Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Well at least they saved the children! (Score 1) 790

Bullshit. The words don't make you do anything. Whether unconsciously or not, your actions are your own.

Please have a look on how panic works. It's not anything like you think it is.

The rapist is at fault. The end

So, people knowingly paying to watch children being raped have no responsibility whatsoever.
Correct me if I'm wrong because I truly believe this is exactly what you just said.
I'm sorry, but how can I put this?
You're a twisted fuck.

Comment Re:Well at least they saved the children! (Score 2) 790

Demand forces no one to do anything. The fault lies with those who rape. It's like how if someone falsely screamed "fire" in a crowded theater and people panicked and harmed others in the panic, the ones at fault for causing the damage would be the ones who caused the damage, not the speaker. Our legal system obviously doesn't see it this way, but I disagree with the legal system.

Screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre is not freedom of expression. It's a deliberate act, that triggers a programmed panic response in most of us.

You are mistaking the action with outlawing the result. It's perfectly valid to break it up if real people are getting hurt, but unless they're taking down videos or images, that isn't happening.

You forgot to explain the responsibility of those that payed the ticked to watch.

Nope. I did not fail to consider that; it's just irrelevant to me. Go after the rapists, and stop trying to harass people who merely view or buy the content.

Those poor people that get harassed for watching an afternoon session.

Nope. Just someone who despises censorship.

Me too. Just not at all cost. And I don't stretch the concept of freedom of expression to fit my needs.

Comment Re:Well at least they saved the children! (Score 4, Insightful) 790

And then you go on to make the unfounded claim that a video magically made people rape children. I guess videos take control of people and cause them to rape.

GP wan't making that claim. What I see is a claim that the demand has a direct relation with THOSE(in the movie/picture) children being abused.

I find censorship disgusting.

How about on a live theatre? Won't be censorship too to make it illegal?
You're so intoxicated with your "no censorship" dogma that you failed to sense that people buying this movies/pictures are paying money to pedophiles to rape children.

Mere videos or pictures shouldn't be outlawed, even if they do sometimes encourage more to be made (That's the rapist's fault; videos or people buying them doesn't force them to make more.).

You're an idiot.

Comment Re:Their country, their rules (Score 5, Insightful) 204

Their country, their rules.

Not valid here. Mt. Everest is something of worldwide importance. Nepal did not create it nor should they "own" it.

The only reason they can have "rules" is if those are for preservation of the ecosystem, but I don't see any violation in that context here.

Did you even tough about what you just wrote?
So what you're saying is because the Grand Canyon is of worldwide importance, we should ignore U.S. laws.

Comment Re:U.S. law still applies (Score 1) 179

Those laws all look like pretty standard extradition terms, actually.

Yes they are, in countries that abolished the death penalty . Wasn't implying they weren't or trying to make them notable in some way.
Wasn't sure if GP was being sarcastic and wanted to point out that his assertion didn't even apply to U.S. citizens, even more to Portuguese.

Comment Re:U.S. law still applies (Score 4, Informative) 179

Portugal actually have laws that even prevent an U.S. citizen from being extradited under certain circumstances.

Comment Re:Oh. Tell that to brain scientist. (Score 1) 532

I have this question for quite some time. If our conscience is information, and if we are indeed a complex machine, then what prevent us from theoretically replicate/transfer this same conscience to a new machine/virtual environment . If we are information, why can't we continue after death then.
If we can continue , then what happens to the conscience that is in the body that dies. Does it cease to exist? Does it continues on the VM?
If I try both possibilities then I'm left with more questions.
If the conscience ceases to exist, then we aren't just machines, aren't we?
If the conscience continues in the VM, then were does the conscience resides?
I don't know, really and I'm not an expert in this, but I really would like to know.

Comment Re:Frettin' over the grindstone (Score 1) 948

Oh god, this this this this this.

Its no wonder the world economy is in the state it's in, with all the pointless busy-work being done that is allegedly necessary to the functioning of business.

I sincerely think your comment is not interesting at all.
The world economy isn't in the state it's in because of slackers. That's a very "naive" / "over simplistic" thing tho say. People in the world didn't just stop being productive, or ended all being slackers from 2008 on.
Maybe next you will say that unemployment just went up in the western world because people are slackers who don't want to work.
Try world wide government's corruption and an implemented system that favorables assholes with money to lobby their way in to laws.

Comment Re:News for nerds, stuff that... gets hard. (Score 1) 117

It's not about the dick. It's about the size.
For sure the title should be something in this lines: "2mm Bug Is World's Loudest".
Even though, how can't you find this story interesting to nerds. Imagine the possibilities.
If a 2mm bug can do a 99.2 decibels sound, so can your ipod/notepad/phone/pad/[whatever future small] device.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming