Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... (Score 1) 440

by sumdumass (#47802789) Attached to: Grand Ayatollah Says High Speed Internet Is "Against Moral Standards"

No one said they were worried about it. The entire www=666 isn't even connected to Muslims.

The parent said

Oh no! It's a holy war against the internet!

I wonder how well that will work out. Will the internet fight back?

Then I said about as well as it worked out last time then presented the last time I knew of a religious war against the internet.

I swear... This isn't all that difficult. Are people really that obtuse?

Comment: Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... (Score 1) 440

by sumdumass (#47802759) Attached to: Grand Ayatollah Says High Speed Internet Is "Against Moral Standards"

And your point is what? Naming an argument does not mean it isn't proper to use it. Besides, it is not actually a no true scotsman argument. But what you would have otherwise? A few fringe idiots all the sudden represent every single other person of a group when there is absolutely no basis for it?

BTW, why it is not a no true scotsman argument is because he is not saying those people are not Christians, he is saying not all Christians are the same. A big bit of difference there.

Comment: Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... (Score 1) 440

by sumdumass (#47802715) Attached to: Grand Ayatollah Says High Speed Internet Is "Against Moral Standards"

Does it really need spelled out?

The entire WWW=666 was incorrect but due to someone's misconceptions, was used as a basis to war against the internet. Pointing out that 666 should be 616 is like arguing the bank robber crew socks instead of tube socks when he robbed the bank. It does nothing to the fact the bank was robbed. Likewise, debating whether it was 666 or 616 does nothing for the fact that someone thought 666 was the number and that WWW represented it and attempted to attack the internet as evil. It's like saying the thought of WWW=666 is otherwise valid when it clearly is not.

Comment: Re:yet if we did it (Score 1) 321

No. The only way to hope to (re-?)establish order and honor in the police is to hold them to the very laws they are expected to enforce. If there are no consequences when they disobey the laws, then they will continue to become more arbitrary, dishonorable, an untrustworthy.

For that matter, they should be held to a higher standard. A police officer should be held more stringently to obedience to the law than a normal citizen, and the punishment should be harsher (though not by too much) when they break the laws.

That they are not is quite clear, so their powers should be reduced, because they have been repeatedly shown to not be trusted with the ones that they have. For this reason I am in favor of requiring a camera that they cannot disable to be upon them at all times, and that malfunction of the camera should mean that they are not paid for that period AND that an independent investigation of the case is launched. It should record sound as well as video, and should be immediatedly transmitted to a secure read-only cache. Also, they should be on leave without pay from the instant the camera is disabled until it is repaired.
This is clearly an onerous requirement, and if the police had been shown to be at all trustworthy I wouldn't consider anything this strict. They have, however, shown that they cannot be so trusted.

Also, any action that they take while the camera is known to be non-operational and they are in uniform should be considered taken "under the cloak of authority", i.e., if they commit a crime, there is an additional penalty because they are fraudulently claiming to represent the law. Because of this the camera should be equipped with a soft beep that plays intermittently while it is operational, and a louder chirp that plays intermittently (once every 2 sec.?) while it is non-functional. Perhaps the chirp could encode the camera id, so that others recording in the area would have information as to which one.

Comment: Re:whats the big deal? (Score 1) 210

by Opportunist (#47802307) Attached to: Reported iCloud Hack Leaks Hundreds of Private Celebrity Photos

I've been on the internet too long. I've seen them all. Small boobs, large boobs, boobs that have their own zip code and boobs that make it necessary to check further south to determine their owner's sex because it could well be a guy (and to make matters worse, yes, I've even seen guys who'd probably profit from wearing a bra and thanks a bunch for reminding me of that picture...).

There's simply nothing special about any kind of tits anymore. Unless they can do some sort of trick like juggling balls or something they're just another pair of boobs. Let's be blunt here, after you've seen a few thousands, it gets boring.

Comment: Re:yet if we did it (Score 1) 321

OK, then *I'll* say that the supervisor who said that was legal superior and ordered police to follow it should be charged with ... I want "conspiracy to commit manslaughter", but I don't think that's possible, so I'd settle for malfeasance. And I don't think that excuses the officer from negligent homocide....unless you want to argue that he did it intentionally.

The fact that this is a part of a pattern of behavior means that I don't think he should be exonerated even if the evidence were to show that in this particular case the bicyclist *did* swerve out in front of him.

Comment: Re:What's wrong with you people (Score 1) 210

by Opportunist (#47802245) Attached to: Reported iCloud Hack Leaks Hundreds of Private Celebrity Photos

It doesn't matter because idiocy. Not boobs.

We informed, we taught, we blogged, we ranted, we raved, all 'til we turned blue in the face and had carpal tunnel, but people didn't want to listen and ... ohhhh shiny!

Now, my (not too) sincerest apologies if I feel a wee bit ... well, why not outright call it satisfied, yes, satisfied, that this happened. No, we were not fearmongering, no we were not crying wolf, no, we were not scaridy-cats.

WE WERE BLOODY RIGHT, DAMMIT!

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.

Working...