To answer the original thrust of your question, if laws aren't for the wellbeing of the citizens, what are they for? It's the same principle as not allowing four-year-olds to play with loaded guns, and finding an adult that gives them to them negligent/abusive.
You don't have the legal problems involved in these particular age of consent issues. But I'm sure that some of those 14 year olds have the emotional and physical problems associated with early sexual activity. Notably, it's just not healthy to be pregnant that early (anemia being only one of the potential health concerns).
I can certainly see valid arguments made for strict 16 versus 16-21 laws. On the other hand, I've taught 16 year olds, and I see the (also valid) arguments for 16-21.
Every state legislates morality to one extent or the other; where to draw the line between real, useful consensus (i.e. No murder, no theft) and invasive control is always going to be a point of contention.
Also, I'm not actually convinced that a 29 year old sleeping with a 16 year old isn't criminal, personally. There's a differential there that, while not as extreme as that of the molester and his(/her) victim, is very real, and potentially very damaging.
Actually, this is one of the problems I have with how US law treats minors and their interactions with adults. If a minor lies about their age to an adult, it is the adult's fault/responsibility (statutory rape applies even if the minor lied about their age). However, if the same minor lies about their age to a police officer, it is the minor's fault/responsibility.
Actually, it's less cut and dried than that. In general, the lie/falsehood is the minor's responsibility, and the sexual infraction is the adult's. And, it is considered relevant to the guilt of the adult whether or not they lacked knowledge, and whether or not their assumption of legality was reasonable or not.
This is not to say that there aren't rampant screw-ups/abuses, because there are. That's not the letter of the law's fault; it's those executing/enforcing it.
Also consider how many times you have read about an 18 year-old declared immature (not mentally disabled, just with a maturity level closer to that of a 15 year-old) and tried as a minor after committing a crime. Now consider how many times you've heard of a 15 year-old tried as an adult.
That 18 year old has the responsibility to be mature; immaturity isn't actually a valid reason to be held to a different trial standard, at least in the way you seem to be using it.
No question that minors are tried as adults too often, and on questionable grounds. That's a huge problem in both the U.S. and the U.K.
As someone who's been a teenager, a college student, and a teacher of elementary through high school, I kind of question your lack of experience as a valid thing to try and hold over me;-) "Oh, I've done less than you, and lived for much shorter! That makes me smarter!"
Let's do this point by point, shall we?
Age is irrelevant; a 30-year-old with the mind of a 12-year-old would still be legal (unless I misunderstand)
You're just wrong. People with mental disabilities that render them not capable of giving consent aren't capable of giving consent.
If somebody isn't competent to have sex at 16, they won't be competent at 18-and-a-day.
Hmmm... Well, at some point, you change from being incompetent to being competent. Just because it's gradual, doesn't mean that there isn't actually a difference. There's a difference between me at 12 and me at 14. Or 14 and 17. Or 17 and 18. Where the point is does vary between people - but the law can't. Thus, you put it at the place where it will damage the fewest and inconvenience the second-fewest. Because, seriously, being pushed into premature sexual situations is more demonstrably damaging than waiting a few years to have sex.
No discussion. If you disagree, you aren't remembering yourself at 16, and your peers.
Well, I actually remember the past ten years of my life quite well, thank you, and still keep in touch with several of my peers.
I most certainly remember being 16, and thinking that I was developed as a person, qualified to function as an adult, and as smart and competent as I'd ever be. I also remember going to college, and learning that, well, no. It doesn't work that way.
Your argument of "Well, I've lived less and most likely experienced less, so I auto-win and can declare you unable to comment!" isn't very persuasive.
Should we card people before we take them home?
Well, if you're not sure, then yes. Yes you should. Furthermore, if you are routinely targeting people at the lower age of consent when you aren't there yourself, you should probably reexamine your psychology and motivations.
No, you don't have to "place the age of consent" somewhere. Why must you have an age of consent at all?
Because otherwise, you've put yourself in the position of creating a brand new set of standard for sexual eligibility based on intangible criteria, and putting into place a system that can, in literally millions of cases per year, accurately judge cases on the basis of those criteria. All while not utterly bankrupting the judicial system.
None of the "reasonable criteria" you propose are remotely objective, and each of them is only discoverable through fairly extensive psychological testing; if at all. Sorry, but it fails at being a possible solution. You can't actually add that much overhead to the justice/regulatory system, even assuming that you can magically produce fair, comprehensive, and utterly unbiased tests for sexual maturity. Tests that meet the majority's standards for decency, which, by the way, fall pretty solidly in the "don't fuck teenagers if you're over 20" category.
It's not that age stands in for maturity/education, it's that age is measurable and rigidly defined. You can base laws on it, and expect them to be understood and (in the main) obeyed.
As long as it is maintained in such a way as to pillory teenagers, as long as it violates any sensible interpretation of ex post facto, as long as it confounds the identification of actual child molesters with consenting, informed people pursuing normal sexual concourse, as long as it is a manifestation of a line in the sand that consists of nothing but arbitrary age - it really does need to be reformed.
I certainly agree that the punishment side of those laws is panic-driven and needs change. I'll even go so far as to say that corner cases tend to be dealt entirely too harshly, and reexamining these situations with an eye to a more nuanced sentencing policy would do us a world of good.
But how is the current place where the age-line is set (in most places 18, with a 16-21 law in place) "completely arbitrary?" We restrict sexual congress to people within a certain age-range because past that point, there is a power/developmental differential. Granted, there is no magical "every case is attached to this point in time" specialness of 16 (or 17, etc). But it's placed there, generally, for non-arbitrary reasons, that being that in the large majority of cases, that's the most sensible place to draw the line. Just because a decision is made on heuristics doesn't make it arbitrary.
Furthermore, what's the solution that DOESN'T involve some sort of semi-arbitrary decision? You have to place the age of consent somewhere. Strict 18 is too draconian; it fails over too large a subset of cases. On the other hand, strict 16 would be bad legislation over the largest subset of cases. And, if you're one of those "Oh, it shouldn't be based on age, it should be based on maturity," well, how is that going to work? Every time you go down to the high school to pick up some 16 year old tail, are you going to give them a thorough mental competency exam?
There's plenty of things that need reform about our sex-offender laws; in general, the "lines in the sand" aren't the problem.
Although I'm pretty much under the impression that the authorized device is perfectly allowed to unlock the encryption, for the purpose of allowing the owner (well, licensee, at least) to view/listen to the content.
Operative phrase being "one of the stars." "The stars" seems to connote all of them, or at the very least, one entire group of actors.
Also, it's a misleading article title, because both the Rifftrax group and the Cinematic Titanic group HAVE BEEN DOING THIS. Unless it's some sort of collaboration between them, this isn't really news.
Or those people who didn't have a sufficiently high-paying job to manage basic necessities in the pre-crash era. Or people who, despite the desire and intelligence to do excellent work, failed to find a job before the beginning of the recession.
Any simplified model of the economy is bound to fail, because the economy is not simple. Not everyone who doesn't have massive savings spent themselves retarded. Not everyone who spent themselves retarded is going to suffer now. Sadly, it doesn't work like that.
I realize that... Honestly, I'm just pointing out that this doesn't actually make a strong case against religion, any more than the contrary point makes a strong case against rationalism.
As for the "Your.Master crap," look at the poster he was responding to's username.
First off, religion DOES make a difference. Anything that promotes or relies upon belief based upon unobserved "truths" in the manner of "revelation" or "faith" is potentially dangerous. Much of the evil in the world done isn't because of malice, it's because people simply believe in things unsupported by evidence. Charity, goodwill, and helping others, however, can and does exist independently of religion. The "good" parts of religion need not vanish along with the "bad" parts (the false beliefs).
Aaaaand... no evil is done in the name of rationality, efficiency, and the utter denial of anything other than strict materialism?
I am afraid that I must call shenanigans here.
Your.Master has a good grasp on where the line between standing up for your position and needlessly combative lies. And the plain fact is, hostility toward all religion isn't going to be remotely effective as a tool for promoting rationality, any more than Jerry Falwell is effective at converting atheists.
Or, rather, we call cutting off the entirety of the pleasure-generating organ in females the same thing we call trimming small amounts of skin in males.
"Circumcision is bad" is a potentially legitimate position to hold, but if you think it's remotely comparable to what gets called "Female circumcision," you're way off base.
The NTFS-3g driver for Fuse works very well, at this point, and there are ext2/3 drivers for Windows if you look for them (Albeit the free one that I know about doesn't handle journaling in Ext3).
Unable to deal with my entire first statement, you focus on, essentially, a single word in it.
Not everyone with a realistic grasp on what the law does and does not mean is an anti-free-speech-fanatic. And throwing out such charges in what has previously been a civil debate just makes you seem like a jerk.
Just to be clear; as interpreted (since the beginning of our nation), free speech is a narrower concept than "Anything said by anyone ever." It is limited by the concepts of slander, the concepts of fraudulent, physically dangerous speech ("Fire!" in a theater), and in other ways. That's how I dealt with your first argument. Since you refuse to accept that, I pointed out that, even accepting your interpretation of the meaning of the phrase "freedom of speech" in the first amendment, my overall point that the issues in the article ARE NOT first amendment issues still stands.
I've had friends endangered by actual abuses of civil rights, in the recent jailing of protesters surrounding the primaries. I have a very broad definition of what should be protected speech, and am passionate about defending it; but I can't extend that to "You should be able to do whatever you want with someone else's property," or "students should be able to do whatever the hell they want at school." That is stupid, and cheapens what people who actually fight for free speech issues do.
It also specifies "Congress shall make no law," not "No entity will ever temporarily regulate." Congress, not the school board of $place.
Either it's literal and specific, in which case it's not applicable to this situation, or it's bound by the legal interpretation of it, in which case it's not applicable to this situation.
Either way, schools can say what you do with computers they own.
And, if interpreted literally (which it never has been or will be), that would mean that the written word is never protected, only "speech." These aren't, in fact, laws that exist in a vacuum, protected from any legal definition or interpretation.
And, again, even if you apply the First Amendment as broadly as possible, school regulations are not and do not have the force of law, minors don't have full rights as citizens, et cetera, et cetera. Free speech just doesn't come up, because the School District isn't Congress, and by and large, the students aren't fully invested as citizens.
Fortunately, there are many types of non-protected speech.
For example, libel/slander: So that, if someone calls you a (murderer|rapist|adulterer|rodeo clown) in a context where it could prove damaging, and that statement is false, you have recourse to law.
Slashdot Mirror
To answer the original thrust of your question, if laws aren't for the wellbeing of the citizens, what are they for? It's the same principle as not allowing four-year-olds to play with loaded guns, and finding an adult that gives them to them negligent/abusive.
Safety of citizens and public health are valid concerns of a government?
You don't have the legal problems involved in these particular age of consent issues. But I'm sure that some of those 14 year olds have the emotional and physical problems associated with early sexual activity. Notably, it's just not healthy to be pregnant that early (anemia being only one of the potential health concerns).
I can certainly see valid arguments made for strict 16 versus 16-21 laws. On the other hand, I've taught 16 year olds, and I see the (also valid) arguments for 16-21.
Every state legislates morality to one extent or the other; where to draw the line between real, useful consensus (i.e. No murder, no theft) and invasive control is always going to be a point of contention.
Also, I'm not actually convinced that a 29 year old sleeping with a 16 year old isn't criminal, personally. There's a differential there that, while not as extreme as that of the molester and his(/her) victim, is very real, and potentially very damaging.
Actually, it's less cut and dried than that. In general, the lie/falsehood is the minor's responsibility, and the sexual infraction is the adult's. And, it is considered relevant to the guilt of the adult whether or not they lacked knowledge, and whether or not their assumption of legality was reasonable or not.
This is not to say that there aren't rampant screw-ups/abuses, because there are. That's not the letter of the law's fault; it's those executing/enforcing it.
That 18 year old has the responsibility to be mature; immaturity isn't actually a valid reason to be held to a different trial standard, at least in the way you seem to be using it.
No question that minors are tried as adults too often, and on questionable grounds. That's a huge problem in both the U.S. and the U.K.
As someone who's been a teenager, a college student, and a teacher of elementary through high school, I kind of question your lack of experience as a valid thing to try and hold over me ;-) "Oh, I've done less than you, and lived for much shorter! That makes me smarter!"
Let's do this point by point, shall we?
You're just wrong. People with mental disabilities that render them not capable of giving consent aren't capable of giving consent.
Hmmm... Well, at some point, you change from being incompetent to being competent. Just because it's gradual, doesn't mean that there isn't actually a difference. There's a difference between me at 12 and me at 14. Or 14 and 17. Or 17 and 18. Where the point is does vary between people - but the law can't. Thus, you put it at the place where it will damage the fewest and inconvenience the second-fewest. Because, seriously, being pushed into premature sexual situations is more demonstrably damaging than waiting a few years to have sex.
Well, I actually remember the past ten years of my life quite well, thank you, and still keep in touch with several of my peers.
I most certainly remember being 16, and thinking that I was developed as a person, qualified to function as an adult, and as smart and competent as I'd ever be. I also remember going to college, and learning that, well, no. It doesn't work that way.
Your argument of "Well, I've lived less and most likely experienced less, so I auto-win and can declare you unable to comment!" isn't very persuasive.
Well, if you're not sure, then yes. Yes you should. Furthermore, if you are routinely targeting people at the lower age of consent when you aren't there yourself, you should probably reexamine your psychology and motivations.
Because otherwise, you've put yourself in the position of creating a brand new set of standard for sexual eligibility based on intangible criteria, and putting into place a system that can, in literally millions of cases per year, accurately judge cases on the basis of those criteria. All while not utterly bankrupting the judicial system.
None of the "reasonable criteria" you propose are remotely objective, and each of them is only discoverable through fairly extensive psychological testing; if at all. Sorry, but it fails at being a possible solution. You can't actually add that much overhead to the justice/regulatory system, even assuming that you can magically produce fair, comprehensive, and utterly unbiased tests for sexual maturity. Tests that meet the majority's standards for decency, which, by the way, fall pretty solidly in the "don't fuck teenagers if you're over 20" category.
It's not that age stands in for maturity/education, it's that age is measurable and rigidly defined. You can base laws on it, and expect them to be understood and (in the main) obeyed.
I certainly agree that the punishment side of those laws is panic-driven and needs change. I'll even go so far as to say that corner cases tend to be dealt entirely too harshly, and reexamining these situations with an eye to a more nuanced sentencing policy would do us a world of good.
But how is the current place where the age-line is set (in most places 18, with a 16-21 law in place) "completely arbitrary?" We restrict sexual congress to people within a certain age-range because past that point, there is a power/developmental differential. Granted, there is no magical "every case is attached to this point in time" specialness of 16 (or 17, etc). But it's placed there, generally, for non-arbitrary reasons, that being that in the large majority of cases, that's the most sensible place to draw the line. Just because a decision is made on heuristics doesn't make it arbitrary.
Furthermore, what's the solution that DOESN'T involve some sort of semi-arbitrary decision? You have to place the age of consent somewhere. Strict 18 is too draconian; it fails over too large a subset of cases. On the other hand, strict 16 would be bad legislation over the largest subset of cases. And, if you're one of those "Oh, it shouldn't be based on age, it should be based on maturity," well, how is that going to work? Every time you go down to the high school to pick up some 16 year old tail, are you going to give them a thorough mental competency exam?
There's plenty of things that need reform about our sex-offender laws; in general, the "lines in the sand" aren't the problem.
Although I'm pretty much under the impression that the authorized device is perfectly allowed to unlock the encryption, for the purpose of allowing the owner (well, licensee, at least) to view/listen to the content.
FORTRAN: The RealUltimatePower?
Seriously, though, if you're really, really intent on obfuscating the code, why not C-Intercal through CGI? Link!
Sure, there are some minor performance hits, but it's hard to get more obfuscated.
Not everything self-published is crap... the big issue comes when things are self-edited.
Thinking that you've made it big enough to stop needing an editor is a sign that you need to stop writing.
Operative phrase being "one of the stars." "The stars" seems to connote all of them, or at the very least, one entire group of actors.
Also, it's a misleading article title, because both the Rifftrax group and the Cinematic Titanic group HAVE BEEN DOING THIS. Unless it's some sort of collaboration between them, this isn't really news.
Or those people who didn't have a sufficiently high-paying job to manage basic necessities in the pre-crash era. Or people who, despite the desire and intelligence to do excellent work, failed to find a job before the beginning of the recession.
Any simplified model of the economy is bound to fail, because the economy is not simple. Not everyone who doesn't have massive savings spent themselves retarded. Not everyone who spent themselves retarded is going to suffer now. Sadly, it doesn't work like that.
Is lisp an esolang now?
How does one get into medical transcription, asks the jobless and poverty stricken slashdotter?
I'll check that out, although these days my windows use is down to games and nothing but, at least on my personal machine.
I realize that... Honestly, I'm just pointing out that this doesn't actually make a strong case against religion, any more than the contrary point makes a strong case against rationalism.
As for the "Your.Master crap," look at the poster he was responding to's username.
Aaaaand... no evil is done in the name of rationality, efficiency, and the utter denial of anything other than strict materialism?
I am afraid that I must call shenanigans here.
Your.Master has a good grasp on where the line between standing up for your position and needlessly combative lies. And the plain fact is, hostility toward all religion isn't going to be remotely effective as a tool for promoting rationality, any more than Jerry Falwell is effective at converting atheists.
Or, rather, we call cutting off the entirety of the pleasure-generating organ in females the same thing we call trimming small amounts of skin in males.
"Circumcision is bad" is a potentially legitimate position to hold, but if you think it's remotely comparable to what gets called "Female circumcision," you're way off base.
Not, strictly speaking, true...
The NTFS-3g driver for Fuse works very well, at this point, and there are ext2/3 drivers for Windows if you look for them (Albeit the free one that I know about doesn't handle journaling in Ext3).
Here you go!
My personal favorite setup is having an ext3 home directory in Linux, and using the My Documents folder in NTFS as a media directory.
Slight annoyance of having two desktops, but other than that, pretty ideal.
Unable to deal with my entire first statement, you focus on, essentially, a single word in it.
Not everyone with a realistic grasp on what the law does and does not mean is an anti-free-speech-fanatic. And throwing out such charges in what has previously been a civil debate just makes you seem like a jerk.
Just to be clear; as interpreted (since the beginning of our nation), free speech is a narrower concept than "Anything said by anyone ever." It is limited by the concepts of slander, the concepts of fraudulent, physically dangerous speech ("Fire!" in a theater), and in other ways. That's how I dealt with your first argument. Since you refuse to accept that, I pointed out that, even accepting your interpretation of the meaning of the phrase "freedom of speech" in the first amendment, my overall point that the issues in the article ARE NOT first amendment issues still stands.
I've had friends endangered by actual abuses of civil rights, in the recent jailing of protesters surrounding the primaries. I have a very broad definition of what should be protected speech, and am passionate about defending it; but I can't extend that to "You should be able to do whatever you want with someone else's property," or "students should be able to do whatever the hell they want at school." That is stupid, and cheapens what people who actually fight for free speech issues do.
It also specifies "Congress shall make no law," not "No entity will ever temporarily regulate." Congress, not the school board of $place.
Either it's literal and specific, in which case it's not applicable to this situation, or it's bound by the legal interpretation of it, in which case it's not applicable to this situation.
Either way, schools can say what you do with computers they own.
They can give only homework that doesn't absolutely require the computer, and do the computer-centric things on school property.
And, if interpreted literally (which it never has been or will be), that would mean that the written word is never protected, only "speech." These aren't, in fact, laws that exist in a vacuum, protected from any legal definition or interpretation.
And, again, even if you apply the First Amendment as broadly as possible, school regulations are not and do not have the force of law, minors don't have full rights as citizens, et cetera, et cetera. Free speech just doesn't come up, because the School District isn't Congress, and by and large, the students aren't fully invested as citizens.
Fortunately, there are many types of non-protected speech.
For example, libel/slander: So that, if someone calls you a (murderer|rapist|adulterer|rodeo clown) in a context where it could prove damaging, and that statement is false, you have recourse to law.