Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score 1) 249

by dave420 (#48193649) Attached to: The Largest Ship In the World Is Being Built In Korea

The silence is deafening :)

BTW I think you are entirely correct. People are people - one person's relationship to another doesn't magically imbue either party with some magic quality, or even if one were to assume it does, that would then apply to everyone else, rendering the "magic quality" moot. It might not be the most comforting thought in the world for some, but the logic behind it is undeniable.

Comment: Re: Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 371

by fyngyrz (#48193225) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

You might as well say the constitution is based on words, so we can do whatever we want.

Here's the legit deal: The judges get judicial power. Guilty or innocent, sentencing.

The feds, congress get enumerated powers.

The states get anything else that isn't outright forbidden to them (ex post facto laws, for instance.)

Anything left after that goes to the people.

See how those powers slide in a very particular direction? See why it's downright silly to claim that they magically slide UPHILL to the judiciary, when there's no such indication, anywhere, that such is the case? AND, to hammer it home, the thing explicitly says that if it's not in here, it belongs to the states or the people. There is NO authority for SCOTUS to do most of what it does. None whatsoever. And hell, even if there were, there they go rubber stamping the inversion of the commerce clause, ex post facto laws, rights violations left, right and sideways... you're looking right at them, and you don't see what they've done to you, and the rest of us. Pity.

This is all about direct usurpation of power that belonged to the people, frankly. Although we still have just the barest sliver of it left, which we can apply via jury nullification. Although, as you probably know, we're not even allowed to talk about that in court because judges(!) don't like it. Funny thing, that. Judges. They seem to be doing a lot of unauthorized things, don't they?

Comment: That dysfunctional line in the sand (Score 1) 371

by fyngyrz (#48193185) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

There's no such thing as a "well designed lawful age metric." Though I'm not sure you were even implying there was. But in any case:

It's about comprehension, consent, and physical development. Age cannot serve to draw such a multidimensional line effectively. There are obvious cases of young teens who know exactly what they are doing, are doing it carefully, and not in any way coming to harm. There are obvious cases of "adults" who are so unready for sex by the "comprehension" and "informed" metrics that it is painful to even consider it. And everything you can think of in between.

Comment: lol verizon (Score 1) 371

by fyngyrz (#48193149) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Verizon, as a telephone company, doesn't censor "illegal" voice traffic, does it? They do not, last I checked. That's because Verizon is a common-carrier and is not held liable for telephone content over its wires.

No, it's because they make sure every word you say is parsed by the government. The government decides if it doesn't like what you said if and when it becomes convenient for them to do so. Not only is your speech free, it's on deposit in special government accounts with your name right on them. You had just better hope it doesn't start earning "interest."

Comment: No one is saying that (Score 1) 371

by fyngyrz (#48193133) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

You're being disingenuous here.

We know loud sound and loss of sleep can cause direct physical harm. That's the basis for not yelling, bullhorns, and so on.

There is no sane basis for banning words, drawings, sculptures, renderings, woodcarvings and so on. None whatsoever.

The only sane basis for banning *anything* is it either causes such immediate harm to purse or person, or it is so likely to do so (ex, massively drunk driving) that the activity must be interfered with to lessen the odds of that potential becoming reality.

When speech gets loud or amplified, the legit question is not what was said. Ever. The question is what were you thinking putting people's hearing and/or sleep cycles at risk?

There is no reasonable argument that can justify a "right not to be offended", and there never, ever should be such a thing encoded in law. It should be painfully obvious as to why. If it isn't... oy.

Comment: Re: Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 371

by fyngyrz (#48193073) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Yes, but it's the Supreme Court's job to decide if the law about it is Constitutional.

Only because they said so (Marbury v. Madson, ca 1802 -- they made it up out of thin air.) The constitution says they have judicial power. That's guilty or not, assign punishment if so. Not "the law is whatever I think it is today."

The constitution is crystal clear about many things that the judges, in explicit violation of their oaths, have made mean something else entirely. Previous poster is quite correct. The experiment failed.

This is a corporate oligarchy. Not a constitutional republic. It's been that way for a while, but it's right out in the open now. Corporations are people. Money is speech. Those two ideas, taken together, directly disenfranchise the people. You think you can outspend a corporation? If you can, you probably own one. Or more. And you're part of the problem. The rest of us are just along for the ride now... a brave new world, indeed.

Comment: Re:Lenovo phones (Score 1) 42

by ShieldW0lf (#48192023) Attached to: Rumor: Lenovo In Talks To Buy BlackBerry

People do get that the only thing that knocked RIM from the top of the heap was the lawsuit filed by patent troll NTP, right?

They weren't beaten on technical merits. They weren't beaten because they "don't understand consumers". They weren't beaten on style, or execution, or anything else.

They were beaten by a corrupt US legal system that forced the guys running the company to stop running the company, hang around in a court room for years and in the end pay over half a trillion dollars to patent trolls.

Looking back, what they should have done was shut down US operations immediately, allowed the US government to implode and gone on to greener pastures.

Moral of the story, don't do business with Americans. One way or another, they'll fuck you over in the end. That's how they got where they are today.

Smart men just don't do business with the sharpest horse trader in town.

Comment: Re:Fucking hell (Score 2) 164

by Luckyo (#48190387) Attached to: More Eye Candy Coming To Windows 10

I think the default animation time in windows 7 menus is 200ms. Or at least that's what ClassicShell claims it to be in advanced mode that lets you adjust the timing.

If they actually push animation time as far as you suggest, I think that would just become another reason why people will stick to 7. OS needs to be functional first and foremost. That's why 8 failed, vastly impaired desktop desktop functionality. Too pronounced/delayed animations would likely fall in the same category.

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 371

by Luckyo (#48190081) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Excellent. I think we should also throw the same book at all those women in possession of smutty image-featuring faux-rape novels. While at it, we should also prosecute every single store selling them.

Because you know, just because it's faux rape and just because so many women find it enjoyable, it's still clearly a way to satiate those urges to rape. Which is clearly something society finds unacceptable. So jail them all, the filthy criminals.

In real world on the other hand, definition of crime is usually something that has a victim. Of course, in puritan Anglo states, and especially that with for profit prison system of US, that doesn't apply. In there, crime is something that is used against weak people to extract profits from large tax pool. We've seen it with ridiculous child rape cases of two teens going to jail for "raping each other", and we're seeing it with people using drawings to satisfy sexual urges.

Frankly, I find the very notion of labelling this kind of activity a crime to be far more obscene than actual pornography, real or drawn.

UK deserves an honourable mention in this particular insanity, mostly because of its hysterical for-profit printed media that has been trumping up the pedo-scare all while the child rape numbers have been in free fall.

Comment: Re:Research Paper Link (Score 1) 405

by Rich0 (#48189973) Attached to: Soda Pop Damages Your Cells' Telomeres

I think it's interesting that 100% juice does not have the same effects.
Juice is increasingly being treated as junk food by dieticians and nutritionists because of its sugar content.
They don't even want juice to be treated as part of your recommended consumption of fruit.

Sure, but how many healthy types don't realize that and drink it anyway? Maybe the soda/juice aren't having any effects at all, but rather they are correlated with other behaviors which are having an effect?

Comment: Re:Link to the study. (Score 1) 405

by Rich0 (#48189955) Attached to: Soda Pop Damages Your Cells' Telomeres

I wonder if the discovery is a cause or an effect.

People with shorter telomeres may simply prefer a sweeter drink.

Show me a study that compares the peoples telomeres before and after a experimental change in habits/intake and I will listen.

Or, maybe people who drink non-diet soda tend to do other things that result in shorter telomeres. This is one of the reasons why any kind of non-randomized study tends to break down.

Heuristics are bug ridden by definition. If they didn't have bugs, then they'd be algorithms.