Oh, so if I get married to a 50 year old woman, it's OK with you if I rape a 9 year old? I guess it all averages out or something?
Nope. But it does indicate that it is bigotry in search of a justification that drives the mohammed was a pedo meme.
As for the direct issue of Aisha's age, the bigots have chosen numbers that fit their narative. It's not anywhere near so obvious as they make it out to be, with plenty of evidence that she was well into her teens.
The crusades were about land grabs and power over other regions, and of course about the loot.
Woooooooosh! One of the biggest I've seen on slashdot in fact.
The islamic radicals to some degree also want to see expansion, but it's far more about simple punishment of infidels than the crusades were - and not at all about looting. In that way the motive is far more purely religious.
Name one state run by "islamic radicals" that has gone to war in the last 20 years.
Are you sure about that? He married an 8-year old for political reasons, but stayed married to her long after she reached maturity. If he was a pedophile, would he not have ditched her for another child instead?
His first wife was 15 years his senior too. What's funny is that the bigots just incorporate that into their narrative, saying that he was a total deviant because he must have had thing for cougars too.
If you quote the Quoran, can it still be called hate speech?
If you selectively quote it to misrepresent what it means, then yes. Ironically, that is exactly what both the jihadi nutjobs and the religious bigots do - often agreeing on the same hateful misrepresentations because in both cases it furthers their symbiotic causes.
BTW, none of Mohammed's wives are mentioned in the quran. Including Aisha, the wife that the bigots always mean when they call him a pedo. So the question is moot anyway.
in order to rationalize the desertification of the intellectual commons.
Hey! Deserts are important ecosystems too, without the sahara there would be no amazon. Kind of like how Apple must kill Android so that the Amazon Kindle can thrive, or something like that...
which countries, on this planet, are not currently being tapped by their governments?
How is your question remotely relevant? You appare to be making the same kind of argument that Newt Gingrich did when he said we shouldn't permit the building of the "911 mosque" until Saudia Arabia permits christian churchs in their country.
In other words, you are saying that we should be judged in comparison to the worst countries out there rather than how well we live up to our own expectations for ourselves.
the odds are very low that people will resist the temptation to spy. it seems to be in our nature and it surely seems to be in the nature of those that aspire to country and state leadership roles.
That does not mean we should accept it. The people to which we entrust the reigns of power must be held to the highest possible standard. Abuse under the cloak of authority has been with us since the first human civilization -- the great thing about modern civilizations is that we have laws to punish that abuse. Now is not the time to go roll back modern life to a pre-magna carta standing..
Plugging it in is no bigger a deal than laying it on a charging pad.
I bought one of those firesale HP touchpads. They have wireless charging with a special stand and it is the single best feature of the device. Plugging in to charge sucks - there is wear-and-tear on the mini-usb port, the fiddling to get everything lined up requires good lighting and too much time. With the wireless charging stand, it is dead simple - just put it on the stand, listen for the "bonk" sound the OS makes when charging starts and everything just works. It is so much more convenient that wireless charging is now mandatory for any of my future phone and tablet purchases.
Jeez. Pardon the hell out of me. It was "in my state" rather than "in this state". I am all fucking corrected now.
You are so all over the map that you don't even remember why you brought it up on the first place do you?
I get the impression you would not have liked anything I wrote.
I would love to have heard the one thing that would have made a difference - a reason to believe what you claimed. All this back and forth has been because you refuse to put together a supported argument.
You brought all kinds of personal baggage into it, but the one thing you couldn't make the effort for was to produce proof to support your claims.
BTW, what you originally wrote was "in most US states would be illegal" - if that were true you should be able to provide a citation to the law in another one of those 26+ mythical states. Since all you do is hide behind claims of being cyberstalked it seems pretty obvious that you are wrong, that you know you are wrong and that you are desperate to flim-flam your way out of admitting you are wrong.
You didn't even get what I meant by that, did you? Sheesh.
You meant that "it is water under the bridge" but you thought you would be clever and mimic my earlier statement. The thing is, you don't seem to understand that what I wrote was a standard form of insult that only works when you quote something already written once before. Since you did not actually use the words "water under the bridge" before that (nor, as far as I can tell, even the concept), your mimicry just became a display of your ignorance.
No, you did not. Is there some other place you wrote that in this thread? Because I sure didn't see it until you volunteered as a way to avoid actually providing a citation.
What part of "water under the bridge" do YOU not understand?
I dunno, the part where you never actually wrote "water under the bridge" until just now.
And you can just fuck off, asshole.
Yeah, whatever. You are clearly delusional -- unable to support your position with anything more than wishes.
You may think I am being paranoid, but you try being a woman who speaks up, in this kind of forum
What part of, "You did not have to tell me you live in the state" do you fail to understand?
You are particularly pathetic in trying to frame this as some sort of personal safety issue. If you really gave a damn about your safety you would never have even considered mentioning that you live in this mythical state to begin with.
You have utterly ruined your credibility in this debate with such transparently disingenuous claims.
In my state -- I'm not going to tell you which one it is because I don't discuss my location on Slashdot
You are lying. Out right lying. How do I know? You did not have to tell me you live in the state, all you had to do was cite the state's laws. You made up a barrier to justify failing to provide testable proof for your claims. You could not be more disingenuous.
But from there, to figure out who I was talking to on Skype, or what video I was watching, requires more sophisticated knowledge and equipment.
Anything can be automated in software. I think that automating focus, white-balance, exposure, etc is at least as complicated as parsing skype packets.
That's a very good analogy. Because in order to intercept someone's wifi communications, you need the technical knowledge and equipment, and to make a deliberate effort to do so. And you call that "public".
Equipment and knowledge no more sophisticated than required for pointing a camera at an open window and pressing the "record" button.
...because listening to unencrypted cellphones is illegal.
IIRC that is because the cell phone companies lobbied for that to explicitly be in the ECPA (electronic communications privacy act) - they didnt want to implement encryption for costs reasons so they got guys like Newt Gingrich to create a legal fiction of encryption "for free" instead. I believe that bit Newt in the ass a few years later when someone illegally recorded some of his embarassing cell phone conversations and anonymously sent them to some news outlets.
You are posting AC, so I think it is fair to assume you haven't paid for a slashdot subscription. That makes you a freetard. So, you first - let's see you fuck yourself!
I don't know what the percentages are but I would say gutting is done more often.
I wish we would get some actual investigative journalism on Bain's record. All I've heard so far are one-off cases cherry-picked to support the advocacy position that the particular cherry-picker wants to make. I'd like to a see a comprehensively researched table listing every company Bain took over and the various results of the time before, during and after Bain's involvement.
Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government.
A normal person who was watched by "the same public" as closely as these systems can would quickly feel like he was being stalked and harassed. Going out in public does not mean you give consent to be stalked and have the time and date of your location constantly recorded in a permanent database.
It is completely acceptable and good for them to use this legally obtained data in an automated recongnition system. Yes there needs to be checks and balances but the problem doesn lie in the source of the images.
It absolutely does lie in the source of the images you gloss over all the nuance by saying "legally obtained" - when in fact what matters most is WHY it was legally obtained. Being photographed for a driver's license is a far different thing than being photographed for a system that can be used to identify someone who isn't even in a car, much less driving.
The sentence right before your quote starts is "If've you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own."
The way I see it there are two ways to take it:
1) The context means nothing and Obama really was saying y'all are nothing. 2) The context means everything and Obama was attacking the strawman that republicans believe businesses are fully independent of the environment they exist in.
I think it is a lot more reasonable to believe a politician would attack a strawman in a political speech than he would validate the strawman argument of his opponents.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so if I get married to a 50 year old woman, it's OK with you if I rape a 9 year old? I guess it all averages out or something?
Nope. But it does indicate that it is bigotry in search of a justification that drives the mohammed was a pedo meme.
As for the direct issue of Aisha's age, the bigots have chosen numbers that fit their narative. It's not anywhere near so obvious as they make it out to be, with plenty of evidence that she was well into her teens.
The crusades were about land grabs and power over other regions, and of course about the loot.
Woooooooosh! One of the biggest I've seen on slashdot in fact.
The islamic radicals to some degree also want to see expansion, but it's far more about simple punishment of infidels than the crusades were - and not at all about looting. In that way the motive is far more purely religious.
Name one state run by "islamic radicals" that has gone to war in the last 20 years.
They are the only ones that go to war without provocation beyond the other side simply existing, yes.
Lol. And the crusades were all about religion too.
What a childlike view of the world you have, it must actually be pretty nice.
Yes, because all religions incite violence when confronted with a cartoon, a book, a burned page, an editorial, or as in this case, bad acting.
Martin Scorsee would agree with you.
Are you sure about that? He married an 8-year old for political reasons, but stayed married to her long after she reached maturity. If he was a pedophile, would he not have ditched her for another child instead?
His first wife was 15 years his senior too. What's funny is that the bigots just incorporate that into their narrative, saying that he was a total deviant because he must have had thing for cougars too.
If you quote the Quoran, can it still be called hate speech?
If you selectively quote it to misrepresent what it means, then yes.
Ironically, that is exactly what both the jihadi nutjobs and the religious bigots do - often agreeing on the same hateful misrepresentations because in both cases it furthers their symbiotic causes.
BTW, none of Mohammed's wives are mentioned in the quran. Including Aisha, the wife that the bigots always mean when they call him a pedo. So the question is moot anyway.
Meanwhile with Muslims you have whole nations rising in anger, wars being fought with hundreds of thousands dead.
Right, because only keerazy mooslims go to war.
To claim the two equivalent in any way is sickening.
Seems like you are the only one doing that here.
in order to rationalize the desertification of the intellectual commons.
Hey! Deserts are important ecosystems too, without the sahara there would be no amazon.
Kind of like how Apple must kill Android so that the Amazon Kindle can thrive, or something like that...
Reduced friction and reduced turbulence might enable higher seek times.
By higher I meant better, which in the case of seek times is of course lower.
That's what she said.
It is weird that you conflate abuse of authority with juvenile misdemeanors and sexual infidility.
which countries, on this planet, are not currently being tapped by their governments?
How is your question remotely relevant? You appare to be making the same kind of argument that Newt Gingrich did when he said we shouldn't permit the building of the "911 mosque" until Saudia Arabia permits christian churchs in their country.
In other words, you are saying that we should be judged in comparison to the worst countries out there rather than how well we live up to our own expectations for ourselves.
the odds are very low that people will resist the temptation to spy. it seems to be in our nature and it surely seems to be in the nature of those that aspire to country and state leadership roles.
That does not mean we should accept it. The people to which we entrust the reigns of power must be held to the highest possible standard. Abuse under the cloak of authority has been with us since the first human civilization -- the great thing about modern civilizations is that we have laws to punish that abuse. Now is not the time to go roll back modern life to a pre-magna carta standing..
Plugging it in is no bigger a deal than laying it on a charging pad.
I bought one of those firesale HP touchpads. They have wireless charging with a special stand and it is the single best feature of the device. Plugging in to charge sucks - there is wear-and-tear on the mini-usb port, the fiddling to get everything lined up requires good lighting and too much time. With the wireless charging stand, it is dead simple - just put it on the stand, listen for the "bonk" sound the OS makes when charging starts and everything just works. It is so much more convenient that wireless charging is now mandatory for any of my future phone and tablet purchases.
Jeez. Pardon the hell out of me. It was "in my state" rather than "in this state". I am all fucking corrected now.
You are so all over the map that you don't even remember why you brought it up on the first place do you?
I get the impression you would not have liked anything I wrote.
I would love to have heard the one thing that would have made a difference - a reason to believe what you claimed. All this back and forth has been because you refuse to put together a supported argument.
You brought all kinds of personal baggage into it, but the one thing you couldn't make the effort for was to produce proof to support your claims.
Are you thick-headed? I was referring to my very first statement: "In this state."
Your very first statement, where? Link to it. Because the only time I saw you say it was, "In my state -- I'm not going to tell you which one it is, because I don't discuss my location on Slashdot" i.e. as part of the very same sentence trying to excuse yourself from providing a citation.
BTW, what you originally wrote was "in most US states would be illegal" - if that were true you should be able to provide a citation to the law in another one of those 26+ mythical states. Since all you do is hide behind claims of being cyberstalked it seems pretty obvious that you are wrong, that you know you are wrong and that you are desperate to flim-flam your way out of admitting you are wrong.
You didn't even get what I meant by that, did you? Sheesh.
You meant that "it is water under the bridge" but you thought you would be clever and mimic my earlier statement. The thing is, you don't seem to understand that what I wrote was a standard form of insult that only works when you quote something already written once before. Since you did not actually use the words "water under the bridge" before that (nor, as far as I can tell, even the concept), your mimicry just became a display of your ignorance.
Hahahaha! I had already told you it was my state.
No, you did not. Is there some other place you wrote that in this thread? Because I sure didn't see it until you volunteered as a way to avoid actually providing a citation.
What part of "water under the bridge" do YOU not understand?
I dunno, the part where you never actually wrote "water under the bridge" until just now.
And you can just fuck off, asshole.
Yeah, whatever. You are clearly delusional -- unable to support your position with anything more than wishes.
You may think I am being paranoid, but you try being a woman who speaks up, in this kind of forum
What part of, "You did not have to tell me you live in the state" do you fail to understand?
You are particularly pathetic in trying to frame this as some sort of personal safety issue. If you really gave a damn about your safety you would never have even considered mentioning that you live in this mythical state to begin with.
You have utterly ruined your credibility in this debate with such transparently disingenuous claims.
In my state -- I'm not going to tell you which one it is because I don't discuss my location on Slashdot
You are lying. Out right lying. How do I know? You did not have to tell me you live in the state, all you had to do was cite the state's laws. You made up a barrier to justify failing to provide testable proof for your claims. You could not be more disingenuous.
Which in most U.S. states would be illegal, which is kind of the point here.
Citation required. Here's mine:
if you leave your drapes open, you shouldn't expect that no one will look in. You have no legal expectation in this case. Neither do you have an expectation that you won't be filmed -- if the person filming is standing where it's legal for her to stand, such as on the street or sidewalk.
But from there, to figure out who I was talking to on Skype, or what video I was watching, requires more sophisticated knowledge and equipment.
Anything can be automated in software. I think that automating focus, white-balance, exposure, etc is at least as complicated as parsing skype packets.
That's a very good analogy. Because in order to intercept someone's wifi communications, you need the technical knowledge and equipment, and to make a deliberate effort to do so. And you call that "public".
Equipment and knowledge no more sophisticated than required for pointing a camera at an open window and pressing the "record" button.
...because listening to unencrypted cellphones is illegal.
IIRC that is because the cell phone companies lobbied for that to explicitly be in the ECPA (electronic communications privacy act) - they didnt want to implement encryption for costs reasons so they got guys like Newt Gingrich to create a legal fiction of encryption "for free" instead. I believe that bit Newt in the ass a few years later when someone illegally recorded some of his embarassing cell phone conversations and anonymously sent them to some news outlets.
I hope Internet Brands wins. Fuck the freetards.
You are posting AC, so I think it is fair to assume you haven't paid for a slashdot subscription.
That makes you a freetard. So, you first - let's see you fuck yourself!
I don't know what the percentages are but I would say gutting is done more often.
I wish we would get some actual investigative journalism on Bain's record. All I've heard so far are one-off cases cherry-picked to support the advocacy position that the particular cherry-picker wants to make. I'd like to a see a comprehensively researched table listing every company Bain took over and the various results of the time before, during and after Bain's involvement.
Now I for one do not have a problem with them using public surveillance or Driver's License ID's. If you go out in Public, you consent to being watched by the same public and by extension, the Government.
A normal person who was watched by "the same public" as closely as these systems can would quickly feel like he was being stalked and harassed. Going out in public does not mean you give consent to be stalked and have the time and date of your location constantly recorded in a permanent database.
It is completely acceptable and good for them to use this legally obtained data in an automated recongnition system. Yes there needs to be checks and balances but the problem doesn lie in the source of the images.
It absolutely does lie in the source of the images you gloss over all the nuance by saying "legally obtained" - when in fact what matters most is WHY it was legally obtained. Being photographed for a driver's license is a far different thing than being photographed for a system that can be used to identify someone who isn't even in a car, much less driving.
Oh come on, another out of context quote?
The sentence right before your quote starts is "If've you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own."
The way I see it there are two ways to take it:
1) The context means nothing and Obama really was saying y'all are nothing.
2) The context means everything and Obama was attacking the strawman that republicans believe businesses are fully independent of the environment they exist in.
I think it is a lot more reasonable to believe a politician would attack a strawman in a political speech than he would validate the strawman argument of his opponents.
Are you saying the mac doesn't just dupe the top menu across all monitors? Seems like the obvious thing to do.