So, is possession of any image any fictional/simulated crimes criminal? (Including everything from bank robbery to child abuse.)
No, no one was harmed making those images.
Or is fictional/simulated child porn ok, and only possession of any image of any actual crime criminal? (Including everything from bank robbery to child abuse.)
Simulated as in computer generated? No one was harmed making the images. As far as pictures capturing an actual crime, no they'd not be illegal either. Why? Those are records of an event, which would have happened anyway. No one robs a bank so they can take pictures to later sell. The reverse is true of real kid porn pics; someone wants to pay for them, so they go out and grab a kid and cause them harm to make the 'product.' No on is paying for images ofa real bank robbery; that is no one is robbing banks for the sole purpose of selling images of the robbery.
So you go to prison if you possess video of the World Trade Center attack?
It should be clear what the answer to this is by now. I suggest you stop playing stupid and turn on the reason center of your brain. Nice troll attempt though.
There is value in having obscenity laws, especially for cases like where the producers of child porn are outside of our sphere of influence.
FWIW, I don't think you need obsenity laws to prosecute this. The fact that its production is harmful to the kids should be enough. Just like posessing stolen goods is illegal, so would this.
Obscenity is and should always be defined by the community -- preferably by the household.
Um, isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Community by definition is more than one household.
Personally I think there should be no community standards, since no one is being forced to see things they consider obscene.
Even if someone was forced to, I'm not sure its ever been proven if that person was actually harmed. If not, then the law should be totally silent on this.
I'd recommend bringing a lawyer. Also, ask to see the device used to measure your speed.
I had once been pulled over and the cop honestly thought his word would be good enough. I called him out on it, and while he still insisted it would have been, he oddly didn't give me a ticket.
(hell you only need a 2.75 GPA or something to become a cop and they are thinking of lowering it to 2.5)
My wife went to take a police exam to see if she could become a cop. She was told that although she scored too high, they'd like to have her anyway, because they needed more women officers. She asked what was meant by too high; apparently they reject anyone over a 6th grade level. The argument: if the person is too smart, they won't stay a cop.
As for construction zones, you're pretty much screwed if you do anything even slightly out of the ordinary, and then you get the fine doubled in most areas.
And due to this, PA has managed to have a construction zone on every road.:-)
A lot of times those 'fines doubled' are a scam. I've seen zones where they reopen both lanes (mind you, the shoulders adn everything are open,no potholes, etc) but leave the stuff on the side. There were no workers b/c it was raining, yet cops were still camping there... presumably to get the double fines.
I'm sorry, but if enforcement of law should NOT be used to fund the courts and police that enforce the laws.
Hmm. In PA they lowered the amount you were over such that you wouldn't get points, but this also lowered the fine.
The most absurd thing was I was ticketed for running a red light (which I didn't, I turned right on red, after stopping and looking.. this was 2AM) and the McCourt said they'd take a plea for bad muffler; same fine, no points.
I have to think there's something corrupt about a system that still punishes you basically the same, and changes the crime completely.. murder to manslaughter is one thing, but to a whole different violation... just seems corrupt to me.
Out of curiosity, why did you go to traffic court and then plead guily?
Also, did you feel like you were in McCourt? You know, quick, drive-thru 'justice?' That's how I felt when I was in traffic court; the judge and the DA's rep didn't even know the details of the 'case' (for example, that the supposed violation occured at night, while it was clear they believed it was during the day..).
Almost all environmentalists i know, are really into technology and innovation.
Unfortunatly that doesn't seem to be how they come off.
Some develop lightweigt vehicles.
Lightweight vehicals don't offer as much protection. They're also worse in areas where snow is a fact of life. Finally, I haven't seen lightweight vehicles that can tow a boat or camper.
You know what's the main reason for farmers to switch to organic farming?
Because it costs less (no need for pesiticides) and they can sell it for more. For some reason, organic seems to cost more than non-organic foods. Also, many farms are labeling food organic when its not actually organic at all.
They think one can have a high (or even higher) standard of living with much less environmental impact.
Unfortunatly environmentally friendly is more expensive:-(
People have less kids because in developed nations they are more of a burden than anything else. In developing countries, you need lots of kids to help farm.
Um, isn't the tag the same things as the domain? Do you force sites to put the tag in? How would you enforce? And finally, what happens when your gov't decides it doesn't like those sites with those tags, and says it should be filtered for all?
Its a censorship thing because as soon as they hurd all the sites to tah one domain, they can deny sites they don't like to have a domain name at all, and they can mandate that that domain isn't accessable by anyone. Or just charge some huge fee to put the sites that have to register there out of business.
I hate to tell you, but if kids at the school which you work are getting 'bad' images, its because they are looking for it, and likely already know about it. If you want kids to grow up with bad ideas, just pretend that certain things don't exist, because those bad ideas will form when they find them and don't have anyone to talk to about them.
As a customer if I get ripped off, lied to and insulted
What exactly were you lied to about? When did they insult you? If you feel ripped off, that's certainly your right. Did someone break into your sql server because you left the sa password blank? Sorry, but even a retarded db admin should know to put a password in for the sa account.
Not that admittedly, I was silly enough to believe this supplier in the past, the forgiving fool that I was, but gee, give me a break, after the fifth or sixth time, do you seriously expect me to keep forgiving and spending more money
Perhaps you should evaluate their products. I wouldn't buy anything just based on what the company said about it. I'd evaluate it first. Obviously though you just let your emotions run your life, or you would know that WinXP SP 2 is a pretty secure OS, Win2k3 DOES install with a minimal surface area to attack (indeed, IIS by default disables ASP, ASP.Net, CGI, Server side includes and all other extensions it comes with). Sql Server 2005 actually DOES include a lot of good changes security-wise (disallowing a blank sa password is just a small one).
Blame MS if you want, but people chose their software for a reason, and for a while, they demanded ease of use over security. Now they are demanding security, and MS is moving toward that goal.
A mistake, a mistake, you surely jest when you say "a mistake", I have seen their software with bugs (mistakes in computer jargon) listed in the tens of thousands for just one version of one program, not even the complete line up over the last decade, give me a break, we are talking hundreds of thousands of mistakes;-).
Which products are you refering to? Add up all versions of linux, bsd, etc and I'm sure the list gets quite long as well.
Perhaps we make a social contract that can be entered into for the purposes of health care, taxes, etc.
Why do we even need such a contract? Why should two people who sign a piece of paper notarized by the state get special taxes breaks? Why do you have to be married to put someone on your healthcare?
Otherwise, you can be married to someone and still have to file seperate income tax and not be able to get health care.
Again, why do you need a legal document to put someone else on your healthcare?
Marriage as a legal concept serves no purpose. If you're an antheist and your only ceremony would be going before a JP, then aren't you just entering into a legal contract?
I can't really comment on why an atheist (outside of the legal benefits) would want to be married anyway.. if they do, they must have some kind of spirtiual concept behind it and can use that to guide them.
Even if they change into someone who lies, steals, cheats? If they become abusive? if they decide to 'live for the day' and blow all the savings?
No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. There are always limits to how much change people are willing to accept. Forcing two people to stay together who are no longer happy together is retarded and not something the state should have any say in.
There's nothing wrong with it. The government made certain censorship ok, and now (suprise supirse) they are trying to censor more and more. The FCC should be totally silent in regards to content; its only purpose should be to manage bandwidth and that devices don't unintentially interfere with signals.
Its power to regulate content should be totally stripped. If people find something offense, they have the right not to watch or listen. They do NOT have the right to tell others not to watch or listen.
Yes, she will - and justifiably, IMHO, because a pre-nup is demonstration of a lack of trust (in either the other party or themselves). Without trust, a relationship will not work.
Do you trust that your partner will never change? That you won't change? Changing is fine, but sometimes people change so much they stop being compatible together. Prenup has nothing to do with trust, as much as it is admitting that neither of you know the future.
Honestly though blame the courts, and this outdated notion of alimony, and the woman always getting the house, car, the kids, etc. Whenever a couple divorces, 99% of the time the man is royally screwed, quite unfairly. Even though men and women are supposed to be equal, in divorce court we are still 200 years behind.
Slashdot Mirror
And guess what the requirements for Vista is going to be?
There's no need to guess, the requirements have already been posted.
So, is possession of any image any fictional/simulated crimes criminal? (Including everything from bank robbery to child abuse.)
No, no one was harmed making those images.
Or is fictional/simulated child porn ok, and only possession of any image of any actual crime criminal? (Including everything from bank robbery to child abuse.)
Simulated as in computer generated? No one was harmed making the images. As far as pictures capturing an actual crime, no they'd not be illegal either. Why? Those are records of an event, which would have happened anyway. No one robs a bank so they can take pictures to later sell. The reverse is true of real kid porn pics; someone wants to pay for them, so they go out and grab a kid and cause them harm to make the 'product.' No on is paying for images ofa real bank robbery; that is no one is robbing banks for the sole purpose of selling images of the robbery.
So you go to prison if you possess video of the World Trade Center attack?
It should be clear what the answer to this is by now. I suggest you stop playing stupid and turn on the reason center of your brain. Nice troll attempt though.
There is value in having obscenity laws, especially for cases like where the producers of child porn are outside of our sphere of influence.
FWIW, I don't think you need obsenity laws to prosecute this. The fact that its production is harmful to the kids should be enough. Just like posessing stolen goods is illegal, so would this.
It's not about preventing an act that occurs "behind closed doors" but about not supporting that act through official documentation
Nice spin. By the way, what would be wrong with supporting said act though offical documentation?
Obscenity is and should always be defined by the community -- preferably by the household.
Um, isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Community by definition is more than one household.
Personally I think there should be no community standards, since no one is being forced to see things they consider obscene.
Even if someone was forced to, I'm not sure its ever been proven if that person was actually harmed. If not, then the law should be totally silent on this.
I'd recommend bringing a lawyer. Also, ask to see the device used to measure your speed.
I had once been pulled over and the cop honestly thought his word would be good enough. I called him out on it, and while he still insisted it would have been, he oddly didn't give me a ticket.
I've seen signs for littering that say $500 fine
:-)
Which has always seemed excessive to me.
(hell you only need a 2.75 GPA or something to become a cop and they are thinking of lowering it to 2.5)
My wife went to take a police exam to see if she could become a cop. She was told that although she scored too high, they'd like to have her anyway, because they needed more women officers. She asked what was meant by too high; apparently they reject anyone over a 6th grade level. The argument: if the person is too smart, they won't stay a cop.
As for construction zones, you're pretty much screwed if you do anything even slightly out of the ordinary, and then you get the fine doubled in most areas.
And due to this, PA has managed to have a construction zone on every road.
A lot of times those 'fines doubled' are a scam. I've seen zones where they reopen both lanes (mind you, the shoulders adn everything are open,no potholes, etc) but leave the stuff on the side. There were no workers b/c it was raining, yet cops were still camping there... presumably to get the double fines.
I'm sorry, but if enforcement of law should NOT be used to fund the courts and police that enforce the laws.
Hmm. In PA they lowered the amount you were over such that you wouldn't get points, but this also lowered the fine.
The most absurd thing was I was ticketed for running a red light (which I didn't, I turned right on red, after stopping and looking.. this was 2AM) and the McCourt said they'd take a plea for bad muffler; same fine, no points.
I have to think there's something corrupt about a system that still punishes you basically the same, and changes the crime completely.. murder to manslaughter is one thing, but to a whole different violation... just seems corrupt to me.
Out of curiosity, why did you go to traffic court and then plead guily?
Also, did you feel like you were in McCourt? You know, quick, drive-thru 'justice?' That's how I felt when I was in traffic court; the judge and the DA's rep didn't even know the details of the 'case' (for example, that the supposed violation occured at night, while it was clear they believed it was during the day..).
Almost all environmentalists i know, are really into technology and innovation.
:-(
Unfortunatly that doesn't seem to be how they come off.
Some develop lightweigt vehicles.
Lightweight vehicals don't offer as much protection. They're also worse in areas where snow is a fact of life. Finally, I haven't seen lightweight vehicles that can tow a boat or camper.
You know what's the main reason for farmers to switch to organic farming?
Because it costs less (no need for pesiticides) and they can sell it for more. For some reason, organic seems to cost more than non-organic foods. Also, many farms are labeling food organic when its not actually organic at all.
They think one can have a high (or even higher) standard of living with much less environmental impact.
Unfortunatly environmentally friendly is more expensive
People have less kids because in developed nations they are more of a burden than anything else. In developing countries, you need lots of kids to help farm.
Um, isn't the tag the same things as the domain? Do you force sites to put the tag in? How would you enforce? And finally, what happens when your gov't decides it doesn't like those sites with those tags, and says it should be filtered for all?
Its a censorship thing because as soon as they hurd all the sites to tah one domain, they can deny sites they don't like to have a domain name at all, and they can mandate that that domain isn't accessable by anyone. Or just charge some huge fee to put the sites that have to register there out of business.
I hate to tell you, but if kids at the school which you work are getting 'bad' images, its because they are looking for it, and likely already know about it. If you want kids to grow up with bad ideas, just pretend that certain things don't exist, because those bad ideas will form when they find them and don't have anyone to talk to about them.
Because the DOJ argued in the past that the current filters aren't working, and thus they need to censor it right off the bat?
Online stuff is often more personal than medical records, though.
Really? Are you sure the guy who's HIV+ feels the same?
As a customer if I get ripped off, lied to and insulted
;-).
What exactly were you lied to about? When did they insult you? If you feel ripped off, that's certainly your right. Did someone break into your sql server because you left the sa password blank? Sorry, but even a retarded db admin should know to put a password in for the sa account.
Not that admittedly, I was silly enough to believe this supplier in the past, the forgiving fool that I was, but gee, give me a break, after the fifth or sixth time, do you seriously expect me to keep forgiving and spending more money
Perhaps you should evaluate their products. I wouldn't buy anything just based on what the company said about it. I'd evaluate it first. Obviously though you just let your emotions run your life, or you would know that WinXP SP 2 is a pretty secure OS, Win2k3 DOES install with a minimal surface area to attack (indeed, IIS by default disables ASP, ASP.Net, CGI, Server side includes and all other extensions it comes with). Sql Server 2005 actually DOES include a lot of good changes security-wise (disallowing a blank sa password is just a small one).
Blame MS if you want, but people chose their software for a reason, and for a while, they demanded ease of use over security. Now they are demanding security, and MS is moving toward that goal.
A mistake, a mistake, you surely jest when you say "a mistake", I have seen their software with bugs (mistakes in computer jargon) listed in the tens of thousands for just one version of one program, not even the complete line up over the last decade, give me a break, we are talking hundreds of thousands of mistakes
Which products are you refering to? Add up all versions of linux, bsd, etc and I'm sure the list gets quite long as well.
I asked this of the other that replied to my post as well. If marriage as a legal concept is removed, how would an atheist couple marry?
I don't think keeping marriage as a legal concept for social / metaphysical benefits is the right way to go.
So what would you have done if marriage as a legal concept didn't exist?
Perhaps we make a social contract that can be entered into for the purposes of health care, taxes, etc.
Why do we even need such a contract? Why should two people who sign a piece of paper notarized by the state get special taxes breaks? Why do you have to be married to put someone on your healthcare?
Otherwise, you can be married to someone and still have to file seperate income tax and not be able to get health care.
Again, why do you need a legal document to put someone else on your healthcare?
Marriage as a legal concept serves no purpose. If you're an antheist and your only ceremony would be going before a JP, then aren't you just entering into a legal contract?
I can't really comment on why an atheist (outside of the legal benefits) would want to be married anyway.. if they do, they must have some kind of spirtiual concept behind it and can use that to guide them.
Most, if not all, broadcasts are v-chip encoded.
Also, setting the v-chip to any level will automatically block broadcasts which aren't rated. Usually that is just the evening news.
Even if they change into someone who lies, steals, cheats? If they become abusive? if they decide to 'live for the day' and blow all the savings?
No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. There are always limits to how much change people are willing to accept. Forcing two people to stay together who are no longer happy together is retarded and not something the state should have any say in.
Oh, I also find it disturbing that even though v-chips are in every set and cable box now, that there is a need for fines at all.
Maybe the people that complained about this show should set their v-chips to TV-G; they'll never be offended again.
There's nothing wrong with it. The government made certain censorship ok, and now (suprise supirse) they are trying to censor more and more. The FCC should be totally silent in regards to content; its only purpose should be to manage bandwidth and that devices don't unintentially interfere with signals.
Its power to regulate content should be totally stripped. If people find something offense, they have the right not to watch or listen. They do NOT have the right to tell others not to watch or listen.
Yes, she will - and justifiably, IMHO, because a pre-nup is demonstration of a lack of trust (in either the other party or themselves). Without trust, a relationship will not work.
Do you trust that your partner will never change? That you won't change? Changing is fine, but sometimes people change so much they stop being compatible together. Prenup has nothing to do with trust, as much as it is admitting that neither of you know the future.
Honestly though blame the courts, and this outdated notion of alimony, and the woman always getting the house, car, the kids, etc. Whenever a couple divorces, 99% of the time the man is royally screwed, quite unfairly. Even though men and women are supposed to be equal, in divorce court we are still 200 years behind.