The OP was perfectly clear. It's worrying that so many people will handwave away child abuse as "not that serious" while calling for the investigator's head on a plate.
Proportionality is the key, but the anti-government crowd here cannot conceive of any government employee's over-enthusiasm as other than the start of the Apocalypse.
I think his point was that the investigator's crime of over-zealousness was somewhat less serious than the fucking child poroographer's, and that the only scum going to prison should be the paedophile.
You can get plain white plastic fairings etc cheap enough, it's all the paint/branding that makes manufacturers ones so expensive. And you'd still have that problem if you printed them yourself at home.
Many years ago Courtney Love wrote on Salon.com ("Courtney Love does the math") that she was not bothered with P2P distribution of her music, as in fact CD sales were not a source of income for artists.
I assume she was basing this on her own CDs , and indeed the royalties on 37 worldwide sales is probably cancelled out by the clerical, stationery and postage charges incurred by the record company.
Ignoring the question of saving money, here in the UK courts generally take a guilty plea favourably into account for sentencing, as it shows some evidence of remorse and not spares witnesses the ordeal of reliving their experiences under hostile examination.
Europe would be affected. For more than half a century, Western Europe had to spend almost nothing on defense. With the US gone, they would have to raise an army, or just watching as the ISIS map becomes a reality. The current European doctrine of Chamberlain-esque constant appeasement can only go so far. Would Germany want to split into the FRG and GDR again in order to avoid war with Russia? Do they want to return to Bonn for all government function? Would Spain mind having Arabic be its only official language? These scenarios would almost invariably happen if it were not for the US.
Western Europe has a nuclear deterrent as well as a reasonably large conventional military. It's not on the scale of the US, but it's sufficient to make it impossible for Russia simply to re-conquer Eastern Europe.
And I do wish people would stop acting as though Islamic State is some new superpower, rather than a bunch of unusually well funded terrorists.
There's a place for poetry, and a place for clearly stated information
There's also a place in between for perfectly acceptable general non-scientific language.
A lot of people on slashdot like to pretend that every article and comment should be composed to the same standards as a formal scientific paper. Which is silly.
Yea, you really really cannot go based on organization names. Otherwise the Khmer Rouge were a democratic movement (Democratic Kampuchea), as is North Korea.
Turns out people lie in their organizational name all the time. Noone names their group "Committee for the Overthrow of the Peaceful and Sovereign Government".
That leads to the McCarthyite notion that by not calling your group "evil communist scum" you're not only evil communist scum, but part of a conspiracy as well, or else why would you lie about it?
You are wrong: saying "three times less" is perfectly acceptable English. If you have not come across this usage before, I assume you are not a native English speaker, in which case it is probably unwise to comment on what is correct English.
Tor cloaks your requests both by encrypting the HTTP part, and by masking the DNS part. If you access it over tor at work, all anyone will know is that youre using tor.
If you lived in a genuine totalitarian state, they'd just use the fact that you used tor at all as evidence that you were an enemy of the state and torture the information out of you.
Just another example of sacrificing freedom and privacy for perceived safety (from counterfeiting, in this case). Even though this has been known about for quite a while now, it still seems just as pathetic.
No, counterfeiting is a genuine problem, not something made up to stop you from printing out child abuse images anonymously..
But no doubt you think we should not only go back to the Gold Standard, but only use actual gold pieces as currency too.
So will total prohibition. Neither is acceptable. Drunk driving is deadly, but this is a step too far when even the government admits a limit this low this is de facto prohibition. Unless we also want to outlaw other distractions, like screens, radios, cupholders, pets, and passengers, we're just choosing what rights we're OK with giving up.
If you frame it as a rights issue, then there should be no limits whatsoever, and all you could do is punish the large number of additional people having accidents caused by their drink driving.
Any sort of punitive preventative measures will inevitably impact on people's absolute right to do what they want.
This is the sort of issue where absolute libertarianism falls foul of common sense and the wishes of the majority of people to prevent as many deaths of innocent people as possible. (If drunk drivers only killed themselves, I don't think people would care as much.)
Slashdot Mirror
Margaret Thatcher was a scientist (research chemist) as well
Oh great, now I have to hate all research chemists too.
OK, then I define science as "something something chemicals something something" and therefore chemistry is the only REAL science.
My 21 month old and 2 day old don't have guns ... yet.
pussies
Proportionality is the key, but the anti-government crowd here cannot conceive of any government employee's over-enthusiasm as other than the start of the Apocalypse.
I think his point was that the investigator's crime of over-zealousness was somewhat less serious than the fucking child poroographer's, and that the only scum going to prison should be the paedophile.
You can get plain white plastic fairings etc cheap enough, it's all the paint/branding that makes manufacturers ones so expensive. And you'd still have that problem if you printed them yourself at home.
So you wouldn't mind if videos of your own kids * being raped were being passed around?
* Or, this being slashdot, your nieces/neighbour's kids or whatever.
I assume she was basing this on her own CDs , and indeed the royalties on 37 worldwide sales is probably cancelled out by the clerical, stationery and postage charges incurred by the record company.
Pretentious? Moi?
Projecting much?
Ignoring the question of saving money, here in the UK courts generally take a guilty plea favourably into account for sentencing, as it shows some evidence of remorse and not spares witnesses the ordeal of reliving their experiences under hostile examination.
You can write "LOL :-)" on Twitter, but if you actually say "lol smiley face" out loud you sound like a developmentally challenged ten year old.
No they're not the same, but that does not mean that the latter doesn't exist.
Europe would be affected. For more than half a century, Western Europe had to spend almost nothing on defense. With the US gone, they would have to raise an army, or just watching as the ISIS map becomes a reality. The current European doctrine of Chamberlain-esque constant appeasement can only go so far. Would Germany want to split into the FRG and GDR again in order to avoid war with Russia? Do they want to return to Bonn for all government function? Would Spain mind having Arabic be its only official language? These scenarios would almost invariably happen if it were not for the US.
Western Europe has a nuclear deterrent as well as a reasonably large conventional military. It's not on the scale of the US, but it's sufficient to make it impossible for Russia simply to re-conquer Eastern Europe.
And I do wish people would stop acting as though Islamic State is some new superpower, rather than a bunch of unusually well funded terrorists.
There's a place for poetry, and a place for clearly stated information
There's also a place in between for perfectly acceptable general non-scientific language.
A lot of people on slashdot like to pretend that every article and comment should be composed to the same standards as a formal scientific paper. Which is silly.
Speaking English is not the same as writing maths.
Whatever did people do before the internet?
That's broadly true, but you also have to factor in that they prefer being told (bad) things first rather than finding them out for themselves.
That leads to the McCarthyite notion that by not calling your group "evil communist scum" you're not only evil communist scum, but part of a conspiracy as well, or else why would you lie about it?
You are wrong: saying "three times less" is perfectly acceptable English. If you have not come across this usage before, I assume you are not a native English speaker, in which case it is probably unwise to comment on what is correct English.
Why, do you think there is some magic hidden in the brain and it can't be replicated using mathematics?
We will get there and very soon.
Blah blah, yeah it will be done within ten years, just like we'll all have cold fusion backpacks to fly us around.
Now they'll decree the press are terrorists and say it's illegal to do this since it prevents 'awful' monitoring.
How about 'quite good' or even 'excellent' monitoring?
Tor cloaks your requests both by encrypting the HTTP part, and by masking the DNS part. If you access it over tor at work, all anyone will know is that youre using tor.
If you lived in a genuine totalitarian state, they'd just use the fact that you used tor at all as evidence that you were an enemy of the state and torture the information out of you.
Just another example of sacrificing freedom and privacy for perceived safety (from counterfeiting, in this case). Even though this has been known about for quite a while now, it still seems just as pathetic.
No, counterfeiting is a genuine problem, not something made up to stop you from printing out child abuse images anonymously..
But no doubt you think we should not only go back to the Gold Standard, but only use actual gold pieces as currency too.
So will total prohibition. Neither is acceptable. Drunk driving is deadly, but this is a step too far when even the government admits a limit this low this is de facto prohibition. Unless we also want to outlaw other distractions, like screens, radios, cupholders, pets, and passengers, we're just choosing what rights we're OK with giving up.
If you frame it as a rights issue, then there should be no limits whatsoever, and all you could do is punish the large number of additional people having accidents caused by their drink driving.
Any sort of punitive preventative measures will inevitably impact on people's absolute right to do what they want.
This is the sort of issue where absolute libertarianism falls foul of common sense and the wishes of the majority of people to prevent as many deaths of innocent people as possible. (If drunk drivers only killed themselves, I don't think people would care as much.)