> I don't think it does those 3D labels that shippers use though.
3D labels??? Utter craziness! I think you mean 2D, as while they technically ARE 3D, the 3rd dimension is only about 1/3 of one millimeter and not measured by the reader (ie, the paper thickness).
> Good article for an addict's-eye view of the problem. Ignore the domain, the only evidence of a christian bend is in
Is in the fact that your only source is a Religious group... Find me a source that is believable. You wouldn't take a site seriously if its sole purpose was to claim thatthe tooth fairy was sending UFOs to torture our anuses, EVEN IF THE ARTCILE ITSELF SOUNDED REASONABLE.
I feel pretty confident that you know that many porn addicts because you go to a support group for addiction, porn or other -- assuming you actually do know them at all.
I didn't say that porn addicts don't exist, BUT THAT IS NO FRIGGIN REASON TO BAN IT. There are people who take everything too far, but just because you lack the willpower to stop, do not claim that no one can. Do not punish the majority for the faults of the minority. Alcohol & cigarettes should not be illegal simply because some people don't know when to stop. No, it isn't as easy as "just stopping." You have to put some effort into it. Such as, say, NOT LOOKING AT ANY MORE FUCKING PORN. You may still jerk off & imagine it, that's harder to stop. In a moment of strength, burn all your dirty mags, cancel your Internet subscription, but don't think that I'm an asshole because you can't take steps to help yourself. I'm addicted to cigarettes, and previously, pot.
> An addict doesn't just view the same things over and over.
That is your reaction, not "an addict's reaction." I quit smoking pot because I realized it was a bad idea for me to smoke it. I did it for a good while, but I never became addicted to other drugs, I never had to get higher because pot was dull -- believe me, after smoking it every day for 6 years straight, it gets dull. I had taken other drugs, but just because they were there & free. Most of them weren't worth the money, but even the "good ones" weren't good enough to get me hooked after a few tries (note: I never injected anything, that's where I drew the line). I did cocaine, maybe 6 times over two years, but I never felt like I HAD to have more (well, at least the next day... As you're coming down, you sure want it). It had psychological effects ON ME. Despite what some will claim, pot can be addictive. I was addicted. HOWEVER, not everyone will react the same way -- not everyone will become addicted. Therefore, I am for decriminalization, and even outright legalization. Just because it's bad for me and enhances my depression, I'm not going to selfishly say that it should be illegal just because I can't handle it. Most people CAN, just like most people can handle porn without raping children.
The point I am leading to is that my addiction to pot came from a preexisting condition -- the depression I had experienced long before I ever smoked pot, or even before I was ever drunk. I believe that your addiction to porn is exacerbated by a previous condition. I'm assuming you have seen psychotherapists, therapists, psychologists, etc to find what disorders you may have? If not, you aren't doing anything to help yourself, why should I try. If you are, great, they can do wonderful things. Don't expect them to do anything, though, the respensibility for kicking an addiction lies squarely on your shoulders.
Tons of people are addicted to online games -- does that mean they should be owtlawed, just because some people don't know when to quit? No. It's the sad truth, but not everyone is going to live a hunkey-dorey life. My life sucks ass, even after quitting the pot, not drinking as much as I used to, and seriously cutting back on the cigarettes. I'm still depressed, but I am not blaming anyone other than myself (and I don't mean the depressive self-abusive way, I mean in a healthy realistic way) for that.
I don't believe the whole "sexual addiction" thing as anything more than an outburst due to repressive laws outlawing sexuality. Humans are meant to breed... a lot. By outlawing any act of sex, they push us back further,
> It seems that anyone who'd have to walk around to 2000 or more PC would have them behind firewall(s)/gateway(s)
Too true. Of course, putting them behind a firewall would mean that this guy has at least a slight clue. If he doesn't know his request... no, DEMAND would break routing, he seems to be lacking a bit of skill in the IT dept. But you are right.
> He is suggesting a system whereby someone has a "tag",
In this case, you mean like a... Domain name? He would still have to renumber all his PCs, but of course, renumbering isn't what is in question in this thread.
If you want portability that badly, just make a domain & make your Email accounts under that. Then, if you want to switch services, point the domain to your new service location & create the same username at that location. Or use Yahoo! mail or something. 'Course, if it's unique on Yahoo, it'll probably be unique on just about any other service, so just make one that's not obvious, like bob@mydomain.com.
Also, this would not work for RL stuff, like phone #...
> Other people are not considered except in as much as they might take one's property.
Such as their lives...
> Libertarianism has at best no opinion, at worst an "it's their problem" opinion, on what to do about someone drowning in a lake
So, you think that government should force me to save someone drowning in a lake? You demand that I risk my life to save another? Libertarians realize that you SHOULD save that person's life, but do not want anyone telling you that you must.
> Socialism is the person on the shore shouting, "Hey, shouldn't we do something to help?"
More like, "there might be the possibility of someone drowning in this lake, so we must make a tax (which also applies to those living in the desert) to put up signs there and post a lifeguard 24/7 to make sure no one falls in.
Or, less blatantly assholish, "You MUST help save his life!"
> it's about time we stood up and acted proud about it.
*ahem*... don't act proud. Be proud. If you are just acting, and not feeling, you are a faker and only hurting the country. However, I agree with the sentiment of the statement.
As opposed to the men in porn, who are treated like Gods to be worshipped. OK, bad example...
Don't fall into the incorrect assumption that just because a person is a woman that she is weak. That is even more degrading than simply having sex in front of a camera.
> People want porn because it triggers junk to squirt around in their brains that makes them feel good.
You mean, EXACTLY LIKE THE ADRENALINE THOSE SPORTS PLAYERS FEEL? People WATCHING sports certainly don't get any benefit from it, except, yes, it triggers junk (again, adrenaline, dopamine) to "squirt around in their brains." It does not teach the viewers anything useful. It does not, usually, show them the massive amounts of practice these players go through. It "shows" the viewer that by being born strong, they can make millions in sports. That is not the truth of it, but that's the image -- of course, true fans know what goes into becoming a very good team.
> people are designed to have these feelings with other people - not a monitor or TV.
Are you Catholic by any chance? I can argue that sex is designed to make babies -- not to have a good time, even with a very close friend (eg, your fiance/wife). If you do it for fun, or if you wear a condom, you are breaking the laws of nature -- it tricks your brain into thinking you're making a baby, but no, you evil bastard, you're going to throw that potential life into the sewer.
CONDOMS ARE NOT BIOLOGICAL EITHER, but are you claiming they should be illegal? If you are arguing porn should be illegal because it isn't natural, throw all your books that are printed with synthetic ink out the window and burn them. Own anything plastic? GONE. Got vinyl siding on your house? OOOOH, deliciously evil siding...
> Nature has chosen who gets to hook up with who and how often
What the hell are you talking about? How does nature select your mate???? What about bi- or homosexuals? Do you seriously believe these people are just perverts because they aren't using their willies in "the way nature intended" (IOW, the way YOU dictate)? You're a good candidate for fascism.
> What do you think research says about porn and how it has effected a porn-lovin culture's view of women?
I think it puts things in terms of "Good vs. Evil," when in fact there is no such thing. Just actions. The same goes for morality. The only reason you see morality disappearing is because the "new morality" does not fit in exactly with your narrow view of how things should be.
> Is porn good for our culture?
Nope, it's not bad either.
> the defining moments that stand out have everything to do with sacrifice, selfless service, and a consideration for some higher cause that is more important than self.
That's only because the moments that stand out to you already fit into your view of a higher cause. I don't believe in any higher cause, so your argument, to me, is nullified.
> What is better for a person [...] watching porn or taking a nap?
Considering the calories you would burn "jerkin' it," porn. (please note, I'm kinda' joking there)
You keep comparing porn to other things you could be doing. YOU CAN STILL DO THOSE THINGS. What about porn versus watching four hours of mindless television. With porn, you get at least a little exercise. Granted, that's not the point, but it's not like you can't meditate on your life's dreams AFTER watching some porn.
> Mature people, however, understand that nothing of value comes without pain.
That is complete bullshit. My life has been enhanced manyfold by meditating. There is no pain in that -- well, except trying the full-lotus position, but that's justa technicality. That is not maturity, that is either ignorance or making shit up to push your own views (ie, "if you don't believe what I say, I'll call you a child and laugh at you."). Nice.
> good sex is about putting someone elses desire before our own.
That is your opinion. It happens to be mine as well, but please stop mixing up opinion with truth. You do not know that, you have not been a part of or heard of every -- hell, even a majority -- sexual act to ever take place, so you cannot speak with any authority on this.
> 'I'm a better person because of porn!' Nice.
No one seriously claims they are a better person for watching porn. Or at least, anyone I've met. HOWEVER, no one claims they are a better person for watching TV for hours on end, and you don't seem to be screaming about that. It's even more prevalent than porn!
Unless you speak out against TV and all other useless pursuits with the same vigor you do with porn, you are merely pushing an agenda, not trying to protect or help anyone.
Go on, call me a godless sinner for believing in actual freedom -- not just the freedom to do whatever you happen to agree with.
Porn that I see does not degrade women. I like the way the female body looks, it has nothing to do with degradation. You are putting entire classes of people into one group. From your post, I would guess you are a religious nutball. It may not be the truth, but it is as truthful as you calling all porn degrading. You are bullshitting to promote your own agenda, it has nothing to do with the welfare of women.
> We're forking over BILLIONS for porn.
And so it's automatically evil because it brings in lots of money? People fork over BILLIONS for food every MONTH! IT MUST BE STOPPED, NOW!!!
> grow up
Back 'atcha.
It is my opinion that porn is such a hot industry because of the "forced morality" that the people in power promote. We are told to believe that sex is evil, the human body is meant to be hidden away. If it weren't illegal to be naked, and people walked around nude once in a while, it wouldn't be so exciting (believe me, you wouldn't get too excited seeing an average person naked...) and there wouldn't be as much money in it.
Instead of treating the symptoms, treat the cause. By making it basically illegal for someone to see a real naked body or to engage in a sexual activity, you make them desire it more. If we had grown up knowing that it's no big deal (which, really, it isn't), porn would collapse. There would be no desire to go download pictures of naked women -- you could go see it on the street if you wanted.
I blame religions with their artificial moralities, but I'm a bit biased there.
BTW, I don't fork over ANY money for porn, I don't even look at much of it. The dirtiest magazine I own is a 2-year old issue of Playboy (well, 12 of them actually -- a gift subscription). I don't have any porn on my PC, and I don't go looking for it, except maybe once every other month or so. I think beastiality is disgusting, but I don't claim to decide absolute morality: it's not my right to tell someone else they can't do something, just because I find it horrible. That is what you are basically doing here. Child porn, okay, that directly harms someone. Rape porn, if a pic of an actual ocurrence, yes, that harms someone. Fine, that's illegal. When two to twenty (or more) consenting adults (and, perhaps, a consenting llama or three) want to do whatever it is they want to do, and another one wants to take pictures, it's not my right, nor yours, to tell them they can't.
If they want to sell them, it's not my right to tell them they can't. It MAY BE MY RIGHT, however, to not have it thrown in my face or sent to me via EMail -- unless I request it.
> Let's have a porn-O birthday party!
And that harms you, how?
> 'It makes me feel good so it must be a good idea!' - grow up.
I didn't realize growing up means not having fun or feeling good any more. Just because YOU are a miserable ass, don't expect the rest of us to be.
And finally, your statement seems to imply that anyone who has fun must not be "grown up." I suggest you reevaluate yourself and if you value freedom, or just your own views.
Alas, I can't force you to get a clue, but don't try to force me to do anything either, just because you are ignorant.
> so he doesn't have to reconfigure all his machines.
Read: He's lazy and doesn't want to do any work that numerous others have had to do (such as, myself). So instead of getting off his ass & taking responsibility for it or doing any work, he sues. It's the American Way!
Y'know, this asshole has probably done more work trying to sue than it would have been just to renumber the damn things. Seriously, it's not hard at all to walk around to each PC and enter a new address -- even if you have 2000 of them. Might take a while, since they probably have multiple locations, but it's still easy.
If you use Netware or Active Directory, you could probably write a script of some kind to do it for him, to automatically run at startup.
> we actually do need a system where my address whether Internet or Phone or otherwise is mine and portable. This must include Email addressing and allow me to make it portable without regards to ISP.
WHAT??? No way. Others have said it, but it is true. Say you live at 1125 Buckshore Ln, Indianapolis, IN. You move to Florida, do you expect to be able to keep THAT address? What about after someone else moves in, do they have to change the address to 1125.5 just because you are slightly inconvenienced? No, that's ridiculous. YOU DO NOT OWN ANY IP ADDRESSES! You lease them. AOL does not even own IPs. They lease them from ARIN.
I even think it's stupid to require Cell # portability. If you want to keep the number, don't change your friggin service. The EMail statement is even worse. You think it's your right to have billybob@comcast.net after you stopped paying them for it? No way, all Email sent to that would take up their bandwidth/storage space without receiving any compensation. To me, that is not acceptable.
> One solution would be to leave a server or two at the old address
I basically did that too -- I left a single PC on the old network as the primary DNS server and forwarded the requests to the new network. It's a pretty simple solution and one that can move with you as slow or fast as you want. You can move your PCs & servers one at a time, updating the DNS after each one changes (or group, which makes more sense instead of running back & forth from PC1 -> server -> PC2 -> server...).
A very simple solution, which I sorta halfassed, but it worked well.
I'm not reading the article, I'm not even going to browse the comments. I will say one thing & never look back (except maybe to replies).
The reason IT people think they are earning "below average" is that they have no goddamned idea what average is. Many of us were graduates or in college/maybe High School while the.com crap was going on. We heard about the amazing wages people were making, so we assumed that we could do as well, or at least similar -- that's where we judged the baseline for our "statistical analysis" of salary.
Then the industry collapsed, for numerous reasons including paying their staff way too friggin much. We saw it collapse, but many didn't consider that it meant the salaries would as well. So there were fewer jobs on more limited corporate budgets, but we still expected the same wages?
A large factor in this could be the arrogance that comes along with being brilliant -- which most of us think we are (and we may be right). We seem to think that our brilliance is worth shitloads of money, just because it's in a more specialized and a -- here's a key bit -- very new field. Standard IT staff hadn't really existed prior to the 80s. Yeah, there were a lot of bearded gurus & stuff, but not the same as today, where a medium business will have 2-3 full-time support personnel, just to take care of employee PCs.
A prime example of that arrogance (sorry to the person in this example, but I told you when it came up that I thought it was arrogant) is a guy on here a while back complaining that he was ONLY making about 90K a year. My immediate response to anyone who feels that way is "fuck you." I don't care where you live, (short of UAE) that's a lot of money. When someone thinks they are barely scraping by on 90 grand a year, they have no idea the true value of money. Especially if they're single (don't know or remember if he was -- prolly not).
What boggles my mind is that many of these people who are "being robbed" are the same ones who are good enough at what they do to sit around at work playing City of Heros on the company's OC-3 for hours on end. Good for you. Go create work, you mooching bastard. I spent a lot of today sitting around because there "wasn't anything to do," but it's Friday (classic cop-out:) and really, not much to do. If I wanted, I could have found something. Peruse some tech manuals, or review some new software or something equally boring, but at least I would be doing work instead of reading about some crappy (S)NES ROM hacks. Work isn't supposed to be enjoyable. Otherwise, in the morning, you'd say "I'm going to play!" instead of "Ugh, gotta go to work."
If you think you aren't paid enough, ask random people with the same educational level (and similar skill level in their own field) how much they make. Probably less than you.
I'm not a journalist, so don't complain about the rambling nature of the post. I write on/. in stream-of-conciousness mode.
> Three cheers for liberals and a centralized federal government, then! Without them, the city streets wouldn't have lamps
Three cheers for boldfaced lies! Without them, you wouldn't have anything to post! (Hint: look at the AC's reply: the federal government had no hand in creating streetlamps)
> Sure I could set them up a domain name, email server, and a great website for less than $500. But I expect to be paid for my work.
Umm, you are. $500. What you are saying, in essence, is that you expect to be paid A LOT for your work. For $500 I could make a full website. It may not be the kick-assest thing you've ever seen, but better than a graphic & badly-placed text.
Slashdot Mirror
> I don't think it does those 3D labels that shippers use though.
3D labels??? Utter craziness! I think you mean 2D, as while they technically ARE 3D, the 3rd dimension is only about 1/3 of one millimeter and not measured by the reader (ie, the paper thickness).
> Why does everyone coming from Windows want these huge bundled do everything apps?
So that they don't have to switch between a thousand programs to do ONE THING.
> Build on New Technology Technology would the result be.
No, "Windows NT" is a title, and technology based on it would be "NT technology," nothing else.
> No worse than "Built on NT technology"
Except that Windows NT is a title. If something was built upon the *ahem* "technology" of Windows NT, it would, in fact, be "Windows NT technology."
Deciding whether or not there was actually any technology at all, new or old, in it is another matter completely.
> What in the post convinced you of that?
Context, the same way I can read at all.
> Good article for an addict's-eye view of the problem. Ignore the domain, the only evidence of a christian bend is in
Is in the fact that your only source is a Religious group... Find me a source that is believable. You wouldn't take a site seriously if its sole purpose was to claim thatthe tooth fairy was sending UFOs to torture our anuses, EVEN IF THE ARTCILE ITSELF SOUNDED REASONABLE.
I feel pretty confident that you know that many porn addicts because you go to a support group for addiction, porn or other -- assuming you actually do know them at all.
I didn't say that porn addicts don't exist, BUT THAT IS NO FRIGGIN REASON TO BAN IT. There are people who take everything too far, but just because you lack the willpower to stop, do not claim that no one can. Do not punish the majority for the faults of the minority. Alcohol & cigarettes should not be illegal simply because some people don't know when to stop. No, it isn't as easy as "just stopping." You have to put some effort into it. Such as, say, NOT LOOKING AT ANY MORE FUCKING PORN. You may still jerk off & imagine it, that's harder to stop. In a moment of strength, burn all your dirty mags, cancel your Internet subscription, but don't think that I'm an asshole because you can't take steps to help yourself. I'm addicted to cigarettes, and previously, pot.
> An addict doesn't just view the same things over and over.
That is your reaction, not "an addict's reaction." I quit smoking pot because I realized it was a bad idea for me to smoke it. I did it for a good while, but I never became addicted to other drugs, I never had to get higher because pot was dull -- believe me, after smoking it every day for 6 years straight, it gets dull. I had taken other drugs, but just because they were there & free. Most of them weren't worth the money, but even the "good ones" weren't good enough to get me hooked after a few tries (note: I never injected anything, that's where I drew the line). I did cocaine, maybe 6 times over two years, but I never felt like I HAD to have more (well, at least the next day... As you're coming down, you sure want it). It had psychological effects ON ME. Despite what some will claim, pot can be addictive. I was addicted. HOWEVER, not everyone will react the same way -- not everyone will become addicted. Therefore, I am for decriminalization, and even outright legalization. Just because it's bad for me and enhances my depression, I'm not going to selfishly say that it should be illegal just because I can't handle it. Most people CAN, just like most people can handle porn without raping children.
The point I am leading to is that my addiction to pot came from a preexisting condition -- the depression I had experienced long before I ever smoked pot, or even before I was ever drunk. I believe that your addiction to porn is exacerbated by a previous condition. I'm assuming you have seen psychotherapists, therapists, psychologists, etc to find what disorders you may have? If not, you aren't doing anything to help yourself, why should I try. If you are, great, they can do wonderful things. Don't expect them to do anything, though, the respensibility for kicking an addiction lies squarely on your shoulders.
Tons of people are addicted to online games -- does that mean they should be owtlawed, just because some people don't know when to quit? No. It's the sad truth, but not everyone is going to live a hunkey-dorey life. My life sucks ass, even after quitting the pot, not drinking as much as I used to, and seriously cutting back on the cigarettes. I'm still depressed, but I am not blaming anyone other than myself (and I don't mean the depressive self-abusive way, I mean in a healthy realistic way) for that.
I don't believe the whole "sexual addiction" thing as anything more than an outburst due to repressive laws outlawing sexuality. Humans are meant to breed... a lot. By outlawing any act of sex, they push us back further,
> It seems that anyone who'd have to walk around to 2000 or more PC would have them behind firewall(s)/gateway(s)
Too true. Of course, putting them behind a firewall would mean that this guy has at least a slight clue. If he doesn't know his request... no, DEMAND would break routing, he seems to be lacking a bit of skill in the IT dept. But you are right.
> He is suggesting a system whereby someone has a "tag",
In this case, you mean like a... Domain name? He would still have to renumber all his PCs, but of course, renumbering isn't what is in question in this thread.
If you want portability that badly, just make a domain & make your Email accounts under that. Then, if you want to switch services, point the domain to your new service location & create the same username at that location. Or use Yahoo! mail or something. 'Course, if it's unique on Yahoo, it'll probably be unique on just about any other service, so just make one that's not obvious, like bob@mydomain.com.
Also, this would not work for RL stuff, like phone #...
Well said. I tried to say the same thing and it took me 5 paragraphs...
> Other people are not considered except in as much as they might take one's property.
Such as their lives...
> Libertarianism has at best no opinion, at worst an "it's their problem" opinion, on what to do about someone drowning in a lake
So, you think that government should force me to save someone drowning in a lake? You demand that I risk my life to save another? Libertarians realize that you SHOULD save that person's life, but do not want anyone telling you that you must.
> Socialism is the person on the shore shouting, "Hey, shouldn't we do something to help?"
More like, "there might be the possibility of someone drowning in this lake, so we must make a tax (which also applies to those living in the desert) to put up signs there and post a lifeguard 24/7 to make sure no one falls in.
Or, less blatantly assholish, "You MUST help save his life!"
> it's about time we stood up and acted proud about it.
*ahem*... don't act proud. Be proud. If you are just acting, and not feeling, you are a faker and only hurting the country. However, I agree with the sentiment of the statement.
> Porn is addictive and seriously alters how adults view life and other people.
Spoken like a true moron. There is no evidence to back this up at all.
> Women are treated like meat in porn.
As opposed to the men in porn, who are treated like Gods to be worshipped. OK, bad example...
Don't fall into the incorrect assumption that just because a person is a woman that she is weak. That is even more degrading than simply having sex in front of a camera.
> People want porn because it triggers junk to squirt around in their brains that makes them feel good.
You mean, EXACTLY LIKE THE ADRENALINE THOSE SPORTS PLAYERS FEEL? People WATCHING sports certainly don't get any benefit from it, except, yes, it triggers junk (again, adrenaline, dopamine) to "squirt around in their brains." It does not teach the viewers anything useful. It does not, usually, show them the massive amounts of practice these players go through. It "shows" the viewer that by being born strong, they can make millions in sports. That is not the truth of it, but that's the image -- of course, true fans know what goes into becoming a very good team.
> people are designed to have these feelings with other people - not a monitor or TV.
Are you Catholic by any chance? I can argue that sex is designed to make babies -- not to have a good time, even with a very close friend (eg, your fiance/wife). If you do it for fun, or if you wear a condom, you are breaking the laws of nature -- it tricks your brain into thinking you're making a baby, but no, you evil bastard, you're going to throw that potential life into the sewer.
CONDOMS ARE NOT BIOLOGICAL EITHER, but are you claiming they should be illegal? If you are arguing porn should be illegal because it isn't natural, throw all your books that are printed with synthetic ink out the window and burn them. Own anything plastic? GONE. Got vinyl siding on your house? OOOOH, deliciously evil siding...
> Nature has chosen who gets to hook up with who and how often
What the hell are you talking about? How does nature select your mate???? What about bi- or homosexuals? Do you seriously believe these people are just perverts because they aren't using their willies in "the way nature intended" (IOW, the way YOU dictate)? You're a good candidate for fascism.
> What do you think research says about porn and how it has effected a porn-lovin culture's view of women?
I think it puts things in terms of "Good vs. Evil," when in fact there is no such thing. Just actions. The same goes for morality. The only reason you see morality disappearing is because the "new morality" does not fit in exactly with your narrow view of how things should be.
> Is porn good for our culture?
Nope, it's not bad either.
> the defining moments that stand out have everything to do with sacrifice, selfless service, and a consideration for some higher cause that is more important than self.
That's only because the moments that stand out to you already fit into your view of a higher cause. I don't believe in any higher cause, so your argument, to me, is nullified.
> What is better for a person [...] watching porn or taking a nap?
Considering the calories you would burn "jerkin' it," porn. (please note, I'm kinda' joking there)
You keep comparing porn to other things you could be doing. YOU CAN STILL DO THOSE THINGS. What about porn versus watching four hours of mindless television. With porn, you get at least a little exercise. Granted, that's not the point, but it's not like you can't meditate on your life's dreams AFTER watching some porn.
> Mature people, however, understand that nothing of value comes without pain.
That is complete bullshit. My life has been enhanced manyfold by meditating. There is no pain in that -- well, except trying the full-lotus position, but that's justa technicality. That is not maturity, that is either ignorance or making shit up to push your own views (ie, "if you don't believe what I say, I'll call you a child and laugh at you."). Nice.
> good sex is about putting someone elses desire before our own.
That is your opinion. It happens to be mine as well, but please stop mixing up opinion with truth. You do not know that, you have not been a part of or heard of every -- hell, even a majority -- sexual act to ever take place, so you cannot speak with any authority on this.
> 'I'm a better person because of porn!' Nice.
No one seriously claims they are a better person for watching porn. Or at least, anyone I've met. HOWEVER, no one claims they are a better person for watching TV for hours on end, and you don't seem to be screaming about that. It's even more prevalent than porn!
Unless you speak out against TV and all other useless pursuits with the same vigor you do with porn, you are merely pushing an agenda, not trying to protect or help anyone.
Go on, call me a godless sinner for believing in actual freedom -- not just the freedom to do whatever you happen to agree with.
> a billion ways to degrade a woman
Porn that I see does not degrade women. I like the way the female body looks, it has nothing to do with degradation. You are putting entire classes of people into one group. From your post, I would guess you are a religious nutball. It may not be the truth, but it is as truthful as you calling all porn degrading. You are bullshitting to promote your own agenda, it has nothing to do with the welfare of women.
> We're forking over BILLIONS for porn.
And so it's automatically evil because it brings in lots of money? People fork over BILLIONS for food every MONTH! IT MUST BE STOPPED, NOW!!!
> grow up
Back 'atcha.
It is my opinion that porn is such a hot industry because of the "forced morality" that the people in power promote. We are told to believe that sex is evil, the human body is meant to be hidden away. If it weren't illegal to be naked, and people walked around nude once in a while, it wouldn't be so exciting (believe me, you wouldn't get too excited seeing an average person naked...) and there wouldn't be as much money in it.
Instead of treating the symptoms, treat the cause. By making it basically illegal for someone to see a real naked body or to engage in a sexual activity, you make them desire it more. If we had grown up knowing that it's no big deal (which, really, it isn't), porn would collapse. There would be no desire to go download pictures of naked women -- you could go see it on the street if you wanted.
I blame religions with their artificial moralities, but I'm a bit biased there.
BTW, I don't fork over ANY money for porn, I don't even look at much of it. The dirtiest magazine I own is a 2-year old issue of Playboy (well, 12 of them actually -- a gift subscription). I don't have any porn on my PC, and I don't go looking for it, except maybe once every other month or so. I think beastiality is disgusting, but I don't claim to decide absolute morality: it's not my right to tell someone else they can't do something, just because I find it horrible. That is what you are basically doing here. Child porn, okay, that directly harms someone. Rape porn, if a pic of an actual ocurrence, yes, that harms someone. Fine, that's illegal. When two to twenty (or more) consenting adults (and, perhaps, a consenting llama or three) want to do whatever it is they want to do, and another one wants to take pictures, it's not my right, nor yours, to tell them they can't.
If they want to sell them, it's not my right to tell them they can't. It MAY BE MY RIGHT, however, to not have it thrown in my face or sent to me via EMail -- unless I request it.
> Let's have a porn-O birthday party!
And that harms you, how?
> 'It makes me feel good so it must be a good idea!' - grow up.
I didn't realize growing up means not having fun or feeling good any more. Just because YOU are a miserable ass, don't expect the rest of us to be.
And finally, your statement seems to imply that anyone who has fun must not be "grown up." I suggest you reevaluate yourself and if you value freedom, or just your own views.
Alas, I can't force you to get a clue, but don't try to force me to do anything either, just because you are ignorant.
> so he doesn't have to reconfigure all his machines.
Read: He's lazy and doesn't want to do any work that numerous others have had to do (such as, myself). So instead of getting off his ass & taking responsibility for it or doing any work, he sues. It's the American Way!
Y'know, this asshole has probably done more work trying to sue than it would have been just to renumber the damn things. Seriously, it's not hard at all to walk around to each PC and enter a new address -- even if you have 2000 of them. Might take a while, since they probably have multiple locations, but it's still easy.
If you use Netware or Active Directory, you could probably write a script of some kind to do it for him, to automatically run at startup.
> we actually do need a system where my address whether Internet or Phone or otherwise is mine and portable. This must include Email addressing and allow me to make it portable without regards to ISP.
WHAT??? No way. Others have said it, but it is true. Say you live at 1125 Buckshore Ln, Indianapolis, IN. You move to Florida, do you expect to be able to keep THAT address? What about after someone else moves in, do they have to change the address to 1125.5 just because you are slightly inconvenienced? No, that's ridiculous. YOU DO NOT OWN ANY IP ADDRESSES! You lease them. AOL does not even own IPs. They lease them from ARIN.
I even think it's stupid to require Cell # portability. If you want to keep the number, don't change your friggin service. The EMail statement is even worse. You think it's your right to have billybob@comcast.net after you stopped paying them for it? No way, all Email sent to that would take up their bandwidth/storage space without receiving any compensation. To me, that is not acceptable.
> One solution would be to leave a server or two at the old address
I basically did that too -- I left a single PC on the old network as the primary DNS server and forwarded the requests to the new network. It's a pretty simple solution and one that can move with you as slow or fast as you want. You can move your PCs & servers one at a time, updating the DNS after each one changes (or group, which makes more sense instead of running back & forth from PC1 -> server -> PC2 -> server...).
A very simple solution, which I sorta halfassed, but it worked well.
> There are 11 types of people, those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who get the joke...
Make that 100 types. I get the joke & also understand binary. Of course, anyone who falls under type 11 also falls under type 01... Back to 10 types.
> authoritarian - the absolute opposite of liberal.
of "liberal," yes, but not "Liberal" as it means today. That has nothing to do with right-wingers.
I'm not reading the article, I'm not even going to browse the comments. I will say one thing & never look back (except maybe to replies).
.com crap was going on. We heard about the amazing wages people were making, so we assumed that we could do as well, or at least similar -- that's where we judged the baseline for our "statistical analysis" of salary.
:) and really, not much to do. If I wanted, I could have found something. Peruse some tech manuals, or review some new software or something equally boring, but at least I would be doing work instead of reading about some crappy (S)NES ROM hacks. Work isn't supposed to be enjoyable. Otherwise, in the morning, you'd say "I'm going to play!" instead of "Ugh, gotta go to work."
/. in stream-of-conciousness mode.
The reason IT people think they are earning "below average" is that they have no goddamned idea what average is. Many of us were graduates or in college/maybe High School while the
Then the industry collapsed, for numerous reasons including paying their staff way too friggin much. We saw it collapse, but many didn't consider that it meant the salaries would as well. So there were fewer jobs on more limited corporate budgets, but we still expected the same wages?
A large factor in this could be the arrogance that comes along with being brilliant -- which most of us think we are (and we may be right). We seem to think that our brilliance is worth shitloads of money, just because it's in a more specialized and a -- here's a key bit -- very new field. Standard IT staff hadn't really existed prior to the 80s. Yeah, there were a lot of bearded gurus & stuff, but not the same as today, where a medium business will have 2-3 full-time support personnel, just to take care of employee PCs.
A prime example of that arrogance (sorry to the person in this example, but I told you when it came up that I thought it was arrogant) is a guy on here a while back complaining that he was ONLY making about 90K a year. My immediate response to anyone who feels that way is "fuck you." I don't care where you live, (short of UAE) that's a lot of money. When someone thinks they are barely scraping by on 90 grand a year, they have no idea the true value of money. Especially if they're single (don't know or remember if he was -- prolly not).
What boggles my mind is that many of these people who are "being robbed" are the same ones who are good enough at what they do to sit around at work playing City of Heros on the company's OC-3 for hours on end. Good for you. Go create work, you mooching bastard. I spent a lot of today sitting around because there "wasn't anything to do," but it's Friday (classic cop-out
If you think you aren't paid enough, ask random people with the same educational level (and similar skill level in their own field) how much they make. Probably less than you.
I'm not a journalist, so don't complain about the rambling nature of the post. I write on
> Shakespeare had a comment about such a position, "doth protests too much"
FYI, "Methinks thou dost protesteth too much."
'tis a good quote, and your paraphrasing was close enough to get the point across nicely.
> Three cheers for liberals and a centralized federal government, then! Without them, the city streets wouldn't have lamps
Three cheers for boldfaced lies! Without them, you wouldn't have anything to post! (Hint: look at the AC's reply: the federal government had no hand in creating streetlamps)
> Sure I could set them up a domain name, email server, and a great website for less than $500. But I expect to be paid for my work.
Umm, you are. $500. What you are saying, in essence, is that you expect to be paid A LOT for your work. For $500 I could make a full website. It may not be the kick-assest thing you've ever seen, but better than a graphic & badly-placed text.