That's not a thought crime. And nobody is in jail for a crime they only "thought about".
It's when you start planning it, buying tools (even legal ones) to commit the crime, and conspire with others to commit the crime where those actions are illegal.
It's still perfectly legal to want the President dead. You just can't say you want it to happen. Speaking isn't a thought, it's an action.
what if you have the hots for Sophie Hatter only when she's cursed? She's 18 in the book, but could be 14-16 in the movie, but as a 14 year old cursed to look 90, if you thought she looked hot as a 90 year old, does that make you a pedo?
Also, the porn makers used to make up (and imply) that 18+ "models" were under age. Now they are all "barely" legal, or legal teens or whatever. Not that I'd know. But the adult industry has gone out of its way to try to not appeal to those who like girls that look "under age". ,br>Seems like blocking people from release (illegal to act out, illegal to look at fictional depictions for release) would increase, rather than decrease actual attacks. I've never seen anything anywhere that indicated banning viewing CP reduced molestation. Though such laws were used to break up abuse rings, back in the '70s or such. So maybe they helped someone once, long ago.
It's presumed that the only reason to make it is to use it. It is "victimless" but it's a crime because it's usable, not because it was used. CP has a victim. Child cartoons harm nobody, not even theoretically.
What are you talking about? I don't think you even read the posts you are replying to.
I was originally stating that tracking people through passports is impossible, and people who agreed with my premise argued about specific points. And you come in arguing about everything until you don't even know what you were objecting to.
Great, you proved yourself an asshole. But why did you bother to respond? You obviously don't even understand what my stance was.
So you are saying you have the "Right" to cause physical pain (yes, a human can yell loud enough to cause pain), and physical harm, so long as it's "speech". I disagree.
You don't find laws that ban material subjectively deemed to be "obscene" objectionable?
Nope. Not the sensibly written ones. For those that proclaim the first Amendment supreme, just walk up to them and scream in their ear as loud as you can. Keep it up for 12 days. Ask them about your right to spew anything you want out of your mouth after that.
It is The People's job, or perhaps the State's, to decide if abridging our freedom of speech, including yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, is Constitutional.
Yes, but it's the Supreme Court's job to decide if the law about it is Constitutional.
There's a difference. One would think such a pedant would recognize that.
Judicial review is Common Law. The people who wrote the Constitution followed Common Law traditions, and wrote a framework that was directly modeled from Common Law. The Constitution doesn't give Congress the right to have a recess. It just allows them to do so as a necessity of performing their duties. The same is true of Judicial Review. It's impossible to judge the law if the words in the law are undefined. So Judicial Review is necessary to view the law. That they view not only the word of the law, but the spirit as well sometimes, is a product of Common Law.
We rejected Civil Law at the time. We were one of the last countries formed to choose from the two, and select Common Law. Everyone else selects the more clear (and fair) Civil Law.
EU, for most definitions, is a single country, as such, it has border controls that approach the controls between states in the USA, Mexico, and Canada. Using that as your example of crossing borders without controls is invalid. That was my point. As you noted, the controls are greater for those coming in from Africa
Consider some-American-one who goes to... CAR for business (of whatever sort), and in the process crosses many borders, then returns to the US. (I ignore the question of who gets fuck ed on the way) Since CAR is a long way from the at - risk areas, he should not raise any alarms.
An American generally has only one passport (About 1% to 5% have more, and most estimates are at the lower of that range). So when he re-enters, they'll see the stamp from Ebola-ville, if they are stamping there. To get US money and visitors, if people returning to the US are turned away for having that stamp, they'll stop stamping.
That and international law prevents the US from blocking US citizens from re-entering anyway.
I think you are trying so hard to show off that you travel that you aren't staying on topic. The question was about whether stamps are necessary, and what information, if any, could be determined from a passport (both in-country and after the fact).
What is COLA? Cola is a subset of sweetened carbonated beverages. But COLA is cost of living allowance. And CO2 isn't an acid, but pumping it into a water solution creates an acid. CLUB SODA is acidic. CLUB SODA affects teeth. CLUB SODA may contribute to bacterial growth.
But they found that CO2 in diet drinks didn't have the same effect. Neither did sugary drinks without the fizz. So it's a combination of the two, or some other complicating factor.
A small amount of directionality is all you are missing out on. That, and back in the '60s they played different instruments through different channels, and didn't mix the channels. So you'd get sound in one ear, then the other. Like the song was talking to itself. It was mostly annoying, but some swore by it.
My hearing problem is that I can't hear voices well. Audio tests put me as exceptional hearing. Much better hearing than most. But put me in a situation with minor background noise, like an airplane, and I can't understand voices. They just kind of sound underwater when I'm in a noisy environment. I've not ever seen anything about it. Though I've heard of DSP hearing aids that block all but voices, but they are expensive, and unfunded (by insurance and such) for a 30-something with perfect hearing. I got my eye floaters diagnosed on Slashdot, maybe someone will recognize this and let me know what it is, even if there isn't a cure.
I wish people planning on putting things on YouTube would film in wide, rather than portrait mode. Also, given the reaction of others there, that's not "background" noise. That's a specific sound from a specific machine.
I bought the Bose. They didn't work for me. Filtered the low, but made the high worse. Not sure whether the highs got louder, or just comparatively so, but definitely were more comfortable off than on.
AKG's I can't speak for, but having used noise cancelling headphones I won't settle for ordinary ones.
I can't use them. My hearing hasn't failed as fast as it's supposed to. A few undred dollars on some Bose noise canceling headphones, and they are quieter off than on (on being the cancellation feature). When they are on, and there's a regular high-pitch noise (like a plane engine or other sound above 10kHz), they increase the sound. They filter out the low well, but not the high. So I'm not sure if they are eliminating everything else, making the whine worse, or actually increasing the volume of the higher-pitches.
Noise cancelling isn't about making better sound, but isolation without needing isolation. I don't travel carrying a cone of silence.
"Flat" when I hear it generally means "compressed" The louds are softer. The soft parts are louder. The volume is flatter.
Although it should be noted they are called equalizers because the intent is to bring an equal loudness to all frequency bands - aka, a flat frequency response.
Yes, almost what I was saying. Flat is equal loudness. Now, there are some who mean with reference to frequency, and others who use it with regards to overall volume. But "flat" is usually a "bad" thing. "Oh, that sounded flat"
Slashdot Mirror
Or 27+8?
So all the pricks from the UK can shut up? But they never do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Reality is worse than you imply.
So a piece of paper with a drawing on it is a thought? It's the paper that's criminal, not the thought.
That's not a thought crime. And nobody is in jail for a crime they only "thought about".
It's when you start planning it, buying tools (even legal ones) to commit the crime, and conspire with others to commit the crime where those actions are illegal.
It's still perfectly legal to want the President dead. You just can't say you want it to happen. Speaking isn't a thought, it's an action.
what if you have the hots for Sophie Hatter only when she's cursed? She's 18 in the book, but could be 14-16 in the movie, but as a 14 year old cursed to look 90, if you thought she looked hot as a 90 year old, does that make you a pedo?
Also, the porn makers used to make up (and imply) that 18+ "models" were under age. Now they are all "barely" legal, or legal teens or whatever. Not that I'd know. But the adult industry has gone out of its way to try to not appeal to those who like girls that look "under age".
,br>Seems like blocking people from release (illegal to act out, illegal to look at fictional depictions for release) would increase, rather than decrease actual attacks. I've never seen anything anywhere that indicated banning viewing CP reduced molestation. Though such laws were used to break up abuse rings, back in the '70s or such. So maybe they helped someone once, long ago.
It's presumed that the only reason to make it is to use it. It is "victimless" but it's a crime because it's usable, not because it was used. CP has a victim. Child cartoons harm nobody, not even theoretically.
What are you talking about? I don't think you even read the posts you are replying to.
I was originally stating that tracking people through passports is impossible, and people who agreed with my premise argued about specific points. And you come in arguing about everything until you don't even know what you were objecting to.
Great, you proved yourself an asshole. But why did you bother to respond? You obviously don't even understand what my stance was.
Which rules are those? I've never seen "net neutrality" rules that would have the effect you state.
So you are saying you have the "Right" to cause physical pain (yes, a human can yell loud enough to cause pain), and physical harm, so long as it's "speech". I disagree.
You don't find laws that ban material subjectively deemed to be "obscene" objectionable?
Nope. Not the sensibly written ones. For those that proclaim the first Amendment supreme, just walk up to them and scream in their ear as loud as you can. Keep it up for 12 days. Ask them about your right to spew anything you want out of your mouth after that.
It is The People's job, or perhaps the State's, to decide if abridging our freedom of speech, including yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, is Constitutional.
Yes, but it's the Supreme Court's job to decide if the law about it is Constitutional.
There's a difference. One would think such a pedant would recognize that.
Judicial review is Common Law. The people who wrote the Constitution followed Common Law traditions, and wrote a framework that was directly modeled from Common Law. The Constitution doesn't give Congress the right to have a recess. It just allows them to do so as a necessity of performing their duties. The same is true of Judicial Review. It's impossible to judge the law if the words in the law are undefined. So Judicial Review is necessary to view the law. That they view not only the word of the law, but the spirit as well sometimes, is a product of Common Law.
We rejected Civil Law at the time. We were one of the last countries formed to choose from the two, and select Common Law. Everyone else selects the more clear (and fair) Civil Law.
Consider some-American-one who goes to ... CAR for business (of whatever sort), and in the process crosses many borders, then returns to the US. (I ignore the question of who gets fuck ed on the way) Since CAR is a long way from the at - risk areas, he should not raise any alarms.
An American generally has only one passport (About 1% to 5% have more, and most estimates are at the lower of that range). So when he re-enters, they'll see the stamp from Ebola-ville, if they are stamping there. To get US money and visitors, if people returning to the US are turned away for having that stamp, they'll stop stamping.
That and international law prevents the US from blocking US citizens from re-entering anyway.
I think you are trying so hard to show off that you travel that you aren't staying on topic. The question was about whether stamps are necessary, and what information, if any, could be determined from a passport (both in-country and after the fact).
What is COLA? Cola is a subset of sweetened carbonated beverages. But COLA is cost of living allowance. And CO2 isn't an acid, but pumping it into a water solution creates an acid. CLUB SODA is acidic. CLUB SODA affects teeth. CLUB SODA may contribute to bacterial growth.
Bud diet coke doesn't have the same result. All it's missing is the sugar, right?
But they found that CO2 in diet drinks didn't have the same effect. Neither did sugary drinks without the fizz. So it's a combination of the two, or some other complicating factor.
A small amount of directionality is all you are missing out on. That, and back in the '60s they played different instruments through different channels, and didn't mix the channels. So you'd get sound in one ear, then the other. Like the song was talking to itself. It was mostly annoying, but some swore by it.
My hearing problem is that I can't hear voices well. Audio tests put me as exceptional hearing. Much better hearing than most. But put me in a situation with minor background noise, like an airplane, and I can't understand voices. They just kind of sound underwater when I'm in a noisy environment. I've not ever seen anything about it. Though I've heard of DSP hearing aids that block all but voices, but they are expensive, and unfunded (by insurance and such) for a 30-something with perfect hearing. I got my eye floaters diagnosed on Slashdot, maybe someone will recognize this and let me know what it is, even if there isn't a cure.
I wish people planning on putting things on YouTube would film in wide, rather than portrait mode. Also, given the reaction of others there, that's not "background" noise. That's a specific sound from a specific machine.
It's Soda Pop in New England. It's Pop in the upper Midwest. It's "Soda" in the Midwest (which gets perilously close to the South).
I bought the Bose. They didn't work for me. Filtered the low, but made the high worse. Not sure whether the highs got louder, or just comparatively so, but definitely were more comfortable off than on.
I'm apparently the only person who follows Beats/Bose and NFL so little that I didn't hear about that.
AKG's I can't speak for, but having used noise cancelling headphones I won't settle for ordinary ones.
I can't use them. My hearing hasn't failed as fast as it's supposed to. A few undred dollars on some Bose noise canceling headphones, and they are quieter off than on (on being the cancellation feature). When they are on, and there's a regular high-pitch noise (like a plane engine or other sound above 10kHz), they increase the sound. They filter out the low well, but not the high. So I'm not sure if they are eliminating everything else, making the whine worse, or actually increasing the volume of the higher-pitches.
Noise cancelling isn't about making better sound, but isolation without needing isolation. I don't travel carrying a cone of silence.
Although it should be noted they are called equalizers because the intent is to bring an equal loudness to all frequency bands - aka, a flat frequency response.
Yes, almost what I was saying. Flat is equal loudness. Now, there are some who mean with reference to frequency, and others who use it with regards to overall volume. But "flat" is usually a "bad" thing. "Oh, that sounded flat"
"All Fried Chicken Poisoned. Activists say minorities unfairly impacted."
There are some things that affect "everyone" and still affect some people more than others.