:) The point of my little side-note is not that I would willingly provide information to be used in an investigation against me, at least not without a lawyer's ok. My point was, If I am being investigated for a crime I did not commit, I want the investigation to be as thorough and accurate as possible in order to come away completely free of suspicion. So should you, frankly. If the investigators gather enough evidence to convince a jury, but then stop gathering more, guess who's just as fucked as if you actually committed the crime? The converse point is I also want investigations in which a suspect is actually guilty of the crime to be as thorough and accurate as possible, too, to be as sure as possible that nobody's jailing an innocent person. Since nobody knows who's guilty and who's not except the suspect, ALL investigations should be as thorough and accurate as possible, without any bias either way in the data collection. That's the absolute ideal to shoot for.
As seen in other of my posts, I, myself, strongly advocate clamming up as tight as you can the moment an investigation begins, even if you're innocent, because, basically, you are the weakest link in their case. It's all too easy to say something and then contradict yourself, even without being pressured to do so, let alone in cuffs. I stand by this even considering that I've worked side-by-side with hundreds of police agencies while supporting and maintain their law-enforcement database software. I actually trust most cops to do the best job they can, but a) I'm not going to help them convict me, b) they have too much power not to bring their A game to every single investigation, and c) mistakes are made in all professions, but in this one, a mistake can destroy a life.
Frankly, phone companies with a fervor for fixing frustration and financial feasibility really need to free us to flood our phones at a flat fee for the foreseeable future while factoring in a fleet and fixed.... uh.... flandwidth (?).
Maybe alliteration will help them remember. Shrug.
I don't like this either, actually. It would be a better solution than being stuck in the contract, surely, but I'm still inconvenienced by the changed contract. In other contractual situations (divorce, building a home, buying a car, whatever) a party that changes the contract is typically responsible for providing a damn good reason for why the change is happening in the first place, and in cases where the contract is no longer tenable, the offending party pays up. As in:
"If either party fails, without reasonable cause, to comply with the terms of this Agreement, then the other party may give written notice requiring the default to be ended. If the default continues for 7 days after receipt of the notice then the employment of the Building Contractor may be terminated upon receipt by the defaulting party of a further written notice stating that the employment of the Building Contractor is terminated forthwith. The Building Contractor will then be entitled to payment for work carried out that is reasonable in all the circumstances of the determination, provided that the Householder may deduct reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining a new Contractor if the Building Contractor was the only defaulting party."
Note that last line? In legalese, the "Householder" gets to take the money for a new contractor right outta the original contractor's pocket (within reason, of course).
These "contracts" we all sign for our phones aren't really contracts, at all; that would mean that a thing of mutual benefit or interest to 2 or more parties is being officially agreed upon. If they were, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, or whoever would owe ME money for every dropped call, EULA change, or asshole customer service rep, the fucks. But I guess there's no real reason to supply a reasonably reliable service at an agreed upon rate with a friendly smile these days. Bah.
On the other hand, I wonder if I can start charging my print shop's customers for the bandwidth I use to send their images to my printers. It's just ripe for the picking. Hmm.
Ha! Agreed about the chat room, and there are certainly reasons why chat-roulette is just a bunch of video-wieners.
However, I'd argue that men are, generally more visual and public with their sexuality than women, and are drawn to mediums that allow them to behave as such (I am aware I'm breaking my own rule about generalizing, here, but stay with me). I like your example of the bar much better, where both the strutting peacocks and the sultry kittens can ply their trades with equal chance of success. The ones I frequent are filled with women that are just as competitive as the men, it's just that the competition is far more subtle, and, as you point out, women do tend have more and better choices available to them. Still, I often see women choosing the same target, and THAT is amusing to watch - doubly so as the vodka flows. It's especially amazing when the target doesn't know it's going on, because, as men, we sometimes miss the cues. My girl LOVES pointing out the things I missed when we're out; and the sneaky sabotage is absolutely jaw-dropping sometimes. Still, I think these behaviors result from a frothy mix of cultural expectations and biological tendencies. Things change once you get into a committed, monogamous relationship; this is most noticeable, right around the time she starts farting for you on the couch during Mad Men. Once you can both laugh at this, the chase has (naturally) concluded, and sexuality is hopefully something to be safely explored without expectations or limitations. Time to get that freak on, as they say!
It's also particularly interesting to watch "the chase" occur when the sexual orientation lines are blurred. If you want to see how little we really know about how humans separate their mates from the pack, hit up a gay bar (for either sex). Chances are, you'll be welcomed, chatted up, and then promptly ignored, allowing you to observe in peace (just don't be creepy). There are a great many similarities to the hetero chase, some of which follow classic gender roles, but so many of the rules we think we know get tossed right the fuck out the window. It's rather freeing to see it happen, and can serve as a lesson to be yourself instead of who it seems like you should be (mom was right all along!).
Back on point, though. You mention that women are hardwired differently, visually, and I accept that (and embrace it!). But, in a broad sense, I also embrace that women like sex every bit as much as men, and that all people are unique and unpredictable creatures. From what I've experienced, have been told, can intuit, and know about myself, women fantasize, masturbate, watch porn, and enjoy sexual release every bit as much as men. The general difference is one of expression AND degree, I think, but that's true if you compare any two people, gender not required. It's unreasonable to think that what interests a man and what interests a woman will be same, but then again, it's also unreasonable to think that what interests one woman will interest all women, too. And that, my friend, is a big part of why we look so hard for the kitten that best fits our peacock.
Now, perhaps we should move back to reading posts about 1995's computers and how laughable 8 Mb of memory is.
I think you're focusing too much on the biological hard-wiring macro point of view, and it's very, very dangerous to bring that type of thinking to an individual level. I liked how you pointed out your awareness of exceptions, but it's absolutely NOT wise to make psychological-level assumptions based on sociological-level statistics. You could be missing out on the greatest opportunities of your life, or you could just end up looking like an presumptive asshole.
Your best bet in this case is actually to explore sexuality with an individual woman (actually, that should read "partner", the same is true for dudes) to find out what she "gets off on", instead of assuming how likely she is to desire certain characteristics in a mate or her porn. Any woman you meet *could* be just as freaky about porn as any guy you know, while on the other hand, lots of dudes shy away from it as quickly the woman you refer to. Also, minor variations on specific characteristics or acts can change something that is unpleasant into something that's hot as hell (i.e. the porn could be unpleasant entirely because of fake moans; turn the sound off and ta-da!). And, of course, there are many, many people who may not even KNOW if they like something because they've yet to be introduced to it. That's part of the fun. For what it's worth, in my own experience, I have never, ever, ever met a woman that isn't interested in some part of the wide variation of naked people touching each other that exists on film, unless for religious reasons, which have nothing to do with gender. I've even been surprised by this in the past because I made my own assumptions without even realizing I had done so.
It's not about political correctness, and it's not about probability, and it's most definitely not about knowing things about people you've never met. It's about making sure you never, ever, ever pigeon-hole a person based on statistics, no matter how reliable the numbers seem. You should, instead, always make your own judgement based on your own personal experience with that person, and this is true for gender, race, sexual orientation, age, geological location, or any of the other bazillion demographics we like to put people into. I've found this actually frees me to have whatever opinion I want about anybody, without any outside pressure whatsoever. It's just: "that guy's an ass" or "that dude's badass" or "this girl is TOTALLY into the same porn I am!" instead of "I can't hate him for being a dick because he looks kind of Asian (or white, or black, or whatever) and then I have to worry if I'm racist! Ohnoes!"
Most of us have read the same studies you have, and they do provide valuable and useful data on overall sexual trends (by the way, I doubt, outside of fraternities, there are many double blind sex-periments being done these days, so what we think we know is mostly based on what people are willing to say. This probably explains why Cosmopolitan thinks I want my balls yanked on... but I digress). That in no way means this data is useful in a one-on-one situation. Statistics are used to track trends and it should be considered socially unacceptable to use them for any other purpose than this.
If we simplify the case to something more basic, say, a bicycle theft, there's an effective difference between knowing someone stole my bike versus seeing my bike in their garage. There's absolutely a good reason for giving a jury as much evidence as possible when it comes to a trial; the more evidence you have, the more clear-cut the case is, so, from a prosecution standpoint, more is always better.
The issue, to me, isn't whether going after more evidence of a crime is unnecessary; law enforcement should always try to get as much evidence as they possibly can. The issue is how far a law enforcement agency can go to get more evidence. (Sidenote: If I'm actually innocent of a crime I'm ever accused of, I surely and truly HOPE they collect all the evidence they can, because it will eventually point AWAY from me, assuming ethical data collection).
A bit of a nitpick: Jack Bauer and Dick Cheney taught me that:
the law is there to stop the police from torturing you and beating out a false confession.
is actually a subset of
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself
I actually agree with you both, though. Police-work, done as intended, is good for communities, but over-reaching and scouring someone's mind for incriminating evidence is a scary precedent. At the end of the day, I'm not sure demanding an encryption password reaches that level, but it does starts us on a strange path. Still, I don't think any groundbreaking or new legal thought processes should have been necessary to arrive at this decision.
If we take the computer, instead, as a potential human witness to a crime that the suspect knows, can the police ask the suspect give up the witness' location? Yeah, they can, and they do it all the time. Can they ask that the suspect translate the witness' language for them, if both suspect and witness speak, say, Hungarian? Of course they can ask. In relation to other, less computer-y crimes, can they ask a suspect tell them where he ditched the gun they think he used, or the body they think he dumped? Yup, again, of course they can ask this info. But, in all those cases, the suspect can (and probably should, if he's smart) refuse to provide answers to their questions.
I think the appeals court made the right decision, and it has nothing to do with "forgetting" the password. The police should be able to ask for the information they want; that's just good police-work, and if the suspect is willing to talk, by all means, they should be able to ask questions as they listen. They are just forbidden to cross certain boundaries to get at info the suspect is unwilling or unable to provide. And this is why, if you are arrested for anything big, you should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS say NOTHING until you contact a lawyer, and then allow HIM to do as much of your communication as you can. Unless, of course, it is your intention is to confess to a crime (and even in that bizzarro-land situation, I'd call a lawyer).
Tell me about it. While it would have been worse to stay together, even for our kids, my ex and I had to choose the lesser of evils. They're little champs, and they love the whole "Two Christmases!" thing, but it definitely hasn't been easy.
One thing I have to disagree with you on, though, is that my girls are more likely to be divorced, themselves. I simply must believe they're not, statistics be damned. I'll be prepared to support them (as I am in all things), but that's a misery I don't want to even think about. And yes, it's a head-in-the-sand defense mechanism, for sure. Still, at least I have the opportunity to try to teach them the why of it all, and maybe that really will affect their relationship decisions for the better.
As someone who is both divorced and a child of divorce, I've seen both sides. I'll leave my detailed anecdotal evidence out, and instead say this: I'm absolutely convinced that dissolving a marriage (or perhaps better put, a relationship that was "all-in") leads to some of the worst pain and loss a person can feel, no matter if it's the "right" move, or even if the initial decision is mutual and easy.
In a divorce, a person has to grieve for the loss of the relationship (NOT the same as the loss of the spouse) and the loss of an entire way of life, while, at the same time, dealing with all the underlying bullshit of a divorce. Stuff like paperwork, custody, divvying of stuff and debts, finding a new place to live, a new bed to sleep on, maybe a car, who keeps the turtle and who gets the dog, plus stuff like figuring out alimony, child support, who claims who on taxes, and about a billion other minutiae. While dealing with this, they *should* be attempting to suppress all emotional outbursts and backstabbing behavior (especially with regards to the kids). Failing at this last bit is where all the negative anecdotal stories comes from. Accomplishing a smooth divorce with all this shit going at the same time requires a near super-human amount of effort from BOTH parties, and if there are kids, it's an ongoing, never-ending self-discipline that must be learned and practiced at all times. Believe it or not, it doesn't help the kids (like, not even a little) to know that Mommy's a cheating whore, or that Daddy puts crushed smarties in his nose before work. Also, sometimes, one party should just decide to give up on a lot of things they want - things like the LCD, or being "right", or sole legal custody - in order to get what they need - which are things like joint physical and legal custody. (pop quiz: Guess which one I was, as a male father in Utah? I digress).
Of course, it gets much, much easier with time, and as various milestones are reached. Many people can end up being friends later on (my ex and I are, actually, though we still piss each other off sometimes; there are reasons we split). This friendship actually concerns my girlfriend (I think that concern is absolutely hilarious, but I do try to be sensitive). But we, as I'm sure most divorced parents learn to do at some point, still put a lot of work in to put that happy smile on things. I think the best possible way to teach people how to negotiate is to force people to go through a divorce involving kids amicably.
Anyway, my point is: If you do it right, over time, your kids won't see how difficult the divorce was; it'll just seem like a "meh" type thing to them. I know that's how my folks' divorce seemed, until I got to chatting with my mom during my own (my dad died many years prior). I feel pretty safe declaring no divorce is peachy-keen with peppermint hugs and rainbow butterflies in the beginning.
Hmm. It's really too bad then - seems like the major developers are taking what could be the best job in the world, and crushing it into a fine powder of sadness and broken dreams. I don't doubt pressures from publishers motivate this behavior, at least in part. Go go gadget Kickstarter, I guess.
Many, many, MANY industrial software companies use hardware copy protection. You can build several layers of copy protection around and in lieu of the key (in case a dongle emulator come around).
The software company I worked for used them ($10-15k per copy of the software) and my little print shop computer has 5 plugged in as I type this. Pretty common stuff, and way better than DRM, which just pisses your customers off. They key, at least, makes sense to them; just make sure to inform them that it is the heart of their software; it should be insured against damage, loss, and theft (otherwise, all your customers could claim they "lose" their key every time they need a new copy of the software).
I have to wonder at this. I don't want to try to refute your post, but I hear very, very often that developing games is brutal, backbreaking, 60 hour per week work, and so all the people working in game development are miserable. But I do brutal, backbreaking, 60 hour per week work, and I love it. I run a print shop, and seeing my work roll off the lot, or hanging around town, or as displays at my favorite stores is a source of pride, not misery, for me.
I don't have to be here 60 hours (or more) every single week, maybe only 75% of the time, especially as I get close to completion on a big job, or when I have a very delicate and expensive piece to work with, but I often want to be here even when I don't have to be. When I am, my job's much easier, and I can take real, stress-free vacations when I know all my ducks are in a row.
What is it about developing a game that just seems to break so many programmers' spirits? It seems like putting in the time to make your game perfect would be something to take pride in, but more often than not people in the gaming industry make it sound like programming a game is like working for Foxconn.
I went from managing the GUI and color pipeline QA department for a company that made large format printing software, to managing a print shop. I've never been happier.
I was glad I found a way to use the skills I spent so long developing, and re-focusing my energy in an area I really, really enjoy. The skillsets don't really overlap all THAT much, but enough is similar that it was a comfortable transition. Remember, the software you're developing DOES something, and to be a good developer, you must have a fairly deep understanding of whatever that something is. If you can find a way to enjoy the industry you're writing software for, it's a logical switch.
The one thing I'd strongly suggest regardless of what you leave to do, and that I myself need to be better at, is keeping your old skills up-to-date. You'll always need a trade-skill, and if you can show that you contributed to projects to keep your skills active, it won't be as hard to put on your developer shoes again as it will if you don't even open your IDE for next 5 years.
I think the original post should have been modded "interesting" instead of "informative" because it actually is. Informative is a stretch, though the AC did "inform" us of a semi-relevant scriptural quote. Still, it's only interesting in the way that Nostradamus' predictions are interesting. The verse quoted is a (nearly?) coincidental correlation to a recent observation that we don't have a good answer for. Like Nostradamus' work, it's seems sort of close at first glance, but it's not perfect, it's vaguely stated, and it's just one verse hunted for, in a book of many many thousands of verses, specifically for the purpose of providing a coincidence. The verse isn't statistically or scientifically interesting at all; it's just regular old interesting to some people.
As for the responses, people started arguing the merits of just how interesting the verse is, pointing out discrepancies or contradictions in the argument, explaining their take on what the verse was supposed to mean, and, maybe, defending their beliefs.
After that first post, the discussion left TFA and became a conversation on what, why and how the Garden of Eden parable could exist vs why it could not have. Think of it like a discussion about how to make lightsabers. It might be an interesting discussion, and a possibly a good exercise for your debate muscle, but in the end, the "right" nonsensical answer just doesn't matter.
how do you know there were any lions (or lambs) in the Garden?
Because of all the paintings that were hanging on my church walls, of course. You had some lions, some lambs, some trees, some naked white people, some fig leafs... it was captured all lifelike and whatnot.;)
Actually, I remember specific lessons that taught there was no strife, conflict, death, or disease in the Garden of Eden, and the lion laying with the lamb was a specific example of this. To be 100% fair, I also remember being taught that the whole story of the Garden of Eden was just a metaphor that went something like this:
Without strife, we cannot grow. True innocence (i.e. pre-apple) means not knowing (the tree of knowledge gave up the apple) there are obstacles to overcome. This means that no growth can occur when life is like the Garden of Eden example. It also means that, for the parable to have made any sense and be applicable to us, Eve, as a character in the parable, was destined to eat the apple so our world had the opportunity struggle, and therefore, to grow.
Like a lot of things I learned in church, searching for what a lesson or parable or scripture was actually meant to teach can actually provide some value, but way too many try to apply way too many things literally in bids for way too much control. This is part of why I used my get-out-of-religion card a long time ago.
Being divorced myself, I can tell you that there's no perfect way to divide physical property, let alone digital and intellectual property. No matter what rules you set up front, there are gonna be exceptions. You're better off each just going through (alone) and making a list of the things you want, prioritized. Don't bother listing the stuff you don't want (or if it's digital or intellectual, list it somewhere without assigning a priority). Do not allow each other to see these lists, at least not until ALL items are divided.
Then, set a time you can meet for 2 hours. During this meeting, go through the house start by dividing the stuff that neither of you want, just to get it out of the way (in fact, you could just offer it all to your spouse so you don't have to move or deal with it). If an item that was on either list gets divvied up here, check it off the list, but do NOT look at each other's lists; it could foul up the way this works, maybe even subconsciously.
Next, play it like the opening bit of a game of Risk. Each of you goes every other turn, starting from the bottom of your respective priority lists, making a claim on the item. If you run across an item that you simply can't agree about, set it aside for later. DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT IT NOW. Just set it aside. Continue on, working your way to the top. As you get closer to the top, expect to agree less, as these items will probably be more desirable to both of you, but keep going, and again, do not fight yet. Agree at the outset to just set stuff that you don't agree on aside for later. Be grownups.
This technique will leave you with just 10 or 20 "biggies" that you set aside. It'll be a fair way to pare things down, and removes the hundreds or thousands of items that WILL obfuscate the entire process if not dealt with first. From here you can negotiate, and if necessary, fight over them. Be prepared to let things go in trade, or altogether, if necessary. It's just shit, at the end of the day. I let a LOT of things go and don't regret it for a second. I stuck to my guns on things I really did need in the aftermath (my computer, a tv, the guest bed, etc), but more importantly, I kept my sanity by letting a lot of it go instead of extending the divorce process to fight over a bunch of stuff. If you still can't work things out after 2 hours, take a break for a few days to think about it. Then tackle it fresh. Don't spend more than 2 hours negotiating though; after a while it's just a waste of time that causes even more resentment.
Especially if you don't get along, trust me, all of the combined stuff isn't worth as much it seems, while getting out quick and being able to work on your new (free!!!!!) life is worth much, much more that it seems.
Not only do I agree with you on this, but I can take it a step further and tackle both sides of the argument, I think. This topic gets me pretty riled up, so be forewarned.
I have me the bi-polar disorder, and early on was (very, very wrongly) prescribed Vyvance (a time-released amphetamine, as opposed to Adderall, which is instant-release). Worked great on the depressed side of things, and even the occasional short term manic side, for months, as it would focus my energy like a laser beam. During my more classic long term manic symptoms, though, it was like pouring gasoline on a fire to try to put it out, and my doc's response was to increase the dosage! It messed me up pretty bad; I lost a job, and then my house, to a stupid drug. I don't know how to define this situation other than a doctor-sanctioned addiction; the doc encouraged me to abuse the fuck outta the drug, so I rationalized and did so, until I finally clawed my way out of it (of which I'm very, very proud and thankful). The doc eventually lost his license; apparently he was pushing Vyvance or Adderall on all his patients, regardless of diagnosis. So, I do know little bit, personally, about an amp addiction that spans years, and I know that, yes, there are docs that push it like candy.
Even looking at what happened, I went into it knowing that sometimes drugs succeed, sometimes they fail, and sometimes they work for a bit and then don't work anymore. Sometimes they even fail in a spectacular fashion, and sometimes they are addicting. None of it matters, though, because I really do need to find a balance. The amps were absolutely amazing for a long time, until I found that they were causing damage I didn't expect. By then I was in too deep to stop taking them easily. The key is, I need to manage my head badly enough that it was worth the risk of addiction to see if the drug worked.
Without medication, I truly am serious threat to myself and others - and not because I'll kill them or beat them or steal from them or whatever-the-fuck the psycho-killers do. Rather, the threat is spending all my or my wife's money, or hurting someone's feelings unintentionally, or ignoring my kids' needs, or being generally pissed off all the time, or being sad and hopeless all the time, or ignoring financial responsibilities, etc. It may sound as if this isn't that big of a deal, but I can tell you, life simply isn't worth living if it's like that, and the overwhelming feelings of guilt for feeling that way are monstrously debilitating. I also find it interesting how closely these symptoms describe many stereotypical working men, or depressed housewives, from the 50s.
Guess what? I can probably "survive" without my (correct) meds just fine, so long as I don't let my head get away from me, much like those guys and gals in the 50s did. But wait..... you say they used opiates to treat these folks in the 50s?..... damn the luck. Ok, let's look at the 20s! Wait, wait.... uh-oh. Freud and his cocaine and psychoanalysis. Son of a bitch. Let's just skip all the way back to the 1800s then... oh... really? They used to isolate severely depressed and otherwise mentally ill folks from the rest of their family, only letting them come back after "snapping out of it"? The only alternative being to just leave their families permanently? Dang.... could this mean that depression and other psychological ailments aren't the new-fangled concepts so many people believe, after all? Nah, then we couldn't be all self-righteous about the rampant abuse of drugs like Adderall, and demand access be limited even further, instead of demanding improvements in dispensation, side-effect studies, doctor involvement in those taking these drugs, early warning signs of failed treatment and drug addiction, and most of all, studies on which ailments these drugs actually treat. People don't demand restrictions on which injuries qualify for which pain medications; instead they're happy to let qualified doctors find which medications relieve pain be
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, the police can start putting the REAL Apple logos on state-sponsored stoves, making sure they get their piece of the pie. Meta-win!
Lord knows that modification would be very useful to you, but do you really want to risk violating the EULA with your creator?
Ha! Good job, sir. Your post also made me ponder the difficulty of cracking DRM eggs.
to succeed in marketing one must have no idea what they heck they are talking about
I don't know about that.... the fact that this type of marketing works seems to say a lot more about consumers than marketers.
:) The point of my little side-note is not that I would willingly provide information to be used in an investigation against me, at least not without a lawyer's ok. My point was, If I am being investigated for a crime I did not commit, I want the investigation to be as thorough and accurate as possible in order to come away completely free of suspicion. So should you, frankly. If the investigators gather enough evidence to convince a jury, but then stop gathering more, guess who's just as fucked as if you actually committed the crime? The converse point is I also want investigations in which a suspect is actually guilty of the crime to be as thorough and accurate as possible, too, to be as sure as possible that nobody's jailing an innocent person. Since nobody knows who's guilty and who's not except the suspect, ALL investigations should be as thorough and accurate as possible, without any bias either way in the data collection. That's the absolute ideal to shoot for.
As seen in other of my posts, I, myself, strongly advocate clamming up as tight as you can the moment an investigation begins, even if you're innocent, because, basically, you are the weakest link in their case. It's all too easy to say something and then contradict yourself, even without being pressured to do so, let alone in cuffs. I stand by this even considering that I've worked side-by-side with hundreds of police agencies while supporting and maintain their law-enforcement database software. I actually trust most cops to do the best job they can, but a) I'm not going to help them convict me, b) they have too much power not to bring their A game to every single investigation, and c) mistakes are made in all professions, but in this one, a mistake can destroy a life.
Flatly agree with Fork on this one, Fred.
Frankly, phone companies with a fervor for fixing frustration and financial feasibility really need to free us to flood our phones at a flat fee for the foreseeable future while factoring in a fleet and fixed.... uh.... flandwidth (?).
Maybe alliteration will help them remember. Shrug.
Neither does a study in future usage projections, but they should have done that 10 years ago, too.
I don't like this either, actually. It would be a better solution than being stuck in the contract, surely, but I'm still inconvenienced by the changed contract. In other contractual situations (divorce, building a home, buying a car, whatever) a party that changes the contract is typically responsible for providing a damn good reason for why the change is happening in the first place, and in cases where the contract is no longer tenable, the offending party pays up. As in:
"If either party fails, without reasonable cause, to comply with the terms of this Agreement, then the other party may give written notice requiring the default to be ended. If the default continues for 7 days after receipt of the notice then the employment of the Building Contractor may be terminated upon receipt by the defaulting party of a further written notice stating that the employment of the Building Contractor is terminated forthwith. The Building Contractor will then be entitled to payment for work carried out that is reasonable in all the circumstances of the determination, provided that the Householder may deduct reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining a new Contractor if the Building Contractor was the only defaulting party."
Note that last line? In legalese, the "Householder" gets to take the money for a new contractor right outta the original contractor's pocket (within reason, of course).
These "contracts" we all sign for our phones aren't really contracts, at all; that would mean that a thing of mutual benefit or interest to 2 or more parties is being officially agreed upon. If they were, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, or whoever would owe ME money for every dropped call, EULA change, or asshole customer service rep, the fucks. But I guess there's no real reason to supply a reasonably reliable service at an agreed upon rate with a friendly smile these days. Bah.
On the other hand, I wonder if I can start charging my print shop's customers for the bandwidth I use to send their images to my printers. It's just ripe for the picking. Hmm.
Ha! Agreed about the chat room, and there are certainly reasons why chat-roulette is just a bunch of video-wieners.
However, I'd argue that men are, generally more visual and public with their sexuality than women, and are drawn to mediums that allow them to behave as such (I am aware I'm breaking my own rule about generalizing, here, but stay with me). I like your example of the bar much better, where both the strutting peacocks and the sultry kittens can ply their trades with equal chance of success. The ones I frequent are filled with women that are just as competitive as the men, it's just that the competition is far more subtle, and, as you point out, women do tend have more and better choices available to them. Still, I often see women choosing the same target, and THAT is amusing to watch - doubly so as the vodka flows. It's especially amazing when the target doesn't know it's going on, because, as men, we sometimes miss the cues. My girl LOVES pointing out the things I missed when we're out; and the sneaky sabotage is absolutely jaw-dropping sometimes. Still, I think these behaviors result from a frothy mix of cultural expectations and biological tendencies. Things change once you get into a committed, monogamous relationship; this is most noticeable, right around the time she starts farting for you on the couch during Mad Men. Once you can both laugh at this, the chase has (naturally) concluded, and sexuality is hopefully something to be safely explored without expectations or limitations. Time to get that freak on, as they say!
It's also particularly interesting to watch "the chase" occur when the sexual orientation lines are blurred. If you want to see how little we really know about how humans separate their mates from the pack, hit up a gay bar (for either sex). Chances are, you'll be welcomed, chatted up, and then promptly ignored, allowing you to observe in peace (just don't be creepy). There are a great many similarities to the hetero chase, some of which follow classic gender roles, but so many of the rules we think we know get tossed right the fuck out the window. It's rather freeing to see it happen, and can serve as a lesson to be yourself instead of who it seems like you should be (mom was right all along!).
Back on point, though. You mention that women are hardwired differently, visually, and I accept that (and embrace it!). But, in a broad sense, I also embrace that women like sex every bit as much as men, and that all people are unique and unpredictable creatures. From what I've experienced, have been told, can intuit, and know about myself, women fantasize, masturbate, watch porn, and enjoy sexual release every bit as much as men. The general difference is one of expression AND degree, I think, but that's true if you compare any two people, gender not required. It's unreasonable to think that what interests a man and what interests a woman will be same, but then again, it's also unreasonable to think that what interests one woman will interest all women, too. And that, my friend, is a big part of why we look so hard for the kitten that best fits our peacock.
Now, perhaps we should move back to reading posts about 1995's computers and how laughable 8 Mb of memory is.
I think you're focusing too much on the biological hard-wiring macro point of view, and it's very, very dangerous to bring that type of thinking to an individual level. I liked how you pointed out your awareness of exceptions, but it's absolutely NOT wise to make psychological-level assumptions based on sociological-level statistics. You could be missing out on the greatest opportunities of your life, or you could just end up looking like an presumptive asshole.
Your best bet in this case is actually to explore sexuality with an individual woman (actually, that should read "partner", the same is true for dudes) to find out what she "gets off on", instead of assuming how likely she is to desire certain characteristics in a mate or her porn. Any woman you meet *could* be just as freaky about porn as any guy you know, while on the other hand, lots of dudes shy away from it as quickly the woman you refer to. Also, minor variations on specific characteristics or acts can change something that is unpleasant into something that's hot as hell (i.e. the porn could be unpleasant entirely because of fake moans; turn the sound off and ta-da!). And, of course, there are many, many people who may not even KNOW if they like something because they've yet to be introduced to it. That's part of the fun. For what it's worth, in my own experience, I have never, ever, ever met a woman that isn't interested in some part of the wide variation of naked people touching each other that exists on film, unless for religious reasons, which have nothing to do with gender. I've even been surprised by this in the past because I made my own assumptions without even realizing I had done so.
It's not about political correctness, and it's not about probability, and it's most definitely not about knowing things about people you've never met. It's about making sure you never, ever, ever pigeon-hole a person based on statistics, no matter how reliable the numbers seem. You should, instead, always make your own judgement based on your own personal experience with that person, and this is true for gender, race, sexual orientation, age, geological location, or any of the other bazillion demographics we like to put people into. I've found this actually frees me to have whatever opinion I want about anybody, without any outside pressure whatsoever. It's just: "that guy's an ass" or "that dude's badass" or "this girl is TOTALLY into the same porn I am!" instead of "I can't hate him for being a dick because he looks kind of Asian (or white, or black, or whatever) and then I have to worry if I'm racist! Ohnoes!"
Most of us have read the same studies you have, and they do provide valuable and useful data on overall sexual trends (by the way, I doubt, outside of fraternities, there are many double blind sex-periments being done these days, so what we think we know is mostly based on what people are willing to say. This probably explains why Cosmopolitan thinks I want my balls yanked on... but I digress). That in no way means this data is useful in a one-on-one situation. Statistics are used to track trends and it should be considered socially unacceptable to use them for any other purpose than this.
"lolol you both said gap rofl!"
There ARE some things haven't changed since 1995.
I don't know about that....
If we simplify the case to something more basic, say, a bicycle theft, there's an effective difference between knowing someone stole my bike versus seeing my bike in their garage. There's absolutely a good reason for giving a jury as much evidence as possible when it comes to a trial; the more evidence you have, the more clear-cut the case is, so, from a prosecution standpoint, more is always better.
The issue, to me, isn't whether going after more evidence of a crime is unnecessary; law enforcement should always try to get as much evidence as they possibly can. The issue is how far a law enforcement agency can go to get more evidence. (Sidenote: If I'm actually innocent of a crime I'm ever accused of, I surely and truly HOPE they collect all the evidence they can, because it will eventually point AWAY from me, assuming ethical data collection).
the law is there to stop the police from torturing you and beating out a false confession.
is actually a subset of
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself
I actually agree with you both, though. Police-work, done as intended, is good for communities, but over-reaching and scouring someone's mind for incriminating evidence is a scary precedent. At the end of the day, I'm not sure demanding an encryption password reaches that level, but it does starts us on a strange path. Still, I don't think any groundbreaking or new legal thought processes should have been necessary to arrive at this decision.
If we take the computer, instead, as a potential human witness to a crime that the suspect knows, can the police ask the suspect give up the witness' location? Yeah, they can, and they do it all the time. Can they ask that the suspect translate the witness' language for them, if both suspect and witness speak, say, Hungarian? Of course they can ask. In relation to other, less computer-y crimes, can they ask a suspect tell them where he ditched the gun they think he used, or the body they think he dumped? Yup, again, of course they can ask this info. But, in all those cases, the suspect can (and probably should, if he's smart) refuse to provide answers to their questions.
I think the appeals court made the right decision, and it has nothing to do with "forgetting" the password. The police should be able to ask for the information they want; that's just good police-work, and if the suspect is willing to talk, by all means, they should be able to ask questions as they listen. They are just forbidden to cross certain boundaries to get at info the suspect is unwilling or unable to provide. And this is why, if you are arrested for anything big, you should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS say NOTHING until you contact a lawyer, and then allow HIM to do as much of your communication as you can. Unless, of course, it is your intention is to confess to a crime (and even in that bizzarro-land situation, I'd call a lawyer).
Tell me about it. While it would have been worse to stay together, even for our kids, my ex and I had to choose the lesser of evils. They're little champs, and they love the whole "Two Christmases!" thing, but it definitely hasn't been easy.
One thing I have to disagree with you on, though, is that my girls are more likely to be divorced, themselves. I simply must believe they're not, statistics be damned. I'll be prepared to support them (as I am in all things), but that's a misery I don't want to even think about. And yes, it's a head-in-the-sand defense mechanism, for sure. Still, at least I have the opportunity to try to teach them the why of it all, and maybe that really will affect their relationship decisions for the better.
As someone who is both divorced and a child of divorce, I've seen both sides. I'll leave my detailed anecdotal evidence out, and instead say this: I'm absolutely convinced that dissolving a marriage (or perhaps better put, a relationship that was "all-in") leads to some of the worst pain and loss a person can feel, no matter if it's the "right" move, or even if the initial decision is mutual and easy.
In a divorce, a person has to grieve for the loss of the relationship (NOT the same as the loss of the spouse) and the loss of an entire way of life, while, at the same time, dealing with all the underlying bullshit of a divorce. Stuff like paperwork, custody, divvying of stuff and debts, finding a new place to live, a new bed to sleep on, maybe a car, who keeps the turtle and who gets the dog, plus stuff like figuring out alimony, child support, who claims who on taxes, and about a billion other minutiae. While dealing with this, they *should* be attempting to suppress all emotional outbursts and backstabbing behavior (especially with regards to the kids). Failing at this last bit is where all the negative anecdotal stories comes from. Accomplishing a smooth divorce with all this shit going at the same time requires a near super-human amount of effort from BOTH parties, and if there are kids, it's an ongoing, never-ending self-discipline that must be learned and practiced at all times. Believe it or not, it doesn't help the kids (like, not even a little) to know that Mommy's a cheating whore, or that Daddy puts crushed smarties in his nose before work. Also, sometimes, one party should just decide to give up on a lot of things they want - things like the LCD, or being "right", or sole legal custody - in order to get what they need - which are things like joint physical and legal custody. (pop quiz: Guess which one I was, as a male father in Utah? I digress).
Of course, it gets much, much easier with time, and as various milestones are reached. Many people can end up being friends later on (my ex and I are, actually, though we still piss each other off sometimes; there are reasons we split). This friendship actually concerns my girlfriend (I think that concern is absolutely hilarious, but I do try to be sensitive). But we, as I'm sure most divorced parents learn to do at some point, still put a lot of work in to put that happy smile on things. I think the best possible way to teach people how to negotiate is to force people to go through a divorce involving kids amicably.
Anyway, my point is: If you do it right, over time, your kids won't see how difficult the divorce was; it'll just seem like a "meh" type thing to them. I know that's how my folks' divorce seemed, until I got to chatting with my mom during my own (my dad died many years prior). I feel pretty safe declaring no divorce is peachy-keen with peppermint hugs and rainbow butterflies in the beginning.
Hmm. It's really too bad then - seems like the major developers are taking what could be the best job in the world, and crushing it into a fine powder of sadness and broken dreams. I don't doubt pressures from publishers motivate this behavior, at least in part. Go go gadget Kickstarter, I guess.
http://www.safenet-inc.com/
Many, many, MANY industrial software companies use hardware copy protection. You can build several layers of copy protection around and in lieu of the key (in case a dongle emulator come around).
The software company I worked for used them ($10-15k per copy of the software) and my little print shop computer has 5 plugged in as I type this. Pretty common stuff, and way better than DRM, which just pisses your customers off. They key, at least, makes sense to them; just make sure to inform them that it is the heart of their software; it should be insured against damage, loss, and theft (otherwise, all your customers could claim they "lose" their key every time they need a new copy of the software).
I lost both hands and both eyes in just one extremely unfortunate masturbatory incident, you insensitive clod!
(It was so worth it though)
I have to wonder at this. I don't want to try to refute your post, but I hear very, very often that developing games is brutal, backbreaking, 60 hour per week work, and so all the people working in game development are miserable. But I do brutal, backbreaking, 60 hour per week work, and I love it. I run a print shop, and seeing my work roll off the lot, or hanging around town, or as displays at my favorite stores is a source of pride, not misery, for me.
I don't have to be here 60 hours (or more) every single week, maybe only 75% of the time, especially as I get close to completion on a big job, or when I have a very delicate and expensive piece to work with, but I often want to be here even when I don't have to be. When I am, my job's much easier, and I can take real, stress-free vacations when I know all my ducks are in a row.
What is it about developing a game that just seems to break so many programmers' spirits? It seems like putting in the time to make your game perfect would be something to take pride in, but more often than not people in the gaming industry make it sound like programming a game is like working for Foxconn.
I went from managing the GUI and color pipeline QA department for a company that made large format printing software, to managing a print shop. I've never been happier.
I was glad I found a way to use the skills I spent so long developing, and re-focusing my energy in an area I really, really enjoy. The skillsets don't really overlap all THAT much, but enough is similar that it was a comfortable transition. Remember, the software you're developing DOES something, and to be a good developer, you must have a fairly deep understanding of whatever that something is. If you can find a way to enjoy the industry you're writing software for, it's a logical switch.
The one thing I'd strongly suggest regardless of what you leave to do, and that I myself need to be better at, is keeping your old skills up-to-date. You'll always need a trade-skill, and if you can show that you contributed to projects to keep your skills active, it won't be as hard to put on your developer shoes again as it will if you don't even open your IDE for next 5 years.
I think the original post should have been modded "interesting" instead of "informative" because it actually is. Informative is a stretch, though the AC did "inform" us of a semi-relevant scriptural quote. Still, it's only interesting in the way that Nostradamus' predictions are interesting. The verse quoted is a (nearly?) coincidental correlation to a recent observation that we don't have a good answer for. Like Nostradamus' work, it's seems sort of close at first glance, but it's not perfect, it's vaguely stated, and it's just one verse hunted for, in a book of many many thousands of verses, specifically for the purpose of providing a coincidence. The verse isn't statistically or scientifically interesting at all; it's just regular old interesting to some people.
As for the responses, people started arguing the merits of just how interesting the verse is, pointing out discrepancies or contradictions in the argument, explaining their take on what the verse was supposed to mean, and, maybe, defending their beliefs.
After that first post, the discussion left TFA and became a conversation on what, why and how the Garden of Eden parable could exist vs why it could not have. Think of it like a discussion about how to make lightsabers. It might be an interesting discussion, and a possibly a good exercise for your debate muscle, but in the end, the "right" nonsensical answer just doesn't matter.
how do you know there were any lions (or lambs) in the Garden?
Because of all the paintings that were hanging on my church walls, of course. You had some lions, some lambs, some trees, some naked white people, some fig leafs... it was captured all lifelike and whatnot. ;)
Actually, I remember specific lessons that taught there was no strife, conflict, death, or disease in the Garden of Eden, and the lion laying with the lamb was a specific example of this. To be 100% fair, I also remember being taught that the whole story of the Garden of Eden was just a metaphor that went something like this:
Without strife, we cannot grow. True innocence (i.e. pre-apple) means not knowing (the tree of knowledge gave up the apple) there are obstacles to overcome. This means that no growth can occur when life is like the Garden of Eden example. It also means that, for the parable to have made any sense and be applicable to us, Eve, as a character in the parable, was destined to eat the apple so our world had the opportunity struggle, and therefore, to grow.
Like a lot of things I learned in church, searching for what a lesson or parable or scripture was actually meant to teach can actually provide some value, but way too many try to apply way too many things literally in bids for way too much control. This is part of why I used my get-out-of-religion card a long time ago.
Being divorced myself, I can tell you that there's no perfect way to divide physical property, let alone digital and intellectual property. No matter what rules you set up front, there are gonna be exceptions. You're better off each just going through (alone) and making a list of the things you want, prioritized. Don't bother listing the stuff you don't want (or if it's digital or intellectual, list it somewhere without assigning a priority). Do not allow each other to see these lists, at least not until ALL items are divided.
Then, set a time you can meet for 2 hours. During this meeting, go through the house start by dividing the stuff that neither of you want, just to get it out of the way (in fact, you could just offer it all to your spouse so you don't have to move or deal with it). If an item that was on either list gets divvied up here, check it off the list, but do NOT look at each other's lists; it could foul up the way this works, maybe even subconsciously.
Next, play it like the opening bit of a game of Risk. Each of you goes every other turn, starting from the bottom of your respective priority lists, making a claim on the item. If you run across an item that you simply can't agree about, set it aside for later. DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT IT NOW. Just set it aside. Continue on, working your way to the top. As you get closer to the top, expect to agree less, as these items will probably be more desirable to both of you, but keep going, and again, do not fight yet. Agree at the outset to just set stuff that you don't agree on aside for later. Be grownups.
This technique will leave you with just 10 or 20 "biggies" that you set aside. It'll be a fair way to pare things down, and removes the hundreds or thousands of items that WILL obfuscate the entire process if not dealt with first. From here you can negotiate, and if necessary, fight over them. Be prepared to let things go in trade, or altogether, if necessary. It's just shit, at the end of the day. I let a LOT of things go and don't regret it for a second. I stuck to my guns on things I really did need in the aftermath (my computer, a tv, the guest bed, etc), but more importantly, I kept my sanity by letting a lot of it go instead of extending the divorce process to fight over a bunch of stuff. If you still can't work things out after 2 hours, take a break for a few days to think about it. Then tackle it fresh. Don't spend more than 2 hours negotiating though; after a while it's just a waste of time that causes even more resentment.
Especially if you don't get along, trust me, all of the combined stuff isn't worth as much it seems, while getting out quick and being able to work on your new (free!!!!!) life is worth much, much more that it seems.
Would mod you up, but I already commented, err, profusely. Thank you for this comment, sjames.
Not only do I agree with you on this, but I can take it a step further and tackle both sides of the argument, I think. This topic gets me pretty riled up, so be forewarned.
I have me the bi-polar disorder, and early on was (very, very wrongly) prescribed Vyvance (a time-released amphetamine, as opposed to Adderall, which is instant-release). Worked great on the depressed side of things, and even the occasional short term manic side, for months, as it would focus my energy like a laser beam. During my more classic long term manic symptoms, though, it was like pouring gasoline on a fire to try to put it out, and my doc's response was to increase the dosage! It messed me up pretty bad; I lost a job, and then my house, to a stupid drug. I don't know how to define this situation other than a doctor-sanctioned addiction; the doc encouraged me to abuse the fuck outta the drug, so I rationalized and did so, until I finally clawed my way out of it (of which I'm very, very proud and thankful). The doc eventually lost his license; apparently he was pushing Vyvance or Adderall on all his patients, regardless of diagnosis. So, I do know little bit, personally, about an amp addiction that spans years, and I know that, yes, there are docs that push it like candy.
Even looking at what happened, I went into it knowing that sometimes drugs succeed, sometimes they fail, and sometimes they work for a bit and then don't work anymore. Sometimes they even fail in a spectacular fashion, and sometimes they are addicting. None of it matters, though, because I really do need to find a balance. The amps were absolutely amazing for a long time, until I found that they were causing damage I didn't expect. By then I was in too deep to stop taking them easily. The key is, I need to manage my head badly enough that it was worth the risk of addiction to see if the drug worked.
Without medication, I truly am serious threat to myself and others - and not because I'll kill them or beat them or steal from them or whatever-the-fuck the psycho-killers do. Rather, the threat is spending all my or my wife's money, or hurting someone's feelings unintentionally, or ignoring my kids' needs, or being generally pissed off all the time, or being sad and hopeless all the time, or ignoring financial responsibilities, etc. It may sound as if this isn't that big of a deal, but I can tell you, life simply isn't worth living if it's like that, and the overwhelming feelings of guilt for feeling that way are monstrously debilitating. I also find it interesting how closely these symptoms describe many stereotypical working men, or depressed housewives, from the 50s.
Guess what? I can probably "survive" without my (correct) meds just fine, so long as I don't let my head get away from me, much like those guys and gals in the 50s did. But wait..... you say they used opiates to treat these folks in the 50s?..... damn the luck. Ok, let's look at the 20s! Wait, wait.... uh-oh. Freud and his cocaine and psychoanalysis. Son of a bitch. Let's just skip all the way back to the 1800s then... oh... really? They used to isolate severely depressed and otherwise mentally ill folks from the rest of their family, only letting them come back after "snapping out of it"? The only alternative being to just leave their families permanently? Dang.... could this mean that depression and other psychological ailments aren't the new-fangled concepts so many people believe, after all? Nah, then we couldn't be all self-righteous about the rampant abuse of drugs like Adderall, and demand access be limited even further, instead of demanding improvements in dispensation, side-effect studies, doctor involvement in those taking these drugs, early warning signs of failed treatment and drug addiction, and most of all, studies on which ailments these drugs actually treat. People don't demand restrictions on which injuries qualify for which pain medications; instead they're happy to let qualified doctors find which medications relieve pain be