I don't know whose legal system you mean by 'ours,' but at least the United States isn't highly based on the idea of banning things. anyway, any legal system is based on the idea of repression, not deterrence. people don't not kill people because of laws. if you honestly think that we all have impulses to kill people, you must have a pretty strange outlook on things. nevertheless, we do get angry, and sometimes those things happen, because we are human. but the nature of the legal system is to punish these people, to throw our humanity under the rug and pretend it isn't there, instead of helping them and saying that's how things are sometimes. murders are going to happen, and you're kidding yourself if you think the existence of murder laws is sometime responsible for there being [erstwhile] less of them.
the laws are there because we hate ourselves, because we like power, and because we want to see other people suffer. law is just institutionalized aggression, and its most egregious form, capital punishment, is borne out of not logic but a desire to harm others and rise ourselves above them, even though we may have similar thoughts, feelings, and engage in similar actions. I don't think that means people are born equal or with a "blank slate." surely there are people who're born to be much more aggressive than others. I'm by no means a socialist; in fact I am quite close to libertarian thinking, but perhaps more of the anarcho- varieties. I don't know all (or any?) of the answers, and don't presume to. ethics, socioeconomics, and other such things are very hard to deal with, because there are no objective answers. as a result of this, however, anything that we can come up with is entirely invented. what that means for us I don't know. I'm a nihilist, and I don't attempt to combat that with any sort of humanism or other such existentialisms. but I recognize the utility of deriving systems in which things can be made to be cohesive. with that said, I think you are trivializing the problem unimaginably, and I don't think laws are necessarily a sound solution to any problem, but least of all in cases where there is no direct harm involved to other parties (and in the case of many drugs, any party).
well, what? marijuana isn't a drug, but some things that it contains are; same thing for [certain kinds of] mushrooms. vicodin isn't a drug -- it's a brand name.
To me, drugs require chemical refining. I mean, you can grow weed with Miracle-Gro, but it's not the same as cooking methamphetamine with drain cleaner.
I don't see any significant difference at all (both are things made of atoms manipulated by other atoms -- atoms which were created by other atoms which we've arbitrarily decided to isolate from the rest of atoms because they're "alive" [so are the plants, but we're apparently above them {because}]). but who cares waht drugs require "to you?" that's not in the most common definition of the word drug, as far as I know. (or, well, maybe it is, but it's by no means a scientific or medical one, so in that case it depends on the context you're in)
uhh, did you think any of what you said was informative or interesting? you're stupid as hell. who are you arguing with? I don't see that guy saying anything about identifying with neoconservatives or "Justice Scalia," or even supporting the Air Force, FBI, CIA, NSA, et al. you're pretty good at setting up straw men, and at the same time manage to call others "partisan hacks." utterly laughable. it's quite clear that _you_ have a "liberal" bent. this does not counteract the other's potential "conservative" bent -- it only goes to show how completely fucking stupid you both are.
I would not do them for the same reason I smoke marijuana but not cigarettes. Marijuana is not physiologically addictive.
or completely disgusting? I haven't seen anything to suggest that marijuana's long-term health effects are anything but zero, unless smoked, which is harmful for any substance. so zero is significantly lower than anything greater than zero, yeah. there may be some, though.
for the record, I don't know very much about drugs, least of all cocaine or heroin, but I thought that heroin was relatively safe if you could acquire it in.. clean.. form, except that it is only very addictive, so in that sense it's like mini-cigarettes with much better effects and no cancer (or smelling bad). and I don't want to say anything about cocaine at all, because I'm entirely clueless, but I know plenty of people who have used it in powdered form and supposedly don't have any problems. it is possible to use it responsibly as any other drug, I imagine. I wouldn't go anywhere near crack cocaine ever. that is completely fucking nasty.
saying gays go to hell is surely a statement of fact, and is targeted toward a specific group. you can target it further if that's what you think is necessary to create "libel." if saying Dr. George is a pedophile can harm him, so what? there are lots of things I could say about that, but the only thing that matters to me is having the ability to be able to say that if I want to. if you believe it, that's your problem. if it harms Dr. George, his [erstwhile] customers are idiots. there's nought can be done about that. there're people going around saying that vaccines for will give your kids autism, and that probably hurts doctors very much like our own Dr. George, but nothing is done about that. I'm not sure why "harm" is the metric here. harm can be done in lots of ways, but that's no reason to restrict speech.
and sure it's possible for people to become gay. that doesn't mean that all gays became gay that way; I don't know and don't care whether that's the case. but to say that no person is gay out of choice would be pretty shortsighted and as closed minded as saying, definitively, that all gays are born that way or that all gays decide to become gay. who knows? who cares? while I was being pretty sarcastic, anyway, the point was clear: people can be hurt, entirely intentionally, in all sorts of different ways, but only some of those things are called libel while others aren't, presumably because we live in a country full of idiots.
I read the article, asshole. this page said, and I quote, "In the constellation of Cassiopeia, he clearly made out what appeared to be an entirely new star, brighter even than Venus, that had not been there before." I'm sorry if that eluded you.
are you an FBI agent trying to lure me in? well, I don't give a fuck. I thought it was pretty hot also, but it didn't really do anything amazing for me. it should be pretty obvious to anyone WITH A DICK that kids that age (10-12, 13-14, whatever) can be quite sexual, and there's absolutely jack fucking shit wrong with that. when I was 15 or 16, I knew a 10 year old girl who basically showed ME the ropes, so it's hilarious how many so-called "open minded" or "liberal" people are quick to jump on the "it's child porn and it's terrible!!" bandwagon. whatever?
but, then again, I'm an "insane libertarian" and don't see a problem with viewing child pornography in the first.
at preventing me from watching my Garden State (laugh it up buddy!!) DVD which I legally purchased at Best Buy for like $14? when I could just download a full DVD in two hours and watch it whenever and however I want? yeah. I had to actually install PowerDVD just so I could watch that movie on my computer, because it wouldn't let me read the VOBs "directly" somehow. needless to say, I won't be buying another DVD distributed by Fox or Miramax or probably anyone else. also, PowerDVD is the biggest, most horrible fucking piece of shit I've ever seen, and I'm going to uninstall it instantly. why does this software need to install 200000 metric kilotons of bullfuckingshit, including crap that I didn't even have any conception of it wanting to install, like MusicMatch JukeBox, which is also, coincidentally, a steaming pile of fuck?
and speaking of shit, what the fuck was I doing at Best Buy anyway? fuck.. I'm probably going to get sued for libel. I hope commander tacos doesn't roll over.
"the world is six thousand years old and you will go to hell if you don't believe it is" is also a statement of fact and does harm. in some cases, people who say that are probably aware of the fact. what's the difference? maybe it isn't targeted. in that case, you could just say gays go to hell. that definitely has the potential to harm some gays and the gay community (by dissuading would-be gays from becoming gay) and is a statement of fact. if intent can be shown, shouldn't this be libel?
the whole thing is utterly fucking ridiculous; that's what it is. who cares what anyone says about anything? it's your problem if you take everything you read at face value, and it shouldn't be anyone's responsibility but the end-user of that information to determine what that information means. and that's not the most important thing: the most important thing about it all is it doesn't fucking matter whether anyone gets hurt by speech or how, but that everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want about anything to allow for the maximization of available ideas while suppressing the least amount of speech (zero). that's a system of responsibility, but no one seems to want that.
-4.5 wouldn't put it brighter than Venus at its most brilliant. it probably was between there and -10, though, or he would've said it was brighter than the moon, you'd imagine.
I might be a Nazi, but I wouldn't say I'm one of the grammar variety. I just thought it was amusing that you made a mistake when pointing out someone else's mistake!! people aren't supposed to do those things.
I don't know what you're talking about. the fix, at least in BIND, was to employ source port randomization, which it should have done years ago (and for which it was chided by people like djb). djdbns wasn't "vulnerable" (technically, all implementations are, since it's a function of computing power + race condition) to this to begin. maybe PowerDNS and some others were also -- I don't really remember. of course you're right, though, that TXIDs have always been 16 bits and always will as long as we're using DNS as we know it. the same can be said for IPv4+UDP. that's already 32 bits, and, as far as I know, almost every DNS cache implementation out there was already checking both port + TXID. it's just that with shitty software, like BIND, it didn't really matter, since source ports (even in 9.0) were pretty horrendously predictable. supposedly now they aren't, so we have approximately 32 bits of "entropy."
apart from the stupidity and uselessness of your post, doesn't your "example" rely entirely upon one's conception of "self?" maybe children are onto something. if my eyes are [the] window into me, then you cannot possibly see me if I can't see you.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know whose legal system you mean by 'ours,' but at least the United States isn't highly based on the idea of banning things. anyway, any legal system is based on the idea of repression, not deterrence. people don't not kill people because of laws. if you honestly think that we all have impulses to kill people, you must have a pretty strange outlook on things. nevertheless, we do get angry, and sometimes those things happen, because we are human. but the nature of the legal system is to punish these people, to throw our humanity under the rug and pretend it isn't there, instead of helping them and saying that's how things are sometimes. murders are going to happen, and you're kidding yourself if you think the existence of murder laws is sometime responsible for there being [erstwhile] less of them.
the laws are there because we hate ourselves, because we like power, and because we want to see other people suffer. law is just institutionalized aggression, and its most egregious form, capital punishment, is borne out of not logic but a desire to harm others and rise ourselves above them, even though we may have similar thoughts, feelings, and engage in similar actions. I don't think that means people are born equal or with a "blank slate." surely there are people who're born to be much more aggressive than others. I'm by no means a socialist; in fact I am quite close to libertarian thinking, but perhaps more of the anarcho- varieties. I don't know all (or any?) of the answers, and don't presume to. ethics, socioeconomics, and other such things are very hard to deal with, because there are no objective answers. as a result of this, however, anything that we can come up with is entirely invented. what that means for us I don't know. I'm a nihilist, and I don't attempt to combat that with any sort of humanism or other such existentialisms. but I recognize the utility of deriving systems in which things can be made to be cohesive. with that said, I think you are trivializing the problem unimaginably, and I don't think laws are necessarily a sound solution to any problem, but least of all in cases where there is no direct harm involved to other parties (and in the case of many drugs, any party).
well, what? marijuana isn't a drug, but some things that it contains are; same thing for [certain kinds of] mushrooms. vicodin isn't a drug -- it's a brand name.
I don't see any significant difference at all (both are things made of atoms manipulated by other atoms -- atoms which were created by other atoms which we've arbitrarily decided to isolate from the rest of atoms because they're "alive" [so are the plants, but we're apparently above them {because}]). but who cares waht drugs require "to you?" that's not in the most common definition of the word drug, as far as I know. (or, well, maybe it is, but it's by no means a scientific or medical one, so in that case it depends on the context you're in)
uhh, did you think any of what you said was informative or interesting? you're stupid as hell. who are you arguing with? I don't see that guy saying anything about identifying with neoconservatives or "Justice Scalia," or even supporting the Air Force, FBI, CIA, NSA, et al. you're pretty good at setting up straw men, and at the same time manage to call others "partisan hacks." utterly laughable. it's quite clear that _you_ have a "liberal" bent. this does not counteract the other's potential "conservative" bent -- it only goes to show how completely fucking stupid you both are.
or completely disgusting? I haven't seen anything to suggest that marijuana's long-term health effects are anything but zero, unless smoked, which is harmful for any substance. so zero is significantly lower than anything greater than zero, yeah. there may be some, though.
for the record, I don't know very much about drugs, least of all cocaine or heroin, but I thought that heroin was relatively safe if you could acquire it in .. clean .. form, except that it is only very addictive, so in that sense it's like mini-cigarettes with much better effects and no cancer (or smelling bad). and I don't want to say anything about cocaine at all, because I'm entirely clueless, but I know plenty of people who have used it in powdered form and supposedly don't have any problems. it is possible to use it responsibly as any other drug, I imagine. I wouldn't go anywhere near crack cocaine ever. that is completely fucking nasty.
there are still Apollo missions running, I think. but, yeah, I get what you mean.
it gets to eighty degrees in manhattan?
saying gays go to hell is surely a statement of fact, and is targeted toward a specific group. you can target it further if that's what you think is necessary to create "libel."
if saying Dr. George is a pedophile can harm him, so what? there are lots of things I could say about that, but the only thing that matters to me is having the ability to be able to say that if I want to. if you believe it, that's your problem. if it harms Dr. George, his [erstwhile] customers are idiots. there's nought can be done about that. there're people going around saying that vaccines for will give your kids autism, and that probably hurts doctors very much like our own Dr. George, but nothing is done about that. I'm not sure why "harm" is the metric here. harm can be done in lots of ways, but that's no reason to restrict speech.
and sure it's possible for people to become gay. that doesn't mean that all gays became gay that way; I don't know and don't care whether that's the case. but to say that no person is gay out of choice would be pretty shortsighted and as closed minded as saying, definitively, that all gays are born that way or that all gays decide to become gay. who knows? who cares? while I was being pretty sarcastic, anyway, the point was clear: people can be hurt, entirely intentionally, in all sorts of different ways, but only some of those things are called libel while others aren't, presumably because we live in a country full of idiots.
I read the article, asshole. this page said, and I quote, "In the constellation of Cassiopeia, he clearly made out what appeared to be an entirely new star, brighter even than Venus, that had not been there before."
I'm sorry if that eluded you.
are you an FBI agent trying to lure me in? well, I don't give a fuck. I thought it was pretty hot also, but it didn't really do anything amazing for me. it should be pretty obvious to anyone WITH A DICK that kids that age (10-12, 13-14, whatever) can be quite sexual, and there's absolutely jack fucking shit wrong with that. when I was 15 or 16, I knew a 10 year old girl who basically showed ME the ropes, so it's hilarious how many so-called "open minded" or "liberal" people are quick to jump on the "it's child porn and it's terrible!!" bandwagon. whatever?
but, then again, I'm an "insane libertarian" and don't see a problem with viewing child pornography in the first.
at preventing me from watching my Garden State (laugh it up buddy!!) DVD which I legally purchased at Best Buy for like $14? when I could just download a full DVD in two hours and watch it whenever and however I want? yeah. I had to actually install PowerDVD just so I could watch that movie on my computer, because it wouldn't let me read the VOBs "directly" somehow. needless to say, I won't be buying another DVD distributed by Fox or Miramax or probably anyone else. also, PowerDVD is the biggest, most horrible fucking piece of shit I've ever seen, and I'm going to uninstall it instantly. why does this software need to install 200000 metric kilotons of bullfuckingshit, including crap that I didn't even have any conception of it wanting to install, like MusicMatch JukeBox, which is also, coincidentally, a steaming pile of fuck?
and speaking of shit, what the fuck was I doing at Best Buy anyway?
fuck.. I'm probably going to get sued for libel. I hope commander tacos doesn't roll over.
because it's cheaper.. like he said? not that it necessarily is cheaper, but if it were.
"the world is six thousand years old and you will go to hell if you don't believe it is" is also a statement of fact and does harm. in some cases, people who say that are probably aware of the fact. what's the difference?
maybe it isn't targeted. in that case, you could just say gays go to hell. that definitely has the potential to harm some gays and the gay community (by dissuading would-be gays from becoming gay) and is a statement of fact. if intent can be shown, shouldn't this be libel?
the whole thing is utterly fucking ridiculous; that's what it is. who cares what anyone says about anything? it's your problem if you take everything you read at face value, and it shouldn't be anyone's responsibility but the end-user of that information to determine what that information means. and that's not the most important thing: the most important thing about it all is it doesn't fucking matter whether anyone gets hurt by speech or how, but that everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want about anything to allow for the maximization of available ideas while suppressing the least amount of speech (zero). that's a system of responsibility, but no one seems to want that.
that'd because there's no such thing as a half-open UDP connection, or even an open UDP connection. I'm sure you knew that, though.
I meant TCP, of course.
he is the parent. anyway, it makes perfect sense for a game as simple as World of Warcraft to use UDP. it isn't exactly heavily dependent on latency.
he means that customers aren't hurting for very long.
did you even read the article?
-4.5 wouldn't put it brighter than Venus at its most brilliant. it probably was between there and -10, though, or he would've said it was brighter than the moon, you'd imagine.
what logic, exactly? but sure. that's right. you're welcome??
I might be a Nazi, but I wouldn't say I'm one of the grammar variety. I just thought it was amusing that you made a mistake when pointing out someone else's mistake!! people aren't supposed to do those things.
I don't know what you're talking about. the fix, at least in BIND, was to employ source port randomization, which it should have done years ago (and for which it was chided by people like djb). djdbns wasn't "vulnerable" (technically, all implementations are, since it's a function of computing power + race condition) to this to begin. maybe PowerDNS and some others were also -- I don't really remember. of course you're right, though, that TXIDs have always been 16 bits and always will as long as we're using DNS as we know it. the same can be said for IPv4+UDP. that's already 32 bits, and, as far as I know, almost every DNS cache implementation out there was already checking both port + TXID. it's just that with shitty software, like BIND, it didn't really matter, since source ports (even in 9.0) were pretty horrendously predictable. supposedly now they aren't, so we have approximately 32 bits of "entropy."
what am I missing?
apart from the stupidity and uselessness of your post, doesn't your "example" rely entirely upon one's conception of "self?" maybe children are onto something. if my eyes are [the] window into me, then you cannot possibly see me if I can't see you.
in English, "millenia" [sic] is spelled millennia.
oh, it isn't irony
you should try english first.
maybe not, but I am. those shows are shit (note: NOVA occasionally can be good).