You are spot on. The funniest part is that back in the 1800s we had a theory of education that worked. They taught kids "1+1=2, 1+2=3, etc". The kids were expected to memorize this (and many other basic facts). In addition to this the kids were taught basic skills (like writing and reading).
In the late 1800s, a group of people came along who thought that we should teach kids how to think and that they would learn the basic facts on their own. This idea didn't get much traction at first, but gradually it started to catch on. Then came the "Red Menace" and the space race, where getting lots of people who could do science and advanced math was more important than fancy theories. The old way worked, we didn't have time to figure out how to apply these new theories so they would work, so back to the old way it was. Then came the 1960s, and the Baby Boomers, who felt that everything old was bad and everything new was good. They had been schooled mostly in the old rote memory method and decided that there was a better way.
40 some years later, they are still looking for it.
Video: the visual equivalent of audio.
So, apparently you believe that the early recordings by Thomas Edison (and others) aren't audio because they aren't recorded on an audiocassette.
There is no way that Lower Merion School District had an abstinence education class. I imagine that "improper behavior in the home" is the plaintiff's euphemism for whatever it is that the school district accused their child of. The plaintiff is unlikely to want to make public whatever activity the student was involved in, either because it is illegal (for example, smoking pot), or embarrassing (masturbating). That is fine, the problem isn't what activity the child was involved in. It might indeed have been inappropriate behavior, but since it didn't happen in the school or at a school function, it is none of the school's business
And in many respects they are much, much more transparent then the previous administration. Of course it's early to say, but I don't see this administration using unofficial email addresses to illegally circumvent archiving laws.
Please give me one example of how the Obama Administration is more transparent than the previous administration. Second, I was unaware of the Bush Administration using unofficial email addresses, please provide a reference. I believe there was a story about Sarah Palin using an unofficial email address when she was governor of Alaska, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether the Obama Administration is more transparent than the Bush Administration.
It may be that the Obama Administration is more transparent than the previous administration, but everything I have seen indicates that if anything it is less transparent (although without doing a detailed analysis the most I would state categorically is that I have seen no evidence of it being more transparent).
The last company I worked for the owners wanted systems back online as fast as possible. Once they were back online, I could troubleshoot to my heart's content to figure out what caused the problem. I suspect that the decision makers in this situation had the same priorities. Computers are there to get work done. Get them back up and working as soon as possible so that people can get work done. Once everybody who relies on those computers can work again, only then do you start trying to figure out what went wrong.
That may not be the best way to do things, but its the way most places in the real world work.
I understand your feelings. Most people who complain about H1-B visas do not object to the people who receive the visas. They are upset with companies that game the H1-B visa system to avoid paying the local going rate for the specialtists they need. Unfortunately, there are a vocal minority of those who have problems with the H1-B system who are anti-immigrant.
The regulatory agencies already have the numbers. Google doesn't want the regulatory agencies to release those numbers. From the summary
The five companies waged a successful 18-month FOIA battle with the Merc, convincing federal regulators who collect the data that its release would cause 'commercial harm' by potentially revealing the companies' business strategy to competitors.
As others have pointed out, in the U.S. oriental is considered a racist term. Why this should be so is anybody's guess, but so the PC police have ruled. If someone in the U.S. does not want to be considered racist that person will not use the term oriental to describe a person's phenotype.
To get around the fact that both those from the Indian subcontinent and those from East Asia are both Asians, I generally refer to South Asian for the Indian subcontinent and East Asian for those the British refer to as Oriental. This is less than perfect, but most people understand what I mean by the terms. The problem with calling those from the Indian subcontinent (and others of similar phenotype from nearby areas) as Asians is that those the British refer to as Orientals are also Asians.
Until they show me what's on the table, I will not consider anything rebutted. The politicians can say all they want that xyz is not in the proposed treaty, but until they show me what is actually in the treaty, I won't believe them. Politicians often say that something is not in a bill or treaty or other document imposing government regulation and when you read the document, sure enough it isn't there. However, when you analyze what is there you discover that, while what they told you wasn't there isn't, the stuff that is there allows for them to just implement it at any time in the future that they choose without any further public notice.
The problem with saying that AGW theory calls for more snow is that it calls for increases in precipitation (and for increases in droughts, WTF?). However, the snow that the East Coast got this year is not an increase in precipitation, at least not in the area where I live. In the area where I live, we usually get quite a bit of rain/freezing rain this time of year. This year we got snow. The standard conversion of snow to rain is 10 inches of snow to one inch of rain. I have been unable to find an exact listing of how much snow we have had over January and February so far, however, we have had a total of just over 70 inches of snow since last July. We have had almost no rain this January or February (less than 1/2 inch), but our average rainfall for January and February is 6 inches, which means we are less than one inch above average precipitation levels for January and February (we had somewhere between 4 and 12 inches before the start of the new year). Over the last ten years we have had two or more years with drought concerns in the early to mid spring due to extremely low precipitation levels over the winter.
All of that means that precipitation levels appear to be within normal for this area, but the proportion that is snow is higher. This article says that precipitation levels (including snowfall) will be higher due to AGW.
Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies? I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them?
Because the EPA has limited statutory authority. Under one provision of the Clean Air Act if a new facility being built has the potential to emit 250 tons per year of CO2 it must receive a PSD permit from the EPA. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study estimates that 1.2 million previously unregulated buildings would fall under regulation on this basis. Under another provision of the Clean Air Act, any facility generating over 100 tons per year must file paperwork about their emissions and pay emmission fees of $43.50 per ton over 100 tons per year.
So, basically, the EPA does not have statutory authority to impose a flexible regulatory standard. If the EPA regulates CO2, current law says that they must impose similar regulatory policies to those which apply to sulfur dioxide.
My recollection of the numbers says that you are wrong, but I do not remember where I originally saw the breakdown of those numbers so I cannot look them up now. The numbers I gave above were a different compilation of data than my original source for saying that a larger percentage of homosexuals are pedophiles than heterosexuals. I did not closely look at the breakdown from that perspective, so my recollection may be incorrect.
You should spend some time investigating the numbers, not just homosexual versus heterosexual distribution. There is significant distortion in the way that incidents of pedophilia are reported. As an example, at the height of Catholic priests abusing children, if you were a Catholic with children in public schools, your children were statistically at greater risk of sexual abuse from their teacher than from their priest.
First, if they all do this at the same time that suggests collusion, which is a violation of existing anti-trust laws.
And when is the last time you saw those laws enforced?
There was an article on here sometime in the last two years about price fixing by the manufacturers of big screen TVs, so sometime in the last two years.
How soon kids forget the history. It is currently enforced that Net Neutrality happens. Those laws had a sunset clause. The ISP's and cableco's don't want any replacement laws.
So, despite your the "largely unregulated internet has gone on in mainstream for over a decade now, with no major problems," has been BECAUSE of the net neutrality laws in place for those decades, YOU come along and ask "why do we net netrality laws now?".
The answer, bub, is that the current net neutrality laws are ending. THAT is why you need them now.
What laws are those? Can you tell me what laws are ending that currently enforce network neutrality (or have recently ended)?
You are wrong. When cable (and before that telephone) started to roll out, the local governments in the major metropolitan areas decided that they didn't want lots of wires running through the area, so they passed laws granting local monopolies. When less densely populated areas wanted to get cable (and before that telephone) the cable companies said, "Sure, we'd be happy to run cable in your area. If you'll give us a monopoly contract for your area, so that nobody can come in and compete with us." It's a little more complicated than that as there were federal and state laws that were passed to make this legal (so that the local municipalities had the authority to forbid anyone else from running cable or telephone wire).
When this happened there were lots of small players in the cable market. Over time some of them were more successful than others and they gradually bought up the smaller players (and their local monopoly deals). Once the major players got big enough, they changed the federal law taking away the local municipalities' authority to select who controlled the local monopoly. Theoretically they eliminated the local municipalities' authority to grant monopolies, but since those monopolies already existed in a defacto way, all they did was eliminate the local municipalities' ability to turn the local market over to a competitor.
One of the most common arguments that I hear out of net neutrality opponents is that competition will somehow keep most ISP's net neutral without any messy government regulation. But what happens if all the major ISP's start blocking certain sites (like Pirate Bay)?
There are two things about this. First, if they all do this at the same time that suggests collusion, which is a violation of existing anti-trust laws. Second, if your hypothetical comes to pass, that is the time to push for the institution of some kind of net neutrality regulations.
The problem with instituting government regulations for a problem you foresee occuring in the future (but that has not yet manifest itself), is that any government regulation will limit the options for future advances.
Basically, I think that Network Neutrality is a good idea, but am skeptical about governments ability to implement it by regulation without creating more problems than it solves. I think it is a good thing for there to be some people who keep the ISPs feet to the fire about network neutrality, but that it would be premature to institute such rules at this time. Remember, when new government regulations are implemented they almost always have big corporations among their major supporters.
'The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal, anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting, and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion.'
The thing is technology that we are aware of that existed when we were born and is still in use when we get old enough to really think about it is proven. It works and gets the job done.
When new technology is developed before we turn 35 (or some other age, it started to happen for me when I was in my 20s) we see its possibilities and how it will change the world. We tend not to see its short comings, or how it solves a problem that nobody has. Additionally, while we are in that age, we have to spend as much time learning how to use existing technology as we do new technology, so they are equal footing.
After 35 (or whatever age this revelation occurs to the individual), you start to see how some new technology has the same sort of problems that some previous "new" technology had such that the previous "new" technology never worked out. Additionally, new technology means you have to learn a new way to do something where you had mastered the old way.
You are mistaking his statement that he doesn't believe it for a statement that he believes it to be not true. All he is saying is that 2 cases are insufficient to draw a conclusion from. There are too many reasons why any one person might possibly be banned from Itunes to assume that the one thing (we know of) that two people who have been banned have in common is the reason they have been banned.
On the other hand it is entirely consistent with previous Apple behavior, so it may be true.
Once the price goes over $350, the machine in question is no longer a netbook it is a UMPC. Now I know that manufacturers want to sell UMPCs as netbooks because the UMPC market never really caught on. Of course the reason that UMPCs never developed a big market is because people don't want to pay a premium for a small PC. The reason that netbooks did is because they are cheap and cute. At less than $300, I can afford to buy something that doesn't have all of the functionality I would like. Once it costs more than $300, it starts to compete against fullblown notebook computers. At that price, why am I buying an underpowered computer when for a few dollars more I can get something that is a fully functioning laptop?
Yes, there are people for whom the small size is worth a premium, but they are a small market segment.
Basically, you are correct, the manufacturers are trying to use the inexpensive netbooks to drive traffic towards the more profitable, pricier ones. I believe that this is a strategy that will fail. If they continue down this path netbooks will become just another size option in laptop computers: 17", 15", 14", netbook (10", 9", 7"). Right now, netbooks are their own market segment and people don't generally compare capabilities against regular laptops. The direction that the manufacturers are going will change that.
That's simply not true. Proper, bug-free code should fail gracefully in the event of odd user behavior. It may be that random mashing of the keyboard will give the user some unexpected results but it should never cause the program to go into a state that it was not designed to go into, such as trying to access 0x00000000.
Absolutely, but until it gets into the hands of users, how do you know that you have arranged to have it fail gracefully in every combination of things that the user may do?
Yeah sure. Only open source developers care about their work. Anyone that gets paid wouldn't care enough to do a good job or do one iota more than they are paid to. All hail the open source saints.
Someone working for a company cares about what the company pays them to care about. If they spend time on something the company doesn't want them to, it will cause them to get a bad review and/or fired. A company paying someone to make open source software is going to care more about the code being clean than a company paying someone to make propietary software. this is because with open source software many more people will see the actual code than with propietary software and shoddily written code will reflect badly on the company.
None of this reflects on the work ethic, morals or ability of either the open source programmer or the proprietary source programmer. It is possible for these to be the same person and the analysis still applies.
The way I see things this is not a netbook. The pricing I was able to find is over $400. That makes this a small notebook. As far as I am concerned a netbook is a 10" or smaller screen and under $400. This market was created with computers in the $250 to $300 range. This is the second "netbook" I have seen in the last month that is approaching $500. The manufacturers don't seem to understand that a large part of what created the buzz around netbooks was the price.
I suppose I would have a problem. That's not the point.
That is the point and it was the point I made in my original post, which you had so much problem with. I didn't say that it was right that he could get no other job. I said that when you have only one skill, it would be wise not to abuse the trust people put in you when you make use of that skill. And that it is not surprising that people won't trust you again after you have so abused someone's trust.
Slashdot Mirror
You are spot on. The funniest part is that back in the 1800s we had a theory of education that worked. They taught kids "1+1=2, 1+2=3, etc". The kids were expected to memorize this (and many other basic facts). In addition to this the kids were taught basic skills (like writing and reading).
In the late 1800s, a group of people came along who thought that we should teach kids how to think and that they would learn the basic facts on their own. This idea didn't get much traction at first, but gradually it started to catch on. Then came the "Red Menace" and the space race, where getting lots of people who could do science and advanced math was more important than fancy theories. The old way worked, we didn't have time to figure out how to apply these new theories so they would work, so back to the old way it was. Then came the 1960s, and the Baby Boomers, who felt that everything old was bad and everything new was good. They had been schooled mostly in the old rote memory method and decided that there was a better way.
40 some years later, they are still looking for it.
Video: the visual equivalent of audio. So, apparently you believe that the early recordings by Thomas Edison (and others) aren't audio because they aren't recorded on an audiocassette.
.
And in many respects they are much, much more transparent then the previous administration. Of course it's early to say, but I don't see this administration using unofficial email addresses to illegally circumvent archiving laws.
Please give me one example of how the Obama Administration is more transparent than the previous administration. Second, I was unaware of the Bush Administration using unofficial email addresses, please provide a reference. I believe there was a story about Sarah Palin using an unofficial email address when she was governor of Alaska, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether the Obama Administration is more transparent than the Bush Administration.
It may be that the Obama Administration is more transparent than the previous administration, but everything I have seen indicates that if anything it is less transparent (although without doing a detailed analysis the most I would state categorically is that I have seen no evidence of it being more transparent).
The last company I worked for the owners wanted systems back online as fast as possible. Once they were back online, I could troubleshoot to my heart's content to figure out what caused the problem. I suspect that the decision makers in this situation had the same priorities. Computers are there to get work done. Get them back up and working as soon as possible so that people can get work done. Once everybody who relies on those computers can work again, only then do you start trying to figure out what went wrong.
That may not be the best way to do things, but its the way most places in the real world work.
I understand your feelings. Most people who complain about H1-B visas do not object to the people who receive the visas. They are upset with companies that game the H1-B visa system to avoid paying the local going rate for the specialtists they need. Unfortunately, there are a vocal minority of those who have problems with the H1-B system who are anti-immigrant.
The five companies waged a successful 18-month FOIA battle with the Merc, convincing federal regulators who collect the data that its release would cause 'commercial harm' by potentially revealing the companies' business strategy to competitors.
So your argument doesn't hold up.
As others have pointed out, in the U.S. oriental is considered a racist term. Why this should be so is anybody's guess, but so the PC police have ruled. If someone in the U.S. does not want to be considered racist that person will not use the term oriental to describe a person's phenotype.
To get around the fact that both those from the Indian subcontinent and those from East Asia are both Asians, I generally refer to South Asian for the Indian subcontinent and East Asian for those the British refer to as Oriental. This is less than perfect, but most people understand what I mean by the terms. The problem with calling those from the Indian subcontinent (and others of similar phenotype from nearby areas) as Asians is that those the British refer to as Orientals are also Asians.
Until they show me what's on the table, I will not consider anything rebutted. The politicians can say all they want that xyz is not in the proposed treaty, but until they show me what is actually in the treaty, I won't believe them. Politicians often say that something is not in a bill or treaty or other document imposing government regulation and when you read the document, sure enough it isn't there. However, when you analyze what is there you discover that, while what they told you wasn't there isn't, the stuff that is there allows for them to just implement it at any time in the future that they choose without any further public notice.
The problem with saying that AGW theory calls for more snow is that it calls for increases in precipitation (and for increases in droughts, WTF?). However, the snow that the East Coast got this year is not an increase in precipitation, at least not in the area where I live. In the area where I live, we usually get quite a bit of rain/freezing rain this time of year. This year we got snow. The standard conversion of snow to rain is 10 inches of snow to one inch of rain. I have been unable to find an exact listing of how much snow we have had over January and February so far, however, we have had a total of just over 70 inches of snow since last July. We have had almost no rain this January or February (less than 1/2 inch), but our average rainfall for January and February is 6 inches, which means we are less than one inch above average precipitation levels for January and February (we had somewhere between 4 and 12 inches before the start of the new year). Over the last ten years we have had two or more years with drought concerns in the early to mid spring due to extremely low precipitation levels over the winter.
All of that means that precipitation levels appear to be within normal for this area, but the proportion that is snow is higher. This article says that precipitation levels (including snowfall) will be higher due to AGW.
Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies? I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them?
Because the EPA has limited statutory authority. Under one provision of the Clean Air Act if a new facility being built has the potential to emit 250 tons per year of CO2 it must receive a PSD permit from the EPA. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study estimates that 1.2 million previously unregulated buildings would fall under regulation on this basis. Under another provision of the Clean Air Act, any facility generating over 100 tons per year must file paperwork about their emissions and pay emmission fees of $43.50 per ton over 100 tons per year.
So, basically, the EPA does not have statutory authority to impose a flexible regulatory standard. If the EPA regulates CO2, current law says that they must impose similar regulatory policies to those which apply to sulfur dioxide.
My recollection of the numbers says that you are wrong, but I do not remember where I originally saw the breakdown of those numbers so I cannot look them up now. The numbers I gave above were a different compilation of data than my original source for saying that a larger percentage of homosexuals are pedophiles than heterosexuals. I did not closely look at the breakdown from that perspective, so my recollection may be incorrect.
You should spend some time investigating the numbers, not just homosexual versus heterosexual distribution. There is significant distortion in the way that incidents of pedophilia are reported. As an example, at the height of Catholic priests abusing children, if you were a Catholic with children in public schools, your children were statistically at greater risk of sexual abuse from their teacher than from their priest.
First, if they all do this at the same time that suggests collusion, which is a violation of existing anti-trust laws.
And when is the last time you saw those laws enforced?
There was an article on here sometime in the last two years about price fixing by the manufacturers of big screen TVs, so sometime in the last two years.
How soon kids forget the history. It is currently enforced that Net Neutrality happens. Those laws had a sunset clause. The ISP's and cableco's don't want any replacement laws.
So, despite your the "largely unregulated internet has gone on in mainstream for over a decade now, with no major problems," has been BECAUSE of the net neutrality laws in place for those decades, YOU come along and ask "why do we net netrality laws now?".
The answer, bub, is that the current net neutrality laws are ending. THAT is why you need them now.
What laws are those? Can you tell me what laws are ending that currently enforce network neutrality (or have recently ended)?
You are wrong. When cable (and before that telephone) started to roll out, the local governments in the major metropolitan areas decided that they didn't want lots of wires running through the area, so they passed laws granting local monopolies. When less densely populated areas wanted to get cable (and before that telephone) the cable companies said, "Sure, we'd be happy to run cable in your area. If you'll give us a monopoly contract for your area, so that nobody can come in and compete with us." It's a little more complicated than that as there were federal and state laws that were passed to make this legal (so that the local municipalities had the authority to forbid anyone else from running cable or telephone wire). When this happened there were lots of small players in the cable market. Over time some of them were more successful than others and they gradually bought up the smaller players (and their local monopoly deals). Once the major players got big enough, they changed the federal law taking away the local municipalities' authority to select who controlled the local monopoly. Theoretically they eliminated the local municipalities' authority to grant monopolies, but since those monopolies already existed in a defacto way, all they did was eliminate the local municipalities' ability to turn the local market over to a competitor.
One of the most common arguments that I hear out of net neutrality opponents is that competition will somehow keep most ISP's net neutral without any messy government regulation. But what happens if all the major ISP's start blocking certain sites (like Pirate Bay)?
There are two things about this. First, if they all do this at the same time that suggests collusion, which is a violation of existing anti-trust laws. Second, if your hypothetical comes to pass, that is the time to push for the institution of some kind of net neutrality regulations.
The problem with instituting government regulations for a problem you foresee occuring in the future (but that has not yet manifest itself), is that any government regulation will limit the options for future advances.
Basically, I think that Network Neutrality is a good idea, but am skeptical about governments ability to implement it by regulation without creating more problems than it solves. I think it is a good thing for there to be some people who keep the ISPs feet to the fire about network neutrality, but that it would be premature to institute such rules at this time. Remember, when new government regulations are implemented they almost always have big corporations among their major supporters.
'The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal, anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting, and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion.'
The thing is technology that we are aware of that existed when we were born and is still in use when we get old enough to really think about it is proven. It works and gets the job done.
When new technology is developed before we turn 35 (or some other age, it started to happen for me when I was in my 20s) we see its possibilities and how it will change the world. We tend not to see its short comings, or how it solves a problem that nobody has. Additionally, while we are in that age, we have to spend as much time learning how to use existing technology as we do new technology, so they are equal footing.
After 35 (or whatever age this revelation occurs to the individual), you start to see how some new technology has the same sort of problems that some previous "new" technology had such that the previous "new" technology never worked out. Additionally, new technology means you have to learn a new way to do something where you had mastered the old way.
You are mistaking his statement that he doesn't believe it for a statement that he believes it to be not true. All he is saying is that 2 cases are insufficient to draw a conclusion from. There are too many reasons why any one person might possibly be banned from Itunes to assume that the one thing (we know of) that two people who have been banned have in common is the reason they have been banned.
On the other hand it is entirely consistent with previous Apple behavior, so it may be true.
No, you are member #31156320. Keep it straight.
Once the price goes over $350, the machine in question is no longer a netbook it is a UMPC. Now I know that manufacturers want to sell UMPCs as netbooks because the UMPC market never really caught on. Of course the reason that UMPCs never developed a big market is because people don't want to pay a premium for a small PC. The reason that netbooks did is because they are cheap and cute. At less than $300, I can afford to buy something that doesn't have all of the functionality I would like. Once it costs more than $300, it starts to compete against fullblown notebook computers. At that price, why am I buying an underpowered computer when for a few dollars more I can get something that is a fully functioning laptop?
Yes, there are people for whom the small size is worth a premium, but they are a small market segment.
Basically, you are correct, the manufacturers are trying to use the inexpensive netbooks to drive traffic towards the more profitable, pricier ones. I believe that this is a strategy that will fail. If they continue down this path netbooks will become just another size option in laptop computers: 17", 15", 14", netbook (10", 9", 7"). Right now, netbooks are their own market segment and people don't generally compare capabilities against regular laptops. The direction that the manufacturers are going will change that.
That's simply not true. Proper, bug-free code should fail gracefully in the event of odd user behavior. It may be that random mashing of the keyboard will give the user some unexpected results but it should never cause the program to go into a state that it was not designed to go into, such as trying to access 0x00000000.
Absolutely, but until it gets into the hands of users, how do you know that you have arranged to have it fail gracefully in every combination of things that the user may do?
Yeah sure. Only open source developers care about their work. Anyone that gets paid wouldn't care enough to do a good job or do one iota more than they are paid to. All hail the open source saints.
Someone working for a company cares about what the company pays them to care about. If they spend time on something the company doesn't want them to, it will cause them to get a bad review and/or fired. A company paying someone to make open source software is going to care more about the code being clean than a company paying someone to make propietary software. this is because with open source software many more people will see the actual code than with propietary software and shoddily written code will reflect badly on the company.
None of this reflects on the work ethic, morals or ability of either the open source programmer or the proprietary source programmer. It is possible for these to be the same person and the analysis still applies.
The way I see things this is not a netbook. The pricing I was able to find is over $400. That makes this a small notebook. As far as I am concerned a netbook is a 10" or smaller screen and under $400. This market was created with computers in the $250 to $300 range. This is the second "netbook" I have seen in the last month that is approaching $500. The manufacturers don't seem to understand that a large part of what created the buzz around netbooks was the price.
I suppose I would have a problem. That's not the point.
That is the point and it was the point I made in my original post, which you had so much problem with. I didn't say that it was right that he could get no other job. I said that when you have only one skill, it would be wise not to abuse the trust people put in you when you make use of that skill. And that it is not surprising that people won't trust you again after you have so abused someone's trust.
What assumption? There have been several cases of homosexual men who have been convicted of pedophilia who were in active homosexual relationships.