There is actually a word for what you describe as your belief. It's called Deism. We discussed it in a college philosophy class as being the belief of God (or whichever higher power) as a clock maker. S/He set up all the mechanics, wound it up, and then went on to more important matters rather than necessarily micromanage every event.
So, I realize that the poster focused on the religious aspects and that now we're in a debate about teaching intelligent design, but realistically (even if that is where it is intended to go), what's wrong with teaching kids to question? Isn't that what science is suppose to be all about - learning to question and think and push against things so that you discover more about them?
Yes, I think that teaching intelligent design borders on the terrible (mostly because it violates my right to not have my kids exposed to religion in their public school), however I also kind of like the idea of them being exposed to many different ideas and learning to examine each critically. That way they can come to their own conclusions on the world based on their own experiences and conclusions instead of just taking someone's word for it.
Maybe, for once, instead of something intended to help being twisted until it actually makes things worse, wouldn't it be kinda fun if this thing (which is obviously designed to help make things worse by indoctrinating children in Christian beliefs while in school) could be twisted to actually produce a generation of children who are free thinking individuals that challenge everything and find their own answers?
Once again, I am struck by the idea that someone giving advice to another without knowing their entire history (or being medically qualified to do so) can be tantamount to asking them to kill themselves. I know that you didn't mean it that way, but if I did what you were suggesting my heart would literally burst in my chest. I have a heart murmur. Luckily, I'm one of the ones who only aggravates it when I'm stressed or when I do furious aerobic exercises, so it doesn't interfere with my day-to-day existence as long as I'm careful. But I was once rushed from a high school gym class in an ambulance.
I'm sorry if you think that what I do isn't exercise. My doctor does, and my body feels better for it. Actually, there is an entire group of people out there that believe that you don't have to push yourself that hard, but that a slow and steady build up is in fact better for you. You may feel free to disbelieve them, but giving advice along the lines that those people are categorically wrong is, imo, a bit premature.
As for the difference in needing to pee, you probably don't really understand - I know that my husband didn't when we were dealing with potty training our eldest. Girls' bladders work slightly differently from boys' bladders (or, I suppose, it's more accurate to say that the urethra works differently). A woman wouldn't want to have an extremely full bladder (or even partially full!) while doing anything. We can sneeze and pee our pants, it IS that bad and we don't have very much control over it except to not allow our bladders to get that full (or try to prevent the sneeze!). So for you to tell a woman to overfill her bladder and then go do some strenuous exertions is something that is a problem for her.
I don't want to sound condescending, so please try not to take this that way, but if you are 18 and in really good physical condition (as your exercise routine seems to suggest) I don't think you can possibly have any idea of what my life is like. I have numerous health problems that I got due to a screwed up roll of the genetic dice. This limits my options, but I am trying to work inside them as best I can. And, until you have a couple of kids under 5 trying to run you ragged at the park daily, I don't think that you can really make a qualification as to how much exertion is contained in that activity. And I do mean daily - not just "well, I took my little cousins to the park once..." because when kids are your own (or you take care of them every day) they don't tend to listen as well as they will if you only see them every once in a while. Hence the chasing.
You seem like a nice kid, and I know that you probably aren't trying to be actually offensive or inflammatory, but trust me when I say that my personal routine is the best that I can do without the danger of causing serious injury to myself. It is approved by my doctor. Which is my assertion as far as the actual topic went. The law in Japan is silly. People should be encouraged to do what is healthy for them by their doctors rather than forced to some crazy ideal that almost no body type can actually easily fit. And even though other people are trying to help, the best advice anyone can seek is from a medical professional that knows their personal history and can advise them on what they could/should be doing in order to maintain maximum health without doing themselves harm or injury.
*sigh* I'm sure many/.ers don't care about my personal habits or med history, but I'll go ahead and answer this for the same reasons that you posted it: because anyone who comes along and reads it shouldn't go and do something stupid based on it.
Point 1: Exercise. I get quite a bit of exercise. Not only do I have my own routine of stretches (modified to fit personal issues, since my knees are already shot - from when I was 12 and bordering on underweight, BTW), but I also chase 2 kids under 5 around all day long. Also, in the middle of my stretches (which I work into my children's nap time) I attempt to do 10 each of situps, leg-lifts, and scissor leg-lifts. There have been times when my knees were just too shot and hurt too much to do it, but on the whole that's my daily routine. On top of that, we go swimming at least 2 times (some times as much as 5) a week. I can't do machines due to various troubles (ie my knees and the fact that I fractured my elbow not long ago and that shot doing anything with my arms until it heals - if it ever does), but I do attempt to squeeze in as much exercise as I can and get way more than 15 minutes a day. As far as building muscles goes - when discussing being "overweight" we are not talking necessarily about being just "fat", as I stated. I actually have really good muscular definition in my legs and arms (my abs... well, not so much, but I work on them).
Point 2: Diet. I hope that no one reading this post will ever take advice about a diet without consulting their doctor and assessing their own personal dietary needs. Case in point: My doctor has told me not to go on a high protein/low carb diet due to hypoglycemia. That being the opposite of diabetes, my body actually requires that I take in carbs to use up the extra insulin I produce. The one time I tried (stupidly) to go on a low carb diet, I got violently ill and could have ended up in a coma. That being said, I believe in the moderation diet. I eat when I am hungry (typically every 3-5 hours) and substitute every chance I get for healthy items. True, I'm not a saint, and I'm as vulnerable as the next person to the "sweet tooth" cravings, but I do my best and watch my caloric intake, which is what my doctor says I should do to remain healthy.
Also, it seems odd to me that you are advocating a diet which instructs you to "force" yourself to eat when almost everything I've ever heard says that that is really what the problem is - the fact that we don't listen to our bodies and only eat as much as we need to be "full" rather than "stuffed". But, if that is what worked for you, then more power to you. I guess the biggest thing that I think one should do is really make a DIET - which is different than what we use the word for today. If you are going to change the way you eat, it needs to not be for just a couple months (which, in all actuality, can make you more UN-healthy) but needs to be a conscious decision to alter your LIFE. To eat a salad full of greens instead of opting for the french fries. To bake up a chicken breast instead of fry up a hamburger. Does this mean you can never indulge occasionally, as most diets teach? No. This is merely a way to be healthy, and the rest should follow.
I guess my main point is, there are many different factors that go into a person's weight. Hormones, bone density, muscle mass all play a factor - without even getting into your diet or exercise routines. The idea that a government is going to make a blanket statement that if you are X tall you must weigh X in order to be healthy without taking anything else into account is, IMO, completely stupid. Rather, focus on getting your people HEALTHY without worrying so much about their WEIGHT - if they truly are overweight by their own body's standard, that will follow from getting healthy. And if we taught this, then maybe more people (especially women!) would feel better about themselves no matter their size or shape. If you exercise, eat right and take care of yourself b
So, I'm chiming in as someone who is technically obese. By those screwed up BMI charts, I am overweight (even though otherwise I am COMPLETELY healthy, excusing some childhood issues I had long before I became overweight).
Points to make:
1) You think that buying healthy is cheaper than buying unhealthy? Just go into your meat department. Look at 1# of hamburger meat at 20% fat and one at 10% fat. Which one is more expensive? Then take that and compare it to a package of, say, stew meat. That right there tells you which is cheaper - healthy or unhealthy.
2) I am medically obese (but not grossly obese, or whatever the next step is) and yet none of my weight has come from poor eating choices, but from hormones. I gained 40 # from birth control, then stabilized. I gained approximately 35 # when I got pregnant with my first child. Then stabilized again. Now I have a second child and my weight has stabilized at 25# or so over what I was after my first. I have tried exercising, I kept a food journal (wherein I saw that I was eating not only healthy but my caloric intake was extremely low - I wasn't even getting the 2000 calories that most people are suppose to because I only eat when I'm hungry!). Should I be punished because I can't lose weight?
Now, granted, I live in America and not Japan so this measure wouldn't affect me, but it just makes me think of the women over there who have had a couple children and who's bodies haven't ever given up the weight. Now, not only they but their entire family will be basically kicked out in the cold because they decided to have kids and the woman couldn't lose the hormone weight afterwards? That just seem cruel to me.
And those BMIs don't take anything into account that I've ever seen. What about bone and muscle mass? Did you know that Michael Jordan is clinically obese according to the BMI? For women, what about our breast size? I once read that a D cup breast weighs 20# (so 40# for the set). That could send many people over into the "obese" category.
And just as a note: Marilyn Monroe wore approximately a dress size 12 (by today's standards). Do you realize that that size is often put in the "plus" area in a lot of stores? With all these unhealthily thin (and YES there is a thing and YES many celebs and models fall into this category, imo) role models making average size women feel fat and doctors contributing to the problem by failing to take into account so many factors when they chart up your "weight and height" on that messed up BMI it's no wonder that so many of our girls are growing up with eating disorders and a warped view of themselves.
I would rather, instead of people focusing on "obesity", that we focus on actual health. If you are an overall healthy person and taking care of yourself (ie eating well and getting exercise and such) that THAT should be the focus, rather than what shows up when you step on a scale.
Sorry if that ended up a little ranty... guess I'm a bit sensitive about the whole thing.:blush:
Okay, as I've now stated 4 times, I think that the fact that the main charge has to deal with MySpace's TOS is stupid! It should be a criminal charge regarding intentionally doing extreme emotional damage to a child - with some added conspiracy to commit added for both the main perpetrator and the person who said they were in on it (I believe her name was Gills, if I remember the article correctly). I haven't seen any indication that the girl was emotionally unstable, although I have only read the main article. I do, however, wonder why the girl's parents didn't question what was going on when their daughter must have gotten extremely depressed and/or exhibited other negative emotions prior to her suicide. You seem to imply with this:
WHAT crime? What are you charging her with? Being a bitch? That there is nothing that the woman should be charged with, even though you say you agree that she should be punished. My original reply was to the idea that she should be charged at all.
So, to state again what I have stated before I do not agree with the attorney's decision to charge the woman with computer-related violations. Incidentally, what they are charging her with is not specifically hacking. It is merely the charge most often levied at hackers. Small difference, but important. From what I can tell, they're basically charging her with entering into an agreement electronically by agreeing to the TOS and then willfully violated that agreement. Which she did. You can place the argument that "everyone does it" but, sorry, it just doesn't fly in a court of law. Whenever you click "okay" to those EULA or TOS agreements, you are entering into a legally binding contract that you will abide by the things contained therein. Granted, most times it won't really matter if you lie about your hair color on MySpace or violate another EULA or TOS - the most you're likely to get is a brick wall when you call their tech support and try to get help after having committed a violation that caused a problem. But you can't start saying that a woman who did such should not be charged as such. That's silly.
And if you don't agree with the EULA or TOS, why, you always have the option to walk away and not use that service/program. Just like you stated the girl could have walked away at any time and disengaged from the conversation. We all have that choice.
So, the charges against her you might see as a "slippery slope" but I see as a natural outcome of all those agreements you click "okay" to without even reading. And while I do think that it was stupid to charge her with something that first off is a minor infraction compared to what she actually did and will only get her a max of 5 years per charge, I do not say that the charge is superfluous either.
You may feel that many of us are running on "emotional lynchmob energy" but it seems to me much more likely that those who are campaigning against such a charge are running on the equally knee-jerk emotion which relates to the idea of anything computer-related being persecuted. It is an emotion that seems to be uniquely/. related, but it comes up often whenever there is a court-case involving some sort of computer charge. And in this case it seems completely unfounded. You may not like the fact that this is in fact a case that has every legal basis for going through, but by reading through the article and examining the actual charges I don't think that anyone could say that the charges are unfounded.
As I stated previously, the fact that the focus is all on her violating MySpace's TOS is, IMO, stupid. What they should be focused on is the fact that she purposefully sought out and preyed on a child.
So, if instead of the extreme example of attempting to solicit actual sex is substituted for merely engaging in sexual discussion with a minor, would you agree to the similarities? A person who uses the internet to specifically seek out children with the purposes of engaging in sexual discussions with them is considered a sexual predator and is charged with criminal acts. True, those children could merely stop chatting at any time (and one wonders where the girl's parents were during this entire episode that it was allowed to escalate so terribly out of control), just as this girl could have, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the woman (if it was her) specifically sought out a minor and, using lies and false representation, attempted (and succeeded!) to torture and manipulate her into a state of emotional distress.
To use another slightly extreme example of why I think what you say has less validity, if a 40-year-old ran around in a trench coat flashing a junior high school, should that person not be served criminal charges merely because the kids could have "looked away"? The fact that the victim could have severed the contact (assuming that they were able to be aware of what was happening, which did not seem to be the case with the girl in question - as the perpetrator purposefully lied and manipulated her to keep her from realizing the tactics being used to torture and torment her and thereby allow said perpetrator to continue said acts) does not make them any less of a victim - or the person who committed the acts any less accountable.
Another extreme example - a woman who is beaten by her husband. It is true that she could leave the relationship at any time - she could reach out, get help, etc. However, due usually to the emotional and mental manipulation (similar to the case), the woman is made to feel as if she should not or could not receive the help she needs. Her husband uses these tactics so that he may continue his abuse of her, just like the perpetrator in the case used the fake "relationship" to keep the girl in communication and to continue the tormenting. Is the husband not to be held accountable because the wife could have left? Should we excuse this behavior because the victim "brought it on themselves" by not seeking aid?
Obviously, neither of my examples are exactly like the case - and they are a bit on the extreme side - but they illustrate why this woman should be facing criminal charges for her treatment of the girl. As stated previously and again at the beginning of this reply, the fact that they are focusing on the supposed "hacking" is just stupid. They should be focusing on the willful and deliberate preying on a 13-year-old by a 40-something-year-old which then led to not only the tormenting and torturing of said girl, but ultimately to her death. And in that, the authorities were perfectly right, IMO, to arrest the person they had evidence had done the crime.
Really? Because if, say, the person was a 40-year-old who had created the fake MySpace profile with the purpose of soliciting sex from the 13-year-old, I'm sure many people would have no problem with the criminal charges. Realistically, the problem here isn't that she created the fake profile (and that they keep focusing on that aspect is, IMO, stupid) but the problem is that a 40-something-year-old woman got on the internet, told a 13-year-old girl that the woman was a 13-year-old boy and engaged in a relationship with her so that she could serve her own twisted ends of torturing and tormenting the girl. It is as simple and as complex as that to me - that someone (allegedly this woman who is on trial) was preying on a 13-year-old on the internet via lies about their age/gender/etc. What if, instead of using the account to torture the girl, the woman had instead suggested they "meet" and then raped her? Would everyone be saying that doing this wasn't a crime?
If you don't mind, I'll address each point separately rather than have a large reply for all.
It's interesting that you think the framers of the Constitution would have been on your side. Tell me, why did the American Revolution of 1776 occur? Hint: it wasn't because the Founders thought they should be taxed more.
The Revolution came for a variety of reasons, really, but the one most often quoted (the so-called straw on that oft-abused camel's back) is "No Taxation without representation". It wasn't that the Founders were against taxes in any way. It was that they were opposed to taxes that were passed by some far off King who had no idea of the realities of the American situation. It was because the Americas were not allowed a presence in the government and therefore had no say at all in what taxes could be passed regarding them. This is why I feel that the founders would have agreed with me on the issue - because I feel that they would see it more as a State issue to tax its people - the people who elected those officials into their offices and who therefore represent them - in order to supply them with services.
You suggest that this tax was passed "into law long ago". Then why does this article exist? This article is about a new tax passed into law by the state of New York, not a tax passed "long ago".
Actually, the tax was passed into law long ago. We have had sales tax for many years. This is not in essence a new tax, but a new application of an old tax. The bill is not suggesting that they make a special "internet shipping" tax, but rather that they implement the sales tax that is already a part of law in New York on sales that its citizens make which are shipped from out of state.
And then you claim that the Constitution doesn't allow the states not to lay such a tax? Please show me where the Constitution requires the states to tax imported goods. Then tell me why the states need a "license" from the Constitution not to implement this or any sort of tax. The Founders did not need to have the internet in order to conceive of inter-state imports and exports -- they had the latter already. If anything, if the Founders had had any idea of the degree of technology which was to develop over 220 years, they would have put much stricter limits on government powers, not enhanced them.
The Constitution doesn't allow or disallow many things that we have made into law - especially State-level or below laws. If you wanted to disallow every law that was not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, then States wouldn't have the right to implement a sales tax at all! And I am not suggesting that they couldn't conceive of interstate imports at all, but merely that the concept of the ease and facility at which these items are being bought by the average person (instead of businesses) and shipped all over the country - keeping those people from going down to the store and buying it (and thus paying sales tax) - is something that we have only (relatively) recently begun to see. More and more people are doing a bulk of their shopping online and from out of state, meaning that states are losing thousands in revenue. This leads me to your next point, which was:
Taxes are used for the benefit of the people? No. Only a tiny fraction of the taxes could be categorized thus, if any.
I realize that this cynical view is shared by many - and may even be true up to a point - but let's look at this realistically. Imagine if the State couldn't collect any tax - or, even specifically, any sales tax. What would happen to that State's roads? Their schools? All the other services that the State pays for? You may feel that only a tiny fraction of taxes get used for things that the citizens need, but then you must also agree that a dip in revenue will see even that tiny fraction evaporate. Yet I'm sure that people who are buying from internet shopping with the
It seems to me that the recourse of a person with a poor argument is to insult and degrade the person that they are arguing with, rather than merely sticking to facts as presented. Regardless, the discussion in this thread is about whether or not the courts have the right (or, actually, the ruling body of a state, which has very little to do with its courts) have the right to interpret whether or not the term "import" applied to state-to-state commerce as well as commerce coming from another country.
Now, you may feel free to quibble on whether or not the original drafters of our Constitution intended the word "import" to be used as it applied to states, and we can argue back and forth on whether or not the reasonings behind that addition to our Constitution were put into place with the intent of allowing a business and/or consumers to circumvent paying taxes to the states in which they live - taxes that have been passed into law long ago - but we can never know their true intent. All we have to go on is the word "import", and whether you're talking about 220 years ago or today that word still implies transportation between countries - not within a country itself. Taken from dictionary.com (bold added for emphasis): "1. to bring in (merchandise, commodities, workers, etc.) from a foreign country for use, sale, processing, reexport, or services."
Now, no matter how much freedom individual states are given with their internal government, we are all still one country. California is not a foreign nation to New York (no matter how both peoples might feel about each other). That being said, I still hold fast to my assertion that even if (and I feel this is a strong "if" at this point) the drafters of our Constitution intended to use the word import in a fashion that no one else had intended, it is still a very different situation. I'm sure that if you could go back in time and ask the founding fathers what they thought about people circumventing the taxes that paid for the services where they lived by exclusively buying from retailers in another state, they would find the idea ludicrous. The taxes that are levied on the peoples in each state are (theoretically) used for their benefit - to fix the roads they drive on and to fund the schools their children attend. The idea of people circumventing this with internet buying could not have occured to our founding fathers - they having no knowledge of the ease of internet buying - and I think that they would feel it was a gross abuse of the system that they helped create. But, again, as I do not have a working time machine at this time I can't actually know for certain.
So you may bluster and moan about the illegality and unconstitutionality of the situation, but the reality is that our Constitution - if taken literally at its word, as you seem to feel we should - makes no license for States to not implement this sort of tax. If you feel that the spirit of the word (not its literal definition, but its intent) was to prevent this sort of tax, then you will need to take the issue before the Supreme Court and let them decide, as that is the recourse that our country and the Constitution provides for you. If you are unwilling to do that, then I feel it is safe to say that bluster is all you have and not the will to back it up.
By the by, taken from wikipedia (once again, bold added for emphasis): "Noah Webster, the author of immensely popular readers and spelling books for schools, published his first dictionary, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, in 1806. In it, he introduced features that would be a hallmark of future editions such as American spellings (center rather than centre, honor rather than honour, program rather than programme, etc.) and including technical terms from the arts and sciences rather than confining his dictionary
I'm sorry, are you implying that the current administration is liberal? Because your original argument was against liberals, but then you illustrate it with a point that says that our conservative current administration ignores the pieces of the Constitution that don't fit with their agenda and that the democrats (the liberal party, arguably) merely acquiesces - although what they are suppose to do (when they don't have enough of a majority to overturn any republican motions and it is the Supreme Court's job to check when laws are passed that violate the Constitution) I'm not sure.
I did not claim that the Constitution is not valid - I claimed that many of the things that they specifically addressed or did not address were defined by the realities of that time. Do you deny this? And, I'm sorry, where are you living?!? Words can not be redefined? Do you know what Webster did when he created his "dictionary"? He altered words and redefined things and changed spellings merely so that American English and British English would be different! Besides, we are not talking about arbitrarily rewritting things, we are talking about working within the current era to produce laws that make sense rather than keeping laws as they were 220 years ago which were not equipped to deal with the world we live in now.
Also, while the writters of the Constitution were still alive to protest whether or not it was appropriate, the Supreme Court began "interpreting" the Constitution. (The following taken from wikipedia, boldness added for emphasis of point) "The ability of the courts to interpret the Constitution was decided early in the history of the United States, in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. In that case, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review, which is the power of the Court to examine legislation and other acts of Congress and to decide their constitutionality. The doctrine also embraces the power of the Court to explain the meaning of various sections of the Constitution as they apply to particular cases brought before the Court. Over the years, a series of Court decisions, on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases, has affected a change in the way many Constitutional clauses are interpreted, without amendment to the actual text of the Constitution."
So how you can sit there and claim that it isn't the courts job to interpret the Constitution is beyond me. It is also the right of any citizen to challenge a lower court on whether or not their rulings are Constitutional. So, as I said before, if you feel the courts are wrong you should sue and take the case up to the Supreme Court so they can make a ruling. Then, per our Constitution and per the precedent set during the time the Constitution was written, they're ruling will be as good as if it were an Amendment until they overturn it in a similar case.
At the time the Constitution was ratified, the states clearly would have considered imports into the state to be imports.
This may have been true (not having been there, it would be difficult to say one way or the other) but realistically irrelevant in many ways. At the time the Constitution was ratified, we didn't have the internet, shipping methods or many things that have altered the world we live in. The job of our courts is to interpret the Constitution's intent and apply it to modern-day situations, which it was obviously not equipped to deal with since it had no knowledge of the changes that would occur. So to say that this is unConstitutional simply because the founders of our country could never have conceived of the ease of internet shopping is a bit silly. And, in our country, the courts are correct until overturned. That is the way our legal system works. So if you feel the ruling is unConstitutional, your recourse would be to sue the state of New York and take it up to the Supreme Court who could then make a direct ruling on whether or not their bill is unConstitutional or not.
Until then, it is a Constitutional as any of the rest of our laws that are drafted to deal with realities that a document written in 1787 couldn't possibly have conceived of.
The first Dune movie did lack some of the elements of the book, but the story was recognizable (much more so than many OTHER books-made-into-movies - see Harry Potter or Flowers in the Attic). The base story line was the same and followed the same patterns as the book, even if they had to leave out some stuff and make a few changes due to cinematic constraints. The major plus of this movie was their characterizations. The cast was beautifully done and the characters portrayed accurately and faithfully to their core concepts in the book.
The sci-fi mini series had the opposite. It stayed much more faithful to the details of the book on plot and world, but completely lost the essence of pretty much all of the characters. I can't actually even watch it again due to the complete butchering of my two favorite characters - not to mention the watered down Oh-why-won't-a-man-come-save-me aspect of pretty much every strong female role that originally existed in the book. One of the things I loved about Dune was the characters and how complex and fantastically interwoven their personalities and desires were. Due to this, I like the first movie MUCH better than the mini series.
If this new movie can manage to somehow couple the two and create a movie that is true to the plot, world AND characters while still being under 3 hours and visually stunning, then they will accomplish a miracle. Realistically? They're much more likely to go the other way and screw up everything in an attempt to please everyone and end up pleasing no one. Truth be told, I feel like there is no need to attempt another shot at Dune. We have two well-made versions that each appeal to one half of the spectrum of readers so people can pick their favorite and feel that it accurately represents what the book meant to them. Instead, it would be nice if they chose books that haven't been done yet - or, even better, went back to making their OWN stories and stopped destroying perfectly good literature. As I have always said: I like movies and I like books, but I would generally prefer to keep them separate. Even if it is a well-done adaptation, it screws with my internal pictures by overlaying them with the movie-makers' ideas on what the book should look like which saddens me.
Cyber-eyes anyone? I don't know whether to be happy to be the first to reference this or sad that no one else made the leap... Terminator would be cool, but the Shadowrun-style cyber-eyes would be way better.
Once again, I think that you're only seeing the side of the statistic that supports your conjecture. There are many reasons why the number of single mother families in the US is rising that don't necessarily have anything to do with guys spreading their seed. One large reason - that most people who cite this statistic bring up - is the idea of "you don't need a man to raise a child". There are women out there who are purposely getting pregnant with men that they don't intend to stay with merely to have a baby. Now, I don't know what percent of the statistic falls into this category, but it throws doubt on your argument that the reason for the statistic is that men are running around impregnating women who are trying to form a meaningful relationship with them.
And, FYI, I don't associate "sex" with "relationship" as I am one of the previously-mentioned women who enjoys a fullfilling, open marriage with my husband. So your arguments that all women care about is the relationship and they can't ever just want sex fall on deaf ears.
I don't really believe that. I think for the most part...wanting to have kids, care for them and have long term relationships are more a female thing. I think genetically...men want to spread their seed around as much as possible, that's where the genetic pressure is....
Frankly for the most part...I don't think we are built by nature for the long term monogamistic relationship, that women want.
I heard a poll discussed on radio, a national one I believe, that said fully 70% of the married couples they polled said if they had it all over to do again......they'd NOT get married. I gotta believe (and I'm just guessing here) that the majority of the ones feeling that way...were the men interviewed.
This may be true in a certain sense, but since you don't get to spread your seed at all unless you get into serious relationships (generally speaking) and because society demands that you support any child you sire there are many more societal pressures that influence you as well. You speak as if your evolutionary progression hasn't changed since caveman days. It is true that men and women still have many of the same instincts that we had back then - and no one is saying that you can't or shouldn't want to have sex with more than one woman - however it has been proven that we can not only overcome those instincts but that they pale in comparison (for many people) to societal pressures to conform. I therefore contend that, due to these other pressures, there is just as likely to be at least as many men out there actively looking for a monogamous and lasting relationship as not.
You are also contending that all women want monogamous relationships. I think that, in today's society, there are probably more out there than you would think who would have no trouble with open relationships. After all, what women want from their relationship is a mate who loves them and cares for them and their children (if they end up having any) which can be completely separate from whether or not they would like to have sex with anyone else. Also, since a growing population of women are identifying themselves as bisexual they are more inclined to a relationship that will allow them to fulfill both of their desires - meaning allowing other women into the bedroom.
Since you don't site anything other than a possibly national radio show that may or may not have given a legitimate statistic, it is really difficult to check your facts, but I bet that there are many other reasons besides the ones you seem to feel are the cause for these people not wanting to get married again. Let us just look at the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce. Now, you could go ahead and say that both of these statistics support your theory but it is just as likely that the relationship ended for other reasons. The fact of the matter is, since you don't have any stats on why they wouldn't get married again, it could be that the woman cheated on the man. It could be that they are perfectly happy and would have stayed in their relationship, but wouldn't have gone through the hassle of actually getting married. It could be that both of them were putting up a front at the beginning of the relationship and just found out that they were different people than they thought. There are dozens of reasons for people to not want to be married any longer (or to have never gotten married in the first place) that have nothing to do with a man needing to "sow his seed" as it were.
If you want to believe that you have no control over your hormones and that you can't be in a relationship because you need to run around trying to impregnate as many women as possible due to your genetic predisposition, that's fine. Just get a vasectomy so that you aren't leaving dozens of single mothers out there or set up a trust fund for all the babies you leave behind. If you also tend to believe that the only way to get women is by showing off expensive things, then you go right ahead and only date those women. Whatever floats your boat. But please, don't get on here and start spouting off as if all men are like you and all women are gold-diggers or trailer trash or hippies. It will save us all the trouble of trying to guide you back to reality.
That's a pretty silly thing to say when this entire article is talking about helping geeks (mostly male) dress better. No, my husband isn't a "metrosexual". Just because you dress appropriately and/or nicely doesn't necessarily make you a metrosexual. And I didn't make my husband anything. I like him just fine in his jeans and tee-shirts. He started dressing better because of work - all on his own - using some of the tips from the show I like because they made sense to him.
This whole metrosexual thing is pretty stupid anyway, IMO. It started with the idea that a guy couldn't want to look nice unless he was gay. Now there's a word for the "gay-straight man" called metrosexual and I find it to be completely offensive. Why should it be that if a guy wants to dress appropriately - like wear suits to work - then there has to be some label we need to attach to him because he obviously can't just be a normal guy?
I get that the general feeling of the responses to this article are hatred for the idea that anyone (but geeks specifically) should have to pay any attention to the impressions they give off with their clothing and/or grooming habits and therefore anyone advocating that these are good things to pay attention to is likely to get sarcastic remarks directed at them. But, really, slinging mud at me and my husband won't change the fact that first impressions matter and that those impressions are determined in part by whether or not you dress well. So you go ahead and sling mud at anyone who cares about their appearance and those of us who do will simply continue to get promoted and make more money and be taken more seriously in the work-place.
It seems to me then that the type of girl who is interested in how much money you make (and whether or not you spend it on expensive status symbols ie shoes) is just your type of girl. I hope you find one.
You may feel I'm in the minority, but there is plenty of "normal" girls (or even geek girls) who are neither the 'nature girls' nor trailer trash - who, by the way, care the MOST about whether or not you make enough money, incidentally. These are girls who don't feel that they are super-model pretty, who don't go out of their way to be gold diggers and who are just your average girl-next-door type. We might want our guys to look good, but whether or not they have enough money to buy expensive status symbols (and, in correlation, will spend tons of money on us) isn't really relevant. We mostly want a guy who will pay attention to us without his checkbook and someone we can get along with.
And to say that all a guy is interested in is a woman's body is, I feel, grossly unfair to every guy I know. Yes, the first thought thorough anyone's head when they see an attractive person is sexual, but that doesn't mean that everyone is always only thinking about sex. It also doesn't mean that every guy out there is a slave to his penis and can't even think well enough to contemplate an actual relationship with someone. That's a bs excuse that too many guys hide behind - your penis isn't the master in the relationship, no matter how badly you want sex. Want to know how I know this? Because, even if you are so hard up you think you might go blind and you're on your 20th bottle of lotion this week, there are still some girls you just wouldn't even consider touching. This means that your brain is in drive, and you can't weasel your way out with that old excuse. To me, it's just as bs as girls saying they get to behave like total hellions during "that time of the month". It's bs - your uncomfortable and feel crappy, fine, but you are choosing to act the way you are acting so just own up to it and stop trying to find some excuse that lets you off the hook.
I have known many guys who aren't even interested in one-night stands because they want a meaningful relationship first. I've known guys who have turned down pretty girls because they just didn't have anything in common with them enough to warrant a relationship (which is what the girl wanted). Just because you seem to have this cynical view on sex and don't care where you put your penis doesn't mean you get to generalize for your sex.
Yep....women are ALL about shoes, and not just for themselves, apparently they put a good deal of importance in men who wear nice and often $$$ shoes. And if you spring for good shoes, you're probably gonna match the belt with them too.
Speaking as a woman who couldn't give a rat's red behind about what shoes you are wearing, I think that this is an oversimplification. If you want that type of girl, then the shoes you wear, the car you drive, whether or not you know the right people will all influence whether or not she'll even give you the time of day. If you don't want that type of girl, then it really doesn't matter all that much. It is the same principle with the girls I know complaining that every guy they meet just wants their body. So I reply to them - well, stop meeting all the guys in bars! If you are doing things that attract a certain type of person - the type you don't really want - in an effort to find that one other person who is doing the same thing you are, chances are pretty good that you'll never find them. If you're not naturally the type of person to give a darn about expensive shoes, then don't put up a front. You'll be more likely to find someone you mesh with if you just be yourself.
So, in reading the "dos and do nots" of the list, I was struck by how many of them the TLC show "What Not To Wear" addressed very differently. Many of the fashion no-nos on this list are merely dependent on the rest of your outfit. Shoes and belt don't match? Not really that big of a problem, as long as your overall color scheme fits in - ie if you want to wear a brown belt with black shoes, then you should pick out a shirt and pants that are also in the brown/black spectrum so the entire outfit flows. Want to wear short sleeves and a tie? Go a bit "preppy" and throw a sweater-vest over the top. It is all in how you pull the look together, not in how well you follow the "rules" of fashion.
Incidentally, both my fashion and my husbands (who is a programmer) have improved by leaps and bounds from watching this show. It helps teach you little tricks to make an outfit presentable and how not to make it look awful so that you can make a good impression. For those unfamiliar with the show, they take someone who is seriously fashion-challenged (and just seeing some of the faux pas that these people commit might make you realize that your own pigtails are not so serious an infraction) and nominated by friends and family to New York for a week long fashion-therapy session. They go through the person's entire wardrobe and toss out anything that is too small, too large, stained, ripped or just in general poorly suited for the person's body and then give them $5,000 and teach them what kind of colors/shapes would look best on them. Then they let them go shopping in the city for two days and get an entirely new wardrobe (supervised, of course, to help them break bad fashion habits). Then they get their hair done and skin care (for the men)/makeup (for the girls) and show off their new look. The amazing thing is how they manage to make everyone feel really good about themselves - they tell you that you dress poorly, but the whole time they're building up your self-esteem about your body and self and encouraging you to show what a great person you are and to show off all the good things about your body with your clothes. It's pretty amazing to watch the people's transformations as they realize how good they look with just little changes to their wardrobes.
Gods, now I sound like a commercial! But, anyway, I think that this list oversimplifies the issue - which isn't that you should follow these rules, but that you should in general take care of and pay attention to the impression you are giving off with your attire and personal hygiene. And if you need a little help with the wardrobe part, maybe watching the show on TLC would help.
Despicable? Yes. Generally, anything you do to try to circumvent the system is despicable. But plenty of people (even average, everyday, regular people and not just big evil corporations) do things every day to circumvent things they find inconvenient or to try to tip the scales their way. I'm just pointing out that this wasn't that different. The trick is for you to circumvent better than they do, if you care about stopping them in any form. The author made Comcast sound like some big horrible devil for doing this immoral action, but realistically they are just everyday-evil, especially since this could have been easily dealt with by having a closed session or by other people showing up even earlier than the paid butts. And, from the article, it sounded like the people who were there didn't stay for the meeting, they were just place-holders for the employees, but that could just be a spin that Comcast put out to make themselves seem less evil.
Honestly, I understand the point but I think it is silly. How acceptable is it for Comcast to pay people to take up seats? About as acceptable as you to ask your 50 frat buddies to show up and do the same thing. If the meeting is open to anyone who gets there and gets a seat, then anyone is freely able to coerce their friends to come as well - or the stranger on the street. If you want a meeting that is only open to the people you want to be there, then find a way to make it a closed session. I'm sure that you would have a decent time if you mentioned this particular instance as a fear for future meetings.
Conspiring as in planning can be considered illegal. Discussing an illegal activity is not. Not having read the comments in question, I couldn't say which was which, but a clarification on that point should be made. I can get on here and say something like "If you were going to kill someone, a knife would make a terrible mess" and it isn't considered conspiring. If I told you of a great place to dump a body, however, it could be.
Just wondering - I didn't read the linked article, but this one here on our beloved/. didn't seem to indicate that the windshield couldn't be scraped or wiped or cleaned. I mean, if that was the case, it would be entirely useless not just for the extreme examples you have stated but because you couldn't even drive it through a normal car wash! I would think, that if it can handle just being on a car (where a rock could kick up at any moment and smack into it) that it's pretty sturdy stuff and therefore can take a little abuse as you chisel your way out of the ice. It would be nice if it handled this itself, but just having it handle the rain and dirt would be worth it - and I'm sure that (if they don't have it already) the more extremes will be added later as they perfect the technology.
Slashdot Mirror
There is actually a word for what you describe as your belief. It's called Deism. We discussed it in a college philosophy class as being the belief of God (or whichever higher power) as a clock maker. S/He set up all the mechanics, wound it up, and then went on to more important matters rather than necessarily micromanage every event.
So, I realize that the poster focused on the religious aspects and that now we're in a debate about teaching intelligent design, but realistically (even if that is where it is intended to go), what's wrong with teaching kids to question? Isn't that what science is suppose to be all about - learning to question and think and push against things so that you discover more about them?
Yes, I think that teaching intelligent design borders on the terrible (mostly because it violates my right to not have my kids exposed to religion in their public school), however I also kind of like the idea of them being exposed to many different ideas and learning to examine each critically. That way they can come to their own conclusions on the world based on their own experiences and conclusions instead of just taking someone's word for it.
Maybe, for once, instead of something intended to help being twisted until it actually makes things worse, wouldn't it be kinda fun if this thing (which is obviously designed to help make things worse by indoctrinating children in Christian beliefs while in school) could be twisted to actually produce a generation of children who are free thinking individuals that challenge everything and find their own answers?
Just a nice thought.
Once again, I am struck by the idea that someone giving advice to another without knowing their entire history (or being medically qualified to do so) can be tantamount to asking them to kill themselves. I know that you didn't mean it that way, but if I did what you were suggesting my heart would literally burst in my chest. I have a heart murmur. Luckily, I'm one of the ones who only aggravates it when I'm stressed or when I do furious aerobic exercises, so it doesn't interfere with my day-to-day existence as long as I'm careful. But I was once rushed from a high school gym class in an ambulance.
I'm sorry if you think that what I do isn't exercise. My doctor does, and my body feels better for it. Actually, there is an entire group of people out there that believe that you don't have to push yourself that hard, but that a slow and steady build up is in fact better for you. You may feel free to disbelieve them, but giving advice along the lines that those people are categorically wrong is, imo, a bit premature.
As for the difference in needing to pee, you probably don't really understand - I know that my husband didn't when we were dealing with potty training our eldest. Girls' bladders work slightly differently from boys' bladders (or, I suppose, it's more accurate to say that the urethra works differently). A woman wouldn't want to have an extremely full bladder (or even partially full!) while doing anything. We can sneeze and pee our pants, it IS that bad and we don't have very much control over it except to not allow our bladders to get that full (or try to prevent the sneeze!). So for you to tell a woman to overfill her bladder and then go do some strenuous exertions is something that is a problem for her.
I don't want to sound condescending, so please try not to take this that way, but if you are 18 and in really good physical condition (as your exercise routine seems to suggest) I don't think you can possibly have any idea of what my life is like. I have numerous health problems that I got due to a screwed up roll of the genetic dice. This limits my options, but I am trying to work inside them as best I can. And, until you have a couple of kids under 5 trying to run you ragged at the park daily, I don't think that you can really make a qualification as to how much exertion is contained in that activity. And I do mean daily - not just "well, I took my little cousins to the park once..." because when kids are your own (or you take care of them every day) they don't tend to listen as well as they will if you only see them every once in a while. Hence the chasing.
You seem like a nice kid, and I know that you probably aren't trying to be actually offensive or inflammatory, but trust me when I say that my personal routine is the best that I can do without the danger of causing serious injury to myself. It is approved by my doctor. Which is my assertion as far as the actual topic went. The law in Japan is silly. People should be encouraged to do what is healthy for them by their doctors rather than forced to some crazy ideal that almost no body type can actually easily fit. And even though other people are trying to help, the best advice anyone can seek is from a medical professional that knows their personal history and can advise them on what they could/should be doing in order to maintain maximum health without doing themselves harm or injury.
*sigh* I'm sure many /.ers don't care about my personal habits or med history, but I'll go ahead and answer this for the same reasons that you posted it: because anyone who comes along and reads it shouldn't go and do something stupid based on it.
Point 1: Exercise. I get quite a bit of exercise. Not only do I have my own routine of stretches (modified to fit personal issues, since my knees are already shot - from when I was 12 and bordering on underweight, BTW), but I also chase 2 kids under 5 around all day long. Also, in the middle of my stretches (which I work into my children's nap time) I attempt to do 10 each of situps, leg-lifts, and scissor leg-lifts. There have been times when my knees were just too shot and hurt too much to do it, but on the whole that's my daily routine. On top of that, we go swimming at least 2 times (some times as much as 5) a week. I can't do machines due to various troubles (ie my knees and the fact that I fractured my elbow not long ago and that shot doing anything with my arms until it heals - if it ever does), but I do attempt to squeeze in as much exercise as I can and get way more than 15 minutes a day. As far as building muscles goes - when discussing being "overweight" we are not talking necessarily about being just "fat", as I stated. I actually have really good muscular definition in my legs and arms (my abs... well, not so much, but I work on them).
Point 2: Diet. I hope that no one reading this post will ever take advice about a diet without consulting their doctor and assessing their own personal dietary needs. Case in point: My doctor has told me not to go on a high protein/low carb diet due to hypoglycemia. That being the opposite of diabetes, my body actually requires that I take in carbs to use up the extra insulin I produce. The one time I tried (stupidly) to go on a low carb diet, I got violently ill and could have ended up in a coma. That being said, I believe in the moderation diet. I eat when I am hungry (typically every 3-5 hours) and substitute every chance I get for healthy items. True, I'm not a saint, and I'm as vulnerable as the next person to the "sweet tooth" cravings, but I do my best and watch my caloric intake, which is what my doctor says I should do to remain healthy.
Also, it seems odd to me that you are advocating a diet which instructs you to "force" yourself to eat when almost everything I've ever heard says that that is really what the problem is - the fact that we don't listen to our bodies and only eat as much as we need to be "full" rather than "stuffed". But, if that is what worked for you, then more power to you. I guess the biggest thing that I think one should do is really make a DIET - which is different than what we use the word for today. If you are going to change the way you eat, it needs to not be for just a couple months (which, in all actuality, can make you more UN-healthy) but needs to be a conscious decision to alter your LIFE. To eat a salad full of greens instead of opting for the french fries. To bake up a chicken breast instead of fry up a hamburger. Does this mean you can never indulge occasionally, as most diets teach? No. This is merely a way to be healthy, and the rest should follow.
I guess my main point is, there are many different factors that go into a person's weight. Hormones, bone density, muscle mass all play a factor - without even getting into your diet or exercise routines. The idea that a government is going to make a blanket statement that if you are X tall you must weigh X in order to be healthy without taking anything else into account is, IMO, completely stupid. Rather, focus on getting your people HEALTHY without worrying so much about their WEIGHT - if they truly are overweight by their own body's standard, that will follow from getting healthy. And if we taught this, then maybe more people (especially women!) would feel better about themselves no matter their size or shape. If you exercise, eat right and take care of yourself b
So, I'm chiming in as someone who is technically obese. By those screwed up BMI charts, I am overweight (even though otherwise I am COMPLETELY healthy, excusing some childhood issues I had long before I became overweight). Points to make: 1) You think that buying healthy is cheaper than buying unhealthy? Just go into your meat department. Look at 1# of hamburger meat at 20% fat and one at 10% fat. Which one is more expensive? Then take that and compare it to a package of, say, stew meat. That right there tells you which is cheaper - healthy or unhealthy. 2) I am medically obese (but not grossly obese, or whatever the next step is) and yet none of my weight has come from poor eating choices, but from hormones. I gained 40 # from birth control, then stabilized. I gained approximately 35 # when I got pregnant with my first child. Then stabilized again. Now I have a second child and my weight has stabilized at 25# or so over what I was after my first. I have tried exercising, I kept a food journal (wherein I saw that I was eating not only healthy but my caloric intake was extremely low - I wasn't even getting the 2000 calories that most people are suppose to because I only eat when I'm hungry!). Should I be punished because I can't lose weight? Now, granted, I live in America and not Japan so this measure wouldn't affect me, but it just makes me think of the women over there who have had a couple children and who's bodies haven't ever given up the weight. Now, not only they but their entire family will be basically kicked out in the cold because they decided to have kids and the woman couldn't lose the hormone weight afterwards? That just seem cruel to me. And those BMIs don't take anything into account that I've ever seen. What about bone and muscle mass? Did you know that Michael Jordan is clinically obese according to the BMI? For women, what about our breast size? I once read that a D cup breast weighs 20# (so 40# for the set). That could send many people over into the "obese" category. And just as a note: Marilyn Monroe wore approximately a dress size 12 (by today's standards). Do you realize that that size is often put in the "plus" area in a lot of stores? With all these unhealthily thin (and YES there is a thing and YES many celebs and models fall into this category, imo) role models making average size women feel fat and doctors contributing to the problem by failing to take into account so many factors when they chart up your "weight and height" on that messed up BMI it's no wonder that so many of our girls are growing up with eating disorders and a warped view of themselves. I would rather, instead of people focusing on "obesity", that we focus on actual health. If you are an overall healthy person and taking care of yourself (ie eating well and getting exercise and such) that THAT should be the focus, rather than what shows up when you step on a scale. Sorry if that ended up a little ranty... guess I'm a bit sensitive about the whole thing. :blush:
Okay, as I've now stated 4 times, I think that the fact that the main charge has to deal with MySpace's TOS is stupid! It should be a criminal charge regarding intentionally doing extreme emotional damage to a child - with some added conspiracy to commit added for both the main perpetrator and the person who said they were in on it (I believe her name was Gills, if I remember the article correctly). I haven't seen any indication that the girl was emotionally unstable, although I have only read the main article. I do, however, wonder why the girl's parents didn't question what was going on when their daughter must have gotten extremely depressed and/or exhibited other negative emotions prior to her suicide. You seem to imply with this:
WHAT crime? What are you charging her with? Being a bitch? That there is nothing that the woman should be charged with, even though you say you agree that she should be punished. My original reply was to the idea that she should be charged at all.So, to state again what I have stated before I do not agree with the attorney's decision to charge the woman with computer-related violations. Incidentally, what they are charging her with is not specifically hacking. It is merely the charge most often levied at hackers. Small difference, but important. From what I can tell, they're basically charging her with entering into an agreement electronically by agreeing to the TOS and then willfully violated that agreement. Which she did. You can place the argument that "everyone does it" but, sorry, it just doesn't fly in a court of law. Whenever you click "okay" to those EULA or TOS agreements, you are entering into a legally binding contract that you will abide by the things contained therein. Granted, most times it won't really matter if you lie about your hair color on MySpace or violate another EULA or TOS - the most you're likely to get is a brick wall when you call their tech support and try to get help after having committed a violation that caused a problem. But you can't start saying that a woman who did such should not be charged as such. That's silly.
And if you don't agree with the EULA or TOS, why, you always have the option to walk away and not use that service/program. Just like you stated the girl could have walked away at any time and disengaged from the conversation. We all have that choice.
So, the charges against her you might see as a "slippery slope" but I see as a natural outcome of all those agreements you click "okay" to without even reading. And while I do think that it was stupid to charge her with something that first off is a minor infraction compared to what she actually did and will only get her a max of 5 years per charge, I do not say that the charge is superfluous either.
You may feel that many of us are running on "emotional lynchmob energy" but it seems to me much more likely that those who are campaigning against such a charge are running on the equally knee-jerk emotion which relates to the idea of anything computer-related being persecuted. It is an emotion that seems to be uniquely /. related, but it comes up often whenever there is a court-case involving some sort of computer charge. And in this case it seems completely unfounded. You may not like the fact that this is in fact a case that has every legal basis for going through, but by reading through the article and examining the actual charges I don't think that anyone could say that the charges are unfounded.
As I stated previously, the fact that the focus is all on her violating MySpace's TOS is, IMO, stupid. What they should be focused on is the fact that she purposefully sought out and preyed on a child.
So, if instead of the extreme example of attempting to solicit actual sex is substituted for merely engaging in sexual discussion with a minor, would you agree to the similarities? A person who uses the internet to specifically seek out children with the purposes of engaging in sexual discussions with them is considered a sexual predator and is charged with criminal acts. True, those children could merely stop chatting at any time (and one wonders where the girl's parents were during this entire episode that it was allowed to escalate so terribly out of control), just as this girl could have, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the woman (if it was her) specifically sought out a minor and, using lies and false representation, attempted (and succeeded!) to torture and manipulate her into a state of emotional distress.
To use another slightly extreme example of why I think what you say has less validity, if a 40-year-old ran around in a trench coat flashing a junior high school, should that person not be served criminal charges merely because the kids could have "looked away"? The fact that the victim could have severed the contact (assuming that they were able to be aware of what was happening, which did not seem to be the case with the girl in question - as the perpetrator purposefully lied and manipulated her to keep her from realizing the tactics being used to torture and torment her and thereby allow said perpetrator to continue said acts) does not make them any less of a victim - or the person who committed the acts any less accountable.
Another extreme example - a woman who is beaten by her husband. It is true that she could leave the relationship at any time - she could reach out, get help, etc. However, due usually to the emotional and mental manipulation (similar to the case), the woman is made to feel as if she should not or could not receive the help she needs. Her husband uses these tactics so that he may continue his abuse of her, just like the perpetrator in the case used the fake "relationship" to keep the girl in communication and to continue the tormenting. Is the husband not to be held accountable because the wife could have left? Should we excuse this behavior because the victim "brought it on themselves" by not seeking aid?
Obviously, neither of my examples are exactly like the case - and they are a bit on the extreme side - but they illustrate why this woman should be facing criminal charges for her treatment of the girl. As stated previously and again at the beginning of this reply, the fact that they are focusing on the supposed "hacking" is just stupid. They should be focusing on the willful and deliberate preying on a 13-year-old by a 40-something-year-old which then led to not only the tormenting and torturing of said girl, but ultimately to her death. And in that, the authorities were perfectly right, IMO, to arrest the person they had evidence had done the crime.
Really? Because if, say, the person was a 40-year-old who had created the fake MySpace profile with the purpose of soliciting sex from the 13-year-old, I'm sure many people would have no problem with the criminal charges. Realistically, the problem here isn't that she created the fake profile (and that they keep focusing on that aspect is, IMO, stupid) but the problem is that a 40-something-year-old woman got on the internet, told a 13-year-old girl that the woman was a 13-year-old boy and engaged in a relationship with her so that she could serve her own twisted ends of torturing and tormenting the girl. It is as simple and as complex as that to me - that someone (allegedly this woman who is on trial) was preying on a 13-year-old on the internet via lies about their age/gender/etc. What if, instead of using the account to torture the girl, the woman had instead suggested they "meet" and then raped her? Would everyone be saying that doing this wasn't a crime?
Just a level of perspective.
It's interesting that you think the framers of the Constitution would have been on your side. Tell me, why did the American Revolution of 1776 occur? Hint: it wasn't because the Founders thought they should be taxed more.
The Revolution came for a variety of reasons, really, but the one most often quoted (the so-called straw on that oft-abused camel's back) is "No Taxation without representation". It wasn't that the Founders were against taxes in any way. It was that they were opposed to taxes that were passed by some far off King who had no idea of the realities of the American situation. It was because the Americas were not allowed a presence in the government and therefore had no say at all in what taxes could be passed regarding them. This is why I feel that the founders would have agreed with me on the issue - because I feel that they would see it more as a State issue to tax its people - the people who elected those officials into their offices and who therefore represent them - in order to supply them with services.
You suggest that this tax was passed "into law long ago". Then why does this article exist? This article is about a new tax passed into law by the state of New York, not a tax passed "long ago".
Actually, the tax was passed into law long ago. We have had sales tax for many years. This is not in essence a new tax, but a new application of an old tax. The bill is not suggesting that they make a special "internet shipping" tax, but rather that they implement the sales tax that is already a part of law in New York on sales that its citizens make which are shipped from out of state.
And then you claim that the Constitution doesn't allow the states not to lay such a tax? Please show me where the Constitution requires the states to tax imported goods. Then tell me why the states need a "license" from the Constitution not to implement this or any sort of tax. The Founders did not need to have the internet in order to conceive of inter-state imports and exports -- they had the latter already. If anything, if the Founders had had any idea of the degree of technology which was to develop over 220 years, they would have put much stricter limits on government powers, not enhanced them.
The Constitution doesn't allow or disallow many things that we have made into law - especially State-level or below laws. If you wanted to disallow every law that was not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, then States wouldn't have the right to implement a sales tax at all! And I am not suggesting that they couldn't conceive of interstate imports at all, but merely that the concept of the ease and facility at which these items are being bought by the average person (instead of businesses) and shipped all over the country - keeping those people from going down to the store and buying it (and thus paying sales tax) - is something that we have only (relatively) recently begun to see. More and more people are doing a bulk of their shopping online and from out of state, meaning that states are losing thousands in revenue. This leads me to your next point, which was:
Taxes are used for the benefit of the people? No. Only a tiny fraction of the taxes could be categorized thus, if any.
I realize that this cynical view is shared by many - and may even be true up to a point - but let's look at this realistically. Imagine if the State couldn't collect any tax - or, even specifically, any sales tax. What would happen to that State's roads? Their schools? All the other services that the State pays for? You may feel that only a tiny fraction of taxes get used for things that the citizens need, but then you must also agree that a dip in revenue will see even that tiny fraction evaporate. Yet I'm sure that people who are buying from internet shopping with the
It seems to me that the recourse of a person with a poor argument is to insult and degrade the person that they are arguing with, rather than merely sticking to facts as presented. Regardless, the discussion in this thread is about whether or not the courts have the right (or, actually, the ruling body of a state, which has very little to do with its courts) have the right to interpret whether or not the term "import" applied to state-to-state commerce as well as commerce coming from another country.
Now, you may feel free to quibble on whether or not the original drafters of our Constitution intended the word "import" to be used as it applied to states, and we can argue back and forth on whether or not the reasonings behind that addition to our Constitution were put into place with the intent of allowing a business and/or consumers to circumvent paying taxes to the states in which they live - taxes that have been passed into law long ago - but we can never know their true intent. All we have to go on is the word "import", and whether you're talking about 220 years ago or today that word still implies transportation between countries - not within a country itself. Taken from dictionary.com (bold added for emphasis): "1. to bring in (merchandise, commodities, workers, etc.) from a foreign country for use, sale, processing, reexport, or services."
Now, no matter how much freedom individual states are given with their internal government, we are all still one country. California is not a foreign nation to New York (no matter how both peoples might feel about each other). That being said, I still hold fast to my assertion that even if (and I feel this is a strong "if" at this point) the drafters of our Constitution intended to use the word import in a fashion that no one else had intended, it is still a very different situation. I'm sure that if you could go back in time and ask the founding fathers what they thought about people circumventing the taxes that paid for the services where they lived by exclusively buying from retailers in another state, they would find the idea ludicrous. The taxes that are levied on the peoples in each state are (theoretically) used for their benefit - to fix the roads they drive on and to fund the schools their children attend. The idea of people circumventing this with internet buying could not have occured to our founding fathers - they having no knowledge of the ease of internet buying - and I think that they would feel it was a gross abuse of the system that they helped create. But, again, as I do not have a working time machine at this time I can't actually know for certain.
So you may bluster and moan about the illegality and unconstitutionality of the situation, but the reality is that our Constitution - if taken literally at its word, as you seem to feel we should - makes no license for States to not implement this sort of tax. If you feel that the spirit of the word (not its literal definition, but its intent) was to prevent this sort of tax, then you will need to take the issue before the Supreme Court and let them decide, as that is the recourse that our country and the Constitution provides for you. If you are unwilling to do that, then I feel it is safe to say that bluster is all you have and not the will to back it up.
By the by, taken from wikipedia (once again, bold added for emphasis): "Noah Webster, the author of immensely popular readers and spelling books for schools, published his first dictionary, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, in 1806. In it, he introduced features that would be a hallmark of future editions such as American spellings (center rather than centre, honor rather than honour, program rather than programme, etc.) and including technical terms from the arts and sciences rather than confining his dictionary
I'm sorry, are you implying that the current administration is liberal? Because your original argument was against liberals, but then you illustrate it with a point that says that our conservative current administration ignores the pieces of the Constitution that don't fit with their agenda and that the democrats (the liberal party, arguably) merely acquiesces - although what they are suppose to do (when they don't have enough of a majority to overturn any republican motions and it is the Supreme Court's job to check when laws are passed that violate the Constitution) I'm not sure.
I did not claim that the Constitution is not valid - I claimed that many of the things that they specifically addressed or did not address were defined by the realities of that time. Do you deny this? And, I'm sorry, where are you living?!? Words can not be redefined? Do you know what Webster did when he created his "dictionary"? He altered words and redefined things and changed spellings merely so that American English and British English would be different! Besides, we are not talking about arbitrarily rewritting things, we are talking about working within the current era to produce laws that make sense rather than keeping laws as they were 220 years ago which were not equipped to deal with the world we live in now.
Also, while the writters of the Constitution were still alive to protest whether or not it was appropriate, the Supreme Court began "interpreting" the Constitution. (The following taken from wikipedia, boldness added for emphasis of point) "The ability of the courts to interpret the Constitution was decided early in the history of the United States, in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. In that case, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review, which is the power of the Court to examine legislation and other acts of Congress and to decide their constitutionality. The doctrine also embraces the power of the Court to explain the meaning of various sections of the Constitution as they apply to particular cases brought before the Court. Over the years, a series of Court decisions, on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases, has affected a change in the way many Constitutional clauses are interpreted, without amendment to the actual text of the Constitution."
So how you can sit there and claim that it isn't the courts job to interpret the Constitution is beyond me. It is also the right of any citizen to challenge a lower court on whether or not their rulings are Constitutional. So, as I said before, if you feel the courts are wrong you should sue and take the case up to the Supreme Court so they can make a ruling. Then, per our Constitution and per the precedent set during the time the Constitution was written, they're ruling will be as good as if it were an Amendment until they overturn it in a similar case.
This may have been true (not having been there, it would be difficult to say one way or the other) but realistically irrelevant in many ways. At the time the Constitution was ratified, we didn't have the internet, shipping methods or many things that have altered the world we live in. The job of our courts is to interpret the Constitution's intent and apply it to modern-day situations, which it was obviously not equipped to deal with since it had no knowledge of the changes that would occur. So to say that this is unConstitutional simply because the founders of our country could never have conceived of the ease of internet shopping is a bit silly. And, in our country, the courts are correct until overturned. That is the way our legal system works. So if you feel the ruling is unConstitutional, your recourse would be to sue the state of New York and take it up to the Supreme Court who could then make a direct ruling on whether or not their bill is unConstitutional or not.
Until then, it is a Constitutional as any of the rest of our laws that are drafted to deal with realities that a document written in 1787 couldn't possibly have conceived of.
The first Dune movie did lack some of the elements of the book, but the story was recognizable (much more so than many OTHER books-made-into-movies - see Harry Potter or Flowers in the Attic). The base story line was the same and followed the same patterns as the book, even if they had to leave out some stuff and make a few changes due to cinematic constraints. The major plus of this movie was their characterizations. The cast was beautifully done and the characters portrayed accurately and faithfully to their core concepts in the book. The sci-fi mini series had the opposite. It stayed much more faithful to the details of the book on plot and world, but completely lost the essence of pretty much all of the characters. I can't actually even watch it again due to the complete butchering of my two favorite characters - not to mention the watered down Oh-why-won't-a-man-come-save-me aspect of pretty much every strong female role that originally existed in the book. One of the things I loved about Dune was the characters and how complex and fantastically interwoven their personalities and desires were. Due to this, I like the first movie MUCH better than the mini series. If this new movie can manage to somehow couple the two and create a movie that is true to the plot, world AND characters while still being under 3 hours and visually stunning, then they will accomplish a miracle. Realistically? They're much more likely to go the other way and screw up everything in an attempt to please everyone and end up pleasing no one. Truth be told, I feel like there is no need to attempt another shot at Dune. We have two well-made versions that each appeal to one half of the spectrum of readers so people can pick their favorite and feel that it accurately represents what the book meant to them. Instead, it would be nice if they chose books that haven't been done yet - or, even better, went back to making their OWN stories and stopped destroying perfectly good literature. As I have always said: I like movies and I like books, but I would generally prefer to keep them separate. Even if it is a well-done adaptation, it screws with my internal pictures by overlaying them with the movie-makers' ideas on what the book should look like which saddens me.
Cyber-eyes anyone? I don't know whether to be happy to be the first to reference this or sad that no one else made the leap... Terminator would be cool, but the Shadowrun-style cyber-eyes would be way better.
Once again, I think that you're only seeing the side of the statistic that supports your conjecture. There are many reasons why the number of single mother families in the US is rising that don't necessarily have anything to do with guys spreading their seed. One large reason - that most people who cite this statistic bring up - is the idea of "you don't need a man to raise a child". There are women out there who are purposely getting pregnant with men that they don't intend to stay with merely to have a baby. Now, I don't know what percent of the statistic falls into this category, but it throws doubt on your argument that the reason for the statistic is that men are running around impregnating women who are trying to form a meaningful relationship with them.
And, FYI, I don't associate "sex" with "relationship" as I am one of the previously-mentioned women who enjoys a fullfilling, open marriage with my husband. So your arguments that all women care about is the relationship and they can't ever just want sex fall on deaf ears.
This may be true in a certain sense, but since you don't get to spread your seed at all unless you get into serious relationships (generally speaking) and because society demands that you support any child you sire there are many more societal pressures that influence you as well. You speak as if your evolutionary progression hasn't changed since caveman days. It is true that men and women still have many of the same instincts that we had back then - and no one is saying that you can't or shouldn't want to have sex with more than one woman - however it has been proven that we can not only overcome those instincts but that they pale in comparison (for many people) to societal pressures to conform. I therefore contend that, due to these other pressures, there is just as likely to be at least as many men out there actively looking for a monogamous and lasting relationship as not.
You are also contending that all women want monogamous relationships. I think that, in today's society, there are probably more out there than you would think who would have no trouble with open relationships. After all, what women want from their relationship is a mate who loves them and cares for them and their children (if they end up having any) which can be completely separate from whether or not they would like to have sex with anyone else. Also, since a growing population of women are identifying themselves as bisexual they are more inclined to a relationship that will allow them to fulfill both of their desires - meaning allowing other women into the bedroom.
Since you don't site anything other than a possibly national radio show that may or may not have given a legitimate statistic, it is really difficult to check your facts, but I bet that there are many other reasons besides the ones you seem to feel are the cause for these people not wanting to get married again. Let us just look at the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce. Now, you could go ahead and say that both of these statistics support your theory but it is just as likely that the relationship ended for other reasons. The fact of the matter is, since you don't have any stats on why they wouldn't get married again, it could be that the woman cheated on the man. It could be that they are perfectly happy and would have stayed in their relationship, but wouldn't have gone through the hassle of actually getting married. It could be that both of them were putting up a front at the beginning of the relationship and just found out that they were different people than they thought. There are dozens of reasons for people to not want to be married any longer (or to have never gotten married in the first place) that have nothing to do with a man needing to "sow his seed" as it were.
If you want to believe that you have no control over your hormones and that you can't be in a relationship because you need to run around trying to impregnate as many women as possible due to your genetic predisposition, that's fine. Just get a vasectomy so that you aren't leaving dozens of single mothers out there or set up a trust fund for all the babies you leave behind. If you also tend to believe that the only way to get women is by showing off expensive things, then you go right ahead and only date those women. Whatever floats your boat. But please, don't get on here and start spouting off as if all men are like you and all women are gold-diggers or trailer trash or hippies. It will save us all the trouble of trying to guide you back to reality.
That's a pretty silly thing to say when this entire article is talking about helping geeks (mostly male) dress better. No, my husband isn't a "metrosexual". Just because you dress appropriately and/or nicely doesn't necessarily make you a metrosexual. And I didn't make my husband anything. I like him just fine in his jeans and tee-shirts. He started dressing better because of work - all on his own - using some of the tips from the show I like because they made sense to him.
This whole metrosexual thing is pretty stupid anyway, IMO. It started with the idea that a guy couldn't want to look nice unless he was gay. Now there's a word for the "gay-straight man" called metrosexual and I find it to be completely offensive. Why should it be that if a guy wants to dress appropriately - like wear suits to work - then there has to be some label we need to attach to him because he obviously can't just be a normal guy?
I get that the general feeling of the responses to this article are hatred for the idea that anyone (but geeks specifically) should have to pay any attention to the impressions they give off with their clothing and/or grooming habits and therefore anyone advocating that these are good things to pay attention to is likely to get sarcastic remarks directed at them. But, really, slinging mud at me and my husband won't change the fact that first impressions matter and that those impressions are determined in part by whether or not you dress well. So you go ahead and sling mud at anyone who cares about their appearance and those of us who do will simply continue to get promoted and make more money and be taken more seriously in the work-place.
Whatever makes you happy.
It seems to me then that the type of girl who is interested in how much money you make (and whether or not you spend it on expensive status symbols ie shoes) is just your type of girl. I hope you find one.
You may feel I'm in the minority, but there is plenty of "normal" girls (or even geek girls) who are neither the 'nature girls' nor trailer trash - who, by the way, care the MOST about whether or not you make enough money, incidentally. These are girls who don't feel that they are super-model pretty, who don't go out of their way to be gold diggers and who are just your average girl-next-door type. We might want our guys to look good, but whether or not they have enough money to buy expensive status symbols (and, in correlation, will spend tons of money on us) isn't really relevant. We mostly want a guy who will pay attention to us without his checkbook and someone we can get along with.
And to say that all a guy is interested in is a woman's body is, I feel, grossly unfair to every guy I know. Yes, the first thought thorough anyone's head when they see an attractive person is sexual, but that doesn't mean that everyone is always only thinking about sex. It also doesn't mean that every guy out there is a slave to his penis and can't even think well enough to contemplate an actual relationship with someone. That's a bs excuse that too many guys hide behind - your penis isn't the master in the relationship, no matter how badly you want sex. Want to know how I know this? Because, even if you are so hard up you think you might go blind and you're on your 20th bottle of lotion this week, there are still some girls you just wouldn't even consider touching. This means that your brain is in drive, and you can't weasel your way out with that old excuse. To me, it's just as bs as girls saying they get to behave like total hellions during "that time of the month". It's bs - your uncomfortable and feel crappy, fine, but you are choosing to act the way you are acting so just own up to it and stop trying to find some excuse that lets you off the hook.
I have known many guys who aren't even interested in one-night stands because they want a meaningful relationship first. I've known guys who have turned down pretty girls because they just didn't have anything in common with them enough to warrant a relationship (which is what the girl wanted). Just because you seem to have this cynical view on sex and don't care where you put your penis doesn't mean you get to generalize for your sex.
Speaking as a woman who couldn't give a rat's red behind about what shoes you are wearing, I think that this is an oversimplification. If you want that type of girl, then the shoes you wear, the car you drive, whether or not you know the right people will all influence whether or not she'll even give you the time of day. If you don't want that type of girl, then it really doesn't matter all that much. It is the same principle with the girls I know complaining that every guy they meet just wants their body. So I reply to them - well, stop meeting all the guys in bars! If you are doing things that attract a certain type of person - the type you don't really want - in an effort to find that one other person who is doing the same thing you are, chances are pretty good that you'll never find them. If you're not naturally the type of person to give a darn about expensive shoes, then don't put up a front. You'll be more likely to find someone you mesh with if you just be yourself.
Okay, mini-rant done.
So, in reading the "dos and do nots" of the list, I was struck by how many of them the TLC show "What Not To Wear" addressed very differently. Many of the fashion no-nos on this list are merely dependent on the rest of your outfit. Shoes and belt don't match? Not really that big of a problem, as long as your overall color scheme fits in - ie if you want to wear a brown belt with black shoes, then you should pick out a shirt and pants that are also in the brown/black spectrum so the entire outfit flows. Want to wear short sleeves and a tie? Go a bit "preppy" and throw a sweater-vest over the top. It is all in how you pull the look together, not in how well you follow the "rules" of fashion.
Incidentally, both my fashion and my husbands (who is a programmer) have improved by leaps and bounds from watching this show. It helps teach you little tricks to make an outfit presentable and how not to make it look awful so that you can make a good impression. For those unfamiliar with the show, they take someone who is seriously fashion-challenged (and just seeing some of the faux pas that these people commit might make you realize that your own pigtails are not so serious an infraction) and nominated by friends and family to New York for a week long fashion-therapy session. They go through the person's entire wardrobe and toss out anything that is too small, too large, stained, ripped or just in general poorly suited for the person's body and then give them $5,000 and teach them what kind of colors/shapes would look best on them. Then they let them go shopping in the city for two days and get an entirely new wardrobe (supervised, of course, to help them break bad fashion habits). Then they get their hair done and skin care (for the men)/makeup (for the girls) and show off their new look. The amazing thing is how they manage to make everyone feel really good about themselves - they tell you that you dress poorly, but the whole time they're building up your self-esteem about your body and self and encouraging you to show what a great person you are and to show off all the good things about your body with your clothes. It's pretty amazing to watch the people's transformations as they realize how good they look with just little changes to their wardrobes.
Gods, now I sound like a commercial! But, anyway, I think that this list oversimplifies the issue - which isn't that you should follow these rules, but that you should in general take care of and pay attention to the impression you are giving off with your attire and personal hygiene. And if you need a little help with the wardrobe part, maybe watching the show on TLC would help.
Despicable? Yes. Generally, anything you do to try to circumvent the system is despicable. But plenty of people (even average, everyday, regular people and not just big evil corporations) do things every day to circumvent things they find inconvenient or to try to tip the scales their way. I'm just pointing out that this wasn't that different. The trick is for you to circumvent better than they do, if you care about stopping them in any form. The author made Comcast sound like some big horrible devil for doing this immoral action, but realistically they are just everyday-evil, especially since this could have been easily dealt with by having a closed session or by other people showing up even earlier than the paid butts. And, from the article, it sounded like the people who were there didn't stay for the meeting, they were just place-holders for the employees, but that could just be a spin that Comcast put out to make themselves seem less evil.
Honestly, I understand the point but I think it is silly. How acceptable is it for Comcast to pay people to take up seats? About as acceptable as you to ask your 50 frat buddies to show up and do the same thing. If the meeting is open to anyone who gets there and gets a seat, then anyone is freely able to coerce their friends to come as well - or the stranger on the street. If you want a meeting that is only open to the people you want to be there, then find a way to make it a closed session. I'm sure that you would have a decent time if you mentioned this particular instance as a fear for future meetings.
Conspiring as in planning can be considered illegal. Discussing an illegal activity is not. Not having read the comments in question, I couldn't say which was which, but a clarification on that point should be made. I can get on here and say something like "If you were going to kill someone, a knife would make a terrible mess" and it isn't considered conspiring. If I told you of a great place to dump a body, however, it could be.
Just wondering - I didn't read the linked article, but this one here on our beloved /. didn't seem to indicate that the windshield couldn't be scraped or wiped or cleaned. I mean, if that was the case, it would be entirely useless not just for the extreme examples you have stated but because you couldn't even drive it through a normal car wash! I would think, that if it can handle just being on a car (where a rock could kick up at any moment and smack into it) that it's pretty sturdy stuff and therefore can take a little abuse as you chisel your way out of the ice. It would be nice if it handled this itself, but just having it handle the rain and dirt would be worth it - and I'm sure that (if they don't have it already) the more extremes will be added later as they perfect the technology.