"attracted to children specifically is different only in the level of younger, but you're over-generalizing here."
No. It's a level of emotional maturity. As in can or cannot handle an adult relationship and all of its responsibilities. The state puts a general number on it of 18 (or so, depending on the state and country), just like for a driver's license. And just like a driver's license, there are kids who are responsible enough before 16, and there are ones who aren't after 16; the state just picks a *cough* decent *cough* number.
It's all about adult responsibility, though, where true pedophilia is about being attracted to children who *aren't* mature enough for that responsibility. That's why someone 50 can be psychologically healthy and be attracted to someone half their age, while someone 24 is not healthy being attracted to someone half their age.
The biological part you neglect to mention is that they seek someone younger - but still has the traits of being able to produce children. ie, after puberty. Pedophilia is (psychologically, not legally) about the attraction to humans before (during?) puberty.
Well, you feel that way about rights; how about responsibilities? Should juvenile court be done away with and treat children like adults when it comes to the *penalties* of the law?
And yes, I know some incredibly young children can be tried as adults for things like murder. Which, in my opinion, is ridiculous and the part that should be done away with well before looking into granting more rights.
No. The ethically bad parts of extremism aren't the intentions or the desire. It's the actions. While scientology and its followers nowhere near 'good' (or even neutral), they (generally) do not go to the extremes that the people we call extremists in the real world do.
Incoming case citations of relatively rare but really evil things done by scientologists, ignoring the "generally" part in 5, 4, 3...
I think it's been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to see live music and I'm just drawing a blank as to why anyone else actually does go see live music. The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to get audio content, well, that's been lame since radio was invented and it gets lamer every year.
I think it's been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to the beach and I'm just drawing a blank as to why anyone else actually does go to the beach. The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to go swimming, well, that's been lame since pools were invented and it gets lamer every year.
(insert another example of technically receiving info while ignoring the experience of it ad infinitum)
While I agree that lobbyists wield way too much power in government, the 1900 page complaint is more of a talking point than anything else. The bill and the wording behind it has been available for months via drafts and discussion within committees.
There's plenty of questions that the article raises without answering (well, at least with the article and report itself, I didn't go hunting their web site for them):
is the amount of vulnerabilities just a count or did they give some more weight than others? I hope they don't equate an SSL download injection of malware to the ability for some bad javascript to bypass popup blockers.
are they reported issues in documented bug fixes are are they independent issues? I can think of at least one occasion MS has squelched a bug report.
do they make them unique to the browser itself or are they universal attacks that the browser doesn't stop?
Did anyone with more patience than me go perusing their site to find how they came up with their numbers?
Personal judgments do not take the preponderance of evidence that a court does, so the "prove it" rebuttal doesn't make sense. There's legitimate cause to believe this was intentionally done, regardless of calling it "removing support" or blocking or whatever. And that's a pretty cruddy thing to do in my opinion, even if they have the right and business reason to do so.
Actually, no he didn't. Perjury has two key parts: (1) lying under oath - the one you're talking about, and (2) the lie affects the outcome of the case. While he did lie under oath, it didn't affect the outcome of the case.
"if that's protected, I should be able to call a judge on his personal phone line and complain about his judgements. call my congresscritters on their personal lines and complain and 'sell' them on my way of doing things."
Assuming you have the number, you can. There are ramifications if it's threatening or if they ask you to stop and you still do it - just like these other scenarios should - but there aren't any laws against it (AFAIK - someone may correct me on that).
Now the reverse - do you think you should be *prevented* from talking about these things to judges and members of the congress? Just on the phone? What?
The issue with free speech, and any freedoms for that matter, is that it has to be protected for the jerks that abuse it, because taking away freedoms starts there (paraphrasing some quote).
The reason most of the time the US is considered an ass is when they (we) are imposing our societal ideals of what's wrong and right well beyond our boundaries. This time the tables are turned.
The reason we have to roughly estimate the value of human life in dollar amounts is because the variables to assess the value are intangible, not because the variables are private. To further your analogy, if a husband is killed and the wife is suing based upon what the husband would have made, I would figure (IANAL), that the wife couldn't just state it's $10 million a year and then hide any financial statements to verify.
1) it may or may not be willful. I know plenty of people who didn't realize what they were getting into with file sharing apps. As a matter of fact, most people I know who aren't fairly computer savvy thought the whole illegal internet music thing was about downloading, not uploading. 2) it's not what we think happened. It's if there are other PLAUSIBLE things that could have happened.
"Even after a big settlement and a high-profile case, the only changes made in the coffee serving industry were more secure packaging and more/clearer warnings."
Actually, McDonalds (at least at that particular location) dropped their serving temperature 30 degrees cooler. For that matter, if FUCKING STARBUCKS recommends serving between 180 and 190 degrees (the temperature of the lawsuit coffee), perhaps they should be told that it's not fit for consumption at that temperature, since you'll have a guaranteed burn of the mouth and throat.
Well, I'm sure that many will disagree with me in my anti-death sentence stance, but I would think the entire Hussein legal show, from the trial to the hanging, *should* have shown that rule of law and civility prevail over his methods of tyranny and fear. Hence the issue with hanging - it's closer to his methods (fear mongering) than current Western methods. Even ignoring the option of a life sentence.
Are we discussing intention or result? Because, while the result of hanging may be more humane, I don't think it's too far fetched to believe the intention of the hanging was less civil and humane.
Which is really the point. With how public that hanging was, you can be fairly sure the publicity from it was well planned out, to which it really sucks that's the message we wanted to give.
The issue isn't the person working the job, it's that person's country isn't upholding an environment that a person should be working in.
Don't get me wrong - the US needs to get a good kick in the ass in work ethic and education, but child labor sweat shops should not get our jobs, regardless of them doing our jobs cheaper. Or countries with such a crappy environment you have to wear a gas mask to work, etc.
Look, if you don't want to listen to the advisement of what may and may not be interesting to you, then why use slashdot at all? Slashdot hate aside, the whole point is to bring up stuff that matters to nerds. He's saying this stuff doesn't matter. Of course you can make the final decision, but I'm not sure why you trust the slashdot web site to bring up articles that you'd find interesting over people that read them.
In other news, the article is annoyingly devoid of any statistics. I've been reading for years why Mac is a great platform to develop in (and many of the points good), but they don't really pan out as an end result of taking a big piece of the market share.
So unless you show me statistics of a gaining market share, I'm going to shelve this right along with all of the other articles talking about the good points of Macs throughout the years. This article should be named "Why Developers SHOULD Switch to Macs," not the assumption that they're already doing it.
And maybe they are? I can buy that - just show it.
I'm not in disagreement that the 'legal standards' bar works against the people much of the time. That doesn't change the fact that there's a set of standards if people were forced to abide by them, would be a safer place on the roads.
It's at the cost of freedom, though, which is a hefty price. And preventing you from purchasing a vehicle that has these restrictions works against freedom, not for it.
You're convoluting two issues there: good ideas and freedoms. In all actuality, it would probably be a good idea to limit all driver's performance to legal standards. It restricts freedom, though, and that's why the overall sum is a bad idea.
Restricting freedom is perfectly legitimate when the freedom is use of your stuff and you're put the restriction on other people, though.
Slashdot Mirror
"attracted to children specifically is different only in the level of younger, but you're over-generalizing here."
No. It's a level of emotional maturity. As in can or cannot handle an adult relationship and all of its responsibilities. The state puts a general number on it of 18 (or so, depending on the state and country), just like for a driver's license. And just like a driver's license, there are kids who are responsible enough before 16, and there are ones who aren't after 16; the state just picks a *cough* decent *cough* number.
It's all about adult responsibility, though, where true pedophilia is about being attracted to children who *aren't* mature enough for that responsibility. That's why someone 50 can be psychologically healthy and be attracted to someone half their age, while someone 24 is not healthy being attracted to someone half their age.
The biological part you neglect to mention is that they seek someone younger - but still has the traits of being able to produce children. ie, after puberty. Pedophilia is (psychologically, not legally) about the attraction to humans before (during?) puberty.
My brother works at GoDaddy... Amusingly, Anonymusing may be pretty close to the truth, from what I hear about the owner.
What about people you distrust and don't care about, but can still affect your life?
I guess you already answered that by action - your email address is private, and I doubt your true name is "maxume."
Well, you feel that way about rights; how about responsibilities? Should juvenile court be done away with and treat children like adults when it comes to the *penalties* of the law?
And yes, I know some incredibly young children can be tried as adults for things like murder. Which, in my opinion, is ridiculous and the part that should be done away with well before looking into granting more rights.
No. The ethically bad parts of extremism aren't the intentions or the desire. It's the actions. While scientology and its followers nowhere near 'good' (or even neutral), they (generally) do not go to the extremes that the people we call extremists in the real world do.
Incoming case citations of relatively rare but really evil things done by scientologists, ignoring the "generally" part in 5, 4, 3...
And as long as they learn from their mistakes, about $6M a year in the future.
I think it's been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to see live music and I'm just drawing a blank as to why anyone else actually does go see live music. The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to get audio content, well, that's been lame since radio was invented and it gets lamer every year.
I think it's been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to the beach and I'm just drawing a blank as to why anyone else actually does go to the beach. The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to go swimming, well, that's been lame since pools were invented and it gets lamer every year.
(insert another example of technically receiving info while ignoring the experience of it ad infinitum)
While I agree that lobbyists wield way too much power in government, the 1900 page complaint is more of a talking point than anything else. The bill and the wording behind it has been available for months via drafts and discussion within committees.
Did anyone with more patience than me go perusing their site to find how they came up with their numbers?
Personal judgments do not take the preponderance of evidence that a court does, so the "prove it" rebuttal doesn't make sense. There's legitimate cause to believe this was intentionally done, regardless of calling it "removing support" or blocking or whatever. And that's a pretty cruddy thing to do in my opinion, even if they have the right and business reason to do so.
Actually, no he didn't. Perjury has two key parts: (1) lying under oath - the one you're talking about, and (2) the lie affects the outcome of the case. While he did lie under oath, it didn't affect the outcome of the case.
"if that's protected, I should be able to call a judge on his personal phone line and complain about his judgements. call my congresscritters on their personal lines and complain and 'sell' them on my way of doing things."
Assuming you have the number, you can. There are ramifications if it's threatening or if they ask you to stop and you still do it - just like these other scenarios should - but there aren't any laws against it (AFAIK - someone may correct me on that).
Now the reverse - do you think you should be *prevented* from talking about these things to judges and members of the congress? Just on the phone? What? The issue with free speech, and any freedoms for that matter, is that it has to be protected for the jerks that abuse it, because taking away freedoms starts there (paraphrasing some quote).
Amazon modified the service by forcing the Kindles to self-destruct and isn't paying any refunds for the e-books lost.
End of discussion?
The reason most of the time the US is considered an ass is when they (we) are imposing our societal ideals of what's wrong and right well beyond our boundaries. This time the tables are turned.
The reason we have to roughly estimate the value of human life in dollar amounts is because the variables to assess the value are intangible, not because the variables are private. To further your analogy, if a husband is killed and the wife is suing based upon what the husband would have made, I would figure (IANAL), that the wife couldn't just state it's $10 million a year and then hide any financial statements to verify.
1) it may or may not be willful. I know plenty of people who didn't realize what they were getting into with file sharing apps. As a matter of fact, most people I know who aren't fairly computer savvy thought the whole illegal internet music thing was about downloading, not uploading.
2) it's not what we think happened. It's if there are other PLAUSIBLE things that could have happened.
"Even after a big settlement and a high-profile case, the only changes made in the coffee serving industry were more secure packaging and more/clearer warnings."
Actually, McDonalds (at least at that particular location) dropped their serving temperature 30 degrees cooler. For that matter, if FUCKING STARBUCKS recommends serving between 180 and 190 degrees (the temperature of the lawsuit coffee), perhaps they should be told that it's not fit for consumption at that temperature, since you'll have a guaranteed burn of the mouth and throat.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Well, I'm sure that many will disagree with me in my anti-death sentence stance, but I would think the entire Hussein legal show, from the trial to the hanging, *should* have shown that rule of law and civility prevail over his methods of tyranny and fear. Hence the issue with hanging - it's closer to his methods (fear mongering) than current Western methods. Even ignoring the option of a life sentence.
Are we discussing intention or result? Because, while the result of hanging may be more humane, I don't think it's too far fetched to believe the intention of the hanging was less civil and humane.
Which is really the point. With how public that hanging was, you can be fairly sure the publicity from it was well planned out, to which it really sucks that's the message we wanted to give.
The issue isn't the person working the job, it's that person's country isn't upholding an environment that a person should be working in.
Don't get me wrong - the US needs to get a good kick in the ass in work ethic and education, but child labor sweat shops should not get our jobs, regardless of them doing our jobs cheaper. Or countries with such a crappy environment you have to wear a gas mask to work, etc.
That's still an issue, though. If they used real cops instead of cameras, you wouldn't have to do anything.
Look, if you don't want to listen to the advisement of what may and may not be interesting to you, then why use slashdot at all? Slashdot hate aside, the whole point is to bring up stuff that matters to nerds. He's saying this stuff doesn't matter. Of course you can make the final decision, but I'm not sure why you trust the slashdot web site to bring up articles that you'd find interesting over people that read them.
In other news, the article is annoyingly devoid of any statistics. I've been reading for years why Mac is a great platform to develop in (and many of the points good), but they don't really pan out as an end result of taking a big piece of the market share.
So unless you show me statistics of a gaining market share, I'm going to shelve this right along with all of the other articles talking about the good points of Macs throughout the years. This article should be named "Why Developers SHOULD Switch to Macs," not the assumption that they're already doing it.
And maybe they are? I can buy that - just show it.
I'm not in disagreement that the 'legal standards' bar works against the people much of the time. That doesn't change the fact that there's a set of standards if people were forced to abide by them, would be a safer place on the roads. It's at the cost of freedom, though, which is a hefty price. And preventing you from purchasing a vehicle that has these restrictions works against freedom, not for it.
You're convoluting two issues there: good ideas and freedoms. In all actuality, it would probably be a good idea to limit all driver's performance to legal standards. It restricts freedom, though, and that's why the overall sum is a bad idea. Restricting freedom is perfectly legitimate when the freedom is use of your stuff and you're put the restriction on other people, though.
Score: 5, >> INFORMATIVE It's the little quirks in Slashdot that entertain me so.