Instead of calling you wrong, I will try to show you another right. Logic doesn't always mean a singular conclusion.
Me? I am not scared. I am comfortable letting in all these girls and their immediate families. It scares me exactly none.
Hell, if it's just a few, I'd be willing to give hem shelter until they got on their feet. I can even afford to feed them.
Point being, I am not scared. Funny, people point out lower crime rates in immigrantopulations, but they never bother to point out that is above and beyond what would have been, had that population existed.
So, you're right. I just disagree. I am not scared of a half-dozen little girls, or their family. If I can't beat them up, I can bribe them with chocolate chip cookies.
Note: my view would change if these were ex-ISIS/ISIL/IS fighters, or similar. I'll take the chance with a handful of nerdy little girls. Worst case, we distract them with Americana and teen pop idols.
It being so close to the 4th, and I being a sentimental old fool, it would be so awesome if the sent in something like SEAL Team 6 in to get the contestants from both f these countires, chuck them and their gear into a C-5, and deliver them under convoy conditions to the competition.
Hell, there was an earthquake in Nepal. I had a visa application in, when it happened. It was denied almost immediately. I straight up made a donation to an NGO that was on the ground helping and even forwarded the receipt with my new visa application.
In other words, I pretty much tried to bribe my way into Nepal. In my defense, I wanted to help. However, yes... Yes, I tried to bribe my way in. I did, however, donate a goodly sum.
That visa was declined as well. They took like 60 days to decline it. I presume that was because they were buried under piles of rubble and because they weren't letting people in to help clear up the mess. Also, I haven't dared reapply for a new visa. I think my bribery attempt may have soured some opinions. I don't know, as I haven't tried.
Anyhow, point being that a visa is not even remotely a sure thing. Also, you can bribe your way to permanent resident, but seemingly not in Nepal. Even when they are in dire straights, you can't even bribe your way in.
I mostly live off capital gains. That matters because it means I did well last year. I paid a large amount of taxes, at the Federal and State level. It was a pretty good number and I don't have any complaints about paying it.
Which leads me to this...
I hate how my taxes are spent but I begrudge them nothing. How about we build one less bomber and support that kid's whole family in perpetuity? How about you change long term capital gains into 36 months instead of 12? Maybe even bump it up 7.5%? I don't mind and it will not make me reconsider investing in America. I'll still happily invest and pay my taxes. Those changes would cost me a few bucks, but not enough to hurt.
And, you know, buy one fewer bomber. Hell, we can probably get a few more years out of our current generation aircraft carriers. For that amount of money, we could probably outfit her entire family with limos and servants.
If you want to really help, let me write off more charitable donations, but enforce some standards to be called a charitable donation. I already donate more than I get credit for. Inspire me to donate even more. It just reduces my tax burden. It still costs me money.
Seriously, we could feed and water that whole country with table scraps. I am not entirely for open borders, but I can understand nationalized empathy by means of accepting immigrants. We aren't poor. We are just in debt because we like bombing little brown men. To be fair, we do have a pretty adept military.
If the country is so bad that you complain about it, maybe it isn't quite the missed opportunity that you are making it out to be? Good. She will be well rested and have fresh new ideas for when she goes to the competition in India. That's even closer.
I am on the left. I suspect you are on the left. Trump has done nothing to legally qualify as a traitor. Traitor is well defined. You may hate Russia, but they are not actually a recognized enemy of the nation. He hasn't done anything qualifies him to be a traitor.
Meh... Give it six months. We have to get some declared enemies first. I don't think anyone has been formally on the list since like 1954. Even the USSR wasn't an official enemy of the US, IIRC.
Sorry - let me address that. Yeah, still the same process of determining prohibition. You can be framed for any one of a number of different offenses. This is no different. It's seemingly not even that difficult to frame someone, and is even more possible with people having the courtesy to carry a tracking device with them.
Not that it matters, Mens Rea has been dead for longer than I've been alive. I'm not as old as the plea agreement. Intent has gone out the window, long ago.
Where am I going? Well, it's actually a legitimate idea to say that punishing people should not be allowed. It's a legitimate rebuttal to say, "It increases the crime associated with it." But, saying it doesn't stop anyone? You might just as well erase most of the other laws on the books. Laws prohibit stuff, more often than not. It's what they do.
There's a bunch of legitimate reasons to suggest banning these dolls would be bordering on mentally retarded. However, that it's akin to prohibition is not one that I consider such. No, no I do not.;-) It's an absolutely stupid idea. It's based on no science, it's preemptive in it's ban, and it may actually be a good thing for harm reduction.
Either way, it'd be tit easy to frame someone and it being "on a computer" doesn't actually make it anything different. Also, it's kinda a moot point because they're not going to listen to us and, as I said, Mens Rea is dead. People have had an OUI stand up in court, when they were in a car on blocks while they listened to the radio. Mens Rea is long since gone.
I bet they'd love a pipeline to the sea and American destroyers and a carrier sitting nearby to ensure their safety.
It'd be the biggest finger to Putin they could give.
Also, on a geopolitical scale, and being a dumb American, I'd have to laugh my ass of for something like this to come about. I'm pretty sure we could just stomp in there and take it by force. I'm pretty sure countries like Germany will be angry with us, but I bet they don't actually attack us - or help the locals. The UK? They're not gonna stop us if we go on a rampage and just take their oil. Canada? No... Mexico? No.... Russia? Only a token amount - and then maybe not if we've said we'll stay inside the borders. China? Not a chance in hell. They'd just hope we sell them some of that sweet, sweet oil.
It'd take a big pipe but I see no technical reason why it couldn't happen. If we assume a "judicious use of force," then it may even be easily accomplished with little complaint from the locals. (Also, probably some bribes.)
It's oil. If the US really wanted it, and were desperately in need of it, I'd not be even a wee bit surprised if they just pretty much took it and insisted that it be put into said pipeline or face AmeriOil Corps who are subcontracted to guard it.
I'm not even kidding. If we want that oil, we'd probably just come take it. 'Snot like the planet is going to attack the US. I'm pretty sure we could throw a few nukes and only get mild rebuke from the UN. You don't really think we're going to let the UN land troops on our soil, do you? No, that's not gonna happen.
Which was kinda my point. If it's valuable and the West wants it, we'd just go make sure we got it. Besides, we can sell it to China and take some power away from the Middle East. They'd love a new source for oil. They'd like it even better if it were patroled by AmeriOil, probably.)
To be clear - we're almost certainly on the same side of the argument.
However, almost every law is a restriction in liberty and is prohibiting something. It can be murder, drugs, alcohol, sex with dinosaur eggs, or driving while intoxicated. The root is, they prohibit something - usually an action. In this case, they'd be prohibiting the action of acquiring said doll and/or using it for sexual purposes.
Like prohibiting alcohol, child sex-dolls can be smuggled.
Point being that laws don't prevent anything (though there is some deterring effect that has been quantified, it still doesn't prevent a motivated party), but seek to establish a set of societal norms to respond punitively to a violation of said law (or social contract - to be more encompassing).
In this case, we're talking a representation in a doll, there's a physical manifestation - it's not crammed into my browser's cache file, it's something put on a bad, maybe? I gotta be honest, I'm not actually sure how you'd store said sex robot. Point being, it'd have a manifestation - in the physical realm, by intent, or by having demonstrated an action to acquire one.
Mens Rea is kinda dead, by the way. That's not entirely related to this post.
The point being, prohibiting an act (drinking, copyright infringement, murder, tax evasion, etc) doesn't really stop a large number of people from violating the law. If you say prohibition is pointless then logic dictates that the rest of the social contract follows. We know prohibition doesn't work. We still prohibit certain acts, because we need to establish a punitive response to such.
To be clear, I see no reason to ban robots that can be used for sexual gratification - regardless of their outward appearance. My only complaint was your lack of logic concerning prohibition and legality. We prohibit lots of things, with the expectation that someone is going to do it. In fact, you can trivially see that we expect people to do things like murder someone. If we didn't expect them to commit murder, we'd have not established rules to punish them. If we didn't expect them to break the law, we'd not have penalties and courts. Rules are meant to be broken, after all.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Like most people, they believe they represent the norm, and maybe even the ideal. If the app has difficulty understanding them, it surely has nothing to do with their own shortcomings, but is the fault of others - including entire nationalities, even if our accents also vary greatly.
I kinda doubt they will be along to mention that they are grateful for you having given them the chance to learn. Call it a hunch, but it seems unlikely that they will do so.
This is probably going to sound like a lie. I'm okay with you disbelieving me. Still, I mst tell you about a chick we are going to call Zoe. Why are we going to call her Zoe? Well, that is her name.
Anyow, she was my typical girlfriend at that time. She was pretty, pretty much insane, and pretty useless in the grander scale. She was a granola eating hippie chick with a false projection of being peaceful.
One of her favorite things to do, assuming she didn't have to pretend to be someone else, was farting. Yup... A chick that farted. Other than the fact that she ate no meat and shaved nothing, she was really kinda attractive - except she loved farting.
She'd fart and giggle. She'd force herself to fart. She'd even eat foods which she felt would help her fart. They weren't even odorless farts. She would Dutch Oven herself, and giggle.
I don't have a point, except that women both fart and can be pretty juvenile about it. I haven't seen her in twenty, or more, years. She is probably out there and crop dusting to this very day. She is secure in the knowledge that she will be the last person blamed, simply because of her gender.
So, if you meet a farting Zoe, you should try to have sex with her. She gave great head. Also, she is crazy. Like, cut herself kinda crazy. It's still a fun ride.
The first dance, in part, you learned to do. Sorry for the correction but it kinda matters - at least to me.
You almost certainly haven't learned to dance. You certainly didn't learn 'a first time' of how to dance. That's okay, really. You learned to give in time, r you did not. Professional dancers are the exception.
I used to make extra money by playing in a band. I'm long since retired. However, there is no first time one is taught to dance. Once learned, it is not forgotten and learned anew. However, new specific moves may be learned.
Can you count? The most difficult count you may have to do is count from 1 to 12 - assuming Western music of all types. Kinda like how we eventually standardized on 440 = A, we have a limited number of BPM.
Follow the drum, and wiggle in time to that. There... You're now dancing. Jam band? Dig a hole by walking back and forth. Trance? Throw in a step to alternating sides and keep your arms synchronized. Rock? Keep your feet in the same range and work in a small circle.
Etc...
I can play loads of musical instruments, but I have never taken a formal dance lesson while sober. (Long story...) I have danced on five continents and haven't ever known the proper way to dance. I can fake a waltz and probably a few tango steps, for example.
The whole point is learn to count and then wiggle in time with that count. Even on stage, I'm counting too. Just wiggle in time and few will know the difference, 'cause they aren't professional dances themselves. If you can count, you can dance. I have to believe you can coun to 12. If you can't, three fours make a twelve.
Just wiggle in time. I have seriously danced on five continents. I am also not even remotely a dancer. I've even danced to aboriginal music, of many types. Didn't care, had fun.
Seriously, wiggle in time with the music. Have confidence that yo can count to 12. You can even do something like stop-motion photography and make your dance moves look like you're burying a body, nobody will be the wiser. Just wiggle in time.
Err... I've taken t recording lately. I'd be happy to show you what I play. I am trained as a classical guitarist, but took many years in percussion. Just learn to count. You can, with practice, take cues from the band.
They are kinda close. You can release blobs that interact with the kernel, and even compile them together - so long as the blob doesn't modify the kernel directly. This was altered with GPLv3 and the Linux kernel is still GPLv2. You can shim, system call, and all sorts of stuff - and not release your code AND be in compliance with v2. This is not true with v3 and is a reason that the kernel is still GPLv2.
I am 99.81124% sure my understanding is correct. Namely, I have paid someone to tell me the differences and they are an actual lawyer. I had a good reason, at the time. It's a long story...
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, in most every regard.
Instead of calling you wrong, I will try to show you another right. Logic doesn't always mean a singular conclusion.
Me? I am not scared. I am comfortable letting in all these girls and their immediate families. It scares me exactly none.
Hell, if it's just a few, I'd be willing to give hem shelter until they got on their feet. I can even afford to feed them.
Point being, I am not scared. Funny, people point out lower crime rates in immigrantopulations, but they never bother to point out that is above and beyond what would have been, had that population existed.
So, you're right. I just disagree. I am not scared of a half-dozen little girls, or their family. If I can't beat them up, I can bribe them with chocolate chip cookies.
Note: my view would change if these were ex-ISIS/ISIL/IS fighters, or similar. I'll take the chance with a handful of nerdy little girls. Worst case, we distract them with Americana and teen pop idols.
It being so close to the 4th, and I being a sentimental old fool, it would be so awesome if the sent in something like SEAL Team 6 in to get the contestants from both f these countires, chuck them and their gear into a C-5, and deliver them under convoy conditions to the competition.
It'd restore my faith n America.
Also, it'd be awesome footage and fantastic PR.
Hell, there was an earthquake in Nepal. I had a visa application in, when it happened. It was denied almost immediately. I straight up made a donation to an NGO that was on the ground helping and even forwarded the receipt with my new visa application.
In other words, I pretty much tried to bribe my way into Nepal. In my defense, I wanted to help. However, yes... Yes, I tried to bribe my way in. I did, however, donate a goodly sum.
That visa was declined as well. They took like 60 days to decline it. I presume that was because they were buried under piles of rubble and because they weren't letting people in to help clear up the mess. Also, I haven't dared reapply for a new visa. I think my bribery attempt may have soured some opinions. I don't know, as I haven't tried.
Anyhow, point being that a visa is not even remotely a sure thing. Also, you can bribe your way to permanent resident, but seemingly not in Nepal. Even when they are in dire straights, you can't even bribe your way in.
I mostly live off capital gains. That matters because it means I did well last year. I paid a large amount of taxes, at the Federal and State level. It was a pretty good number and I don't have any complaints about paying it.
Which leads me to this...
I hate how my taxes are spent but I begrudge them nothing. How about we build one less bomber and support that kid's whole family in perpetuity? How about you change long term capital gains into 36 months instead of 12? Maybe even bump it up 7.5%? I don't mind and it will not make me reconsider investing in America. I'll still happily invest and pay my taxes. Those changes would cost me a few bucks, but not enough to hurt.
And, you know, buy one fewer bomber. Hell, we can probably get a few more years out of our current generation aircraft carriers. For that amount of money, we could probably outfit her entire family with limos and servants.
If you want to really help, let me write off more charitable donations, but enforce some standards to be called a charitable donation. I already donate more than I get credit for. Inspire me to donate even more. It just reduces my tax burden. It still costs me money.
Seriously, we could feed and water that whole country with table scraps. I am not entirely for open borders, but I can understand nationalized empathy by means of accepting immigrants. We aren't poor. We are just in debt because we like bombing little brown men. To be fair, we do have a pretty adept military.
Trump didn't publish it, did he?
Pick a night with your friends and go out breaking glass.
Do I need to point out this is in jest?
Silly question...
Do you really believe people do that?
You say no one can get an education, yet here we are with some educated people.
I see a flaw in your logic.
If the country is so bad that you complain about it, maybe it isn't quite the missed opportunity that you are making it out to be? Good. She will be well rested and have fresh new ideas for when she goes to the competition in India. That's even closer.
I am on the left. I suspect you are on the left. Trump has done nothing to legally qualify as a traitor. Traitor is well defined. You may hate Russia, but they are not actually a recognized enemy of the nation. He hasn't done anything qualifies him to be a traitor.
Meh... Give it six months. We have to get some declared enemies first. I don't think anyone has been formally on the list since like 1954. Even the USSR wasn't an official enemy of the US, IIRC.
^What he said.
Wait, no. I misread the tone of your post. My bad.
> See the problem yet?
Hold on...
Sorry - let me address that. Yeah, still the same process of determining prohibition. You can be framed for any one of a number of different offenses. This is no different. It's seemingly not even that difficult to frame someone, and is even more possible with people having the courtesy to carry a tracking device with them.
Not that it matters, Mens Rea has been dead for longer than I've been alive. I'm not as old as the plea agreement. Intent has gone out the window, long ago.
Where am I going? Well, it's actually a legitimate idea to say that punishing people should not be allowed. It's a legitimate rebuttal to say, "It increases the crime associated with it." But, saying it doesn't stop anyone? You might just as well erase most of the other laws on the books. Laws prohibit stuff, more often than not. It's what they do.
There's a bunch of legitimate reasons to suggest banning these dolls would be bordering on mentally retarded. However, that it's akin to prohibition is not one that I consider such. No, no I do not. ;-) It's an absolutely stupid idea. It's based on no science, it's preemptive in it's ban, and it may actually be a good thing for harm reduction.
Either way, it'd be tit easy to frame someone and it being "on a computer" doesn't actually make it anything different. Also, it's kinda a moot point because they're not going to listen to us and, as I said, Mens Rea is dead. People have had an OUI stand up in court, when they were in a car on blocks while they listened to the radio. Mens Rea is long since gone.
I bet they'd love a pipeline to the sea and American destroyers and a carrier sitting nearby to ensure their safety.
It'd be the biggest finger to Putin they could give.
Also, on a geopolitical scale, and being a dumb American, I'd have to laugh my ass of for something like this to come about. I'm pretty sure we could just stomp in there and take it by force. I'm pretty sure countries like Germany will be angry with us, but I bet they don't actually attack us - or help the locals. The UK? They're not gonna stop us if we go on a rampage and just take their oil. Canada? No... Mexico? No.... Russia? Only a token amount - and then maybe not if we've said we'll stay inside the borders. China? Not a chance in hell. They'd just hope we sell them some of that sweet, sweet oil.
It'd take a big pipe but I see no technical reason why it couldn't happen. If we assume a "judicious use of force," then it may even be easily accomplished with little complaint from the locals. (Also, probably some bribes.)
It's oil. If the US really wanted it, and were desperately in need of it, I'd not be even a wee bit surprised if they just pretty much took it and insisted that it be put into said pipeline or face AmeriOil Corps who are subcontracted to guard it.
I'm not even kidding. If we want that oil, we'd probably just come take it. 'Snot like the planet is going to attack the US. I'm pretty sure we could throw a few nukes and only get mild rebuke from the UN. You don't really think we're going to let the UN land troops on our soil, do you? No, that's not gonna happen.
Which was kinda my point. If it's valuable and the West wants it, we'd just go make sure we got it. Besides, we can sell it to China and take some power away from the Middle East. They'd love a new source for oil. They'd like it even better if it were patroled by AmeriOil, probably.)
To be clear - we're almost certainly on the same side of the argument.
However, almost every law is a restriction in liberty and is prohibiting something. It can be murder, drugs, alcohol, sex with dinosaur eggs, or driving while intoxicated. The root is, they prohibit something - usually an action. In this case, they'd be prohibiting the action of acquiring said doll and/or using it for sexual purposes.
Like prohibiting alcohol, child sex-dolls can be smuggled.
Point being that laws don't prevent anything (though there is some deterring effect that has been quantified, it still doesn't prevent a motivated party), but seek to establish a set of societal norms to respond punitively to a violation of said law (or social contract - to be more encompassing).
In this case, we're talking a representation in a doll, there's a physical manifestation - it's not crammed into my browser's cache file, it's something put on a bad, maybe? I gotta be honest, I'm not actually sure how you'd store said sex robot. Point being, it'd have a manifestation - in the physical realm, by intent, or by having demonstrated an action to acquire one.
Mens Rea is kinda dead, by the way. That's not entirely related to this post.
The point being, prohibiting an act (drinking, copyright infringement, murder, tax evasion, etc) doesn't really stop a large number of people from violating the law. If you say prohibition is pointless then logic dictates that the rest of the social contract follows. We know prohibition doesn't work. We still prohibit certain acts, because we need to establish a punitive response to such.
To be clear, I see no reason to ban robots that can be used for sexual gratification - regardless of their outward appearance. My only complaint was your lack of logic concerning prohibition and legality. We prohibit lots of things, with the expectation that someone is going to do it. In fact, you can trivially see that we expect people to do things like murder someone. If we didn't expect them to commit murder, we'd have not established rules to punish them. If we didn't expect them to break the law, we'd not have penalties and courts. Rules are meant to be broken, after all.
Citation needed. You must demonstrate that that was because of Trump's 'Muslim ban.'
No, opinion pieces do not count.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Like most people, they believe they represent the norm, and maybe even the ideal. If the app has difficulty understanding them, it surely has nothing to do with their own shortcomings, but is the fault of others - including entire nationalities, even if our accents also vary greatly.
I kinda doubt they will be along to mention that they are grateful for you having given them the chance to learn. Call it a hunch, but it seems unlikely that they will do so.
This is probably going to sound like a lie. I'm okay with you disbelieving me. Still, I mst tell you about a chick we are going to call Zoe. Why are we going to call her Zoe? Well, that is her name.
Anyow, she was my typical girlfriend at that time. She was pretty, pretty much insane, and pretty useless in the grander scale. She was a granola eating hippie chick with a false projection of being peaceful.
One of her favorite things to do, assuming she didn't have to pretend to be someone else, was farting. Yup... A chick that farted. Other than the fact that she ate no meat and shaved nothing, she was really kinda attractive - except she loved farting.
She'd fart and giggle. She'd force herself to fart. She'd even eat foods which she felt would help her fart. They weren't even odorless farts. She would Dutch Oven herself, and giggle.
I don't have a point, except that women both fart and can be pretty juvenile about it. I haven't seen her in twenty, or more, years. She is probably out there and crop dusting to this very day. She is secure in the knowledge that she will be the last person blamed, simply because of her gender.
So, if you meet a farting Zoe, you should try to have sex with her. She gave great head. Also, she is crazy. Like, cut herself kinda crazy. It's still a fun ride.
The first dance, in part, you learned to do. Sorry for the correction but it kinda matters - at least to me.
You almost certainly haven't learned to dance. You certainly didn't learn 'a first time' of how to dance. That's okay, really. You learned to give in time, r you did not. Professional dancers are the exception.
I used to make extra money by playing in a band. I'm long since retired. However, there is no first time one is taught to dance. Once learned, it is not forgotten and learned anew. However, new specific moves may be learned.
Can you count? The most difficult count you may have to do is count from 1 to 12 - assuming Western music of all types. Kinda like how we eventually standardized on 440 = A, we have a limited number of BPM.
Follow the drum, and wiggle in time to that. There... You're now dancing. Jam band? Dig a hole by walking back and forth. Trance? Throw in a step to alternating sides and keep your arms synchronized. Rock? Keep your feet in the same range and work in a small circle.
Etc...
I can play loads of musical instruments, but I have never taken a formal dance lesson while sober. (Long story...) I have danced on five continents and haven't ever known the proper way to dance. I can fake a waltz and probably a few tango steps, for example.
The whole point is learn to count and then wiggle in time with that count. Even on stage, I'm counting too. Just wiggle in time and few will know the difference, 'cause they aren't professional dances themselves. If you can count, you can dance. I have to believe you can coun to 12. If you can't, three fours make a twelve.
Just wiggle in time. I have seriously danced on five continents. I am also not even remotely a dancer. I've even danced to aboriginal music, of many types. Didn't care, had fun.
Seriously, wiggle in time with the music. Have confidence that yo can count to 12. You can even do something like stop-motion photography and make your dance moves look like you're burying a body, nobody will be the wiser. Just wiggle in time.
Err... I've taken t recording lately. I'd be happy to show you what I play. I am trained as a classical guitarist, but took many years in percussion. Just learn to count. You can, with practice, take cues from the band.
Then, you can write a book on dancing.
Really?
I am not sure if you're able to be that dumb and still find Slashdot. I will assume you're trolling, which is better than the alternative assumption.
They are kinda close. You can release blobs that interact with the kernel, and even compile them together - so long as the blob doesn't modify the kernel directly. This was altered with GPLv3 and the Linux kernel is still GPLv2. You can shim, system call, and all sorts of stuff - and not release your code AND be in compliance with v2. This is not true with v3 and is a reason that the kernel is still GPLv2.
I am 99.81124% sure my understanding is correct. Namely, I have paid someone to tell me the differences and they are an actual lawyer. I had a good reason, at the time. It's a long story...
That can never be objective, nor can a true control be had. It's a good example of why I hold soft sciences in contempt.
No bow, if any value, is silent. Stop playing video games or believing movies. Sheesh...
If it were silent, it'd mean less wasted energy - perhaps. Still, not gonna happen.
Right? It could have been from the government directly.