The Universal Code of Military Justice defines "sodomy" as "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal" - it's essentially a half-assed ban on homosexuality
Given that same-sex copulation has been observed in wild animals that clearly isn't unnatural and I'd love to see someone use that defence against a sodomy charge relating to a homosexual relationship.
Would you want to see any of that involving a child? I'd hope not.
Nonetheless, people that are still legally children can be homosexual. Children do have sex, and are rarely married. Child brides in other countries may or may not be a different race to their husband.
You want to prevent discussion of these things? I don't.
No it fucking isn't. Anybody trying that shit anywhere I work or at a publicly funded service I use will get told to stop using the word.
If they even suggest that they're allowed to use it because of their colour then there'll be a formal racism complaint. No, your skin colour does not give you fucking privileges.
Government is a formalised form of community. Corporations are a community acting in financial shared interest.
The only difference is the number of guns involved.
I think companies should be forced to allow any non-illegal speech, or be held accountable for the speech they do allow. Right now that's not the situation, and that's why social media companies are getting away with trying to subvert the public.
Not when Trump directed Cohen to do certain things, which he apparently has, and those things are illegal, which they apparently are
T: "What are my legal options here?" C: "Well, we could let the shit hit the fan, or you could offer a large sum of money contingent on an NDA" T: "Make the payment"
In that hypothetical conversation T just instructed C to do a certain thing that may or may not be illegal. Tell me, did T intend C to break the law?
Am I supposed to feel sorry for this person? I make a comfortable living (80k USD) and in lat e2017 I bought 350 dollars worth of Ethererum. By January I sold it all
No, you're meant to feel smug and superior because you've managed to con people like this teacher into handing their money to you.
1 - it's against the law (in my country and his) 2 - he has a substantial security detail that would likely thwart me 3 - he can personally kick my arse, probably even if I start with a gun and he doesn't 4 - it's too much effort 5 - it's too expensive to get to Russia 6 - I don't really have any desire. I mean, I don't like what he's done in Crimea but I kind of leave the responses to that sort of shit to my country's Government
Even your "25% of Federal prisoners are illegal" number is bullshit because the vast majority of those 25% are in prison for immigration violations. The number of illegal immigrants in Federal prisons for violent crimes is
..exactly the right metric to be looking at.
People known to be illegal immigrants imprisoned for breaking the law isn't exactly news or a statistical anomaly. People breaking the law found to also be illegal immigrants may be newsworthy but the person to whom you replied inexplicably neglected to provide any meaningful data on that topic.
Certain comedians are also among the top sources people cite as where they get their "news" (apparently confusing jokes mixed with propaganda for news).
I find the darker joke sites out there are excellent for finding out news that mainstream outlets are.. less willing to report.
E.g. last week this is how I discovered a Premier League referee fucked a dog.
As a counter to that: Games are a gamble. A game may be good, or not. It may appeal to me, or not. I may play it, or not.
All of those are orthogonal, and lead to a very small percentage of the games I own getting most of my gaming time.
A game may be good, but I wont play it. It may appeal to me, but I wont play it. My purchase of the game represents an investment in the team that built a good game and an investment in developers creating games in that genre.
That investment pays off when I buy a game that's good, that appeals, and that I end up playing for dozens of hours. My cost per hour for that individual game may be low but that's the return on the investment in the games I didn't play.
The games that give me direct value for money end up being the ones I recommend to (and buy for) friends, so the developers still benefit from that individual game anyway.
So my question isn't as simple as 'is it worth $15'. It's a function of multiple things, including the nature of the game, my history with that developer and publisher, my desire to play the game, the behaviour of the publisher and developer, the reviews for the game, the likelhood of me enjoying the game and also my perception of value for money.
The ability to stop water droplets without blur. All these things require a decent sized lens
I can tell you don't know much about photography. Freezing water droplets in the frame is a function of shutter speed and fuck all to do with the lens.
More precisely anything quicker than around 1/500 of a second will give you water with no blur. My two year old phone can take photographs at 1/24000 second - rather better than my much more expensive professional grade interchangeable lens camera.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone elsewhere in the discussion did. Basically, being gay is a legally protected characteristic, and being Alex Jones is not.
The Universal Code of Military Justice defines "sodomy" as "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal" - it's essentially a half-assed ban on homosexuality
Given that same-sex copulation has been observed in wild animals that clearly isn't unnatural and I'd love to see someone use that defence against a sodomy charge relating to a homosexual relationship.
Would you want to see any of that involving a child? I'd hope not.
Nonetheless, people that are still legally children can be homosexual. Children do have sex, and are rarely married. Child brides in other countries may or may not be a different race to their husband.
You want to prevent discussion of these things? I don't.
A black person saying it is perfectly acceptable
No it fucking isn't. Anybody trying that shit anywhere I work or at a publicly funded service I use will get told to stop using the word.
If they even suggest that they're allowed to use it because of their colour then there'll be a formal racism complaint. No, your skin colour does not give you fucking privileges.
Government is a formalised form of community. Corporations are a community acting in financial shared interest.
The only difference is the number of guns involved.
I think companies should be forced to allow any non-illegal speech, or be held accountable for the speech they do allow. Right now that's not the situation, and that's why social media companies are getting away with trying to subvert the public.
No. Flickr is also now owned by Smugmug, whose customer base under that brand includes a very large number of professional photographers.
Not when Trump directed Cohen to do certain things, which he apparently has, and those things are illegal, which they apparently are
T: "What are my legal options here?"
C: "Well, we could let the shit hit the fan, or you could offer a large sum of money contingent on an NDA"
T: "Make the payment"
In that hypothetical conversation T just instructed C to do a certain thing that may or may not be illegal. Tell me, did T intend C to break the law?
Bullshit. It happens EVERY DAY. Members of Congress pay hush money to former staffers EVERY DAY. Celebrities do it EVERY DAY.
They're all running for president EVERY DAY?
all news is "a blatant attempt to influence the election"
I'm finding this all rather strange, because, yes, that news is a blatant attempt to influence the election.
It could be argued that NBC weren't attempting to influence it in any particular direction but they broadcast knowing that there would be an impact.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for this person? I make a comfortable living (80k USD) and in lat e2017 I bought 350 dollars worth of Ethererum. By January I sold it all
No, you're meant to feel smug and superior because you've managed to con people like this teacher into handing their money to you.
Sure, she's a fool. You however are why..
this shit was way too toxic
1 - it's against the law (in my country and his)
2 - he has a substantial security detail that would likely thwart me
3 - he can personally kick my arse, probably even if I start with a gun and he doesn't
4 - it's too much effort
5 - it's too expensive to get to Russia
6 - I don't really have any desire. I mean, I don't like what he's done in Crimea but I kind of leave the responses to that sort of shit to my country's Government
Sorry.
Even your "25% of Federal prisoners are illegal" number is bullshit because the vast majority of those 25% are in prison for immigration violations. The number of illegal immigrants in Federal prisons for violent crimes is
..exactly the right metric to be looking at.
People known to be illegal immigrants imprisoned for breaking the law isn't exactly news or a statistical anomaly. People breaking the law found to also be illegal immigrants may be newsworthy but the person to whom you replied inexplicably neglected to provide any meaningful data on that topic.
Certain comedians are also among the top sources people cite as where they get their "news" (apparently confusing jokes mixed with propaganda for news).
I find the darker joke sites out there are excellent for finding out news that mainstream outlets are.. less willing to report.
E.g. last week this is how I discovered a Premier League referee fucked a dog.
I drive more noisily on purpose where there are speed bumps.
Anything that makes residents hate them more is good.
If Google pageranked individuals, yes it would.
Personal data and data about a website are treated differently under the law.
Legally they're obliged to share not only their score, but also how they calculated it and how they use it in decisions regarding you.
UK Data Protection Act 2018 is a wonderful little thing.
As a counter to that: Games are a gamble. A game may be good, or not. It may appeal to me, or not. I may play it, or not.
All of those are orthogonal, and lead to a very small percentage of the games I own getting most of my gaming time.
A game may be good, but I wont play it. It may appeal to me, but I wont play it. My purchase of the game represents an investment in the team that built a good game and an investment in developers creating games in that genre.
That investment pays off when I buy a game that's good, that appeals, and that I end up playing for dozens of hours. My cost per hour for that individual game may be low but that's the return on the investment in the games I didn't play.
The games that give me direct value for money end up being the ones I recommend to (and buy for) friends, so the developers still benefit from that individual game anyway.
So my question isn't as simple as 'is it worth $15'. It's a function of multiple things, including the nature of the game, my history with that developer and publisher, my desire to play the game, the behaviour of the publisher and developer, the reviews for the game, the likelhood of me enjoying the game and also my perception of value for money.
Learn to spell the word fuck if you want to use it.
Anyway, 50% of gamers are female, the majority of those adult. Kind of disproves your silliness.
that doesn't mean that the vast majority of the population isn't worryingly immature and childish
The vast majority of the population have an adult level of maturity and act in an adult manner.
It's your shitty definitions of immature and childish that are at fault here.
So buy a 2070, get the shiny new raytracing and superior performance to the 1080?
I'll stick with my 1070 for another year or so, prices will almost certainly be lower by then.
The ability to stop water droplets without blur. All these things require a decent sized lens
I can tell you don't know much about photography. Freezing water droplets in the frame is a function of shutter speed and fuck all to do with the lens.
More precisely anything quicker than around 1/500 of a second will give you water with no blur. My two year old phone can take photographs at 1/24000 second - rather better than my much more expensive professional grade interchangeable lens camera.
Speak for yourself. I was happy to use ebay, never have been happy about paypal.
It was shitty before ebay bought it, and it was shitty after. The only real difference is that ebay went shitty too.
While technically my TV is a computer it's also not worth the time and effort to hack to skip adverts on its built-in netflix client.
Much easier to just skip giving netflix any money.
Yes, he is. He's paying for media content and the media being shown is an advert.
That someone else may have paid for that advert to be shown to him would merely mean Netflix are getting paid twice.
Go and read the court cases on the matter, where the lawyers will provide a thorough explanation and the judge may even offer an interpretation too.
I'm going by settled cases, not a law that clearly didn't apply in them.