Yes, I am aware of and use gconf. And it helps some, but there's still some bone-headed design decision. My favorite, of course, is how they made it so that cursor blinking is a global setting. It doesn't matter if you use gconf or not, either your cursor blinks everywhere, including the terminal, or it blinks nowhere. That is, neither setting is acceptable.
Yeah. I like how I used to be able to sync my Palm based phone using KPilot. It wasn't great, but it kept my calendar and contact lists synced up with Kalendar and Kontact, which were great applications. Now, for no known reason, KPilot is no longer part of KDE since KDE4 and no other way to sync my Palm device with Kalendar and Kontact. In other words, I could do MORE in KDE 3.5 than I can do in KDE4.x! What a load of crap. Should I be able to do MORE with KDE4?
Sorry, but design decisions, I can get over and work around. If a Friggin Blinky Cursor is your biggest problem, then I'd say you got it pretty good. I lost functionality when I moved to KDE4! There are things that I simply can no longer do. I am stuck using G-Pilot and Evolution, both are Gnome apps. So again, design is simply a matter of making a desktop pretty. Functionality means that I can get stuff done. I can NOT do the things I need to do in KDE without Gnome.
Sorry, I loved KDE 3.x, but KDE4 sux and is completely unusable!
Yes, that's because you can't configure GNOME, and it doesn't do what you need it to do, so you just give up and accept the brown-plated shit that is given to you.
Since we are comparing Gnome to KDE, I have to call a serious BS on that. Since reading your comment, I decided to log off my Gnome desktop and log in using KDE4.1.
First, half of my "notification" icons in the kicker on the bottom are half blue. Before too long, all the icons will be gone completely.
Next, I run a dual monitor setup. My task bar is on the monitor on the left. I tried to drag it like I could in KDE3.5... nothing. I tried to right click on it like I do in Gnome. I got a menu, but "Move" was not an option. Finally, I figured out that I have to click on "Panel Settings", which put another panel on top of the first one, but still no way to move the panel. Finally, I learn through trial and error that the panel can be dragged and dropped, but only when the settings panel is open, and you can only drag the "settings" panel, not the actual panel itself. Oh, and it took three or four tries before I got it right. First it spread all my panel "widgets" all over the screen for no apparent reason. then it just moved the settings panel. The third try just moved the taskbar.... Finally, the panel moved to the right monitor, where I wanted it to begin with. It is listed as the "default" monitor, btw.
Also, there is no way to resize a panel like I could in kde3 and can still do in Gnome. There is no way to stack taskbar items like I could in KDE3 (I had it set to three rows of applications).
So, please, tell me again how KDE4.x is more configurable than Gnome.
...I would also point out that Bush's Crawford Ranch uses a geothermal heat pump.
SHHHHHHHHH! You can't say anything at all good about the president. At least not until after inauguration day!
Seriously, I find it sad that we have an article about geothermal heating and cooling that is used by the private residence of the leader of the free world and it's not mentioned. Seriously, you'd think the article would have brought it up.
Has Bush Derangement Syndrome gotten so bad that saying anything good about Bush is taboo? Or was this a simple, innocent oversight?
I'm straight, and a Christian and I'm all for allowing any consulting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom. My marriage isn't less valid because two men or two women decide to have sex with each other.
Frankly I'm alarmed by the millions of people in this country who want Uncle Sam to regulate what is acceptable in their bedroom.
I think the problem is with the word "marriage". To me and many others, marriage is a religious thing. Since religion has no place in government, I think the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether! I would be perfectly happy getting married by my pastor and having the government recognize my marriage as a "civil union". Civil unions can be between any two people who are willing to share in the responsibility of what we now call marriage.
I feel the government would do well to: 1) Convert all marriages to "civil unions". 2) Revoke the governments recognition of marriage. 3) Allow any two people (or three or four... I don't care) to enter into "civil unions", just as men and women are allowed to do today.
The problem is, as I've been flamed for before, Linux is still nowhere near the point where a non-techie will consider adopting it. Although it's much better than it was even a few years ago, it's still not an idiot-friendly OS where things 'just work', compared to what people are used to
I graduated from the University of Phoenix online using mostly Gentoo Linux. I have to say that it would not have been possible to do so without dual-booting to Windows. First, none of the online help explains how to set up their news group servers manually. I had to set it using the automated install tool in Windows and then copy the settings that it set up from outlook express to Pan.
Next was the fact that not all Windows apps have compatible Linux replacements. For example, we had to use MS Visio for a few of the classes and there is no Linux replacement, nor will Visio run under WINE. Another example would be that we used Access for the SQL class (I know, don't tell me).
Now if all she needed was MS Word, then OpenOffice would have worked for her. I was not so lucky.
From personal experience, Avast! is rubbish. It failed to find 8 viruses on my system.
If you have that many viruses on your system, I think that scrapping the whole thing and buying a new hard drive is the only solution for you....it's the only way to be sure.
The OP said "...download to the computer..." You never download TO anything, except maybe a hard drive or other device to describe where the file was saved, as in "I downloaded it to the flash drive". But even that example is just short for "I downloaded the file FROM the server and saved it to the flash drive". You always download FROM. In this situation, the OP should have said "...UPLOAD to the computer..."
You upload TO. The only exception is if you use a prepositional phrase to describe the original location. An example would be "I uploaded the file from my work server to our customer's server". Still, even in this case, you are still uploading TO.
Don't parents do this, perfectly legitimately too? Are you proposing that we ban all pictures of children in case one might titillate a pedophile?
the point is intent. If I post pictures of my daughter's recital and call it "Little Jenny's First Recital", that's OK. If I call it, "Lickable littles in leotards", then that's a problem.
he potential harm to children, direct or indirect, is the sole tenable justification for banning child pornography. If you support a ban on certain fiction too, you need to couch it in terms of potential harm. (Which you do below.)
Again, it is intent. There are movies that show children being raped (simulated, of course), but it is viewed as a bad thing and it is used to show the pain that such an action causes and the pure evil of the perpetrator. That is fine.
Now I understand the risk of a slippery slope here, but that has been tested. A few years ago, in Michigan (I think), a photo lab manager called the polices to report child porn. She had pictures of a baby in a bathtub, naked. The police came and checked it out and told the lady to get bent. Once it made the news, the photo lab manager was fired for being stupid. Now, even if the police pursued this and pressed charges, and it came before a "hanging judge", the Constitution allows for trial by jury and freedom of the press. Both protect from the slippery slope you are worried about.
Actually, the bans on both types of work are bad for society.
You keep saying this, but you don't explain why. WHY is banning child porn, in any form, bad for society? I have shown why banning child porn is good for society, but you have not shown how child porn is somehow GOOD for society. I understand that freedom benefits society, but too much is a bad thing. Just like laws benefit society, but too much can be bad. Now in this case, the benefit of banning child porn is that it will prevent children from being looked upon as sexual objects. We agree that it is bad to view kids as sexual objects right? Can we also agree that viewing kids as sexual objects is bad for society? We understand the risk that comes with child porn. However, I fail to see any benefit that comes from child porn at all. So, until you can show me how and why society benefits from child porn, and that benefit is greater than the risks involved, you can't tell me that banning it is bad for society.
The other possibility is your premise, fictional crime causes real crime, applies to all crime. In that case, wouldn't it be fair to apply it to all creative works?
Actually, fictional crime, or any other action, desensitizes the view to that act. If Hanna Montana smoked, you bet that thousands of teen girls would start smoking. But like I said before, it is intent. Now we don't need to rehash the porn vs. art argument here, but we're not talking about normal porn. When it involves kids and the creators are trying to skirt the law by making it into a cartoon, I think the art/porn answer is clear.
How many strawmen will you build? Nobody is advocating legalizing real child pornography. What some of us are suggesting is that fake porn, while repulsive, harms nobody and should be allowed. The reason it should be allowed is not that it's a good thing, but that the harm to society in censoring it is far too great.
Can I make myself any clearer? Reasonable people may disagree with my conclusion, but your linking the discussion we're having to NAMBLA reflects a profound misunderstanding of what we're even talking about.
Do you know how NAMBLA is and what their argument is? These are the people that write stories about raping little boys and argue that since no one was hurt, these stories should be perfectly legal. Isn't that your exact argument?
So, you see, I get your point. You think that banning fake child porn is somehow bad for society. So, in your opinion, it's not the child porn that is bad, but the act of creating it. So would you be OK with someone taking pictures of a baby getting its diaper changed and posting them on the web? No child was harmed, so what's the problem? How about if I take video of a 3-yr-old's ballet recital and post them on the web for pedophiles to wack off to? Is that OK? Again, no child was hurt in making it. How about if I go to the mall and take pictures up little girl's skirts as they ride up the escalator? (BTW, that has been deemed illegal as well. No child was harmed, yet for some reason, it is outlawed. I wonder why that is? Do you think we are in some sort of totalitarian state now? Was that "bad for society"?)
The fact remains that child porn is illegal whether a child was harmed in making it or not. It's illegal to post or possess naked pictures of minors, even if they took the pics themselves in front of a mirror! Now, please tell me how banning that is somehow not bad for society but banning cartoon rape pics of children is.
You seem to think that the point is the harm done to the kids in making the porn. No, as I've pointed out, that is not why it is illegal. The reason it is illegal is that at some point, this freak that has been whacking it to cartoons of pre-teens getting raped is at some point going to see a lost child at Walmart or walking to school. There will be a time in his life when he tires of the cartoons and sees the opportunity for the real thing.
So you're prepared to live under an oppressive government for your child's "safety". What else are you prepared to do? Don't keep knives or forks in the house - kids might poke themselves. Don't use electricity - kids might stick things in the outlets. Never go out in public - you never know when the next serial killer will come around the corner. Let's ban churches - that priest never did look right. Oh, and let's not forget to ban cars - more kids are killed and injured by cars than anything else.
Oh, you mean that society should do everything possible to protect children except the things that would personally inconvenience you?
This isn't about the "rights of deviants" (though even convicted criminals have human rights!). It's about the health of society as a whole.
Sorry, but child porn is illegal today. Are you saying that we are living under an "oppressive government"? We have speed limit laws, laws against drunk driving, laws against rape, murder, stealing and so on. Are you saying that any law whatsoever means that we are living under an "oppressive government"?
This isn't about padding your kids with bubble-wrap. This is about child pornography and the sick bastards who enjoy it. You know what child porn is, right? Let me help you out here. It is where children, ages 10 and under are shown getting screwed (literally) or having other obscene sexual acts performed on them, often time violently. We are talking about people who like viewing that sort of thing. This is about keeping these people from feeding and/or living out these fantasies of theirs on real live kids. If you don't see a problem with these people, then maybe you should seek help along with them. If you don't understand why going to you local NAMBLA chapter to find a baby sitter is a bad idea, then maybe you do whatever it takes to make sure that you never have kids and are never near them.
Now, given what I've written above, with the fact that we have laws against having three beers in one hour and driving a riding lawnmower, I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that outlawing child porn, cartoon or otherwise does not suddenly mean that we are living under Big Brother.
Any society has laws. It's not a society without them. So having laws that are designed to protect the innocent and helpless not only makes society healthy, it is the primary purpose of a society. And to imply that making child porn illegal is the same as removing sharp objects from the home is one of the most asinine examples of a strawman I think I've ever heard.
Let me remind you again that child porn is illegal today and it is only an inconvenience to the pedophiles and child pornographers. So to answer your question about what a society should do to protect children... Society mandates that I do lots of stuff to protect my kids and the kids around them. I have to buckle them into car seats (inconvenient), drive the speed limit (inconvenient), get them vaccinated (inconvenient), sign them up for school, make sure they get there and so on and so on and so on. All of these things are much more inconvenient than simply NOT looking at child porn. So when you say, "Oh, you mean that society should do everything possible to protect children except the things that would personally inconvenience you?" You are dead wrong.
And again, you are wrong. When deviants break the law, they lose their rights. Not that it matters in this conversation as CHILD PORN IS NOT A RIGHT!!!
Every public policy has a cost side and a benefit side. The cost of ever more stringent child pornography laws, in terms of both fiscal impact and damage to our society, far outweighs the marginal increase in safety to children.
No it does not. The pedophiles right to download child porn does NOT outweigh my children's right to safety. Never, in any sane society do the rights of deviants outweigh the safety and security of the innocent, children included.
Sorry, but a child's right to NOT have their pooper poked is much more important than YOUR right to view material that the overwhelming majority of the public has deemed should illegal.
Please, go ahead and tell me how the rights of pedophiles are more important than protecting children from being molested.
Sorry, but if the idea of raping children turns you on, then I want you off the streets and securely locked away from my kids.
I understand that parents get pretty scared about this and rightly so, but no one should be locked up because of something that solely exists in their head.
Think "Minority Report". And I know it is over used, but also Thought Crime from "1984".
If someone has a derangement but hasn't actually hurt anyone then [s]he should be helped and not locked up just so you can sleep a little better tonight.
"Thought Crime" is a loaded phrase. No one can ever be arrested or charged for thoughts, but actions can be legislated. In this case, downloading, sharing, possessing and/or viewing child porn would be the crime. It is an action, not a thought.
And using the excuse of "no one was hurt" is bullshit as well. Thousands are arrested, charged and their lives turned into a living hell because they had a few too many drinks and got behind the wheel of a car. Did these people hurt anyone? No. Were they a risk to society? Yep. So if it's legal to arrest people for DWI/DUI even though no one got hurt, then it should be perfectly legal to arrest someone for child porn, whether it contains actual kids or not.
Another reason the "no one was harmed" argument doesn't hold water: Let's say I go to a children's ballet recital and take pictures and share them over the web? How about if I go to a nursery and take pictures of kids getting their diapers changed and share them with the caption of "lickably delicious" or some other sickness? Should that be illegal? You bet! Were kids harmed? Nope.
So, no one actually needs to be harmed for there to be a crime. And it's still not a "thought crime" if an action takes place. In this case, having child porn.
Sorry, but if the idea of raping children turns you on, then I want you off the streets and securely locked away from my kids.
I understand that parents get pretty scared about this and rightly so, but no one should be locked up because of something that solely exists in their head.
Think "Minority Report". And I know it is over used, but also Thought Crime from "1984".
If someone has a derangement but hasn't actually hurt anyone then [s]he should be helped and not locked up just so you can sleep a little better tonight.
Helped and NOT locked up? Close. Let's compromise. How about we take them off the streets and get them help. Not a prison as no one has been hurt (yet), but a facility that will make sure that fantasy never becomes a harsh reality. No criminal record, no sex offender registry... just psychiatric help. That way, we all win (assuming that "help" works in this case. IANAPsychologist, so I don't know if it can be "helped").
No, but the idea of sex with children turns him on. That makes him a dangerous, very potential child predator and someone I don't want near my kids, or anyone else's kids for that matter.
Viewing adult porn is different. Adults can consent or refuse to. However, a child can not legally consent, making any sexual act with a child rape. Sorry, but if the idea of raping children turns you on, then I want you off the streets and securely locked away from my kids. If you are OK with these people being near YOUR kids, then you need to have your kids taken away from you and given to parents with some common sense.
... the energy expenditure of putting the water into the air?
Unless he has a carbon-neutral method of doing that, too...
Duh! Hydro power!
With all the water he's spraying, there is bound to be some run-off. Dam those newly formed streams and rivers up and use the hydro power to power the pumps that will pump the water.
Actually, the Roddenberry from an episode of Futurama that they were looking for when they were starving after leaving the planet of moochers. It was intended as reference to Gene Roddenberry (if I have to tell you who he is, please remove your SlashDot account!)
Also, the title, "The Problem with Popplers" was in reference to "The Trouble with Tribbles", a Star Trek episode.
Or (and this is an honest question) is he the first president to differentiate embryonic stem cell research from other cell research?
Both.
Also, Bush did provide funding for embryonic stem cell research, but not on NEW stem cell lines. The funding is limited to the 16 or so stem cell lines that existed at the time of the executive order.
Stem cells can reproduce endlessly, so there is really no need to produce new lines from embryos. There has been some argument about those lines being tainted, but it should not affect research. Also, there is no BAN on stem cell research from new stem cell lines, but it would have to be privately funded. There are no limits on federal funding for stem cell research coming from adult stem cells, embryonic fluid stem cells, chord blood stem cells or any other stem cell that does not require the destruction of a human embryo.
Finally, it should be noted that absolutely zero medical advances have come from embryonic stem cells. So far, all that embryonic stem cells have done is cause cancer. All of the medical benefits achieved from stem cells have come from adult-derived stem cells.
How gracious of him, to only cripple progress rather than halt it entirely.
This assumption is wide spread, even though it is completely false. Bush is the first president to offer federal funding for any kind of stem cell research. Unfortunately, to this AC and so many like him, to fund something for the first time is to "cripple progress".
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I am aware of and use gconf. And it helps some, but there's still some bone-headed design decision. My favorite, of course, is how they made it so that cursor blinking is a global setting. It doesn't matter if you use gconf or not, either your cursor blinks everywhere, including the terminal, or it blinks nowhere. That is, neither setting is acceptable.
Yeah. I like how I used to be able to sync my Palm based phone using KPilot. It wasn't great, but it kept my calendar and contact lists synced up with Kalendar and Kontact, which were great applications. Now, for no known reason, KPilot is no longer part of KDE since KDE4 and no other way to sync my Palm device with Kalendar and Kontact. In other words, I could do MORE in KDE 3.5 than I can do in KDE4.x! What a load of crap. Should I be able to do MORE with KDE4?
Sorry, but design decisions, I can get over and work around. If a Friggin Blinky Cursor is your biggest problem, then I'd say you got it pretty good. I lost functionality when I moved to KDE4! There are things that I simply can no longer do. I am stuck using G-Pilot and Evolution, both are Gnome apps. So again, design is simply a matter of making a desktop pretty. Functionality means that I can get stuff done. I can NOT do the things I need to do in KDE without Gnome.
Sorry, I loved KDE 3.x, but KDE4 sux and is completely unusable!
Yes, that's because you can't configure GNOME, and it doesn't do what you need it to do, so you just give up and accept the brown-plated shit that is given to you.
Since we are comparing Gnome to KDE, I have to call a serious BS on that. Since reading your comment, I decided to log off my Gnome desktop and log in using KDE4.1.
First, half of my "notification" icons in the kicker on the bottom are half blue. Before too long, all the icons will be gone completely.
Next, I run a dual monitor setup. My task bar is on the monitor on the left. I tried to drag it like I could in KDE3.5... nothing. I tried to right click on it like I do in Gnome. I got a menu, but "Move" was not an option. Finally, I figured out that I have to click on "Panel Settings", which put another panel on top of the first one, but still no way to move the panel. Finally, I learn through trial and error that the panel can be dragged and dropped, but only when the settings panel is open, and you can only drag the "settings" panel, not the actual panel itself. Oh, and it took three or four tries before I got it right. First it spread all my panel "widgets" all over the screen for no apparent reason. then it just moved the settings panel. The third try just moved the taskbar.... Finally, the panel moved to the right monitor, where I wanted it to begin with. It is listed as the "default" monitor, btw.
Also, there is no way to resize a panel like I could in kde3 and can still do in Gnome. There is no way to stack taskbar items like I could in KDE3 (I had it set to three rows of applications).
So, please, tell me again how KDE4.x is more configurable than Gnome.
I'll give you a hint, the last people they invaded was US.
Mexico?
...I would also point out that Bush's Crawford Ranch uses a geothermal heat pump.
SHHHHHHHHH! You can't say anything at all good about the president. At least not until after inauguration day!
Seriously, I find it sad that we have an article about geothermal heating and cooling that is used by the private residence of the leader of the free world and it's not mentioned. Seriously, you'd think the article would have brought it up.
Has Bush Derangement Syndrome gotten so bad that saying anything good about Bush is taboo? Or was this a simple, innocent oversight?
I'm straight, and a Christian and I'm all for allowing any consulting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom. My marriage isn't less valid because two men or two women decide to have sex with each other.
Frankly I'm alarmed by the millions of people in this country who want Uncle Sam to regulate what is acceptable in their bedroom.
I think the problem is with the word "marriage". To me and many others, marriage is a religious thing. Since religion has no place in government, I think the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether! I would be perfectly happy getting married by my pastor and having the government recognize my marriage as a "civil union". Civil unions can be between any two people who are willing to share in the responsibility of what we now call marriage.
I feel the government would do well to:
1) Convert all marriages to "civil unions".
2) Revoke the governments recognition of marriage.
3) Allow any two people (or three or four... I don't care) to enter into "civil unions", just as men and women are allowed to do today.
The problem is, as I've been flamed for before, Linux is still nowhere near the point where a non-techie will consider adopting it. Although it's much better than it was even a few years ago, it's still not an idiot-friendly OS where things 'just work', compared to what people are used to
I graduated from the University of Phoenix online using mostly Gentoo Linux. I have to say that it would not have been possible to do so without dual-booting to Windows. First, none of the online help explains how to set up their news group servers manually. I had to set it using the automated install tool in Windows and then copy the settings that it set up from outlook express to Pan.
Next was the fact that not all Windows apps have compatible Linux replacements. For example, we had to use MS Visio for a few of the classes and there is no Linux replacement, nor will Visio run under WINE. Another example would be that we used Access for the SQL class (I know, don't tell me).
Now if all she needed was MS Word, then OpenOffice would have worked for her. I was not so lucky.
From personal experience, Avast! is rubbish. It failed to find 8 viruses on my system.
If you have that many viruses on your system, I think that scrapping the whole thing and buying a new hard drive is the only solution for you. ...it's the only way to be sure.
Time to quit quitting smoking!
My thoughts exactly... or almost. I was actually thinking:
WooHoo! I DON'T need to quit smoking!
The OP said "...download to the computer..." You never download TO anything, except maybe a hard drive or other device to describe where the file was saved, as in "I downloaded it to the flash drive". But even that example is just short for "I downloaded the file FROM the server and saved it to the flash drive". You always download FROM. In this situation, the OP should have said "...UPLOAD to the computer..."
You upload TO. The only exception is if you use a prepositional phrase to describe the original location. An example would be "I uploaded the file from my work server to our customer's server". Still, even in this case, you are still uploading TO.
So, it's:
download FROM
upload TO
(with few exceptions)
Well, that's how I understand it anyway.
If this is not a joke, it's got to be one of the saddest things I've ever heard.
Unless a woman gets one of these and after lugging it around for a while realizes that she hates being a mother.
or...
She leaves one at the park, backs over it with the car or some other stupid "bad parent" move, saving a real child from that fate.
Don't parents do this, perfectly legitimately too? Are you proposing that we ban all pictures of children in case one might titillate a pedophile?
the point is intent. If I post pictures of my daughter's recital and call it "Little Jenny's First Recital", that's OK. If I call it, "Lickable littles in leotards", then that's a problem.
he potential harm to children, direct or indirect, is the sole tenable justification for banning child pornography. If you support a ban on certain fiction too, you need to couch it in terms of potential harm. (Which you do below.)
Again, it is intent. There are movies that show children being raped (simulated, of course), but it is viewed as a bad thing and it is used to show the pain that such an action causes and the pure evil of the perpetrator. That is fine.
Now I understand the risk of a slippery slope here, but that has been tested. A few years ago, in Michigan (I think), a photo lab manager called the polices to report child porn. She had pictures of a baby in a bathtub, naked. The police came and checked it out and told the lady to get bent. Once it made the news, the photo lab manager was fired for being stupid. Now, even if the police pursued this and pressed charges, and it came before a "hanging judge", the Constitution allows for trial by jury and freedom of the press. Both protect from the slippery slope you are worried about.
Actually, the bans on both types of work are bad for society.
You keep saying this, but you don't explain why. WHY is banning child porn, in any form, bad for society? I have shown why banning child porn is good for society, but you have not shown how child porn is somehow GOOD for society. I understand that freedom benefits society, but too much is a bad thing. Just like laws benefit society, but too much can be bad. Now in this case, the benefit of banning child porn is that it will prevent children from being looked upon as sexual objects. We agree that it is bad to view kids as sexual objects right? Can we also agree that viewing kids as sexual objects is bad for society? We understand the risk that comes with child porn. However, I fail to see any benefit that comes from child porn at all. So, until you can show me how and why society benefits from child porn, and that benefit is greater than the risks involved, you can't tell me that banning it is bad for society.
The other possibility is your premise, fictional crime causes real crime, applies to all crime. In that case, wouldn't it be fair to apply it to all creative works?
Actually, fictional crime, or any other action, desensitizes the view to that act. If Hanna Montana smoked, you bet that thousands of teen girls would start smoking. But like I said before, it is intent. Now we don't need to rehash the porn vs. art argument here, but we're not talking about normal porn. When it involves kids and the creators are trying to skirt the law by making it into a cartoon, I think the art/porn answer is clear.
How many strawmen will you build? Nobody is advocating legalizing real child pornography. What some of us are suggesting is that fake porn, while repulsive, harms nobody and should be allowed. The reason it should be allowed is not that it's a good thing, but that the harm to society in censoring it is far too great.
Can I make myself any clearer? Reasonable people may disagree with my conclusion, but your linking the discussion we're having to NAMBLA reflects a profound misunderstanding of what we're even talking about.
Do you know how NAMBLA is and what their argument is? These are the people that write stories about raping little boys and argue that since no one was hurt, these stories should be perfectly legal. Isn't that your exact argument?
So, you see, I get your point. You think that banning fake child porn is somehow bad for society. So, in your opinion, it's not the child porn that is bad, but the act of creating it. So would you be OK with someone taking pictures of a baby getting its diaper changed and posting them on the web? No child was harmed, so what's the problem? How about if I take video of a 3-yr-old's ballet recital and post them on the web for pedophiles to wack off to? Is that OK? Again, no child was hurt in making it. How about if I go to the mall and take pictures up little girl's skirts as they ride up the escalator? (BTW, that has been deemed illegal as well. No child was harmed, yet for some reason, it is outlawed. I wonder why that is? Do you think we are in some sort of totalitarian state now? Was that "bad for society"?)
The fact remains that child porn is illegal whether a child was harmed in making it or not. It's illegal to post or possess naked pictures of minors, even if they took the pics themselves in front of a mirror! Now, please tell me how banning that is somehow not bad for society but banning cartoon rape pics of children is.
You seem to think that the point is the harm done to the kids in making the porn. No, as I've pointed out, that is not why it is illegal. The reason it is illegal is that at some point, this freak that has been whacking it to cartoons of pre-teens getting raped is at some point going to see a lost child at Walmart or walking to school. There will be a time in his life when he tires of the cartoons and sees the opportunity for the real thing.
So you're prepared to live under an oppressive government for your child's "safety". What else are you prepared to do? Don't keep knives or forks in the house - kids might poke themselves. Don't use electricity - kids might stick things in the outlets. Never go out in public - you never know when the next serial killer will come around the corner. Let's ban churches - that priest never did look right. Oh, and let's not forget to ban cars - more kids are killed and injured by cars than anything else.
Oh, you mean that society should do everything possible to protect children except the things that would personally inconvenience you?
This isn't about the "rights of deviants" (though even convicted criminals have human rights!). It's about the health of society as a whole.
Sorry, but child porn is illegal today. Are you saying that we are living under an "oppressive government"? We have speed limit laws, laws against drunk driving, laws against rape, murder, stealing and so on. Are you saying that any law whatsoever means that we are living under an "oppressive government"?
This isn't about padding your kids with bubble-wrap. This is about child pornography and the sick bastards who enjoy it. You know what child porn is, right? Let me help you out here. It is where children, ages 10 and under are shown getting screwed (literally) or having other obscene sexual acts performed on them, often time violently. We are talking about people who like viewing that sort of thing. This is about keeping these people from feeding and/or living out these fantasies of theirs on real live kids. If you don't see a problem with these people, then maybe you should seek help along with them. If you don't understand why going to you local NAMBLA chapter to find a baby sitter is a bad idea, then maybe you do whatever it takes to make sure that you never have kids and are never near them.
Now, given what I've written above, with the fact that we have laws against having three beers in one hour and driving a riding lawnmower, I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that outlawing child porn, cartoon or otherwise does not suddenly mean that we are living under Big Brother.
Any society has laws. It's not a society without them. So having laws that are designed to protect the innocent and helpless not only makes society healthy, it is the primary purpose of a society. And to imply that making child porn illegal is the same as removing sharp objects from the home is one of the most asinine examples of a strawman I think I've ever heard.
Let me remind you again that child porn is illegal today and it is only an inconvenience to the pedophiles and child pornographers. So to answer your question about what a society should do to protect children... Society mandates that I do lots of stuff to protect my kids and the kids around them. I have to buckle them into car seats (inconvenient), drive the speed limit (inconvenient), get them vaccinated (inconvenient), sign them up for school, make sure they get there and so on and so on and so on. All of these things are much more inconvenient than simply NOT looking at child porn. So when you say, "Oh, you mean that society should do everything possible to protect children except the things that would personally inconvenience you?" You are dead wrong.
And again, you are wrong. When deviants break the law, they lose their rights. Not that it matters in this conversation as CHILD PORN IS NOT A RIGHT!!!
Every public policy has a cost side and a benefit side. The cost of ever more stringent child pornography laws, in terms of both fiscal impact and damage to our society, far outweighs the marginal increase in safety to children.
No it does not. The pedophiles right to download child porn does NOT outweigh my children's right to safety. Never, in any sane society do the rights of deviants outweigh the safety and security of the innocent, children included.
Sorry, but a child's right to NOT have their pooper poked is much more important than YOUR right to view material that the overwhelming majority of the public has deemed should illegal.
Please, go ahead and tell me how the rights of pedophiles are more important than protecting children from being molested.
Sorry, but if the idea of raping children turns you on, then I want you off the streets and securely locked away from my kids.
I understand that parents get pretty scared about this and rightly so, but no one should be locked up because of something that solely exists in their head.
Think "Minority Report". And I know it is over used, but also Thought Crime from "1984".
If someone has a derangement but hasn't actually hurt anyone then [s]he should be helped and not locked up just so you can sleep a little better tonight.
"Thought Crime" is a loaded phrase. No one can ever be arrested or charged for thoughts, but actions can be legislated. In this case, downloading, sharing, possessing and/or viewing child porn would be the crime. It is an action, not a thought.
And using the excuse of "no one was hurt" is bullshit as well. Thousands are arrested, charged and their lives turned into a living hell because they had a few too many drinks and got behind the wheel of a car. Did these people hurt anyone? No. Were they a risk to society? Yep. So if it's legal to arrest people for DWI/DUI even though no one got hurt, then it should be perfectly legal to arrest someone for child porn, whether it contains actual kids or not.
Another reason the "no one was harmed" argument doesn't hold water: Let's say I go to a children's ballet recital and take pictures and share them over the web? How about if I go to a nursery and take pictures of kids getting their diapers changed and share them with the caption of "lickably delicious" or some other sickness? Should that be illegal? You bet! Were kids harmed? Nope.
So, no one actually needs to be harmed for there to be a crime. And it's still not a "thought crime" if an action takes place. In this case, having child porn.
Sorry, but if the idea of raping children turns you on, then I want you off the streets and securely locked away from my kids.
I understand that parents get pretty scared about this and rightly so, but no one should be locked up because of something that solely exists in their head.
Think "Minority Report". And I know it is over used, but also Thought Crime from "1984".
If someone has a derangement but hasn't actually hurt anyone then [s]he should be helped and not locked up just so you can sleep a little better tonight.
Helped and NOT locked up? Close. Let's compromise. How about we take them off the streets and get them help. Not a prison as no one has been hurt (yet), but a facility that will make sure that fantasy never becomes a harsh reality. No criminal record, no sex offender registry... just psychiatric help. That way, we all win (assuming that "help" works in this case. IANAPsychologist, so I don't know if it can be "helped").
He is not a child predator.
No, but the idea of sex with children turns him on. That makes him a dangerous, very potential child predator and someone I don't want near my kids, or anyone else's kids for that matter.
Viewing adult porn is different. Adults can consent or refuse to. However, a child can not legally consent, making any sexual act with a child rape. Sorry, but if the idea of raping children turns you on, then I want you off the streets and securely locked away from my kids. If you are OK with these people being near YOUR kids, then you need to have your kids taken away from you and given to parents with some common sense.
... the energy expenditure of putting the water into the air?
Unless he has a carbon-neutral method of doing that, too...
Duh! Hydro power!
With all the water he's spraying, there is bound to be some run-off. Dam those newly formed streams and rivers up and use the hydro power to power the pumps that will pump the water.
Isn't that one of the syrup flavors at IHOP?
Sheldon
Actually, the Roddenberry from an episode of Futurama that they were looking for when they were starving after leaving the planet of moochers. It was intended as reference to Gene Roddenberry (if I have to tell you who he is, please remove your SlashDot account!)
Also, the title, "The Problem with Popplers" was in reference to "The Trouble with Tribbles", a Star Trek episode.
A Kirk/Spock comparision would have been more appropiate
Actually, a Spock/Bones comparison would have been better.
I agree. Too bad they can't turn over the show to HBO or Showtime and have them do it right.
I agree. I tried to get my wife interested in the show, but after the third or fourth "Frak You!", she said, "That's it, I'm out."
This image reminds me a hat a buddy of mine had when we were in the Army:
A cat almost always closes its eyes when hit in the head with a ball ping hammer.
When anyone commented on his hat, he would just reply with almost always.
Given the boyfriends my ex has been through in the past couple of years, I think nobody might be a bit strong.
I did your ex you insensitive clod!
Once I shaved her back, she wasn't too bad.
Or (and this is an honest question) is he the first president to differentiate embryonic stem cell research from other cell research?
Both.
Also, Bush did provide funding for embryonic stem cell research, but not on NEW stem cell lines. The funding is limited to the 16 or so stem cell lines that existed at the time of the executive order.
Stem cells can reproduce endlessly, so there is really no need to produce new lines from embryos. There has been some argument about those lines being tainted, but it should not affect research. Also, there is no BAN on stem cell research from new stem cell lines, but it would have to be privately funded. There are no limits on federal funding for stem cell research coming from adult stem cells, embryonic fluid stem cells, chord blood stem cells or any other stem cell that does not require the destruction of a human embryo.
Finally, it should be noted that absolutely zero medical advances have come from embryonic stem cells. So far, all that embryonic stem cells have done is cause cancer. All of the medical benefits achieved from stem cells have come from adult-derived stem cells.
How gracious of him, to only cripple progress rather than halt it entirely.
This assumption is wide spread, even though it is completely false. Bush is the first president to offer federal funding for any kind of stem cell research. Unfortunately, to this AC and so many like him, to fund something for the first time is to "cripple progress".