I'm now 31 years old. I was taught the about greenhouse effect and the ozone layer in school here in Norway when I was ~13. That's 18 years ago, so Norway must have dodged those buzzwords.
I was writing something about this in my last post, but removed it again. The sex that's "everywhere" is innuendos and porn. There's not much middle ground. Now, if we had a natural, healthy relationship to sexuality, there wouldn't be so much hoopla.
If you check out some stats on sexual predators in large numbers, ask yourself why the UK and the US is so high up on the list.
If "For the most part, everyone is happy, at least sexually, and if they aren't, then its not my problem." is true, then would you mind taking a look at: this and tell me 1: How does this fit with what you're saying, and 2: what should be done for the ~10% of kids (UK) that are victims and with the vast numbers of offenders, except your overly simplistic solution: mass killings of perps.
The mere suggestion that people need to fit within your reality or taste to be "accepted" is downright insulting to the human race. Your in suggestion that rape and sexual child abuse is evolutionary would probably make most biologists fall over laughing. Your views on biology and evolution makes it hard to imagine that you have actually understood either topics. You would also be advised to check out some updated data on therapy for sexual offenders, but I'm guessing that you think it's so difficult to approach the topic of sexuality, that you won't be able to do that.
I'm not sure how it's possible to discuss this topic when your view on the basis for life is such an extreme.
My point is that we live in a society that keeps its mouth closed with regards to sex, where questions about sex is answered by pointing towards porn (usually not very educational), by covering ears, or by marginalizing the line of questioning, or worse, marginalizing the person. That society is, like it or not, cultivating sexual predators. Thus, your belief that "everyone's happy", is a really distorted view on reality.
It is, believe it or not, possible to have discussions about gender, sex and relationships without making most people feel uncomfortable. For people so indoctrinated by the current discourse that they are repulsed by sex or natural nudity, it might take some getting used to, but all positive development has that effect.
I can't really make out if you think I'm one of the "lots of people" who say that sexual taboos stem from procreation. In any event, I'm not.
I don't think that sexual taboos appeared because of any one event that can be summed up in 3 lines on/., my point is that it is there, and I'm more than fairly certain that upholding such strong taboos regarding a natural human urge drastically increases sex offences and general misogyny as well.
I'm not generally a fan of circumstancial evidence, but I have a feeling that the crimes done by paedohiles in the Catholic church is a result of the Catholic stand on sex.
I think that if people and societies are allowed to openly learn about, discuss and be open about their sexuality, there would be a lot less victims of sex crimes. (And less personal tragedies that stem from people being forced to keep their sexuality a secret.) This does not mean that I think all people walk around naked and have sex with anything that moves. I say that because in Western society (that's my area of experience but I'm sure it's more of the same most places), it is hard to have a progressive view on sexuality (i.e. interested in professional sexology) without being viewed as someone unnaturally interested in sex, someone who wants first and foremost to use and defend the use of porn, etc. Sadly, that is also a result of the sexual taboos.
The whole "sex is not good for productivity" is just meaningless. The idea that we can (or should) limit the amount of sex people have is just laughable. Furthermore, anyone claiming that if people could have all the sex they want, they wouldn't do anything else, must either have a screwed up personal life or never been in a sexual relationship themselves.
The sixties mentality you're talking about is not something I'm a part of, and I can't make out if you place me in that category either. However, I do feel strongly that what goes on between consenting adults are their own business.
Sex is traditionally connected with the biological urge to procreate, and it is mostly modern civilization that has laid such restraints and taboos on sex. So, I plainly think you're wrong.
Y'know, even if people are serving prison sentences, or in serious therapy, there is still the matter of the kids in those pictures and movies. The idea that users are investigated for using the sites, doesn't even begin to solve the problem of those kids being violated.
I'm an American too, but I say: come up with some better ideas. Starting with doing away with the taboos about sex in general might be a step in the right decision. The American idea that violence is pretty much OK, but sex is not to be talked about, and naked bodies should be considered racy or disturbing is such a perversion. A natural relationship towards sex could start with breaking down the structural homophobia that is still widely accepted.
Flogging the dead horse here: How am I trolling in this parent? The moderator function is not a discussion tool. If you disagree with any of the two stated facts, say so. It'd be a learning experience for us all.
I keep forgetting, what's the name of that country who has actually used nuclear weapons in an act of war? If I rememember correctly, it's the same country which is an aggressor in practically every corner of the world. If you say Cuba is a very serious threat, that country must be Cuba, or?
Re:Easy to share photo's, difficult to share a mov
on
I'm a PC and I'm 4-1/2
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You are aware that one usually needs to download a flash player to view videos on Youtube, no? This is just a competing format. The main problem with Silverlight from where I sit is that it adds to the bloat, not that I need to download it, or that it comes from Microsoft.
Little-known fact: The Beatles were originally a punk rock band in a sub-genre known as "teddy rock" that was popular in England at the time. They weren't anything like what we remember them. They just got cut a fat check.
How did The Beatles play a sub genre of a music genre that was invented more than a decade later? The Beatles started out in 1960. Punk in the seventies. Punk has influences, like any other genre, but it's hardly the same genre, if genres are supposed to have meaning at all.
I recently bought a Lexmark laser, colour, duplex printer with official Linux support. Granted, it's a network printer. Works great with my Ubuntu 8.10. 8.04 needed some foomatic updates, then works great. Just saying that not all Lexmark models are Linux unfriendly.
Are those the useless applets that will make my internet banking actually work on 64 bit, without crappy workarounds? Not very useless to me... BankID, is the name of the "service". It is, afaik, used by all major banks in Norway. I'm sure we are not alone going through this stuff.
The Java browser plugin and Flash was the main obstacles, that made me go back to 32 bit Ubuntu. Now, all I need is Mozilla Weave for 64 bit. (Actually, for it to actually work at all, these days)
I'll give these apps half a year to mature and I'm back on 64.
Today, I also read that Adobe Air will be out of beta for linux in short time. Article in Norwegian, no source, I'm afraid If that also comes in 64 bit, these are good times for 64 bit.
A Linux based distro can run as fast as you need it to. It depends on what desktop environment you choose. For small and ease of use, go with XFCE, like Xubuntu. Avoid Gnome or KDE with an old computer, that will be slow. You can strip all the stuff you don't need. Distros are also different. From Damn Small Linux which has an install medium of ~50 megs, to the standard distros which fit on a Live CD.
Utorrent runs in Wine on Linux, AFAIK. Google it to be sure. Deluge is a good alternative that runs natively on Linux.
How did your point coincide with mine? I have not seen any evidence that mobile phones are dangerous to carry around, neither have I been presented anything in that regard from my lecturers at Faculty of Medicine at my school.
Because despite the propaganda from various cell phones makers, there's more and more evidence coming out that tends to show it's not very healthy to carry one over you for long stretches of time.
Citation, please. A glance at PubMed does not give any clear indication, especially not regarding just carrying a mobile phone around.
A quick honest question: I see you use and I have also used, the word "die" about viruses. Is that technically correct? Viruses are by definition not living creatures just DNA or RNA, so how can they die? Wouldn't "permanently inactivated" be a better term to use?
As far as I can tell, there's a history of white people voting close to 100% white in presidential elections. (Take it as a lame joke, or acknowledge the point)
African-american people voting for an african-american candidate is not necessarily a problem. My view: It is a natural thing, stemming from years and years of oppression. If this is still the case in 200 years, we (or should I say they, as I'll bed dead then) might have a problem.
I for one welcome our new environmental overlords, however I had no idea that "they" just want people to die. Silly me thought it was about saving the species and the planet.
Like XP, Vista, OSX, 98, 98 second edition, 95, etc..? Sounds nice. I'd go for that in stead of something half funny. I'd like Jaundiced Jackalope in stead though.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm now 31 years old. I was taught the about greenhouse effect and the ozone layer in school here in Norway when I was ~13. That's 18 years ago, so Norway must have dodged those buzzwords.
The first link disappeared: Here it is
"There's sex everywhere"
I was writing something about this in my last post, but removed it again. The sex that's "everywhere" is innuendos and porn. There's not much middle ground. Now, if we had a natural, healthy relationship to sexuality, there wouldn't be so much hoopla.
If you check out some stats on sexual predators in large numbers, ask yourself why the UK and the US is so high up on the list.
If "For the most part, everyone is happy, at least sexually, and if they aren't, then its not my problem." is true, then would you mind taking a look at: this and tell me 1: How does this fit with what you're saying, and 2: what should be done for the ~10% of kids (UK) that are victims and with the vast numbers of offenders, except your overly simplistic solution: mass killings of perps.
The mere suggestion that people need to fit within your reality or taste to be "accepted" is downright insulting to the human race. Your in suggestion that rape and sexual child abuse is evolutionary would probably make most biologists fall over laughing. Your views on biology and evolution makes it hard to imagine that you have actually understood either topics. You would also be advised to check out some updated data on therapy for sexual offenders, but I'm guessing that you think it's so difficult to approach the topic of sexuality, that you won't be able to do that.
"overall sex is useless"
I'm not sure how it's possible to discuss this topic when your view on the basis for life is such an extreme.
My point is that we live in a society that keeps its mouth closed with regards to sex, where questions about sex is answered by pointing towards porn (usually not very educational), by covering ears, or by marginalizing the line of questioning, or worse, marginalizing the person. That society is, like it or not, cultivating sexual predators. Thus, your belief that "everyone's happy", is a really distorted view on reality.
It is, believe it or not, possible to have discussions about gender, sex and relationships without making most people feel uncomfortable. For people so indoctrinated by the current discourse that they are repulsed by sex or natural nudity, it might take some getting used to, but all positive development has that effect.
Of course you don't think you're wrong.
/., my point is that it is there, and I'm more than fairly certain that upholding such strong taboos regarding a natural human urge drastically increases sex offences and general misogyny as well.
I can't really make out if you think I'm one of the "lots of people" who say that sexual taboos stem from procreation. In any event, I'm not.
I don't think that sexual taboos appeared because of any one event that can be summed up in 3 lines on
I'm not generally a fan of circumstancial evidence, but I have a feeling that the crimes done by paedohiles in the Catholic church is a result of the Catholic stand on sex.
I think that if people and societies are allowed to openly learn about, discuss and be open about their sexuality, there would be a lot less victims of sex crimes. (And less personal tragedies that stem from people being forced to keep their sexuality a secret.) This does not mean that I think all people walk around naked and have sex with anything that moves. I say that because in Western society (that's my area of experience but I'm sure it's more of the same most places), it is hard to have a progressive view on sexuality (i.e. interested in professional sexology) without being viewed as someone unnaturally interested in sex, someone who wants first and foremost to use and defend the use of porn, etc. Sadly, that is also a result of the sexual taboos.
The whole "sex is not good for productivity" is just meaningless. The idea that we can (or should) limit the amount of sex people have is just laughable. Furthermore, anyone claiming that if people could have all the sex they want, they wouldn't do anything else, must either have a screwed up personal life or never been in a sexual relationship themselves.
The sixties mentality you're talking about is not something I'm a part of, and I can't make out if you place me in that category either. However, I do feel strongly that what goes on between consenting adults are their own business.
Sex is traditionally connected with the biological urge to procreate, and it is mostly modern civilization that has laid such restraints and taboos on sex. So, I plainly think you're wrong.
Y'know, even if people are serving prison sentences, or in serious therapy, there is still the matter of the kids in those pictures and movies. The idea that users are investigated for using the sites, doesn't even begin to solve the problem of those kids being violated.
I'm an American too, but I say: come up with some better ideas. Starting with doing away with the taboos about sex in general might be a step in the right decision. The American idea that violence is pretty much OK, but sex is not to be talked about, and naked bodies should be considered racy or disturbing is such a perversion. A natural relationship towards sex could start with breaking down the structural homophobia that is still widely accepted.
Oh noes!! The geek-in-chief has labeled me a non geek! Oh, the horror!
No everybody didn't
Flogging the dead horse here: How am I trolling in this parent? The moderator function is not a discussion tool. If you disagree with any of the two stated facts, say so. It'd be a learning experience for us all.
I keep forgetting, what's the name of that country who has actually used nuclear weapons in an act of war? If I rememember correctly, it's the same country which is an aggressor in practically every corner of the world. If you say Cuba is a very serious threat, that country must be Cuba, or?
You are aware that one usually needs to download a flash player to view videos on Youtube, no? This is just a competing format. The main problem with Silverlight from where I sit is that it adds to the bloat, not that I need to download it, or that it comes from Microsoft.
How did The Beatles play a sub genre of a music genre that was invented more than a decade later? The Beatles started out in 1960. Punk in the seventies. Punk has influences, like any other genre, but it's hardly the same genre, if genres are supposed to have meaning at all.
I recently bought a Lexmark laser, colour, duplex printer with official Linux support. Granted, it's a network printer. Works great with my Ubuntu 8.10. 8.04 needed some foomatic updates, then works great. Just saying that not all Lexmark models are Linux unfriendly.
Are those the useless applets that will make my internet banking actually work on 64 bit, without crappy workarounds? Not very useless to me... BankID, is the name of the "service". It is, afaik, used by all major banks in Norway. I'm sure we are not alone going through this stuff.
The Java browser plugin and Flash was the main obstacles, that made me go back to 32 bit Ubuntu. Now, all I need is Mozilla Weave for 64 bit. (Actually, for it to actually work at all, these days)
I'll give these apps half a year to mature and I'm back on 64.
Today, I also read that Adobe Air will be out of beta for linux in short time. Article in Norwegian, no source, I'm afraid If that also comes in 64 bit, these are good times for 64 bit.
Maybe, for a start, you could look at versions not from 2005?
A Linux based distro can run as fast as you need it to. It depends on what desktop environment you choose. For small and ease of use, go with XFCE, like Xubuntu. Avoid Gnome or KDE with an old computer, that will be slow. You can strip all the stuff you don't need. Distros are also different. From Damn Small Linux which has an install medium of ~50 megs, to the standard distros which fit on a Live CD.
Utorrent runs in Wine on Linux, AFAIK. Google it to be sure. Deluge is a good alternative that runs natively on Linux.
And: My disadvantage lies in not having any hands, you insenstive clod!
How did your point coincide with mine? I have not seen any evidence that mobile phones are dangerous to carry around, neither have I been presented anything in that regard from my lecturers at Faculty of Medicine at my school.
Citation, please. A glance at PubMed does not give any clear indication, especially not regarding just carrying a mobile phone around.
What, isn't next year the year of the jackalope?
A quick honest question: I see you use and I have also used, the word "die" about viruses. Is that technically correct? Viruses are by definition not living creatures just DNA or RNA, so how can they die? Wouldn't "permanently inactivated" be a better term to use?
As far as I can tell, there's a history of white people voting close to 100% white in presidential elections. (Take it as a lame joke, or acknowledge the point)
African-american people voting for an african-american candidate is not necessarily a problem. My view: It is a natural thing, stemming from years and years of oppression. If this is still the case in 200 years, we (or should I say they, as I'll bed dead then) might have a problem.
I for one welcome our new environmental overlords, however I had no idea that "they" just want people to die. Silly me thought it was about saving the species and the planet.
Like XP, Vista, OSX, 98, 98 second edition, 95, etc..? Sounds nice. I'd go for that in stead of something half funny. I'd like Jaundiced Jackalope in stead though.