Wikipedia says: you're full of shit.

Care to cite your source?

Also, I think you need to re-read the pornography laws for wherever you live as, unless you live in Canada or Australia, possession of fictional portrayals of illegal sexual crimes are not the same as having physical evidence that illegal sexual crimes have been committed. Because if what you assert is true, that having possession of fictionalized events of under aged sex or pedophilia is a crime, then it sucks to own a copy of Bram Stroker's Dracula, or Homer's Iliad, or Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, or Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash or heaven forbid any one of many Heinlein novels as they all describe fictional illegal sexual acts involving intercourse with under aged minors or children and are almost all considered literary classics in their respective genre's.

What about the 16 year old girl who sent a sexual nude pic of herself to her boyfriend who then went and shared the pic with the whole class getting the 16 year old girl arrested for creating and distributing child porn?

She is now a registered sex offender and can't go to school or college. Her life is destroyed because of some blind application of a law that was not intended to target her but because of overzealous DA's who want a notch on their political belt go after such easy crimes because of the emotional appeal to people like you.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/sexting-teens-makes-sex-offender-list-20110121-19zwu.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-07/justice/sexting.busts_1_phillip-alpert-offender-list-offender-registry?_s=PM:CRIME
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001082-504083.html


Or how about the grandmother who took pictures of her naked grandchildren (under the age of 3) in a bathtub and then took the pics to walmart to get prints? Another overzealous DA went and prosecuted her. She was sentenced to 3 years in prison.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/04/grandma-arrested-for-child-por


It is evil that children are getting exploited. The problem is, the ones getting punished by the application of the laws due to the political and emotional fervor such application engenders for those leading the crusade, are not the ones exploiting the children.

Both those who download decade old pictures, or pictures of jailbait teens who voluntarily post their own pics on the net, or of innocent grandmothers who take pictures of their infant children, these are not the people being exploited nor are they the one's exploiting others, yet they are the people being targeted by the current application of the law.


Because a DA with 10 "Child Porn convictions" under his belt has an emotional appeal to mindless cosmic space zombie followers and that emotional appeal will get him elected / re-elected.

In case you didn't realize it, but the IP wasn't traced to the right person. The guy it was "traced" to was innocent, remember?


On another note, it's impressive you are able to psychoanalyze such a large demographic of people without actually having any interaction of knowledge of them specifically to make such a determination that they are dysfunctional and have father issues. You should open up a clinic or something, or maybe publish a paper on it...

I don't understand what the point of securing a wifi-access point is with regard to protection from police serving a warrant? Lets say that your wireless access point IS password protected with mac address filtering and someone bypassed this to use your router, you think the police are going to actually do their job and investigate or stop at the first thing they see? No, if you had a secure router, you better believe YOU are going to be the one they try and rape with the criminal justice system.


The whole child porn crime thing is getting absurd. As much as I dislike child porn, the laws for POSSESSION need to be relaxed. Right now, it is akin to being a witch in the 1800's, being a nazi in the 1940's, or a communist in the 1960's. Mere accusation alone is enough to destroy your life. As those in charge don't perform their due diligence in assessing the facts until after they take action which by then your life is ruined.

The intent is to stop the exploitation of children. But the result is the way in which child pornography is pursued, the exploitation of these children seem to be a secondary thing when the pursuit of people in possession is the purpose in which LEOS and DA's rally against because of the sensational headlines they carry. Not to mention the notches they get to cut in their belts.


Our child porn laws are getting so absurd that 16 year old girls who text naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends are getting charged with crimes and being labeled as sex offenders for their rest of their life. Grandmothers who take pictures of their infant/toddler children in the bath are getting prison sentences.

All so some DA or police chief/captain/lieutenant can look good and cut a notch on his belt.


There is no justice. It is just another commodity available only to those with the wealth and influence.

What he really means is that by controlling how you interact with god they can control you. Because the clergy are of course soooo holy that only they can speak for god.BR>
Where exactly in the bible does it call for a penitent to confess to a confessor, I seem to recall Jesus going around saying that you don't need a clergy person to connect you with god...

You must live in California, because that looks to be exactly the case as it stands here with one addition. Police gain protections and immunities both in state law and in federal law.

However what you described is only what is on paper and leaves out the many unwritten laws. Such as that the police, being above the law, get to decide when the law is enforced and may always claim a misinterpretation of the law to justify what would otherwise be criminal acts.

My favorite example of this is the HB police officer who was stalking a coke using stripper and eventually stalked her leaving her work, pulled her over, blew his load on her face and sweater and then left. Despite the DA prosecuting him proving that he had ran her plates through CLETS 30 minutes prior to her leaving her work and his pulling her over, and despite catching him in several perjuring statements in court, the judge and jury some how ruled that because she was a stripper, she was a professional at using her body to manipulate men, and that she had some how manipulated the officer into the circumstances to get out of the traffic incident.

Of course, then there is the case in San Diego where they mobilized the swat team to apprehend a teenager over a stolen PS3 and when they went to arrest him at his parents house opened up with their automatic weapons through a frosted glass door because the kid "had a weapon" when he was holding the PS3 controller...

Or then there is the guy who is serving time in jail for shooting a cop when the police were serving a no-knock warrant on a criminal who had left the apartment complex 6 months prior, and whose apartment was on the other side of the complex. The police broke into his apartment, never announced who they were and the guy reacted what any rational person would do, he immediately grabbed a handgun and went to his infant babies room and shot at the first armed attacker that came after him.

Or how about the mayor who uses a separate last name from his wife who received a random shipment of drugs. And despite the FBI, DEA and the state police knowing that it was just a blind ship and that the criminals often snatch it from the porch before the home owners get the package, the local police, decide to do a dynamic entry on the mayor. Breaking in and killing their two dogs (who were fleeing the cops) and arresting the mayor and his wife for drug trafficking...

Well, I can go on and on, but the facts remain that the police can basically do whatever the hell they want regardless of what some mere paper says their authority is restricted to.

And that is a false choice.

Would it be legal for Ford to design a car that detected if non-ford parts were used and shut the car down (make it non-operable) until the non-allowed parts are removed and allowed parts are put back on?

Voiding the warranty is perfectly fine, denying the use of legally purchased private property via extortion is not.


And who says you are held under any license agreement when you purchase a console anyways?

Last I checked, I didn't sign any contract when I forked over my cash for my Xbox 360. So where and when exactly did I enter into a legally binding contractual agreement under which licensing restrictions I must abide by?


On another note, I find great humor in the fact that Microsoft allows games like Grand Theft Auto, Saw, Deadspace and Assassin's Creed. You know, games that revolve around either dismembering the limbs of your opponents, raping, theft, murder, assassination, or countless other violent crimes that are amongst the most deplored acts of any society, but HEAVEN FORBID someone use their console for what is essentially masturbation and potentially improve their skill at copulating.

Aren't a lot of the bullshit requirements intended to justify H-1B visas?

I thought in order to qualify for H-1B, you had to first advertise in the local area and if you can't find people then you can apply for H-1B's (which you can then change the requirements).

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I am not saying that you can't forget things, I am responding to when you said:

I.E. that the arbitrary assumption that because someone wrote the paper in the past that they in fact don't know it now is bullshit.

Then what is the point of getting a degree?


I mean, afterwards, it doesn't prove that you know anything related to your field, after all that was years ago and covers what you knew then and not what you know now.


The distinction between now and then and knowing is, quite frankly, absolute pure bullshit.

I fail to see how public officials acting in a public capacity performing a public action while in public, that are not actively involved in a current criminal investigation have any expectation of privacy when doing public things in a public capacity in the public.

And given that a when a speed trap is set up, it is not a criminal investigation because no crime has occurred yet for there to be a criminal investigation of, and you cannot charge someone with a crime that has not been committed yet, nor can you charge someone with potentially committing a crime, thus disclosing to the public via electronic communication what public officials (police officers) acting in a public capacity (enforcing the law), while in public (outside in plain sight) is not interfering with a criminal investigation because no such criminal investigation exists involving the activity of those officers performing their speed trap.


However, abuse under the color of authority IS A FEDERAL CRIME which is what the police officers arresting such an individual for would be committing.

Also, wouldn't defamation be a civil issue and not criminal? What is their "standing" that they are claiming these disparaging words (being described as a "pig" or "incompetent") are causing damage to their public image? Especially as these disparaging words are not targeted at a specific individual and fall under "freedom of speech" given that they are a public governmental entity?

It is evident that these police officers are petty and vindictive and only taking action out of malice in retaliation for perceived disparaging words said against their competence. Their actions which, in my opinion, only seem to bring to light their competency (or lack thereof).

California Penal Code 12020
(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol, any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag.

Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

Why was a diabetic going out and drinking alcohol, which is nothing but carbs, i.e. sugar?

Child Porn is like toxic / nuclear waste. Once you touch it, you are contaminated forever.

There is a grandmother on the east coast who took pictures of her grandchild playing int he tub, a common occurrence. She was charged and convicted of child porn when she took the pictures to be developed. The DA didn't care about the details.

There is a girl in her early 20's who was caught sending naked pictures of her self to her boyfriends cell phone when she was 15 or 16. She was convicted of manufacturing and distributing child pornography and is now labeled as a sexual offender, was forced to drop out of school due to laws against sexual offenders and proximity to children and couldn't go to college (who would accept her?) and generally had her life fucked up because she took naked pictures of herself and shared them.

Child Porn and the zeal to which people combat it is zealotry at it's worst. All one would have to do is send such a picture to someone's phone or email and it doesn't matter how it got there, congratulations, your life is going to get ruined.


The problem with our Child Porn laws and pursuit of justice thereof, is that even Law Abiding citizens who do not deal with Child Porn fear even the accusation of it because whether actually guilty or not, merely having pictures of their children, other innocuous evidence such as porn with college teens in it, or no evidence at all, is enough to destroy their lives. In addition to the fact that jury's are completely ignorant and harsh against alleged perpetrators.