Never try and compete directly with an idea that people have already bought into. If many people believe that anti-filtering is anti-child, to change someone's mind 180 they must admit that they were wrong...and people don't do that.
So the solution is to convince people that pro-filtering is even more anti-child.
The implementation details are left as an exercise to the reader, but I suggest we start using the same dirty tactics the other side. Accuse the proponents of being closet pedophiles projecting their sick fantasies onto others. Ad hominem may be a fallacy but if it works for them, it can work for us.
we come across a fair old chunk of CP. Most of it, in fact the absolute vast majority of it is completely non sexual shots of single children, no toys, not an adult in sight, just a naked kid between probably about 10 and 15 years old, most of them on the beach, many of them oblivious to the camera.
I am sick and tired of the lowlifes in power trying to capitalize on "child porn" by using lies and intimidation in order to get even more control over everybody.
It is time we fight back using the same tactics. Make them feel the heat. Get them on the defensive.
Whenever a person (and I use the term broadly) calls CP something which isn't, he or she must be painted a paedophile. Use the broadest brush possible, I don't care whether it's moral or not anymore: whoever screams "paedophiles!" is projecting and must be a closet one himself.
- You consider that picture I took of my 3yo in a bath sexual? What kind of a sick paedophile are you??? - No, I just want to protect the children from the predators... - Yes, dirty predators like yourself! You should be locked up! I'm calling the paper.
TFA: Judge Munley ruled Mr. Walczak successfully met the standards necessary to issue a temporary order blocking Mr. Skumanick from filing charges against the three teens, including that they have demonstrated "a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims." He also believed "no harm would come to (Mr. Skumanick) by delaying prosecution on this matter."
As a native Hebrew speaker, let me correct the errors in your interpretation. Please forgive the ad-hoc transliteration.
> Yowm means about four hundred years: > Numbers 20:15 How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time (yowm); > and the Egyptians vexed us, and our fathers
The original text says "yamim rabim", literally: many days.
> Yowm means forty years: > 1 Kings 11:42 And the time (yowm) that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel [was] forty years.
The original text says "ve-ha-yamim [...] arbaim shana", literally: and the days [...] forty years.
> Yowm means twenty years: > 1 Samuel 7:2 And it came to pass, while the ark abode in Kirjathjearim, > that the time (yowm) was long; for it was twenty years
The original text says "va-irbu ha-yamim, va-ihyu esrim shana", literally: the days multiplied until they became 20 years.
> Yowm means seven and a half years: > 2 Samuel 2:11 And the time (yowm) that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.
The original text says "va-yhi mispar ha-yamim [...]", literally: the number of the days was.
In short: "yom" (singular) is "day", approximately the time from sunset to sunrise. "yamim" (plural) is "days", often used in the sense of "time" (in the same sense that the word "shanim" -- "years" is used).
> The words boqer and ereb are both used in other contexts as well. They are also used to mean beginning and end.
I'd like to see a reference to that. If possible, one that does not botch the translation. And incidentally, evening is "erev", the Hebrew "Bet" (for B) and "Vet" (for V) are actually the same letter and the pronunciation depends on whether there's a dot ("dagesh") inside the letter. It is often omitted in modern practice and inferred from the context (same thing with most vowels), however it is present in the "official" text.
> The only thing we know for sure from this writings, is that there were distinct eras with a beginning and end. The rest is worded ambiguously.
Only if you misread the text. Otherwise, it is quite clear.
> You could argue that this was for the purpose of both making sense to the people of the time, > and also being technically accurate at the same time.
Or I could argue that you were misled by a less than accurate translation.
What I wish these extremist nuts would understand is that the theory of evolution does not, ipso facto, rule out the possibility of a supernatural creator. Evolution is simply an ever-refining description of how life unfolded on Earth.
It's even simpler than that. A scientific theory is essentially a model, an abstraction if you will. I don't care that the Newtonian mechanics are "incorrect", it provides an approximation that is good enough for my daily life tasks. And when it fails, I can use relativity or quantum mechanics or any other model that gets the job done. Same with evolution. Does it really matter in practice whether the fossil record is really billions of years old or some supernatural god just made it appear this way? As long as this god dude did a reasonably consistent job (omnipotence helps), it does not affect the value of the theory or its predictive abilities.
Obviously true, in the same way that finding out that mommy and daddy bought all those presents for you does not, ipso facto, rule out the possibilty of Santa Claus.
True story: 4yo kid hears from an older sibling that the "Santa Claus" that brought presents was actually a parent dressed up, using a disguised voice. Kid: Dad, is it true that Santa was actually mom? Dad: Yes. Kid: So who was Santa last year? Dad: I was. Kid (after a moment of thought): Then I want to be Santa next year, OK?
Uri Geller beat you to it in Israel. He gets pots of gold from the taxpayers there.
Uri Geller emigrated from Israel in the early '70s and currently lives in England. He didn't get "pots of gold from the taxpayers", not more than any popular entertainer that hosted a TV show. Uri Geller may well be a fraud but you, sir, are a liar.
But it is a simple choice. Either you believe in god, or you don't.
It is actually more interesting. I submit that the following are distinct: 1. Belief in a particular god or gods. 2. Belief in an existence of a god or gods (where "god" is usually taken to mean a supernatural entity of sorts). 3. Lack of belief in gods. 4. Belief in the absence of gods.
#1, #2 and #4 require some sort of belief without proof (for some definition of "proof", let's not pick nits) #3 usually means that there is no strong conviction one way of the other but the possibility of either is acknowledged to some degree. And even then, the scale is not discrete. Atheist, agnostic, etc. (and various qualifiers) are terms that fall in the range between #3 and #4. The usage depends on whoever defines the terms.
Personally, I reject the notion of a personal god. I also do not believe that the universe was created by an external entity. I acknowledge that this may be possible but consider it highly unlikely.
> Starbuck was called several times the harbinger of death. > Death of what?
[disclaimer: hated the finale]
The original statement was: "You are the harbinger of death, Kara Thrace. You will lead them all to their end". Given that the hybrids' presentation was somewhat confused, here's one possible interpretation: You are the harbinger of death [of the Cylons in the colony] You will lead them [=humans] all to their end [of journey]
people> We want honesty, transparency, responsibility and accountability. crickets> *chirp* *chirp* government> Look! A paedophile terrorist pirate! We'll save you!
While the idea is great in theory, the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Sure, if you only want to control popular components and don't try to do anything "fancy", the Harmony is probably the best remote for you. Otherwise, you're in for frustration.
Logitech operates the Harmony as a service. Programming it can only be done online, the configuration is stored online (no local backups) and you have firmware updates pushed to you when changing configuration.
The problem is that Logitech often breaks existing functionality without so much as a "by your leave", disables working features on a whim (falsely claiming they were undocumented, even though the printed manual clearly referred to them), and requires that more "advanced" programming is done only by tech support.
For example, if you want to program a Pronto code that is not in the Logitech database (e.g., for discrete codes that are not on the original remote) or to play a bit with timings, you have to ask support to do it for you. And now that they limited phone support to 3 months, an operation that should take 5 minutes tops can take days.
Here's another gem: macros ("sequences") are limited to 5 steps for no good reason.
For some fun light reading, check some of the threads in the Logitech forum, like this one
About a year ago, I tried programming a Harmony for my parents, who live in a country where the more popular AV components are specifically customized for the local market and are rarely available elsewhere. The back-and-forth with tech support was extremely frustrating and I had to jump through hoops to overcome the programming limitations (can you say "auto-switching SCART connections"?).
people> But you're supposed to, or... govm't> Or what?
+1 depressing.
So Democracy is a sham. People cannot force the government to do anything. The only way to cause a change is to become the government and whoever has a realistic chance of achieving that goal, will become as bad as those they replace.
The reason the apostrophe is inappropriately used is because it works. When people see Phenom II's, they pronounce it correctly -and- the ambiguity is removed as to whether the "s" is part of the name. The fact that its grammatically/semantically incorrect is an acceptable (to most people) tradeoff.
What's wrong with qute marks? "Phenom II"s seems to work.
Slashdot Mirror
So the solution is to convince people that pro-filtering is even more anti-child.
The implementation details are left as an exercise to the reader, but I suggest we start using the same dirty tactics the other side.
Accuse the proponents of being closet pedophiles projecting their sick fantasies onto others.
Ad hominem may be a fallacy but if it works for them, it can work for us.
I am sick and tired of the lowlifes in power trying to capitalize on "child porn" by using lies and intimidation in order to get even more control over everybody.
It is time we fight back using the same tactics. Make them feel the heat. Get them on the defensive.
Whenever a person (and I use the term broadly) calls CP something which isn't, he or she must be painted a paedophile.
Use the broadest brush possible, I don't care whether it's moral or not anymore: whoever screams "paedophiles!" is projecting and must be a closet one himself.
- You consider that picture I took of my 3yo in a bath sexual? What kind of a sick paedophile are you???
- No, I just want to protect the children from the predators...
- Yes, dirty predators like yourself! You should be locked up! I'm calling the paper.
Make it dirty. Make it personal. Make it hurt.
I got one done in my early teens.
Definitely not fun but not as bad as you make it sound.
TFA:
Judge Munley ruled Mr. Walczak successfully met the standards necessary to issue a temporary order blocking Mr. Skumanick from filing charges against the three teens, including that they have demonstrated "a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims." He also believed "no harm would come to (Mr. Skumanick) by delaying prosecution on this matter."
Likewise, I'm pretty sure Divine existed, though I'm more sure that if he did he wasn't Jesus.
As a native Hebrew speaker, let me correct the errors in your interpretation.
Please forgive the ad-hoc transliteration.
> Yowm means about four hundred years:
> Numbers 20:15 How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time (yowm);
> and the Egyptians vexed us, and our fathers
The original text says "yamim rabim", literally: many days.
> Yowm means forty years:
> 1 Kings 11:42 And the time (yowm) that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel [was] forty years.
The original text says "ve-ha-yamim [...] arbaim shana", literally: and the days [...] forty years.
> Yowm means twenty years:
> 1 Samuel 7:2 And it came to pass, while the ark abode in Kirjathjearim,
> that the time (yowm) was long; for it was twenty years
The original text says "va-irbu ha-yamim, va-ihyu esrim shana", literally: the days multiplied until they became 20 years.
> Yowm means seven and a half years:
> 2 Samuel 2:11 And the time (yowm) that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.
The original text says "va-yhi mispar ha-yamim [...]", literally: the number of the days was.
In short: "yom" (singular) is "day", approximately the time from sunset to sunrise.
"yamim" (plural) is "days", often used in the sense of "time" (in the same sense that the word "shanim" -- "years" is used).
> The words boqer and ereb are both used in other contexts as well. They are also used to mean beginning and end.
I'd like to see a reference to that. If possible, one that does not botch the translation.
And incidentally, evening is "erev", the Hebrew "Bet" (for B) and "Vet" (for V) are actually the same letter and the pronunciation depends on whether there's a dot ("dagesh") inside the letter. It is often omitted in modern practice and inferred from the context (same thing with most vowels), however it is present in the "official" text.
> The only thing we know for sure from this writings, is that there were distinct eras with a beginning and end. The rest is worded ambiguously.
Only if you misread the text. Otherwise, it is quite clear.
> You could argue that this was for the purpose of both making sense to the people of the time,
> and also being technically accurate at the same time.
Or I could argue that you were misled by a less than accurate translation.
> I switched careers from air-fright driver/dispatcher to C++ programmer in my late 30's (sic, emphasis mine)
Couldn't handle the stress?
I am no match for your dazzling intellect.
You win. Have a nice life.
Random claims on internet forums != knowledge
The onus of proof is on the submitter. /.
I do not have the time to "research" every outrageous claim made on
If you want me to take your claim seriously, back it up.
If you don't care, neither should I.
And here I am, all out of mod points...
[citation needed]
Are you advocating breast implants for traffic offenders?
Steak and BJ?
It's even simpler than that. A scientific theory is essentially a model, an abstraction if you will.
I don't care that the Newtonian mechanics are "incorrect", it provides an approximation that is good enough for my daily life tasks. And when it fails, I can use relativity or quantum mechanics or any other model that gets the job done.
Same with evolution. Does it really matter in practice whether the fossil record is really billions of years old or some supernatural god just made it appear this way? As long as this god dude did a reasonably consistent job (omnipotence helps), it does not affect the value of the theory or its predictive abilities.
True story:
4yo kid hears from an older sibling that the "Santa Claus" that brought presents was actually a parent dressed up, using a disguised voice.
Kid: Dad, is it true that Santa was actually mom?
Dad: Yes.
Kid: So who was Santa last year?
Dad: I was.
Kid (after a moment of thought): Then I want to be Santa next year, OK?
Uri Geller emigrated from Israel in the early '70s and currently lives in England.
He didn't get "pots of gold from the taxpayers", not more than any popular entertainer that hosted a TV show.
Uri Geller may well be a fraud but you, sir, are a liar.
It is actually more interesting. I submit that the following are distinct:
1. Belief in a particular god or gods.
2. Belief in an existence of a god or gods (where "god" is usually taken to mean a supernatural entity of sorts).
3. Lack of belief in gods.
4. Belief in the absence of gods.
#1, #2 and #4 require some sort of belief without proof (for some definition of "proof", let's not pick nits)
#3 usually means that there is no strong conviction one way of the other but the possibility of either is acknowledged to some degree.
And even then, the scale is not discrete. Atheist, agnostic, etc. (and various qualifiers) are terms that fall in the range between #3 and #4. The usage depends on whoever defines the terms.
Personally, I reject the notion of a personal god. I also do not believe that the universe was created by an external entity. I acknowledge that this may be possible but consider it highly unlikely.
Obligatory Edsger Dijkstra quote:
"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
> Starbuck was called several times the harbinger of death.
> Death of what?
[disclaimer: hated the finale]
The original statement was: "You are the harbinger of death, Kara Thrace. You will lead them all to their end".
Given that the hybrids' presentation was somewhat confused, here's one possible interpretation:
You are the harbinger of death [of the Cylons in the colony]
You will lead them [=humans] all to their end [of journey]
Let's start with:
people> We want honesty, transparency, responsibility and accountability.
crickets> *chirp* *chirp*
government> Look! A paedophile terrorist pirate! We'll save you!
While the idea is great in theory, the implementation leaves a lot to be desired.
Sure, if you only want to control popular components and don't try to do anything "fancy", the Harmony is probably the best remote for you. Otherwise, you're in for frustration.
Logitech operates the Harmony as a service. Programming it can only be done online, the configuration is stored online (no local backups) and you have firmware updates pushed to you when changing configuration.
The problem is that Logitech often breaks existing functionality without so much as a "by your leave", disables working features on a whim (falsely claiming they were undocumented, even though the printed manual clearly referred to them), and requires that more "advanced" programming is done only by tech support.
For example, if you want to program a Pronto code that is not in the Logitech database (e.g., for discrete codes that are not on the original remote) or to play a bit with timings, you have to ask support to do it for you. And now that they limited phone support to 3 months, an operation that should take 5 minutes tops can take days.
Here's another gem: macros ("sequences") are limited to 5 steps for no good reason.
For some fun light reading, check some of the threads in the Logitech forum, like this one
About a year ago, I tried programming a Harmony for my parents, who live in a country where the more popular AV components are specifically customized for the local market and are rarely available elsewhere. The back-and-forth with tech support was extremely frustrating and I had to jump through hoops to overcome the programming limitations (can you say "auto-switching SCART connections"?).
+1 depressing.
So Democracy is a sham. People cannot force the government to do anything. The only way to cause a change is to become the government and whoever has a realistic chance of achieving that goal, will become as bad as those they replace.
What about the wishes of the, um you know... people?
What's wrong with qute marks?
"Phenom II"s seems to work.