They don't. It's a power they usurped for themselves. See Marbury vs. Madison.
I never said they had such a power legitimately. My position is 180 opposite. But they do act as if they have such a power, and have exercised it most thoroughly, many times.
Interstate commerce? Effectively "intrastate"
Shall not infringe? Except when we say it's ok.
Search, seizure, requires a warrant? Not so much.
ex post facto? aw, heck no, we'll just say "punishment isn't punishment" (a variety of the absurdity "it depends on what is, is.)
Eminent domain? For any reason you please.
and so on.
Judicial power does not extend to modifying law on the fly. Just ask any judge. They are bound by the law. Yet the supreme court does this with astounding regularity. There *is* a means provided to modify the law. It's in article five. The current government would prefer we forget it exists, and go on making things up out of whole cloth. Our government is corrupt from oath to action.
the 3D paradigm is just to(sic) foreign for the average user.
Yes, yes, this is it. Every day I am thankful that my life consists of no more than navigating a 2D space. WTH would you *do* with a third dimension, anyway?
First of all, it's NOT 3D. It's fixed optical stereo. Which leads to headaches due to many bad cues for your visual system, and only barely looks 3D if you hold still and pretend there's only one fixed viewpoint in the world. Which isn't true, and under the circumstances of pretending there is, you lose a great deal of interesting visual information. You get one view out of a huge number of possibilities.
Secondly because real 3D is hard; consumers don't have display devices for it yet.
Third, because real 3D is extremely data heavy at some point in the process; even if your connection was fast enough to get your POV out to the server and the server and connection fast enough to get the data back to you, the server still has to cough up a lot of data that's different every time from a very large base. If the display device is doing the job, it has to have all the data, all the time.
[system-wide menubar] really only works on a premise you always use every program in maximised window.
Also, under OSX, the system-wide menubar doesn't work well in a multi-monitor environment. Even in a single-monitor environment, it maximizes the amount of mouse movement required to get to and from it, which can also lead to the wrong application being activated as you're often forced to move outside the bounds of your application's window. Miss the menu (overshoot on a multi-monitor setup, for instance) and now input (keyboard, for instance) is no longer directed to your application. Scripts cannot send output to an application that is not currently the active window without actually activating that window, adding completely unnecessary hoop jumping. OSX's input model is barely adequate in these regards, and I also say that as a long time OSX user. These problems are first a result of stupid UI design, and second a result of Apple being almost universally unable to admit they screwed up.
I wonder if you would whistle the same tune if you're stuck in traffic next to some car that blares music you hate...
I have no expectation that the public space (or anyone else's private space) will be tailored to my liking. The only place I expect things to go my way is inside my home, and to a much more limited extent, within the borders of land I own. If someone wants to make a lot of noise, paint their house like a Dr. Suess story, board up all their windows, or swim butt-ugly naked in the town center fountain, I wish them well. Men can wear skirts and women can wear pants, anyone can marry anyone else or not, and the "acceptable" number of tattoos and piercings, no matter how unlikely or crude, shall be unlimited. I don't agree that it is legitimate that people have the right to regulate anyone else's actions in the public space, unless those actions actually cause direct physical harm or direct financial injury to a non-consenting party.
In any event, just because one person's values don't mix well with your own doesn't mean they're in the wrong, obviously, but when in doubt, it's best to do what's best for the populace.
No. When in doubt, it's best to do nothing and let individuals decide for themselves.
It's an equivalent argument for smoking marry-j. So many people advocate for its legalization, but yet, you can't honestly tell me that legalizing it would really lead to a better world... It's bogus.
I absolutely can tell you it would lead to a better world. The arguments are many and extremely well founded, from reduction in harm done by evil legislation (such as huge jail sentences, ruined families, lost opportunities), to tax revenues, to personal liberty issues, to healthcare issues such as appetite enhancement, to elimination of it as a viable income source for gangs and cartels, to replacement for alcohol as a much, much safer intoxicant.
Same with porn. It's nothing but trash.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to my opinion.
Sometimes the best thing to do in life is the most difficult... In this case, I'm all for making online porn illegal because I know it's nothing but 100% trash.
You know nothing of the sort. You have an opinion you want to inflict on everyone else. For my part, I absolutely support your choice to not engage with porn on any or all levels. But that's where your liberties end and the liberties of others begin.
This may help to spur on WINE development even more.
At one point, I was responsible for a good sized Windows application. Something along the lines of Photoshop. Tested it under Wine, and Wine choked in a few obvious ways. As we thought it'd be nice if it worked under linux, if indirectly, I reported the issues to them. They blithely informed me that if we wanted the bugs fixed, we'd have to pay. Needless to say, we shelved the whole idea.
Any job that involves contact with people will cause opinions to form about those they are in contact with, and anyone subsequent. Those opinions will vary from accurate to not depending upon the degree of insight and ability to draw fine distinctions the person forming the opinion has.
There's nothing unique about stripping or porn in this regard.
As for objectification, we are, in the final analysis, objects. Most people put on clothes chosen so that exactly how they are objectified hopefully falls into a vein they would not object to, or better yet, be pleased with. Same for choosing cars, houses, mates, and so on. To deny this is to deny humanity.
This is entirely disingenuous. There are innumerable jobs that depend on the resources you were born with, from sports to modeling to soldiering to becoming an astronaut or a scientist. You're trying to make some kind of exception if the sport is sexual, and it doesn't hold up.
These roles in society are not corrupt; they are based upon perfectly natural and reasonable preferences that we have for one another. Would you prefer an ugly, smelly, stupid companion, or a beautiful, naturally pleasant, brilliant one?
Would sports fans prefer an "athelete" who had a poor physique and could not win? Would the actresses in Hollywood be of such great interest to everyone if they were ugly? Would a stupid person make a good scientist? We are what we are, and if someone else were lucky enough to be gifted with some physical resource that they can market, who are you to say this is a bad thing?
It is ridiculous to attempt to make the case that only earned skills and knowledge have value, or, conversely, that those things we are lucky enough to find innate, do not.
Sorry, but cleaning toilets doesn't involve having pictures/videos of you doing acts you'd rather keep private, with people you'd rather not do them with, around.
Your are assuming that your values are everyone else's values. You should stop doing that. You should in particular not act on that.
Some of us consider sex to be neither need be private, or in any way shameful in such a circumstance. We don't force this idea on you -- if you aren't comfortable with it, then do not participate either in the making or the consumption of any public performance. It's entirely your choice.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't. It's a power they usurped for themselves. See Marbury vs. Madison.
I never said they had such a power legitimately. My position is 180 opposite. But they do act as if they have such a power, and have exercised it most thoroughly, many times.
Interstate commerce? Effectively "intrastate"
Shall not infringe? Except when we say it's ok.
Search, seizure, requires a warrant? Not so much.
ex post facto? aw, heck no, we'll just say "punishment isn't punishment" (a variety of the absurdity "it depends on what is, is.)
Eminent domain? For any reason you please.
and so on.
Judicial power does not extend to modifying law on the fly. Just ask any judge. They are bound by the law. Yet the supreme court does this with astounding regularity. There *is* a means provided to modify the law. It's in article five. The current government would prefer we forget it exists, and go on making things up out of whole cloth. Our government is corrupt from oath to action.
Yeah. That's called 2D. :)
I get it! I finally get it! String theory is just physicists turning it up to 11 !!!
(I admit I actually have replacement knobs on my Fender twin that do go to 11...)
Yes, yes, this is it. Every day I am thankful that my life consists of no more than navigating a 2D space. WTH would you *do* with a third dimension, anyway?
Oh, I get it. Like a tesseract. Everyone else sees it as smaller on the outside than it is from your POV.
First of all, it's NOT 3D. It's fixed optical stereo. Which leads to headaches due to many bad cues for your visual system, and only barely looks 3D if you hold still and pretend there's only one fixed viewpoint in the world. Which isn't true, and under the circumstances of pretending there is, you lose a great deal of interesting visual information. You get one view out of a huge number of possibilities.
Secondly because real 3D is hard; consumers don't have display devices for it yet.
Third, because real 3D is extremely data heavy at some point in the process; even if your connection was fast enough to get your POV out to the server and the server and connection fast enough to get the data back to you, the server still has to cough up a lot of data that's different every time from a very large base. If the display device is doing the job, it has to have all the data, all the time.
It's NOT 3D. You have been marketed.
...they only work if you buy the lobbyist figure set.
Sure do. hasn't got fuck all to do with supreme court justices. Read article five, chum.
...supreme court dolls.
You pull a string, and they say things like:
"The supreme court can modify the constitution because the supreme court says so"
"interstate, intrastate, meh. Get me a bagel."
"public use means where people can see it."
"ex post facto, ex post schmacto. It's simply retroactive."
"It's not additional punishment if we say it isn't."
"Double jeopardy? No, no, just go after them in civil court." ...and so on.
I... I'll just move it all to the cloud! YEAH!
Eschew obfuscation.
"Inconvenient"
If you having sex in the street scares horses, I just want to say, nature has truly gifted you. :)
Also, under OSX, the system-wide menubar doesn't work well in a multi-monitor environment. Even in a single-monitor environment, it maximizes the amount of mouse movement required to get to and from it, which can also lead to the wrong application being activated as you're often forced to move outside the bounds of your application's window. Miss the menu (overshoot on a multi-monitor setup, for instance) and now input (keyboard, for instance) is no longer directed to your application. Scripts cannot send output to an application that is not currently the active window without actually activating that window, adding completely unnecessary hoop jumping. OSX's input model is barely adequate in these regards, and I also say that as a long time OSX user. These problems are first a result of stupid UI design, and second a result of Apple being almost universally unable to admit they screwed up.
And then again...
I have no expectation that the public space (or anyone else's private space) will be tailored to my liking. The only place I expect things to go my way is inside my home, and to a much more limited extent, within the borders of land I own. If someone wants to make a lot of noise, paint their house like a Dr. Suess story, board up all their windows, or swim butt-ugly naked in the town center fountain, I wish them well. Men can wear skirts and women can wear pants, anyone can marry anyone else or not, and the "acceptable" number of tattoos and piercings, no matter how unlikely or crude, shall be unlimited. I don't agree that it is legitimate that people have the right to regulate anyone else's actions in the public space, unless those actions actually cause direct physical harm or direct financial injury to a non-consenting party.
No. When in doubt, it's best to do nothing and let individuals decide for themselves.
I absolutely can tell you it would lead to a better world. The arguments are many and extremely well founded, from reduction in harm done by evil legislation (such as huge jail sentences, ruined families, lost opportunities), to tax revenues, to personal liberty issues, to healthcare issues such as appetite enhancement, to elimination of it as a viable income source for gangs and cartels, to replacement for alcohol as a much, much safer intoxicant.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to my opinion.
You know nothing of the sort. You have an opinion you want to inflict on everyone else. For my part, I absolutely support your choice to not engage with porn on any or all levels. But that's where your liberties end and the liberties of others begin.
Dunno about gnome3, but Unity sucks horribly. It has exactly one good feature: You can get rid of it.
At one point, I was responsible for a good sized Windows application. Something along the lines of Photoshop. Tested it under Wine, and Wine choked in a few obvious ways. As we thought it'd be nice if it worked under linux, if indirectly, I reported the issues to them. They blithely informed me that if we wanted the bugs fixed, we'd have to pay. Needless to say, we shelved the whole idea.
Is that still the service model?
I'm a tiny fraction! I'm a tiny fraction! I'm a... what? [runs away]
Any job that involves contact with people will cause opinions to form about those they are in contact with, and anyone subsequent. Those opinions will vary from accurate to not depending upon the degree of insight and ability to draw fine distinctions the person forming the opinion has.
There's nothing unique about stripping or porn in this regard.
As for objectification, we are, in the final analysis, objects. Most people put on clothes chosen so that exactly how they are objectified hopefully falls into a vein they would not object to, or better yet, be pleased with. Same for choosing cars, houses, mates, and so on. To deny this is to deny humanity.
No country with a state church is "out of the dark age." Iceland has some other issues as well, but that's the poster child for being backwards.
Which is also completely wrongheaded.
This is entirely disingenuous. There are innumerable jobs that depend on the resources you were born with, from sports to modeling to soldiering to becoming an astronaut or a scientist. You're trying to make some kind of exception if the sport is sexual, and it doesn't hold up.
These roles in society are not corrupt; they are based upon perfectly natural and reasonable preferences that we have for one another. Would you prefer an ugly, smelly, stupid companion, or a beautiful, naturally pleasant, brilliant one?
Would sports fans prefer an "athelete" who had a poor physique and could not win? Would the actresses in Hollywood be of such great interest to everyone if they were ugly? Would a stupid person make a good scientist? We are what we are, and if someone else were lucky enough to be gifted with some physical resource that they can market, who are you to say this is a bad thing?
It is ridiculous to attempt to make the case that only earned skills and knowledge have value, or, conversely, that those things we are lucky enough to find innate, do not.
Your are assuming that your values are everyone else's values. You should stop doing that. You should in particular not act on that.
Some of us consider sex to be neither need be private, or in any way shameful in such a circumstance. We don't force this idea on you -- if you aren't comfortable with it, then do not participate either in the making or the consumption of any public performance. It's entirely your choice.
Toxic square pegs.