I think it's one of the hypocracies of the AGW alarmists that every technology that can help us avoid their worst fears is roundly decried as worse than the global warming itself. The Three Gorges Dam in China was continuously railed against, with some people predicting it was definitely going to fail before it was even finished, others predicting it would fail as soon as the water filled in behind it.
As far as world-reshaping measures, the really important ones from the alarmists concern reducing the world population by 50-90%. The reduction would undoubtedly not come from the ranks of the environmentalists themselves, but from their ideological opponents. Logically though, anyone who thinks the world would be significantly better off with a lower population should take matters into their own hands and remove themselves from it.
So you're saying World War II stopped, and even reversed, global warming for decades? Great, now we know what he have to do to save the planet. Bomb it into submission again.
Well, since Obamacare wasn't a "checks and balances" product, by your earlier statement it seems like it must be a "policies for sale" product.
Or it was a product of the sort in my last sentence, rule by despot, with the active involvement of all three branches.
By the way, you don't know what I actually feel about either Obamacare specifically, or public healthcare in general, but I can assure you it isn't what you would assume.
I typed "missles" first, and Firefox redlined it. Then I tried "missels" and it was still redlined. So I right-clicked to get the proper spelling, and saw "mussels" which I knew was way off, then "misses", and third was "missals". I knew it was not right, but figured "Fuck it, that's what Firefox thinks it is. Good enough for a lame joke on/.."
Personally, I don't like having to check a box to see the password
But you'd like to click ok in a dialog box before it?
I'm not sure what you're asking.
I would rather have password fields in standard login pages masked, but would be fine with the password in the installation routine not masked, with appropriate safeguards. If that specific password had the option of not being masked, I would prefer it to be the default with a checkbox to click to force masking. Basically, if I want to see it, and it is an option, why not have it be the default. The more security conscience people, or me in a low security location, should be happy to have a "more secure" option available that they enable before typing the password.
Let's throw all the self proclaimed designers out of the linux community. Nothing will be lost considering all the shit they have imposed soviet style over their users.
Or you could roll your own. Isn't the the biggest advantage of open source, that you have that final level of control?
Do you really expect me to disconnect an employee computer, hull it up to my office, and reinstall there - just so I can have a standard local root password the other admins also know?
I hope you bring your own certified keyboard with you when you reinstall employees' computers at their own desk.
Because if you don't, the easiest way to get your supersecret password is for the employee to replace their keyboard with another that has a key logger built in.
What company do you work for? I have a friend who's looking for a job.
As long as you must take any active action to display the password I'm fine with it, but if you give me a password field I'm going to assume by default that it won't be echoed back to me in plaintext...
How about if, for this situation of doing a system install, the password field isn't masked, but there is a message displayed in the password box telling you is it not masked?
Personally, I don't like having to check a box to see the password, and would rather it be unmasked by default with a checkbox to mask it. With the additional rule of checking or clearing the box clears the password field first. But with having the default, just for the installation process, being unmasked with the warning, and auto-clearing on change of option, would that satisfy you?
The problem is that ALL of the government is that way. Look at all the money Obama's administration has thrown to his political buddies, or withdrew money in the most public and painful way possible to show how bad the Republicans sequestration is. Nevermind the fact that it is and always has been Obama's sequestration.
Each branch of the federal government is supposed to balance the other two by insisting in its own authority outlined in the Constitution. And each pair of two is supposed to balance the third by working to stop an attempt to over-reach that authority. That is the concept behind 'checks and balances', not this modern idea they all have of cronyism and mutual support of despots of their own party.
Unless the judges that are being kept on hold are going to just rubber-stamp any piece of crap the Democrats pass. Then 'checks and balances' is still a concept headed for extinction.
To every one else, pipe down. He says he bought guns in Texas back in the 1990's. Even at gun shows they would be easier to buy and sell casually back then.
To AK, my main point beyond that is the post I replied to is saying anyone at all can walk into a gun show today, and buy any high-tech weapon they want from a dealer with no background checks. He's obviously reading the left-wing talking points memos, and talking out his ass.
Go to any of the natural parks with geothermal features. Chances are you can find sulfur ripe for the picking. One place I was at had thick layers of it at the edge of the crater.
Who says the bullets go through the metal detector? Camouflage them as AA batteries in your camera bag, and send them through the standard xray machine. Do you think the TSA guy watching the monitor would notice?
Now add in that if a real revolution or civil war broke out in the US there would probably be numerous nations who would be willing to supply heavier arms to the revolutionaries
Yes, like the Sioux nation, the Seminole nation, the Apache nation,....
Well, this problem can be solved gradually. Lots of other countries had comparable gun ownership and now are comparably gun-free.
All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true.
Good Luck with that....
No, President Obama has shown quite clearly that he doesn't need to follow the Constitution. The 'checks and balances' of Congress and the Supreme Court have almost disappeared. And his supporters, such as Cyberax, expect him to do even more, since over half the country voted for him so he could.
I have bonded quite well with my daughter. But my wife bonded with her more. Even though middle-of-the-night bottle-feedings and diaper changes were generally done by me, for quite specific reasons. Go read about the hormones that bond a mother to her own child. They don't bond 'females' to 'random babies', which is what your claims would suggest. Nor do all mothers have the same level of a response.
So, first, stop trying to quantify how much I bonded with my child, because you have no clue what you are talking about. Second, quit having what I can only describe as childish tantrums over your vagina envy. It isn't your fault biology doesn't work how you want it to, but insisting it does is just dumb. Or, third, maybe in your case, you wife just happens to be one of the women who didn't have the normal bonding with your children, so your normal father-child bond was more intense than hers, and you are projecting you experience to every random poster on the internet.
In conclusion, thank you for illuminating the biggest reason not to post my personal thoughts and experiences online. Complete strangers think they know my situation better than I do.
Who said I didn't bond with my daughter? I never said that. But thank you proving your actual problem isn't my statement of a biological process. Your problem is that a company's response to that isn't fair. Or at least, it isn't fair in your mind. (Here's a hint: Equal isn't always Fair.)
As for a scientific proof of your specific bond versus "a typical woman", yes, provide scientific proof or shut up already. Because, again, it isn't the biological process you are arguing against, it is Yahoo's parental leave policy. So unless you give scientific proof that fathers require just as much time as mothers, you're simply having a childish tantrum, as I said earlier.
Firstly, let me thank you for arguing from a viewpoint of actual reasoning, with a goal of discussion, or even simply enlightenment of myself. I have had enough of arguing with fools for today.
While general bonding is mostly a matter of care, as you say, the biological processes in a pregnant woman can't be overlooked. Indeed, without them this whole discussion wouldn't exist. Then, the further processes of birth and the initial days of breastfeeding have their own importance. There are homones that the woman's body releases that men's bodies either don't have, or men have in much smaller amounts with no spike like in a woman's body during and just after birth.
I never said fathers don't bond with their children, or that paternal bonding isn't important in its own right. I think a few people twisted my original off the cuff comment, based on their own desires. Especially based on their dislike of a maternal/paternal leave policy they see as discriminatory against their interests.
High oxytocin causes a mother to become familiar with the unique odor of her newborn infant, and once attracted to it, to prefer her own baby's odor above all others'. Baby is similarly imprinted on mother, deriving feelings of calmness and pain reduction along with mom. When the infant is born, he is already imprinted on the odor of his amniotic fluid. This odor imprint helps him find mother's nipple, which has a similar but slightly different odor. In the days following birth, the infant can be comforted by the odor of this fluid
Gradually over the next days, baby starts to prefer the odor of his mother's breast, but continued imprinting upon his mother is not food related. In fact, formula-fed infants are more attracted (in laboratory tests) to their mother's breast odor than to that of their formula, even two weeks after birth.
I don't see how any male can bond at that level, without significant artificial effort to mimic that natural process of a mother and child. Even an adoptive mother or wet-nurse can't bond at that level, though each fulfills certain key aspects of the mother-child relationship.
What scientific proof do you have that, in general, a male is able to form as intense a bond with his offspring, as the bond that a female forms with the fetus that grows within her womb? Or that such a thing is desirable in our society?
And I'm not talking about random cases where a woman has "no maternal instinct", as we sometimes hear described of uncaring mothers. Or cases of drug addicts or psychologically damaged abuse victims. I also never said no father can develop a stronger bond with a child than the child's mother does, in individual cases.
Maybe in a four-sentence casual post, I was supposed to put qualifiers on one statement in one sentence, to make sure everyone who ever reads it knows exactly what I mean. Or maybe you, and thousands like you, stop reading every random post from psuedo-anonymous sources on social websites as if they are attempts at doctoral theses.
I would like to throw your insult back at you, but I don't think you are dysfunctional. Simply childish. You want what you can't have, so you have to insist you have the right to it, and you will have it come hell or high water. And society has to support you in your perverse dementia, because only you have the truth. No one else, even anonymous/.ers, can possibly have a valid point, unless it supports your desire.
Honestly, I've argued various topics with people like you for years. Decades really. The topic has little to do with how you argue, so your rants and insults are nothing new; they don't sting; they barely hold my attention at this point. Especially since they are used to back your claims that have only an emotional basis, rather than either common sense or scientific proof. You don't have any definitive scientific proof, do you? No? I didn't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's one of the hypocracies of the AGW alarmists that every technology that can help us avoid their worst fears is roundly decried as worse than the global warming itself. The Three Gorges Dam in China was continuously railed against, with some people predicting it was definitely going to fail before it was even finished, others predicting it would fail as soon as the water filled in behind it.
As far as world-reshaping measures, the really important ones from the alarmists concern reducing the world population by 50-90%. The reduction would undoubtedly not come from the ranks of the environmentalists themselves, but from their ideological opponents. Logically though, anyone who thinks the world would be significantly better off with a lower population should take matters into their own hands and remove themselves from it.
So you're saying World War II stopped, and even reversed, global warming for decades? Great, now we know what he have to do to save the planet. Bomb it into submission again.
Well, since Obamacare wasn't a "checks and balances" product, by your earlier statement it seems like it must be a "policies for sale" product.
Or it was a product of the sort in my last sentence, rule by despot, with the active involvement of all three branches.
By the way, you don't know what I actually feel about either Obamacare specifically, or public healthcare in general, but I can assure you it isn't what you would assume.
Now go down the page to the Additional Information section and click on the icon that looks like a page of paper.
Bring a cup of coffee, it's going to be a long read.
Fedora is Catholic?
Don't judge me! :^P
I typed "missles" first, and Firefox redlined it. Then I tried "missels" and it was still redlined. So I right-clicked to get the proper spelling, and saw "mussels" which I knew was way off, then "misses", and third was "missals". I knew it was not right, but figured "Fuck it, that's what Firefox thinks it is. Good enough for a lame joke on /. ."
I hope it at least gave you a chuckle.
But you'd like to click ok in a dialog box before it?
I'm not sure what you're asking.
I would rather have password fields in standard login pages masked, but would be fine with the password in the installation routine not masked, with appropriate safeguards. If that specific password had the option of not being masked, I would prefer it to be the default with a checkbox to click to force masking. Basically, if I want to see it, and it is an option, why not have it be the default. The more security conscience people, or me in a low security location, should be happy to have a "more secure" option available that they enable before typing the password.
Let's throw all the self proclaimed designers out of the linux community. Nothing will be lost considering all the shit they have imposed soviet style over their users.
Or you could roll your own. Isn't the the biggest advantage of open source, that you have that final level of control?
It fired all its missals and dropped the extra fuel tank. Damn system bugs.
Do you really expect me to disconnect an employee computer, hull it up to my office, and reinstall there - just so I can have a standard local root password the other admins also know?
I hope you bring your own certified keyboard with you when you reinstall employees' computers at their own desk.
Because if you don't, the easiest way to get your supersecret password is for the employee to replace their keyboard with another that has a key logger built in.
What company do you work for? I have a friend who's looking for a job.
As long as you must take any active action to display the password I'm fine with it, but if you give me a password field I'm going to assume by default that it won't be echoed back to me in plaintext ...
How about if, for this situation of doing a system install, the password field isn't masked, but there is a message displayed in the password box telling you is it not masked?
Personally, I don't like having to check a box to see the password, and would rather it be unmasked by default with a checkbox to mask it. With the additional rule of checking or clearing the box clears the password field first. But with having the default, just for the installation process, being unmasked with the warning, and auto-clearing on change of option, would that satisfy you?
The problem is that ALL of the government is that way. Look at all the money Obama's administration has thrown to his political buddies, or withdrew money in the most public and painful way possible to show how bad the Republicans sequestration is. Nevermind the fact that it is and always has been Obama's sequestration.
Each branch of the federal government is supposed to balance the other two by insisting in its own authority outlined in the Constitution. And each pair of two is supposed to balance the third by working to stop an attempt to over-reach that authority. That is the concept behind 'checks and balances', not this modern idea they all have of cronyism and mutual support of despots of their own party.
Unless the judges that are being kept on hold are going to just rubber-stamp any piece of crap the Democrats pass. Then 'checks and balances' is still a concept headed for extinction.
Well, you just got an earful, didn't ya? :-P
To every one else, pipe down. He says he bought guns in Texas back in the 1990's. Even at gun shows they would be easier to buy and sell casually back then.
To AK, my main point beyond that is the post I replied to is saying anyone at all can walk into a gun show today, and buy any high-tech weapon they want from a dealer with no background checks. He's obviously reading the left-wing talking points memos, and talking out his ass.
You fool, don't you know Mr Ed wasn't actually a horse?
http://www.snopes.com/lost/mistered.asp
3) Buy some sulfur somewhere.
Go to any of the natural parks with geothermal features. Chances are you can find sulfur ripe for the picking. One place I was at had thick layers of it at the edge of the crater.
Who says the bullets go through the metal detector? Camouflage them as AA batteries in your camera bag, and send them through the standard xray machine. Do you think the TSA guy watching the monitor would notice?
Now add in that if a real revolution or civil war broke out in the US there would probably be numerous nations who would be willing to supply heavier arms to the revolutionaries
Yes, like the Sioux nation, the Seminole nation, the Apache nation,....
All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true.
Good Luck with that....
No, President Obama has shown quite clearly that he doesn't need to follow the Constitution. The 'checks and balances' of Congress and the Supreme Court have almost disappeared. And his supporters, such as Cyberax, expect him to do even more, since over half the country voted for him so he could.
At the moment, in the USA, anybody can get ahold of a gun by tossing a wad of bills across at table at a gun show
Obviously said by someone who has never tried that technique. And probably has never been to a gun show.
Ok, one last response for you.
I have bonded quite well with my daughter. But my wife bonded with her more. Even though middle-of-the-night bottle-feedings and diaper changes were generally done by me, for quite specific reasons. Go read about the hormones that bond a mother to her own child. They don't bond 'females' to 'random babies', which is what your claims would suggest. Nor do all mothers have the same level of a response.
So, first, stop trying to quantify how much I bonded with my child, because you have no clue what you are talking about. Second, quit having what I can only describe as childish tantrums over your vagina envy. It isn't your fault biology doesn't work how you want it to, but insisting it does is just dumb. Or, third, maybe in your case, you wife just happens to be one of the women who didn't have the normal bonding with your children, so your normal father-child bond was more intense than hers, and you are projecting you experience to every random poster on the internet.
In conclusion, thank you for illuminating the biggest reason not to post my personal thoughts and experiences online. Complete strangers think they know my situation better than I do.
Who said I didn't bond with my daughter? I never said that. But thank you proving your actual problem isn't my statement of a biological process. Your problem is that a company's response to that isn't fair. Or at least, it isn't fair in your mind. (Here's a hint: Equal isn't always Fair.)
As for a scientific proof of your specific bond versus "a typical woman", yes, provide scientific proof or shut up already. Because, again, it isn't the biological process you are arguing against, it is Yahoo's parental leave policy. So unless you give scientific proof that fathers require just as much time as mothers, you're simply having a childish tantrum, as I said earlier.
Firstly, let me thank you for arguing from a viewpoint of actual reasoning, with a goal of discussion, or even simply enlightenment of myself. I have had enough of arguing with fools for today.
While general bonding is mostly a matter of care, as you say, the biological processes in a pregnant woman can't be overlooked. Indeed, without them this whole discussion wouldn't exist. Then, the further processes of birth and the initial days of breastfeeding have their own importance. There are homones that the woman's body releases that men's bodies either don't have, or men have in much smaller amounts with no spike like in a woman's body during and just after birth.
I never said fathers don't bond with their children, or that paternal bonding isn't important in its own right. I think a few people twisted my original off the cuff comment, based on their own desires. Especially based on their dislike of a maternal/paternal leave policy they see as discriminatory against their interests.
Googleing around earlier to find support of my point, I found this site: http://thebabybond.com/BondingMatters.html
High oxytocin causes a mother to become familiar with the unique odor of her newborn infant, and once attracted to it, to prefer her own baby's odor above all others'. Baby is similarly imprinted on mother, deriving feelings of calmness and pain reduction along with mom. When the infant is born, he is already imprinted on the odor of his amniotic fluid. This odor imprint helps him find mother's nipple, which has a similar but slightly different odor. In the days following birth, the infant can be comforted by the odor of this fluid
Gradually over the next days, baby starts to prefer the odor of his mother's breast, but continued imprinting upon his mother is not food related. In fact, formula-fed infants are more attracted (in laboratory tests) to their mother's breast odor than to that of their formula, even two weeks after birth .
I don't see how any male can bond at that level, without significant artificial effort to mimic that natural process of a mother and child. Even an adoptive mother or wet-nurse can't bond at that level, though each fulfills certain key aspects of the mother-child relationship.
What scientific proof do you have that, in general, a male is able to form as intense a bond with his offspring, as the bond that a female forms with the fetus that grows within her womb? Or that such a thing is desirable in our society?
And I'm not talking about random cases where a woman has "no maternal instinct", as we sometimes hear described of uncaring mothers. Or cases of drug addicts or psychologically damaged abuse victims. I also never said no father can develop a stronger bond with a child than the child's mother does, in individual cases.
Maybe in a four-sentence casual post, I was supposed to put qualifiers on one statement in one sentence, to make sure everyone who ever reads it knows exactly what I mean. Or maybe you, and thousands like you, stop reading every random post from psuedo-anonymous sources on social websites as if they are attempts at doctoral theses.
I would like to throw your insult back at you, but I don't think you are dysfunctional. Simply childish. You want what you can't have, so you have to insist you have the right to it, and you will have it come hell or high water. And society has to support you in your perverse dementia, because only you have the truth. No one else, even anonymous /.ers, can possibly have a valid point, unless it supports your desire.
Honestly, I've argued various topics with people like you for years. Decades really. The topic has little to do with how you argue, so your rants and insults are nothing new; they don't sting; they barely hold my attention at this point. Especially since they are used to back your claims that have only an emotional basis, rather than either common sense or scientific proof. You don't have any definitive scientific proof, do you? No? I didn't think so.
Correction: Replace "keep" with "are". I guess I read his post earlier and later, and thought he posted similar comments twice. My mistake.
Wait a minute. I'm dysfunctional because I work? Or am I dysfunctional because females give birth? Or did females stop giving birth in the 1950's?
I can't quite grok your meaning there.