How does any of that help the fact HTTPS://slashdot.org/ returns a 302 redirection back to HTTP://slashdot.org/ ???

Setting up a special "secure" website with SSL certificate is pretty useless if you only redirect to a single non-encrypted URL.

Unless of course you are claiming HTTP(no S) is encrypted with magic or something, which seems to be what you are implying by pointing out the TLS server/client auth lines in that certificate that won't even apply.....

What's even more hilarious, people like the GP who claim to hate a type of article then proceed to post in each and every one of them are in reality raising two counters in a database somewhere when they #1 click on the article and #2 post a comment.
This indicates to slashdot that the article was both interesting to read as well as interesting enough to have participation, and the interpreted result is the readers want MORE articles of that nature!

So when people say "complaining is the only way to get change", they are very correct in fact but incorrect about as far as you can be in outcome. Complaining in the comments will cause more such articles in the future, not less.

As you already stated, the only way to assure less such articles is to skip the ones uninteresting to you and to post what you do want to see in the firehose to be upvoted for the front page.

Anyone who doesn't use the firehose to down vote articles and then complains about articles on the front page are nearly as bad as people who refuse to vote then continuously bitch about who does get voted in to government ("nearly" because the outcome is magnitudes less important in daily life here on slashdot than who runs the worlds biggest countries)

This many:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-huge-break-in-the-libor-banking-investigation-20120628

Let me guess, you also run around the beach to scream and yell at small children for playing with plastic buckets in the water, because you fear that small child might actually empty all of earths oceans onto the land, right?

ekgringo said:
We knew someone ...*snip*

i kan reed replies:
So, you made... *snip*

dissy injects:
At least your username is pretty accurate. well played
.

Well the article proves having 0% of a controlled substance is all that's required to be arrested.
100% of receipts sure sounds a lot like 0% controlled substance to me.

Why on earth do I think the business man would be arrested? Because it's happened once already, that's why.

Imagine: It's 3am on a Wednesday night. You are up on the Internet arguing with a troll.
Suddenly you press a large jolly and candy like button on your cat teleporter, and without warning a thousand terrified cats materialize directly above the troll and rain down upon him like the clawing and hissing metric ton of fur it is.

<Nathan Explosion> Release The Kitties!

It's bullshit because you don't need permission to use a trademarked name when using it to identify the actual legit product.

You only need permission to use the mark for Other purposes.

If people names were similar to trademarks, then I wouldn't need your permission to use your name when referring to you. I'd only need permission to slap your name on something else.

So marcello_dl brand cookies isn't allowed if you don't say so. Calling you marcello_dl however requires no permission.

As long as "Ubuntu" is used to identify the actual product "Ubuntu", all legal requirements are met and the owner of the mark "Ubuntu" has no say so over that usage.

After all if they didn't want people calling their linux distro "Ubuntu", then Canonical probably shouldn't have plastered that name all over it and filed for a trademark legally assuring it is called only by the name "Ubuntu".

Taking only part of my sentence and leaving off qualifiers changing its meaning then putting it in a quote block as if that's what I said wasn't supposed to be part of the discussion either, but hey it happened anyway. So did run-on sentence, so take that.

I said long ago that thinking about it or wanting it is not the problem.
It's the doing it that is the problem, and laws that are to stop people from harming others are not any infringement on freedom, which I wish I could get you to understand.

But I give up.

Desiring to rape 10 year olds is not freedom. It is in fact slavery.
Your desire of lack of freedom and slavery will be much better catered to in other countries.

Well, if the odds of being blown up by a terrorist were above 0.1%, and the effectiveness of the TSA was above 0.1%, then actually yea I would say that question should be asked and those variables factored.

I mean, if the odds were pretty high that you would actually fall to harm from a terrorist, then it does make sense to ask if solutions to that problem are high in effectiveness and low in abusiveness.

If the odds of a terrorist attack were actually high like 50%, and the TSA caught 95% of the attacks while abusing no rights of individuals other than a slower line, then I might actually not be upset with them.

Of course reality isn't anywhere near that, unfortunately.

But it's still a fair question to ask. I do ask "If the odds of a terrorist attack are below a tenth of a percent, and the TSA catches zero terrorists, the cost-benefit answer is this is a poor solution that should not be used."

And I stand by the answer to that question :P

In general neither do I. The act should be what is criminal, not the thing(s) being used.

The act of killing someone should be the crime. A type of gun used to kill someone (or just "guns" in general) should not be banned, as the goal shouldn't be to stop people from having guns but to stop people from killing others.

But in a similar line, just because a law is abused similarly does not justify getting rid of laws.
People just need held accountable for abusing laws. (Easier said than done I know)

I'm guessing (hoping) there is a miscommunication here, since you literally restated my original point as correct, and are implying I am stating what the GP I first replied to said when I was arguing against him.

So if you do agree with the original poster and think I am wrong, you agree with him that a 30-40 year old should have the right to have sex with a 10 or younger year old... and that is "America"

Really?

The rest of your post basically boils down to, using age to determine if a person is ready to handle sex is bad (you argued against me saying it's not bad twice now)

Using age, yes there are areas where it's hard to tell, but there are MORE areas where it is not.

Let's use some numbers.
A 10 year old girl, or younger, is very clearly going to look "young"
A 30 year old girl, or older, is very clearly going to look "adult"

In those cases, it is very simple to determine age and if it's a good idea to have sex with them.
No, that doesn't address people between 15-20 who could look either way, but it addresses some.
It certainly addresses more than zero, as the original poster wants, which I repeatedly objected to.

You are arguing a person MUST get a certificate from the government that deems them an adult, and this certificate can not be based on age.
(That is the exact argument the original poster made, and I argued against to him and to you)

Again, I quote

and

That isn't my objection. I argued against that very thing three times now against two people.
I pointed out the state is clearly NOT qualified to determine sexual maturity, and that is exactly why they do not do so and set an arbitrary line of "Xth birthday"
Only the original poster (and now you) are saying I am wrong, the state IS qualified and MUST issue certificates on a per-individual basis because that is the only method to be factually correct.

So to answer your question, who decides who/what is competent or proficient?
You are, since I claimed the state can't possibly do this, which is why they use the current system of age that clearly doesn't reflect if a person is able to handle adult situations like sex or not.

But didn't you just publicly leak the fact that Snowden leaked information?

Clearly that means the blame for the original crimes falls squarely on your shoulders.

Not only that, but you are trying to implicate ME in your crimes by making me point out that you are pointing out what Snowden has already pointed out!

Damn you, now you're even more guilty!

I just wanted to add in what I know.

Chrome and Firefox both do, though Firefox only supports part of the cipher suite.
I recall Microsoft claiming they were going to add it in a future IE, but never actually checked... So I'll believe that one if/when I see it.

I didn't know about Safari or Opera, so thank you for that.

Then shouldn't one factor in the 10 year old girls freedom to not have undesired sex forced upon her? How is the girl free if she has no option but to submit to sex she never claimed to have wanted?

Exactly. Adult people showing up to the "girls" posted address, and sending pictures of their penis to without saying in advance thats what the picture is, is very far from "talking"

Perhaps you're thinking of other unrelated situations where child abuse laws were themselves being abused?

As it turns out they weren't, but they didn't know that at first.
At first, they fully thought they WERE in that situation, and proceeded to try having sex with her.

I see little difference in showing up at the profile address of a bot or cop that you thought was a 10 year old girl, and showing up at the profile address of a 10 year old girl.

In both cases they thought they would be having sex with a 10 year old girl.

There are also only a small number of situations, mainly where the adult chances their mind and doesn't want to do so in the end, that would factor in.
If their intent is to have sex with a 10 year old, they clearly have intentions to have sex with a 10 year old.
It doesn't matter if the reason they were prevented from doing so was that the girl wasn't real, or they got in a car accident on the way over, or what have you.

This bot did not reach out to anyone. The entire conversation was initiated by the adult, it was escalated to sex by the adult, and it was the adult that pursued the sex.

Now if the police see a chat transcript where the adult finally asks the girls age, she says 10, and the adult replies "uhhh, seriously? Yea sorry that's not the age difference I was looking for. Bye" and then proceed to make arrests and press charges, THEN I will grant you the adults freedom was infringed.

But that wouldn't be the case at hand. So to me the freedom of the child outweighs the adults freedom to fuck a 10 year old.