"In an academic study due to be released next month"
How could you possibly determine ANYTHING about the study without seeing it?
Regardless, the number of researchers involved is immaterial. I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make? That you misunderstood the article?
None of which addresses my point, that it's trivial to ship polluting processes to a country where they don't care about following the rules, or that hasn't even agreed to follow them.
Until EVERY country agrees to a treaty such as this, it's useless.
By the way, what were you trying to say, since your post had nothing to do with mine?
"Violent nature? I can tell you've don't actually know anyone who has either applied for one or gotten one against them... The process runs like this: "Hi, judge, I'd like a restraining order against Fred", "Okay, granted". Seriously. You ask, you get, very little in the way of "proof", particularly if you belong to the ovary-bearing half of our species"
Listen, please stop doing this.
You are well aware that it is harder than that to get a restraining order. There does have to be SOME evidence of unwanted contact. I helped about 20 women get them when I was a case manager at a woman's shelter, and if it was as easy as you say, I would have far more hair right now.
Now, I agree it is too easy in many cases, or that such proof can be manufactured, but it's nowhere as easy as you claim.
So, because someone uses a tool to do something wrong, we should not use that tool? Think of all the things you wouldn't have if the rest of us were as short sighted as you.
Also, your link has nothing to do with "restrain(ing) free speech. You drank the Kool-aid on that one. Restricting people from trespassing is not a restriciton of free speech, but rather an affirmation of property rights.
In the article you link to, he admits trespassing when he says "I went to his home and office" presumably without permission. That's illegal, and has nothing to do with free speech, freedom of the press, or any other part of the 1st. More importantly, it's a perfectly good reason to get a restraining order.
Now, in case I'm missing something, what part of the 1st did it violate?
What does this rant have to do with the article? Apart from using the word "law" and the acronym "GPS"?
We are all aware that laws change. I doubt very seriously we will allow wife beating any time in the immediate (or far off) future. Feel free to disagree.
If the argument is that these will be abused, then why isn't that happening with the current technology?
However, since the ability to locate someone against their will already exisits (private investigators for example) I'm not sure what this will change. It just makes things a little easier.
I'll ship all my polluting processes to China, where they laugh at environmental treaties.
Then, I will happily comply here in the US.
Take whatever version of this applies to your country, and replace China with any other country. Do you think any 3rd world country would turn down the chance to get rich, especially when the downside is a "little" pollution?
Or, did you think companies would keep to the SPIRIT of the agreement? That would be a foolish thing to think.
HOW DARE YOU MOD ME DOWN JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE MY POSITION?
FUCK YOU WHOEVER MODDED ME TROLL. THIS IS A FUCKING TROLL, YOU ASSHOLE.
I hate you fucking slashbots. If you disagree, you hide like roaches, modding instead of commenting. READ the goddamned post, and TRY to disagree with me.
What, you think kids SHOULD use 15 year old textbooks?
Claiming I IMPLIED bias is not the same as saying they were biased. More importantly, I was clarifying someone elses point.
I understand you disagree with what you think I believe.
BUT STOP FUCKING LYING.
If I say something I'll own up to it. Stop attempting to infer what you believe I must think. You don't know anyhting about me, and LYING about what I said is just a shitty thing to do.
Being called a troll in a forum full of people like you is a compliment. It means that I am getiing all the information, instead of propaganda.
And if the best you could do to refute your own lies is to attemp to draw attention to my posting history, well go ahead and try. My karma is positive for a reason.
One point that you must own up to. You said I claimed the North Koreans had nukes. READ the thread, realize you are a liar, and apologize. Because you can't find that statement anywhere in my posts.
Why lie?
AND you STILL didn't refute me. You tried lying, you tried obfuscation, and you tried putting words in my mouth. You attacked me personally, despite the fact that I have been more than reasonable.
But I'm the troll right?
"Do you (or the people who's views you are using as support) have ANY proof whatsoever that NK was attempting to develop nuclear weapons before Feb 2001?"
It's amazing that because of your bias, you can assume I misread the post.
"No, that is NOT propaganda"
Hmm, that's funny. It seems that of the 10 people I asked, 10 disagreed. I work in a SCHOOL, where Bush is directly next to satan in the heirarchy, but they ALL agreed with me. Is it just possible that maybe YOU fucked up? MAYBE you're wrong. Everyone I talk to seems to think so.
I tried twice to have a reasonable conversation with you, but you ignore the facts, or lie about them, in order to try to one up me. Have an unbiased observer read your posts and mine.
Then accept it when they tell you you're being an ass, that you can't get the main idea of a post, and that you are a liar.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to offend, but does anyone with a bit of common sense care what CNN watchers think?
I mean, they watch CNN! How intelligent can they possibly be?
Ask the Welsh if they're British.
Shows what you know fuckstick, I've never bought a new car in my life.
Moron
So, in other words, you have no reason to discount the claims made, apart from your obvious personal bias (crappy school? very persuasive)
How about a REAL reason why this guy is wrong. Instead of the ridiculous made up reasons you just tried.
"In an academic study due to be released next month"
How could you possibly determine ANYTHING about the study without seeing it?
Regardless, the number of researchers involved is immaterial. I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make? That you misunderstood the article?
The same Japan that has seen a rash of teenagers stabbing people?
"There's no such thing as 'cheap and reliable'"
Nissan. Do the research, check the facts, and you'll realize that it's true.
"Or rely on any eyewitness accounts"
Which have proven to be around 70% accurate. Less when asked to determine speed.
I agree with the other guy. Far too complex to be modeled accurately, considering the assumptions even you agree would have to be made.
But some day I'm sure the capability will be built into a phone.
None of which addresses my point, that it's trivial to ship polluting processes to a country where they don't care about following the rules, or that hasn't even agreed to follow them. Until EVERY country agrees to a treaty such as this, it's useless. By the way, what were you trying to say, since your post had nothing to do with mine?
"Violent nature? I can tell you've don't actually know anyone who has either applied for one or gotten one against them... The process runs like this: "Hi, judge, I'd like a restraining order against Fred", "Okay, granted". Seriously. You ask, you get, very little in the way of "proof", particularly if you belong to the ovary-bearing half of our species"
Listen, please stop doing this.
You are well aware that it is harder than that to get a restraining order. There does have to be SOME evidence of unwanted contact. I helped about 20 women get them when I was a case manager at a woman's shelter, and if it was as easy as you say, I would have far more hair right now.
Now, I agree it is too easy in many cases, or that such proof can be manufactured, but it's nowhere as easy as you claim.
So, because someone uses a tool to do something wrong, we should not use that tool? Think of all the things you wouldn't have if the rest of us were as short sighted as you.
Also, your link has nothing to do with "restrain(ing) free speech. You drank the Kool-aid on that one. Restricting people from trespassing is not a restriciton of free speech, but rather an affirmation of property rights.
In the article you link to, he admits trespassing when he says "I went to his home and office" presumably without permission. That's illegal, and has nothing to do with free speech, freedom of the press, or any other part of the 1st. More importantly, it's a perfectly good reason to get a restraining order.
Now, in case I'm missing something, what part of the 1st did it violate?
What does this rant have to do with the article? Apart from using the word "law" and the acronym "GPS"?
We are all aware that laws change. I doubt very seriously we will allow wife beating any time in the immediate (or far off) future. Feel free to disagree.
If the argument is that these will be abused, then why isn't that happening with the current technology?
A good question.
However, since the ability to locate someone against their will already exisits (private investigators for example) I'm not sure what this will change. It just makes things a little easier.
Then why hasn't anything like that happened with ankle monitors?
How does this moron get modded interesting?
The discussion is about one specific use of this technology.
Instead, AC tries to change the subject, and ramble on about "laws that shouldn't be laws". Save that for the appropriate time please.
You idiot mods should have modded him off-topic.
NO, the executives are scum, but the BUSINESS is just a group of contracts and assets.
Take a business course, grow up a little, and stop trying to turn lifeless corporations into the next version of satan.
Really, your position is just stupid.
I have a better idea.
I'll ship all my polluting processes to China, where they laugh at environmental treaties.
Then, I will happily comply here in the US.
Take whatever version of this applies to your country, and replace China with any other country. Do you think any 3rd world country would turn down the chance to get rich, especially when the downside is a "little" pollution?
Or, did you think companies would keep to the SPIRIT of the agreement? That would be a foolish thing to think.
"And they will WANT to follow the example"
Why would they want to follow our example?
or
Why can't they do it on their own, without our guidance?
Both questions that there are no satisfactory answers to.
And people who can't tell the difference between a lifeless business entity (Microsoft) and the PEOPLE who run it should be euthanized.
But, as you say, what else is new?
You pathetic, cowardly cocksucker.
HOW DARE YOU MOD ME DOWN JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE MY POSITION?
FUCK YOU WHOEVER MODDED ME TROLL. THIS IS A FUCKING TROLL, YOU ASSHOLE.
I hate you fucking slashbots. If you disagree, you hide like roaches, modding instead of commenting. READ the goddamned post, and TRY to disagree with me.
What, you think kids SHOULD use 15 year old textbooks?
You can't do simple math (or for crying out loud use a fucking calculator) but you expect us to take your post seriously?
How can we be sure your fact checking on everyting else doesn't suffer the same problems as your math?
Ok, one thing. You are a liar.
Claiming I IMPLIED bias is not the same as saying they were biased. More importantly, I was clarifying someone elses point.
I understand you disagree with what you think I believe.
BUT STOP FUCKING LYING.
If I say something I'll own up to it. Stop attempting to infer what you believe I must think. You don't know anyhting about me, and LYING about what I said is just a shitty thing to do.
Disagreeing is no excuse for being a liar.
"I don't have a choice"
Yes you do. Taxi, bus, helicopter, bike or walking. Not sure what you were trying to say here.
Now, they may not be platable choices, but you DO have choices.
Being called a troll in a forum full of people like you is a compliment. It means that I am getiing all the information, instead of propaganda.
a /"
And if the best you could do to refute your own lies is to attemp to draw attention to my posting history, well go ahead and try. My karma is positive for a reason.
One point that you must own up to. You said I claimed the North Koreans had nukes. READ the thread, realize you are a liar, and apologize. Because you can't find that statement anywhere in my posts.
Why lie?
AND you STILL didn't refute me. You tried lying, you tried obfuscation, and you tried putting words in my mouth. You attacked me personally, despite the fact that I have been more than reasonable.
But I'm the troll right?
"Do you (or the people who's views you are using as support) have ANY proof whatsoever that NK was attempting to develop nuclear weapons before Feb 2001?"
"http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkore
Right there, fucker. They admit to developing them since they agreed not to in... 1994.
1994. So shut the fuck up, admit you were wrong like a man, and apologize.
Or will we hear another equvocation? I know what I expect to see.
Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?
It's amazing that because of your bias, you can assume I misread the post.
"No, that is NOT propaganda"
Hmm, that's funny. It seems that of the 10 people I asked, 10 disagreed. I work in a SCHOOL, where Bush is directly next to satan in the heirarchy, but they ALL agreed with me. Is it just possible that maybe YOU fucked up? MAYBE you're wrong. Everyone I talk to seems to think so.
I tried twice to have a reasonable conversation with you, but you ignore the facts, or lie about them, in order to try to one up me. Have an unbiased observer read your posts and mine.
Then accept it when they tell you you're being an ass, that you can't get the main idea of a post, and that you are a liar.
Then apologize.