Jared may be writing about a serious topic, but that does not make him any less of the absolute loser that he is. Prison rape is a terrible, terrible crime that shouldn't happen to anyone other than bigots like Jared Taylor. They, on the other hand, should be passed around the cell block like a peace pipes.
Before condemning a man to be raped in prison, would you first offer yourself? If I were to define "justice", and I really hate to even attempt to do that, I would have to include an element that says "No punishment that is considered 'just' can be administered that the administrator is not willing to accept himself".
Would you be willing to perform the rape yourself? If I were to define "justice", I would have to include an element that says "No punishment that is considered 'just' can be assigned that the assigner is not willing to personally carry out".
If prison rape is a terrible, terrible crime that shouldn't happen to anyone, then who are you to determine when someone is an exception? And what are your criteria?
Yah. And if you're female, it's a chance for the faculty to see whether you'll "put out" in exchange for giving them the chance to get more grants based on YOUR research results and proposals. Fat farking chance.
I'll bet you didn't realize when you posted this that in order for a woman to get modded up on slashdot, she has to give it up. That's why you were modded as flamebait.
I, on the other hand, have just written a genuine piece of flamebait. But since I'm a man, I won't be expected to put out for this to be modded up.
(Yeah, my point? I was originally going to respond with something cheeky like "Hey babe, let's go fuck" until I noticed the post had been modded flamebait. Then I asked why it had been modded such, and posted to answer my own question. Slashdot is apparently not immune to the other social diseases running rampant)
I worry mostly about the Barney-the-Dinosaur looking icon they have next to the job...
I didn't find it at all ironic that Barney-the-Dinosaur was used to symbolize emotional trauma.
Of course, my kids still don't understand why I hate their little talking Barney so. I threw that thing across the room one day when it started singin "I love you, you love me" and my wife yelled at me. Guess I need a little Anger Management.
Megasync? Or N'Death? I'm trying to visualize the videos for bands with these names, and I'm not sure I like what I see.:)
There would only be one. It would start with Dave Mustaine whining that his amp isn't the loudest and end with Megadeth gang banging all of the 'N Sync guys and then impaling them on their guitars and stuff.
Kernighan = Dave Mustaine, Straustroupe = David Ellefson (The idea being that Dave Mustaine was formerly a member of Metallica, and that while working for Metallica they created something comparable to C, and then Dave Mustaine teamed up with David Ellefson to create something bigger, better, and more easily portable, and of course, faster)
It's a good thing I'm sick right now, otherwise you might think I don't have a life. not that I give a shit
These cases will be challenged in the courts and many of them will be overturned. We should be able to craft a reasonable bill that prevents these kinds of abuses while loosening up the restrictions that made terrorism detection virtually impossible. Surely we've got the smarts for that?
We, the programmers of the world have the smarts for that. Congress, on the other hand, apparently does not.
Pretending there is no social cost from drug addiction, pretending that drug addicts don't ruin the lives of people around them is an exercise in deliberate naivete.
Pretending there is no environmental cost from irresponsible handling of chemical manufacture is an exercise in deliberate naivete. The drug addiction will ruin the lives of several people. Damage to the environment doesn't just hurt the people living now, it hurts future generations as well.
Try asking the children of a meth addict "Who are we to tell them what they can and can't do with their own lives?"
No need to, they'll never grow up. Know what meth does to children? Not to mention that they won't have any decent water anyway.
Yeah, meth is a seriously shitty drug. I don't know the best way to deal with it. I'm all over catching people that deal with meth. However, I don't think they're terrorists anymore than the Ethiopian at the Shell station down the street is a terrorist.
I'd also like to point out that Prohibition didn't work, and there's no evidence to indicate that it will work now. However, there is a serious double standard in this country about alcohol and other "harmful" drugs. Had a high school buddy die a few years back from alcohol poisoning. Had another high school buddy die of a heroin OD. Double standard.
Yeah but monkeys seem less threatening than robots (Gore). When I think of robots with power, I think of Skynet taking over the world. When I think of monkeys with power, I just don't get as threatened.
On the September 4th broadcast of Nightline, Ted Koppel talked to a representative from the Justice Department about the Patriot Act, and tore right through her "warrants must be issued by a judge" and "Al Queda" schpiel so quickly that she was often whimpering when he interrupted to say that she wasn't answering his question. One of the strongest points he nailed her on was the difference between "suspected terrorist" and "citizen", which he couldn't find.
Ted Koppel's a really really nice, sweet old man. But I never want to be interviewed by him.
This is the point where people spew out "If you don't like it, leave!" in a standing tall, patriotic stance.
I do believe this is the final straw for myself. I will be permanently leaving the country as soon as financially possible.
So now we've reached the point were I must declare, in a standing tall, patriotic stance, that if you wish to abandon your country when she needs you the most, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, bastard.
Bush and Clinton are interchangeable in this regard, the latter's War on Drugs did much damage and was debated fiercely on this forum. Can the process be reversed so late in the day?
You're pretty young, aren't you?
I don't recall who started the war on drugs, but I do remember it was going on during the Reagan years. There was a 4-year buffer between Reagan and Clinton. A void, actually, when there was no competent President in office. Well, um, ok. It was Bush Sr.
Any time there is a rule, someone is going to test its limits (or just plain lie). That's human nature. We can't abolish all laws against rape and murder just because someone might make a false accusation.
Nobody's denying that the meth guy is probably guilty of a pretty serious crime. We're disappointed with the fact that a terrorism-based law that we were promised would only be used to catch terrorists has been turned on one of our own citizens engaging in a bit of good ol' american enterprise.
This does give the courts the opportunity to strike down the law, and I really hope that they do. What we've been saying since the Patriot act passed is that this kind of abuse would happen. And it has. We never said the courts wouldn't strike it down, in fact, we hope it will. Catch is: the patriot act allows people to be held without due process, trial, representation, etc. There's this little loophole that, if exploited correctly (assuming we had competent police in the first place), could prevent the damn law from ever being tested. And that is what we're afraid of.
Well I don't know about all the anti-terror laws in the US, but here in the UK people can now be held without charge indefinitely if they are terror suspects. There may not be a test "in court" because it may not even get there for an "indefinitely" long time.
What, did you guys just copy the Patriot act verbatim, replacing all cases of "-or" to "-our"?
No, this means that as soon as I have the money I might though. America is quickly becoming a place unfit for real Americans I think, let the bastards have it.
To be honest, if you're going to run away when the going gets rough, then we don't need or want you here anyway. On the other hand, if you're willing to stay here and fight for your freedom, then you can probably claim to be an "American". Forgetting for the moment all the damage the US has done historically to non-Anglo cultures.
But I seriously doubt the islanders want someone who's just going to run away if the going gets rough in NZ.
I must admit, if you don't mind a little criticism, this is one of the worst calls to revolution I've seen in awhile. Here goes the specifics: (criticism without specifics is known as "shit-talking")
Is this the country that was started in 1776? Does it have anything in common besides the superficial structure and organization stated in the Articles of the Constitution?
As a matter of fact, this country, as well as the country that was started in 1788 bears little resemblance to the country started in 1776. For one thing, that country didn't start until 1777, when the Articles of Confederation were ratified. Under these, iirc, Alexander Hamilton was elected president. A later coup brought about the Constitution we have now, and Alexander Hamilton lost the election to George Washington.
Did George Washington fight for the creation of a country whose government would regulate the kind of toilets we can own?
Yes. He fought for our freedom from the tyranny of England, a freedom we still have. As a corollary, he fought for the right to run the country as we see fit, which we have done.
Did Thomas Jefferson work so hard to help design and organize a government that can declare its own citizens foreign combatants and lock them up without trial or counsel?
Yes, he did. He was one of those, iirc, that felt that the Bill of Rights was superfluous (as you pointed out), therefore his original intention and the end result seem to coincide nicely. Don't get me wrong, I like Thomas Jefferson a lot, but I'm not at all convinced he wasn't a socialist in disguise.
This was actually one of your strong points, however, because locking up citizens without trial or counsel was part of the tyranny of England. Therefore I cannot fully defeat this point. In fact, I must concede it.:)
Did Patrick Henry say "Deny me the use of my property because someone spotted an endangered Northern red-crested spotted skunk beetle there, or give me death"?
No, he didn't, but think about it. Do we know enough about the man to say that he supported genocide?
Did Nathan Hale regret that he only had one life to give for a country that would grant public monies to "artists" in the media of blasphemy and human excrement, yet deny a public expression of the unarguable fact that the biblical Ten Commandments is one of the most significant bases of Western society and law? That someone's right to not be made to feel "uncomfortable" trumps freedom of expression, religion and common sense?
I wonder what you're alluding to, here. Near as I can tell, there has been no oppression of Christian peoples' rights to freedom of expression and religion, insofar as their church is concerned. On the other hand, this country with its so-called freedom of religion had most religions that are non-Christian outlawed for many years. Last witchcraft laws were repealed in 1954, iirc. That's freedom of religion? Freedom of religion so long as it's christianity, anyway.
If I wanted to use previous works to promote revolution, I'd do it with this little bit of text:
Prison for praise without even thinking
Sin is still in and the ballots are shrinking So unleash the dogs, the only solution Forget and forgive, fuck no I'm talking about a revolution
As far as having large members of parliament is concerned, I still don't think it matters THAT MUCH. I'm not an expert on politics but each MP is still limited. Everyone can't speak all the time and how can you ensure that these people don't group themselves together and collude. For example, in many cases, the so-called "backbenchers" (under British style system) don't really have much voice...
I think the idea had to do with the actual number of people each representative represents. If you have 5 representatives for 5 million people, then each representative represents 1 million people. To elect a representive in a given district in that state, assuming everyone votes and there are only two candidates (bi-partisan system, remember), you have to have 500,001 people agree on a person.
On the other hand, if you have 500 people representing 5 million, then each representative represents 10,000 people. In that case, you only need 5,001 people to elect a representative.
Then, your representatives go to Congress and each represent their constituents. Compare it to screen resolution:
In the old days, we had 320x200, and it was high-resolution. Now, for the same screen real estate, we have 1024x768, and the picture is much clearer. In this comparison, a representative is a pixel, and the total screen size (in inches, or whatever) is the same (or slightly larger). So, we'd be increasing the DPI rating of the House of Representatives.:)
The idea is that the House of Reps is supposed to directly represent people in proportion to how many people there are, and give individuals (that's us!) a voice in government. The Senate, on the other hand, is supposed to give each state as an aggregate of individuals an equal voice in government. Then, each house is equal to one another (except that finance bills must be initiated in the House) in order to provide balance between individual representation and equality in government.
Honestly, I hadn't even considered increasing the number of representatives. I think that while we're at it we should increase the number of Senators. 2 per state makes lots of sense when most states had ~200,000 people in them. (Maybe my population figures are way off for 1788) The Senate's still supposed to represent the people, albeit in an aggregate fashion, but a little more DPI wouldn't hurt there either.
Sorry, I have to edit this. I think you were trying to hard to hit too many things. So I'm editing with the attempt to restore the dialog.:)
The Libertarians will continue to gain a support in the Senate as long as....
The Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the President has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
That's impossible! How will the President maintain control without the bureaucracy?
The state governors now have direct control over territories. Fear will keep the local governments in line. Fear of this Act.
Slashdot Mirror
Jared may be writing about a serious topic, but that does not make him any less of the absolute loser that he is. Prison rape is a terrible, terrible crime that shouldn't happen to anyone other than bigots like Jared Taylor. They, on the other hand, should be passed around the cell block like a peace pipes.
Before condemning a man to be raped in prison, would you first offer yourself? If I were to define "justice", and I really hate to even attempt to do that, I would have to include an element that says "No punishment that is considered 'just' can be administered that the administrator is not willing to accept himself".
Would you be willing to perform the rape yourself? If I were to define "justice", I would have to include an element that says "No punishment that is considered 'just' can be assigned that the assigner is not willing to personally carry out".
If prison rape is a terrible, terrible crime that shouldn't happen to anyone, then who are you to determine when someone is an exception? And what are your criteria?
Spoken like a true teenage viginal boy.
Just some clarification. Did you intend to type "virginal" or "vaginal"?
Yah. And if you're female, it's a chance for the faculty to see whether you'll "put out" in exchange for giving them the chance to get more grants based on YOUR research results and proposals. Fat farking chance.
I'll bet you didn't realize when you posted this that in order for a woman to get modded up on slashdot, she has to give it up. That's why you were modded as flamebait.
I, on the other hand, have just written a genuine piece of flamebait. But since I'm a man, I won't be expected to put out for this to be modded up.
(Yeah, my point? I was originally going to respond with something cheeky like "Hey babe, let's go fuck" until I noticed the post had been modded flamebait. Then I asked why it had been modded such, and posted to answer my own question. Slashdot is apparently not immune to the other social diseases running rampant)
I worry mostly about the Barney-the-Dinosaur looking icon they have next to the job...
I didn't find it at all ironic that Barney-the-Dinosaur was used to symbolize emotional trauma.
Of course, my kids still don't understand why I hate their little talking Barney so. I threw that thing across the room one day when it started singin "I love you, you love me" and my wife yelled at me. Guess I need a little Anger Management.
Then why have I been out of work for over 2 years?
In other news, recent studies show that developers are largest group of unemployed IT professionals.
Megasync? Or N'Death? I'm trying to visualize the videos for bands with these names, and I'm not sure I like what I see. :)
There would only be one. It would start with Dave Mustaine whining that his amp isn't the loudest and end with Megadeth gang banging all of the 'N Sync guys and then impaling them on their guitars and stuff.
Kernighan = Lemmy, Straustoupe (sp?) = Timberlake
Um, actually, it's more like:
Kernighan = Dave Mustaine, Straustroupe = David Ellefson (The idea being that Dave Mustaine was formerly a member of Metallica, and that while working for Metallica they created something comparable to C, and then Dave Mustaine teamed up with David Ellefson to create something bigger, better, and more easily portable, and of course, faster)
It's a good thing I'm sick right now, otherwise you might think I don't have a life. not that I give a shit
Visual Basic professionals
Is there any such thing? Great, next you'll try to tell me that Pascal developers are professionals too, won't you?
Fair enough. But do you really think that he deserves a life sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that.
Me, I think all three of them should be executed. But those crazies out in Europe are gonna say I'm a barbarian for that.
These cases will be challenged in the courts and many of them will be overturned. We should be able to craft a reasonable bill that prevents these kinds of abuses while loosening up the restrictions that made terrorism detection virtually impossible. Surely we've got the smarts for that?
We, the programmers of the world have the smarts for that. Congress, on the other hand, apparently does not.
Pretending there is no social cost from drug addiction, pretending that drug addicts don't ruin the lives of people around them is an exercise in deliberate naivete.
Pretending there is no environmental cost from irresponsible handling of chemical manufacture is an exercise in deliberate naivete. The drug addiction will ruin the lives of several people. Damage to the environment doesn't just hurt the people living now, it hurts future generations as well.
Try asking the children of a meth addict "Who are we to tell them what they can and can't do with their own lives?"
No need to, they'll never grow up. Know what meth does to children? Not to mention that they won't have any decent water anyway.
Yeah, meth is a seriously shitty drug. I don't know the best way to deal with it. I'm all over catching people that deal with meth. However, I don't think they're terrorists anymore than the Ethiopian at the Shell station down the street is a terrorist.
I'd also like to point out that Prohibition didn't work, and there's no evidence to indicate that it will work now. However, there is a serious double standard in this country about alcohol and other "harmful" drugs. Had a high school buddy die a few years back from alcohol poisoning. Had another high school buddy die of a heroin OD. Double standard.
Yeah but monkeys seem less threatening than robots (Gore). When I think of robots with power, I think of Skynet taking over the world. When I think of monkeys with power, I just don't get as threatened.
Obviously you've never seen Planet of the Apes.
On the September 4th broadcast of Nightline, Ted Koppel talked to a representative from the Justice Department about the Patriot Act, and tore right through her "warrants must be issued by a judge" and "Al Queda" schpiel so quickly that she was often whimpering when he interrupted to say that she wasn't answering his question. One of the strongest points he nailed her on was the difference between "suspected terrorist" and "citizen", which he couldn't find.
Ted Koppel's a really really nice, sweet old man. But I never want to be interviewed by him.
This is the point where people spew out "If you don't like it, leave!" in a standing tall, patriotic stance.
I do believe this is the final straw for myself. I will be permanently leaving the country as soon as financially possible.
So now we've reached the point were I must declare, in a standing tall, patriotic stance, that if you wish to abandon your country when she needs you the most, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, bastard.
Low-flow toilets are a plot by water companies. It routinely takes 2 or 3 flushes, taking at least the same amount or more water.
Nah, you're full of shit.
Bush and Clinton are interchangeable in this regard, the latter's War on Drugs did much damage and was debated fiercely on this forum. Can the process be reversed so late in the day?
You're pretty young, aren't you?
I don't recall who started the war on drugs, but I do remember it was going on during the Reagan years. There was a 4-year buffer between Reagan and Clinton. A void, actually, when there was no competent President in office. Well, um, ok. It was Bush Sr.
Any time there is a rule, someone is going to test its limits (or just plain lie). That's human nature. We can't abolish all laws against rape and murder just because someone might make a false accusation.
Nobody's denying that the meth guy is probably guilty of a pretty serious crime. We're disappointed with the fact that a terrorism-based law that we were promised would only be used to catch terrorists has been turned on one of our own citizens engaging in a bit of good ol' american enterprise.
This does give the courts the opportunity to strike down the law, and I really hope that they do. What we've been saying since the Patriot act passed is that this kind of abuse would happen. And it has. We never said the courts wouldn't strike it down, in fact, we hope it will. Catch is: the patriot act allows people to be held without due process, trial, representation, etc. There's this little loophole that, if exploited correctly (assuming we had competent police in the first place), could prevent the damn law from ever being tested. And that is what we're afraid of.
Well I don't know about all the anti-terror laws in the US, but here in the UK people can now be held without charge indefinitely if they are terror suspects. There may not be a test "in court" because it may not even get there for an "indefinitely" long time.
What, did you guys just copy the Patriot act verbatim, replacing all cases of "-or" to "-our"?
No, this means that as soon as I have the money I might though. America is quickly becoming a place unfit for real Americans I think, let the bastards have it.
To be honest, if you're going to run away when the going gets rough, then we don't need or want you here anyway. On the other hand, if you're willing to stay here and fight for your freedom, then you can probably claim to be an "American". Forgetting for the moment all the damage the US has done historically to non-Anglo cultures.
But I seriously doubt the islanders want someone who's just going to run away if the going gets rough in NZ.
I must admit, if you don't mind a little criticism, this is one of the worst calls to revolution I've seen in awhile. Here goes the specifics: (criticism without specifics is known as "shit-talking")
Is this the country that was started in 1776? Does it have anything in common besides the superficial structure and organization stated in the Articles of the Constitution?
As a matter of fact, this country, as well as the country that was started in 1788 bears little resemblance to the country started in 1776. For one thing, that country didn't start until 1777, when the Articles of Confederation were ratified. Under these, iirc, Alexander Hamilton was elected president. A later coup brought about the Constitution we have now, and Alexander Hamilton lost the election to George Washington.
Did George Washington fight for the creation of a country whose government would regulate the kind of toilets we can own?
Yes. He fought for our freedom from the tyranny of England, a freedom we still have. As a corollary, he fought for the right to run the country as we see fit, which we have done.
Did Thomas Jefferson work so hard to help design and organize a government that can declare its own citizens foreign combatants and lock them up without trial or counsel?
Yes, he did. He was one of those, iirc, that felt that the Bill of Rights was superfluous (as you pointed out), therefore his original intention and the end result seem to coincide nicely. Don't get me wrong, I like Thomas Jefferson a lot, but I'm not at all convinced he wasn't a socialist in disguise.
This was actually one of your strong points, however, because locking up citizens without trial or counsel was part of the tyranny of England. Therefore I cannot fully defeat this point. In fact, I must concede it. :)
Did Patrick Henry say "Deny me the use of my property because someone spotted an endangered Northern red-crested spotted skunk beetle there, or give me death"?
No, he didn't, but think about it. Do we know enough about the man to say that he supported genocide?
Did Nathan Hale regret that he only had one life to give for a country that would grant public monies to "artists" in the media of blasphemy and human excrement, yet deny a public expression of the unarguable fact that the biblical Ten Commandments is one of the most significant bases of Western society and law? That someone's right to not be made to feel "uncomfortable" trumps freedom of expression, religion and common sense?
I wonder what you're alluding to, here. Near as I can tell, there has been no oppression of Christian peoples' rights to freedom of expression and religion, insofar as their church is concerned. On the other hand, this country with its so-called freedom of religion had most religions that are non-Christian outlawed for many years. Last witchcraft laws were repealed in 1954, iirc. That's freedom of religion? Freedom of religion so long as it's christianity, anyway.
If I wanted to use previous works to promote revolution, I'd do it with this little bit of text:
Once again irrelevant. The issue is not WHY slavery existed but THAT slavery existed.
Since you put it that way, Europe had slavery for 3000+ years. Compared to only about 500 years in the US, I'd say our record is a bit better. :)
Point being this: anyone can always restrict the criteria for the discussion to disallow any other points of view to be valid.
The neocons DO want a world government.. it's just that the government is going to be USA and no one else...
Well, it's been awhile since someone actually tried to conquer the world. Maybe it's about time, again?
As far as having large members of parliament is concerned, I still don't think it matters THAT MUCH. I'm not an expert on politics but each MP is still limited. Everyone can't speak all the time and how can you ensure that these people don't group themselves together and collude. For example, in many cases, the so-called "backbenchers" (under British style system) don't really have much voice...
I think the idea had to do with the actual number of people each representative represents. If you have 5 representatives for 5 million people, then each representative represents 1 million people. To elect a representive in a given district in that state, assuming everyone votes and there are only two candidates (bi-partisan system, remember), you have to have 500,001 people agree on a person.
On the other hand, if you have 500 people representing 5 million, then each representative represents 10,000 people. In that case, you only need 5,001 people to elect a representative.
Then, your representatives go to Congress and each represent their constituents. Compare it to screen resolution:
In the old days, we had 320x200, and it was high-resolution. Now, for the same screen real estate, we have 1024x768, and the picture is much clearer. In this comparison, a representative is a pixel, and the total screen size (in inches, or whatever) is the same (or slightly larger). So, we'd be increasing the DPI rating of the House of Representatives. :)
The idea is that the House of Reps is supposed to directly represent people in proportion to how many people there are, and give individuals (that's us!) a voice in government. The Senate, on the other hand, is supposed to give each state as an aggregate of individuals an equal voice in government. Then, each house is equal to one another (except that finance bills must be initiated in the House) in order to provide balance between individual representation and equality in government.
Honestly, I hadn't even considered increasing the number of representatives. I think that while we're at it we should increase the number of Senators. 2 per state makes lots of sense when most states had ~200,000 people in them. (Maybe my population figures are way off for 1788) The Senate's still supposed to represent the people, albeit in an aggregate fashion, but a little more DPI wouldn't hurt there either.
Sorry, I have to edit this. I think you were trying to hard to hit too many things. So I'm editing with the attempt to restore the dialog. :)
The Libertarians will continue to gain a support in the Senate as long as....
The Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the President has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
That's impossible! How will the President maintain control without the bureaucracy?
The state governors now have direct control over territories. Fear will keep the local governments in line. Fear of this Act.
Smokers have 8-13 times as much radioation in their urine than non-smokers.
Wow. COuld I sell my piss to a group of Libyan nationals so they could build a bomb?