Well, then it might make you happy to know there was a report recently (article, whatever) showing how if more women were promiscuous, it would reduce STI transmission rates. Everyone cheating with the same nympho means 3 hops for everyone to be infected including their partners. However a much wider "distribution network" would not only track STI transmission rates better for a variety of reasons, but the number of hops would dramatically increase, adding latency and more time to catch anything going around before it became epidemic.
I would completely agree if your context was crime stats. While I think cheaters, i.e. con artists, and cheaters i.e. lying to a partner, have many things in common, there are significantly different factors at play when it is a mutually consensual poly relationship.
polygamy is [wanting] to be impregnating every woman you can get your hands on
really? For me, the number of women that I find myself compatible with is so far and in between that I like to keep them very close. I think you are naming a male sterotype, but it doesn't apply to this poly male.
If you're a powerless man, then your best strategy is monogamy
Wow, again, going to have to disagree. If you are powerless then you should be grateful to get your hands on anything you can and try to mate as quickly as possible before someone else better comes along. In monogamy, where life bonding is assumed to be natural, women are only going to seek suitable mates, i.e. not you (just kidding, it was just too easy to pass up)
[Monogamy] leads to the nerds who will love a woman forever and stick with her through sickness and health.
And couldn't that be more readily assured if you had and her had other close intimate loves such that if one of you dies the other is not left alone to fend for themselves? How selfish and to think that you could be and insist to be everything to someone when in reality that isn't mortally possible, among other reasons.
Hence middle-management types cheating on their wives
I believe studies have been more inclined to show that men 'cheat' more often than women in dating relationships, while the reverse is true for married couples. Remember, when a guy cheats, it is because he is an asshole, and when women cheat, it is because their husband is an asshole.:)
Agreed. However, monos are a lot more uncomfortable with the idea of poly versus the other way around. Monos have a much stronger need to feel normal. For all the jealousy and mistrust that seems to plague mono relationships, there are many more words that are used to describe those who are poly in a negative way. While I haven't experienced it myself, I have read about a lot of criticism those in poly relationships to be more politically correct, often going as far to pull out the old "think of the children" argument. Yeah, cause living in shame and fear of their own bodies and mind must be WAY healthier than having an open, non-discriminatory outlook of people. Political Correctness? FAIL
This is to most of the responses to the thread as they all seem to have a revolving theme: Poly means guy with many monogamous wives. I think this is a terrible premise because it is such a poor reflection of poly in the United States, or a lot of places. Of the poly families I know, blood lines are much less important than the sub-community, or whatever you would call it, work together. There can be structural hierarchies in terms of who has final say over a household or such, but the ways in which love is shared in boundless. While there are no children in my household, I do know 'big families' that do, and the children are between normal, healthy to very open-minded with mature outlooks on relations and majority of the tine go on to have monogamous relationships in their adult lives (but not always) as I have seen. A disproportionate number of them seem to become C-programmers, but I have my own theory on that.
This trend for people to couple, isolate themselves, then expect a federal government to take care of their family problems is issue. People see the benefit and necessity of the 2 earner income. why not the three earner income, or the 2 earner with a full time at home parent? My ideal: a steady earner, the risk seeking earner, a full time parent / educator for the kids, and a housekeeper / chef. Each play a vital role in balancing the others out and allowing them to be most successful at what they WANT to do. Sure there would be issues to figure out and some role swapping would be bound to take place, but each would have the opportunity to do what they wanted. Leave the kids with someone you love and trust, no money for babysitters, stable income, with substantially lower risk if want to switch to a higher paying job with less security. Who needs a welfare state in that situation? I think you can see where I have gone with this.
You are making some major assumptions. I know way too many sexually repressed men / women in monogamous relationships with propensity for violence / disturbing behavior. I beg to see the reverse. Usually men / women that are sexually satisfied by their partner(s) are less likely to make unsolicited advanced, not to mention the maturity and experience gained through multi-tasking intimate relationships in a open, healthy, and socially acceptable way.
And from experience, it is just as hurtful for a mono to find out their partner was lying about being mono as it is for a poly person to find out someone they love isn't really poly. It is all about trust and honesty vs deception.
I completely followed you up to the oxytocin prescription part. You mean a drug to suppress this poison that has kept Americans from joining the rest of the world in sexual freedom and expression, right? I think religion has done enough damage to oppress women and healthy expressions of sexuality we don't need drugs to assist them. Here is proof that people are naturally multi-faceted; some being naturally poly, and others being naturally mono with likely a middle ground; and you see it as a opportunity for genetic cleansing. Shame on you. How about allowing people to join together as they please with a society and law that allows different groups of people to participate in community in equal ways? People know what their natural disposition is, and if you need to give your partner a test or drugs to fix them, maybe you should take a closer look at your communication and trust issues in your relationship. What I would hope from this study, as people have been joking around, is that people could be more honest about their predispositions (little different from being gay) in order to find appropriate partners INSTEAD of continuing to pretend to be something someone else told you you were supposed to be.
Sadness: Homosexual in a marriage with a MOS because they are "supposed to be". Sadness: Two homosexual men or women that are attracted to each other that can't express their affections for fear of reprisal if the feelings are not mutual. Sadness: Two naturally poly people in a relationship trying to pretend they are not, or that something is wrong with them.
It will still be as it always has been, swingers. Couples in strong committed relationships that enjoy all life has to offer in the range of ways life has to offer with other couples by far have the most sex due to the consistency and trust built. Be it between friends and other couples, this will always beat out the single individuals fighting for themselves.
As far as the DIY kits, no need. Good swingers have been trained to sniff out Oxytocin most of their lives, and as for the monos out there, they prefer to be in denial anyway while their partner is off with someone else. Until one gets pregnant / gets someone pregnant, then there is the fake "shocked" reaction followed by the all too real divorce.:)
Seen it too many times. 1 in every 2 people is poly meaning if your mono, chances are your partner is not.
btw, happily married, and and I do most of the cooking for all of us:)
The antitrust case began with Microsoft's dominance over the PC market, not the OS market necessarily. Is the refund clause mostly just for show to cover their backs and pretend to play nice with the Department of justice? Sure. Are they going to do anything to avoid paying out? Of Course! Is Lenovo a victim of Microsoft's monopolistic practices? Sure. Was Lenovo completely ignorant as to what they were getting into? HA HA HA HA HA!!!
You think even maybe... 1/1000 people have the slightest clue or care what an OS is or how it works? Doesn't even matter, but give people their money back in accordance with the law (EULA aside, see the LePage or PeaceHealth standard on product bundling). If They can't handle it, get out of the business like IBM figured out.
IANAL, but Lenovo is selling you a computer, and as a courtesy, sell you a Windows License at an undisclosed, but included, price. They are "tied" together, not "bundled", making them two separate. Their justification is that selling a computer without an Operating System would makes things more complicated for the consumer and encourage piracy since computers MUST have an operating system to work. As a separate product, it must be 'returnable' for the price of the product. The 'price' of the product is a big issue due to several legal precedents including the LePage standard (LePage's Inc. v. 3M 324 F.3d 141) that disallows products to be sold below competitive price (over simplified, sure). This means either refund the retail price, or admit you are breaking the law in your price scheme. Not only do you have the PeaceHealth standard (Cascade Health Solutions v. Peacehealth, 515 F.3d 973) to consider on product bundling, but I think Microsoft set a few precedents themselves, not the least of which was their own antitrust case, despite the fact that it has been very poorly enforced.
Basically, you can't sell a bad product without taking responsibility for it, even if you didn't make it. Your only argument is "but everybody uses Windows" as some kind of obligation on part of the customer and binding expectation on part of Lenovo.
If Lenovo doesn't want to provide refunds, they shouldn't sell Windows Licenses, and even if they don't know the law, the EULA THIS TIME clearly explains it.
The irony is that the people that think all this is a big BS scam on the part of Microsoft are the same people that don't want Windows in the first place which is why they are seeking refunds.
Really simple solution? OFFER MULTIPLE OS OPTIONS! So they made a deal with the devil only to find out the consumer was smarter than they were. Boo hoo, whine to someone that cares.
And to Anonymous Coward, I still can't figure out if you are trolling, or just... uninformed.
Anyone getting an OEM discount from Microsoft is not allowed to tell anyone how much they pay. The penalty is having all of your licenses revoked, including licenses already sold. That is why they make such a big deal about it.
Why do people take 10 minutes to ask a question whose answer is 5 minutes of research away on the web? *sigh*
Well, it is a step forward. Kids getting around the system won't be stealing them anymore. Also, tricking the system is a more overt act, for what it's worth.
Also, couldn't this easily be solved (assuming the system was any good in the first place) to use two cameras for 3d processing?
I think you are over reaching when you define monopoly. Otherwise all property ownership would be considered a monopoly. And while it may help you get more hits, I have never judged a company as having better service simply because they had a dictionary word domain name, though I am a bit turned off by the hereiseverythingaboutmybusinessandperson.com type domains. There is a balance. I do believe there is something in the ICANN rules where you can take away someones domain name if it isn't being used for an appropriate purpose. If not ICANN, I am sure there were some lawsuits over the years.
the problem is that you can 'return' a domain for a full refund. squatters exploited the hell out of this in the past. Soon there is going to be a 20 cent non refundable processing fee. This should kill squatters of a certain type. squatting was cheaper than spam. The registration does not need to be more expensive.
Are you kidding? They did great! It has really helped spread out the market and expand peoples awareness of the range of OS's out there. OS is really becoming more of that background as cross compatibility really expands. Wasn't that the point? At least in terms of the 2001 judgment? IMHO, this is how most government intervention works. They are very clever.
As an aside, what damages are they going to claim when yesterdays news is worthless? News is good for 24 hours at best when it comes to commercial value really drawing the line between 'sharing' and 'infringing'... but guess that isn'd really 'relevant'
TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Section 102 (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. and...
International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) ... A news article in a newspaper may be copyrighted under the Act of March 4, 1909, but news, as such, is not copyrightable. P. 248 U. S. 234
As against the public, any special interest of the producer of uncopyrighted news matter is lost upon the first publication. Id. IANAL, but... isn't this, like, Journalism 101? It was their own damn case, AND THEY WON!!!
How about the existential answer to that question? I stopped buying games because content protection / DRM crap has become such a nightmare, and ever since I switched to Linux long ago, I really don't games so much anymore. Not in a traditional sense. This may sound stupid, but building a virtual machine and setting up a perfect LAMP server is more fun than a lot of games out there. Or of recent I made a stand-alone browser for youtube / imeem that gets me videos and music more conveniently.
My personal feeling is that the content protection industry makes up all these scare tactics to sell their products, and what happens is people get frustrated and don't to deal with it, and then the cpi says it is piracy's fault, and they sell again.
I think Linux people are more likely feel that way than those using Windows. Just a thought.
This sounds DANGEROUS!! It is nice we have Live CD's, hell, more often than not I find myself using knoppix to fix seriously screwed up windows machines, but I trust open source software. I thought we all learned never run a desktop, untrusted code, as root, or really anything that doesn't need root privileges.
Running commercial, proprietary software from a Live CD means handing over your entire system. There are enough jail breaking tools and exploits to do damage to user accounts, not to mention the crapware that stuff gets installed unexpectedly, and now you are going to let that same industry run their own Kernel? NO THANK YOU.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, then it might make you happy to know there was a report recently (article, whatever) showing how if more women were promiscuous, it would reduce STI transmission rates. Everyone cheating with the same nympho means 3 hops for everyone to be infected including their partners. However a much wider "distribution network" would not only track STI transmission rates better for a variety of reasons, but the number of hops would dramatically increase, adding latency and more time to catch anything going around before it became epidemic.
I would completely agree if your context was crime stats. While I think cheaters, i.e. con artists, and cheaters i.e. lying to a partner, have many things in common, there are significantly different factors at play when it is a mutually consensual poly relationship.
Damn, now you got it stuck in my head...
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood
And the women, they're looking for a powerful man to knock them up, and a nice dedicated man to stick with her and raise his family.
There, I fixed it for you.
polygamy is [wanting] to be impregnating every woman you can get your hands on
really? For me, the number of women that I find myself compatible with is so far and in between that I like to keep them very close. I think you are naming a male sterotype, but it doesn't apply to this poly male.
If you're a powerless man, then your best strategy is monogamy
Wow, again, going to have to disagree. If you are powerless then you should be grateful to get your hands on anything you can and try to mate as quickly as possible before someone else better comes along. In monogamy, where life bonding is assumed to be natural, women are only going to seek suitable mates, i.e. not you (just kidding, it was just too easy to pass up)
[Monogamy] leads to the nerds who will love a woman forever and stick with her through sickness and health.
And couldn't that be more readily assured if you had and her had other close intimate loves such that if one of you dies the other is not left alone to fend for themselves? How selfish and to think that you could be and insist to be everything to someone when in reality that isn't mortally possible, among other reasons.
Hence middle-management types cheating on their wives
I believe studies have been more inclined to show that men 'cheat' more often than women in dating relationships, while the reverse is true for married couples. Remember, when a guy cheats, it is because he is an asshole, and when women cheat, it is because their husband is an asshole. :)
Agreed. However, monos are a lot more uncomfortable with the idea of poly versus the other way around. Monos have a much stronger need to feel normal. For all the jealousy and mistrust that seems to plague mono relationships, there are many more words that are used to describe those who are poly in a negative way. While I haven't experienced it myself, I have read about a lot of criticism those in poly relationships to be more politically correct, often going as far to pull out the old "think of the children" argument. Yeah, cause living in shame and fear of their own bodies and mind must be WAY healthier than having an open, non-discriminatory outlook of people. Political Correctness? FAIL
This is to most of the responses to the thread as they all seem to have a revolving theme: Poly means guy with many monogamous wives. I think this is a terrible premise because it is such a poor reflection of poly in the United States, or a lot of places. Of the poly families I know, blood lines are much less important than the sub-community, or whatever you would call it, work together. There can be structural hierarchies in terms of who has final say over a household or such, but the ways in which love is shared in boundless. While there are no children in my household, I do know 'big families' that do, and the children are between normal, healthy to very open-minded with mature outlooks on relations and majority of the tine go on to have monogamous relationships in their adult lives (but not always) as I have seen. A disproportionate number of them seem to become C-programmers, but I have my own theory on that.
This trend for people to couple, isolate themselves, then expect a federal government to take care of their family problems is issue. People see the benefit and necessity of the 2 earner income. why not the three earner income, or the 2 earner with a full time at home parent? My ideal: a steady earner, the risk seeking earner, a full time parent / educator for the kids, and a housekeeper / chef. Each play a vital role in balancing the others out and allowing them to be most successful at what they WANT to do. Sure there would be issues to figure out and some role swapping would be bound to take place, but each would have the opportunity to do what they wanted. Leave the kids with someone you love and trust, no money for babysitters, stable income, with substantially lower risk if want to switch to a higher paying job with less security. Who needs a welfare state in that situation? I think you can see where I have gone with this.
to you
You are making some major assumptions. I know way too many sexually repressed men / women in monogamous relationships with propensity for violence / disturbing behavior. I beg to see the reverse. Usually men / women that are sexually satisfied by their partner(s) are less likely to make unsolicited advanced, not to mention the maturity and experience gained through multi-tasking intimate relationships in a open, healthy, and socially acceptable way.
And from experience, it is just as hurtful for a mono to find out their partner was lying about being mono as it is for a poly person to find out someone they love isn't really poly. It is all about trust and honesty vs deception.
I completely followed you up to the oxytocin prescription part. You mean a drug to suppress this poison that has kept Americans from joining the rest of the world in sexual freedom and expression, right? I think religion has done enough damage to oppress women and healthy expressions of sexuality we don't need drugs to assist them. Here is proof that people are naturally multi-faceted; some being naturally poly, and others being naturally mono with likely a middle ground; and you see it as a opportunity for genetic cleansing. Shame on you. How about allowing people to join together as they please with a society and law that allows different groups of people to participate in community in equal ways? People know what their natural disposition is, and if you need to give your partner a test or drugs to fix them, maybe you should take a closer look at your communication and trust issues in your relationship. What I would hope from this study, as people have been joking around, is that people could be more honest about their predispositions (little different from being gay) in order to find appropriate partners INSTEAD of continuing to pretend to be something someone else told you you were supposed to be.
Sadness: Homosexual in a marriage with a MOS because they are "supposed to be". Sadness: Two homosexual men or women that are attracted to each other that can't express their affections for fear of reprisal if the feelings are not mutual. Sadness: Two naturally poly people in a relationship trying to pretend they are not, or that something is wrong with them.
It will still be as it always has been, swingers. Couples in strong committed relationships that enjoy all life has to offer in the range of ways life has to offer with other couples by far have the most sex due to the consistency and trust built. Be it between friends and other couples, this will always beat out the single individuals fighting for themselves.
:)
:)
As far as the DIY kits, no need. Good swingers have been trained to sniff out Oxytocin most of their lives, and as for the monos out there, they prefer to be in denial anyway while their partner is off with someone else. Until one gets pregnant / gets someone pregnant, then there is the fake "shocked" reaction followed by the all too real divorce.
Seen it too many times. 1 in every 2 people is poly meaning if your mono, chances are your partner is not.
btw, happily married, and and I do most of the cooking for all of us
The antitrust case began with Microsoft's dominance over the PC market, not the OS market necessarily. Is the refund clause mostly just for show to cover their backs and pretend to play nice with the Department of justice? Sure. Are they going to do anything to avoid paying out? Of Course! Is Lenovo a victim of Microsoft's monopolistic practices? Sure. Was Lenovo completely ignorant as to what they were getting into? HA HA HA HA HA!!!
You think even maybe... 1/1000 people have the slightest clue or care what an OS is or how it works? Doesn't even matter, but give people their money back in accordance with the law (EULA aside, see the LePage or PeaceHealth standard on product bundling). If They can't handle it, get out of the business like IBM figured out.
IANAL, but Lenovo is selling you a computer, and as a courtesy, sell you a Windows License at an undisclosed, but included, price. They are "tied" together, not "bundled", making them two separate. Their justification is that selling a computer without an Operating System would makes things more complicated for the consumer and encourage piracy since computers MUST have an operating system to work. As a separate product, it must be 'returnable' for the price of the product. The 'price' of the product is a big issue due to several legal precedents including the LePage standard (LePage's Inc. v. 3M 324 F.3d 141) that disallows products to be sold below competitive price (over simplified, sure). This means either refund the retail price, or admit you are breaking the law in your price scheme. Not only do you have the PeaceHealth standard (Cascade Health Solutions v. Peacehealth, 515 F.3d 973) to consider on product bundling, but I think Microsoft set a few precedents themselves, not the least of which was their own antitrust case, despite the fact that it has been very poorly enforced.
Basically, you can't sell a bad product without taking responsibility for it, even if you didn't make it. Your only argument is "but everybody uses Windows" as some kind of obligation on part of the customer and binding expectation on part of Lenovo.
If Lenovo doesn't want to provide refunds, they shouldn't sell Windows Licenses, and even if they don't know the law, the EULA THIS TIME clearly explains it.
The irony is that the people that think all this is a big BS scam on the part of Microsoft are the same people that don't want Windows in the first place which is why they are seeking refunds.
Really simple solution? OFFER MULTIPLE OS OPTIONS! So they made a deal with the devil only to find out the consumer was smarter than they were. Boo hoo, whine to someone that cares.
And to Anonymous Coward, I still can't figure out if you are trolling, or just... uninformed.
Anyone getting an OEM discount from Microsoft is not allowed to tell anyone how much they pay. The penalty is having all of your licenses revoked, including licenses already sold. That is why they make such a big deal about it.
Why do people take 10 minutes to ask a question whose answer is 5 minutes of research away on the web? *sigh*
Its called a contract.
Well, it is a step forward. Kids getting around the system won't be stealing them anymore. Also, tricking the system is a more overt act, for what it's worth.
Also, couldn't this easily be solved (assuming the system was any good in the first place) to use two cameras for 3d processing?
I think you are over reaching when you define monopoly. Otherwise all property ownership would be considered a monopoly. And while it may help you get more hits, I have never judged a company as having better service simply because they had a dictionary word domain name, though I am a bit turned off by the hereiseverythingaboutmybusinessandperson.com type domains. There is a balance. I do believe there is something in the ICANN rules where you can take away someones domain name if it isn't being used for an appropriate purpose. If not ICANN, I am sure there were some lawsuits over the years.
the problem is that you can 'return' a domain for a full refund. squatters exploited the hell out of this in the past. Soon there is going to be a 20 cent non refundable processing fee. This should kill squatters of a certain type. squatting was cheaper than spam. The registration does not need to be more expensive.
Year of Linux:
-Server 1997
-Desktop 2005
Sorry if you missed it.
Are you kidding? They did great! It has really helped spread out the market and expand peoples awareness of the range of OS's out there. OS is really becoming more of that background as cross compatibility really expands. Wasn't that the point? At least in terms of the 2001 judgment?
IMHO, this is how most government intervention works. They are very clever.
Korea
http://supreme.justia.com/us/248/215/case.html#234 and http://supreme.justia.com/us/248/215/case.html#234
As an aside, what damages are they going to claim when yesterdays news is worthless? News is good for 24 hours at best when it comes to commercial value really drawing the line between 'sharing' and 'infringing'... but guess that isn'd really 'relevant'
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. and... International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918)
...
A news article in a newspaper may be copyrighted under the Act of March 4, 1909, but news, as such, is not copyrightable. P. 248 U. S. 234
As against the public, any special interest of the producer of uncopyrighted news matter is lost upon the first publication. Id. IANAL, but... isn't this, like, Journalism 101? It was their own damn case, AND THEY WON!!!
How about the existential answer to that question? I stopped buying games because content protection / DRM crap has become such a nightmare, and ever since I switched to Linux long ago, I really don't games so much anymore. Not in a traditional sense. This may sound stupid, but building a virtual machine and setting up a perfect LAMP server is more fun than a lot of games out there. Or of recent I made a stand-alone browser for youtube / imeem that gets me videos and music more conveniently.
My personal feeling is that the content protection industry makes up all these scare tactics to sell their products, and what happens is people get frustrated and don't to deal with it, and then the cpi says it is piracy's fault, and they sell again.
I think Linux people are more likely feel that way than those using Windows. Just a thought.
This sounds DANGEROUS!! It is nice we have Live CD's, hell, more often than not I find myself using knoppix to fix seriously screwed up windows machines, but I trust open source software. I thought we all learned never run a desktop, untrusted code, as root, or really anything that doesn't need root privileges.
Running commercial, proprietary software from a Live CD means handing over your entire system. There are enough jail breaking tools and exploits to do damage to user accounts, not to mention the crapware that stuff gets installed unexpectedly, and now you are going to let that same industry run their own Kernel? NO THANK YOU.