There seems to be an entirely different construct in Atheism as a religion and Atheism as in I don't believe there is a god.
What your missing is the reasonable, I don't believe your god exists being confused with a god doesn't exist. Those are not the same comments at all.
You see, your going from atheism to what is essentially a religious view when you move from, I'm not convinced to I know there isn't. If your making the simple I'm not convinced a god exist, you are doing the traditional atheism. But when you are making an acertive statement about the existence of god, most likely using science to back it up, you have become a religious zealot in the same way others are.
BTW, the UN declaration on human rights lists Atheism as a protected religion for a human right. SO at least for classification purposes, it's a religion as recognized by the world. But make no mistake, once you go from I'm not convinced to trying to justify there there is no, you have gone from the absence of evidence to a belief system no different then a religion.
I suspect that they have the wrong idea on net neutrality. Aren't libertarians mostly opposed?
Sort of.
In the core idea of you get what you pay for- no the aren't against it. If it was only that simple, net neutrality would be pointless as all the isp's could do is give you more then you paid for. What I mean is, if you purchase a 6 meg connection from MyISP, they can't do anything or direct any actions that would cause that internet connection to be delivered under those rates. In commerce, you generally have to give a best effort to provide service if a guaranteed service level isn't stated in a contract. This means that if they restrict your communications in any way to below that level for any reason that is directly under their control or direction, they aren't giving you what you paid for. The translation to this is that if they want to contract with third parties (websites) for payment, they can only do so in order to give you more then what you paid for and if the third party refuses, they cannot restrict service to anything below what you paid for.
But in the implementation, yes, they are against the proposals so far. These proposals seem to seek to regulate everything and anything in some omnibus government coercive entitlement. The libertarians seem to be completely against that.
I tend to be against it too as all you would need is a one or two paragraph law stating that they ISP can't purposely limit the speeds of your service to below the advertised rates base on or the lack thereof payments of third parties and acts they take or direct to be taken on their behalf must be justified with an imperative need like protecting the network from attack or protecting it from damage. Throw in another line or two limiting the time span that exception is allowed to happen without a discounted service rate applying and possibly a line about infringements on the law making the consumer entitled to 5 times the amount of monthly service for each month it happens and possibly 10 times the amount or more if it's a flagrant violation.
There is no need to set up a large government panel or regulatory agency as existing ones could handle it. There is no need for complex laws pertaining to protocols or anything of the sort. And peering agreements would count as customers so even slowing third party traffic that crosses the network and is intended for delivery on another network would be outlawed.
Your probably not too far off the mark though. A lot of the lame duck senators and representatives will be facing reelection in just two more years and if they take this years election as a clue, they might want to refrain from blindly supporting party lines and such. Whether it will make a difference or not is another subject matter up for debate but I'm guess they want to be reelected.
He's become just another politician, doing what politicians do
I think maybe you were fooled after all. He didn't become anything, he just showed the side he was hiding in a very loud way. Obama was never fairly elected to office before. In every race he has run, there had been unfair tactics employed to give himself the advantage. Some of these is like timing the release of certain information from a divorce that was under seal that ended up getting released late in an election cycle and a couple of other things.
I don't think he became anything. I think he always was and attempted to present himself as something else. some people fell for it swallowing hook, line, and sinker.
I don't think it was the left that lost their energy in the last election either. I think it's more of a burnt independent vote moving back from a position they saw as a lie. These are the people that really let the right gain seats in the last election and they were the deciding factor when Obama was elected too.
Since W is double-vee in most languages that use the character wouldn't www == 666666?
Well, actually, the www=666 is more or less a long running joke that has existed in some form or another since the mid 1990's. I probably first ran across it on my windows 3.11 running Netscape 2.something dialing into what became one of the largest local internet services in my area. The Hebrew language is a lot like the roman numeral system in that when you put numbers beside each other, they are added together. 666 would actually be 18, 666666 would be something like 36. There are rules in how it's done but I don't know them well enough to say anything.
Here is a link explaining it a little more. Note that the copyright at the top of the page lists 1999 where the one on the bottom of the page lists 1995. '95 sounds about the right time frame as I may had just upgraded to windows 95.
As for the SCSI being SekSI (sexy), your probably right. I don't remember where I heard that from. I just know I can understand why the Scuzzy sounding name stuck (it's a PITA in some situations)
How are Obama's ideas socialist? What exactly is socialist about them? How are they different from medicare and medicaid, which already exist?
Medicaid is administrated from the state which is pretty much not agains the US constitution. Medicare and social security is one of those programs that FDR knew to be unconstitutional but enacted anyways. It was billed as a conditional opt in insurance program ran by the government and not government socialism.
The socialism in the US got a bad rap in the early 1900's as the communist part attempted to overthrow the US government and institute a Stalinist style government. Communism and socialism is close enough in core principle that they can be used interchangeably in the communal aspect of their movements. This is exemplified in the fact that communist parties changed their names to include the word socialist and even moerged with the socialist parties in some areas after WWII.
Where in the Constitution does it prohibit things like medicare and medicaid, and how come those things exist if they are unconstitutional?
The tenth amendment does. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
As I said before, the US federal government is not an all inclusive power that can do anything. In most cases, federal law doesn't even have jurisdiction within a state because of this. The federal government is only allowed to do what is granted to them by the US constitution baring what is expressly prohibited by it.
FDR probably said it best when he said "As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - You can find this speech in it's entirety by Franklin Delano Roosevelt concerning the Volstead act printed in the New York times March 3, 1930. FDR knew very well that his New Deal was completely unconstitutional as he openly admitted it 2 years before he became president.
How come, if they are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has not struck them down, like it has with every other unconstitutional law?
As I already pointed out, the US Supreme court already has shot it down. This is what caused the constitutional crisis with FDR in which he told the court to get screwed. The court then expanded the interstate commerce clause to stop it from being negated entirely and causing a constitutional meltdown. If you look at laws like Social security and so on, they originally were only intended for companies that made over a certain amount of money in which they would cause an impact on interstate commerce. Laws like the minimum wage laws which is under the social security act still hold this to this day. Further more, until States made laws stopping it, you were exempt from social security or medicare taxes if you had an equivalent program available in the company. This is still remnant in congress who can exempt themselves from social security or medicare taxes to this day still. Most nurses and public officials were exempt until the late 1980's or so when state laws changed due to withholding of federal payments if certain laws weren't passed.
Finally, where did you study constitutional law? I'd like to know so I can be sure not to send my kids there.
IT doesn't work that way in real life. I told a bunch of Jehova's witnesses that I was a Devil worshiper in order to get them to leave me along. This didn't work, they came back in larger numbers and prayed for my. they followed me to work and other stupid shit praying for me. My boss asked me what the hell was going on (as he was completely anoyed by this as was about to fire me), so I told them that after they knocked on my door about twenty times asking me if I head the good news, I told them I was a devil worshiper and told them to get off my property. We had to explain to their pastor that it was only a ploy to get them to leave me the fuck alone in order to get them to leave me the fuck alone.
The cops wouldn't even stop them as they stayed mostly on the sidewalk and public right of way.
I later found out that the easiest way to get rid of them is to simply say "I'm catholic" and then listen to a bunch of crap about Marry being a whore for a few minutes. But if you pretend to be a devil worshiper to get rid of them, it's likely to backfire on you.
The naming convention behind SCSI was originally intending on it to be pronounced Sexy (secsi).
Evidently, if you read it, it's supposed to sound like that. The concept never really took off and people now forget about it. Btu sexy and lust is a close companion.
Anyways, I'm wondering why they arne't worried about the World Wide Web. Everyone knows that W translated into Hebrew is 6 (actually the V is substituted as W doesn't exist) so whenever they go to a web site, they are paying homage to the number of the beast 666. (www).
So your saying that you won't do it unless you can force others to do it?
This is something that always puzzled me about idiots like you. If it's a good idea and something you actually believe in, then why not do it on your own without the government forcing you to do so? I mean this goes well beyond you in particular. It's like Charlie Reingold and his "we need to tax the rich montra" when he doesn't even report and pay taxes on all his income. It's like Warren Buffet who complained that he didn't pay enough taxes but refused and scoffed at the suggestion that he could simply by checking the box saying he wanted to donate more to the government on his official tax returns.
Why is it that some people claim they actually believe in something yet won't act on what they believe until everyone else is forced to do it? Is it not neccesarily that they believe in it themselves and deep down inside know it's not a good things which is why they reject it if no one else is forced to do it? It is because they don't actually support what they claim and just want the ancillary goal of giving the government that much more power because they know the necessity of making some decisions will be taken from them? I mean seriously, why is it that people like you claim to want something but only if your neighbor is forced to have it too?
Yes, Raped European countries. And no, that's not the kind of rape anyone would dream of.
You see, that measurement doesn't have much to do with it. Well, outside of the percentage of income per GDP.
apparently you dont know shit about how people live outside usa. it is appalling to see that someone who is able to use slashdot, have actually fallen for 'america is the place to be' indoctrination that is propagated by the established order...
I know a lot about how people live outside the USA. I'm just not using a single source of measurement to define my entire outlook on life in general. I mean America was number 4 in the 2010 list with most all of the European countries falling behind it.
Either way, that measurement doesn't define anything important to this discussion. America is not Europe and Europe is not America so stop trying to confuse or conflate them. You are a disgrace to anyone intelligent enough to simply look around when you do so.
It isn't molestation (or not molestation) based on what the person doing it was or wasn't thinking at the time. It's based on whether or not it was necessary, useful, and non-embarrassing. These are unnecessary, ineffective, and intentionally made as embarrassing as possible.
Perhaps you should use a dictionary or two. Everyone that I can find defines molestation to be something with the intent of sexual gratification. If you are using some obscure definition in order to confuse the situation and make it sound more menacing then it is, my point still stands as everyone else will understand it to mean something specific as well as the attempt to conflate shows the meaning of it.
What difference does it make, if it is in the open or not? Few people, if anyone, will speak up anyway.
I would speak against it if I saw it happening. That's a pretty big difference. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying a lot of people would speak out against anyone molesting a child in front of them.
Your argument pretty much falls apart since most of the people watching are going to be shocked at what basically looks like a person being sexually molested before their very eyes. The fact that they're too cowed to speak up is irrelevant.
Pure nonsense. The people watching is going to be aware that there are security checks happening. They also do not live in isolation in which at the least, they have seen someone patted down in the movies or on TV if not in real life. They are going to know exactly what is happening and have an idea why. Further more, those who do not know or are somewhat confused will ask other around them and get the right answer.
Don't confuse them being too coward to speak up with them living in the reality that knows what is happening is not a sexual molestation. As I have already explained, that only exists in your mind- not in reality.
There will probably some sort of copyright infringment trial associated with it too but the law has often used the concept of stopping the supposed harm until the courts can figure it out as an excuse to take affirmative actions.
This is the entire basis behind the DMCA take down laws. The ISP/site operator is able to take something down on a mere complaint and it's up to the user to either file a counter notice or not. And if the counter notice is not honored and the content restored, then the ISP can be sued for damages. but if they do honor the counter claim, then they are absolved from liability over any damages that may have incurred over it.
It's quite possible that they would use both domain name and IP/IP+port. It would be like monitor traffic between gateway routers and then simply query the blacklist in the DNS every so often, then instructing the gateway routers to simply route the IP packets from those temporarily blacklisted IPs to a server somewhere that either puts it in dev/null or stores them for some forensic analysis later.
I would assume they would need a server or some sort of client machine to imitate the end user else the blocked site will just retransmit the information until it times out of something. This could lead to flooding the internet. Anyways, this could be done in several different ways. The most obvious is to use something like the DNS error caches that hijack you error codes and suggest their own sites like some of the ISPs are/were doing with a page being displayed that the site is closed due to copyright violations. A more intricate way of doing it is simple allowing the request through until the copyrighted content is accessed, then diverting everything to a server somewhere in order to collect information on the infringement. All of which seems doable if the law maintains a provision that requires ISPs to assist.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with America, it's government and how its constitution before asking such obviously answered questions. How about the socialized health care for one, Obama and the leadership of the democrat party espouses them, and yes they are bad because A: the US federal government does not have the constitutional authority to impose systems like that in the constitution's present state, B: there is a way to amend the US constitution in order to give the federal government the authority but for some insane reason, ignoring the US constitution seems to be the route chosen. C: this equals little more then an attempt to destroy the fabric of the US constitution which like it or not, will result in things like the Bill of rights being completely decimated in the process.
It's not necessarily that they are bad ideas, It's that the constitution doesn't allow it and if you think things like the freedom of speech, or the freedom of religion- or even the non-existent constitutional separation of church and state, the right to a fair trial and so on are somehow able to survive, you would be wrong. This is because of they can ignore the constitution based around political ideology, then they can ignore the entire constitution based around political ideology. In other words, if they skip the necessary processes required to give the government the power and authority, then they can skip the necessary requirements for the government to take rights away.
And yes, even FDR knew his programs were unconstitutional. In fact, there was a supreme court battle over most of them that ended up ending with FDR ignoring the court and the court invented the expansion of the interstate commerce clause to avoid a constitutional meltdown at the time. The US federal government is not equivalent to parliament or any other country's central government. It is by design only intended to be a state face for foreign diplomacy, an arbitrator for disputes between the states, and an overseer of trade between the states. This is why the country is called the United States of America. -It's a collection of State bound by a common defense. Not some over ridding power structure that controls the people. It retains it's authenticity through the consent of the governed and that consent was given though the US constitution.
And your point is what? Just because socialism has raped European countries doesn't mean that the Americans should allow it here too. There is a separation for a reason- it's because we are not them and they are not us. I don't care if you don't like it, get over it. When talking about American politics, keep it in an American perspective.
You should give me half of your income each year so that we don't allow you to gain more money then others. That's ok, I won't be making more then you because I will quit my job just to make your scenario fair. This way no one get too much power and we don't have to worry about the market economic scams like you being able to earn a living with the toils of your own effort or you being able to invest in anything you find worthwhile. This way we won't have to worry about markets allowing you open access and with me not working, we don't have to worry about more jobs being created. It's a win win in your mind isn't it?
Just because they can be NAT'ed doesn't mean they will be. Also, Network Address Translation doesn't negate the concept, it simply places a couple extra steps in it.
And knowing who was logged in and using the computer at a certain time is pretty much simple if there are multiple instances from different systems.
It would go like this. IP at Time means we can trace to a physical address. Once at the address, opps we see that it's NAT'ed. OK, so we watch the TCP/IP traffic to see if it's going to the site in question. Oh, it is. So lets now look at the port numbers on the headers. This will indicate which computer behind the NAT router is sending and receiving information once we get the routing table from the NAT device. Or similarly, we use this as an excuse to monitor traffic inside the Network environment. Now we have real IPs going to real computers. So we address the owner of the computer and ask if anyone else had been using it. If they say yes, then who. IF they say no, it's them. Now we simply tie a person to the specific time on the computer. If the owner says someone else was on it, then they tell us who under the threat of getting charged themselves.
It's not equal but they aren't too far apart. Like I said, it's pretty much trivial to determine an ID if you have an IP and time.
I'm sorry. That was an attempted jab at humor. It appears I lost it.
Years ago there used to be late night infomercials for a book called "power words to be successful"(or something similar). People who probably had the educational equivalence of a third grader purchased these books and all the sudden, you have lots of idiots using words like pontification to mean making something look like a Pontiac car or something. In other words, it ended up with people using five dollar words who didn't even know the meaning because they thought they sounded more educated or something.
Anyways, the two links I posted with the shipoopi was about comedy sketches done by Buddy Hacket and the family guy character Peter Grifith. It was supposed to illustrate my intention of getting it wrong.
) No, and I wouldn’t complain if the TSA had an actual doctor do a proper exam in the appropriate privacy of an exam room, either. In fact, it’d be killing two birds with one stone.
I guess your missing the point. Complaining and complaining about something that doesn't exist is two separate things. They don't need a doctor to do a proper exam because the proper exam is actually a security audit that any clown can do with minimal training. However, simply doing the audit doesn't maintain anything with the purpose or desire of sexual gratification which makes calling it a molestation completely baseless.
Yes, if they acted like a belligerent goon and did it in the middle of the waiting room just to deliberately embarrass the patient. They’d get sued for every last penny they had.
You do realize that most molestations occur behind closed doors right? I mean it's not like you would be any safer if it was done behind a closed door, in fact, you would be enabling them. However, since this is not a molestation, doing it in the open and in front of others is pretty much legit.
Last time I had a testicular exam, the doctor did it with the attitude, “This is going to be as uncomfortable for me as it is for you, so let’s get it over with as little discomfort as possible.”
And I believe this is the way the TSA guard approached the ordeal. He said this is what I have to do, explained what was going to happen, and when the guy objected, he called the supervisors in order to escape the escalation.
The TSA agent is going to do it with the attitude, “You made my job difficult by refusing the virtual strip-search, so I’m going to make this as embarrassing and uncomfortable for you as I possibly can.” And it’s not even thinly veiled... it’s explicitly supposed to be!
This may be true, it certainly seems like it. I never suggested that you couldn't complain or work to get it stopped. I said specifically that calling it molestation confuses the issue by false allegations that do little but weaken the fight against it. It makes it appear as if it's little more then disgruntled and confused crazy people are against it instead of sound and rational people with a legitimate grip.
Karma would be Gawd striking you temporarily blind, but since He doesn't exist (or has abandoned us for 2000 years) it's up to us to piss you off and make you accept everyone on even terms when dealing in commerce.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but accepting everyone on even terms would mean that they conform to his practices not that he is forced to conform to theirs, wouldn't it?
I mean people are out there, they are different, some are better then others, some are not, but even terms means he draws a line and they meet it or exceed it.
Actually, your wrong. Person X could be the company Y in it's entirety. What stops them now as the company and the person is one in the same? In fact, the vast majority of companies out there have less then ten employees and less then 1/10 of them are even traded publicly.
I can see some severe constitutional issues here that go well beyond the concept of companies getting the same rights as people. This is because companies are little more then conglomerations of people acting in the same venture. They have every right as the person in most situations.
hmm.. I wasn't aware that Christianity taught that you are your brothers keeper. Perhaps you could show me where it's in the bible? The closest thing I can find is where God asked Cain where Able was and he snarked back, "Am I my brothers Keeper?
Perhaps your just confused in all your rush to make a comment about the rand fan and tea bagger? I do know you got the concept of the bill of rights wrong. It wasn't to stop a tyranny of the majority, it was to make certain that government couldn't take certain rights away. The argument for it was that government will always pervert it's role and seek more power and the argument against them was that the government could not do which it is not empowered by the constitution to do so it was redundant and unnecessary.
It pretty much depends on the opinion. If he replaces the history of ford motor company with his opinion on why NAMBLA is doing a good service, then it's likely defacement of a website more then expressing an opinion.
And don't focus on NAMBLA as any determining factor. The concept is the same, if a site allows comment on one thing and you change it to another, it can be defacement.
And with an IP and a specific point in time, it's only trivial to track the person. Please don't act like they are entirely unrelated or that one excuses the other from existence in connection.
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be an entirely different construct in Atheism as a religion and Atheism as in I don't believe there is a god.
What your missing is the reasonable, I don't believe your god exists being confused with a god doesn't exist. Those are not the same comments at all.
You see, your going from atheism to what is essentially a religious view when you move from, I'm not convinced to I know there isn't. If your making the simple I'm not convinced a god exist, you are doing the traditional atheism. But when you are making an acertive statement about the existence of god, most likely using science to back it up, you have become a religious zealot in the same way others are.
BTW, the UN declaration on human rights lists Atheism as a protected religion for a human right. SO at least for classification purposes, it's a religion as recognized by the world. But make no mistake, once you go from I'm not convinced to trying to justify there there is no, you have gone from the absence of evidence to a belief system no different then a religion.
Sort of.
In the core idea of you get what you pay for- no the aren't against it. If it was only that simple, net neutrality would be pointless as all the isp's could do is give you more then you paid for. What I mean is, if you purchase a 6 meg connection from MyISP, they can't do anything or direct any actions that would cause that internet connection to be delivered under those rates. In commerce, you generally have to give a best effort to provide service if a guaranteed service level isn't stated in a contract. This means that if they restrict your communications in any way to below that level for any reason that is directly under their control or direction, they aren't giving you what you paid for. The translation to this is that if they want to contract with third parties (websites) for payment, they can only do so in order to give you more then what you paid for and if the third party refuses, they cannot restrict service to anything below what you paid for.
But in the implementation, yes, they are against the proposals so far. These proposals seem to seek to regulate everything and anything in some omnibus government coercive entitlement. The libertarians seem to be completely against that.
I tend to be against it too as all you would need is a one or two paragraph law stating that they ISP can't purposely limit the speeds of your service to below the advertised rates base on or the lack thereof payments of third parties and acts they take or direct to be taken on their behalf must be justified with an imperative need like protecting the network from attack or protecting it from damage. Throw in another line or two limiting the time span that exception is allowed to happen without a discounted service rate applying and possibly a line about infringements on the law making the consumer entitled to 5 times the amount of monthly service for each month it happens and possibly 10 times the amount or more if it's a flagrant violation.
There is no need to set up a large government panel or regulatory agency as existing ones could handle it. There is no need for complex laws pertaining to protocols or anything of the sort. And peering agreements would count as customers so even slowing third party traffic that crosses the network and is intended for delivery on another network would be outlawed.
Your probably not too far off the mark though. A lot of the lame duck senators and representatives will be facing reelection in just two more years and if they take this years election as a clue, they might want to refrain from blindly supporting party lines and such. Whether it will make a difference or not is another subject matter up for debate but I'm guess they want to be reelected.
I think maybe you were fooled after all. He didn't become anything, he just showed the side he was hiding in a very loud way. Obama was never fairly elected to office before. In every race he has run, there had been unfair tactics employed to give himself the advantage. Some of these is like timing the release of certain information from a divorce that was under seal that ended up getting released late in an election cycle and a couple of other things.
I don't think he became anything. I think he always was and attempted to present himself as something else. some people fell for it swallowing hook, line, and sinker.
I don't think it was the left that lost their energy in the last election either. I think it's more of a burnt independent vote moving back from a position they saw as a lie. These are the people that really let the right gain seats in the last election and they were the deciding factor when Obama was elected too.
Well, actually, the www=666 is more or less a long running joke that has existed in some form or another since the mid 1990's. I probably first ran across it on my windows 3.11 running Netscape 2.something dialing into what became one of the largest local internet services in my area. The Hebrew language is a lot like the roman numeral system in that when you put numbers beside each other, they are added together. 666 would actually be 18, 666666 would be something like 36. There are rules in how it's done but I don't know them well enough to say anything.
Here is a link explaining it a little more. Note that the copyright at the top of the page lists 1999 where the one on the bottom of the page lists 1995. '95 sounds about the right time frame as I may had just upgraded to windows 95.
As for the SCSI being SekSI (sexy), your probably right. I don't remember where I heard that from. I just know I can understand why the Scuzzy sounding name stuck (it's a PITA in some situations)
Medicaid is administrated from the state which is pretty much not agains the US constitution. Medicare and social security is one of those programs that FDR knew to be unconstitutional but enacted anyways. It was billed as a conditional opt in insurance program ran by the government and not government socialism.
The socialism in the US got a bad rap in the early 1900's as the communist part attempted to overthrow the US government and institute a Stalinist style government. Communism and socialism is close enough in core principle that they can be used interchangeably in the communal aspect of their movements. This is exemplified in the fact that communist parties changed their names to include the word socialist and even moerged with the socialist parties in some areas after WWII.
The tenth amendment does. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
As I said before, the US federal government is not an all inclusive power that can do anything. In most cases, federal law doesn't even have jurisdiction within a state because of this. The federal government is only allowed to do what is granted to them by the US constitution baring what is expressly prohibited by it.
FDR probably said it best when he said "As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been
surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely,
people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - You can find this speech in it's entirety by Franklin Delano Roosevelt concerning the Volstead act printed in the New York times March 3, 1930. FDR knew very well that his New Deal was completely unconstitutional as he openly admitted it 2 years before he became president.
As I already pointed out, the US Supreme court already has shot it down. This is what caused the constitutional crisis with FDR in which he told the court to get screwed. The court then expanded the interstate commerce clause to stop it from being negated entirely and causing a constitutional meltdown. If you look at laws like Social security and so on, they originally were only intended for companies that made over a certain amount of money in which they would cause an impact on interstate commerce. Laws like the minimum wage laws which is under the social security act still hold this to this day. Further more, until States made laws stopping it, you were exempt from social security or medicare taxes if you had an equivalent program available in the company. This is still remnant in congress who can exempt themselves from social security or medicare taxes to this day still. Most nurses and public officials were exempt until the late 1980's or so when state laws changed due to withholding of federal payments if certain laws weren't passed.
IT doesn't work that way in real life. I told a bunch of Jehova's witnesses that I was a Devil worshiper in order to get them to leave me along. This didn't work, they came back in larger numbers and prayed for my. they followed me to work and other stupid shit praying for me. My boss asked me what the hell was going on (as he was completely anoyed by this as was about to fire me), so I told them that after they knocked on my door about twenty times asking me if I head the good news, I told them I was a devil worshiper and told them to get off my property. We had to explain to their pastor that it was only a ploy to get them to leave me the fuck alone in order to get them to leave me the fuck alone.
The cops wouldn't even stop them as they stayed mostly on the sidewalk and public right of way.
I later found out that the easiest way to get rid of them is to simply say "I'm catholic" and then listen to a bunch of crap about Marry being a whore for a few minutes. But if you pretend to be a devil worshiper to get rid of them, it's likely to backfire on you.
The naming convention behind SCSI was originally intending on it to be pronounced Sexy (secsi).
Evidently, if you read it, it's supposed to sound like that. The concept never really took off and people now forget about it. Btu sexy and lust is a close companion.
Anyways, I'm wondering why they arne't worried about the World Wide Web. Everyone knows that W translated into Hebrew is 6 (actually the V is substituted as W doesn't exist) so whenever they go to a web site, they are paying homage to the number of the beast 666. (www).
So your saying that you won't do it unless you can force others to do it?
This is something that always puzzled me about idiots like you. If it's a good idea and something you actually believe in, then why not do it on your own without the government forcing you to do so? I mean this goes well beyond you in particular. It's like Charlie Reingold and his "we need to tax the rich montra" when he doesn't even report and pay taxes on all his income. It's like Warren Buffet who complained that he didn't pay enough taxes but refused and scoffed at the suggestion that he could simply by checking the box saying he wanted to donate more to the government on his official tax returns.
Why is it that some people claim they actually believe in something yet won't act on what they believe until everyone else is forced to do it? Is it not neccesarily that they believe in it themselves and deep down inside know it's not a good things which is why they reject it if no one else is forced to do it? It is because they don't actually support what they claim and just want the ancillary goal of giving the government that much more power because they know the necessity of making some decisions will be taken from them? I mean seriously, why is it that people like you claim to want something but only if your neighbor is forced to have it too?
Yes, Raped European countries. And no, that's not the kind of rape anyone would dream of.
You see, that measurement doesn't have much to do with it. Well, outside of the percentage of income per GDP.
I know a lot about how people live outside the USA. I'm just not using a single source of measurement to define my entire outlook on life in general. I mean America was number 4 in the 2010 list with most all of the European countries falling behind it.
Either way, that measurement doesn't define anything important to this discussion. America is not Europe and Europe is not America so stop trying to confuse or conflate them. You are a disgrace to anyone intelligent enough to simply look around when you do so.
Perhaps you should use a dictionary or two. Everyone that I can find defines molestation to be something with the intent of sexual gratification. If you are using some obscure definition in order to confuse the situation and make it sound more menacing then it is, my point still stands as everyone else will understand it to mean something specific as well as the attempt to conflate shows the meaning of it.
I would speak against it if I saw it happening. That's a pretty big difference. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying a lot of people would speak out against anyone molesting a child in front of them.
Pure nonsense. The people watching is going to be aware that there are security checks happening. They also do not live in isolation in which at the least, they have seen someone patted down in the movies or on TV if not in real life. They are going to know exactly what is happening and have an idea why. Further more, those who do not know or are somewhat confused will ask other around them and get the right answer.
Don't confuse them being too coward to speak up with them living in the reality that knows what is happening is not a sexual molestation. As I have already explained, that only exists in your mind- not in reality.
There will probably some sort of copyright infringment trial associated with it too but the law has often used the concept of stopping the supposed harm until the courts can figure it out as an excuse to take affirmative actions.
This is the entire basis behind the DMCA take down laws. The ISP/site operator is able to take something down on a mere complaint and it's up to the user to either file a counter notice or not. And if the counter notice is not honored and the content restored, then the ISP can be sued for damages. but if they do honor the counter claim, then they are absolved from liability over any damages that may have incurred over it.
It's quite possible that they would use both domain name and IP/IP+port. It would be like monitor traffic between gateway routers and then simply query the blacklist in the DNS every so often, then instructing the gateway routers to simply route the IP packets from those temporarily blacklisted IPs to a server somewhere that either puts it in dev/null or stores them for some forensic analysis later.
I would assume they would need a server or some sort of client machine to imitate the end user else the blocked site will just retransmit the information until it times out of something. This could lead to flooding the internet. Anyways, this could be done in several different ways. The most obvious is to use something like the DNS error caches that hijack you error codes and suggest their own sites like some of the ISPs are/were doing with a page being displayed that the site is closed due to copyright violations. A more intricate way of doing it is simple allowing the request through until the copyrighted content is accessed, then diverting everything to a server somewhere in order to collect information on the infringement. All of which seems doable if the law maintains a provision that requires ISPs to assist.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with America, it's government and how its constitution before asking such obviously answered questions. How about the socialized health care for one, Obama and the leadership of the democrat party espouses them, and yes they are bad because A: the US federal government does not have the constitutional authority to impose systems like that in the constitution's present state, B: there is a way to amend the US constitution in order to give the federal government the authority but for some insane reason, ignoring the US constitution seems to be the route chosen. C: this equals little more then an attempt to destroy the fabric of the US constitution which like it or not, will result in things like the Bill of rights being completely decimated in the process.
It's not necessarily that they are bad ideas, It's that the constitution doesn't allow it and if you think things like the freedom of speech, or the freedom of religion- or even the non-existent constitutional separation of church and state, the right to a fair trial and so on are somehow able to survive, you would be wrong. This is because of they can ignore the constitution based around political ideology, then they can ignore the entire constitution based around political ideology. In other words, if they skip the necessary processes required to give the government the power and authority, then they can skip the necessary requirements for the government to take rights away.
And yes, even FDR knew his programs were unconstitutional. In fact, there was a supreme court battle over most of them that ended up ending with FDR ignoring the court and the court invented the expansion of the interstate commerce clause to avoid a constitutional meltdown at the time. The US federal government is not equivalent to parliament or any other country's central government. It is by design only intended to be a state face for foreign diplomacy, an arbitrator for disputes between the states, and an overseer of trade between the states. This is why the country is called the United States of America. -It's a collection of State bound by a common defense. Not some over ridding power structure that controls the people. It retains it's authenticity through the consent of the governed and that consent was given though the US constitution.
And your point is what? Just because socialism has raped European countries doesn't mean that the Americans should allow it here too. There is a separation for a reason- it's because we are not them and they are not us. I don't care if you don't like it, get over it. When talking about American politics, keep it in an American perspective.
I find your stance hilariously funny.
You should give me half of your income each year so that we don't allow you to gain more money then others. That's ok, I won't be making more then you because I will quit my job just to make your scenario fair. This way no one get too much power and we don't have to worry about the market economic scams like you being able to earn a living with the toils of your own effort or you being able to invest in anything you find worthwhile. This way we won't have to worry about markets allowing you open access and with me not working, we don't have to worry about more jobs being created. It's a win win in your mind isn't it?
Grow the fuck up.
Just because they can be NAT'ed doesn't mean they will be. Also, Network Address Translation doesn't negate the concept, it simply places a couple extra steps in it.
And knowing who was logged in and using the computer at a certain time is pretty much simple if there are multiple instances from different systems.
It would go like this. IP at Time means we can trace to a physical address. Once at the address, opps we see that it's NAT'ed. OK, so we watch the TCP/IP traffic to see if it's going to the site in question. Oh, it is. So lets now look at the port numbers on the headers. This will indicate which computer behind the NAT router is sending and receiving information once we get the routing table from the NAT device. Or similarly, we use this as an excuse to monitor traffic inside the Network environment. Now we have real IPs going to real computers. So we address the owner of the computer and ask if anyone else had been using it. If they say yes, then who. IF they say no, it's them. Now we simply tie a person to the specific time on the computer. If the owner says someone else was on it, then they tell us who under the threat of getting charged themselves.
It's not equal but they aren't too far apart. Like I said, it's pretty much trivial to determine an ID if you have an IP and time.
I'm sorry. That was an attempted jab at humor. It appears I lost it.
Years ago there used to be late night infomercials for a book called "power words to be successful"(or something similar). People who probably had the educational equivalence of a third grader purchased these books and all the sudden, you have lots of idiots using words like pontification to mean making something look like a Pontiac car or something. In other words, it ended up with people using five dollar words who didn't even know the meaning because they thought they sounded more educated or something.
Anyways, the two links I posted with the shipoopi was about comedy sketches done by Buddy Hacket and the family guy character Peter Grifith. It was supposed to illustrate my intention of getting it wrong.
I guess your missing the point. Complaining and complaining about something that doesn't exist is two separate things. They don't need a doctor to do a proper exam because the proper exam is actually a security audit that any clown can do with minimal training. However, simply doing the audit doesn't maintain anything with the purpose or desire of sexual gratification which makes calling it a molestation completely baseless.
You do realize that most molestations occur behind closed doors right? I mean it's not like you would be any safer if it was done behind a closed door, in fact, you would be enabling them. However, since this is not a molestation, doing it in the open and in front of others is pretty much legit.
And I believe this is the way the TSA guard approached the ordeal. He said this is what I have to do, explained what was going to happen, and when the guy objected, he called the supervisors in order to escape the escalation.
This may be true, it certainly seems like it. I never suggested that you couldn't complain or work to get it stopped. I said specifically that calling it molestation confuses the issue by false allegations that do little but weaken the fight against it. It makes it appear as if it's little more then disgruntled and confused crazy people are against it instead of sound and rational people with a legitimate grip.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but accepting everyone on even terms would mean that they conform to his practices not that he is forced to conform to theirs, wouldn't it?
I mean people are out there, they are different, some are better then others, some are not, but even terms means he draws a line and they meet it or exceed it.
Actually, your wrong. Person X could be the company Y in it's entirety. What stops them now as the company and the person is one in the same? In fact, the vast majority of companies out there have less then ten employees and less then 1/10 of them are even traded publicly.
I can see some severe constitutional issues here that go well beyond the concept of companies getting the same rights as people. This is because companies are little more then conglomerations of people acting in the same venture. They have every right as the person in most situations.
hmm.. I wasn't aware that Christianity taught that you are your brothers keeper. Perhaps you could show me where it's in the bible? The closest thing I can find is where God asked Cain where Able was and he snarked back, "Am I my brothers Keeper?
Perhaps your just confused in all your rush to make a comment about the rand fan and tea bagger? I do know you got the concept of the bill of rights wrong. It wasn't to stop a tyranny of the majority, it was to make certain that government couldn't take certain rights away. The argument for it was that government will always pervert it's role and seek more power and the argument against them was that the government could not do which it is not empowered by the constitution to do so it was redundant and unnecessary.
Stopped selling what?
It pretty much depends on the opinion. If he replaces the history of ford motor company with his opinion on why NAMBLA is doing a good service, then it's likely defacement of a website more then expressing an opinion.
And don't focus on NAMBLA as any determining factor. The concept is the same, if a site allows comment on one thing and you change it to another, it can be defacement.
And with an IP and a specific point in time, it's only trivial to track the person. Please don't act like they are entirely unrelated or that one excuses the other from existence in connection.