And it is kind of hard to find out who is conspiring a crime if you cannot spy on them.
Which is why we have judicial oversight and warrants and a process law enforcement must go through to at least demonstrate that there is some likelyhood of crime before spying.
So you want to ban certain activities so that your children are not exposed to them.
But why do you find it moral to tell other people how they can live their lives?
I have a daughter who I'd prefer not become a drug addict, but I have no problem with people who do choose to use drugs (so long as they aren't selling them to minors). In fact I think all drugs should be legalized. I want my daughter to grow up without any drug addiction, but I also want her to grow up without feeling she should tell other people how to live their lives.
Homosexuality is another issue. I have no problem with it and I wouldn't be offended even if my own daughter turned out to be gay.
I will use my parental rights & control to raise her according to my own moral standards to be best of my ability, but I will never try to force others to accept a certain moral perogative, at least on things which don't involve unwilling participants (ie, murder...).
The government doesn't allow one to snort crack, not even in the privacy of your own home. Do you support that law?
I do. And if I had to vote for it, I would, because to do otherwise would be to give sanction to the behaviour....
For me to do otherwise would be moral hypocrisy and I would be overwhelmed with guilt for allowing sanctioned sodomy into my world.
I understand that you find the act of using drugs and homosexual activity wrong, but why do you find it necessary to control the activity of other people even when it does not affect you? Why is simply not engaging in the activity yourself unacceptable?
I just don't get it. My moral policy is "That which involves only consenting adults is noone's business but their own". I'm just trying to figure out why roughly 55% of this country finds it neccessary to tell other people how to live their lives when it has no effect on anyone. I understand it is against their moral code, I just don't get why they wish to force other people to live according to their moral standards.
I don't agree that failing to ban something which is against one's moral code is hipcrosy, at least when that something involves only consenting adults. I find anal sex as disgusting as you, and I would never consider doing crack... but I find the idea of forcing that on other people even more reprehensible.
When made by an individual, I simply shrug, since his opinion has no value to me.... I couldn't care less what he does in his living room.
The government doesn't allow one to snort crack, not even in the privacy of your own home. Do you support that law?
The government allows gay people to have sex (in privacy like everyone else). Do you prefer the government outlaw that?
...having sex with other men. If he wants to do it anyway, let him do it cowering and hiding, in shame and regret. Then maybe he will eventually stop.
So you would like to stop gay people from being gay and acting accordingly?
I guess you still haven't answered my question as to how a gay marriage negatively affects you (aside from the tax part, which you said wasn't really the issue). I understand that you find homosexuality disgusting and against your moral ideals, and you wish the government to enforce your moral standards on other people, but I don't see why. I still don't understand how a gay marriage actually affects your life one bit.
If a gay couple living right next door to you married, how will your lifestyle be changed as a result of that marriage?
Or are you basically saying that it will not affect you, you just find the concept of it and the idea that someone is actually practicing it disgusting?
If the CIA really wants to read my/. posts, tap my phone and hear me order a pizza, or read my e-mail mailing lists that I subscribe to, more power to them.
And people like this are registered voters... *shudder*...
It's not about suing the vendor. It's about being able to say to your boss/the board/the shareholders that "hey, it's not MY fault - MS made a lousy product. Whaddya gonna do?"
Ok, but how is that different from going to the board and saying "hey, it's not MY fault - Joe Blow wrote some lousy code."?
"it doesn't matter how long the system stays up, what matters is when it goes down, I can blame one entity."
But what exactly does that get you? If it goes down, do you plan on suing the vendor for damages despite the gibberish in the license? If the vendor is microsoft, do you expect to be successful in suing one of the world's richest companies? I don't think any software company has ever been successfully sued for damages before.
I just don't get how being able to blame Microsoft is any different from being able to blame Joe Blow OSS author. You can't reasonably sue either one for anything. The former will fight you tooth and nail (costing lots of money in the processes) and the later has nothing worth suing for.
this company makes hardware serial console cards for PCs. They're just PCI cards that emulate a VGA video card (text) and PS/2 keyboard. They also come with a remotely-triggerable pair of pins that you can hook up to the machine's reset connector. They'll get you into the BIOS, you can install an OS, etc... and they're only $350 which is quite cheap for this sort of thing in PC land.
Bush said something along the lines of "consenting adults should be free to live their lives however they choose" in response to one of the gay issues questions. That'll be a handy soundbite when he does the exact opposite if he gets re-elected.
porn and prostitution have more victims than just about any other crimes in the world.
Those people aren't victims of porn or prostitution, bonehead. They're victims kidnapping and slavery and sexual abuse. If instead of selling people into slavery to grow drugs or produce porn they were instead sold into slavery to make clothes or grow food, would you propose we outlaw clothes and food?
Everytime you get this fallacy in your head you should cruise the streets in some thrird world country and count the CHILDREN that are selling themselves in the streets for prostitution.
And every time you get this fallacy in your head that these people are victims of porn, you should tour a textile factory in indonesia and count the CHILDREN that are making the clothes on your back and the shoes on your feet for 15 cents a day.
Who wants to worry about someone hacking their DVR and deleting all their recordings? Who wants to worry about someone getting their credit card number after entering it into a fake website? Who wants to worry about someone hacking their cellphone via bluetooth and installing a porn dialer? Who wants to worry about their bank website username & password being copied from their PC?
Would you be making this same complaint if the content were served in a Java applet or Flash?
No, that's different. They aren't preventing my software from doing something it norally does.
I could still extract the text from a Java or Flash applet anyway. If I'm reading it on my screen, then it must be there in plain text somewhere in my computer. It is just a question of how much effort it takes to get at it.
Slashdot Mirror
1. I don't know, but someone else who replied to you does.
2. I don't know.
3. None that I know of.
I have only one question for you:
Could you supply a quote from anything that I posted where I said I am a democrat?
Which is why we have judicial oversight and warrants and a process law enforcement must go through to at least demonstrate that there is some likelyhood of crime before spying.
The patriot acts erode that.
So you want to ban certain activities so that your children are not exposed to them.
But why do you find it moral to tell other people how they can live their lives?
I have a daughter who I'd prefer not become a drug addict, but I have no problem with people who do choose to use drugs (so long as they aren't selling them to minors). In fact I think all drugs should be legalized. I want my daughter to grow up without any drug addiction, but I also want her to grow up without feeling she should tell other people how to live their lives.
Homosexuality is another issue. I have no problem with it and I wouldn't be offended even if my own daughter turned out to be gay.
I will use my parental rights & control to raise her according to my own moral standards to be best of my ability, but I will never try to force others to accept a certain moral perogative, at least on things which don't involve unwilling participants (ie, murder...).
I understand that you find the act of using drugs and homosexual activity wrong, but why do you find it necessary to control the activity of other people even when it does not affect you? Why is simply not engaging in the activity yourself unacceptable?
I just don't get it. My moral policy is "That which involves only consenting adults is noone's business but their own". I'm just trying to figure out why roughly 55% of this country finds it neccessary to tell other people how to live their lives when it has no effect on anyone. I understand it is against their moral code, I just don't get why they wish to force other people to live according to their moral standards.
I don't agree that failing to ban something which is against one's moral code is hipcrosy, at least when that something involves only consenting adults. I find anal sex as disgusting as you, and I would never consider doing crack... but I find the idea of forcing that on other people even more reprehensible.
The government doesn't allow one to snort crack, not even in the privacy of your own home. Do you support that law?
The government allows gay people to have sex (in privacy like everyone else). Do you prefer the government outlaw that?
So you would like to stop gay people from being gay and acting accordingly?
I guess you still haven't answered my question as to how a gay marriage negatively affects you (aside from the tax part, which you said wasn't really the issue). I understand that you find homosexuality disgusting and against your moral ideals, and you wish the government to enforce your moral standards on other people, but I don't see why. I still don't understand how a gay marriage actually affects your life one bit.
If a gay couple living right next door to you married, how will your lifestyle be changed as a result of that marriage?
Or are you basically saying that it will not affect you, you just find the concept of it and the idea that someone is actually practicing it disgusting?
I have a question for all the people in this counry who are against gay marriage:
Exactly how does a gay couple getting married affect you negatively?
Please be specific.
I'm not a criminal either. So why should the government be able to spy on innocent people?
You need to read 1984 by George Orwell.
You've never heard about the FBI's files on John Lennon? The whole Nixon spying scandal? How many lives were saved in those incidents?
If they are tapping your phones e-mail, then by definition they are intruding into your life.
No doubt. As well as people at your ISP reading your e-mail. This is why we have cryptography...
The PATRIOT act, detention of people without due process, John Ashcroft's war on "indecency"...
Well, that's in the US at least. Many other parts of the world lag behind us a bit...
Me neither. Heil Hitler.
Imagine how many terrorist cells would be brought down if we just turned the world into a complete police state.
And people like this are registered voters... *shudder*...
Ok, but how is that different from going to the board and saying "hey, it's not MY fault - Joe Blow wrote some lousy code."?
But what exactly does that get you? If it goes down, do you plan on suing the vendor for damages despite the gibberish in the license? If the vendor is microsoft, do you expect to be successful in suing one of the world's richest companies? I don't think any software company has ever been successfully sued for damages before.
I just don't get how being able to blame Microsoft is any different from being able to blame Joe Blow OSS author. You can't reasonably sue either one for anything. The former will fight you tooth and nail (costing lots of money in the processes) and the later has nothing worth suing for.
this company makes hardware serial console cards for PCs. They're just PCI cards that emulate a VGA video card (text) and PS/2 keyboard. They also come with a remotely-triggerable pair of pins that you can hook up to the machine's reset connector. They'll get you into the BIOS, you can install an OS, etc... and they're only $350 which is quite cheap for this sort of thing in PC land.
Such as...?
That doesn't mean the license clause isn't BS.
Python is the solution to many things. Last month I interviewed at a large company that did many line of business apps in Python.
I picked Kerry because Bush seems to have flaws I understand.
Thanks, downloading the third debate now.
Bush said something along the lines of "consenting adults should be free to live their lives however they choose" in response to one of the gay issues questions. That'll be a handy soundbite when he does the exact opposite if he gets re-elected.
Those people aren't victims of porn or prostitution, bonehead. They're victims kidnapping and slavery and sexual abuse. If instead of selling people into slavery to grow drugs or produce porn they were instead sold into slavery to make clothes or grow food, would you propose we outlaw clothes and food?
And every time you get this fallacy in your head that these people are victims of porn, you should tour a textile factory in indonesia and count the CHILDREN that are making the clothes on your back and the shoes on your feet for 15 cents a day.
So if you don't care about them, you don't want to legistlate their behaviour and spend my tax dollars enforcing it? Sounds good to me.
No:
So people don't steal and don't murder because they have been made illegal?
You're the idiot.
Who wants to worry about someone hacking their DVR and deleting all their recordings? Who wants to worry about someone getting their credit card number after entering it into a fake website? Who wants to worry about someone hacking their cellphone via bluetooth and installing a porn dialer? Who wants to worry about their bank website username & password being copied from their PC?
Oh...wait... lots of people apparently.
I guess this security thing is doable after all.
No, that's different. They aren't preventing my software from doing something it norally does.
I could still extract the text from a Java or Flash applet anyway. If I'm reading it on my screen, then it must be there in plain text somewhere in my computer. It is just a question of how much effort it takes to get at it.