Books used to be so expensive that only wealthy families could afford them because the role of scribe, often played by a monk, was a time consuming role to take. Then Guttenburg fucked that up and here we are now. Those poor scribes. How will they make a living? I think we need to outlaw all forms of mass-copying.
There's an effect here similar to the way centralized and decentralized systems work. A star topology only scales so well. Eventually the beast gets too big to have a head.
But Letterman has TERRIBLE writers and that joke was actually funny. I mean, have you ever actually WATCHED Letterman? Old people must think non-funny things are funny. It's the only explanation.
Maturity is not to understanding as intellect is to understanding. Maturity and intellect are vastly different things. I'm going to call your bullshit and note that appropriate education regarding the subject will do FAR more than "maturing".
The sex offender registry should constitute as cruel and unusual punishment. It's nothing more than the Scarlet A of pedophiles. Perhaps the tool should be diluted and made less effective because it's a violation of Human rights?
So, you're saying I should adapt and manipulate all of my speech to suit the insecurities of everyone? That's too difficult. How about people not being offended by words/images, which possess no meaning by themselves, and rather be offended by the fact that someone had actually meant to offend.
But, back to my original point. Something that CAN be inferred as racist is not automatically racist. Even if the majority of population were to find it racist, that does not make the item in and of itself racist. That is loaded into the intention part of the encoding. Of course, it's lost in translation and the only person who could ever truly know what the message was meant to say will be the person who transmitted it. You can ask for clarity later, but it's lost in the original message. Everything that you grasp when you consume a message is inferred. Would you like to argue otherwise?
The one who is offended also was the one who inferred. As the control of the process is left entirely within the interpreter, the interpreter has exclusive power to give something racist tones or not.
Or simply, you and everyone else are offended by things simply because you allow yourself to be offended. What culture taught you growing up doesn't matter. We only feel offended because we feel as if we are meant to be offended. I doubt you'd think "nigger" was offensive if no one told you it was supposed to be. I sure as Hell had to be taught it.
What I'm saying is basic communicational understanding. When creating a message, there is an encoding process by which one fits their intentions into a message. But the message is still just a message and nothing more than a message. Then there's the decoding. You can do that however you want. I could say something that most people would infer as being racist without realizing or intending it to be such because language is funny like that. Does that make what I said racist?
And you're purposefully ignoring the fact that by drawing lines between us you're only serving to strengthen racism as a pervasive concept in culture. The PROPER and LEAST racist thing to do would be to realize that it doesn't matter at ALL and to stop making a damn big deal of it. Oh no, someone happened to create a picture that can be perceived as being racist.
To clarify, it seems that because it can be interpreted as racist, many people seem to want to interpret it that way. As an example, if I were to show you a swastika, it's likely that you'd associate it with Nazism despite having a perfectly legitimate use for thousands of years prior to the Nazi movement. Is this to say that a swastika is automatically a Nazi symbol due to common interpretation? No. Is a humorous picture relating Michelle Obama to a monkey automatically racist? No. While there may be an intent created by the author with this image, the intent is lost and the picture is nothing more than a picture left to be interpreted by anyone as they deem fit. In short, to assume racism of something that could be deemed racist without necessarily being so would only be fueling the racist tendencies that people have.
Man, you and a ton of others needs to learn the difference between moral law and civil law and how the two correlate and interact. To say that legalizing possession of child pornography (certainly not the creation thereof) legitimizes child abuses is quite a baseless argument. You seem to completely ignore the primary debate on this. Here's the other side of the fence for you, easier access to child pornography can allow an outlet for those with pedophilia and make the urges easier to cope with on a social level. Though, I can't help but agree that the penalties for child abuse might need to be raised. Of course, with any jail time, they'll surely get their punishment should anyone else find out about their crime.
Your idea of harm and the surrounding concepts seem to leave a significant amount to be desired. While for one there is direct harm caused, is it justifiable to cause the indirect harm associated with having a death penalty? Not supporting kiddy diddling or anything. I just hate something about the way you put words and thoughts together.
I can't help but agree with you more on this. My only problem with getting Skype to work is getting it to find my microphone. Yet, I can't seem to do that. Hopefully this FOSS stuff will, indeed, fix the problem.
It's more along the lines of the fact that to have faith is to denounce reason. Not to say that they feel reason suffers from inherent fallacies. Merely that it doesn't play a role in their belief system. Otherwise it wouldn't be faith. Now would it?
Slashdot Mirror
Books used to be so expensive that only wealthy families could afford them because the role of scribe, often played by a monk, was a time consuming role to take. Then Guttenburg fucked that up and here we are now. Those poor scribes. How will they make a living? I think we need to outlaw all forms of mass-copying.
It's difficult to expect particular organizations to make intelligent and well-thought-out decisions.
Stop telling me how to live my life! If I want to tell others how to live their lives, that's MY choice.
There's an effect here similar to the way centralized and decentralized systems work. A star topology only scales so well. Eventually the beast gets too big to have a head.
Hey, even the rocket scientists sometimes mess that up. 1 million dollar NASA failure, anyone?
But Letterman has TERRIBLE writers and that joke was actually funny. I mean, have you ever actually WATCHED Letterman? Old people must think non-funny things are funny. It's the only explanation.
I'll start harvesting the Americium out of smoke detectors!
I don't think they can send you to jail for consensually and vaginally fucking your wife. A citation on this would be GREAT.
Maturity is not to understanding as intellect is to understanding. Maturity and intellect are vastly different things. I'm going to call your bullshit and note that appropriate education regarding the subject will do FAR more than "maturing".
The sex offender registry should constitute as cruel and unusual punishment. It's nothing more than the Scarlet A of pedophiles. Perhaps the tool should be diluted and made less effective because it's a violation of Human rights?
Who RTFSes twice?
So, you're saying I should adapt and manipulate all of my speech to suit the insecurities of everyone? That's too difficult. How about people not being offended by words/images, which possess no meaning by themselves, and rather be offended by the fact that someone had actually meant to offend.
But, back to my original point. Something that CAN be inferred as racist is not automatically racist. Even if the majority of population were to find it racist, that does not make the item in and of itself racist. That is loaded into the intention part of the encoding. Of course, it's lost in translation and the only person who could ever truly know what the message was meant to say will be the person who transmitted it. You can ask for clarity later, but it's lost in the original message. Everything that you grasp when you consume a message is inferred. Would you like to argue otherwise?
The one who is offended also was the one who inferred. As the control of the process is left entirely within the interpreter, the interpreter has exclusive power to give something racist tones or not.
Or simply, you and everyone else are offended by things simply because you allow yourself to be offended. What culture taught you growing up doesn't matter. We only feel offended because we feel as if we are meant to be offended. I doubt you'd think "nigger" was offensive if no one told you it was supposed to be. I sure as Hell had to be taught it.
What I'm saying is basic communicational understanding. When creating a message, there is an encoding process by which one fits their intentions into a message. But the message is still just a message and nothing more than a message. Then there's the decoding. You can do that however you want. I could say something that most people would infer as being racist without realizing or intending it to be such because language is funny like that. Does that make what I said racist?
And you're purposefully ignoring the fact that by drawing lines between us you're only serving to strengthen racism as a pervasive concept in culture. The PROPER and LEAST racist thing to do would be to realize that it doesn't matter at ALL and to stop making a damn big deal of it. Oh no, someone happened to create a picture that can be perceived as being racist.
To clarify, it seems that because it can be interpreted as racist, many people seem to want to interpret it that way. As an example, if I were to show you a swastika, it's likely that you'd associate it with Nazism despite having a perfectly legitimate use for thousands of years prior to the Nazi movement. Is this to say that a swastika is automatically a Nazi symbol due to common interpretation? No. Is a humorous picture relating Michelle Obama to a monkey automatically racist? No. While there may be an intent created by the author with this image, the intent is lost and the picture is nothing more than a picture left to be interpreted by anyone as they deem fit. In short, to assume racism of something that could be deemed racist without necessarily being so would only be fueling the racist tendencies that people have.
Don't we live in a Republic?
Man, you and a ton of others needs to learn the difference between moral law and civil law and how the two correlate and interact. To say that legalizing possession of child pornography (certainly not the creation thereof) legitimizes child abuses is quite a baseless argument. You seem to completely ignore the primary debate on this. Here's the other side of the fence for you, easier access to child pornography can allow an outlet for those with pedophilia and make the urges easier to cope with on a social level. Though, I can't help but agree that the penalties for child abuse might need to be raised. Of course, with any jail time, they'll surely get their punishment should anyone else find out about their crime.
Your idea of harm and the surrounding concepts seem to leave a significant amount to be desired. While for one there is direct harm caused, is it justifiable to cause the indirect harm associated with having a death penalty? Not supporting kiddy diddling or anything. I just hate something about the way you put words and thoughts together.
You mean to tell me rogue code can download things? Say it isn't so!
The number you're looking for is "12", sir. This includes usable buttons, though. Plus top-hat (d-pad) and two analog sticks
I can't help but agree with you more on this. My only problem with getting Skype to work is getting it to find my microphone. Yet, I can't seem to do that. Hopefully this FOSS stuff will, indeed, fix the problem.
I got a little something for you called Occam's Razor. It's pretty cool. You should check it out.
It's more along the lines of the fact that to have faith is to denounce reason. Not to say that they feel reason suffers from inherent fallacies. Merely that it doesn't play a role in their belief system. Otherwise it wouldn't be faith. Now would it?
I wish I had modpoints for you.
Thank you. It seems few realize what the purpose of region coding is all about.
Thank you. It seems some people have a great deal of trouble distinguishing between the physical and the conceptual.