...and probably have to change my name afterwards.
I'm single, and I look at a lot of porn. A *lot*. Nothing too deranged, but let's just say I know my way around the net that you use when you're looking for binaries. In my experience, real child porn is damned hard to find. Jailbait / "lolita" porn that features girls who are post-pubescent and legal in their home countries gets spammed to damned near eve4ry binaries group in existence on a daily basis, but *real* child porn? The kind that really damages kids? I just don't see it. The people who produce it have gone way underground compared to just a few years ago. You used to be able to see some pretty horrifying stuff in every group on any day, but that seems to have been driven out. It seems to me that the billions of dollars that are "needed" to fight "child pornography" are really fear-mongering dollars that we have to spend in an effort to pretend that 16-year-olds are as tingly and curious as *we* were when we were 16. If anything, I think that this whole campaign is making our (US-ian) culture even more damaged and sex-phobic. Do we really need specific legislation to outlaw webcam broadcasts of baby rape? Seriously? How often does that happen, and how is it not covered by existing statutes?
Yeah, my post is a bit wonky in that regard, but if you take a wee glance at the one I'm replying to I think it's a bit obvious why I wrote it the way I did.
No, the US is merely saying something that makes it *look* like a bastion of freedom and democracy and ice-cream-covered puppy kisses and unicorn farts. In reality, the moment that someone releases a free application for a Verizon phone that enables some cheap and wonderful functionality, the higher-ups at the company will shit themselves in outrage and find a way to make sure that their flag-waving freedom-pimp network is able to triple your charges the next month for having the audacity to use your phone in the manner that *you* want without having the decency to give them a wheelbarrow full of cash first.
> I still wonder about the legal implications of showing scenes in trailers that aren't actually in the movie. At the time I didn't even realize that anyone would do such a thing, but now I expect it's pretty common.
Don't assume malicious intent when there's a much more rational explanation. Editors and assistant editors (not "trailer designers" - I have no idea who came up with that term) are cutting trailers for movies long before the film has reached final cut stage. Also, they have access to *all* the footage shot for a film, not just the things that end up in the final cut. Because of the overlapping process sometimes footage gets used that's eventually cut, sometimes footage gets used that's altered in the final cut (better CG, different take of the scene, changes in color timing, etc.), or other tweaks.
Perfect example: In the trailer for "Freddy Got Fingered" there was a gag where a boat got dropped on the house, and the scene was nowhere to be seen in the actual movie. Why? The movie was so bad that there was no way to cut the scene in and still have it make sense. Of course, that was incompetence, but the lesson is the same. It's pretty rare that a production is going to spend time and money filming something that they never intend to use.
...that your desktop is the Goatse guy and you have 14 videos of horse porn set to auto-play the moment your laptop gets opened. If you're going to snoop through my stuff in public, then the whole terminal is gonna get their money's worth, you fascist bully-boys.
Wow. Someone on the internet challenges your religion, and you offer a reasonable, level-headed, and polite response? You really *are* a Mormon, aren't you?
We may differ on theology, but I'd be happy to split a jell-o mold with you someday.
> Nowhere in the Mormon canon and/or official doctrine does it say anything about dark skin.
It was official doctrine that black people couldn't hold the priesthood, though. That pretty much reads like punishment to me.
(disclaimer: I'm an ex-Mormon, but I'm perfectly happy to let people practice whatever faith they choose. I have *no* intention of starting a religious flamewar, but I really thought that that point needed to be made.)
"Persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy in an interview with the mission president or a priesthood leader he assigns. Such persons may not receive the priesthood or a temple recommend."
Oh, that's nice. They'll let them in the clubhouse and take their money, but they won't tell them the secret password or give them a secret decoder ring. That's not a religion, it's a chapter of the He-Man Woman Haters' Club.
Just to be clear, the FLDS isn't a part of the regular Mormons. Mainstream LDS doesn't do the polygamy / marry your 12-year-old cousin thing. They're still about as out there as Scientologists, but at least they're not kiddie-diddlers...
Notice the poster's name. It's the usual NIMP / Lemonparty / multiple pop-up / dancing windows attack. It may spawn other programs or install malware, but I'm not running Windows so I can't tell.
Mod this post up, dammit. The performers in the Village People have *never* owned the rights to their music, their videos, or even their images. If you only have the typical/. understanding of the entertainment business, then please keep the vitriol bottled up until you do a little reading, okay? I promise to do the same thing next time there's an article that demands a cursory familiarity with C++ or PHP or Web Ruby on Rails 2.0...
> But fine; he can charge whatever he wants - and have every cent taken away when Blizzard's lawyers play their trump card: Violation of Terms of Service.
But that's the point. The author of Glider isn't violating the TOS - the people using his program are. Unless *he's* using Glider on *his* WOW account, then Blizzard really doesn't have a clear case. That's why they're limited to filing more nebulous trademark / copyright / etc. claims against him. He's not someone who's subscribed to their TOS (at least in relation to this case), so they're limited to using more brute-force methods against him.
How is everybody squatting on each other's wangs going to make us "much more effective as a society?" See, this is what happens when you allow the homosexuals and their radical, deviant agenda to run loose in society. First they just want to teach our kids, then the next thing you know you have to submit to mandatory sodomy to get on the internet.
I don't think you can blame iTunes for screwing the artists. iTunes needs access to music more than the labels need access to iTunes, so Apple doesn't really have the leverage to argue for better terms on the artists' behalf yet. I think this will change rapidly soon, though. Radiohead and NIN won't be the first or the last high-profile artists to tell the labels to fark off, and when more high-visibility groups find out what Prince learned (self-publishing = many more times the revenue, even if you only sell a fraction of what you used to) I think we're going to see a sea-change in the industry. The other thing that I'm waiting on is the music version of a Tila Tequila, but with talent. I want to see a singer / band that attracts a huge following and provokes a bidding war, then signs with iTunes or some other electronic distributor, bypassing the labels entirely. And before the Bonnaroo crowd starts yelling about Phish or DMB or some similar group, I realize that they've already attracted huge followings before going with labels. What I'm talking about is someone who isn't from the tour-tour-tour to build a following mold, but a group that goes straight from recording in their basement to being the next U2 or Smashing Pumpkins or Public Enemy, all without ever going near a traditional label. Once we get the first one of those, I think the old model will finally be destroyed and we'll see the new way of distribution become the way it is, as opposed to the way it should be.
I hope it didn't sound like I was trying to diminish the dangers of construction. Mostly I was just surprised at the fact that fishing is so dangerous.
> Construction work is the most dangerous job and is far more dangerous than being a cop.
Not to threadjack, but every list I just looked at puts commercial fishing as the most dangerous job out there. Construction always comes in around third and police work never makes the top 10, so you were mostly right.
Slashdot Mirror
...and probably have to change my name afterwards.
I'm single, and I look at a lot of porn. A *lot*. Nothing too deranged, but let's just say I know my way around the net that you use when you're looking for binaries. In my experience, real child porn is damned hard to find. Jailbait / "lolita" porn that features girls who are post-pubescent and legal in their home countries gets spammed to damned near eve4ry binaries group in existence on a daily basis, but *real* child porn? The kind that really damages kids? I just don't see it. The people who produce it have gone way underground compared to just a few years ago. You used to be able to see some pretty horrifying stuff in every group on any day, but that seems to have been driven out. It seems to me that the billions of dollars that are "needed" to fight "child pornography" are really fear-mongering dollars that we have to spend in an effort to pretend that 16-year-olds are as tingly and curious as *we* were when we were 16. If anything, I think that this whole campaign is making our (US-ian) culture even more damaged and sex-phobic. Do we really need specific legislation to outlaw webcam broadcasts of baby rape? Seriously? How often does that happen, and how is it not covered by existing statutes?
Yeah, my post is a bit wonky in that regard, but if you take a wee glance at the one I'm replying to I think it's a bit obvious why I wrote it the way I did.
I'll try to be clearer after I've had coffee...
No, the US is merely saying something that makes it *look* like a bastion of freedom and democracy and ice-cream-covered puppy kisses and unicorn farts. In reality, the moment that someone releases a free application for a Verizon phone that enables some cheap and wonderful functionality, the higher-ups at the company will shit themselves in outrage and find a way to make sure that their flag-waving freedom-pimp network is able to triple your charges the next month for having the audacity to use your phone in the manner that *you* want without having the decency to give them a wheelbarrow full of cash first.
Yeah, they did break the unwritten rules of the trailer remix game, but I still love that one.
> I still wonder about the legal implications of showing scenes in trailers that aren't actually in the movie. At the time I didn't even realize that anyone would do such a thing, but now I expect it's pretty common.
Don't assume malicious intent when there's a much more rational explanation. Editors and assistant editors (not "trailer designers" - I have no idea who came up with that term) are cutting trailers for movies long before the film has reached final cut stage. Also, they have access to *all* the footage shot for a film, not just the things that end up in the final cut. Because of the overlapping process sometimes footage gets used that's eventually cut, sometimes footage gets used that's altered in the final cut (better CG, different take of the scene, changes in color timing, etc.), or other tweaks.
Perfect example: In the trailer for "Freddy Got Fingered" there was a gag where a boat got dropped on the house, and the scene was nowhere to be seen in the actual movie. Why? The movie was so bad that there was no way to cut the scene in and still have it make sense. Of course, that was incompetence, but the lesson is the same. It's pretty rare that a production is going to spend time and money filming something that they never intend to use.
Don't miss the "West Side Story" remix.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x25jVzVP1bY
> However, all you listen to Kimya Dawson, so nobody has downloaded anything yet.
So you watched "Juno" too, huh?
...that your desktop is the Goatse guy and you have 14 videos of horse porn set to auto-play the moment your laptop gets opened. If you're going to snoop through my stuff in public, then the whole terminal is gonna get their money's worth, you fascist bully-boys.
Wow. Someone on the internet challenges your religion, and you offer a reasonable, level-headed, and polite response? You really *are* a Mormon, aren't you?
We may differ on theology, but I'd be happy to split a jell-o mold with you someday.
> So where did the *practice* (not doctrine*
Okay, you got me on that one. I concede the point.
> I'm guessing from Utah?
Nope. Virginia, actually. Second-gen Mormon who, for various reasons, decided to walk.
> Just because a prophet said it doesn't mean it's a part of Mormon doctrine.
Considering who the prophet is supposed to have a hotline to... well, I'll just stop there.
> Nowhere in the Mormon canon and/or official doctrine does it say anything about dark skin.
It was official doctrine that black people couldn't hold the priesthood, though. That pretty much reads like punishment to me.
(disclaimer: I'm an ex-Mormon, but I'm perfectly happy to let people practice whatever faith they choose. I have *no* intention of starting a religious flamewar, but I really thought that that point needed to be made.)
"Persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy in an interview with the mission president or a priesthood leader he assigns. Such persons may not receive the priesthood or a temple recommend."
Oh, that's nice. They'll let them in the clubhouse and take their money, but they won't tell them the secret password or give them a secret decoder ring. That's not a religion, it's a chapter of the He-Man Woman Haters' Club.
Just to be clear, the FLDS isn't a part of the regular Mormons. Mainstream LDS doesn't do the polygamy / marry your 12-year-old cousin thing. They're still about as out there as Scientologists, but at least they're not kiddie-diddlers...
...largely due to the efforts of this woman.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90I4TN00&show_article=1&catnum=0
Notice the poster's name. It's the usual NIMP / Lemonparty / multiple pop-up / dancing windows attack. It may spawn other programs or install malware, but I'm not running Windows so I can't tell.
You magnificent bastard...
Mod this post up, dammit. The performers in the Village People have *never* owned the rights to their music, their videos, or even their images. If you only have the typical /. understanding of the entertainment business, then please keep the vitriol bottled up until you do a little reading, okay? I promise to do the same thing next time there's an article that demands a cursory familiarity with C++ or PHP or Web Ruby on Rails 2.0...
> But fine; he can charge whatever he wants - and have every cent taken away when Blizzard's lawyers play their trump card: Violation of Terms of Service.
But that's the point. The author of Glider isn't violating the TOS - the people using his program are. Unless *he's* using Glider on *his* WOW account, then Blizzard really doesn't have a clear case. That's why they're limited to filing more nebulous trademark / copyright / etc. claims against him. He's not someone who's subscribed to their TOS (at least in relation to this case), so they're limited to using more brute-force methods against him.
Leave it to a slashdotter to confuse operating systems and girls.
How is everybody squatting on each other's wangs going to make us "much more effective as a society?" See, this is what happens when you allow the homosexuals and their radical, deviant agenda to run loose in society. First they just want to teach our kids, then the next thing you know you have to submit to mandatory sodomy to get on the internet.
Wait, what?
Oh. Never mind.
I don't think you can blame iTunes for screwing the artists. iTunes needs access to music more than the labels need access to iTunes, so Apple doesn't really have the leverage to argue for better terms on the artists' behalf yet. I think this will change rapidly soon, though. Radiohead and NIN won't be the first or the last high-profile artists to tell the labels to fark off, and when more high-visibility groups find out what Prince learned (self-publishing = many more times the revenue, even if you only sell a fraction of what you used to) I think we're going to see a sea-change in the industry. The other thing that I'm waiting on is the music version of a Tila Tequila, but with talent. I want to see a singer / band that attracts a huge following and provokes a bidding war, then signs with iTunes or some other electronic distributor, bypassing the labels entirely. And before the Bonnaroo crowd starts yelling about Phish or DMB or some similar group, I realize that they've already attracted huge followings before going with labels. What I'm talking about is someone who isn't from the tour-tour-tour to build a following mold, but a group that goes straight from recording in their basement to being the next U2 or Smashing Pumpkins or Public Enemy, all without ever going near a traditional label. Once we get the first one of those, I think the old model will finally be destroyed and we'll see the new way of distribution become the way it is, as opposed to the way it should be.
...when they install a robot Ben Bailey.
I hope it didn't sound like I was trying to diminish the dangers of construction. Mostly I was just surprised at the fact that fishing is so dangerous.
> Construction work is the most dangerous job and is far more dangerous than being a cop.
Not to threadjack, but every list I just looked at puts commercial fishing as the most dangerous job out there. Construction always comes in around third and police work never makes the top 10, so you were mostly right.
Carry on.