could happen. That's the argument, not "you knew it would happen". Ditto for random gate checks.
Um, no, the way I read it they were consistently trying to make the case that a reasonable person would consider it to be so much like actual rape that calling it rape was actually justified, if slightly hyperbolic.
From the linked article, the words of the defense attorney:
"Your client aggressively pushed her fingers into my client's vulva. I am certain that she did not expect to find a bomb there. She did this to humiliate my client, to punish her for exercising her rights, and to send a message to others who might do the same. It was absolutely a sexual assault, perpetrated in order to exercise power over the victim. We agree with Ms. Alkon's characterization of this crime as "rape," and so would any reasonable juror."
They describe the action, then agree that it would be correctly characterized as the crime of "rape".
Then try to claim that she was speaking rhetorically and didn't mean the actual crime.
The criminal defense equivalent would be the attorney standing up in court saying "my client didn't do it, and if my client did do it it wasn't my client that did it." In an auto analogy, the car salesman is saying "this car will go 100 MPH easy, but it probably won't go 100 MPH at all."
It sounds like a great idea at first, but think further. This is a perfect scheme for censorship. After all, who decides what is pornography?
ummm, the guy who registers his site with a .xxx domain name?
The problem with the .xxx TLD has been explained so many times I'm not going to repeat it.
And I've found a solution to a famous mathematical problem, which the margins of this posting are too small to contain.
Additionally, they argue that even if it were not rape, the first amendment provides protection against hyperbole.
The problem with that argument is that the woman did not make that statement as hyperbole, she meant the literal, legal definition of rape. There is no question in anyone's mind (or shouldn't be after reading the description of events) that she wasn't speaking rhetorically, she was speaking about the actual act. The defense even begins by making that claim. They argue that the act was rape (not "rhetorical hyperbole" rape.)
In the Hawaii case they cite, it is clear that the person claiming "rape" was speaking rhetorically, since there is no possible connection between "seeking an easement to access property" and the nonconsentual act of rape. No reasonable person would come away from the Hawaii case thinking that the neighbor was an actual rapist.
In this case, the intent was that people believe that the TSA agent was a true rapist. By responding to the claim, the TSA agent is implicitely claiming that the act was not, whether because the act didn't occur as reported or for some other reason it does not meet the legal definition. That will be a matter for the courts to decide, and a waste of time arguing prior. Neither side will change their mind based on "was too, was not" arguments.
This "rhetorical hyperbole" defense seems like nothing more than a grown-up version of the "it was only a joke" defense when someone on Usenet says something insulting and is trying to backpedal. I would hope that any judge that gets involved would throw such nonsense out and judge the case on the merits: is the speech protected because it is the truth?
Very easily, once you realize that just because you can buy something, doesn't make it right.
"It is immoral to buy things because buying things is immoral" is a tautology. And an opinion. Why is it immoral? I can grow cotton plants in my backyard, harvest, spin, weave, and sew myself a shirt. Or I can buy one. Why is buying a shirt instead of growing it myself immoral?
It is completely fucking immoral,
Yes, you said that. Why is it immoral?
as the entire game basically breaks down into who's willing to spend the most.
Ok. So I'll ask again, why is this immoral? The game was written by and belongs to someone else, so why do you think you get to define what the "good" rules are? The rules are known up-front. You know ahead of time what those rules are. If you don't like the rules, don't play. It really is that simple.
Is this a case of "I want to play that game by the rules I want to play them by, I don't care what the game authors want, and any rule I don't like is immoral?" (Ok, "unethical", but you get the idea.)
If you are grossly overcharging in the face of no competition, then that is immoral.
No, if you are grossly overcharging at any time, that's immoral. That's a tautology due to the use of the terms "gross" and "immoral".
If you are charging outrageous amounts of interest (usury), then that is immoral.
Here we have a bit of help from the legal system which defines maximum limits for interest for commercial transactions, and thus "usury" isn't a tautology for "outrageous" or "immoral". However, you may consider a 25% interest rate for a loan to an extremely bad risk "outrageous"; a mathematician may realize that the 25% rate is necessary for loans to such persons in order to cover the expected losses from failures to repay, and the borrower may accept such terms because he needs the money and nobody else will loan it to him at a better rate.
However, if you use microtransactions for things that completely alter the balance of the game, and essentially allow someone to pay to win, then that is immoral.
Why? If you know ahead of time that things that will alter the balance of the game are for sale and you choose to play the game anyway, why is that sale "immoral"? It may be immoral to make such sales secretly, but if the rules are clear that you can buy what you want, how can that be immoral?
Charity worked quite well until displaced / squeezed out by the government.
Case in point: a local community services organization is being forced to reduce services because the funding from the city (taxpayer dollars) is being cut. Prior to this, they didn't have to make themselves known to the community at large because the money they got was coerced from everyone and allocated to them by a few people they were able to convince to "donate".
Had they been a true charity all along, their name and function would have been, by necessity, in front of the people they wanted money from, and more people would be likely to donate. Nobody donates money to a group they've never heard of. It really is that simple.
When taxpayer dollars go to charity, taxpayers have no moral incentive to donate more. Their donations are enforced by the government. They even get little check boxes on their tax forms that let them feel good about donating a dollar or two or three, and in return they feel they've done their part. If more needs to be done, well, you know, the government will do it.
T-Mobile's email to SMS gateway takes email to my phone and converts it to SMS. It sends it from a range of "phone numbers" between 3000 and 4999, and keeps track of the backwards mapping so I can reply by SMS to that number and the message is mailed back to the original sender.
But -- every SMS app for Android I've found throws away that sending number and pulls the email address out of the body of the SMS. They assume I want to send an EMAIL when I reply, and cannot because I currently don't have a 3G data connection. And I don't WANT to send an email, I want an SMS.
Does anyone know an Android SMS app that can handle this simple thing? And if it could be told NEVER to use MMS, that would be icing on the cake.