That presupposes the driving force between pedophilia and rape are the same. According to those who study the two, they are not. Rape is overwhelmingly about power, while pedophilia has a much broader range of driving forces. Those who crave control rarely wish to temper their drives, while many, many pedophiles have talked openly about fighting a sometimes losing battle to overcome their drive to watch (or engage with) children. Access to pornography helps curb the drive to be gratified sexually. The size of the effect is not known, but that the effect exists is. It doesn't fulfill the need to control, so has nothing to do with rape. The pedophiles who also have a rapist's control issues won't be slowed in the slightest, but one who is driven entirely by sexual drive might. Unfortunately discussing the issue is so taboo in most cases that you can't even begin a conversation about the issue though. People who aren't trained psychologists frequently decide they know exactly what the cause is and what will and won't have any effect, even if they're otherwise left-brained people with a background in science who should damn well know better.
Sadly, that is not recognized as true in pretty much any jurisdiction that recognizes the concept of a license. Licenses must explicitly state they are transferable in order to be transferable in most cases.
At least in the US, things aren't in a good place as the lack of ownership has been ruled completely permissible. Companies can turn a sale into a license with just a word. It hasn't made it to the Supreme Court yet, but given the climate I am not hopeful that the first sale doctrine will survive in the face of changing technology. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Co is the case to watch. We've already lost Vernor v. Autodesk at the appellate level, at least in the 9th Circuit.
The more you know about someone the easier it becomes to ruin them. Imagine a world where any sufficiently motivated extortionist could have their pick of targets. Eventually those extortionists would infiltrate whatever system was overseeing the information aggregation and, if it were not also the system controlling society, they would soon merge the two and run both.
The scum who fit the mold for the flaws in a system always end up running said system, if there is any benefit to them to do so. The system in question just so happens to be one favoring extortionists. They are one of the worst types of scum to give a foothold to, and by virtue of human nature one of the hardest to get rid of, which is why the entire idea presented is so thoroughly disturbing.
Fortunately, there's been a move toward the term "physical dependency" to distinguish it from psychological addiction since the two are vastly different things.
Physical dependency leading to addiction requires a psychological shift. If it didn't, everyone who has needed opiates for the management of chronic pain would end up an addict.
It's good to see others in a non-professional forum making sure to highlight a hugely important distinction that too many others gloss over entirely.
Most people think they'd be uncomfortable in hot weather, but they're not any more uncomfortable than wearing cotton socks. It's taken me about 10 years to wear through my oldest pairs.
Just buy a used commercial color laser printer. They're designed from top to bottom to have all their parts replaced, and once they're outside the business lifecycle toner cartridges and other parts become dirt cheap.
Yes. I still have a C720 sitting right next to me. Sure, it's beastly slow to warm up because it's so old, but it runs like a champ and is dead simple to replace parts in.
I think the reason those who conscientiously object to Apple's suits but not to (most) of the other telecom suits is that lawsuits have been Apple's first line of (de|of)fense, and their stated goal is not to secure licensing. No other technology company that makes actual products does that. They sue to force licensing of their patents (whether the patent is valid is irrelevant to the point I'm making, by the way). Motorola's lawsuit is the first non-Apple-filed suit I can think of which is not designed to force licensing, and this can in no way be considered their first line move. Apple doesn't want licensing fees; they want scorched earth. They nuke first and ask questions never.
Let's face it: Apple does not produce technology. They design products using nearly 100% tech created by other companies. They excel at specifications, packaging, and marketing. They popularize new technology that other people actually invent, and then they use design patents to keeps the companies who actually developed the technology as weapons against those companies who make their existence possible.
I'm not saying other companies haven't done shitty things in the cell phone wars, but when it comes to the way lawsuits are used Apple is in a class itself.
Due process involves a lot of steps which, whether by design or coincidence, create a trail of verifiability for evidence. Once that process is breached, there is much less basis upon which manufactured evidence can be debunked. When the method by which the evidence is gathered is no longer a point upon which the entire trial can hinge, the risk/reward ratio for the prosecution skews drastically should someone decide to introduce manufactured evidence somewhere.
If you don't have to worry that evidence will be tossed out for being obtained illegally, a great number of doors open for setting someone up.
By extension, if the police are allowed to use illegally-gathered evidence there is no protection from manufactured evidence. At that point, a bad guy is defined as anyone the police say is a bad guy. Anyone who believes the latter is a good thing needs to be removed from the gene pool.
Using the above as a blanket description of "conservative" is as asinine as the typical anti-liberal descriptive rants I often see floating around on the Internet. The primary problem with working together is the extremely loud and partisan minority on both sides who do their level best to sabotage any hope of anyone listening to anyone else who doesn't first start speaking about the inhuman devils on whichever side of the "aisle" they're not on.
The 1936 record was a monthly average record, not a yearly record. Even if we didn't beat it, 1936 wouldn't be in the top 10 yearly records while 2012 will almost certainly be.
The monthly records prior to 2012 were not all in the same year. The new monthly records are now all from the same year.
He's classified as an insider by the SEC as a result of the quantity of stock he owns. As a result, he has to publicly declare the sale of his stock prior to completing the sale, which makes it almost impossible to pump and dump.
Since most jobs are created by small business owners, and a huge percentage of small businesses end up failing in the first couple years, that's pretty obvious (to anyone paying attention, anyway).
As for the "must have value," that's another obvious statement, which the other person probably didn't address because it should have never needed addressing. They're basic business assumptions, and don't need to be explicitly mentioned to have a rational discussion about job creation.
Slashdot Mirror
The government is made up of your neighbors, albeit some more distant neighbors than others. There's not really a distinction between the two.
That presupposes the driving force between pedophilia and rape are the same. According to those who study the two, they are not. Rape is overwhelmingly about power, while pedophilia has a much broader range of driving forces. Those who crave control rarely wish to temper their drives, while many, many pedophiles have talked openly about fighting a sometimes losing battle to overcome their drive to watch (or engage with) children. Access to pornography helps curb the drive to be gratified sexually. The size of the effect is not known, but that the effect exists is. It doesn't fulfill the need to control, so has nothing to do with rape. The pedophiles who also have a rapist's control issues won't be slowed in the slightest, but one who is driven entirely by sexual drive might. Unfortunately discussing the issue is so taboo in most cases that you can't even begin a conversation about the issue though. People who aren't trained psychologists frequently decide they know exactly what the cause is and what will and won't have any effect, even if they're otherwise left-brained people with a background in science who should damn well know better.
Sadly, that is not recognized as true in pretty much any jurisdiction that recognizes the concept of a license. Licenses must explicitly state they are transferable in order to be transferable in most cases.
At least in the US, things aren't in a good place as the lack of ownership has been ruled completely permissible. Companies can turn a sale into a license with just a word. It hasn't made it to the Supreme Court yet, but given the climate I am not hopeful that the first sale doctrine will survive in the face of changing technology. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Co is the case to watch. We've already lost Vernor v. Autodesk at the appellate level, at least in the 9th Circuit.
The more you know about someone the easier it becomes to ruin them. Imagine a world where any sufficiently motivated extortionist could have their pick of targets. Eventually those extortionists would infiltrate whatever system was overseeing the information aggregation and, if it were not also the system controlling society, they would soon merge the two and run both.
The scum who fit the mold for the flaws in a system always end up running said system, if there is any benefit to them to do so. The system in question just so happens to be one favoring extortionists. They are one of the worst types of scum to give a foothold to, and by virtue of human nature one of the hardest to get rid of, which is why the entire idea presented is so thoroughly disturbing.
Well, when face and ass are so similar, does it matter which one is red and which one is blue?
Fortunately, there's been a move toward the term "physical dependency" to distinguish it from psychological addiction since the two are vastly different things.
Physical dependency leading to addiction requires a psychological shift. If it didn't, everyone who has needed opiates for the management of chronic pain would end up an addict.
It's good to see others in a non-professional forum making sure to highlight a hugely important distinction that too many others gloss over entirely.
I'll second this off-topic. :)
Most people think they'd be uncomfortable in hot weather, but they're not any more uncomfortable than wearing cotton socks. It's taken me about 10 years to wear through my oldest pairs.
Just buy a used commercial color laser printer. They're designed from top to bottom to have all their parts replaced, and once they're outside the business lifecycle toner cartridges and other parts become dirt cheap.
Yes. I still have a C720 sitting right next to me. Sure, it's beastly slow to warm up because it's so old, but it runs like a champ and is dead simple to replace parts in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc
I think the reason those who conscientiously object to Apple's suits but not to (most) of the other telecom suits is that lawsuits have been Apple's first line of (de|of)fense, and their stated goal is not to secure licensing. No other technology company that makes actual products does that. They sue to force licensing of their patents (whether the patent is valid is irrelevant to the point I'm making, by the way). Motorola's lawsuit is the first non-Apple-filed suit I can think of which is not designed to force licensing, and this can in no way be considered their first line move. Apple doesn't want licensing fees; they want scorched earth. They nuke first and ask questions never.
Let's face it: Apple does not produce technology. They design products using nearly 100% tech created by other companies. They excel at specifications, packaging, and marketing. They popularize new technology that other people actually invent, and then they use design patents to keeps the companies who actually developed the technology as weapons against those companies who make their existence possible.
I'm not saying other companies haven't done shitty things in the cell phone wars, but when it comes to the way lawsuits are used Apple is in a class itself.
Due process involves a lot of steps which, whether by design or coincidence, create a trail of verifiability for evidence. Once that process is breached, there is much less basis upon which manufactured evidence can be debunked. When the method by which the evidence is gathered is no longer a point upon which the entire trial can hinge, the risk/reward ratio for the prosecution skews drastically should someone decide to introduce manufactured evidence somewhere.
If you don't have to worry that evidence will be tossed out for being obtained illegally, a great number of doors open for setting someone up.
By extension, if the police are allowed to use illegally-gathered evidence there is no protection from manufactured evidence. At that point, a bad guy is defined as anyone the police say is a bad guy. Anyone who believes the latter is a good thing needs to be removed from the gene pool.
Using the above as a blanket description of "conservative" is as asinine as the typical anti-liberal descriptive rants I often see floating around on the Internet. The primary problem with working together is the extremely loud and partisan minority on both sides who do their level best to sabotage any hope of anyone listening to anyone else who doesn't first start speaking about the inhuman devils on whichever side of the "aisle" they're not on.
Oh, it's easy to change it with legislation. The problem is that the easy change is limited to lengthening the terms.
In GEMA's case, it roughly means "multitudes of assholes."
The 1936 record was a monthly average record, not a yearly record. Even if we didn't beat it, 1936 wouldn't be in the top 10 yearly records while 2012 will almost certainly be.
The monthly records prior to 2012 were not all in the same year. The new monthly records are now all from the same year.
That might have been true had RIM not had the largest share of the smartphone market for most of the time the smartphone market has existed.
Let's not let actual facts get in the way of a meritless argument that sounds good though.
I don't know. I'm still working out the conversion to LoCs end-to-end.
The athlete didn't jump the hurdle on a whim, he jumped it because gravity and inertia allowed him to.
It's pedantry, and did not need to be acknowledged.
He's classified as an insider by the SEC as a result of the quantity of stock he owns. As a result, he has to publicly declare the sale of his stock prior to completing the sale, which makes it almost impossible to pump and dump.
I'm guessing via the belief that the entirety of human existence is a zero-sum game? Otherwise, dunno...
Since most jobs are created by small business owners, and a huge percentage of small businesses end up failing in the first couple years, that's pretty obvious (to anyone paying attention, anyway).
As for the "must have value," that's another obvious statement, which the other person probably didn't address because it should have never needed addressing. They're basic business assumptions, and don't need to be explicitly mentioned to have a rational discussion about job creation.
A 2000km bus trip in the US is easy, or are you hung up on the km vs mi difference? Heck, a trip of 4000km by bus isn't unusual in the US.
No, actually the cave simultaneously existed and did not exist until you stumbled upon it.