Not the US Government, no sir. Not the Federal or State divisions of government.

Citizen-run organizations such as the American Liberty League had large portions of their membership supporting and funding the Nazi party shortly before the war broke out, and before the US joined the war.

The American Liberty League was a large financial supporter of Fascist regimes, opposed FDR's presidential campaign and his New Deal that saved the country from the Great Depression, and had many large corporate leaders in its membership.

Standard Oil (Rockefeller), US Steel (J.P. Morgan) were among them, and perhaps not-so ironically targeted for anti-trust operations later.

There have been supporters of the Nazi party(which was a legally elected political party at the time, BTW) and Fascism within the US, but the US *itself has never lent Hitler money, or supported the Nazis.

The article link is only one short page and does not describe in detail how they came to their conclusions.

However, from the words they're using, they're implying common vulnerabilities exploited in corporate server-side applications. Not client-side.

SQL Injection and XXS Scripting are much bigger issues with implementation of web applications in web pages on the server side, use databases and scripting flaws in the code of the web apps to circumvent browser security.

They're talking about something that has little to do with the integrity of security of individual browsers, and more with the decisions webmasters make and what web applications they use.

Also, when they refer to Safari, they say they're referring to the iPhone Safari version: ...followed by Apple Safari, whose browser showed a vast increase in exploits, due to vulnerabilities reported in the Safari iPhone browser... Looks like they're pretty clearly full of shit, and they're trying to be ambiguous and obscure by explaining little and using jargon to discourage people from searching for what all the terms they're using means.

The overall point is that the law is uncomfortably ambiguous in this case, as I see it.

There are levels of legality or illegality. In this case, I would not so strongly argue that possession is/is not or should/should not be illegal, as it is minor enough to be unworthy of active tracking by law enforcement save for mass distributors of child pornography.

This is also how law enforcement in the US treats it for the most part - that unless you do something stupid to get yourself caught, like look at CP on a company computer and/or view it while at work using company computers, take film rolls of your newest home-made stash to Walgreens or something equally absurd - they don't care too much. They are first and foremost tracking the people making CP, followed closely by child predators using the internet to meet and rape underage children, followed by major online traffickers of CP. For practical and logistics reasons possession is too petty and too difficult a crime to track on an individual basis for them to devote energy to. It *is* still a crime.

As far as how much sense making/keeping possession illegal makes, I'd say it's situational. Perhaps treat it like drug possession. If you just have a dime bag of weed and you're caught with it, the penalty is comparitively minor to possessing large quantities which qualifies "intent to distribute/sell," and cops usually don't go sniffing for people who only have small amounts, even though all possession is illegal.

"...However I think you were trying to make the point of "who is damaged" in the scenario. Well, you seem to have made the assumption that there is no damage to individual who "uses" child porn. I'd like to know how many studies or testimonies of previous "users" will it take to convince you that it is/does"

You are making an equally fallacious assumption that it *does* damage individuals who use child porn. And damage to oneself is not a crime and falls under personal choice not withstanding restriction on controlled substances, and with contraband substances (drugs for instance) in which case the law concerns not the damage to yourself but the ban of the material altogether. And, you're going to run into a *LOT* of trouble trying to make that argument, for numerous reasons. At a baseline, it's similar in form to arguments/"studies" that pornography damages your character, hurts relationships, ends marriages, instills unhealthy addictions and so forth. These assumptions, and their not-so-hidden assumptions are only conditionally true, taken as a global generalization they are very false.

Modern rigorous studies of Human sexuality and relationships that are scientifically conducted and published demonstrate that pornography overall and its use is only destructive in the presence of other behavioral-cognitive issues. To illustrate a point by comparison, it's very similar to video games being potentially destructive to people who have underdeveloped or unsound reasoning skills and are unable to realistically evaluate priorities, distinguish between fantasy and reality, and or has predisposition to commit a criminal act beforehand. So, videogames didn't make your college student flunk out last semester, their inability to priorize their activities and budget their time was, video games were simply a replaceable tool used to that end. Pornography does not make one ignore their partner, view women only as sexual objects, make one disregard their responsibilities, and break up families - nor does it provoke them to commit rape or sexual crimes. The person in question was unable, unwilling or uninterested in maintaining a healthy relationship. They had pre-existing misogynistic or otherwise unrealistic attitudes toward the opposite sex that was not and could not be instilled by the existence and usage of pornography. They didn't abandon their family because of porn or the lure of another person in cyberspace - they quite frankly weren't cut out for the commitment involved with a spouse and/or family, or were unsatisfied with what they had, and were trying to escape reality to begin with, porn happening to be the tool used.

Arguments made, and "studies" that "demonstrate" "damage" done to individuals using porn have historically been religiously motivated, and on all counts have been demonstrated to be patently false. On the contrary, studies suggest that porn used by individuals and couples without aforementioned complications is healthy and can help maintain relationships long term - especially for partners with different appetites for sex, and who frequently want sex when their partner does not. There are plenty of people that don't like that idea and have issues multiple issues with the proliferation of porn including religious convictions, strong beliefs relating to fidelity sexual identity and the role of women in relationships and in society, and those who have strong associations of shame, disgust, and vulgarity with sex, sexual acts and open sexuality in general being among them... and these have always been the originators and supporters of such arguments. They're untrue, demonstrably untrue, and only work with crowds of people motivated by personal believe and emotion rather than reason and logic - similar to those who would take "...I'd like you to honestly think to yourself if you would have the same opinion if someone drew cartoon images of your wife, daugther, mother, or sister being raped." as rationale instead of objective logic.

This argument becomes even trickier when applying it to deviant sexuality, like genuine pedophilia and pornography associated with it. Much more rigorous studies on use of pornography focused on deviant sexualities and fetishes such as bondage, sadism, masochism, rape fantasy, incest, loli & shotakon (drawn, juvenile female and male porn respectively), bestiality and the like show that there is a disconnect between arousal and use of such porn, and likelihood of committing similar sexual acts or crimes associated with the sexual acts. That is, looking at incest porn won't make you want to rape your sister, bestiality porn won't push you to couple with animals, lolikon won't make you go out molest children. These studies, while somewhat obscure being fringe studies of sexuality, are pretty thorough in establishing there being a false or null correlation between perusal and action - studies conjecturing damage to individuals, morals, families, etc. are unable to adequately support a correlation, and are typically motivated by religious faith within the researchers which strongly blurs any scientific integrity their studies might have had.

It's a close extrapolation to extend the pattern to child pornography. There's a general lack of data studying people who peruse or are aroused by CP, and child molesters, for reasons I'm sure you can imagine. What data does exist including survey of people caught for trafficking and possession, as well as anonymous survey, support the trend seen in other deviant sexual arousal.

"...Third, I'd like you to honestly think to yourself if you would have the same opinion if someone drew cartoon images of your wife, daugther, mother, or sister being raped."

Your reasoning is unsound. You're making an argumentative appeal to emotion instead of using sound reason, which is what law and appeal and amendments to laws are meant to be based upon. And, it's dangerously close to "For the Children" arguments, which many people in support of heavy penalty and criminalization of CP possession rely upon, and you rely upon for in your arguments suggesting damage to individuals and others when one uses child porn, and that therefore there is a victim.

Yes, I'm sure most people would feel uneasy and enraged if they discovered there were cartoon images of their wife, daughter, mother, or sister being raped. My point is that unease and anger does not an illegality make, that hurt feelings and/or violation of one's moral and sexual sensibilities does not make the foundation of a crime and you can't justify criminalization or penalty purely by violation of one's sensibilities.

One of the larger issues with this, and legislation of pornography of various sorts is that you're far distancing yourself from legislation regarding material crime, or even crimes of intent (a large partof why studies demonstrating little or no link between pornography use and intent to commit a sexual crime) instead hovering uncomfortably near criminalizing ideas and feelings. Let's say I *DO* want to rape your wife, your sister, your daughter - but I never do. And I never take steps toward, or demonstrate a plan to do so. While that may be unsettling and upsetting to discover, it's not illegal. Nor is a fantasy of that nature, or what could be called a creative work of such an act (as with illustrations of rape, etc.). Going too far in illegalization and more so enforcement of possession of child, animal, rape, etc. porn differing from acting upon such arousal comes too close to legislating the expression and form of sexuality itself outside of material or intent crime committed... which is a large part of why US law generally does not go further than it currently does. In the past, we've seen such abusive lawmaking and enforcement applied to homosexuality. You can't uphold the letter of the law while violating the spirit and intention of the law.

Which touches upon your last statement, your quote of John Adams - "Lastly to address your comment about "land of the free," I'll just quote John Adams: "Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other." "

Yes, the constitution was made for a moral and religious people. But you miss both the letter *AND* the spirit of the constitution when you attempt to use that as justification for imposing YOUR specific morality and religion upon another person, which the Constitution and Bill of Rights expressly forbids in no uncertain terms. The intention of the Constitution and the establishment of a Federal Government and Judicial system was to protect its citizenry - not declare what is and is not, what is right and wrong and subject the people to it, outside of protecting personal rights and the common welfare. That would be fascist, not republican. Laws regarding transgressing the sensibilities of others on a moral and religious basis have been passed and enforced in our nation's history, and over time have systematically been revised if not overturned, since the framing of such laws are based in "community standards". The outlook and standard of moral and religious sensitivity changes depending on the community and time, and must be revised as these community standards change. In very conservative states, the sale of and distribution of porn within borders is outright illegal (Oklahoma last I checked, for example). Standards relating to "obscene or objectional media content" vary widely by states, based on what is determined to be the "community standard." Likewise, penalties regarding possession of CP and/or other exotic porn and engaging in such acts are stricter than in others. Some states drawn pornography depicting juveniles is outright illegal, whereas in others it isn't. Max Hardcore of video pornographic infamy was convicted and sentenced to several years in jail after years of his opponents seeking a way to shut him down, on a technicality of Florida state law which prohibits sale or distribution of pornographic materials through the mail... based on community standards of obscenity and indecency.

The spirit and wording of the Constitution makes it clear that personal choice, action and opinion are protected no matter what they may be so long as they don't fall into categories of property and material damage, physical damage to other persons, treason, or somehow damaging or impeding progress of the community. And correctly so, the Supreme Court has generally ruled when reviewing criminal laws and laws relating to personal rights that outside of quantifiable damage being done, people are free. You can someone for 'emotional distress,' but only if you can prove in a legal sense that concrete material harm or ability to engage in gainful activity has been harmed. Not just for hurt feelings.

The moral and religious people that framed the Constitution and wrote the Bill of Rights did not impart the right to impose laws based solely on your own or others systems of moral and religious judgement.

In Science, authority means *nothing* and evidence means everything. One of the points here, is that he has nothing that amounts to meaningful evidence both in the number of subjects in his experiment, and the lack of any causal evidence that having this gene will make you a bad driver. His sample size alone, and the distribution of gene-carriers to non-gene-carriers immediately rules out any possibility for him to possess data on which he can base a conclusion. Not to mention the fact that he is making an assertion that would be extremely difficult if not impossible to substantiate. In science, everything is *false* until proven true, and he is not providing any explanation as to *why* this gene might do as it does, nor testing his hypothesis. Which makes this not Science, but faith and hand-waving.

So. This guy sets up an experiment we have close to no details about, and his data show that the 7 people that scored lower than the rest of the group has this magic gene he's going on about? Does that demonstrate a causal relationship between the gene and bad driving? If you said yes, you are dead, dead, dead wrong. Sample size is extremely important, and experimentation with different number of subjects is definitely needed. But what is more needed than that is increased repetition of experiments and peer-review. This study reeks of the lax and lacking methodology of most social science fields.

Well first, you're confusing total sample size with experimental sample size. What's being discussed here is the total sample size, and 29 individuals most certainly is **NOT** enough to draw meaningful conclusions. We're not even sure he is testing a hypothesis. He could easily have picked people he knew to be predisposed to bad driving, poor choices, or overall poor sensory awareness for his 7 subjects 'with the gene'. There could be a manifold of other reasons genetic and otherwise responsible for the poor performance of these subjects. The gene could have nothing to do with bad driving. He could have administered the test in such a way that 7 subjects with said gene would perform poorly in comparison to the others. We don't know anything about how he selected his subjects, how they were tested, how said tests could possibly account for other factors that could be the cause of the results, and because we know nothing aside from it being some guy saying stuff, I can't make many more constructive criticisms. We don't have any idea why this gene could possibly be responsible, and in what ways, specifically for bad driving - and most likely, neither does he. What makes him believe the gene is responsible? How does he know? What evidence does he have that *proves* this? A geneticist, molecular biologist, and/or a physiologist would be extremely hard pressed to isolate such a causal relationship and a neuroscientist is none of those. I would be extremely, extremely impressed if he could *demonstrate* the gene causes bad driving. He would definitely make publication in scientific journals if he could. But, it's unlike he can or ever will. Which is why we're hearing about this first on a small webpage clipping from the department at the university he works at, and not a peer reviewed journal, or even a trash magazine like Psychology Today.

It's not just the sample size. He isn't, and *can't* explain how or why the gene causes bad driving. He has absolutely no means for *demonstrating* why the gene causes bad driving, even if his sample size were significant. It's simply his belief. He believes the gene makes people drive poorly. But you know what? I also believe that Raptor Jesus went extinct for our sins, and will rise out of the Rapture to bring a new age on Earth. The two are roughly equivalent in the eyes of science. At best he is describing what he believes is happening... which is what Psychology does. Describing something does not make Science. I don't see a hypothesis or a meaningful test in all of this. Just some eugenics driven kook.

I don't have time or space to outline here precisely why Sociology and Psychology are **NOT** Science, but these links outline it pretty succinctly: http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/ http://www.arachnoid.com/what_is_science/index.html

Ok, now that I've read the link, I can definitely say this isn't a scientific study. The sample size of 29 people, 7 of which had the gene that supposedly causes bad driving is not nearly enough to draw a positive causal conclusion. And most importantly, he cannot possibly demonstrate that the gene *causes* bad driving. If he cannot demonstrate it, it's simply his belief based on... whatever else he may have studied. Or random, but it's of equal value to science - a belief is not science. It's small wonder this tidbit is just on UC Irvine's webpage.... it'll never make scientific publication.

A relation does not a correlation make. And less so does a correlation make a causation. They are drawing the conclusion that the gene is associated with bad driving for... I don't know why, or what logic. Probably little to none. I couldn't tell without looking at the study, but their sample size probably is too small to even be statistically significant. And even if it was, they can't provide an explanation as to *why* this gene could have the effect of making you a bad driver, and *what causes it*. And there are *so* many factors that can affect the test scores than just the gene. The researchers cannot possibly have justification for drawing a causal relationship between said gene and bad driving. This isn't any more scientific than eugenics.

Yes, and it's relative to government investment in projects. Businesses and banks engaged in speculation only run the world when governments don't. Our greatest advancement in science and technology, in social welfare and public education, in manufacturing, have always been when the Federal government invests in it. You have a huge surge in industry and scientific and humanist advancement when a nation invests in infrastructure projects and regulation of charter banks and Wall Street, as in FDR's New Deal and decay when there is little to no invest and/or deregulation of speculative activity... which is mostly everything in the past 40ish years since the Nixon administration and the dissolution of the Bretton-Woods treaty. By allocating large grants to public works projects (roads, public transit, utilities, etc.) and technological developement (like the space program) in the form of credit/grants is the best way to nurture science and technology development, which are needed in various forms for those projects. This fosters advancements in the machine-tool industry, or the technology and techniques to manufacture things, and helps support the current population and provide the means for the population to expand. When this isn't done... industry wanes away or is even eaten alive from the inside out by globalization, companies unwilling to pay high wages for skilled work, limited funds to new projects, etc. And contributes to the mess the US in presently in.

I have yet to read the actual article, what I am replying to is the slashdot clipping. I'll read the article later just for arguing points and completion.

This is moronic. I don't know *how* they are calculating that 'the supply has actually remained steady over the past 30 years,' but if that is true, that demonstrates
a growing need for science and technology students, not that it's fine. The US was the world leader in science, technology and manufacturing coming out of WW II, and our
society has revolved around progressive upgrading and retooling of our industrial output.

The total population growth of the US from 1979 to 2008 according to the US Census Bureau was approximately 80 million people. You have to consider retiring, and emigrating persons in your picture when you are trying to estimate how many science sector persons we have produced, and kept in the last whole generation. So, if our number of graduating science, engineering and manufacturing sector students has remained the *same* for the *past 30 years*, we are ALL in a LOT of trouble.

I'd say that their conclusions, contrary to what they speculate as 'needing fewer Science students' shows data explaining how the scientific, industrial and manufacturing sectors of our country have been decaying for the past 30 years.

Well, that would be one of the baseline first steps.

From an electronics perspective, we'd have to have a *greatly* expanded understanding of both electronics as well as cellular biology and biochemistry,
with a major emphasis on cellular signaling... not an area we know a whole hell of a lot about right now.

But bigger than that, would be a widespread understanding of the human MIND, as the non-physical component that is the larger force at work beyond the
physical structure. We'd have to take up where Socrates, Plato, and a few of the greatest Greek philosophers and tragedians, as well as some of our
greatest scientists as Kepler, Leibniz, Vernadsky, Gauss, and Riemann left off - how the human mind works, and how it relates, responds to, and how it
affects the rest of the universe.

We'd have to have that before we could even attempt making a human mind, or imprinting one into a material medium no matter what it may be.

Otherwise, we're looking at cheap imitations, though extremely sophisticated at that. We'd never get beyond modeling similar to an extremely complex,
interconnected set of specialized help systems.

=S That isn't science either, and global warming isn't happening. The studies presented to the people attending the Kyoto Protocol conference were from a group of two scientists, only. The data and conclusions presented by said scientists were soon after examined by other scientists and shown to use inaccurate, outdated data and selectively omit much other data. The mathematical means for calculating their "L shaped graph" demonstrating a massive upsurge in global temperature was also shown to be fraudulent, and has been contradicted by almost every other study done on the subject... more recent among them coming out of Cal Tech, UC system schools, and MIT demonstrating that warming and cooling cycles fluctuate based on solar cycles/based on our star system's position in the milky way galaxy over time, and that the overall trend is toward another ice age/cooling period, not the opposite. Not all things purported as science, or commonly called science, are honest or "good science". Unfortunately, there seems to be a scarcity of good science while misleading, business driven, controversy driven and fraudulent "science" seem to be running amok. =(

Yeah... "studies" such as this are why Psychology is NOT a science, and not quickly advancing to become one.

Psychology isn't a science, it isn't debatable. It doesn't meet the formal definition of a science on several grounds,
falsifiability, honoring of the null hypothesis, and lack of rigor in experiments all being among them.