This DOES explain a lot of the universes problems.
*God creates the universe* Well, time for a little R&R... guess I'll try that WoW for a little while... The world will be fine... *Time passes* WHOO! Level 70! Finally! *God looks down on the modern world* OH SHI--
Touche. I suppose you should replace "corporation" with "company" to start off with. But you are correct. Trying to make money isn't inherently bad, but to make money at ANY cost, with no responsibility... now that's scary.
And I, too, lack any sort of real solution. As I said before, if we crack down too hard on these companies, as much as they deserve it, they'd just go someplace more lax in their laws. I mean, for Christ sakes, they don't even have to leave the U.S. You can set up sweat shops in US territories for all the benefits of near-slave labor but still be able to put a "Made in the U.S." sticker on it.
But (And I am not an economist) then wouldn't these companies then just pack their bags and move to a country where supporting its own people is not so valued?
I'm far from a communist or some advocate for overthrowing our government to give power to the workers (I'm for overthrowing the government because, let's face it, it's fun!). But this, I see, is the main flaw of capitalism.
A corporation exists for one purpose: To earn money. This, in itself, isn't really a bad thing. We need a lot of goods, and a corporation provides them. We get what we need, and the company profits. Everyone's (mostly) happy. But then comes the end of the financial year. Uh-oh. Retailer X made 1 million units of currency less than it did last year. We need to cut back and fire some employees to raise our stock prices.
Let's face it. In business, it's survival of the greediest. You head a company, and you have two options before you. One will net you X dollars, and has no damaging repercussions on your employees or the economy. However, some rather crude, dishonest, and dirty method will earn you 2X dollars at the expense of your employees (but your investors are very happy). What do you do?
If you didn't pick the option that makes the most money, sorry, the board of directors has just given you the boot and replaced you with someone who WILL make that choice.
This is a cynical and exaggerated example, I know, but it really does seem to me that the sad fact is, some people will do ANYTHING for money and power, and will go wherever they have to and hurt whoever they need to to change their yearly income from 4.5 billion to 5.4 billion.
Personally, I've always liked comic book CHARACTERS, but have never been able to get into comic books as a whole. There's so much cross-referencing, "required" reading, and the volumes are so thin, it's ridiculous. Plus, add to that the "comic book death" syndrome. Nothing is ever permanent. Spider-man will always be around. His villains will always be around. No matter how many times he tries to give up web-slinging, he'll still end up doing it again and again and again.
This is why I do read a lot of manga. It has its bad parts, its own cliches, but death tends to be more "permanent." (Again, not always, but even Goku from DBZ stayed dead and just came back as an angel... thing... after a while) And the word "retcon" has never been applied (Evangelion has an "alternate universe" side-manga, but that's actually quite a good read and is still not "official.") I've noticed a lot of comic books trying to cash in on the popularity of manga by giving older characters a makeover involving giving characters much larger eyes and gravity-defying hair. Unfortunately, this is missing the key reason why manga is probably selling better: More diversity in selection (comics that not only appeal to girls, but are aimed AT them?!), more finality in storylines, and value ($8-10 gets me a book with page numbers in the hundreds, not $4 for 20 pages).
I'm not saying Americans can't do comics, or that all Japanese comics rock (because, let's face it, 95% of any form of media is recycled crap). I'm just saying American comic artists, if they really want to revitalize the industry, need to: A) Start taking chances. Knock off some big-name heroes and villains. PERMANENTLY. Or maybe even dip into some new genres. B) This is a little harder, but something needs to be done about the American sentiment that comics are for kids. We need to see some really mature writing, and that doesn't mean gruesome violence. We have plenty of that.
To paraphrase America: The Book: "Some people say that Columbus was not the first to discover America. They say that the vikings and Chinese had been to the Americas for at least a thousand years before Columbus. Others say you can't discover a continent that's already inhabited by an entire race of people. These people are communists. Columbus discovered America."
So, since the continent was not officially "discovered" until about 500 years ago, we can say anyone there before that "doesn't count."
Because Nintendo has never, ever done marketing and surveying in the past. =p
Hey, Nintendo is out to make money. And if that strategy for doing so involves neat little things like this, more power to them. I'd love to see more stuff like this (that is if I could get my Wii online... I have a dongle for that, but it turns out it doesn't like my MAC address...)
While I mostly agree, there is one nit-pick I have. It's quite possible for someone to plant child pornography on your computer without you knowing. It could be sent via a virus, planted by someone who wants you to get in trouble with the law, etc.
Now, if you have entire photo albums of pictures in your house... slightly different story. But CP gets spread off the net, too, so...
What's your point? The above posts, including my own, state quite clearly that doing this was a mistake. And perhaps, someday, she would be embarrassed. And all that jazz.
The question is why should they be tried for CHILD PORNOGRAPHY? I'm entirely serious. These laws are designed to prosecute people who rape children. Taking a photo of yourself and e-mailing it to someone is HARDLY comparable.
Even IF it ended up in the wrong hands (And that's nota big deal to me. Child pornographers want pre-pubescent girls. Not "just technically a minor, but barely."), shouldn't we be blaming the guy who steals these photos? Blaming the girl is like blaming a car-jacking victim for leaving a car unlocked, or a mugging victim for having her wallet out in the open.
Well, I don't have a source on me now, but I've read articles about laws which include "Cartoons depicting minors in..." blah blah blah. And people have been given extra years in their sentence because of it.
True, so far, these people that have gotten the extra time were also storing HUGE databases of real-life child porn, and more than likely deserve a nice, long, jail sentence, but, say it with me: "THOUGHTCRIME IS NOT A CRIME."
And actually, I don't download lolicon, but take this as an example: In several series, characters may LOOK young, but... Take Etna from Disgaea 1 & 2. She wears skimpy clothing (well, everyone in the game does), and looks like she's about 12. But she, being a demon, is 1470 years old. How does a judge determine what counts as the legal age of a person WHO DOESN'T EXIST? Does he look at it and say, "Well, she looks like she's 17 years old, so... ILLEGAL!" (Because then an attorney can say, "Well, she's at least 19 in my eyes." And then the courtroom becomes an episode of Jerry Springer.
Plus, the idea of being arressted, FOR ANYTHING, and suddenly, the police want to add years on to my potential sentence for having pictures which may or may not be sexual in nature, of characters who were not only not sexually abused by me or anyone, but don't actually have lives to be abused?
WHY does this have to be so fucking complicated? In my opinion, it really doesn't have to be. If someone abused a child, whether or not he took pictures, he needs to be locked up. Same for attempting to do this. But at no point should LOOKING at a picture (especially one that may have been planted on your computer) be considered a precursor to rape. (Because, let's face it, if looking at a picture of a child is a sign of rape, walking into a bank should be a sign of robbery and picking up a knife should be considered intent to kill.)
Is it just me, or have people forgotten that being young is ABOUT making stupid mistakes, and parents should just be there to help when need be? At 16, is it really that big a deal if two people saw each other naked? Even if it is a "mistake," I think I put it somewhere on the list around "dropping can of fruit on foot" and "forgetting wallet at home before driving." Humans are sexual creatures. Denying people under 18 the right to express this in any way other than masturbating to a Victoria's Secret/Sports Illustrated/Whatever magazine seems too cruel to me (because if someone 17 sees a Playboy magazine, he might just blow up his school, amirite?).
What we have here is a clear example of a law punishing two teens for being human teens. These laws were passed, supposedly, to prevent some rapist from having his way with a little girl, and posting it for all to see (See my use of pathos there?). Not to arresst teens for being horny. (Here's a protip: I'm guessing before the magical Internet came about, some kids might have even developed their own naked photos and later handed them to someone in PERSON! Or, how about this. Some teens actually get naked in the SAME ROOM! And they might even DO things!)
I don't know. I'm just angry that we, as a people, are being treated this way. Where's the good old fashioned yell, "I'm as mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore?" Where are the judges who take a look at this case, say, "Well, this case is fucking stupid, and so is the law. *gavel* You're free to go, and here's $10,000 from every senator, for making you sit through this bullshit?"
You just don't GET it. Sex is UNNATURAL, EVIL, and masturbation is a GATEWAY to ORAL SEX and even INTERCOURSE!
If God had intended for us to have sex, and to masturbate, He would have given us external sexual organs which are proven to help people feel better and healthier when stimulated on a semi-regular basis. He would have given us the desire to do this ourselves, and we'd have plenty of examples in nature to suggest that around the age of puberty, it is desirable and perfectly normal. But you don't see monkeys masturbating in zoos, just like you don't see 16 year old girls and boys with fully-functioning genitals who instinctively want to use them!...Oh wait...
(Joking aside, I have plenty of images on my computer that could technically be called child pornography. Granted, none of minors in these pictures are of non-relatives, not in a situation where nudity might not be acceptable [such as, say, a delivery room, which, last I checked, had plenty of nude kids, and photos taken, but do not somehow get labeled as dens of indecency], or of people who even EXIST [anime ain't real, senators]. But hey, I have pictures of kids on my PC which could, theoretically, inspire someone to rape a child someday. Just like how I could, theoretically, get struck by lightning right now, inside, in sunny weather.)
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
As a gaming and PC enthusiast, albeit one with limited knowledge of PC hardware, would you be so kind as to list the components you found to be so cheap as to make it as good as a 360? I have two computers. My desktop is what I call "Old Faithful." She is a 6+ year old Pentium III, so she's hardly gaming worthy (beyond 6 year old games like No One Lives Forever) but doesn't seem to EVER break down, so I just use her for data storage, Internet browsing, and media viewing. My laptop, on the other hand, is an IBM-T43p I got as a package deal at RPI. I've yet to meet a game she couldn't play, but I do find quite a bit of slowdown in the more graphics heavy games, and often can't run things on the highest settings. (Plus, it's a laptop, which makes controlling it a pain sometimes).
So, if you could share the specs with a humble newbie to PC hardware, I'd be most grateful.
What are you talking about? Last I checked, there was only the Lone Pine Mall... (and there were terrorists there, but they crashed into a photo hut and were arrested)
When I say "Christians" I mean people who self-identify themselves as such. Believe me, if I could define people by their actions and not their stated beliefs, there would be many fewer Christians in America. (So, as an example, "Christian" groups who go on and on and on about the "sinful" nature of, say, gays (since I already brought them up). Let's pretend, for a second, that being gay, for some unknown reason, is a sin. What happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged?" By their own faith, they're supposed to leave the judging up to God.
So, yes. True Christians, in my experience, are rare. People who still call themselves as such, however, are not.
Oh, but I know there is a difference. For example, in my own experience, someone who has religion is someone who believes in God/a god/whatever. He follows its principles. A religious freak is someone who says "I believe this, so follow it, too, or burn in Hell."
There are some key ways to tell the difference. For example, no sane religious person would ever seriously use the term "gay agenda." Mr. Thompson has made it very clear that he's anti-gay, and on a number of occasions spoken like gays are out on street corners, handing out pamphlets to try and convert you.
A religious person finds comfort in his own beliefs. A freak finds comforting in condemning those who don't follow his beliefs.
Part of the reason we don't see many truly religious people in the news is because they're being tolerant and quiet. That's not newsworthy. Some jackass marching down Main Street to have minority group/religion/whatever put in death camps, however, will be plastered all over.
So, Thompson is loud, irritable, stubborn, intolerant, and closed minded. Combine this with his often stated "strong faith" and you've got the model religious nut. Believing in God don't make you nuts. But if you are nuts and believe in God, oh, the shit you can try to pull...
To be fair, where else can you get "news?" CNN? MSNBC? FOX?! I think I'd prefer people just get NO news, live in a bubble, and have no opinions at all, than get their news from those places.
Me, I don't get my news from any one place in particular. I do find a lot of links to stories from the AP and the BBC a lot, though.
If I may quote his Wikipedia article: "In 1992, Thompson asked a Florida judge to declare the Florida Bar Association unconstitutional. He claimed that the bar was engaged in a vendetta against him because of his religious beliefs, which he said conflict with what he called the bar's pro-gay, humanist, liberal agenda."
We may disagree, however, I think this line here pretty much says to me that Mr. Thompson is a huge bigot. He's going for the "persecuted minority" (despite being a Christian, which is hardly the minority) routine. This is incredibly disgusting to me on every level. Is it wrong to wish to see him fact the consequences of his actions?
I admit, we're biased. But we're also human, and we're talking of a man who has personally attacked our character (well, the character of anyone who ever plays games, anyway), our hobbies, and has in general, made himself out to be our enemy, as if he feeds off of animosity. Is it surprising we should take some enjoyment in watching and criticizing his actions, in hopes that they may be his downfall? Sorry if this is a bit of nonsensical rambling, but I see no reason we shouldn't be upset at him.
If you believe that this will help end people blaming other things on their problems, I've got this great Bridge in Brooklyn I'm itching to sell cheap.
But seriously, before video games, it was rap music (in fact, it still sorta is), D&D, comic books, rock and roll, movies... And if you want to go back far enough in history, violence was caused by witches and Jews.
Color me cynical, but as much as I'd love to stop seeing parents blame todays massive surge in teen violence (which, if I may be so bold, would like to point out DOESN'T EXIST. Despite school shootings being all over the news, these are still isolated incidents and overall, youth violence is way, WAY down) on video games, I know it'll only be temporary. Something will ALWAYS be society's scapegoat. In recent years, it's felt like America is easily the worst when it comes to this random blame-game (if simply because I have friends in Europe who point out lawyers don't carry the same negative stigma over the pond, where many of these lawsuits would be laughed out of court), but it's still all over the world. In 2010, gay marriage will be causing all of society's ills. In 2015, it'll be gay divorce. In 2600, it will be people who haven't converted from Christianity to Oprahism, and in 4576, it will be those of us that refuse to welcome our new cockroach overlords.
Wherever people go, the scapegoat will always be right behind....All the same, even though in the long run, it will change little, I can't wait to see this jerkoff finally get what he has coming to him.
So, let me get this straight. He sues the Florida Bar Association because he basically says its an evil communist terrorist organization planning to turn everyone gay, and that it's blatantly disregarding the Constitution (Please note: I exaggerate his wording, but either way, it's full of shit) and destroying America.
So he settles for $20,000 out of court. "You're destroying America! Stop it now!" "How about we just give you some money?" "That's fine, too!"
Damn, this guy is the ultimate sleezeball. If you ask me. Jack Thompson is a shining example of everything wrong with America these days (bigoted, sue-happy, uninformed but with LOUD AND STRONG OPINIONS).
"Daddy, daddy! Teacher says everytime a jackass gets a long overdue punishment, an angel gets an orgasm!"
To describe his conduct as "disgusting" is the understatement of the year. Even outside video games, listening to the things he says (neo-conservative religious freak... I don't care where you fall on the political spectrum, that spells "jackass.") makes me sick.
Disbarment is too good for him, but I'll settle for it.
Sounds like the plot of a bad movie. I suppose I should point this out for you: If Terrorists could hide a bomb in ANYTHING, then we'd need police protection 24/7 everywhere, inspecting every god damn thing!
Hey, there's a peanut butter jar sitting next to the bridge supports on Main Street! CALL IN THE BOMB SQUAD! Besides, I fail to see the point in trying to hide a bomb in plain sight when hiding it out of sight, for the most part, lacks the flaw that people can see it, and get curious. (I'm not military tactician, but my guess is the plan of "hiding in plain sight" is only preferable to "hiding OUT of sight" when people know what they're looking for.) In fact, I think you're not even sure what "hiding in plain sight" is. It's not to DRAW attention. It's to DETRACT from it. If thousands of people see some flashing lights all around a city, odds are, SOMEONE is going to inspect them (in fact, I'd think a great DEAL of somebodys would, even putting aside people would question you as you put them UP) You don't think ONE of them would realize they're dangerous?
Hiding in plain sight is, rather, about blending in until NO ONE notices. Camouflage. Disguise. Blending into a crowd.
Keep in mind, at this point in time, we have NO reason to suspect terrorists are going to bomb us. ESPECIALLY a target of such NON-IMPORTANCE. Are we to get so paranoid that every device that looks like a bomb... AND everything that looks suspiciously NOT like a bomb is in actuality... a potential bomb? Sorry, but I'm not going to spend the rest of my life getting paranoid about evil terrorist plots around every corner. (Statistically speaking, I should be more worried about getting hit by lightning... or hey, A CAR.)
So, until the day Al Qaeda members are over here detonating radios in peoples homes, or peanut butter jars on the streets, or hey, cars (though I still seriously doubt they'd aim for such small-fry targets... GASP... UNLESS THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT ME TO THINK!!! OH NOES!!!) I think I'll take my chances, and be glad the police are where I can reach them in case a MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely emergency, like a robbery, assault, murder, etc.
(Remember, people, the key word in terrorist is TERROR. When you're afraid that they're out to kill you and lurk in every shadow... that's what they want you to think!)
Actually, the school analogy isn't really the best. My younger brother, while in Middle School was suspended for a while for allegedly pulling a fire alarm. However, fingerprint analysis showed that the culprit wore gloves, and my brother doesn't own a pair, and he was actually seen on another side of the school at the time. (My brother has caused plenty of problems before, and I'll admit flat out that he can be a troublemaker, but he was clearly innocent here)
Still, we learned the hard way when it comes to suspending someone, a school doesn't even need evidence, just suspicion. Part of "Zero tolerance," I guess.
As for this kid... good for him. In our legal system, one MUST be PROVEN guilty, not proven innocent.
So, RIAA, where is your proof that he committed a crime? Where is your proof that he does not legally own this music? Where is your source for your evidence, and can you prove it was legally obtained?
I don't know whether he's guilty or not, but regardless of that, I'm sick of these trials screwing with the basic principles of our law. Show us some god damn proof a crime even took place, or shut up.
Actually, I wouldn't be demanding their heads on a platter. If I said "the sky is falling! Tomorrow, the moon will crash into the Earth!" and no one did anything... and it really happened... well, who the hell WOULD believe something like that?
Cops are humans, and they're not psychic. I'd rather they DIDN'T go after every strange report they get. I mean, in this case, as someone pointed out, what kind of idiot bomber would make his bombs FLASHING? That should send a signal to the cop's brain that says "This report is highly suspicious. I'd better at least send a nearby cop to look at the scene before I send out the cavalry."
On rare, rare occasions, yes, tragedy might strike when that looney report turns out to be true, but... tragedy happens all the time. And I'd rather the cops be on call to respond to a REAL emergency.
Slashdot Mirror
This DOES explain a lot of the universes problems.
*God creates the universe*
Well, time for a little R&R... guess I'll try that WoW for a little while... The world will be fine...
*Time passes*
WHOO! Level 70! Finally!
*God looks down on the modern world*
OH SHI--
Believe it or not, I was referring to actual needs. A lot of people means we need a lot of clothing, food, and shelter.
Touche. I suppose you should replace "corporation" with "company" to start off with. But you are correct. Trying to make money isn't inherently bad, but to make money at ANY cost, with no responsibility... now that's scary.
And I, too, lack any sort of real solution. As I said before, if we crack down too hard on these companies, as much as they deserve it, they'd just go someplace more lax in their laws. I mean, for Christ sakes, they don't even have to leave the U.S. You can set up sweat shops in US territories for all the benefits of near-slave labor but still be able to put a "Made in the U.S." sticker on it.
But (And I am not an economist) then wouldn't these companies then just pack their bags and move to a country where supporting its own people is not so valued?
I'm far from a communist or some advocate for overthrowing our government to give power to the workers (I'm for overthrowing the government because, let's face it, it's fun!). But this, I see, is the main flaw of capitalism.
A corporation exists for one purpose: To earn money. This, in itself, isn't really a bad thing. We need a lot of goods, and a corporation provides them. We get what we need, and the company profits. Everyone's (mostly) happy. But then comes the end of the financial year. Uh-oh. Retailer X made 1 million units of currency less than it did last year. We need to cut back and fire some employees to raise our stock prices.
Let's face it. In business, it's survival of the greediest. You head a company, and you have two options before you. One will net you X dollars, and has no damaging repercussions on your employees or the economy. However, some rather crude, dishonest, and dirty method will earn you 2X dollars at the expense of your employees (but your investors are very happy). What do you do?
If you didn't pick the option that makes the most money, sorry, the board of directors has just given you the boot and replaced you with someone who WILL make that choice.
This is a cynical and exaggerated example, I know, but it really does seem to me that the sad fact is, some people will do ANYTHING for money and power, and will go wherever they have to and hurt whoever they need to to change their yearly income from 4.5 billion to 5.4 billion.
Personally, I've always liked comic book CHARACTERS, but have never been able to get into comic books as a whole. There's so much cross-referencing, "required" reading, and the volumes are so thin, it's ridiculous. Plus, add to that the "comic book death" syndrome. Nothing is ever permanent. Spider-man will always be around. His villains will always be around. No matter how many times he tries to give up web-slinging, he'll still end up doing it again and again and again.
This is why I do read a lot of manga. It has its bad parts, its own cliches, but death tends to be more "permanent." (Again, not always, but even Goku from DBZ stayed dead and just came back as an angel... thing... after a while) And the word "retcon" has never been applied (Evangelion has an "alternate universe" side-manga, but that's actually quite a good read and is still not "official.") I've noticed a lot of comic books trying to cash in on the popularity of manga by giving older characters a makeover involving giving characters much larger eyes and gravity-defying hair. Unfortunately, this is missing the key reason why manga is probably selling better: More diversity in selection (comics that not only appeal to girls, but are aimed AT them?!), more finality in storylines, and value ($8-10 gets me a book with page numbers in the hundreds, not $4 for 20 pages).
I'm not saying Americans can't do comics, or that all Japanese comics rock (because, let's face it, 95% of any form of media is recycled crap). I'm just saying American comic artists, if they really want to revitalize the industry, need to:
A) Start taking chances. Knock off some big-name heroes and villains. PERMANENTLY. Or maybe even dip into some new genres.
B) This is a little harder, but something needs to be done about the American sentiment that comics are for kids. We need to see some really mature writing, and that doesn't mean gruesome violence. We have plenty of that.
To paraphrase America: The Book:
"Some people say that Columbus was not the first to discover America. They say that the vikings and Chinese had been to the Americas for at least a thousand years before Columbus. Others say you can't discover a continent that's already inhabited by an entire race of people. These people are communists. Columbus discovered America."
So, since the continent was not officially "discovered" until about 500 years ago, we can say anyone there before that "doesn't count."
Because Nintendo has never, ever done marketing and surveying in the past. =p
Hey, Nintendo is out to make money. And if that strategy for doing so involves neat little things like this, more power to them. I'd love to see more stuff like this (that is if I could get my Wii online... I have a dongle for that, but it turns out it doesn't like my MAC address...)
While I mostly agree, there is one nit-pick I have. It's quite possible for someone to plant child pornography on your computer without you knowing. It could be sent via a virus, planted by someone who wants you to get in trouble with the law, etc.
Now, if you have entire photo albums of pictures in your house... slightly different story. But CP gets spread off the net, too, so...
What's your point? The above posts, including my own, state quite clearly that doing this was a mistake. And perhaps, someday, she would be embarrassed. And all that jazz.
The question is why should they be tried for CHILD PORNOGRAPHY? I'm entirely serious. These laws are designed to prosecute people who rape children. Taking a photo of yourself and e-mailing it to someone is HARDLY comparable.
Even IF it ended up in the wrong hands (And that's nota big deal to me. Child pornographers want pre-pubescent girls. Not "just technically a minor, but barely."), shouldn't we be blaming the guy who steals these photos? Blaming the girl is like blaming a car-jacking victim for leaving a car unlocked, or a mugging victim for having her wallet out in the open.
Actually... I'm a 4channer, but not a /b/tard. I'm more of a /c/ patroller.
Well, I don't have a source on me now, but I've read articles about laws which include "Cartoons depicting minors in..." blah blah blah. And people have been given extra years in their sentence because of it.
True, so far, these people that have gotten the extra time were also storing HUGE databases of real-life child porn, and more than likely deserve a nice, long, jail sentence, but, say it with me:
"THOUGHTCRIME IS NOT A CRIME."
And actually, I don't download lolicon, but take this as an example: In several series, characters may LOOK young, but... Take Etna from Disgaea 1 & 2. She wears skimpy clothing (well, everyone in the game does), and looks like she's about 12. But she, being a demon, is 1470 years old. How does a judge determine what counts as the legal age of a person WHO DOESN'T EXIST? Does he look at it and say, "Well, she looks like she's 17 years old, so... ILLEGAL!" (Because then an attorney can say, "Well, she's at least 19 in my eyes." And then the courtroom becomes an episode of Jerry Springer.
Plus, the idea of being arressted, FOR ANYTHING, and suddenly, the police want to add years on to my potential sentence for having pictures which may or may not be sexual in nature, of characters who were not only not sexually abused by me or anyone, but don't actually have lives to be abused?
WHY does this have to be so fucking complicated? In my opinion, it really doesn't have to be. If someone abused a child, whether or not he took pictures, he needs to be locked up. Same for attempting to do this. But at no point should LOOKING at a picture (especially one that may have been planted on your computer) be considered a precursor to rape. (Because, let's face it, if looking at a picture of a child is a sign of rape, walking into a bank should be a sign of robbery and picking up a knife should be considered intent to kill.)
Is it just me, or have people forgotten that being young is ABOUT making stupid mistakes, and parents should just be there to help when need be? At 16, is it really that big a deal if two people saw each other naked? Even if it is a "mistake," I think I put it somewhere on the list around "dropping can of fruit on foot" and "forgetting wallet at home before driving." Humans are sexual creatures. Denying people under 18 the right to express this in any way other than masturbating to a Victoria's Secret/Sports Illustrated/Whatever magazine seems too cruel to me (because if someone 17 sees a Playboy magazine, he might just blow up his school, amirite?).
What we have here is a clear example of a law punishing two teens for being human teens. These laws were passed, supposedly, to prevent some rapist from having his way with a little girl, and posting it for all to see (See my use of pathos there?). Not to arresst teens for being horny. (Here's a protip: I'm guessing before the magical Internet came about, some kids might have even developed their own naked photos and later handed them to someone in PERSON! Or, how about this. Some teens actually get naked in the SAME ROOM! And they might even DO things!)
I don't know. I'm just angry that we, as a people, are being treated this way. Where's the good old fashioned yell, "I'm as mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore?" Where are the judges who take a look at this case, say, "Well, this case is fucking stupid, and so is the law. *gavel* You're free to go, and here's $10,000 from every senator, for making you sit through this bullshit?"
*Sigh*
...Oh wait...
You just don't GET it. Sex is UNNATURAL, EVIL, and masturbation is a GATEWAY to ORAL SEX and even INTERCOURSE!
If God had intended for us to have sex, and to masturbate, He would have given us external sexual organs which are proven to help people feel better and healthier when stimulated on a semi-regular basis. He would have given us the desire to do this ourselves, and we'd have plenty of examples in nature to suggest that around the age of puberty, it is desirable and perfectly normal. But you don't see monkeys masturbating in zoos, just like you don't see 16 year old girls and boys with fully-functioning genitals who instinctively want to use them!
(Joking aside, I have plenty of images on my computer that could technically be called child pornography. Granted, none of minors in these pictures are of non-relatives, not in a situation where nudity might not be acceptable [such as, say, a delivery room, which, last I checked, had plenty of nude kids, and photos taken, but do not somehow get labeled as dens of indecency], or of people who even EXIST [anime ain't real, senators]. But hey, I have pictures of kids on my PC which could, theoretically, inspire someone to rape a child someday. Just like how I could, theoretically, get struck by lightning right now, inside, in sunny weather.)
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
As a gaming and PC enthusiast, albeit one with limited knowledge of PC hardware, would you be so kind as to list the components you found to be so cheap as to make it as good as a 360? I have two computers. My desktop is what I call "Old Faithful." She is a 6+ year old Pentium III, so she's hardly gaming worthy (beyond 6 year old games like No One Lives Forever) but doesn't seem to EVER break down, so I just use her for data storage, Internet browsing, and media viewing. My laptop, on the other hand, is an IBM-T43p I got as a package deal at RPI. I've yet to meet a game she couldn't play, but I do find quite a bit of slowdown in the more graphics heavy games, and often can't run things on the highest settings. (Plus, it's a laptop, which makes controlling it a pain sometimes).
So, if you could share the specs with a humble newbie to PC hardware, I'd be most grateful.
What are you talking about? Last I checked, there was only the Lone Pine Mall... (and there were terrorists there, but they crashed into a photo hut and were arrested)
When I say "Christians" I mean people who self-identify themselves as such. Believe me, if I could define people by their actions and not their stated beliefs, there would be many fewer Christians in America. (So, as an example, "Christian" groups who go on and on and on about the "sinful" nature of, say, gays (since I already brought them up). Let's pretend, for a second, that being gay, for some unknown reason, is a sin. What happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged?" By their own faith, they're supposed to leave the judging up to God.
So, yes. True Christians, in my experience, are rare. People who still call themselves as such, however, are not.
Oh, but I know there is a difference.
For example, in my own experience, someone who has religion is someone who believes in God/a god/whatever. He follows its principles.
A religious freak is someone who says "I believe this, so follow it, too, or burn in Hell."
There are some key ways to tell the difference. For example, no sane religious person would ever seriously use the term "gay agenda." Mr. Thompson has made it very clear that he's anti-gay, and on a number of occasions spoken like gays are out on street corners, handing out pamphlets to try and convert you.
A religious person finds comfort in his own beliefs. A freak finds comforting in condemning those who don't follow his beliefs.
Part of the reason we don't see many truly religious people in the news is because they're being tolerant and quiet. That's not newsworthy. Some jackass marching down Main Street to have minority group/religion/whatever put in death camps, however, will be plastered all over.
So, Thompson is loud, irritable, stubborn, intolerant, and closed minded. Combine this with his often stated "strong faith" and you've got the model religious nut. Believing in God don't make you nuts. But if you are nuts and believe in God, oh, the shit you can try to pull...
To be fair, where else can you get "news?" CNN? MSNBC? FOX?! I think I'd prefer people just get NO news, live in a bubble, and have no opinions at all, than get their news from those places.
Me, I don't get my news from any one place in particular. I do find a lot of links to stories from the AP and the BBC a lot, though.
If I may quote his Wikipedia article:
"In 1992, Thompson asked a Florida judge to declare the Florida Bar Association unconstitutional. He claimed that the bar was engaged in a vendetta against him because of his religious beliefs, which he said conflict with what he called the bar's pro-gay, humanist, liberal agenda."
We may disagree, however, I think this line here pretty much says to me that Mr. Thompson is a huge bigot. He's going for the "persecuted minority" (despite being a Christian, which is hardly the minority) routine. This is incredibly disgusting to me on every level. Is it wrong to wish to see him fact the consequences of his actions?
I admit, we're biased. But we're also human, and we're talking of a man who has personally attacked our character (well, the character of anyone who ever plays games, anyway), our hobbies, and has in general, made himself out to be our enemy, as if he feeds off of animosity. Is it surprising we should take some enjoyment in watching and criticizing his actions, in hopes that they may be his downfall? Sorry if this is a bit of nonsensical rambling, but I see no reason we shouldn't be upset at him.
If you believe that this will help end people blaming other things on their problems, I've got this great Bridge in Brooklyn I'm itching to sell cheap.
...All the same, even though in the long run, it will change little, I can't wait to see this jerkoff finally get what he has coming to him.
But seriously, before video games, it was rap music (in fact, it still sorta is), D&D, comic books, rock and roll, movies... And if you want to go back far enough in history, violence was caused by witches and Jews.
Color me cynical, but as much as I'd love to stop seeing parents blame todays massive surge in teen violence (which, if I may be so bold, would like to point out DOESN'T EXIST. Despite school shootings being all over the news, these are still isolated incidents and overall, youth violence is way, WAY down) on video games, I know it'll only be temporary. Something will ALWAYS be society's scapegoat. In recent years, it's felt like America is easily the worst when it comes to this random blame-game (if simply because I have friends in Europe who point out lawyers don't carry the same negative stigma over the pond, where many of these lawsuits would be laughed out of court), but it's still all over the world. In 2010, gay marriage will be causing all of society's ills. In 2015, it'll be gay divorce. In 2600, it will be people who haven't converted from Christianity to Oprahism, and in 4576, it will be those of us that refuse to welcome our new cockroach overlords.
Wherever people go, the scapegoat will always be right behind.
--What the FUCK?
So, let me get this straight. He sues the Florida Bar Association because he basically says its an evil communist terrorist organization planning to turn everyone gay, and that it's blatantly disregarding the Constitution (Please note: I exaggerate his wording, but either way, it's full of shit) and destroying America.
So he settles for $20,000 out of court. "You're destroying America! Stop it now!" "How about we just give you some money?" "That's fine, too!"
Damn, this guy is the ultimate sleezeball. If you ask me. Jack Thompson is a shining example of everything wrong with America these days (bigoted, sue-happy, uninformed but with LOUD AND STRONG OPINIONS).
"Daddy, daddy! Teacher says everytime a jackass gets a long overdue punishment, an angel gets an orgasm!"
To describe his conduct as "disgusting" is the understatement of the year. Even outside video games, listening to the things he says (neo-conservative religious freak... I don't care where you fall on the political spectrum, that spells "jackass.") makes me sick.
Disbarment is too good for him, but I'll settle for it.
Sounds like the plot of a bad movie. I suppose I should point this out for you: If Terrorists could hide a bomb in ANYTHING, then we'd need police protection 24/7 everywhere, inspecting every god damn thing!
Hey, there's a peanut butter jar sitting next to the bridge supports on Main Street! CALL IN THE BOMB SQUAD! Besides, I fail to see the point in trying to hide a bomb in plain sight when hiding it out of sight, for the most part, lacks the flaw that people can see it, and get curious. (I'm not military tactician, but my guess is the plan of "hiding in plain sight" is only preferable to "hiding OUT of sight" when people know what they're looking for.) In fact, I think you're not even sure what "hiding in plain sight" is. It's not to DRAW attention. It's to DETRACT from it. If thousands of people see some flashing lights all around a city, odds are, SOMEONE is going to inspect them (in fact, I'd think a great DEAL of somebodys would, even putting aside people would question you as you put them UP) You don't think ONE of them would realize they're dangerous?
Hiding in plain sight is, rather, about blending in until NO ONE notices. Camouflage. Disguise. Blending into a crowd.
Keep in mind, at this point in time, we have NO reason to suspect terrorists are going to bomb us. ESPECIALLY a target of such NON-IMPORTANCE. Are we to get so paranoid that every device that looks like a bomb... AND everything that looks suspiciously NOT like a bomb is in actuality... a potential bomb? Sorry, but I'm not going to spend the rest of my life getting paranoid about evil terrorist plots around every corner. (Statistically speaking, I should be more worried about getting hit by lightning... or hey, A CAR.)
So, until the day Al Qaeda members are over here detonating radios in peoples homes, or peanut butter jars on the streets, or hey, cars (though I still seriously doubt they'd aim for such small-fry targets... GASP... UNLESS THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT ME TO THINK!!! OH NOES!!!) I think I'll take my chances, and be glad the police are where I can reach them in case a MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely emergency, like a robbery, assault, murder, etc.
(Remember, people, the key word in terrorist is TERROR. When you're afraid that they're out to kill you and lurk in every shadow... that's what they want you to think!)
Actually, the school analogy isn't really the best. My younger brother, while in Middle School was suspended for a while for allegedly pulling a fire alarm. However, fingerprint analysis showed that the culprit wore gloves, and my brother doesn't own a pair, and he was actually seen on another side of the school at the time. (My brother has caused plenty of problems before, and I'll admit flat out that he can be a troublemaker, but he was clearly innocent here)
Still, we learned the hard way when it comes to suspending someone, a school doesn't even need evidence, just suspicion. Part of "Zero tolerance," I guess.
As for this kid... good for him. In our legal system, one MUST be PROVEN guilty, not proven innocent.
So, RIAA, where is your proof that he committed a crime? Where is your proof that he does not legally own this music? Where is your source for your evidence, and can you prove it was legally obtained?
I don't know whether he's guilty or not, but regardless of that, I'm sick of these trials screwing with the basic principles of our law. Show us some god damn proof a crime even took place, or shut up.
Actually, I wouldn't be demanding their heads on a platter. If I said "the sky is falling! Tomorrow, the moon will crash into the Earth!" and no one did anything... and it really happened... well, who the hell WOULD believe something like that?
Cops are humans, and they're not psychic. I'd rather they DIDN'T go after every strange report they get. I mean, in this case, as someone pointed out, what kind of idiot bomber would make his bombs FLASHING? That should send a signal to the cop's brain that says "This report is highly suspicious. I'd better at least send a nearby cop to look at the scene before I send out the cavalry."
On rare, rare occasions, yes, tragedy might strike when that looney report turns out to be true, but... tragedy happens all the time. And I'd rather the cops be on call to respond to a REAL emergency.