You're confused, that's all. You can't seem to grasp the concept of "attempted". He attempted to have sex with a minor. Whether he successfully had sex with a minor doesn't matter to anyone but you.
Since you like analogies, a better one is if the police know someone's going to try to assassinate his wife, so they setup a sting and put a dummy in a car and the perp shoots the dummy, not knowing it wasn't her. By your...unique and...special way of thinking no crime was commited, let the guy walk. The wife was never in danger.
Yeah, lot of those idiots around today. Read most of the replies, people just really can't seem to grasp the concept of attempted solictation of a minor. It's wierd, it's like a bunch of people with no concept of the law just willy nilly throwing nonsense around about "entrapment".
It's called attempted solicitation of a minor. I'm not sure what's up with you people, it's not difficult to comprehend. As a juror I'd have simple decision - did the suspect, beyond a reasonable doubt, attempt to solicit what he thought was a minor for sex. If so, he's guilty. Your abstract babblings about nonsensical, philosophical questions is meaningless. The perp intended to have sex with a minor, and attempted to follow through with that attempt. Arguing abstract concepts of "but nobody was in danger!" is for lemmings and philosophy students.
He used ad hominem because your position is untenable, and curiously stubborn. We're talking about Dateline. The show involves people soliciting minors for sex (intent) and attempting to carry out that intent (driving with beer, condoms, duct tape, gerbil, whatever to house). This is a crime. I'm not really sure where the disconnect is. That's the show. Those are the facts. The suspects solicit the minor. This is the premise, if it's not then the lawyers for the accused will get them off and most likely sue the crap out of NBC.
The minor the person attempted to solicit. It's easy, see? If I, as a juror, don't have a reasonable doubt that you tried to solicit a minor I will find you guilty. Similarly, if you buy fake poison from an undercover agent and then proceed to try to poison your wife/husbane, as a juror I'd have no trouble finding you guilty of attempted murder.
Haha. Good logic. There's this thing called attempted solicitation of a minor. You seem to think the law is some kind of machine - it's not. Pervert thinks it's a 12 year old girl, solicits her, that's good enough - off to jail with them.
As for their intentions, their intention is to be sensationalistic and make money. They're scum. Who cares, scum feeding on other scum.
Seems to be the popular view, but it's nonsense. In most jurisdictions soliciting sex sex with a minor, or _attempting_ to do so, is illegal. That's the crime most of them are charged with, and in most cases undoubtedly guilty of. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but I can only assume they put out "honeypot" accounts, and the perverts make the first move. I know it's fun to root for the underdog, but 98% of the people on the show are scum, and the other 2% should sue NBC. Entrapment would imply they lured the perverts into doing something they wouldn't have, kind of hard to claim that when the perverts are mailing pictures of their penises to 13 year olds.
By that definition, Apple has a monopoly on OS X and the Ipod. Oh, I know I can buy other MP3 players but name me one which supports AAC, Itunes, and all the Ipod accessories.
That last sentence, where I make arbitrary demands in a tranparent attempt to gerrymander the Ipod into being a "monopoly" is exactly what you're doing. Add enough ridiculous constraints (oh, but I want to play game X or run specific application Y) and any product is a monopoly.
A monopoly...on a piece of intellectual property brought into existence by a company. That makes sense. I mean, it's not as if there are alternatives, right? Oh, wait, there are literally dozens of them. I forgot.
Apparently one can have a monopoly when there are dozens of alternatives, some of which cost $0. I guess I learned something today.
I think we should all start going to this theater and using fake video cameras to "record" the movies. It would have to be a device completely incapable of recording. One of those director's lenses or a fake toy camera. Let them call the cops. Nothing they could do, and it would really, really end up being a burden to them. What now, bitches?
Haha. Ooooh. Yeah! I'm shilling, as we know anyone who disagrees with the ridiculous nerds around here is just a shill.
Microsoft isn't "acting as if it is being totally innovative". You made that up, as did the submitters of the article. The download tool barely goes into the technology and nowhere do they pretend they "innovated" the idea.
The fact is that you're just a pathetic, bitter, fat, smelly, UNIX nerd Microsoft hater and as such nobody in the professional world cares about your ridiculous, biased opinions. Being a professional who uses both Linux and MS products, I prefer to offer a more balanced opinion than bitter little jackasses like you.
BitTorrent didn't invent P2P. And the idea is used by many other applications including games. The last article with a premise this ridiculous I've seen was the "Hotmail drops 98.88% of all attachments, MS to be broken up and fined $10 billion dollars for fraud!" article.
Seriously, what is the point of this nonsense article, just to get the groupthink all riled up?
"far" better than NTFS? Umm, no. I know anything from MS automatically sucks in some bizarro world, and ext2 is a fine OS and in some ways better than NTFS, and in some ways inferior. It is by no demented, fanboy stretch "far better" than NTFS.
I know exactly what it means. What many people confuse is censorship as prohibited by the first amendment, and censorship by private entities. In either case, it's censorship per se. It's just that thats fine unless it's the government doing it.
Umm...? Actually that's not at all oxymoronic, even in spirit. I don't tihnk "oxymoronic" means what you think it means. One can certainly have good intentions and perform an ultimately "bad" act.
The whole "Vista is a DRM engine, that's all!" talk is really dreadfully boring. I have Vista, I've never even noticed the DRM. What delusional world do you people live in where DRM affects you when you don't buy DRM'd media?
You're cranky because you're paying for something and they have a few unobtrusive adverts? Seems like nitpicking. The problem with the non-Tivo units is the interface sucks. I've got an HR-10 and I've long considered moving back to cable (less hassle than DirecTV), but the standard cable DVRs you get are complete shit compared to the Tivo.
You pay for quality, that's the way it's always been.
It's just you. ActiveX was reasonably successful, and of course neither it nor OLE have anything to do with DirectX. DirectX is wildly successful..NET is very successful in the real world (as opposed to the fairy tale land most of you live in).
But yeah, they have renamed Messenger a few times.
First, it would be directly responsible. Villain tortures you and your children. Batman captures him, uses his bat-rope to tie him up, and then runs off to save a child on railroad tracks somewhere. Villain escapes, comes back, and tortures you more and then kills you and your children. Batmans choices led directly to the murders. Had he made a different choice, they wouldn't have occurred.
I'm also not saying it's all black and white, either. I'm talking about hypothetical "good guy" who goes out of his way and intentionally misses opportunities to stop someone who has proved themselves willing and capable of murdering people on a whim or out of sheer crazy evil. Personally, there's a line beyond which I would just straight up murder someone if they passed it, e.g. raping/torturing/ me/wife/family or killing wife/family intentionally out of malice or greed. But by all means, if you can "tie them up" and you'd prefer that then that's fine. Me, I'd let the animal take over and stab them in the stomach and urinate on them while they die, or at least I think I would but you never know until God forbid it happens.
What isn't fine is let's say you can stop someone truly evil, but you have to kill them to do it. Not killing them "because it's wrong" is the childish moral outlook that I'm referring to.
This is completely untrue. You're blinded by the big names. Cowon and Iriver both make very competitive products. I just bought a clix2, superior in almost every way to the nano.
I loved the books, and realize they're children's books. But I do find the "mustn't kill our blood-thirsty enemy" recurring theme to be a little silly. Seriously, what kind of deranged, childlike mentality must one have to not understand that if your enemy is trying to kill you and the people you love, you can't just tie him up and let him go later. If you do, and he goes on to kill other people, you are directly responsible for those deaths. When the shit hits the fan, swift brutal killing of your enemy is sometimes the moral thing.
It's amazing that Hotmail drops "up to" 81% of all attachments! My gosh, one would certainly begin to wonder why nobody else has noticed this and why there hasn't been a massive uproar! This lone, rational crusader has found a massive conspiracy hiding in plain sight!
The "bus design" is irrelevent. If someone offers me a car that goes 0-60 in 3 seconds and gets 45mpg, or a car that goes 0-60 in 3.4 seconds and gets 40mpg but has a super new carbon fiber uber efficient torquenator, I'll take the first car - thanks!
The bus only makes a difference in a few specialized cases. If you're buying a 4S server or doing stuff where memory bandwidth is number 1 consideration, then you'll have to take it into consideration. Otherwise, it's just a small factor.
As for merging, Nehalem is going to be the GodFather Uber chip. CSI serial connections, no more FSB. The AMD fanboi's last resort argument "but AMD uses HT!!!" will be gone.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha, yeah - that's going to happen. Delusions of grandeur much?
Since you like analogies, a better one is if the police know someone's going to try to assassinate his wife, so they setup a sting and put a dummy in a car and the perp shoots the dummy, not knowing it wasn't her. By your...unique and...special way of thinking no crime was commited, let the guy walk. The wife was never in danger.
Yeah, lot of those idiots around today. Read most of the replies, people just really can't seem to grasp the concept of attempted solictation of a minor. It's wierd, it's like a bunch of people with no concept of the law just willy nilly throwing nonsense around about "entrapment".
It's called attempted solicitation of a minor. I'm not sure what's up with you people, it's not difficult to comprehend. As a juror I'd have simple decision - did the suspect, beyond a reasonable doubt, attempt to solicit what he thought was a minor for sex. If so, he's guilty. Your abstract babblings about nonsensical, philosophical questions is meaningless. The perp intended to have sex with a minor, and attempted to follow through with that attempt. Arguing abstract concepts of "but nobody was in danger!" is for lemmings and philosophy students.
He used ad hominem because your position is untenable, and curiously stubborn. We're talking about Dateline. The show involves people soliciting minors for sex (intent) and attempting to carry out that intent (driving with beer, condoms, duct tape, gerbil, whatever to house). This is a crime. I'm not really sure where the disconnect is. That's the show. Those are the facts. The suspects solicit the minor. This is the premise, if it's not then the lawyers for the accused will get them off and most likely sue the crap out of NBC.
The minor the person attempted to solicit. It's easy, see? If I, as a juror, don't have a reasonable doubt that you tried to solicit a minor I will find you guilty. Similarly, if you buy fake poison from an undercover agent and then proceed to try to poison your wife/husbane, as a juror I'd have no trouble finding you guilty of attempted murder.
As for their intentions, their intention is to be sensationalistic and make money. They're scum. Who cares, scum feeding on other scum.
Seems to be the popular view, but it's nonsense. In most jurisdictions soliciting sex sex with a minor, or _attempting_ to do so, is illegal. That's the crime most of them are charged with, and in most cases undoubtedly guilty of. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but I can only assume they put out "honeypot" accounts, and the perverts make the first move. I know it's fun to root for the underdog, but 98% of the people on the show are scum, and the other 2% should sue NBC. Entrapment would imply they lured the perverts into doing something they wouldn't have, kind of hard to claim that when the perverts are mailing pictures of their penises to 13 year olds.
That last sentence, where I make arbitrary demands in a tranparent attempt to gerrymander the Ipod into being a "monopoly" is exactly what you're doing. Add enough ridiculous constraints (oh, but I want to play game X or run specific application Y) and any product is a monopoly.
Apparently one can have a monopoly when there are dozens of alternatives, some of which cost $0. I guess I learned something today.
Microsoft isn't "acting as if it is being totally innovative". You made that up, as did the submitters of the article. The download tool barely goes into the technology and nowhere do they pretend they "innovated" the idea.
The fact is that you're just a pathetic, bitter, fat, smelly, UNIX nerd Microsoft hater and as such nobody in the professional world cares about your ridiculous, biased opinions. Being a professional who uses both Linux and MS products, I prefer to offer a more balanced opinion than bitter little jackasses like you.
You like totally answered the point of my post. In other words, I was right (sans typing OS instead of FS) and you are unarguably wrong.
BitTorrent didn't invent P2P. And the idea is used by many other applications including games. The last article with a premise this ridiculous I've seen was the "Hotmail drops 98.88% of all attachments, MS to be broken up and fined $10 billion dollars for fraud!" article.
Seriously, what is the point of this nonsense article, just to get the groupthink all riled up?
"far" better than NTFS? Umm, no. I know anything from MS automatically sucks in some bizarro world, and ext2 is a fine OS and in some ways better than NTFS, and in some ways inferior. It is by no demented, fanboy stretch "far better" than NTFS.
I know exactly what it means. What many people confuse is censorship as prohibited by the first amendment, and censorship by private entities. In either case, it's censorship per se. It's just that thats fine unless it's the government doing it.
Umm...? Actually that's not at all oxymoronic, even in spirit. I don't tihnk "oxymoronic" means what you think it means. One can certainly have good intentions and perform an ultimately "bad" act.
The whole "Vista is a DRM engine, that's all!" talk is really dreadfully boring. I have Vista, I've never even noticed the DRM. What delusional world do you people live in where DRM affects you when you don't buy DRM'd media?
You pay for quality, that's the way it's always been.
But yeah, they have renamed Messenger a few times.
I'm also not saying it's all black and white, either. I'm talking about hypothetical "good guy" who goes out of his way and intentionally misses opportunities to stop someone who has proved themselves willing and capable of murdering people on a whim or out of sheer crazy evil. Personally, there's a line beyond which I would just straight up murder someone if they passed it, e.g. raping/torturing/ me/wife/family or killing wife/family intentionally out of malice or greed. But by all means, if you can "tie them up" and you'd prefer that then that's fine. Me, I'd let the animal take over and stab them in the stomach and urinate on them while they die, or at least I think I would but you never know until God forbid it happens.
What isn't fine is let's say you can stop someone truly evil, but you have to kill them to do it. Not killing them "because it's wrong" is the childish moral outlook that I'm referring to.
This is completely untrue. You're blinded by the big names. Cowon and Iriver both make very competitive products. I just bought a clix2, superior in almost every way to the nano.
I loved the books, and realize they're children's books. But I do find the "mustn't kill our blood-thirsty enemy" recurring theme to be a little silly. Seriously, what kind of deranged, childlike mentality must one have to not understand that if your enemy is trying to kill you and the people you love, you can't just tie him up and let him go later. If you do, and he goes on to kill other people, you are directly responsible for those deaths. When the shit hits the fan, swift brutal killing of your enemy is sometimes the moral thing.
Haha. I've pooped more meaningful articles.
The bus only makes a difference in a few specialized cases. If you're buying a 4S server or doing stuff where memory bandwidth is number 1 consideration, then you'll have to take it into consideration. Otherwise, it's just a small factor.
As for merging, Nehalem is going to be the GodFather Uber chip. CSI serial connections, no more FSB. The AMD fanboi's last resort argument "but AMD uses HT!!!" will be gone.