Nidoking (nidoking) wrote,

We get productive when nobody bothers us for a day

Naturally, with only the software team involved, things went pretty smoothly today. We made some presentations about project-related topics, discussed things, came to some conclusions, weighted arguments pro and con, and generally did stuff the right way. Except for the guy who came in at the beginning for a completely different meeting. That wasn't quite the brightest spot in the day. Also, they brought us lots of coffee, and the few of us who drink coffee brought their own. I had a cup just to do my part to make it less of a waste. Probably not a good idea.

One thing that really made me think today (outside the very interesting topics in the meeting): While I don't write up my dreams very often anymore, last night, I had a dream where I was donating very generously to some charities and maintaining anonymity by wearing a giant sombrero. Then Oprah started chasing me, trying to take off the sombrero and figure out who I was. Then pictures of that chase got into the paper, and people thought the guy in the sombrero had done something nasty to Oprah. I'm pretty sure I woke up sometime around this point, but the story continues that I decided to sue Oprah for defamation of character, but only to make a point, so the demand was that she donate some of her own fortune to the charities that she supported, in the name of the sombrero guy. But it raised some intricate questions of law. Is it possible to defame an anonymous character? I'm pretty sure it's possible for characters that are declared intellectual property, but I was completely anonymous as the sombrero guy. Further, would I even be able to bring suit anonymously? One of the defense's arguments was that without revealing my identity, I couldn't prove that I even had standing in court. Obviously, it's a purely hypothetical situation, but I have to ask... would someone with an anonymous identity have a legal recourse to protect that identity without revealing themselves?

Speaking of legal recourses, katsu_nukakat pointed me to an adult-ish site with a rather disturbing story... Australia has classified A-cups as child pornography regardless of the woman's age. I can only assume from this that having sex with a woman with small breasts is now classified as child molestation. This is exactly how we go about making women feel comfortable with their bodies and not compel them to get cosmetic surgery. Australia... once again, you prove yourself to be a stupid, stupid country when it comes to censorship. Even if I'm wrong about the child molestation thing... obviously, the best thing to do for guys who are attracted to children is to tell them it's wrong to look at adult women with that body type. You know... the (formerly) legal, healthy alternative to breaking the law and corrupting minors. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? Hey, I'm not saying the extreme of classifying artistic sexual portrayals of fictional children as non-porn is the way to go either (although it is), but why not just classify all women's bodies as immoral in any context and have done with it? At least that'll have your population reduced to nothing but sex fiends in a few generations, and they'll have those laws overturned in no time. Or just keep ignoring it, which probably works too. The country was founded by criminals in the first place, wasn't it? Well... FOR criminals, as a prison. Same difference.

I guess that didn't really have anything to do with legal recourses... so sue me. Or do you have the grounds to do that? See? Back on-topic at last.
Tags: random thoughts

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded