A 39-year-old UK man has been convicted of possessing illegal cartoon drawings of young girls exposing themselves in school uniforms and engaging in sex acts.

What if they write a sequel with a plot twist where the girl was actually a Taiwanese 25-year old police woman who was undercover in the school trying to find illegal song downloaders? Will he get out of gaol retroactively?

~Loyal

I wonder if stores' unwillingness to take $50 and $100 bills actually helps work against inflation as consumers end up putting a relative-value compared to the $20 on items for sale.

No, at least according to Milton Friedman. He once said, "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."

~Loyal

I... This isn't talking about people buying drugs or something. This is about counterfeiting money or laundering money or downright stealing money. They're all reprehensible activities, I hope you will agree.

Of course. Right. Well, unless it's the government doing it. Then it's okay. But otherwise, reprehensible.

~Loyal

But you know digging up fossil fuels and burning them creates GREENHOUSE GASSES that cause WARMING, don't you?

Yes. On the other hand, if you believe in the organic origin of oil and coal then you believe that same carbon was once in the atmosphere after which it was bound by plants and then sequestered underground.

~Loyal

It's very simple. The bottom of the ocean is COLD. There's not going to be much circulation going on between the upper warmer layers and the bottom.

Yes. That's rather the point. Climate models predicted increased temperatures. Temperatures didn't increase, therefore the climate models were seriously broken. Climate models could be fixed if the heat was going into the deep ocean. Heat was not going into the deep ocean. Therefore climate models cannot be fixed that way.

~Loyal

ignorant AC mdoded insightful by ignorant mods.

"Insightful" doesn't mean "agrees with dywolf. Nor does it mean incontrovertibly true. "Insightful" means "adds to the conversation." (For examples of non-insightful comments see inter alia frist psot, ascii penis.)

~Loyal

if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity

I would say that's nearly correct. Let me put it this way--if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then I could conclude anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity. Whether such people are actually contributing to the extermination of the human race depends on whether global warming is actually going to wipe out the human race barring action to the contrary. Not whether I'm convinced of it.

tolerant people can't be expected to be tolerant of intolerance.

I don't see why not. Suppose there are three people--Primus, Secundus, and Tertius. Suppose Tertius owns a restaurant in which he doesn't allow black people. Suppose Primus and Secundus believe the same in all ways except that Secundus tolerates Tertius's actions to exclude black people, and Primus does not. There is no way to argue that Primus and Secundus are equally tolerant, nor is it possible to argue that Primus is more tolerant than Secundus. The only possible conclusion is that Secundus is more tolerant than Primus. Now, it's certainly possible to argue that there is a correct amount of tolerance. It's just not possible to argue that more tolerance is less tolerance.

~Loyal

You're still wasting time on this? Good.

Happy to oblige.

~Loyal

nutcases very soon who will all claim that this -obviously- does NOT mean global warming isn't happening.

Your double negatives threw me for a second there, but I think I see what's happening. You're concerned about their opponents. (I'm referring to the opponents of the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean that global warming isn't happening.) No doubt, you're familiar with the movement opposing those nutcases, and you with to make sure they don't get a foothold in the media, public perception, or in the legislature. There are a number of groups involved in that, and several of those are politically active. There is a bill in the legislature kowtowing to those groups, and a number of committees are organizing to keep them from making any progress. They aren't sufficiently organized at present, but with enough help they will be able to push forward enough to reach their goals. I think you'll be relieved to learn that I'm thoroughly opposed to the groups seeking to weaken the proponents of the bill making illegal the actions of committees organized to oppose the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean global warming isn't happening. At least...so far as it's consistent with the first Amendment.

~Loyal

Users who try to use anonymity, or cover themselves up on the internet, are usually doing things that aren’t so-to-speak legal.

Dear Comcast,

          I notice that your customer list, vendor list, inter-company agreements, and engineering drawings are concealed. Why are you committing illegal acts?

~Loyal

Same reason I didn't "single out" height or weight - IT IS NOT THE ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED.

Neither was ethnicity or religion, yet you seemed to find it suitable for discussion. Let me make it plain: In an article about Jack the ripper, the author mentioned the alleged perpetrator's religion, ethnicity, sex, and vocation. You became incensed at his listing the alleged perpetrator's religion and ethnicity, but find his sex and vocation beneath discussion. Why?

Which is still completely unrelated to the case as it was back then BECAUSE - it does not relate to the case in any way.

Evidence about a murderer is unrelated to the case in any way? I'm afraid your theory of crime analysis is quite far out of the mainstream.

Aaaaand that's a bingo! Thank you for taking part in "Spot a racist!"

I'm a racist? Constable Alfred Long reported that it read "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." Detective Constable Daniel Halse reported that it read, "The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing." City surveyor Fredrick William Foster reported that it read, "The Juws are not the men To be blamed for nothing." Police Superintendent Thomas Arnold had the graffiti erased because he thought that it would cause a riot.

Here's how a non-racist might have phrased a similar sentence HAD the Ripper's murders been in ANY way, shape or form marked with religious and/or ethnic markings or motives.

So, I write like a racist and you don't? Would you care to explain the difference to me?

~Loyal

p.s. I have since read the article and find that the "shawl" and the "apron" are not the same thing.

This is another tedious Google slashvertisement. Ignore it, in the hope they will stop.

I meant the 5, and actually I'm only considering a copycat for after the papers had started sensationalizing. Say after #3. (You clearly know more about it than I do.)

Thank you for the compliment. You are very kind. I believe the papers started sensationalising after the first murder (Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols). The reason for that is that there were two prior murders shortly before Polly's. They were Emma Smith's and Martha Tabram's, both of whom I've already mentioned. Of the five, only three murders are almost universally believed to have been committed by one person. Those were Polly Nichols's, Annie Chapman's, and Catherine Eddowes's. The reason they were believed to have been committed by the same man is that all three victims had facial or neck bruises, all three had their throats cut, and all three had abdominal wounds. Elizabeth had bruises and a throat wound, but no abdominal wound. Mary Kelly had very extensive injuries, and was the only one murdered indoors. Of those people who believe Stride was a Ripper victim, they explain away the lack of abdominal wounds by the fact that the murderer was quite likely interrupted mid-murder. He simply didn't have time to cause the abdominal wounds. Of those people who believe Kelly was a Ripper victim, they explain the extent of the injuries by the fact that her's was the only one that offered the Ripper extensive time and privacy to accomplish them.

Of the people who don't think Polly Nichols was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one committed in the street. Of the people who don't think Annie Chapman was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one committed in a back yard. Of the people who don't think Catherine Eddowes was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one not committed in London's East End. So, as you can see, people don't assume that all of the "Jack the Ripper murders" were committed by one person.

One additional point, if I may. It doesn't make much sense to say that sensationalism happened after the third canonical murder (Elizabeth Stride), because the fourth canonical murder (Catherine Eddowes) was only one hour later. There simply wasn't time between the third and fourth murders for any sensationalism to happen.

~Loyal

>>Lookif selfie can be a word, why can’t we let architecting in?

Because "selfie" fills a legitimate and objective need, filling a void created by an advancing technology and culture, neatly and succintly describing a "photograph of someone taken by that same someone, intended primarily for social media."

"Architecting" is superfluous, already synonymous with the shorter and more familiar "building" and "designing," and it contains the pompous subtext of equating the skills and efforts of an architect with those of code-monkeys and gannt-jockeys.

First off, now is not "at the time".

How very curious! I wonder why you singled (well, doubled) out ethnicity and religion. Why not sex? What I mean to say is that you had no invective to spend on their identifying Jack the Ripper as a man, nor their identification of his victims as women. Jack the Ripper was a man "then and not now," and his women were victims "then and not now." By your logic that shouldn't have been mentioned. Nor did you decry the listing of their professions. The Ripper as a murderer, and his victims as prostitutes. I, for one, would be highly amused to read more articles about Jack the Ripper that didn't mention the suspicion that he was a murderer.

Nor is any rationale provided for why would such labeling be of any importance now, nor why would ANY ethnic or religious attributes be relevant to either murders or the identification of the murderer EVER.

His religious affiliation is relevant because it erodes the theory that Kosminski was the murderer, and that he wrote anti-Semitic graffiti near where the evidence was found. His ethnic affiliation is relevant because it credits all the people who had teased that out of the evidence, and discredits those who opposed the idea.

John Wilkes Booth...Lee Harvey Oswald...John Wayne Gacy...Theodore Robert Bundy...Charles Milles Manson

I suppose that's because the evidence of their murders weren't found near anti-Semitic graffiti suspected to have been written by the murderer.

~Loyal