For one, I'd like to see this proof that sexual orientation is genetic.
That is NOT what I wrote - I said it was
we now know that both sexual orientation and gender are fixed before birth.
Sexual orientation is strongly influenced by the hormonal balance in utero. For example, the higher the testosterone level, the more likely male offspring will be gay. Because a woman's uterine testosterone level increases after each male birth, the more male children, the more likely that the last one will be gay. Similar influences operating in reverse affect gender identity in M2F transexuals. We've known for over a century that uterine testosterone levels can be tracked by the ratio between the index and ring fingers in adults. Females (and many m2f transexuals) have index fingers that are longer than their ring fingers. Men have the opposite, and gay men have ring fingers much longer than their index fingers.
How both the development of the structure of the hands and the brain is influenced by exposure to differing levels of testosterone and estrogen is genetically programmed.
So, despite what the fundies want to believe, nobody "decides" to be gay, just as nobody "decides" to be straight.
There is evidence for a genetic basis for altruism - a behaviour that doesn't benefit the individual, but benefits the species - which is why a portion of the population that has variants with altruistic behaviour will eventually supplant a similar population w/o that trait.
We've seen that brain damage can suppress the areas of the brain that inhibit people from forming or acting on their impulses, including antisocial behaviours (ie: crooks). Ditto with people with bipolar disorder. Certainly, the structure of the brain is laid out by the person's genes. Behaviour follows from that structure.
Since some of the problems associated with various dysfunctions run in families, even discounting environmental factors, there is a genetic link to behavior. Some people "self-medicate" with alcohol, nicotine, or cocaine - all drugs that affect the brain. This is part of the reason why some people never start or fail to get addicted, and others are addicts right at that first "hit" or exposure, and repeatedly fail. Seriously, how could it be any other way?
All this doesn't mean we can't hold people liable for their antisocial actions. Quite the contrary, we need to, so as to provide the additional external inhibitors to supplant the missing or too-low internal barriers. Note, however, that antisocial activity is quite different from such things as sexual orientation or gender identity, which are not harmful to society.
To argue that all behaviour is completely removed from any genetic predisposition based on the structure and early development of the brain while in the womb, which is controlled by the expression of genes in response to the uterine environment, doesn't make sense.
And again, the article makes claims, but doesn't back up their allegations - no proof. No raids, no convictions, no cancelled contracts, etc.
What's to stop someone else buying the same parts and assembling them? The equipment that was shipped didn't have labels - the labels were purchased separately.
As for "the resources to reverse engineer" - its done all the time. No big deal. How do you think knock-offs are made? But in this case, its not even that hard - just buy the parts from the same suppliers the factory gets them from. Its not necessary that the factory run an extra shift - just a few key suppliers. Everything else is plain-jane commodity shit.
As for the rest, try to understand that some people only act a certain way because they fear getting caught - I prefer those who do the right thing because its the right thing, even if it means tilting at windmills.
In case you missed the news, the genetic basis of most human behaviour is now pretty much established. IOW, yes, people who are crooks have crooked tendencies from birth, not just because of environmental factors. Its not "the new phrenology" - it just is.
People who don't like that want to believe that character is mutable. We've seen that it isn't, and that the shrinks who claimed otherwise (many of them followers of Freud) were wrong. For example, we now know that both sexual orientation and gender are fixed before birth. Up until the '70's, shrinks claimed otherwise, and would try to "fix" that. In other words, shrinks were refusing to do empirical studies, instead projecting their wishes as to how things "should" be onto their subjects. Their "successes" at "converting" people were long-term disasters, but they stayed in denial for decades. The fundies still sup at that table, btw.
And no, complete trust isn't "mythical like a unicorn". I trust my dogs, they trust me. Certain people I trust without question, and vice versa. Others, only as far as I can throw them, and still others, not at all. What is so hard to understand about that?
Oh, for fuck sake - grow up. An infection by the bacteria helicobacter pyori is the cause of most stomach ulcers. This was discovered in 1994, and at first the medical community refused to believe that all the psychiatrists were wrong. Even the link you point to doesn't claim that stress causes ANY stomach ulcers - "researchers continue to look at stress as a possible cause, or at least a complication in the development of ulcers." In other words, there is no proof that stress causes any stomach ulcer, but lots of proof implicating a bacterial infection in 80% of all stomach ulcers.
Stress may turn out to be about as meaningful as not wearing a hat causing colds.
But the measure of a crook is that they act on their temptations.
Maybe for you, but I want someone I can trust no matter what. Character as opposed to "gee, I won't do wrong because I might get caught."
The idea that "good people aren't tempted" is Victorian nonsense that ignores how complex the subconscious is, and how powerful and primary is the conscious, and how they're related, but separate.
Prove that either the subconscious or the conscious aspects of the mind even exist, and then we'll talk.
Freud is indeed modern. Before Freud, "psychology" consisted of talking to a priest, or some slightly less primitive interaction.
Freud is not modern. He drew from the clowns around him, with no experimental basis for his beliefs. After Freud, the only thing that changed was we substituted "pshrink" for "priest."
As I point out, cognitive behaviour therapy is the only therapy that has a higher success rate than all "freudian" talk therapies, and their descendants. Why? Because it has nothing to do with Freud and his stupidities.
Fruedian psychiatry doesn't cure people. Its of no more use than throwing people into bedlam.
Why do you say my "idea of criminality is like something out of the 1800's"? I said throw the "mentor" in jail, since he's obviously old enough to know better, and is trying to avoid accepting any blame by saying that what the kid did was an "addiction."
If you're basically an honest person, a day, a week, a month, or even a year in jail (for an adult) or in juvie hall (for a minor) won't make you one. To think otherwise is to give too little credit to the integrity of honest people.
Also, if you're basically a crook, you're always going to be tempted to try to cheat or cut corners, unless the perceived chance of getting caught is too high. No amount of psychotherapy crap will change that. All psychotherapy, with the exception of cognitive behavioural therapy, is a fraud and a failure. Long-term results (CBT aside) among motivated patients is less than 20% - a placebo is as good or better. Scientific American had an interesting retrospective on the failure of Freud and the time we've wasted because of him.
Look at all the people who were in "therapy" to "help them deal with the stress" that was "giving them stomach ulcers". Funny how we no longer do that, since we know that stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection, and not by stress. The "stress causes ulcers" was all in their heads - put there by the "learned mind doctors", who were ultimately just defrauding their patients.
Modern scientific psychology of course dates to Freud, and maybe a little earlier.
Freud is hardly modern... and most of what he believed has either been disproven, or is of dubious value. See "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
Freud hoped to prove that his model was universally valid and thus turned to ancient mythology and contemporary ethnography for comparative material. Freud named his new theory the Oedipus complex after the famous Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex by Sophocles. "I found in myself a constant love for my mother, and jealousy of my father. I now consider this to be a universal event in childhood,"
...
Freud believed that humans were driven by two conflicting central desires: the life drive (libido) (survival, propagation, hunger, thirst, and sex) and the death drive (Thanatos).
In other words, this guy was seriously f*cked up.
Anyone who still believes Freud's frauds needs a shrink.
Actually yes, the reason for the existence of some bogus Cisco gear, is that it is produced by the same factory making the legit gear.
Reaf [sic] TFA.
I see sarcasm is lost on some...
Also, perhaps you should read the articles.
Nowhere in the first does it say anything about which factory produces the bogus Cisco gear, whether its the same one producing legit gear, or a copycat assembly operation working with sub-suppliers.
The second article offers unsupported speculation that the fake stuff is produced in the same factory. No proof. No arrests, no factory closures, no cancelling contracts with suppliers, no penalties.
Supplier does that to you, you stiff them - HARD - and switch to another supplier, while changing your design slightly so that the old copycat inventory is now impossible to move at a profit. Do that a few times, and they'll get the message that there's no long-term profit in screwing around.
Problem is, your basic personality is set before you're 3 years old.
Yes, look at the kid and see if there's a better alternative than jail. However, the "mentor" is just trying to exculpate himself by saying that the kid had an "addiction". Of course, we all know the story about how the first one is free...
First off, you're wrong - I grabbed the first magazine off my desk, and on opening it, I'm greeted by a full-page ad ON THE LEFT PAGE.
Also, we're dealing with computer screens here. People read left-to-right in the "C" locale.
Furthermore, right is *not* "allways [sic] the same location". It just happens to be the last in a sequence. To say that its in the same location is just wrong (the x,y coordinate obviously varies). You still have to scan left-to-right to find it, which takes longer, and, in some cases, you even have to move the dialog to uncover the off-screen choice, whereas if the default were the first choice, you wouldn't.
Making the default option the last one is really a stupid move. Would you make the default option the last in a scrollable dropdown list? A menu? A voice mail navigation system (that last one is guaranteed to piss off the user).
Its worse than retarded - its the UI version of the special olympics.
By that logic you should arrest the people who teach programming languages at colleges, I think they call them professors, you jackass. Just because you know how to do it doesn't automatically make you a bad guy. And you can't be responsible for what people do with knowledge either. Any knowledge can be used for good or bad. The morals and ethics of an individual determine what is to be done with said knowledge, not the teacher.
Intent indeed counts. Intending to teach someone how to break the law is why the soi-disant "mentor" should be thrown in the can.
His "mentor" intentionally taught him how to break the law. Big difference between that and someone teaching programming languages. One is "corrupting the morals of a minor", and the other isn't.
from the kid's phone phreak 'mentor': "Instead of looking at him as some malicious kid who's out to do no good, maybe you should look at him as a 17-year-old blind kid with an addiction," says Daniels. "Maybe the adults should think about that." Ha
... his "mentor" should join him in jail for contributing to the delinquency of a minor...
maybe then he'll start thinking more like an adult, and less like a stupid teenager who thinks he can get away with things because he's blind, so people won't throw him in the slammer so easily...
In GNOME, to accept the most common, you always hit the same location.
No you don't - the rightmost button is the 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th, or whatever - it varies with the number of buttons.
Putting the default as FIRST would mean always hitting the same location.
The right-hand side is the wrong one in LTR locales.
It isn't "the easiest to hit" unless the window/dialog/whatever is always a fixed size. Otherwise, its position is floating, and it is the last in a series of "N" buttons, instead of the first, requiring you to scan all the previous buttons.
In contrast, the left-most button, as the first, is the first to be seen in LTR locales, the first to be read, and if its what you're looking for (as the default action) you need go no further.
Before GUIs, the default action in most apps was almost always the leftmost. All Windows did was copy that. It makes sense.
If only there were a centralized -- or decentralized, but easily available -- site where leaked documents like these could be posted for perusal. Alas, what a pipe dream in these United States.
Only with itself... the order of buttons on dialog boxes is f*cked up. For example, in the GIMP : Create a New Image, the order is [Help] [Reset] [Cancel] [Okay]. Last I looked, this was an LTR (left-to-right) locale. The default action in EVERY other environment is on the left in LTR locales.
Their rationale for doing it different was 90% ego bloat, 90% stupid (with an 80% overlap).
hy does it cost the same to deliver an electronic book as it does to sell a hard copy? I thought shipping and handling, stocking and middle men markups had something to do with the high price of the written word.
"If we can disintermediate effectively, the synergies of offering electronic downloads with rights management that preserves our revenue stream and allow us to leverage the long tail yadda yadda yadda..."
Of course, there's nothing to stop the AUTHORS "disintermediating" the publishers...
... as opposed to the registry rot that even people who are super-careful experience...
I'm glad to see Adobe is "getting it" with porting their products to linux... if they move photoshop over, it will be the signal event that Microsofts' days are numbered.
2. Next, ask them for their slashdot uid, and look at some of their posts, and their friends/foes. You'll get a good idea as to what others in the community think of them. No friends? Guess they had nothing to say. No foes? Shies from controversy or doesn't have strong opinions. No journal entries? Possible indicator that they're not much into sharing experiences, knowledge, etc.
Or perhaps they've got a life and better things to do than engage in discussions on Slashdot?
They're not mutually exclusive options - I did say *possible indicator*...
Slashdot Mirror
And Miguel De Icaza hasn't been relevant for __DIETY__ knows how long. The original microsoftie wannabe shill-boy.
Or divert some of that money from setting up and monitoring 20 million CCD cameras to looking outside the goldfish bowl ...
Here we go ...
You wrote:
That is NOT what I wrote - I said it was
Sexual orientation is strongly influenced by the hormonal balance in utero. For example, the higher the testosterone level, the more likely male offspring will be gay. Because a woman's uterine testosterone level increases after each male birth, the more male children, the more likely that the last one will be gay. Similar influences operating in reverse affect gender identity in M2F transexuals. We've known for over a century that uterine testosterone levels can be tracked by the ratio between the index and ring fingers in adults. Females (and many m2f transexuals) have index fingers that are longer than their ring fingers. Men have the opposite, and gay men have ring fingers much longer than their index fingers.
How both the development of the structure of the hands and the brain is influenced by exposure to differing levels of testosterone and estrogen is genetically programmed.
So, despite what the fundies want to believe, nobody "decides" to be gay, just as nobody "decides" to be straight.
There is evidence for a genetic basis for altruism - a behaviour that doesn't benefit the individual, but benefits the species - which is why a portion of the population that has variants with altruistic behaviour will eventually supplant a similar population w/o that trait.
We've seen that brain damage can suppress the areas of the brain that inhibit people from forming or acting on their impulses, including antisocial behaviours (ie: crooks). Ditto with people with bipolar disorder. Certainly, the structure of the brain is laid out by the person's genes. Behaviour follows from that structure.
Since some of the problems associated with various dysfunctions run in families, even discounting environmental factors, there is a genetic link to behavior. Some people "self-medicate" with alcohol, nicotine, or cocaine - all drugs that affect the brain. This is part of the reason why some people never start or fail to get addicted, and others are addicts right at that first "hit" or exposure, and repeatedly fail. Seriously, how could it be any other way?
All this doesn't mean we can't hold people liable for their antisocial actions. Quite the contrary, we need to, so as to provide the additional external inhibitors to supplant the missing or too-low internal barriers. Note, however, that antisocial activity is quite different from such things as sexual orientation or gender identity, which are not harmful to society.
To argue that all behaviour is completely removed from any genetic predisposition based on the structure and early development of the brain while in the womb, which is controlled by the expression of genes in response to the uterine environment, doesn't make sense.
And again, the article makes claims, but doesn't back up their allegations - no proof. No raids, no convictions, no cancelled contracts, etc.
What's to stop someone else buying the same parts and assembling them? The equipment that was shipped didn't have labels - the labels were purchased separately.
As for "the resources to reverse engineer" - its done all the time. No big deal. How do you think knock-offs are made? But in this case, its not even that hard - just buy the parts from the same suppliers the factory gets them from. Its not necessary that the factory run an extra shift - just a few key suppliers. Everything else is plain-jane commodity shit.
Physically impossible.
As for the rest, try to understand that some people only act a certain way because they fear getting caught - I prefer those who do the right thing because its the right thing, even if it means tilting at windmills.
In case you missed the news, the genetic basis of most human behaviour is now pretty much established. IOW, yes, people who are crooks have crooked tendencies from birth, not just because of environmental factors. Its not "the new phrenology" - it just is.
People who don't like that want to believe that character is mutable. We've seen that it isn't, and that the shrinks who claimed otherwise (many of them followers of Freud) were wrong. For example, we now know that both sexual orientation and gender are fixed before birth. Up until the '70's, shrinks claimed otherwise, and would try to "fix" that. In other words, shrinks were refusing to do empirical studies, instead projecting their wishes as to how things "should" be onto their subjects. Their "successes" at "converting" people were long-term disasters, but they stayed in denial for decades. The fundies still sup at that table, btw.
And no, complete trust isn't "mythical like a unicorn". I trust my dogs, they trust me. Certain people I trust without question, and vice versa. Others, only as far as I can throw them, and still others, not at all. What is so hard to understand about that?
Oh, for fuck sake - grow up. An infection by the bacteria helicobacter pyori is the cause of most stomach ulcers. This was discovered in 1994, and at first the medical community refused to believe that all the psychiatrists were wrong. Even the link you point to doesn't claim that stress causes ANY stomach ulcers - "researchers continue to look at stress as a possible cause, or at least a complication in the development of ulcers." In other words, there is no proof that stress causes any stomach ulcer, but lots of proof implicating a bacterial infection in 80% of all stomach ulcers.
Stress may turn out to be about as meaningful as not wearing a hat causing colds.
Maybe for you, but I want someone I can trust no matter what. Character as opposed to "gee, I won't do wrong because I might get caught." Prove that either the subconscious or the conscious aspects of the mind even exist, and then we'll talk.Freud is not modern. He drew from the clowns around him, with no experimental basis for his beliefs. After Freud, the only thing that changed was we substituted "pshrink" for "priest."
As I point out, cognitive behaviour therapy is the only therapy that has a higher success rate than all "freudian" talk therapies, and their descendants. Why? Because it has nothing to do with Freud and his stupidities.
Fruedian psychiatry doesn't cure people. Its of no more use than throwing people into bedlam.
Why do you say my "idea of criminality is like something out of the 1800's"? I said throw the "mentor" in jail, since he's obviously old enough to know better, and is trying to avoid accepting any blame by saying that what the kid did was an "addiction."
If you're basically an honest person, a day, a week, a month, or even a year in jail (for an adult) or in juvie hall (for a minor) won't make you one. To think otherwise is to give too little credit to the integrity of honest people.
Also, if you're basically a crook, you're always going to be tempted to try to cheat or cut corners, unless the perceived chance of getting caught is too high. No amount of psychotherapy crap will change that. All psychotherapy, with the exception of cognitive behavioural therapy, is a fraud and a failure. Long-term results (CBT aside) among motivated patients is less than 20% - a placebo is as good or better. Scientific American had an interesting retrospective on the failure of Freud and the time we've wasted because of him.
Look at all the people who were in "therapy" to "help them deal with the stress" that was "giving them stomach ulcers". Funny how we no longer do that, since we know that stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection, and not by stress. The "stress causes ulcers" was all in their heads - put there by the "learned mind doctors", who were ultimately just defrauding their patients.
In other words, this guy was seriously f*cked up.
Anyone who still believes Freud's frauds needs a shrink.
I see sarcasm is lost on some ...
Also, perhaps you should read the articles.
Nowhere in the first does it say anything about which factory produces the bogus Cisco gear, whether its the same one producing legit gear, or a copycat assembly operation working with sub-suppliers.
The second article offers unsupported speculation that the fake stuff is produced in the same factory. No proof. No arrests, no factory closures, no cancelling contracts with suppliers, no penalties.
Supplier does that to you, you stiff them - HARD - and switch to another supplier, while changing your design slightly so that the old copycat inventory is now impossible to move at a profit. Do that a few times, and they'll get the message that there's no long-term profit in screwing around.
Problem is, your basic personality is set before you're 3 years old.
Yes, look at the kid and see if there's a better alternative than jail. However, the "mentor" is just trying to exculpate himself by saying that the kid had an "addiction". Of course, we all know the story about how the first one is free ...
First off, you're wrong - I grabbed the first magazine off my desk, and on opening it, I'm greeted by a full-page ad ON THE LEFT PAGE.
Also, we're dealing with computer screens here. People read left-to-right in the "C" locale.
Furthermore, right is *not* "allways [sic] the same location". It just happens to be the last in a sequence. To say that its in the same location is just wrong (the x,y coordinate obviously varies). You still have to scan left-to-right to find it, which takes longer, and, in some cases, you even have to move the dialog to uncover the off-screen choice, whereas if the default were the first choice, you wouldn't.
Making the default option the last one is really a stupid move. Would you make the default option the last in a scrollable dropdown list? A menu? A voice mail navigation system (that last one is guaranteed to piss off the user).
Its worse than retarded - its the UI version of the special olympics.
Intent indeed counts. Intending to teach someone how to break the law is why the soi-disant "mentor" should be thrown in the can.
His "mentor" intentionally taught him how to break the law. Big difference between that and someone teaching programming languages. One is "corrupting the morals of a minor", and the other isn't.
maybe then he'll start thinking more like an adult, and less like a stupid teenager who thinks he can get away with things because he's blind, so people won't throw him in the slammer so easily ...
No you don't - the rightmost button is the 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th, or whatever - it varies with the number of buttons.
Putting the default as FIRST would mean always hitting the same location.
The right-hand side is the wrong one in LTR locales.
It isn't "the easiest to hit" unless the window/dialog/whatever is always a fixed size. Otherwise, its position is floating, and it is the last in a series of "N" buttons, instead of the first, requiring you to scan all the previous buttons.
In contrast, the left-most button, as the first, is the first to be seen in LTR locales, the first to be read, and if its what you're looking for (as the default action) you need go no further.
Before GUIs, the default action in most apps was almost always the leftmost. All Windows did was copy that. It makes sense.
list of alternate wikileaks domains.
The internet routes around (brain)damage(d lawyers).
Only with itself ... the order of buttons on dialog boxes is f*cked up. For example, in the GIMP : Create a New Image, the order is [Help] [Reset] [Cancel] [Okay]. Last I looked, this was an LTR (left-to-right) locale. The default action in EVERY other environment is on the left in LTR locales.
Their rationale for doing it different was 90% ego bloat, 90% stupid (with an 80% overlap).
The Gnome interface Guidelines? You've GOT to be joking! The guidelines that say to do stuff the opposite of everyone else "just 'cuz!"
More like "what NOT to do."
A generation from now: s/Chinese/American/g;
"If we can disintermediate effectively, the synergies of offering electronic downloads with rights management that preserves our revenue stream and allow us to leverage the long tail yadda yadda yadda ..."
Of course, there's nothing to stop the AUTHORS "disintermediating" the publishers ...
If you can't trust your GIs to read a blog and make up their own minds, you have bigger problems ...
Troops listened to Tokyo Rose during WW2 - it didn't change the outcome.
I'm glad to see Adobe is "getting it" with porting their products to linux ... if they move photoshop over, it will be the signal event that Microsofts' days are numbered.
They're not mutually exclusive options - I did say *possible indicator* ...
So what's your excuse :-)