The best example of why 'if you don't want the public to see it, don't take it' it a truth and not victim blaming. Sadly even the cyberbullying and gang rape problems are far more serious than this. Gang rape in India has to do with open disrespect of the young females who don't want to be forced into the traditional Indian mode of dress and culture. They want to embrace our culture's dress and that's the wholly inappropriate, criminal response. Cyberbullying is an consequence of our racism and culture's hate on each other. These things that used to be a shove into the locker or a drive driven off the road. Still assault but now worse with anonymity attached.
However, there is no real anonymity on the Internet, so they can always be found out. (even tor isn't truly impenetrable).
The most important thing to remember is the Fappening is Celebrity shenanigans.
I never suggested that there was any shame in the photos. The naked body isn't shameful. You assumed that. I never said it. Nor are there any victims. They (all of them) engaged in a at risk behavior. And this time, something happened. Just like a druggie who ODs or a pickpocket who gets his arm broke by picking the wrong target, they got caught.
While the privacy breach was wrong and a civil issue (invasion of privacy), the true culprit isn't the person who hacked in, its Apple. As for your rant, as yourself why there is a continued and sustained attack against female celebrities? Perhaps its because the culture has lead to this? No Android isn't a secure zone. There is no secure zone to hide naked pics of yourself in the digital environment. That's the whole point. All this screaming about victim shaming is BS because the images don't have to be taken, there are ALWAYS other solutions for people being paid $100 a minute to stand speak and emote (or sing) and everyone should know and care about where there images are especially if you are a known quantity.
Again:
If you don't understand a technology ask someone who does to help
If you don't want pictures of yourself out of your control, don't take them and then hide them digitally. You are gluing a $100 bill to the entryway of a grocery store. Someone will eventually get it up and use it.
Don't do things you know will have negative consequences and then bitch and moan when those said consequences happen. It makes you look stupid. If you are a celebrity it can damage your career.
Finally, as I said earlier, The reason people wanted to see her was she put herself out there. She chose roles that made people curious and we have a society that shows little respect to female celebrities and wants to see every female who is attractive naked. Of course people are going to devour it.
Finally, stop whing and bitching about people point out others whining and moans as that. This isn't serious. Ebola is serious. Ferguson is serious. Isis is serious. This is celebrity shenanigans. We are treating it as such.
How many pics of unknown people were retrieved? People knew that the ICloud could be hacked. These same people wanted to see Jlaw and others naked. So they hacked Icloud. Did you notice there are no Tswift photos? She has an android phone. See any of Diana Agron? She has been hacked so many times that she doesn't trust Icloud or any other social media. Hense no pics. So the pics were in plain view just not what we would normally call it. So what 'plain view' was it? this:
http://i.imgur.com/RO8iHG0.jpg If she hadn't done that. She would have an argument.
Problem is, there are no victims in the whole of the Fappening. To borrow Biker ACs term there is the SQUID of which Jlaw was the biggest and the hackers who 'used Apple, a company notorious for lack of security' and belief that what little they had was enough. If people were personally responsible (everyone from the apple employees to JLaw) this wouldnt have happened. Combine lazy clueless celebs with poor security and you get that.
Victim blaming here is people wanting to be lazy and insecure and how dare you call us on it. Its the equivalent of leaving a $100 bill glued to the ground in front of a grocery store and counting how many people stop to try to pick it up and whine because they can't/
The benefits NEVER outweigh the risks. I stand by the statement, taking the selfies was an optional choice, and of course the only way to stop nude selfies from leaking, is not to take them. Video chat, disposable cameras, and numeorus other ways to do it exist if you are interested in minimizing risk. She and the others were lazy and thought they were safe. Also, there is no luck. What we call luck is actually statistically probability. As for JLaw's excuse, that healthy relationship wasn't healthy. There is a little thing people forget called self control. You know that thing where you don't look at anyone at all and be patient. That if sificant other isnt there you don't do anything? That thing that existed for centuries. . As for her, she could have mailed actual pictures via secure mail. And she assumes that texting them was more secure? There is no security on the internet nor privacy. There is just how hard it is to break into it. And apple loves security by obscurity.
She's angry they got released and knows no one will get punished. She knows they damaged her image and destroyed her wholesomeness. The question I ask is this: Why is her having naked pictures of herself (or of the celebs) a bad thing? http://abcnews.go.com/Primetim...
Pornography has grown into a $10 billion business — bigger than the NFL, the NBA and Major League Baseball combined — and some of the nation's best-known corporations are quietly sharing the profits. According to Adult Video News, an estimated 11,000 hard-core porn movies are produced in the United States annually, many of them in California's San Fernando Valley, where modern porn was born.
The fappening didn't damage her image in the slightest. The vanity fair article did. It made her look foolish, naive and clueless. My wish now is that no one is ever caught.
Survivor - starving people struggle to survive while uncaring overseers with video cameras heartlessly record their plight
Amazing Race - people, probably ones who escaped from the island in Survivor, flee pursuit while overseers with cameras record their crimes against the state
Thursday Night Football - FFA - Future Felons of America
CSI / Miami / New York - DNA always tells the truth
Bluebloods - The elite Chief of Police presides over a nepotistic dynasty, as is right.
Person of Interest - hackers can't escape from the loving all-seeing AI
NCIS / Los Angeles / New Orleans / JAG - we'll get you if you fuck with the Navy.
Two Broke Girls - occupy Brooklyn
Two and a Half Men - perennial loser's son is one of the disappeared. Stay in line, don't let this happen to you.
Hawaii Five O - again, don't fuck with the Navy.
The Mentalist - we can read your mind, resistance if futile. And the police will lie and trick you.
Mike an Molly - police officers are likable normal joes, not crazed thugs with pepperspray and tazers.
The Good Wife - a party apparatchik leverages her political connections to get ahead.
Madam Secretary - hey look, we're really good guys, we don't really want to bomb you. but you need bombing.
Big Bang Theory - annoying geniuses who make the bmbs for those who need bombing like ISIS
Scorpion - hackers can be good, too. They work for the State.
Elementary - Winston Smith solves crimes for the police.
Criminal Minds - that's you. There's no escape.
Fixed that for you. However, some do need bombing. Really.
...[I]t would have been faster, easier, less dangerous, and a hell of a lot more practical to just give him a ride in the fucking helicopter.
In before "Why didn't the eagles fly the One Ring to Mount Doom" and/or "Why didn't the eagles fly the company of Dwarves to the Lonely Mountain."
Because the eagles would have been corrupted (the one ring corrupted everything, thats why it was sought by Sauron. Its evil. As for the dwarves, because walking to Lonely mountain creates character and creates a second useless movie for Hollywood to shove at us.
Suspension of Disbelief: Spiderman exists and has super powers and is the only one capable of stopping The Lizard.
Terrible Writing: Some guy in New York totally knows all the crane operators in New York, knows the location of Spiderman as well as his destination, and at a moments notice is able get all his crane operator buddies to line up a dozen or more cranes on building tops along a single street and extend them so that Spiderman may web sling from them.
Hollywood: The cops hate Spiderman and want to capture him, but after seeing The Lizard they have a change of heart and love Spiderman. To show their newfound love for their new favorite superhero, a police helicopter hovering just above the roof Spiderman is on shines its spotlight onto the cranes that were lined up for him. Showing Spiderman the way to swing, swing, swing, swing, swing toward the Lizard Man is a nice gesture, but it would have been faster, easier, less dangerous, and a hell of a lot more practical to just give him a ride in the fucking helicopter.
Reality: Spiderman gets bit and dies a horrible death, The lizard is captured by several bullets to the chest and heat and is disected by some doc in washington and we never notice anything.
Its hollywood's superiority complex. Those people want to feel like they are superior to everyone. If you watch (or your teen watches) Red band society, Hollywood is Kara and we are that Nurse that has to monitor her. For those of you who don't. Hollywood believes its the in crowd and the popular cliche. Thats why they never protray anyone accurately. Its hard to when the only thing you see in the inside of your own ass.
Ok are you suggesting a comedy that revolves around a genius savant isn't comparable to a drama involving a team of said people. Honestly, the only different in Jim Parson's character and Ari Stidham's character is career choice and human body mass. They way Parson's plays Sheldon is actually inferior to Stidham because all he has to do is be funny. Lets see him play Sheldon as straight,serious in a cross over episode. It won't happen.
So A equals B because A and B are roughly the same thing. The fact you can't see that, implies you are refusing to pay attention or unwilling to.
I agree 100% with what OP said. However, to be brief, he basically said, that for entertainment to be interesting you have to have no understanding of the field at all. Those of us who aren't oil rig techs, miners or rocket scientists can love Armageddon. However, those who are those will generally hate it because it talks about stuff thats impossible. Tyson hated Gravity because he knew how wrong the physics of it was. Me, I though wow! thats amazing. I didn't know that could be possible.
Our entertainment is never supposed to teach. Its suppose to amuse, delight, inspire, titillate, evoke (fear and awe) or bore.
I Personally love Scorpion. I don't care if its real. Its real enough for me. No I don't expect that a person with no medical degree can solve a custom virus problem or save a file off of a internet router during a terrorist attack or download a file while moving at 200mph.
However, I am not remotely interested in O'brien's life, it would be very dull. Nor do I find Big Bang Theory funny. Remember writing have to make you feel for it to be good. Boring isn't good.
I really wish the British would learn the differences between a pedophile, child pornographer and child molester already. And that being a pedophile is not a crime.
Another Yank without a clue. "Child molesting" is rape, and is a crime. Possession or creation of "child pornography" (i.e. portrayals of child rape) is a less serious crime, but quite rightly still a crime.
Simply being a paedophile and not acting on it is no more illegal than being a Holocaust denier or goat-fucker.
I love insane people they make me laugh. However, they are a danger to themselves and others so I generally avoid them. Being a pedophile IS a crime. By definition: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/...
pedophile
pedfl/
noun
noun: paedophile; plural noun: paedophiles; noun: pedophile; plural noun: pedophiles
a person who is sexually attracted to children.
Is that British enough for you? How ever here is something you don't grasp. It is virtually impossibly for people afflicted with this mental disorder ( http://focus.psychiatryonline.... ) to NOT molest children. Either they rape them or they force them to engage in sexual acts with each other, or they trade in the movies and photographs of others who have done so. For example Steven Collins has admitted to being a pedophile because he exposed himself to a child. Sadly, the statute of limitations for his child molestation crime as ran out in NY state, he cannot be charged. Nevertheless, he acts on his impulses.
Oh and being a Holocaust denier or goat-fucker are also illegal. The second is bestiality, the first is a crime is Germany and Israel. It is the only that isnt a crime here because it falls under free speech and has nothing to do with sex.
So to be succinct: Pedophile = child molester. Child molester = Child pornographer, They are the three sides to the same evil triangle.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” Words to live by. Hope the brits enjoy the V is for vendetta reality they are creating for themselves/
Mysidia seems to be thinking along the lines of supreme court decisions regarding obscenity. Obscenity is difficult to define and the definition depends on intent - naked pics intended to get the viewer horny vs naked pics in a medical textbook intended to educate. Maroney's lawyers had them removed from a site called porn.com. Porn.com is aptly named - it's a porn site. Naked pictures of an attractive young woman on porn.com are probably there to be used as porn. It's porn.com, after all.
When children are involved, you don't need definitions that are quite as nuanced because you don't have quite the same first amendment issues. There's nto really any valid reason to film kids doing anything sexual, so the law can be more clear-cut. Here's a sample definition from one state:
Sec. 43.25. SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD. (a) In this section:
(1) "Sexual performance" means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18 years of age.
(2) "Sexual conduct" means sexual contact, actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals, the anus, or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola.
(3) "Performance" means any play, motion picture, photograph, dance, or other visual representation that can be exhibited before an audience of one or more persons.
This is what the law needs to look like:
Sec. 43.25. SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD. (a) In this section:
(1) "Sexual performance" means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child.
(2) "Child" means any boy or girl who is prepubescent. Also specifically any male or female under the chronological age of 13 if they have begun to develop secondary sexual characteristics, otherwise known medically as puberty.
(2) "Sexual conduct" means actual or simulated penetration of vagina, mouth or anus, sexual engagement with animals, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the penis either erect or flaccid, the anus, or female breast in conjunction with anus or vagina. Hands in genital area is also considered lewd.
(3) "Performance" means any play, motion picture, digital or analog photograph, dance, or other visual representation that can be exhibited before an audience of one or more persons. Animation that involves 3d avatars that look like cartoons do qualify as well.
This should solve that problem. It tightens the law to be functional again and removes that nasty Child pron anime that seems to float around. Also we get an actual definition of a child. (and I killed off a loophole for those might develop early) We can create a jailbait law with it. Which leads to an interesting discussion. Should that be illegal? (Don't assume I think it shouldn't.)
Well according to this society that makes you a: A pedophile b deserving of hardcore time in a max prison where you most likely will be shived. So the big question that wall of text addresses is: Did you do something wrong?
No, you did not.
That photo is not child porn. Why?
Because she isn't a child.
We need to establish in the US that a Child is a boy or girl who is prepubescent. That a Teen isn't a child but an girl or guy who hasn't reached the age of majority. (legal age to vote, get a job, support yourself etc) And that teens who are making more money than their parents are of the age of majority, so we can dispense with this willful destruction of a needed law.
Also, you can't make child pornography by yourself,
Yes, I am threatening my own karma by posting this but dammit, this stupidly has to end.
Oh and the media is filled with hypocrites but we already knew that,
A vital detail that those outside the city (and many within it) don't know - and of course won't get from the inflammatory OMG! NANNY STATE! headline/summary - is that the City of Seattle doesn't have a local landfill. Hasn't for many years; there's no nearby space. Instead, all garbage is loaded onto train cars - hundreds of them a day - and sent by rail to a landfill in rural Oregon, about 250 miles away. That was the cheapest alternative for the city, even though it involves paying twice (once to transport it, and again to the landfill operator). But it's still expensive.
Given that it's in the best interest of the City _and_ its ratepayers to reduce the amount of landfillable waste (aka number of train cars) in favor of more economic alternatives; specifically, recycling and composting, both of which are able to be handled within a few dozen miles of the city, at much lower cost than the landfill trains. The alternative is to have even more and longer trains and higher rates for garbage for everyone.
Kind of the opposite of a nanny state; this is pure and simple economics. If the spectre of a few $1 fines for the few residents who can't be bothered to separate their greasy pizza boxes into another bin makes everyone's garbage rates lower, then I'm all for it.
Actually, as soon as the garbage men show up, it's the governemnt's trash. I don't see why they shouldn't be free to do whatever they want with their property.
If it's the government's trash, why are they threatening ME with a fine if THEIR trash has too much food waste in it?
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to segreagate your waste according to the government's specifications. You're always free to load your garbage in your car, find a privately run landfill who will accept it as-is, and bring it there.
Oh but they are. What do you think that fine, no matter how small it is, is for? Its to force you to segreagate your waste according to the government's specifications because most don't have the time to drive to the 920-acre Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, located in Maple Valley, about 20 miles southeast of Seattle. Or the Roosevelt landfill, above the Columbia River Gorge. Or the Rabanco landfill in Klickitat County.
Not a good explanation at all, just a clumsy attempt to justify poor writing.
When the vast majority of the population talks of 'wasting food' they mean one thing - allowing otherwise edible material to become inedible. What happens AFTER it becomes inedible does not matter in the slightest. It does not matter if you put the stuff into the trash or compost, as far as being FOOD it has been wasted.
A headline of 'Seattle Passes Law to Encourage Recycling Organic Material' would actually convey what happened. You may or may not agree with such a law, but at least you know what it is.
A headline of 'Seattle Passes Law to Keep Residents From Wasting Food' tells you NOTHING about what they actually did. Are they going to restrict how many groceries a family can buy? Are they going to check your refrigerator to make sure you don't let leftovers go bad? Are they going to fine you for discard any food? The only reason to write such a stupid headline is as flamebait.
No, A better headline would be: Seattle Passes Law to Force Recycling Organic Material' You don't encourage people with a fine. A fine is a punishment for failing to do what is told. Seattle wants people to recycle so they can make compost. My question is why?
Please people, before you mod damn_registrars up, take a look at his comments. He's just harassing samzenpus.
This article certainly is about wasting food.
Landfill - a place to dispose of refuse and other waste material by burying it and covering it over with soil, especially as a method of filling in or extending usable land.
If you put extra food in a landfill it becomes waste.
If you put extra food into a compost bin, it becomes fertilizer.
If you are putting extra food into the landfill you get a ticket.
Therefor you are getting ticketed for "Wasting" food.
It's not hard.
You ignored one problem. A landfill is a hole in the GROUND. Food going there still becomes compost. Its just not accessible to the city. The city wants the compost for something and is willing to fine citizens for it. For what is a valid question. The post is still poorly crafted.
MSNBC has conservative bias? You mean against Conservatives, right. MSNBC is so hard core liberal that they would allow a serial killer on a show if he spouted their ideology.
Slashdot Mirror
The best example of why 'if you don't want the public to see it, don't take it' it a truth and not victim blaming. Sadly even the cyberbullying and gang rape problems are far more serious than this. Gang rape in India has to do with open disrespect of the young females who don't want to be forced into the traditional Indian mode of dress and culture. They want to embrace our culture's dress and that's the wholly inappropriate, criminal response. Cyberbullying is an consequence of our racism and culture's hate on each other. These things that used to be a shove into the locker or a drive driven off the road. Still assault but now worse with anonymity attached.
However, there is no real anonymity on the Internet, so they can always be found out. (even tor isn't truly impenetrable).
The most important thing to remember is the Fappening is Celebrity shenanigans.
I never suggested that there was any shame in the photos. The naked body isn't shameful. You assumed that. I never said it. Nor are there any victims. They (all of them) engaged in a at risk behavior. And this time, something happened. Just like a druggie who ODs or a pickpocket who gets his arm broke by picking the wrong target, they got caught.
While the privacy breach was wrong and a civil issue (invasion of privacy), the true culprit isn't the person who hacked in, its Apple. As for your rant, as yourself why there is a continued and sustained attack against female celebrities? Perhaps its because the culture has lead to this? No Android isn't a secure zone. There is no secure zone to hide naked pics of yourself in the digital environment. That's the whole point. All this screaming about victim shaming is BS because the images don't have to be taken, there are ALWAYS other solutions for people being paid $100 a minute to stand speak and emote (or sing) and everyone should know and care about where there images are especially if you are a known quantity.
Again:
If you don't understand a technology ask someone who does to help
If you don't want pictures of yourself out of your control, don't take them and then hide them digitally. You are gluing a $100 bill to the entryway of a grocery store. Someone will eventually get it up and use it.
Don't do things you know will have negative consequences and then bitch and moan when those said consequences happen. It makes you look stupid. If you are a celebrity it can damage your career.
Finally, as I said earlier, The reason people wanted to see her was she put herself out there. She chose roles that made people curious and we have a society that shows little respect to female celebrities and wants to see every female who is attractive naked. Of course people are going to devour it.
Finally, stop whing and bitching about people point out others whining and moans as that. This isn't serious. Ebola is serious. Ferguson is serious. Isis is serious. This is celebrity shenanigans. We are treating it as such.
How many pics of unknown people were retrieved? People knew that the ICloud could be hacked. These same people wanted to see Jlaw and others naked. So they hacked Icloud. Did you notice there are no Tswift photos? She has an android phone. See any of Diana Agron? She has been hacked so many times that she doesn't trust Icloud or any other social media. Hense no pics. So the pics were in plain view just not what we would normally call it. So what 'plain view' was it? this: http://i.imgur.com/RO8iHG0.jpg If she hadn't done that. She would have an argument.
Problem is, there are no victims in the whole of the Fappening. To borrow Biker ACs term there is the SQUID of which Jlaw was the biggest and the hackers who 'used Apple, a company notorious for lack of security' and belief that what little they had was enough. If people were personally responsible (everyone from the apple employees to JLaw) this wouldnt have happened. Combine lazy clueless celebs with poor security and you get that. Victim blaming here is people wanting to be lazy and insecure and how dare you call us on it. Its the equivalent of leaving a $100 bill glued to the ground in front of a grocery store and counting how many people stop to try to pick it up and whine because they can't/
why exactly would you feel the need to address photos of semen all over their faces? Did one express interest as an adult star?
The benefits NEVER outweigh the risks.
I stand by the statement, taking the selfies was an optional choice, and of course the only way to stop nude selfies from leaking, is not to take them. Video chat, disposable cameras, and numeorus other ways to do it exist if you are interested in minimizing risk. She and the others were lazy and thought they were safe.
Also, there is no luck. What we call luck is actually statistically probability. As for JLaw's excuse, that healthy relationship wasn't healthy. There is a little thing people forget called self control. You know that thing where you don't look at anyone at all and be patient. That if sificant other isnt there you don't do anything? That thing that existed for centuries.
. As for her, she could have mailed actual pictures via secure mail. And she assumes that texting them was more secure? There is no security on the internet nor privacy. There is just how hard it is to break into it. And apple loves security by obscurity.
She's angry they got released and knows no one will get punished. She knows they damaged her image and destroyed her wholesomeness. The question I ask is this: Why is her having naked pictures of herself (or of the celebs) a bad thing?
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetim...
Pornography has grown into a $10 billion business — bigger than the NFL, the NBA and Major League Baseball combined — and some of the nation's best-known corporations are quietly sharing the profits. According to Adult Video News, an estimated 11,000 hard-core porn movies are produced in the United States annually, many of them in California's San Fernando Valley, where modern porn was born. The fappening didn't damage her image in the slightest. The vanity fair article did. It made her look foolish, naive and clueless. My wish now is that no one is ever caught.
too easy:
Fixed that for you. However, some do need bombing. Really.
Hey CBS still has Survivor and the Amazing Race. And what is wrong with Joss Whedon?
...[I]t would have been faster, easier, less dangerous, and a hell of a lot more practical to just give him a ride in the fucking helicopter.
In before "Why didn't the eagles fly the One Ring to Mount Doom" and/or "Why didn't the eagles fly the company of Dwarves to the Lonely Mountain."
Because the eagles would have been corrupted (the one ring corrupted everything, thats why it was sought by Sauron. Its evil. As for the dwarves, because walking to Lonely mountain creates character and creates a second useless movie for Hollywood to shove at us.
Suspension of Disbelief: Spiderman exists and has super powers and is the only one capable of stopping The Lizard.
Terrible Writing: Some guy in New York totally knows all the crane operators in New York, knows the location of Spiderman as well as his destination, and at a moments notice is able get all his crane operator buddies to line up a dozen or more cranes on building tops along a single street and extend them so that Spiderman may web sling from them.
Hollywood: The cops hate Spiderman and want to capture him, but after seeing The Lizard they have a change of heart and love Spiderman. To show their newfound love for their new favorite superhero, a police helicopter hovering just above the roof Spiderman is on shines its spotlight onto the cranes that were lined up for him. Showing Spiderman the way to swing, swing, swing, swing, swing toward the Lizard Man is a nice gesture, but it would have been faster, easier, less dangerous, and a hell of a lot more practical to just give him a ride in the fucking helicopter.
Reality: Spiderman gets bit and dies a horrible death, The lizard is captured by several bullets to the chest and heat and is disected by some doc in washington and we never notice anything.
Its hollywood's superiority complex. Those people want to feel like they are superior to everyone. If you watch (or your teen watches) Red band society, Hollywood is Kara and we are that Nurse that has to monitor her. For those of you who don't. Hollywood believes its the in crowd and the popular cliche. Thats why they never protray anyone accurately. Its hard to when the only thing you see in the inside of your own ass.
Ok are you suggesting a comedy that revolves around a genius savant isn't comparable to a drama involving a team of said people. Honestly, the only different in Jim Parson's character and Ari Stidham's character is career choice and human body mass. They way Parson's plays Sheldon is actually inferior to Stidham because all he has to do is be funny. Lets see him play Sheldon as straight,serious in a cross over episode. It won't happen. So A equals B because A and B are roughly the same thing. The fact you can't see that, implies you are refusing to pay attention or unwilling to.
The show isn't trying to portray smart people, it's trying to portray dumb people's idea of what smart people are probably like..
Same could be said for Big Bang Theory. Look at how popular that is.
I agree 100% with what OP said. However, to be brief, he basically said, that for entertainment to be interesting you have to have no understanding of the field at all. Those of us who aren't oil rig techs, miners or rocket scientists can love Armageddon. However, those who are those will generally hate it because it talks about stuff thats impossible. Tyson hated Gravity because he knew how wrong the physics of it was. Me, I though wow! thats amazing. I didn't know that could be possible. Our entertainment is never supposed to teach. Its suppose to amuse, delight, inspire, titillate, evoke (fear and awe) or bore.
I Personally love Scorpion. I don't care if its real. Its real enough for me. No I don't expect that a person with no medical degree can solve a custom virus problem or save a file off of a internet router during a terrorist attack or download a file while moving at 200mph.
However, I am not remotely interested in O'brien's life, it would be very dull. Nor do I find Big Bang Theory funny. Remember writing have to make you feel for it to be good. Boring isn't good.
I really wish the British would learn the differences between a pedophile, child pornographer and child molester already. And that being a pedophile is not a crime.
Another Yank without a clue. "Child molesting" is rape, and is a crime. Possession or creation of "child pornography" (i.e. portrayals of child rape) is a less serious crime, but quite rightly still a crime.
Simply being a paedophile and not acting on it is no more illegal than being a Holocaust denier or goat-fucker.
I love insane people they make me laugh. However, they are a danger to themselves and others so I generally avoid them. Being a pedophile IS a crime. By definition: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/...
pedophile pedfl/ noun noun: paedophile; plural noun: paedophiles; noun: pedophile; plural noun: pedophiles a person who is sexually attracted to children.
Is that British enough for you? How ever here is something you don't grasp. It is virtually impossibly for people afflicted with this mental disorder ( http://focus.psychiatryonline.... ) to NOT molest children. Either they rape them or they force them to engage in sexual acts with each other, or they trade in the movies and photographs of others who have done so. For example Steven Collins has admitted to being a pedophile because he exposed himself to a child. Sadly, the statute of limitations for his child molestation crime as ran out in NY state, he cannot be charged. Nevertheless, he acts on his impulses. Oh and being a Holocaust denier or goat-fucker are also illegal. The second is bestiality, the first is a crime is Germany and Israel. It is the only that isnt a crime here because it falls under free speech and has nothing to do with sex. So to be succinct: Pedophile = child molester. Child molester = Child pornographer, They are the three sides to the same evil triangle.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” Words to live by. Hope the brits enjoy the V is for vendetta reality they are creating for themselves/
Mysidia seems to be thinking along the lines of supreme court decisions regarding obscenity. Obscenity is difficult to define and the definition depends on intent - naked pics intended to get the viewer horny vs naked pics in a medical textbook intended to educate. Maroney's lawyers had them removed from a site called porn.com. Porn.com is aptly named - it's a porn site. Naked pictures of an attractive young woman on porn.com are probably there to be used as porn. It's porn.com, after all.
When children are involved, you don't need definitions that are quite as nuanced because you don't have quite the same first amendment issues. There's nto really any valid reason to film kids doing anything sexual, so the law can be more clear-cut. Here's a sample definition from one state:
Sec. 43.25. SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD. (a) In this section: (1) "Sexual performance" means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18 years of age. (2) "Sexual conduct" means sexual contact, actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals, the anus, or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola. (3) "Performance" means any play, motion picture, photograph, dance, or other visual representation that can be exhibited before an audience of one or more persons.
This is what the law needs to look like:
Sec. 43.25. SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD. (a) In this section:
(1) "Sexual performance" means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child.
(2) "Child" means any boy or girl who is prepubescent. Also specifically any male or female under the chronological age of 13 if they have begun to develop secondary sexual characteristics, otherwise known medically as puberty.
(2) "Sexual conduct" means actual or simulated penetration of vagina, mouth or anus, sexual engagement with animals, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the penis either erect or flaccid, the anus, or female breast in conjunction with anus or vagina. Hands in genital area is also considered lewd.
(3) "Performance" means any play, motion picture, digital or analog photograph, dance, or other visual representation that can be exhibited before an audience of one or more persons. Animation that involves 3d avatars that look like cartoons do qualify as well.
This should solve that problem. It tightens the law to be functional again and removes that nasty Child pron anime that seems to float around. Also we get an actual definition of a child. (and I killed off a loophole for those might develop early) We can create a jailbait law with it. Which leads to an interesting discussion. Should that be illegal? (Don't assume I think it shouldn't.)
Well according to this society that makes you a: A pedophile b deserving of hardcore time in a max prison where you most likely will be shived. So the big question that wall of text addresses is: Did you do something wrong?
No, you did not.
That photo is not child porn. Why?
Because she isn't a child.
We need to establish in the US that a Child is a boy or girl who is prepubescent. That a Teen isn't a child but an girl or guy who hasn't reached the age of majority. (legal age to vote, get a job, support yourself etc) And that teens who are making more money than their parents are of the age of majority, so we can dispense with this willful destruction of a needed law. Also, you can't make child pornography by yourself, Yes, I am threatening my own karma by posting this but dammit, this stupidly has to end. Oh and the media is filled with hypocrites but we already knew that,
A vital detail that those outside the city (and many within it) don't know - and of course won't get from the inflammatory OMG! NANNY STATE! headline/summary - is that the City of Seattle doesn't have a local landfill. Hasn't for many years; there's no nearby space. Instead, all garbage is loaded onto train cars - hundreds of them a day - and sent by rail to a landfill in rural Oregon, about 250 miles away. That was the cheapest alternative for the city, even though it involves paying twice (once to transport it, and again to the landfill operator). But it's still expensive. Given that it's in the best interest of the City _and_ its ratepayers to reduce the amount of landfillable waste (aka number of train cars) in favor of more economic alternatives; specifically, recycling and composting, both of which are able to be handled within a few dozen miles of the city, at much lower cost than the landfill trains. The alternative is to have even more and longer trains and higher rates for garbage for everyone. Kind of the opposite of a nanny state; this is pure and simple economics. If the spectre of a few $1 fines for the few residents who can't be bothered to separate their greasy pizza boxes into another bin makes everyone's garbage rates lower, then I'm all for it.
Thats BS. Seattle has no landfill because it doesn't want one. Not because there is no space. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_City_Light
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/...
http://www.economist.com/node/...
(from 2007) http://seattletimes.com/.../20...
(2012) http://your.kingcounty.gov/sol...
OP is referencing this: http://www.seattle.gov/finance...
That's the problem: wastefull goverment mismanagement when they could make a deal with those nearby.
If it's the government's trash, why are they threatening ME with a fine if THEIR trash has too much food waste in it?
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to segreagate your waste according to the government's specifications. You're always free to load your garbage in your car, find a privately run landfill who will accept it as-is, and bring it there.
Oh but they are. What do you think that fine, no matter how small it is, is for? Its to force you to segreagate your waste according to the government's specifications because most don't have the time to drive to the 920-acre Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, located in Maple Valley, about 20 miles southeast of Seattle.
Or the Roosevelt landfill, above the Columbia River Gorge.
Or the Rabanco landfill in Klickitat County.
Not a good explanation at all, just a clumsy attempt to justify poor writing.
When the vast majority of the population talks of 'wasting food' they mean one thing - allowing otherwise edible material to become inedible. What happens AFTER it becomes inedible does not matter in the slightest. It does not matter if you put the stuff into the trash or compost, as far as being FOOD it has been wasted.
A headline of 'Seattle Passes Law to Encourage Recycling Organic Material' would actually convey what happened. You may or may not agree with such a law, but at least you know what it is.
A headline of 'Seattle Passes Law to Keep Residents From Wasting Food' tells you NOTHING about what they actually did. Are they going to restrict how many groceries a family can buy? Are they going to check your refrigerator to make sure you don't let leftovers go bad? Are they going to fine you for discard any food? The only reason to write such a stupid headline is as flamebait.
No, A better headline would be: Seattle Passes Law to Force Recycling Organic Material' You don't encourage people with a fine. A fine is a punishment for failing to do what is told. Seattle wants people to recycle so they can make compost. My question is why?
Please people, before you mod damn_registrars up, take a look at his comments. He's just harassing samzenpus.
This article certainly is about wasting food.
Landfill - a place to dispose of refuse and other waste material by burying it and covering it over with soil, especially as a method of filling in or extending usable land.
If you put extra food in a landfill it becomes waste. If you put extra food into a compost bin, it becomes fertilizer. If you are putting extra food into the landfill you get a ticket. Therefor you are getting ticketed for "Wasting" food. It's not hard.
You ignored one problem. A landfill is a hole in the GROUND .
Food going there still becomes compost. Its just not accessible to the city. The city wants the compost for something and is willing to fine citizens for it. For what is a valid question. The post is still poorly crafted.
MSNBC has conservative bias? You mean against Conservatives, right. MSNBC is so hard core liberal that they would allow a serial killer on a show if he spouted their ideology.
"The damn government won't let me" is just an excuse for the weak. A really annoyed liberal anarchist is not afraid to use the ammo box.
Or a car for that manner. A really athletic but annoyed liberal anarchist would leap over a fence and burst through the unlocked North Portico doors.
But they paid for reviews. So after paying Yelp! to shill for them unsuccessfully, they paid customers to shill for them.
I fail to see how anyone in this story acted non-shittily.
I fail to see this as a problem. They beat yelp at its own game. Good for them.