Okay. But what's the logic of making cartoons of children having sex illegal (as is the case in Aussieland). Where's the victim? Where's the crime? This is nothing more than morality enforcement except now instead of the Catholic church doing it, it's the government.
First, all laws are based on somebody's definition of right and wrong, i.e. morality.
Second, if it is illegal then it is a crime. However I think you were trying to make the point of "who is damaged" in the scenario. Well, you seem to have made the assumption that there is no damage to individual who "uses" child porn.
I'd like to know how many studies or testimonies of previous "users" will it take to convince you that it is/does
Third, I'd like you to honestly think to yourself if you would have the same opinion if someone drew cartoon images of your wife, daugther, mother, or sister being raped.
Lastly to address your comment about "land of the free," I'll just quote John Adams:
“Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other.”
Easy fix my friend, you just have to chroot Girlfriend 1.0.
Just beware that you do this properly as this is very dangerous and can cause insufficient resource errors.
Also if Wife 1.0 encounters any girlfriend 1.0 files, your GnuCash files will be deleted and then Wife 1.0 will uninstall, but not cleanly.
Regarding the iBaby popup... Check carefully next time... there should be a "don't remind me again" checkbox.
Remember to always keep your anti-virus and anti-spyware up to date.
Employers will quickly catch on to this type of dishonesty.
IMHO it makes you look bad to be presented to an employer by a recruiter who is doing this.
I would just find another (and more reputable) agency/recruiter.
And then you think that they would bother to revive you. That too is staggeringly unlikely.
They'll need me to fight Dr. Evil, you clod!
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
First, smoking provides ZERO nutritional value. Mickey D's does provide some nutritional value, and you do need to eat.
You don't need to smoke to live. You may want to smoke or even be addicted, but you're not going to die if you stop.
Second, while those people aren't eating a very healthy diet anyhow, they don't eat at Mickey D's 10 times a day (or however many times a day you smoke, which is very like more than twice.)
Most parents know nothing about the world around them
Sounds like the education system did wonders with the parents. Wouldn't want to try something different now would we?
If the parents have been "educated" and know nothing, how much worse could homeschooling possibly be?
Most homeschoolers I know are people who aren't sociable and just don't want to deal with the daily social 'grind' of dealing with people. Also they ahve some fear the child will be exposed to something outside there own beliefs.
TRANSLATION:You always smell like your bong and constantly swear whenever you are around my kids.
The Law of Biogenesis states that modern life does not arise from non-life
LOL! You have a very strange definition of modern.
Redi published the results of his experiments in 1668.
Probably a better description of your argument is that fully formed life does not spontaneously generate.
It's still rather funny that you cannot cite any evidence to prove that life comes from non-life. You can at best try to insert a word into a description of a scientific law to try and alter the meaning.
Then where did the first living organism come from?
There are only two options, and based on science and math we can eliminate one. You have the law of biogenesis showing that life does not come from non-life, and math showing us that abiogenesis is statistically impossible.
The question for most is how much evidence do you need to give up the dogma of darwinistic evolution? If you start out by saying there is no four. You will never be able to determine what 2+2 equals.
First: Scientific Law vs. Theory. Perhaps you should learn the difference.
Second: Are you seriously trying to make an argument based off of what wikipedia says? Let's try to deal with the facts, okay?
Third, I'm open to all possibilities (can you say the same?) and science has proven abiogenic beginnings do not occur. As I stated before if you want to spend YOUR money try to prove otherwise, please feel free to do so. Just stop spending MY money on a flawed theory that has already been proven impossible both scientifically and mathematically.
Apparently they can't be bothered to pick up a textbook and learn that Redi and Pasteur proved it doesn't work like that a couple hundred years ago. It's call the law of biogenesis. Stop spending tax dollars trying to prove your Theory when there is already a scientific law disproving it.
If you want to spend your own money on it fine, just stop spending mine on your junk 'science.'
Because for a system administrator, paranoia is a basic job requirement. Consequently, when it comes to data security, there's no such thing as too much overkill. Even when you have subjected the drive to a thermite reaction, let it cool, and ground the whole resulting mess down to the consistency of talcum powder, you still have to scatter the ashes over at least a thousand square miles of ocean, just to be sure. Ideally, you'd scatter half the ashes over the central Pacific, some of them over the north Atlantic, and the rest over the southern ocean.
It's always refreshing to know that I'm not the only one like this......
Slashdot Mirror
This article should be titled: "How to drive a bunch of stupid slashdotters to my website and increase traffic by 1000%"
The "Terrorists" were actually Burger King workers. America has a grudge because Buger King stopped selling the Angery Whopper. Those Bastards!
My colon declared *me* a terrorist, after I ate one of those Angry Whoppers.
Okay. But what's the logic of making cartoons of children having sex illegal (as is the case in Aussieland). Where's the victim? Where's the crime? This is nothing more than morality enforcement except now instead of the Catholic church doing it, it's the government.
First, all laws are based on somebody's definition of right and wrong, i.e. morality.
Second, if it is illegal then it is a crime. However I think you were trying to make the point of "who is damaged" in the
scenario. Well, you seem to have made the assumption that there is no damage to individual who "uses" child porn.
I'd like to know how many studies or testimonies of previous "users" will it take to convince you that it is/does
Third, I'd like you to honestly think to yourself if you would have the same opinion if someone drew cartoon images of your wife, daugther, mother, or sister being raped.
Lastly to address your comment about "land of the free," I'll just quote John Adams:
“Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other.”
One of the things I like about my Mac is the lack of cutting edges.
Yep.. Both Macs and duplo blocks are safe like that, and aimed at the same demographic.
To Do List:
1) limit bughunter's bandwidth at work.
Ahhh... Sounds like you missed an opt-out checkbox when you installed Wife 1.0.
You know....If it lasts for more than four hours you're supposed to go to the hospital.
Just beware that you do this properly as this is very dangerous and can cause insufficient resource errors.
Also if Wife 1.0 encounters any girlfriend 1.0 files, your GnuCash files will be deleted and then Wife 1.0 will uninstall, but not cleanly.
Regarding the iBaby popup... Check carefully next time... there should be a "don't remind me again" checkbox.
Remember to always keep your anti-virus and anti-spyware up to date.
Employers will quickly catch on to this type of dishonesty.
IMHO it makes you look bad to be presented to an employer by a recruiter who is doing this.
I would just find another (and more reputable) agency/recruiter.
And then you think that they would bother to revive you. That too is staggeringly unlikely.
They'll need me to fight Dr. Evil, you clod!
First, smoking provides ZERO nutritional value. Mickey D's does provide some nutritional value, and you do need to eat.
You don't need to smoke to live. You may want to smoke or even be addicted, but you're not going to die if you stop.
Second, while those people aren't eating a very healthy diet anyhow, they don't eat at Mickey D's 10 times a day (or however many times a day you smoke, which is very like more than twice.)
Most parents know nothing about the world around them
Sounds like the education system did wonders with the parents. Wouldn't want to try something different now would we?
If the parents have been "educated" and know nothing, how much worse could homeschooling possibly be?
Most homeschoolers I know are people who aren't sociable and just don't want to deal with the daily social 'grind' of dealing with people. Also they ahve some fear the child will be exposed to something outside there own beliefs.
TRANSLATION:You always smell like your bong and constantly swear whenever you are around my kids.
The Law of Biogenesis states that modern life does not arise from non-life
LOL! You have a very strange definition of modern.
Redi published the results of his experiments in 1668.
Probably a better description of your argument is that fully formed life does not spontaneously generate.
It's still rather funny that you cannot cite any evidence to prove that life comes from non-life. You can at best try to insert a word into a description of a scientific law to try and alter the meaning.
I guess if wikipedia is acceptable then I'll quote from crazy Larry down the street. He's just as reliable.
That is why I asked that person to deal with facts, instead some website that anybody can edit.
You disagree, but fail to provide any objective proof to my argument. That speaks volumes.
Given a definition, there must be a point where the difference between life and non-life is just a microscopic change.
That is quite an assumption. Do you have some scientific or mathematical evidence that this is only a microscopic change?
My answer is the evidence shows God did it.
Then where did the first living organism come from?
There are only two options, and based on science and math we can eliminate one.
You have the law of biogenesis showing that life does not come from non-life, and math showing us that abiogenesis is statistically impossible.
The question for most is how much evidence do you need to give up the dogma of darwinistic evolution?
If you start out by saying there is no four. You will never be able to determine what 2+2 equals.
Are you trying to say that it's physically impossible for glycine to form outside of a living organism?
No. I'm saying Redi and Pasteur have already proven that life does not spontaneously generate.
First: Scientific Law vs. Theory. Perhaps you should learn the difference.
Second: Are you seriously trying to make an argument based off of what wikipedia says? Let's try to deal with the facts, okay?
Third, I'm open to all possibilities (can you say the same?) and science has proven abiogenic beginnings do not occur. As I stated before if you want to spend YOUR money try to prove otherwise, please feel free to do so. Just stop spending MY money on a flawed theory that has already been proven impossible both scientifically and mathematically.
Apparently they can't be bothered to pick up a textbook and learn that Redi and Pasteur proved it doesn't work like that a couple hundred years ago.
It's call the law of biogenesis.
Stop spending tax dollars trying to prove your Theory when there is already a scientific law disproving it.
If you want to spend your own money on it fine, just stop spending mine on your junk 'science.'
Because for a system administrator, paranoia is a basic job requirement. Consequently, when it comes to data security, there's no such thing as too much overkill. Even when you have subjected the drive to a thermite reaction, let it cool, and ground the whole resulting mess down to the consistency of talcum powder, you still have to scatter the ashes over at least a thousand square miles of ocean, just to be sure. Ideally, you'd scatter half the ashes over the central Pacific, some of them over the north Atlantic, and the rest over the southern ocean.
It's always refreshing to know that I'm not the only one like this......
This is only a puzzle if you come from a particular worldview.
I believe that is what is commonly referred to as: "close enough for government work."