"attracted to children specifically is different only in the level of younger, but you're over-generalizing here."

No. It's a level of emotional maturity. As in can or cannot handle an adult relationship and all of its responsibilities. The state puts a general number on it of 18 (or so, depending on the state and country), just like for a driver's license. And just like a driver's license, there are kids who are responsible enough before 16, and there are ones who aren't after 16; the state just picks a *cough* decent *cough* number.

It's all about adult responsibility, though, where true pedophilia is about being attracted to children who *aren't* mature enough for that responsibility. That's why someone 50 can be psychologically healthy and be attracted to someone half their age, while someone 24 is not healthy being attracted to someone half their age.

The biological part you neglect to mention is that they seek someone younger - but still has the traits of being able to produce children. ie, after puberty. Pedophilia is (psychologically, not legally) about the attraction to humans before (during?) puberty.

My brother works at GoDaddy... Amusingly, Anonymusing may be pretty close to the truth, from what I hear about the owner.

What about people you distrust and don't care about, but can still affect your life?

I guess you already answered that by action - your email address is private, and I doubt your true name is "maxume."

Well, you feel that way about rights; how about responsibilities? Should juvenile court be done away with and treat children like adults when it comes to the *penalties* of the law?

And yes, I know some incredibly young children can be tried as adults for things like murder. Which, in my opinion, is ridiculous and the part that should be done away with well before looking into granting more rights.

No. The ethically bad parts of extremism aren't the intentions or the desire. It's the actions. While scientology and its followers nowhere near 'good' (or even neutral), they (generally) do not go to the extremes that the people we call extremists in the real world do.

Incoming case citations of relatively rare but really evil things done by scientologists, ignoring the "generally" part in 5, 4, 3...

And as long as they learn from their mistakes, about $6M a year in the future.

I think it's been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to see live music and I'm just drawing a blank as to why anyone else actually does go see live music. The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to get audio content, well, that's been lame since radio was invented and it gets lamer every year.

I think it's been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to the beach and I'm just drawing a blank as to why anyone else actually does go to the beach. The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to go swimming, well, that's been lame since pools were invented and it gets lamer every year.

(insert another example of technically receiving info while ignoring the experience of it ad infinitum)

While I agree that lobbyists wield way too much power in government, the 1900 page complaint is more of a talking point than anything else. The bill and the wording behind it has been available for months via drafts and discussion within committees.

There's plenty of questions that the article raises without answering (well, at least with the article and report itself, I didn't go hunting their web site for them):

• is the amount of vulnerabilities just a count or did they give some more weight than others? I hope they don't equate an SSL download injection of malware to the ability for some bad javascript to bypass popup blockers.
• are they reported issues in documented bug fixes are are they independent issues? I can think of at least one occasion MS has squelched a bug report.
• do they make them unique to the browser itself or are they universal attacks that the browser doesn't stop?

Did anyone with more patience than me go perusing their site to find how they came up with their numbers?

Personal judgments do not take the preponderance of evidence that a court does, so the "prove it" rebuttal doesn't make sense. There's legitimate cause to believe this was intentionally done, regardless of calling it "removing support" or blocking or whatever. And that's a pretty cruddy thing to do in my opinion, even if they have the right and business reason to do so.

Actually, no he didn't. Perjury has two key parts: (1) lying under oath - the one you're talking about, and (2) the lie affects the outcome of the case. While he did lie under oath, it didn't affect the outcome of the case.

"if that's protected, I should be able to call a judge on his personal phone line and complain about his judgements. call my congresscritters on their personal lines and complain and 'sell' them on my way of doing things."

Assuming you have the number, you can. There are ramifications if it's threatening or if they ask you to stop and you still do it - just like these other scenarios should - but there aren't any laws against it (AFAIK - someone may correct me on that).

Now the reverse - do you think you should be *prevented* from talking about these things to judges and members of the congress? Just on the phone? What? The issue with free speech, and any freedoms for that matter, is that it has to be protected for the jerks that abuse it, because taking away freedoms starts there (paraphrasing some quote).

Amazon modified the service by forcing the Kindles to self-destruct and isn't paying any refunds for the e-books lost.

End of discussion?

The reason most of the time the US is considered an ass is when they (we) are imposing our societal ideals of what's wrong and right well beyond our boundaries. This time the tables are turned.

The reason we have to roughly estimate the value of human life in dollar amounts is because the variables to assess the value are intangible, not because the variables are private. To further your analogy, if a husband is killed and the wife is suing based upon what the husband would have made, I would figure (IANAL), that the wife couldn't just state it's $10 million a year and then hide any financial statements to verify.