It's been a while since I have invested any time or money into console games. My understanding is that most of the gaming consoles went from cartridge style loading mechanisms to CD and various DVD rom loaders.
I know there are memory devices that can be connected to the games to save information on, but what exactly stops you from inserting the game into a new machine and starting from the beginning? I mean did they go back to cartridges or something or am I missing something here. It would seem to me that if it's DVD or CD rom based, then all the saved information would simply be on the consoles and not the disc media.
So you were making it up. thanks for posting a link to clarify that. And yes, it's a matter of war spending that you think is the culprit. That is what happened in 2008 where the US government put the war spending on budget instead of keeping it off budget where it belongs.
While I do not disagree with this completely, I will caution that both, you must know that your AV is going t catch it else all you will do is infect the other machine, and removing virus from windows like this is difficult and can often leave you with an unusable windows install in which you need to resort to the system reinstall cds anyways.
The problem is the in depth dependency on the registry during the boot process. You can remove or heal infected files, but if a simple call to run a file or set of files as a service loaded in the registry isn't completed, it can cause the system to crash and remain unbootable. Your live system on the other machine, will only worry about the working registry (the live registry it is running on) and no AV program that I know of which opens inside of windows, will load the registry and check it from another drive or system that isn't the registry currently in memory.
lol.. lets don't pretend he's got something going right either. He fixes Grandma's computer multiple times a week. There has to be a reason why grandma keeps screwing her computer up so often and I don't think it's him using it as an excuse to come over for cookies and milk 3 times a week.
I have 15 accounts with 20-50 users in each and I barely have any issues outside of checking logs, fixing hardware issues and making sure no one decided they didn't need to run the nightly backups because we never need them. But here is a hint, a FIXMBR will not do what he thinks it is doing because windows will load the boot code from the disk in order to gain NTFS access on the install before you can even log into the install to run the command. And that's booting with a windows CD, your' double screwed if you are doing it from an installed command console.
This is all incidental to the problem of the boot sector code. It changes write functions to read functions so the disk will return a response and windows will believe everything worked. IT does this because it infects the boot sector which loads code into memory before windows even thinks about loading anything into memory. It then hides and stops itself from being removed while hiding and running other code from windows.
Using system restore will not address this in the least. You will still be infected, you will only think you are not because you did some things to make yourself feel better. The system recovery was used specifically because it overwrites the boot sector before the boot sector code can be loaded into memory.
This of this virus as two or three viruses in one. First, it's a trojan that allows others remote access. Next's it's a root kit which allows that to happen completely hidden from windows or AV or anything on the computer. Finally, it's a boot sector virus which loads the crap needed to hide it before windows loads so it's always hidden from windows. I doubt system restore would even touch the infected files at all because the infection is completely hidden from windows.
If the root kit works like most older boot sector virus programs, it already functions much like Grub does in the sense that it replaces the code that allows the other code to be found and run. But the code represented to the operating system would have a sector 0 in a different location then the real boot sector.
So while you would effectively have moved the first sector as far as windows is concerned, the virus infection would be able to still tank windows because it would still initially attack sector 0. And if it's the old school infection where it uses int13h calls (the bios) instead of windows and or even the old protect mode access to access the HD, it will effectively move the grub install to a new sector and make it think it is in sector 0 on subsequent boots. It will do this the same way Grub or LiLO would make windows think it was loading from the boot sector when it wasn't.
The problem with a boot sector virus is that if the disk is allowed to load any code at all which is the default in the boot process, the manipulation is already in memory and running. You would essentially need to boot from a start up floppy or CD or something without the hard disk loading at boot.
Some modern BIOS configurations allow you to lock the boot sector of the harddrive down much like they started allowing you to lock flashing the bios down. This is about the only way to preempt this as it would give off a warning about something attempting to write to the boot sector of the hard drive. However, experience tells me that when something is trying to write to the boot sector and it fails to do it, you often need to rebuild the boot sector anyways.
Now that is with the initial infection. The attacks it uses to maintain it's infection would work regardless of the operating system because once infected, it's acting as a translation between the operating system and the harddrive. This is why a restore CD is the recommendation to fixing the issues. The CD loads instead of the drive code loading. This way, you are not fixing an infected machine with infected code.
First, Canada is actually economically tied to the US and would suffer greatly without us. The reason why the US dollar dropped while the Canadian dollar rose in value is because of this tie. Canada is a net exporter to the US.
As for you taxes, I think your making that up. Please provide a reference that isn't someone else making it up too. About the only way that case would be true is if you counted the war spending in it which is a special condition that doesn't mean much in this sense.
Yawn... As I just said, you are not listening then.
A life is a life is a life, and some people believe is deserves the same protection at 3 months before being born as it would at 10 years or 20 years of age. It has nothing to do with religion, that seems to be your fall back just so you can claim you are somehow right. AS you just outlined with There are many women who don't have access to the medical care needed to ensure a healthy and safe pregnancy, abortion rights as you explained is just what I said, killing off the burdens in life.
Now, I'm not sure why you assumed I was against all abortions, but the vast majority of them are not done because of rape or life threatening impairments in the pregnancy, but because of not wanting the burden of a child in their care for the next 20 years of life. For the vast majority of abortions, it is a form of birth control.
Abstinence only sex ed has been working really well. It worked so well. Kids stopped having sex, getting pregnant, and spreading STD's.
And your point is what? That you didn't like what I said and that was your canned response because you couldn't think of anything clever? Show me where it is written that society is obligated to teach children about sex or anything of the sort. This world got along just fine for hundreds of years before public education existed, now that it does, if a community wants to control what their tax dollars are spent on, so be it it's their right of self rule. Whether that spending is effective or not is beside the point, it is their right.
Then please fucking tell me when, where, and how Christians have faced systemic oppression in the United States. What terrible things need to be corrected?
Why? I didn't say they were. I said if everyone had your mentality, the blacks would still have their very own schools and special drinking fountains and not be allowed to look a white guy in the eyes or at a white women at all. You want me to show something that you have systematically ruled out being possible because politicians pay lip service to them as a group. Even if I did know of a situation, it wouldn't pass your smell test on that alone.
Perhaps if you learned to take the information in before applying your bias and hatred, you might see some areas in and of itself before you go all knee jerk claiming it's not that bad because you agree with the treatment. in other words, try to keep an open mind and weight the evidence of facts instead of emotion. It's pretty simple all you have to do is start listening to others and accepting that their point of view may differ from your own. Sometimes you may even learn something new- even if you do not agree with them.
I've yet to hear of a major opponent of these things who wasn't yelling something about god. I mean on what grounds do people justify denying women bodily autonomy except on religious grounds?
you have yet to listen then. Should it every be legal for someone to take another person's life simply because it might be a burden to them if they are alive. Of course not, but this is the very premise of abortion rights. Should the public sit back and allow the government be spending tax payer money requiring children to attend education classes on how to pick their nose and hide the evidence. Of course not, just as the public for any reason should have a say in how the government does the same with sex education, If they want abstinence firt or abstinence only education, then be it. I personally do not think it's a good idea to tell children it's ok to have sex any time they want as long as they use a condom because the children have adult consequences and aren't adults capable of dealing with it properly. Has nothing to do with God There, has everything to do with kids playing adult when they aren't adults.
As for marriage equality, it's already there. Anyone regardless of gender or sexual preference can marry someone of another gender as long as they meet a few requirements such as mutual consent and age limits. This is true in all 50 states. Now you might bring up that a guy might love another guy of the same gender and they can't get married, but I have yet to find any marriage laws that deal with love. They do not. Love is deal with through churches and religions so if you are looking for some religious fix for the gays, then do not complain about religion being in place.
I generally will hear someone out when they claim to have been discriminated against. The problem is, when I hear an American Christian (who is usually white) claim to be oppressed, their story always ends up being "I didn't get my way! Someone disagreed with me! The government isn't shoving my views down someone else throat!."
And my point is if everything was observed through your personal anecdotal experiences, we would not have seen some of the more liberating moments in history. The bigger problem is that in some of those cases, they should have gotten their way. If you have a constitutional right and are not allowed to use that right, you are essentially complaining that you aren't getting your way. Does that invalidate anything, I think not.
I've spent time working with international missions. I've met people who were part of secret churches in china, who know people who have disappeared because they were Christians. I've met people who have been hurt, maimed, and killed because they were Christians in the wrong place.
I've never met someone who is American, who has actually suffered for their belief in god within the borders of the United States. Actual oppression, actual discrimination, and actual suffering happen all over the world and in the United States, but it isn't happening to the Christians here.
Then by all means, lets wait until they are disapearing and being mamed before we stand up for freedom. Let's ignore all calls for rational thought and discussion, all constitutional protections, and everything else until it gets as bad as the worst place you have ever seen.
I mean seriously why should we care if it isn't as bad as it is in other places. As long as we aren't that bad, we should be able to do some really inhumane things to people right? and as long as it isn't as bad, we are somehow better then them aren't we.
Think about that long and hard before replying. You are essentially saying we have to become the worst you have seen before it has merit. Well, get ready for seeing the worst everywhere.
I don't think anyone was comparing the civil rights movement to the present day white protestant who is just so oppressed by a federal government. The majority of people in the 1950's south did not think the opinions of the black population was important either. Your opinion of the politicians pay them lip service is enough would have put you on the wrong side of the 1960's civil rights struggle. Not because it's the same thing, but because your mind set would have relegated the entire event to whining.
I'm also not aware of any legislation that has been seriously considered "because the bible says so". Please elaborate on this, as I think you're confused here too.
This is a very interesting situation you describe. Because one thing happens, anything else is either not happening or insignificant.
Well, I'm sure the Big South politicians paid lip service to the blacks in their area in order to get elected, so I guess their civil rights marches and everything we see as the catalyst for equality was an unnecessary bitch fest. I mean they had equal but separate access, their own schools, their own entry ways to restaurants, their own drinking fountains, their own bathrooms, This all must have been special access for them and their complaints were little more then bitching because politicians paid lip service to them at least.
Yeah, that's a little of a stretch. I'm not claiming the crap happening t Christians if like the oppression blacks suffered. But your concept- if valid and practiced at the time- seems to be enough that no attempts to end t hat oppressions would have gained any benefits or advancements. You should really think about that a bit.
One of the problems in the middle east right now is from where Iran nationalized the entire oil industry and took the tools and wells from those companies.
That's a large part of that happened to cause issues between the US and Cuba and some others later with Argentina. The physical concentration of the power or utility in a foreign country itself is far more of a danger then the companies who hold it.
Intent can be demonstrated through action and as a result of action, it can reasonable be determined. In the situation I mentioned where I send correspondence to witnesses of my crime, there is along a handful of reasons I would otherwise legitimately do that. When you examine what I sent, that list narrows greatly. When you examine what I altered, then sent, it's completely reasonable to assume the only intend I had was to intimidate the witnesses through indirect threats to their and their family's safety if they should testify against me. Saying it was an artistic representation of the neo-political environment and not a threat is somehow lacking integrity.
So I guess the only thing left to do is agree, that we do disagree and we will likely not change each others opinions on it. This is actually good and well because in order to keep my opinion in check, we need people with your opinion forcing me to make a case. That alone will trim a lot of the abuse or potential abuse and lay the seed of ideas that will stop it from being abused for long in reality.
The police would investigate it. The crime wasn't writing your name, it was the robbery (which they can't be sure you did yet). If they investigate and find that you didn't do anything, they should let you go.
actually, you will find in most jurisdictions, there is a crime if intimidating a witness and possible retaliation of a witness in addition to any robbery crimes specifically because I wrote my name and sent it to specific people.
And if certain behavior became unacceptable to society (such as speaking out against the government), then what? The situation is as follows: "I don't like what you said, but I can't arrest you based on that, so I'm going to say it's because of your behavior!" The point of freedom of speech is to protect speech. Behavior is completely and utterly irrelevant. I don't care for thought crimes (trying to guess someone's "intent").
You can't really argue that certain behavior such as speaking out against the government isn't already illegal. The alien and sedition act was one of them passed in the times of our founding fathers. Because of the attempted but failed communist overthrow in the early 1900's, it was illegal to be a member of the communist part. that law survived world war two, and laid the basis for the McCarthy inquests in the 1950's and 1960's and was capable of being used until recently when it was removed from the books.
You will find that those laws are limited in their application and if abused, they are cut down quickly. You have the irrelevancy backwards though. The behavior is the important parts, the speech is irrelevant in some circumstances.
Well, to me, the vehicle chosen to get it done matters very much. If nothing physical is happening, they can likely choose whether or not to be offended. It all comes down to someone's mindset. If it's not physical harassment, it will only 'hurt' you if you let it. Not to say that what I think matters a whole lot when the laws are already laid out.
it really is more complicated then this. Suppose I robbed a store and you were a witness to it. I send you an article from a dated Time Magazine about a crook who killed all the witnesses at his trial and their families but I scratch that crook's name out and write mine in. There is an understood threat there but no threat was actually made. so does it get ignored until I kill the witnesses or attempt to anyways? Or is it acted upon as if I actually said, if you testify against me, I will kill you and your family?
And that doesn't make it constitutional, either. Just because the supreme court says it is in compliance with the constitution, that does not mean it is.
Well, yes it does in the effect that you have no ground to challenge the constitutionality of it. I understand what you are saying, there are a lot of things that a literal interpretation of the constitution seems to completely forbid. but if the courts say it's ok, then you can't stop it from happening constitutionally.
You could literally limit any speech using this excuse. "It was their behavior, not the speech! They had an anti-government attitude, so we arrested them!" Yes, we are talking about harassment here, but the excuse used above could be used to limit any speech. Why stop at malicious intent? Because you don't like it? As long as they're just speaking, they've physically harmed no one, and whether or not the person was harmed is their own choice.
Not really.. the people making the speech would still need the behavior and the behavior would still need to be something that was unacceptable to society. This is not something new. There have been laws against inciting a riot for much of the existence of this country. Sometimes those laws have been abused, but the courts have held them to a strict standard of specific intent. For instance, you can stand in front of an angry mob and tell them about all the reasons they should be mad at the government, or a company or some person or anything. You can tell them how you would like to see harm done to them. But when the crowd turns from listening to your speech to doing what you spoke about, you then fall into risk of violation to the laws.
Is that what it looks like to you? I'm merely saying that I don't believe that harassment using mere words, images, or text is a serious issue in the least.
I think you will find that most people and the law would consider the act of harassment to be the problem, not the vehicle chosen to get it done. It's one of the things that signifies r distinguishes harassment from other intents or states of mind.
It's possible that they don't have the means to change it without enough public support, or they just don't think going through the effort is worth it (but posting their objections to it is quite easy, and maybe for some, perhaps even fun).
IT's a little mre complicated then that. Take the copyright laws. The majoreity of people think they were created in the state they are now because of bribes from Disney and big media. They are actually the result of international treaty that the US signed on to. In most cases, the US followed Europe's lead in the changes too. So they go to their representative saying change this law and stop taking bribes from Disney and the congressman say, your crazy, I'm going to ignore you. In this case, it's being argued that the means to which harassment is happening is ridiculous to consider when the fact is that the laws and people concerned with it are paying attention to the behavior to which they find unacceptable.
Now they go to the representative and media outlets saying this is bad, repeal it.. The lawmakers say, well harassing people is bad too. They reply I know, now repeal it. The law makers say, does not compute and ignores the request
And I'm well aware of that. That doesn't mean that it's constitutional, though (not that you said that it was).
Not all of the attempts are constitutional. But the supreme court has upheld a surprisingly large set of limits on free speech. I would believe they would uphold this concept as constitutional as it's the behavior, not the speech that is in question.
Note that I said concept. This is because I believe this law is a failure, but i understand what the objective was in making it.
Not at all. When you get shot by a gun, you have no choice but for your body to be damaged. When you see something that is offensive to you (what this boils down to, because whether or not they intended for it to offend you is inconsequential) you can easily just ignore it or move on without anything happening to you. It's your choice how to act.
and here is how I know you have no clue what harassment is. If you have to change or alter your lifestyle and habits to avid someones malicious intent, then it is harassment. The harassment is where they seek you out and attempt to harass you. IT is not you just stumbling over something one day and getting shocked or upset over it. It's specifically like the guy who goes and looks for you with the gun. Spend some time figuring out what harassment actually is.
But that is exactly what the law boils down to. "I don't like harassment, and if people say things to others with the intent of emotionally harming them, then they must be stopped!" In other words, they don't like harassment, so anything deemed as harassment must be stopped (according to them). Also, there is no magical way to accurately guess someone's intent, even if they do something repeatedly
First, from the start, I said this law went wrong several time. Second, you don't seem to be arguing what harassment is or isn't, you seem to be arguing what you don't want it to be, Figure it the fuck out, then consider this abomination within that context. Only then will anything be able to be done about changing the law to something more sane and dealing with the original intent which should be much more limited then this. I get sick and tired of people crying that a law is how they do not like and no one is willing to change it when they won't even bother remotely investigating the intentions of the law in order to point out how it could be worded better or changed to something more acceptable. Instead they whine about their current interpretation and ignore any intent then bitch and complain about it never being overturned because it only gets used in a way that is consistent with it's original intent which may be valid.
And it changes nothing. Repeatedly saying something does not change the fact that what you are saying is speech. The ones who can't handle mere words/images/videos probably won't last long in this world (or at least, they won't be emotionally well). I'm certainly not in favor of helping them. Not in the least.actually, whether you like it or not, speech has been limited for almost the entirety of the country when it is certain types or forms of speech as well when it uses certain vehicles of delivery.
harassment is a specific intent of actions. You don't label things harassment, you label the intent of those things.
Do you understand? Your mom could have just passed away, I could have not knowing that, taken a picture of her and crafted it in a way showing her corps having bestiality type relations while smoking crack cocain then post it on display somewhere. That wouldn't be harassment on it's own. It would be in poor taste and rude of me, but not harassment. When I notify you with the intent of causing emotional distress because of something going on between us, then it can become harassment. It's like a gun, it can be use to kill, for the wrong reasons, and sometimes for the right reasons. It's not unlawful to shoot and kill someone in certain situations,
I suggest you spend some time figuring out what harassment actually is too. It is not you all the sudden being offended or disliking something. It is me trying to offend you or scare you or do something to you that wouldn't otherwise be illegal for the purpose of causing you distress..Me saying a cuss-word on the phone with you wouldn't be harassment. ME calling you all the time and cussing you out would be.
Why would it strike you? I clearly stated is was likely a poorly executed attempt at extending existing laws. The laws on this vary from state to state and in some cases municipality to municipality. I do not know the existing laws of that state or how effective they are, but I do know that law makers all over the place think they are really doing something constructive when they rewrite laws using internet terms to update it for the hip new digital age.
I don't see any reason why this law isn't one of those situations that has gone horribly wrong.
I'm not here to ague the merits of the case. However, the photos should have never been released in the way they were and the crutch of the liability revolved around them being used to harass the parents.
Even if her stupid antics did kill dozens of people, is that justification to harass her parents and family if they were not involved in it at all? She may have very well deserved to die, but does that mean her mother deserves to have hate mail with pictures of the decapitated body that was released by officers of the law who responded to the scene of an emergency? That isn't exactly about the girl who dies, but the people who loved her yet had nothing to do with her death
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I didn't ever say that words and images that offend people was a form of harassment, i said it was harassment using those forms of communication.
There is a difference that you don't seem to be able to grasp. One is just sitting there, the other is a tool to obtain a goal for a purpose. That goal and purpose or intent is harassment of a specific person or group of people. One is innocent, and the other is malicious by design.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been a while since I have invested any time or money into console games. My understanding is that most of the gaming consoles went from cartridge style loading mechanisms to CD and various DVD rom loaders.
I know there are memory devices that can be connected to the games to save information on, but what exactly stops you from inserting the game into a new machine and starting from the beginning? I mean did they go back to cartridges or something or am I missing something here. It would seem to me that if it's DVD or CD rom based, then all the saved information would simply be on the consoles and not the disc media.
So you were making it up. thanks for posting a link to clarify that. And yes, it's a matter of war spending that you think is the culprit. That is what happened in 2008 where the US government put the war spending on budget instead of keeping it off budget where it belongs.
While I do not disagree with this completely, I will caution that both, you must know that your AV is going t catch it else all you will do is infect the other machine, and removing virus from windows like this is difficult and can often leave you with an unusable windows install in which you need to resort to the system reinstall cds anyways.
The problem is the in depth dependency on the registry during the boot process. You can remove or heal infected files, but if a simple call to run a file or set of files as a service loaded in the registry isn't completed, it can cause the system to crash and remain unbootable. Your live system on the other machine, will only worry about the working registry (the live registry it is running on) and no AV program that I know of which opens inside of windows, will load the registry and check it from another drive or system that isn't the registry currently in memory.
lol.. lets don't pretend he's got something going right either. He fixes Grandma's computer multiple times a week. There has to be a reason why grandma keeps screwing her computer up so often and I don't think it's him using it as an excuse to come over for cookies and milk 3 times a week.
I have 15 accounts with 20-50 users in each and I barely have any issues outside of checking logs, fixing hardware issues and making sure no one decided they didn't need to run the nightly backups because we never need them. But here is a hint, a FIXMBR will not do what he thinks it is doing because windows will load the boot code from the disk in order to gain NTFS access on the install before you can even log into the install to run the command. And that's booting with a windows CD, your' double screwed if you are doing it from an installed command console.
This is all incidental to the problem of the boot sector code. It changes write functions to read functions so the disk will return a response and windows will believe everything worked. IT does this because it infects the boot sector which loads code into memory before windows even thinks about loading anything into memory. It then hides and stops itself from being removed while hiding and running other code from windows.
Using system restore will not address this in the least. You will still be infected, you will only think you are not because you did some things to make yourself feel better. The system recovery was used specifically because it overwrites the boot sector before the boot sector code can be loaded into memory.
This of this virus as two or three viruses in one. First, it's a trojan that allows others remote access. Next's it's a root kit which allows that to happen completely hidden from windows or AV or anything on the computer. Finally, it's a boot sector virus which loads the crap needed to hide it before windows loads so it's always hidden from windows. I doubt system restore would even touch the infected files at all because the infection is completely hidden from windows.
Well, I guess the unemployment issues might be fixed if that happened.
If the root kit works like most older boot sector virus programs, it already functions much like Grub does in the sense that it replaces the code that allows the other code to be found and run. But the code represented to the operating system would have a sector 0 in a different location then the real boot sector.
So while you would effectively have moved the first sector as far as windows is concerned, the virus infection would be able to still tank windows because it would still initially attack sector 0. And if it's the old school infection where it uses int13h calls (the bios) instead of windows and or even the old protect mode access to access the HD, it will effectively move the grub install to a new sector and make it think it is in sector 0 on subsequent boots. It will do this the same way Grub or LiLO would make windows think it was loading from the boot sector when it wasn't.
The problem with a boot sector virus is that if the disk is allowed to load any code at all which is the default in the boot process, the manipulation is already in memory and running. You would essentially need to boot from a start up floppy or CD or something without the hard disk loading at boot.
Some modern BIOS configurations allow you to lock the boot sector of the harddrive down much like they started allowing you to lock flashing the bios down. This is about the only way to preempt this as it would give off a warning about something attempting to write to the boot sector of the hard drive. However, experience tells me that when something is trying to write to the boot sector and it fails to do it, you often need to rebuild the boot sector anyways.
Now that is with the initial infection. The attacks it uses to maintain it's infection would work regardless of the operating system because once infected, it's acting as a translation between the operating system and the harddrive. This is why a restore CD is the recommendation to fixing the issues. The CD loads instead of the drive code loading. This way, you are not fixing an infected machine with infected code.
lol.. your making me laugh.
First, Canada is actually economically tied to the US and would suffer greatly without us. The reason why the US dollar dropped while the Canadian dollar rose in value is because of this tie. Canada is a net exporter to the US.
As for you taxes, I think your making that up. Please provide a reference that isn't someone else making it up too. About the only way that case would be true is if you counted the war spending in it which is a special condition that doesn't mean much in this sense.
Well, you got 2 out of 4 correct.
I don't know anyone who is a geek or nerd who has no't been shafted or knew someone who was shafted because they didn't pay attention to a contract.
I do read every 400 page contract before signing it, and I do have sex with supermodels. I just wish they weren't made out of clay.
Yawn... As I just said, you are not listening then.
A life is a life is a life, and some people believe is deserves the same protection at 3 months before being born as it would at 10 years or 20 years of age. It has nothing to do with religion, that seems to be your fall back just so you can claim you are somehow right. AS you just outlined with There are many women who don't have access to the medical care needed to ensure a healthy and safe pregnancy, abortion rights as you explained is just what I said, killing off the burdens in life.
Now, I'm not sure why you assumed I was against all abortions, but the vast majority of them are not done because of rape or life threatening impairments in the pregnancy, but because of not wanting the burden of a child in their care for the next 20 years of life. For the vast majority of abortions, it is a form of birth control.
And your point is what? That you didn't like what I said and that was your canned response because you couldn't think of anything clever? Show me where it is written that society is obligated to teach children about sex or anything of the sort. This world got along just fine for hundreds of years before public education existed, now that it does, if a community wants to control what their tax dollars are spent on, so be it it's their right of self rule. Whether that spending is effective or not is beside the point, it is their right.
Why? I didn't say they were. I said if everyone had your mentality, the blacks would still have their very own schools and special drinking fountains and not be allowed to look a white guy in the eyes or at a white women at all. You want me to show something that you have systematically ruled out being possible because politicians pay lip service to them as a group. Even if I did know of a situation, it wouldn't pass your smell test on that alone.
Perhaps if you learned to take the information in before applying your bias and hatred, you might see some areas in and of itself before you go all knee jerk claiming it's not that bad because you agree with the treatment. in other words, try to keep an open mind and weight the evidence of facts instead of emotion. It's pretty simple all you have to do is start listening to others and accepting that their point of view may differ from your own. Sometimes you may even learn something new- even if you do not agree with them.
you have yet to listen then. Should it every be legal for someone to take another person's life simply because it might be a burden to them if they are alive. Of course not, but this is the very premise of abortion rights. Should the public sit back and allow the government be spending tax payer money requiring children to attend education classes on how to pick their nose and hide the evidence. Of course not, just as the public for any reason should have a say in how the government does the same with sex education, If they want abstinence firt or abstinence only education, then be it. I personally do not think it's a good idea to tell children it's ok to have sex any time they want as long as they use a condom because the children have adult consequences and aren't adults capable of dealing with it properly. Has nothing to do with God There, has everything to do with kids playing adult when they aren't adults.
As for marriage equality, it's already there. Anyone regardless of gender or sexual preference can marry someone of another gender as long as they meet a few requirements such as mutual consent and age limits. This is true in all 50 states. Now you might bring up that a guy might love another guy of the same gender and they can't get married, but I have yet to find any marriage laws that deal with love. They do not. Love is deal with through churches and religions so if you are looking for some religious fix for the gays, then do not complain about religion being in place.
And my point is if everything was observed through your personal anecdotal experiences, we would not have seen some of the more liberating moments in history. The bigger problem is that in some of those cases, they should have gotten their way. If you have a constitutional right and are not allowed to use that right, you are essentially complaining that you aren't getting your way. Does that invalidate anything, I think not.
I don't think anyone was comparing the civil rights movement to the present day white protestant who is just so oppressed by a federal government. The majority of people in the 1950's south did not think the opinions of the black population was important either. Your opinion of the politicians pay them lip service is enough would have put you on the wrong side of the 1960's civil rights struggle. Not because it's the same thing, but because your mind set would have relegated the entire event to whining.
I'm also not aware of any legislation that has been seriously considered "because the bible says so". Please elaborate on this, as I think you're confused here too.
This is a very interesting situation you describe. Because one thing happens, anything else is either not happening or insignificant.
Well, I'm sure the Big South politicians paid lip service to the blacks in their area in order to get elected, so I guess their civil rights marches and everything we see as the catalyst for equality was an unnecessary bitch fest. I mean they had equal but separate access, their own schools, their own entry ways to restaurants, their own drinking fountains, their own bathrooms, This all must have been special access for them and their complaints were little more then bitching because politicians paid lip service to them at least.
Yeah, that's a little of a stretch. I'm not claiming the crap happening t Christians if like the oppression blacks suffered. But your concept- if valid and practiced at the time- seems to be enough that no attempts to end t hat oppressions would have gained any benefits or advancements. You should really think about that a bit.
Unfortunately, the digital is simple the buzz word in the title. The actual law deals with all sorts of copyright issues whether digital or in print.
At least he is open and transparent about his pushing the rule of law in this matter.
One of the problems in the middle east right now is from where Iran nationalized the entire oil industry and took the tools and wells from those companies.
That's a large part of that happened to cause issues between the US and Cuba and some others later with Argentina. The physical concentration of the power or utility in a foreign country itself is far more of a danger then the companies who hold it.
Intent can be demonstrated through action and as a result of action, it can reasonable be determined. In the situation I mentioned where I send correspondence to witnesses of my crime, there is along a handful of reasons I would otherwise legitimately do that. When you examine what I sent, that list narrows greatly. When you examine what I altered, then sent, it's completely reasonable to assume the only intend I had was to intimidate the witnesses through indirect threats to their and their family's safety if they should testify against me. Saying it was an artistic representation of the neo-political environment and not a threat is somehow lacking integrity.
So I guess the only thing left to do is agree, that we do disagree and we will likely not change each others opinions on it. This is actually good and well because in order to keep my opinion in check, we need people with your opinion forcing me to make a case. That alone will trim a lot of the abuse or potential abuse and lay the seed of ideas that will stop it from being abused for long in reality.
actually, you will find in most jurisdictions, there is a crime if intimidating a witness and possible retaliation of a witness in addition to any robbery crimes specifically because I wrote my name and sent it to specific people.
You can't really argue that certain behavior such as speaking out against the government isn't already illegal. The alien and sedition act was one of them passed in the times of our founding fathers. Because of the attempted but failed communist overthrow in the early 1900's, it was illegal to be a member of the communist part. that law survived world war two, and laid the basis for the McCarthy inquests in the 1950's and 1960's and was capable of being used until recently when it was removed from the books.
You will find that those laws are limited in their application and if abused, they are cut down quickly. You have the irrelevancy backwards though. The behavior is the important parts, the speech is irrelevant in some circumstances.
it really is more complicated then this. Suppose I robbed a store and you were a witness to it. I send you an article from a dated Time Magazine about a crook who killed all the witnesses at his trial and their families but I scratch that crook's name out and write mine in. There is an understood threat there but no threat was actually made. so does it get ignored until I kill the witnesses or attempt to anyways? Or is it acted upon as if I actually said, if you testify against me, I will kill you and your family?
Well, yes it does in the effect that you have no ground to challenge the constitutionality of it. I understand what you are saying, there are a lot of things that a literal interpretation of the constitution seems to completely forbid. but if the courts say it's ok, then you can't stop it from happening constitutionally.
Not really.. the people making the speech would still need the behavior and the behavior would still need to be something that was unacceptable to society. This is not something new. There have been laws against inciting a riot for much of the existence of this country. Sometimes those laws have been abused, but the courts have held them to a strict standard of specific intent. For instance, you can stand in front of an angry mob and tell them about all the reasons they should be mad at the government, or a company or some person or anything. You can tell them how you would like to see harm done to them. But when the crowd turns from listening to your speech to doing what you spoke about, you then fall into risk of violation to the laws.
I think you will find that most people and the law would consider the act of harassment to be the problem, not the vehicle chosen to get it done. It's one of the things that signifies r distinguishes harassment from other intents or states of mind.
IT's a little mre complicated then that. Take the copyright laws. The majoreity of people think they were created in the state they are now because of bribes from Disney and big media. They are actually the result of international treaty that the US signed on to. In most cases, the US followed Europe's lead in the changes too. So they go to their representative saying change this law and stop taking bribes from Disney and the congressman say, your crazy, I'm going to ignore you. In this case, it's being argued that the means to which harassment is happening is ridiculous to consider when the fact is that the laws and people concerned with it are paying attention to the behavior to which they find unacceptable.
Now they go to the representative and media outlets saying this is bad, repeal it.. The lawmakers say, well harassing people is bad too. They reply I know, now repeal it. The law makers say, does not compute and ignores the request
Not all of the attempts are constitutional. But the supreme court has upheld a surprisingly large set of limits on free speech. I would believe they would uphold this concept as constitutional as it's the behavior, not the speech that is in question.
Note that I said concept. This is because I believe this law is a failure, but i understand what the objective was in making it.
and here is how I know you have no clue what harassment is. If you have to change or alter your lifestyle and habits to avid someones malicious intent, then it is harassment. The harassment is where they seek you out and attempt to harass you. IT is not you just stumbling over something one day and getting shocked or upset over it. It's specifically like the guy who goes and looks for you with the gun. Spend some time figuring out what harassment actually is.
First, from the start, I said this law went wrong several time. Second, you don't seem to be arguing what harassment is or isn't, you seem to be arguing what you don't want it to be, Figure it the fuck out, then consider this abomination within that context. Only then will anything be able to be done about changing the law to something more sane and dealing with the original intent which should be much more limited then this. I get sick and tired of people crying that a law is how they do not like and no one is willing to change it when they won't even bother remotely investigating the intentions of the law in order to point out how it could be worded better or changed to something more acceptable. Instead they whine about their current interpretation and ignore any intent then bitch and complain about it never being overturned because it only gets used in a way that is consistent with it's original intent which may be valid.
harassment is a specific intent of actions. You don't label things harassment, you label the intent of those things.
Do you understand? Your mom could have just passed away, I could have not knowing that, taken a picture of her and crafted it in a way showing her corps having bestiality type relations while smoking crack cocain then post it on display somewhere. That wouldn't be harassment on it's own. It would be in poor taste and rude of me, but not harassment. When I notify you with the intent of causing emotional distress because of something going on between us, then it can become harassment. It's like a gun, it can be use to kill, for the wrong reasons, and sometimes for the right reasons. It's not unlawful to shoot and kill someone in certain situations,
I suggest you spend some time figuring out what harassment actually is too. It is not you all the sudden being offended or disliking something. It is me trying to offend you or scare you or do something to you that wouldn't otherwise be illegal for the purpose of causing you distress..Me saying a cuss-word on the phone with you wouldn't be harassment. ME calling you all the time and cussing you out would be.
Why would it strike you? I clearly stated is was likely a poorly executed attempt at extending existing laws. The laws on this vary from state to state and in some cases municipality to municipality. I do not know the existing laws of that state or how effective they are, but I do know that law makers all over the place think they are really doing something constructive when they rewrite laws using internet terms to update it for the hip new digital age.
I don't see any reason why this law isn't one of those situations that has gone horribly wrong.
I'm not here to ague the merits of the case. However, the photos should have never been released in the way they were and the crutch of the liability revolved around them being used to harass the parents.
Even if her stupid antics did kill dozens of people, is that justification to harass her parents and family if they were not involved in it at all? She may have very well deserved to die, but does that mean her mother deserves to have hate mail with pictures of the decapitated body that was released by officers of the law who responded to the scene of an emergency? That isn't exactly about the girl who dies, but the people who loved her yet had nothing to do with her death
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I didn't ever say that words and images that offend people was a form of harassment, i said it was harassment using those forms of communication.
There is a difference that you don't seem to be able to grasp. One is just sitting there, the other is a tool to obtain a goal for a purpose. That goal and purpose or intent is harassment of a specific person or group of people. One is innocent, and the other is malicious by design.