There's another reason certain people work so hard to suppress the sexual behavior of others, a reason seldom mentioned, but obviously true: good old competition to get ones genes into the next generation.
You can compete by having more sex with more partners and producing more babies, and you can compete by preventing other people from doing the same thing.
From an artist's point of view, just how difficult is it to make a Toyota vehicle look incredibly stupid? Now to be legally protected, it has to obviously be a parody, so the Toyotas can't be made to look a *little bit* stupid, they have to look *incredibly* stupid.
Recall the example of the parody of Dewar's Scotch magazine adverts featuring celebrities recounting their first sexual experiences. A parody, upheld by the US Supreme Court, depicted Rev. Jerry Falwell's "first time" -- in an outhouse with his own mother.
Visual artists -- go to town!
Sometimes these "internet things" take on a life of their own. That small website owner wouldn't have to have anything to do with the satire. I mean, if there were even just one incredibly funny picture (or YouTube video satire) to come out of this, the "Streisand Effect" could be renamed the "Toyota Effect".
Wasn't there a slashdot story within the last year or two about someone sprinkling a handful of small USB thumb drives on the ground outside a bank branch that used Windows? And that before the day was out, about half of the memory sticks had "phoned home"?
Social engineering is much too easy.
And professionals can't even agree that it's a terrible idea to put, say, flood control dam control computers on the internet.
I can't count the number of times during "customer service" type calls where the employee verifies my (the customer) identity by reciting to me my social security number, and asking me if that's correct.
At least with the reward, the perp's bragging rights totally evaporate.
I have a logical answer. It looks good at first. You'd have to go back after seeing all the tearing apart, which is a bother. But also, if you DO bother to go back after seeing it shredded, and mod it down then, the meta moderators (who judge your modding) don't see all that shredding either. So you look like a jerk who modded down a perfectly good-looking-at-first post.
And finally the overriding question, a post that looks good at first and is then shredded can be a vital trigger for an interesting discussion (the shredding itself).
The article makes it seem like tinfoil hat stuff, but it's very, very interesting. When the frequency that the magnetic field fluctuates at is over 1000 hertz (I think that's the number) it increases the activity of the specific brain area it is aimed at. Below the cutoff it reduces the activity. Think just a moment, isn't it an incredibly ability to be able to activate or deactivate specific brain areas? I read somewhere that you can induce a feeling of "awe" or "being in the presence of God" with a magnetic field that covers one whole side of the brain. Does any of this sound like Nicola Tesla's lab that the government sealed immediately after his death? What if there were a home version? Just how difficult would it be to make one? What would couples do with it? What if church had one that would affect the whole congregation? What if the congregation didn't know about it? What if an interrogator had one?
If you want to know just how far this real science has come along so far, the topic to look up is TMS -- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.
Yup. Have a lawyer look at that contract before you sign it.
But nobody would pay an artist not to paint. You should talk to a lawyer -- just a consult -- there are laws against overly restrictive agreements, especially if the individual's ability to make a living is encroached on, for one example.
Yup. Have a lawyer look at that contract before you sign it. Yup. Have a lawyer look at that contract before you sign it.
Nonsense! I'm sure they've got plans to go totally with 1-person 1-vote democracy, and they just want to make sure the voting machines won't elect George Bush!
I'll bet you'll like the Re-Pagination firefox extension. When you get to the bottom of the first page, do a right click on the "2" or the word "next" in that list of pages. Then you just scroll down and see all the pages without clicking on anything more. The extension fetches the pages and appends them to the bottom. I consider it "jerking the reader around" when sites have lists like that, and thwarting them always provides a nice feeling of satisfaction and triumph!
Yes, he could. The only exception to the American president's pardon power is "in matters of impeachment". Anyone in the Executive or Judicial branch may be impeached (accused) and removed from office (convicted). I'm not sure about impeaching Congressmen and Senators, but those two bodies do get to write their own rules about how they run themselves.
So, whether the voiding of the pardon power applies narrowly to just this specific impeachment plus removal process, or whether it means that any crime relating in some way to someone's impeachment, would be decided by the Supreme Court. I suspect the narrower interpretation was the "original intent", that is, that the presidential pardon power cannot override the Congress's impeach and remove from office power.
My inner cynic tells me to expect Bush to issue a blanket pardon for everyone that ever did anything in or with this administration, for any crime they committed or may have committed. (I should have listened to it and bought oil and weapons stocks when Bush got in.)
I'm not sure if a presidential pardon prevents prosecution by the States.
If it does, then the only option left would be an International Tribunal. I don't think wiretapping would be an international issue, but violations of the Geneva Convention (torture, no due process when determining whether or not someone is an "Enemy Combatant") could.
Perhaps it was intended to mock the ignorance that so many other nations say the American public suffers from in regards to political events in other countries.
For something intelligent and entertaining, find The Daily Show with Jon Stewart from last Friday, where they were reporting on McCain's acceptance speech. They intercut sentences from it with sentences from Bush's acceptance speech eight years earlier.
Again and again and again they were virtually identical! Anyone got that YouTube link?
You've got to see it to believe it; it was absolutely astounding to watch. (Excellent work, Daily Show!)
I wish the idiot from New Scientist was a student of mine so I could flunk him. I recommend against bothering to read the, uh, "fine" article.
If we'd just declassify the sequin mines outside Las Vegas (Area 51) and then grind the stuff up into micro-glitter before adding it to all oil and coal we're burning, we'd make the earth look from space like a giant disco ball, reflecting an enormous quantity of solar radiation back into space.
You clearly have the common sense to see this is "insanely excessive".
But if society decides to make common sense irrelevant and allow the fine print in contracts to govern, then the impact on commerce generally would be devastating. Because everyone would have to do much, much more work investigating all the possible ramifications from every transaction they entered into.
Business transactions become a game of deception and "gotcha", which is essentially about criminality and exploitation, and not about freedom and commerce.
All the grand things that free markets do for people evaporate when they aren't actually "fair". If you want to defend free markets, you have to defend them against, to use your phrase, "insane excess".
For this case in particular we could ask the question, if the customer actually knew how much he was about to spend before he spent it, would he opt to engage in that business transaction anyway? Of course not.
Insane excess, whether in the form of exploiting the little guy or overregulating the big corporation, are enemies of free markets. Laissez faire doesn't work; you need some regulation or the markets you wind up with are anything but "free".
Gross imbalance between "pro little guy" and "pro big guy" market regulation has given us the current mortgage crisis, and uh, yes, Communism. Freedom works so much better!
Credit card companies are a current big problem in the US now. Can you guess what the industry's current slang is for customers like me who pay in full and on time every month? Deadbeat! It's literally Orwellian.
You can still make a killing. Just do it with excellence and fairness, not "gotchas".
The day Consumer Reports starts reviewing games like Gran Tourismo or Grand Theft Auto for "how much fun" they are to play is the day they start reviewing brands of cigarettes for which ones "taste the best" to smoke.
Here's an option that's between doing nothing and launching a "replicating avenger": When anti-virus software recognizes an incoming network packet as one crafted to infiltrate a machine, it responds in kind with an infiltrating packet of its own that will cure the infection. But there's no replication, no selecting of targets, only self-defensive responses.
This doesn't address every legal issue, but it does have a nice "ring" to it that I believe would sound "fair" even to non-computer savvy individuals.
To repel rowdy young ruffians, just pipe in classical music. You don't need to inflict suffering on anyone's eardrums -- just offer them something they'll find totally uncool. Then, leaving and avoiding such places feels like a victory to them. They'll even tell their young ruffian friends how horribly unbearable the music is, and you'll be spared even more of them as word spreads.
Normal people, including babies, don't mind the classical music at all!
Perhaps the fellow who thinks it's ok to torture babies to protect himself against dangerous teenagers can get a job with the Bush administration.
Hillary helped draw up impeachment documents as a House staffer during Watergate.
And she has stated that our current president Bush is the worst president in the history of the country.
And when Katie Couric asked her what book other than the Bible she'd want to take to the White House, she said the Constitution because it seems the current president is unaware of it.
I think she'll be just fine on restoration of civil rights. And I think Obama will make an even better president after being Vice President for eight years.
I think they're both tremendous, and I want the country and the world to get 16 years out of them!
But for right now, who's the best? Here's an uplifting musical answer, (featuring the incomparable Tina Turner) in a youtube video:
Other infections (which of course rev up the immune system to fight them) cause temporary spikes in HIV viral load. They say that to be non-infectious, there must not be any STI (Sexually transmitted infections) present. But what about infections that aren't sexually transmitted? Their presence will still rev up the immune system, causing the temporary spike in viral load. Different infectious agents cause widely differing amount of HIV spiking, probably depending on which particular branches of the immune system are revved up to fight the particular infectious agent.
But it seems they're saying that this spiking only happens with STI's, and that infections that don't happen to be transmitted sexually won't cause HIV levels to spike. I applaud the work, and I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, but I wonder whether there's a hint of wishful thinking that got mixed up in this mostly logical argument.
Unless they can state that non-sexually transmitted infections don't cause this spiking there's a hole in the argument. (Perhaps there's some crucial work I've missed on the whole HIV "spiking" phenomenon?) Wish I had more answers, but so far I still have more questions.
| And what happened with the anti-wiretapping laws passed several decades ago?
A court called household cordless phone calls "radio broadcasts" as I recall, so anyone can listen in on them legally -- whether LE or a nosy neighbor kid.
Slashdot Mirror
There's another reason certain people work so hard to suppress the
sexual behavior of others, a reason seldom mentioned, but obviously
true: good old competition to get ones genes into the next generation.
You can compete by having more sex with more partners and producing
more babies, and you can compete by preventing other people from
doing the same thing.
Slap 'em down-aholics, I like to call them.
Simple is as simple does.
If I back up a Disney CD so the kids don't scratch the original to heck,
they call me a thief and say I should just buy another copy.
I say *they* are the theives and I have no sympathy for *them*.
Or we could acknowledge that sharing music you own and like is a
form of free advertising.
But we'd lose our precious simplicity, wouldn't we. We might even have
to think hard about some stuff!
(Just 'cause this also applies to George Bush doesn't mean this is off topic.)
From an artist's point of view, just how difficult is it to make a Toyota vehicle look incredibly stupid? Now to be legally protected, it has to obviously be a parody, so the Toyotas can't be made to look a *little bit* stupid, they have to look *incredibly* stupid.
Recall the example of the parody of Dewar's Scotch magazine adverts featuring celebrities recounting their first sexual experiences. A parody, upheld by the US Supreme Court, depicted Rev. Jerry Falwell's "first time" -- in an outhouse with his own mother.
Visual artists -- go to town!
Sometimes these "internet things" take on a life of their own. That small website owner wouldn't have to have anything to do with the satire. I mean,
if there were even just one incredibly funny picture (or YouTube video satire) to come out of this, the "Streisand Effect" could be renamed the "Toyota Effect".
Wasn't there a slashdot story within the last year or two about someone sprinkling a handful of small USB thumb drives on the ground outside a bank branch that used Windows? And that before the day was out, about half of the memory sticks had "phoned home"?
Social engineering is much too easy.
And professionals can't even agree that it's a terrible idea to put, say, flood control dam control computers on the internet.
I can't count the number of times during "customer service" type calls where the employee verifies my (the customer) identity by reciting to me my social security number, and asking me if that's correct.
At least with the reward, the perp's bragging rights totally evaporate.
I have a logical answer. It looks good at first. You'd have to go back after seeing all
the tearing apart, which is a bother. But also, if you DO bother to go back after seeing
it shredded, and mod it down then, the meta moderators (who judge your modding) don't see all
that shredding either. So you look like a jerk who modded down a perfectly good-looking-at-first
post.
And finally the overriding question, a post that looks good at first and is then shredded
can be a vital trigger for an interesting discussion (the shredding itself).
The article makes it seem like tinfoil hat stuff, but it's very, very interesting. When the frequency that the magnetic field fluctuates at is over 1000 hertz (I think that's the number) it increases the activity of the specific brain area it is aimed at. Below the cutoff it reduces the activity. Think just a moment, isn't it an incredibly ability to be able to activate or deactivate specific brain areas? I read somewhere that you can induce a feeling of "awe" or "being in the presence of God" with a magnetic field that covers one whole side of the brain. Does any of this sound like Nicola Tesla's lab that the government sealed immediately after his death? What if there were a home version? Just how difficult would it be to make one? What would couples do with it? What if church had one that would affect the whole congregation? What if the congregation didn't know about it? What if an interrogator had one?
If you want to know just how far this real science has come along so far, the topic to look up is TMS -- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.
Yup. Have a lawyer look at that contract before you sign it.
But nobody would pay an artist not to paint. You should talk to a lawyer -- just a consult -- there are laws against overly restrictive agreements, especially if the individual's ability to make a living is encroached on, for one example.
Yup. Have a lawyer look at that contract before you sign it.
Yup. Have a lawyer look at that contract before you sign it.
Nonsense! I'm sure they've got plans to go totally with 1-person 1-vote democracy,
and they just want to make sure the voting machines won't elect George Bush!
Just to save a few visits to Wikipedia, Eric Blair is George Orwell's real name.
There's an old saying that speaks to your question and is profoundly true:
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
I'll bet you'll like the Re-Pagination firefox extension. When you get to the bottom of the first
page, do a right click on the "2" or the word "next" in that list of pages. Then you just scroll
down and see all the pages without clicking on anything more. The extension fetches the pages and
appends them to the bottom. I consider it "jerking the reader around" when sites have lists like that,
and thwarting them always provides a nice feeling of satisfaction and triumph!
What do you know, another politician's teenager! - a State Rep's son From Tennessee!
At least he didn't get some girl pregnant!
Yes, he could. The only exception to the American president's pardon power is "in matters
of impeachment". Anyone in the Executive or Judicial branch may be impeached (accused)
and removed from office (convicted). I'm not sure about impeaching Congressmen and Senators,
but those two bodies do get to write their own rules about how they run themselves.
So, whether the voiding of the pardon power applies narrowly to just this specific impeachment
plus removal process, or whether it means that any crime relating in some way to someone's
impeachment, would be decided by the Supreme Court. I suspect the narrower interpretation
was the "original intent", that is, that the presidential pardon power cannot override
the Congress's impeach and remove from office power.
My inner cynic tells me to expect Bush to issue a blanket pardon for everyone that ever did anything
in or with this administration, for any crime they committed or may have committed. (I should have
listened to it and bought oil and weapons stocks when Bush got in.)
I'm not sure if a presidential pardon prevents prosecution by the States.
If it does, then the only option left would be an International Tribunal. I don't think
wiretapping would be an international issue, but violations of the Geneva Convention (torture,
no due process when determining whether or not someone is an "Enemy Combatant") could.
Perhaps it was intended to mock the ignorance that so many other nations say
the American public suffers from in regards to political events in other countries.
For something intelligent and entertaining, find The Daily Show with Jon Stewart from
last Friday, where they were reporting on McCain's acceptance speech. They intercut
sentences from it with sentences from Bush's acceptance speech eight years earlier.
Again and again and again they were virtually identical! Anyone got that YouTube link?
You've got to see it to believe it; it was absolutely astounding to watch. (Excellent
work, Daily Show!)
I wish the idiot from New Scientist was a student of mine so I could flunk him. I recommend
against bothering to read the, uh, "fine" article.
Moderators: Please consider modding parent up. Everyone with a Tivo should know how to turn on its hidden 30-second skip feature! Thanks.
If we'd just declassify the sequin mines outside Las Vegas (Area 51) and then
grind the stuff up into micro-glitter before adding it to all oil and coal we're
burning, we'd make the earth look from space like a giant disco ball, reflecting
an enormous quantity of solar radiation back into space.
Keep our Solar System beautiful!
You clearly have the common sense to see this is "insanely excessive".
But if society decides to make common sense irrelevant and allow the fine
print in contracts to govern, then the impact on commerce generally would
be devastating. Because everyone would have to do much, much more work investigating
all the possible ramifications from every transaction they entered into.
Business transactions become a game of deception and "gotcha", which is essentially
about criminality and exploitation, and not about freedom and commerce.
All the grand things that free markets do for people evaporate when they aren't
actually "fair". If you want to defend free markets, you have to defend them
against, to use your phrase, "insane excess".
For this case in particular we could ask the question, if the customer actually knew
how much he was about to spend before he spent it, would he opt to engage in that
business transaction anyway? Of course not.
Insane excess, whether in the form of exploiting the little guy or overregulating
the big corporation, are enemies of free markets. Laissez faire doesn't work;
you need some regulation or the markets you wind up with are anything but "free".
Gross imbalance between "pro little guy" and "pro big guy" market regulation has given us the
current mortgage crisis, and uh, yes, Communism. Freedom works so much better!
Credit card companies are a current big problem in the US now. Can you guess what
the industry's current slang is for customers like me who pay in full and on time every month?
Deadbeat! It's literally Orwellian.
You can still make a killing. Just do it with excellence and fairness, not "gotchas".
To quote George Michael's 1992 song "Freedom"
When you shake your ass
They notice fast
Some mistakes are built to last.
Could that one second of footage become the new Goatse?
I hereby dub it Gates-e!
Or the Hollywood novels of Jackie Collins!
I'm sure it's the fitness tie-in too.
The day Consumer Reports starts reviewing games like Gran Tourismo or Grand Theft Auto for "how much fun" they are to play is the day they start reviewing brands of cigarettes for which ones "taste the best" to smoke.
Here's an option that's between doing nothing and launching a "replicating avenger":
When anti-virus software recognizes an incoming network packet as one crafted to
infiltrate a machine, it responds in kind with an infiltrating packet of its own
that will cure the infection. But there's no replication, no selecting of targets,
only self-defensive responses.
This doesn't address every legal issue, but it does have a nice "ring" to it that
I believe would sound "fair" even to non-computer savvy individuals.
To repel rowdy young ruffians, just pipe in classical music. You don't need to inflict
suffering on anyone's eardrums -- just offer them something they'll find totally uncool.
Then, leaving and avoiding such places feels like a victory to them. They'll even tell
their young ruffian friends how horribly unbearable the music is, and you'll be spared
even more of them as word spreads.
Normal people, including babies, don't mind the classical music at all!
Perhaps the fellow who thinks it's ok to torture babies to protect himself against
dangerous teenagers can get a job with the Bush administration.
Hillary helped draw up impeachment documents as a House staffer during Watergate.
And she has stated that our current president Bush is the worst president in the history of the country.
And when Katie Couric asked her what book other than the Bible she'd want to take to the White House, she said the Constitution because it seems the current president is unaware of it.
I think she'll be just fine on restoration of civil rights. And I think
Obama will make an even better president after being Vice President for eight years.
I think they're both tremendous, and I want the country and the world to get 16 years out of them!
But for right now, who's the best? Here's an uplifting musical answer,
(featuring the incomparable Tina Turner) in a youtube video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DyB4f6FsLvU
I really don't know why, but I found it quite pursuasive.
Other infections (which of course rev up the immune system to fight them) cause temporary spikes in HIV viral load. They say that to be non-infectious, there must not be any STI (Sexually transmitted infections) present. But what about infections that aren't sexually transmitted? Their presence will still rev up the immune system, causing the temporary spike in viral load. Different infectious agents cause widely differing amount of HIV spiking, probably depending on which particular branches of the immune system are revved up to fight the particular infectious agent.
But it seems they're saying that this spiking only happens with STI's, and that infections that don't happen to be transmitted sexually won't cause HIV levels to spike. I applaud the work, and I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, but I wonder whether there's a hint of wishful thinking that got mixed up in this mostly logical argument.
Unless they can state that non-sexually transmitted infections don't cause this spiking there's a hole in the argument. (Perhaps there's some crucial work I've missed on the whole HIV "spiking" phenomenon?) Wish I had more answers, but so far I still have more questions.
| And what happened with the anti-wiretapping laws passed several decades ago?
A court called household cordless phone calls "radio broadcasts" as I recall, so anyone can listen
in on them legally -- whether LE or a nosy neighbor kid.
Still true?