Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:No, obviously (Score 3, Interesting) 259

unless of course you're terrified of computers and networks, view them as tantamount to witchcraft, don't understand them, and hate and fear anyone who does. Then of course, by all means, grab your torch and pitchfork. The rest of the loonies will be waiting in the town square at midnight.

It's the whole "enhancement" idea in the law that is just so much hogwash.

Why was the crime "worse" because a computer was used? Did the victim suffer more? Was there more physical damage?

In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used? Would a crossbow or a big knife have been any different? They're all deadly weapons.

"Enhancements" like these are an expression of fear and attempted control. It's not a matter of justice, it's a matter of trying to control people. Plain and simple.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 688

Just so we're clear, here is a statement from an attorney about this habit of yours. You can find the same information in many places:

Putting a question mark at the end of a statement when it's meant to be a statement can still lead to liability.

Also, from a law school:

Defamatory statements can come in the form of questions as well, especially if the question implies certain facts about the person who is being questioned. For example:

A radio DJ, during an interview, asks his guest âoewhen did you stop beating your wifeâ? This question carries the implication that the guest has been beating his wife. Thus, there is a defamatory implication to the question and the guest may have a viable cause of action against the radio DJ.

Your long history of making statements similar to the one you made above, some with question marks and some without, has made your intent very clear. You don't get a pass just because you put a "?" at the end of a defamatory sentence.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 688

Just so we're clear, this is a statement from an attorney about this habit of yours. You can find the same information in many places:

Putting a question mark at the end of a statement when it's clear that it's meant to be a statement can still lead to liability.

Your history of making similar statements with question marks makes it very clear what your intent is. You don't get a pass just because you put a "?" at the end of a defamatory sentence.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 688

So you deny saying that women would be able to "control your behavior" and "decide whether or not you are a criminal" unless we legalize up-skirt panty shots?

Of course I do. Again with your distortions. You have extracted different portions of a discussion about the law, and inappropriately pasted them together to create a meaning I did not write or intend.

Yes, I do deny saying that, because I didn't say that. Knock off the lies and defamatory statements. They are no less defamatory posed as questions. You really don't know how that works, do you?

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 688

So you deny fantasizing about fucking "hot guys" and sharing news about women in the locker room?

As I have pointed out many times before, you like to deliberately distort and misrepresent other peoples' comments out of context.

That's called libel, and that comment of yours is a great example of it, since a reasonable person could not possibly interpret the words in the way you put them together. Putting them in the form of a question does not by itself absolve you of guilt, since it is obvious your purpose is defamation. (Even if this instance were not obvious, your recorded pattern of behavior makes it so.)

Society has rules, you know, even if Slashdot is lax about enforcing them.

Comment Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish (Score 1) 381

By that logic we should just write off large swathes of the Netherlands.

That doesn't follow. The Netherlands don't have a choice. We do.

Dykes and berms work just fine, and we have the engineering means to keep portions of land we consider valuable dry even if the waters rise 10 or 20 feet.

That also doesn't follow. The dyke and berm system in New Orleans was being "shored up" using local, State, and Federal money, yet "somehow" a very large part of the money mysteriously ended up elsewhere, and not spent on building or maintaining dykes and berms.

The engineering and technology do work just fine... but the "system" of dykes and berms did not.

Comment Re:No shit ... (Score 1) 152

Oh, bullshit.

People exchanged something for value. It's a market.

The rest is ideology.

Utter nonsense.

Non-monetary iterms in a "market" have value because they're actually USEFUL for something... either in making something else, or turning into something else, or making your manufacturing operation more efficient, etc. That's what GIVES them value.

Carbon offsets are only "valuable" because Government says so. In that way they are like fiat money... almost useless in themselves, only useful for trading for other things.

So it's not a "market" it's government fiat, and it makes no sense to say it has values because it's a market. It isn't. Certainly not a free market, anyway.

And as an analogy to fiat money, Russia and Ukraine have already inflated it by "printing" money they didn't have.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 688

Let me guess: you wanted to make all women look bad by acting out the worst sexist stereotypes of women, and wanted a more credible way to accuse women of being able to "control your behavior" and "decide whether or not you are a criminal" unless we legalize up-skirt panty shots?

Your "guesses" have been no better than your outright lies. Wrong on all counts.

And endlessly quoting yourself about past fabrications is... well... weird. Not that your other behavior has been exactly normal. You really do seem to live in your own little world. Which would be fine, if you just stayed there.

I think it's rather hilarious that you quote fantasies of your own that were previously shown to be wrong, to support your current fantasies. There's a name for that, too.

And thanks once again for confirming beyond doubt who you are. Icing on the cake.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 688

Are you serious, Jane? Or are you just trying to play up your "batshit insane lunatic" cred by pretending that it's not sock-puppeting when you pretend to be a completely different person of a different gender, insisting that others call you "she", fantasizing about fucking "hot guys", and sharing news about women in the locker room isn't sock-puppeting?

WHO is batshit here?

Repeat: pseudonyms with longevity and character behind them are standard procedure on Slashdot. Sock-puppeting is not.

You have no idea what I fantasize about. You're coming off here as a complete loon. I mean serious nutcase. No apologies from here for saying that.

As per your usual habit, YOU are pretending, and projecting that behavior on others.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 688

Or Jane/Lonny Eachus is the world's most blatant hypocrite. And since you're shamelessly bragging about being a good liar...

No, since you insist on bringing this up, let's revisit this. Because you will, just as hilariously as before, lose this one too.

You have often claimed I have been "pretending to be" a woman, mainly because I made a comment long ago that "most people who bothered to look" called me a gal. I let your snide comments slide for a long time, because I believe in giving people "enough rope".

When finally I felt it was no longer funny watching you thrash about lost in your own inanity, I deigned to explain that comment:

Yes, most people who bothered to look at the name "Jane Q. Public" have referred to me here on Slashdot as a gal. Why do you have such a problem with that?

You see, MOST people here on Slashdot ASSUME I am a "he"... and never even look at the handle to which they are replying. Which I find funny as hell, in a rather sad way. But those who DO bother to look -- the rarer cases -- are usually willing to accept it.

I have been planning on writing something about that.

You, however, look at ONLY the handle ("well, not 'only'...") and have been raising a stink about it for years now. It's a fucking pseudonym, twerp. Live with it.

Jane, you're shamelessly bragging about being a good liar.

What evidence do you have that my explanation is a lie? You already know the answer, so I'll tell everybody else: zero.

One of these days -- and there is even the possibility it will be in court -- I will tell you why I chose to use the pseudonym "Jane Q. Public". And when I do, there is a very good chance you will look pretty foolish. I am deliberately understating.

I believe in taking a long-term view of things. And lots and lots of rope.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 688

In "Janeland", as well as Slashdotland, having a consistent pseudonym with a reputation over a period of years is perfectly acceptable behavior.

Sock-puppeting is not.

And "forgetting to log in" is no excuse. I'm ALWAYS logged in when I comment. You USUALLY "forget". Why is that?

Is figuring out how to work that beyond the ken of a physicist? Or is it, which I think more likely, not a matter of "forgetting" at all?

Thanks very much, by the way, for confirming who you are. Big Something is watching you.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 688

This comment is even more astounding than most of your others. Not all, but most.

THIS time, you have not just misrepresented my words, but turned them around 180Â.

That's called lying, man. Just plain lying. Of course, I've caught you at it before, but it has seldom been quite so blatant.

A commune is where people join together to share their lack of wealth. -- R. Stallman

Working...