Because nobody on Slashdot knows that primary filesystem used on Linux is called Ext3 and we're too stupid to figure out what Ext4 might be. Come on. I, for one, saw the news item and immediately thought, "How to move to ext4? What's in it for me?"
Thank you, GP, for saving me the seconds of typing with a convenient link. And shame on you for wanting to put out a candle that might be used to light the darkness.
Considering the Rowling's books are the only canon reference for Harry Potter it'd have to be extensively quoting from them in order to have any validity at all.
Comparing Harry Potter to tales of Shakesperean value is a great disservice to not only those already dead, but to the entirity of English Literature. What's next? Comparing Spider-Man to Beowulf?
Sorry for being cranky about it as it was probably just an oversight and accidental comparison, but if Rowling's work was really worthy of artistic and literary merit, she wouldn't have to be so fearful of derivative works detracting from what she created.
Although I do agree from a military perspective the less reliance on others is probably for the best, "Made in the USA" is not an alternate spelling of "exploit-free".
I grabbed the closest thing to me, my Limited Edition Ceramic Invader Zim figurine and flung it at him. It shattered into a million pieces. And nothing of value was lost.:)
So if the 10-yr-old down the street consents, you're OK with it? 10-yr-olds can't legally consent. Obviously it's not ok because it would be, by definition, non-consentual. In relation to this argument, though, should the 10-yr-old not be permitted to leave the house for fear of awakening the inner pedophile that might exist in one of the neighbors?
I went to a porno bookstore, put a quarter in a slot, and saw this porn movie. It was just a guy coming up from behind a girl and attacking her and raping her. That's when I started having rape fantasies. When I saw that movie, it was like somebody lit a fuse from my childhood on up... I just went for it, went out and raped." Rapist interviewed by Beneke, 1982, pp. 73-74. Funny, you interpreted that as rape porn cause him to rape. Another person might interpret that as porn, not the distinction between rape and non-rape, lead him to rape. Indeed, that very same interview from 1982 is used by anti-pornography groups to charge against porn in general.
Whether or not you personally like porn is irrelevant to the discussion, but, since you mentioned it, I wonder if you would still cling so tenaciously to these weak correlations between actual crimes and fantasy depictions of them if we were talking about the porn you personally don't see anything wrong with.
Now, unless you can find links to several reputable studies that show that watching rape videos has no effect in pushing a potential rapist toward doing the act, I suggest you STFU until you grow a clue. Here's a clue-growth for you: If violent porn (rape porn) is such a big influence on rapists, why does Japan, with easily the most violent and grotesque porn flicks (subjective terms, but I don't expect that to be argued against), place 54th on a scale of most rapes per capita? I mean, the UK is #13, and the US is #9! I suppose it's that little mosaic that's keeping crime low. Clearly fictional depictions of rape don't have a statistically significant influence on actual crime... so what other justification do we have for making it a crime to possess them other than enforcing one arbitrary person's taste over another?
And I suppose you're also the arbiter of what's reputable and what's not, so, clearly those stastics are biased. SOME of us don't appreciate pointing the finger at the "corrupting influence of the month" game that you, and so many politicians, play. At least we can't expect politicians to know better.
A subpoena could probably compel them to provide you with access. From the question it seems like it's related to a life insurance policy that doesn't pay on suicide, which is the norm. So, the family ought to do a cost-benefit analysis about renting lawyer time for said subpoenas versus getting what they stand to gain by proving it wasn't a premeditated suicide.
First, I think that "rape porn" is hideous. You have to be a sick fuck to enjoy that sort of thing and really should get help, in the form of a bullet induced head wound. First, I think that "furry porn" is hideous. You have to be a sick fuck to enjoy that sort of thing and really should get help, in the form of a bullet induced head wound.
Who makes the call of what's sick and what's not? Your problem with the law is about how its boundaries cannot be defined. Personally, my problem with the law is that it would allow someone (government? a panel of psychologists maybe? parents? religious figures? anyone?) impose upon others their taste and convictions.
You wanna stop rape? Why not increase the penalties for violators? Why not dispatch more police on the streets instead of having them sit in hiding around speed traps? Why not revoke laws that prohibit people from carrying weapons they can use to defend themselves from attack? Use the same process we use to prevent general anarchy to weed out those in society that ARE actually suseptible to violence AND CHOOSE to act them out knowing the consequences. You know, instead of forbidding people to freely engage in fantasy if they so choose, regardless of how sick anyone thinks it is.
At least if a person (perhaps you'd call them a rapist-in-waiting or a sick fuck) is getting off to a fictional reenactment they're not out in public actually victimizing women.
I suggest legislation banning slippery slopes. Then what? The banning of lightly greased staircases? Crisco-coated ladders? Telephone poles seasoned with lard?
Perhaps it should be made illegal to bypass frictional forces. It'll be called the Digital Millenium Friction Protection Act.
Indeed. I look forward to PrisonFS, where you can hide cigs inside the hard drive and they just look like ordinary files, kernel modifications to allow for self-tattooing code (with needles of questionable sterility, of course), and a new kind of distributed computing system where workgroups of computers can form a sort of "gang" in which they bust caps in other competing computers that gain access to their LAN.
AFAIK computer forensics rely on having snapshots of the machine with no possible interference from the OS and running programs. This is a war on terror / pedophiles / drugs / little chocolate donuts! How dare you use semantics to cloud our investigations to protect the people / children / teens / diabetics.
I agree that a substantial number of rapists and molesters and whatnot probably do get off on "violent" porn. But so do quite a few very normal people who will never rape someone. We're talking about pseudo-violent porn or BDSM. What if the topic was kiddie porn? What if it was underage-looking CGI images or underage-looking drawings? The crime is the act yet the depiction is the crime for some reason.
When people like myself get marked as pedophile sympathizers for raising red flags about laws intended to protect people from thought crimes, we're not just trolling or doing it to play devil's advocate or anything like that. The slippery slope is REAL, and, strangely enough, child abuse is STILL rampant. So much for thinking of the children.
I fully expect the motion to pass and to be passed in other nations as well over the next ten years. Then watch them come for regular pornography, then anything controvertial nature, then anything critical of government, then anything contrary to the official storylines that are permitted and outlined by law.
By that same token, I wonder if the EU Galileo satellite network will be as generously shared with the general public as the US GPS system is with the world.
Now that I've got the nationalist pride bullshit out of the way, any system that can provide better and more accurate coverage is certainly welcome in my book. They could call the new satellite system "The Flying Turds" and I'd be ok if it let me get better than accurate to 12 feet.:)
This is one of the main reasons why law enforcement favors gun control for the most part. I'm sure it has nothing to do with cops, even retired ones, being immune from just about all gun control laws. Of course, since they're not legally liable for losses when they fail to protect those which they swore an oath to protect, having victims completely unable to defend themselves will make sure crime keeps happening and that people will always need (or think they need) police.
Finally, anyone that is stupid enough to believe it is ever worth killing someone hasn't had to scrape the guts off the floor afterwords. You have NO concept. Finally, anyone that is stupid enough to believe it is ever worth flushing the toilet hasn't had to scrape the gunk off the sides of the septic tank afterwords. You have NO concept.
What does a gross job have to do with the event that caused the grossness to happen in the first place? Are we supposed to feel sorry for you?
Uh, no. In other words, it is preferable to catch the kid when he attempts to sell the TV, or after he has fled the scene, or at some other point, or, just let him have the freaking TV and get him the next time. That's the thing with criminals. They don't steal just once; and even if you miss them 9 times out of 10, you'll get the bastard on the 10th attempt.
2nd person pronouns are misplaced here. The victim has no authority or ability to put out a BOLO, monitor pawn shops, arrest and detain. They have to rely on the police. Honestly, though, unless you A) are a cop, B) are family of or friends with a cop, or C) are high profile enough for the cops to make it worth their while to care (rich, elected official, celebrity), then your issue just isn't high on their list of priorities.
It would be awesome to catch them after-the-fact, but, let face it, if you don't catch them in the act you simply won't.
And society is better off if we don't kill kids for stealing TVs.
I'd heartlessly contend that weeding out a subsection of the population that has no problems committing crimes against others is a net good for society, kids for stealing TVs or CEOs for misappropriating pension funds.
Actually, depending on the kid, if he knows you have a gun in your home, he's MORE LIKELY to break into your home IF YOU HAVE A GUN, to steal your gun. He'll just wait until you're not home.
Actually, depending on the kid, if he knows you have a PS3 in your home, he's MORE LIKELY to break into your home IF YOU HAVE A PS3, to steal your PS3. He'll just wait until you're not home.
Actually, depending on the kid, if he knows you have a Mac Pro in your home, he's MORE LIKELY to break into your home IF YOU HAVE A Mac Pro, to steal your Mac Pro. He'll just wait until you're not home.
Do I need more examples to point out what a load of bull that argument is? Coveting an item leads to the attempted theft of the item, regardless of what specificly it is.
What kind of pansy are you? You, your wife, and your daughters are home, and ONE KID with a gun, in the close quarters of your home, is going to keep you at bay with a gun AND rape your wife and daughters at the same time?
Besides, even a pansy with a firearm can meet force with force. They don't call it an equalizing factor for nothing.
When criminals invade homes, they try REALLY REALLY HARD to invade homes that are either EMPTY, or so freaking large that they can move around the home and never encounter the home owner.
That's true, but mistakes happen and unfortunately it's the occupant that gets killed or held as a hostage or worse. They don't come in with the intention of killing a homeowner and squatting there: they come in armed for insurance against someone trying to stop them... that same kind of insurance a homeowner would themselves want. Like botched surgery, the fact that is almost never happens isn't much consolidation if it happens to you.
A criminal is screwed if you have a gun and he doesn't if and only if: - You're awake when the criminal gets to you. - You're awake and aware enough to understand that the criminal is, indeed, a criminal, and understand this in enough time to get your gun, point it at the criminal, and shoot the criminal, all before he gets within arms reach of you, in which case you're engaged in a 50-50 struggle over the gun. (Actually, since the criminal is probably fully awake, less than 50-50 odds for you.)
Whoa, whoa, wait, I thought criminals only target empty homes? If you're not awakened and don't become aware of the situation, that means the criminal is being stealthy and that would imply they're trying to hide because they know you're in there. You could argue one or the other, but
Surely that's the way it should be? Yes, except don't forget that even though there are separation of powers, they're ALL on the same team. If, say, the FISA court is any guide, only 5 out of 14,000 warrants were rejected by that court. Even if NJ courts are three times as finicky about their warrants, that's still 99.9% warrants happily approved.
I doubt real world warrants are as agonized and debated as on Law and Order. The reality is more likely that they're handed out without much coaxing, since it helps propagate the system (with warrants leading to charges leading to trials leading to collection of fees and justifying salaries).
It was a mouth off, but the way I see it, it was done at the same time the other cop found the business card on another door and, since he's the one they were bribed to go after, they all ignored it and got the neighbor instead.
With the neighbor's "SMOKE YOU!!!!" it seems that mouthing off to cops isn't that rare after all.:)
Well, for human health we have all sorts of machines and devices. Heart-lung rebreathers, dialysis machines, electro-stim. I could see adapted and scaled out towards factory farms where there's a central heart that circulates common oxygenated blood amongst all clusters of flesh like a chemical factory's steam pipes, etc.
Wouldn't it be a shame that if this ever does get built and tried out that, after all, the flavor of meat really comes from the sufferring of animals?
Then there are those of us prone to colitus. I read that as "prone to coitus" and felt bad because I'm approaching Hutt and am clearly excluded from surprise coitus.
Because, as long as people pay, the extortionists will continue to attack. It's the same for the Mafia today. It's still around. Companies could turn to law enforcement (which has no legal liability if attacks happen on their watch, and cannot promise they'd catch them), could invest millions more in security which still might not stop them (law of diminishing returns, infiltration and inside jobs, etc), or just pay the lousy couple grand every year or so and not get attacked.
You gotta pick your battles, and I don't know any corporations that have "oh, and, don't deal in protection rackets" as one of their business principles.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, GP, for saving me the seconds of typing with a convenient link. And shame on you for wanting to put out a candle that might be used to light the darkness.
Shucks, I forgot they made a crappy move based around Beowulf.
Considering the Rowling's books are the only canon reference for Harry Potter it'd have to be extensively quoting from them in order to have any validity at all.
Comparing Harry Potter to tales of Shakesperean value is a great disservice to not only those already dead, but to the entirity of English Literature. What's next? Comparing Spider-Man to Beowulf?
Sorry for being cranky about it as it was probably just an oversight and accidental comparison, but if Rowling's work was really worthy of artistic and literary merit, she wouldn't have to be so fearful of derivative works detracting from what she created.
Although I do agree from a military perspective the less reliance on others is probably for the best, "Made in the USA" is not an alternate spelling of "exploit-free".
Whether or not you personally like porn is irrelevant to the discussion, but, since you mentioned it, I wonder if you would still cling so tenaciously to these weak correlations between actual crimes and fantasy depictions of them if we were talking about the porn you personally don't see anything wrong with. Now, unless you can find links to several reputable studies that show that watching rape videos has no effect in pushing a potential rapist toward doing the act, I suggest you STFU until you grow a clue. Here's a clue-growth for you:
If violent porn (rape porn) is such a big influence on rapists, why does Japan, with easily the most violent and grotesque porn flicks (subjective terms, but I don't expect that to be argued against), place 54th on a scale of most rapes per capita? I mean, the UK is #13, and the US is #9! I suppose it's that little mosaic that's keeping crime low. Clearly fictional depictions of rape don't have a statistically significant influence on actual crime... so what other justification do we have for making it a crime to possess them other than enforcing one arbitrary person's taste over another?
And I suppose you're also the arbiter of what's reputable and what's not, so, clearly those stastics are biased. SOME of us don't appreciate pointing the finger at the "corrupting influence of the month" game that you, and so many politicians, play. At least we can't expect politicians to know better.
Who makes the call of what's sick and what's not? Your problem with the law is about how its boundaries cannot be defined. Personally, my problem with the law is that it would allow someone (government? a panel of psychologists maybe? parents? religious figures? anyone?) impose upon others their taste and convictions.
You wanna stop rape? Why not increase the penalties for violators? Why not dispatch more police on the streets instead of having them sit in hiding around speed traps? Why not revoke laws that prohibit people from carrying weapons they can use to defend themselves from attack? Use the same process we use to prevent general anarchy to weed out those in society that ARE actually suseptible to violence AND CHOOSE to act them out knowing the consequences. You know, instead of forbidding people to freely engage in fantasy if they so choose, regardless of how sick anyone thinks it is.
At least if a person (perhaps you'd call them a rapist-in-waiting or a sick fuck) is getting off to a fictional reenactment they're not out in public actually victimizing women.
Perhaps it should be made illegal to bypass frictional forces. It'll be called the Digital Millenium Friction Protection Act.
Indeed. I look forward to PrisonFS, where you can hide cigs inside the hard drive and they just look like ordinary files, kernel modifications to allow for self-tattooing code (with needles of questionable sterility, of course), and a new kind of distributed computing system where workgroups of computers can form a sort of "gang" in which they bust caps in other competing computers that gain access to their LAN.
When people like myself get marked as pedophile sympathizers for raising red flags about laws intended to protect people from thought crimes, we're not just trolling or doing it to play devil's advocate or anything like that. The slippery slope is REAL, and, strangely enough, child abuse is STILL rampant. So much for thinking of the children.
I fully expect the motion to pass and to be passed in other nations as well over the next ten years. Then watch them come for regular pornography, then anything controvertial nature, then anything critical of government, then anything contrary to the official storylines that are permitted and outlined by law.
By that same token, I wonder if the EU Galileo satellite network will be as generously shared with the general public as the US GPS system is with the world.
:)
Now that I've got the nationalist pride bullshit out of the way, any system that can provide better and more accurate coverage is certainly welcome in my book. They could call the new satellite system "The Flying Turds" and I'd be ok if it let me get better than accurate to 12 feet.
Personally, I'll just email myself the link and listen to it when I get home. I'm appreciative of the headsup either way.
What does a gross job have to do with the event that caused the grossness to happen in the first place? Are we supposed to feel sorry for you?
Uh, no. In other words, it is preferable to catch the kid when he attempts to sell the TV, or after he has fled the scene, or at some other point, or, just let him have the freaking TV and get him the next time. That's the thing with criminals. They don't steal just once; and even if you miss them 9 times out of 10, you'll get the bastard on the 10th attempt.
2nd person pronouns are misplaced here. The victim has no authority or ability to put out a BOLO, monitor pawn shops, arrest and detain. They have to rely on the police. Honestly, though, unless you A) are a cop, B) are family of or friends with a cop, or C) are high profile enough for the cops to make it worth their while to care (rich, elected official, celebrity), then your issue just isn't high on their list of priorities.
It would be awesome to catch them after-the-fact, but, let face it, if you don't catch them in the act you simply won't.
And society is better off if we don't kill kids for stealing TVs.
I'd heartlessly contend that weeding out a subsection of the population that has no problems committing crimes against others is a net good for society, kids for stealing TVs or CEOs for misappropriating pension funds.
Actually, depending on the kid, if he knows you have a gun in your home, he's MORE LIKELY to break into your home IF YOU HAVE A GUN, to steal your gun. He'll just wait until you're not home.
Actually, depending on the kid, if he knows you have a PS3 in your home, he's MORE LIKELY to break into your home IF YOU HAVE A PS3, to steal your PS3. He'll just wait until you're not home.
Actually, depending on the kid, if he knows you have a Mac Pro in your home, he's MORE LIKELY to break into your home IF YOU HAVE A Mac Pro, to steal your Mac Pro. He'll just wait until you're not home.
Do I need more examples to point out what a load of bull that argument is? Coveting an item leads to the attempted theft of the item, regardless of what specificly it is.
What kind of pansy are you? You, your wife, and your daughters are home, and ONE KID with a gun, in the close quarters of your home, is going to keep you at bay with a gun AND rape your wife and daughters at the same time?
And if it wasn't one kid but instead a gang of them? So much for that snarky "you have no arms" comment.
Besides, even a pansy with a firearm can meet force with force. They don't call it an equalizing factor for nothing.
When criminals invade homes, they try REALLY REALLY HARD to invade homes that are either EMPTY, or so freaking large that they can move around the home and never encounter the home owner.
That's true, but mistakes happen and unfortunately it's the occupant that gets killed or held as a hostage or worse. They don't come in with the intention of killing a homeowner and squatting there: they come in armed for insurance against someone trying to stop them... that same kind of insurance a homeowner would themselves want. Like botched surgery, the fact that is almost never happens isn't much consolidation if it happens to you.
A criminal is screwed if you have a gun and he doesn't if and only if:
- You're awake when the criminal gets to you.
- You're awake and aware enough to understand that the criminal is, indeed, a criminal, and understand this in enough time to get your gun, point it at the criminal, and shoot the criminal, all before he gets within arms reach of you, in which case you're engaged in a 50-50 struggle over the gun. (Actually, since the criminal is probably fully awake, less than 50-50 odds for you.)
Whoa, whoa, wait, I thought criminals only target empty homes? If you're not awakened and don't become aware of the situation, that means the criminal is being stealthy and that would imply they're trying to hide because they know you're in there. You could argue one or the other, but
Are you suggesting that crime doesn't exist in the world outside the US? Really?
I doubt real world warrants are as agonized and debated as on Law and Order. The reality is more likely that they're handed out without much coaxing, since it helps propagate the system (with warrants leading to charges leading to trials leading to collection of fees and justifying salaries).
It was a mouth off, but the way I see it, it was done at the same time the other cop found the business card on another door and, since he's the one they were bribed to go after, they all ignored it and got the neighbor instead.
:)
With the neighbor's "SMOKE YOU!!!!" it seems that mouthing off to cops isn't that rare after all.
Well, for human health we have all sorts of machines and devices. Heart-lung rebreathers, dialysis machines, electro-stim. I could see adapted and scaled out towards factory farms where there's a central heart that circulates common oxygenated blood amongst all clusters of flesh like a chemical factory's steam pipes, etc.
Wouldn't it be a shame that if this ever does get built and tried out that, after all, the flavor of meat really comes from the sufferring of animals?
"Are you classified as human?"
"Negative, I am a meat popcicle."
You gotta pick your battles, and I don't know any corporations that have "oh, and, don't deal in protection rackets" as one of their business principles.