I meant OriginalSolver (552648)... God, I'm sorry betterunixthanunix. :( Stupid cut-and-paste happy fingers.

10 years? Here you go.

http://voice-of-reason.pbworks.com/f/CA-Ten%20year%20recidivism%20study%20CDCR%206-17-08.pdf

We bounce these guys back to jail for nitpicky violations of parole pretty much exclusively. A 3.38% cumulative recidivism rate for sex offenses is INSANELY low. The odds are probably much better that a slashdotter will commit a sex crime during that same time period.

betterunixthanunix (980855) is willfully spreading misinformation either because he's a massive idiot or because he has some kind of agenda.

"'As I've said before, my concept of a business model has to treat customers like products to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their traditions of controlling everything people see and hear,' Murdoch said. 'Creating fictional news is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply making us look like greedy control freaks who want to rape the hearts and minds of Americans.'"

There, fixed that for you.

To a business, losing money is the ONLY criminal offense.

That's just the way it goes when you have an intersection of tort law and criminal law. These problems, if they're problems at all, should be problems that civil courts handle in an effort to root out damages. It's how things used to be before the DMCA and even though it was far from a perfect system it still made more sense. You can't rape a company. You can't violate a company's civil rights. The only damage you can do to a corporate entity is monetary in nature, and crimes against that company should be measured and prosecuted as such.

He knew it was a demon the moment he saw it. He knew it, just as he knew the place was Hell. There was nothing else that either of them could have been.

[...]

As the demon raised its arm to deliver the first blow, it said, âoeIn time you will remember even this moment with fondness.â

"You are a liar."

"No," said the demon. "The next part," it explained, in the moment it brought down the cat, "is worse."

Then the tines of the cat landed on the manâ(TM)s back with a crack and a hiss, tearing through the expensive clothes, burning and rending and shredding as they struck, and, not for the last time in that place, he screamed.


-Neil Gaiman, "Other People"

Dear Mister Holder,

I have recently come into possession of a list containing the names of hundreds of little girls who have been sexually assaulted after school. For a modest fee of 20 quid, along with your daughter's name and school schedule, our dedicated research staff will promptly deliver results. No uggos please.

Is not YOUR candle.

Is OUR candle.

I'm sure this is just a prelude to some new agenda to push DRM under a different name. "DRM is dead! But now we have Intellectual Property Protection... Or how about Online Property Protection?"

You down with OPP? Yeah, you know me.


I know you.

:P

It was supposed to be funny, an example of the typical paranoid over-reaction of people to things done in the name of child safety (which seems to be the big boogieman that people are worried about concerning unsecured WAPs... Evil evil cp.)

I'm certainly not a believer in the "if it saves one child" mentality, especially in a situation like this where rational people realize that this isn't doing anything to protect anyone at all, certainly not children. By that kind of logic all sorts of evil, stupid things are done by people in power... after all, we could surgically mutilate every child's genitalia, thereby preventing child sexual abuse completely, and then do some reconstructive surgery when they turn 21... a perfect world with no child sexual abuse in it.

Eventually the cost/benefit ratio doesn't pay off for "saving just one single child..."

Although my overblown hyperbole becomes a lot less tongue-in-cheek and a lot more FUCKING SCARY when it needs to be explained.

Don't you know that the evil predators can actually ABDUCT INNOCENT CHILDREN THROUGH UNSECURED WIRELESS? Every time the police shut down an unsecured access point they're literally preventing billions of rapes and murders. The only people who could possibly be against this idea are probably the predators who make torture porn of little girls. God bless these valiant crime fighters who are making the world safe one W.A.P. at a time.

Seems like some kind of pseudo threat to me. What are they implying, that if some criminal uses their open access port to post goat porn to /b/ the home owner is going to be criminally liable? What if you _like_ having an open access port, and don't mind if your elderly neighbors use it occasionally to check their email? Quite frankly it doesn't seem to be the homeowner's job to lock the world down in order to prevent crime, especially crime that can be remedied by pulling a plug, if it ever actually causes the homeowner to lose bandwidth. Come to think about it, it's not the cops job to prevent crime either.

So, who exactly is this benefiting? My guess would be whoever provides ISP service has been hitting up their political puppets... after all, your 60 year old neighbor should get with the times and start paying $100 a month for internet access like all the other good citizens.

A "ban on federal funding for X, Y, and Z" is effectively a ban on X, Y, and Z.

Take abstinence only sex-education for example. I'm not sure what the current situation is, but for a long time schools either taught abstinence only sex ed (no instruction about condom use. No mention of birth control at all, unless it paints the users as morally bankrupt) or they had to stop taking certain funds from the state and federal government. There aren't too many school boards that will vote to turn down money... Even if it hurts the kids.

If you control the purse strings, you control the outcome. Are you surprised people see this as a ban?

It's easy. All it takes is a few hundred thousand years and some careful breeding programs.

Amen. What the hell is wrong with you people? Sure, he was weird and unusual, downright strange looking maybe, but I would expect /. to be the the very LAST group of people to hold that against him.

Was he a pedophile? That's not for me to say (though a lot of assholes in the media have been saying that for me). He was never convicted of anything. Quite frankly if he wanted to fuck little boys, a man of his wealth doesn't have to hit on Make a Wish kids for that to happen. Hell, he wouldn't even live in the USA if that was something he wanted regularly.

What, did the strange looking man not do enough with his huge impact on rock music? Were the hundreds of millions of dollars he gave to charity not enough to elevate him past the point of being DESPISED for living and breathing?

The world is worse off without this man in it. It's certainly a lot more dull. How many here will be able to claim that when they die? How many millions are going to miss you?

a horror beyond imagining... all of /b/ in one building. The fucking sun would probably explode. God knows the pool would be closed.