The historical case you make, while reasonably accurate, is limited to the conclusion that you reached in it: Don't have sex outside of marriage.
The modern situation of "attempting at every turn to shield us from sex" is qualitatively different in that it goes beyond prohibitions of non-marital sex (which, ironically, is less important of a rule today than ever before in history, due to modern contraceptive technology) to the point of trying to pretend that sex doesn't even exist. Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" isn't non-marital sex and seems unlikely to induce anyone into having non-marital sex, but it has to be harshly punished because it makes the existence of sex obvious.
But, of course, sex is still there, and always will be for the foreseeable future, so it becomes a potent tool for advertising, thanks to the allure of the forbidden, and we end up with a social norm of constantly hinting at sex while simultaneously pretending it doesn't exist, then censuring those who hint too strongly.
moosehoney is dead on - pretending sex doesn't exist makes matters worse, not better. I found an article on google while replying to a similar discussion on slashdot a couple weeks ago that compared teen pregnancy rates in the US with four Eurpoean nations. The US and Sweden were at opposite extremes in their results: The US had the lowest rates of sexual activity among teenage girls, latest average age for first sexual intercourse, and the highest rates of teen prenancy and STDs. Swedish teens start earlier and have sex more often, yet they have only half the rate of teen STDs as the US and teen pregnancy is practically unheard of.
I don't recall the study attempting to determine the reasons, but it seems very likely to me that it's because Swedish society is more open about sex (yes, my girlfriend happened to grow up there, so I'm not just repeating stereotypes) and they actually teach their teens about sex instead of getting embarrassed, trying to avoid the subject, or relying on "sex ed" classes which are really trying to teach morality rather than biology.
Let me see if I've got this straight. You're saying that people are obsessively paranoid that their kids would be abducted, raped, and killed if they were out of sight for three seconds... because of global warming?
I really don't see the connection there. mantar's AC post about media reporting on such incidents, with its tendency to overstate and sensationalize them, seems a much more likely cause.
Your environmental concerns are most likely well-founded, but claiming that they're the sole (or even primary) cause of the entire modern culture of fear is quite a stretch.
I'd be pretty comfortable with them pretending the movie never happened. Yeah, what they did with River was pretty cool for the short-term catharsis and the one-shot "wow" when the hatch opened back up, but if they continue on from there, she's no longer a character, she's a plot device. The resolution of every episode would simply come down to whether she's called in to serve as a deus ex machina or not and everyone else would be marginalized in her shadow.
So, yeah, let's just ignore the movie and pick up the story from the end of the TV episodes.
It says that they make an exception for parents checking out materials on their kids' cards, but make NO provision for any adult under any circumstances (short of a court order) to see the records of any other adult. There's no option for me to allow my wife to know the books I'm checking out.
OK, yeah, that's a problem with the policy. They probably should provide a means by which one adult can authorize another adult to have access to their borrowing records, along with a way for them to later withdraw that authorization if they so choose.
However, you have not provided any good reason why any adult's records should be available to anyone else in the absence of prior authorization and others have provided several reasons why they shouldn't.
Another example is the hassle I have to go through with EVERY medical provider about access to medical records or prescriptions for my grandmother with Alzheimers disease.
When my mother was unable to handle any of her medical affairs, an lawyer was contacted to file "power of attorney" documents granting my grandmother the authority to act on her behalf. Granted, that was a decade and a half ago, but I got the impression that the system of using "power of attorney" has been around for quite a while and it seems unlikely to have gone away since then. Given that it seems so well suited to situations such as this, you might want to look into it.
There was a time when this kind of "protection" was offered in the form of discretion on the part of the service provider
Yes. Discretion based on personal relationships. Do your librarian and pharmacist know you on a personal basis? Do they also know your wife and grandmother? And that you get along with your wife and your grandmother is too sick to go to the pharmacy herself? And that, overall, you're a trustworthy sort who isn't going to just sell grandma's drugs on the black market?
If not, and if there are no documents proving that your wife (or grandmother) has authorized you to act on her behalf in these matters, then they are absolutely right to refuse to provide service on her behalf to you.
Remind me not to live in your neighborhood... Around here (Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN area), I can't remember how many years it's been since the last time I encountered an ISP with download limits, pay-per-minute/MB schemes, or anything like that. Well before wifi gear hit the consumer market, though.
And the fact that a 30-year-old man behaves like a pre-menstrual school girl just tells you something about our men today...
They're so desperate for attention that they'll record themselves as they troll a customer support rep, then post it online to get their 15 minutes of internet fame?
Personally, I think it's bad (or at least less-good) for two reasons:
1) It's further removed from a direct democracy, particularly given that most people do not consider "choosing the next President" to be one of the duties for which they're selecting their Representative. (Then again, most people don't seem to realize that they're voting for an elector, not a President, so perhaps letting it fall on the House would improve things by making it clearer as to what's actually happening.)
2) In the presence of political parties, it seems reasonable to assume that the House would tend to pick Presidents who are of the party which holds the most seats in the House, thus increasing the odds of a situation such as we have today, where Congress and the White House are both controlled by the same party, marginalizing everyone else. Checks and balances are much more effective when they are spread out across people who are not prone to acting in unison (whether for reasons of partisanship or otherwise).
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
If no Presidential candidate gets a majority of the (electoral college) votes, then the House picks from the three highest (electoral) vote-getters. It does not go to whoever got the most votes (either popular or electoral). Having a third party prominent enough to compete against the Republicans and Democrats would just split the vote such that nobody ever gets a majority and we get a string of Presidents chosen by Congress - ultimately selected by the people, sure, but even more indirectly than in the current electoral college system.
I'd have to disagree with you there. There are many laws I would like to see put into effect (whether by my own direct action or otherwise) which essentially make it illegal to restrict peoples' liberties without damn good reason, along with the removal of many existing laws. I can't imagine myself wanting to frivolously restrict the liberties of others - I want these laws because I can easily imagine that others would and I believe that it is harmful for them to do so. (I do not believe that such laws would fall into your smaller class, as it would serve to disrupt the current social order rather than attempt to maintain it.)
I also have a hard time imagining that Jack Thompson is so rabidly anti-game because he thinks he might one day want to play a violent game or give one to his (grand)kids.
There is far more to the world of "communication" than just face-to-face interaction. That may be the mode of communication that works best for you, but it's not best for everyone.
Yes, but just because there are circumstances where having sex with a minor could be deemed immoral does not make all similar circumstances immoral, either.
We don't actually even know that much... If they had made the beast with two backs, Minnesota would classify it as "first-degree sexual assault". I'm sure there are also other states where similar terminology would be used rather than introducing the actual word "rape".
I suspect you're right that whatever happened didn't go that far, as the article would have been more sensational if it included the word "rape", but we don't know that it didn't.
Depends on where you are. As I recall Minnesota law, sex with a 14 year old is perfectly legal, as long as you're no more than 48 months older. But, if you're 48 months + 1 day older, it suddenly, magically becomes a major criminal offense. Why do your "lot of good reasons" only apply to some freshman/senior couples but not to others?
There is one little detail you omitted: Even if the 19-year-old was a decent guy and she had a really good time, it would still be classified as "(statutory) rape" in most states. In such a state, I think it would be fair to say that, by consenting to an illegal act, she would have "cause[d] the rape to happen". (Before anyone jumps on me for "blaming the victim", this is the only situation in which I would consider the notional "victim" of a rape to be at all responsible for it - and if she was willing, had a really good time, and suffered no ill effects, I have a hard time with the idea that the term "victim" is really appropriate in the first place.)
Anyhow, I agree that pressing charges and convicting (real, as opposed to "my girlfriend has the wrong birthday") rapists is a must. I also agree with the GP that, for the good of humanity, this lawsuit must fail. The girl and her mother should be going after the rapist, not MySpace. MySpace is not, in any real or meaningful way, responsible for what happened.
I've worked with a company in a situation like that. Citrix and some trivial scripting took care of it quite nicely. One Windows server to run the Windows-only legacy apps and Linux on every desktop. (Except the CEO's, because he just had to have his AOL...) I would imagine you could do something similar today using rdesktop and avoid the costs of licensing Citrix, but I don't really deal with the Windows world any more.
So you think the next great advance will be for my computer to start responding to spurious voice commands (coworkers chatting in the next cube)? And what useful response is the computer supposed to give to inconsistent eye contact and frequent changes in posture (both resulting from the fact that I'm bored out of my mind with my job)?
Some years ago, I read about some research that was supposed to make the mouse redundant by using eye tracking instead and I can't imagine wanting to use something like that because I don't want to have to pay attention to where I'm looking all the time. And voice interfaces... Cool for at home, sure, but in a cube farm? It's already enough of a pain in the ass having one nearby coworker chatting on the phone (or, worse, speakerphone). If everyone in the office was having constant (or even frequent) conversations with their computers, I'd issue a 'either let me telecommute or give me an office with a door that I can keep closed at all times, or else I'm quitting' ultimatum by the end of the day.
I'm not saying modern interfaces are at all likely to be the best possible interface, but most of the things I see proposed to replace them introduce more problems than they solve in various very common situations.
There are many parts of the world where reverse-engineering is legal. Even if Jeremy's post is indeed an admission that the SAMBA team has reverse-engineered CIFS, it is most definitely not an admission of any illegal activity.
The pharmaceutical example is easily enough handled by a system of short-duration patents in which the clock stops running if the patented product cannot be commercially produced due to regulatory compliance. So (using the numbers from your post and the one you were replying to), everything would have a 3-5 year patent term, but drug patents' 3-5 year window would begin when the FDA approved the drug rather than when the patent was issued. During the intervening 8-12 years, they have the patent (giving them the ability to prevent anyone else from copying the drug), but would not be allowed to produce the drug for sale (since it hasn't been approved yet).
Ubiquitous might not be so good, but cheap (anyone can run and stand a chance of being elected!), pure (no more buying off Senators with generous "campaign contributions"!) politics sounds great to me. I'm all for a War on Politics.
Wow... Auto Assault dropped off the chart that fast?
I was also in beta and played for a bit after release (since I had preordered and got the free month for that). It was pretty fun to start, but, before too long, the prospect of yet another "drive over there and blow stuff up" mission started losing its appeal. It seems that the primary catalyst for my loss of interest was when INC started charging for transport services. I no longer felt like it was viable to just airlift to the city nearest the target, blow it up, and airlift back to the guy who gave me the mission, so I started driving back and forth across the zone all the time, which got boring in no time flat - especially when little grey mobs that were too low-level to be worth any xp kept trying to harass me along the way... (That's one great thing from City of Heroes that I think every MMO should adopt: If a mob is so weak that you would get no xp for killing it, then it should know enough to not aggro on you unless you attack first.)
Slashdot Mirror
The historical case you make, while reasonably accurate, is limited to the conclusion that you reached in it: Don't have sex outside of marriage.
The modern situation of "attempting at every turn to shield us from sex" is qualitatively different in that it goes beyond prohibitions of non-marital sex (which, ironically, is less important of a rule today than ever before in history, due to modern contraceptive technology) to the point of trying to pretend that sex doesn't even exist. Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" isn't non-marital sex and seems unlikely to induce anyone into having non-marital sex, but it has to be harshly punished because it makes the existence of sex obvious.
But, of course, sex is still there, and always will be for the foreseeable future, so it becomes a potent tool for advertising, thanks to the allure of the forbidden, and we end up with a social norm of constantly hinting at sex while simultaneously pretending it doesn't exist, then censuring those who hint too strongly.
moosehoney is dead on - pretending sex doesn't exist makes matters worse, not better. I found an article on google while replying to a similar discussion on slashdot a couple weeks ago that compared teen pregnancy rates in the US with four Eurpoean nations. The US and Sweden were at opposite extremes in their results: The US had the lowest rates of sexual activity among teenage girls, latest average age for first sexual intercourse, and the highest rates of teen prenancy and STDs. Swedish teens start earlier and have sex more often, yet they have only half the rate of teen STDs as the US and teen pregnancy is practically unheard of.
I don't recall the study attempting to determine the reasons, but it seems very likely to me that it's because Swedish society is more open about sex (yes, my girlfriend happened to grow up there, so I'm not just repeating stereotypes) and they actually teach their teens about sex instead of getting embarrassed, trying to avoid the subject, or relying on "sex ed" classes which are really trying to teach morality rather than biology.
Let me see if I've got this straight. You're saying that people are obsessively paranoid that their kids would be abducted, raped, and killed if they were out of sight for three seconds... because of global warming?
I really don't see the connection there. mantar's AC post about media reporting on such incidents, with its tendency to overstate and sensationalize them, seems a much more likely cause.
Your environmental concerns are most likely well-founded, but claiming that they're the sole (or even primary) cause of the entire modern culture of fear is quite a stretch.
I'd be pretty comfortable with them pretending the movie never happened. Yeah, what they did with River was pretty cool for the short-term catharsis and the one-shot "wow" when the hatch opened back up, but if they continue on from there, she's no longer a character, she's a plot device. The resolution of every episode would simply come down to whether she's called in to serve as a deus ex machina or not and everyone else would be marginalized in her shadow.
So, yeah, let's just ignore the movie and pick up the story from the end of the TV episodes.
It says that they make an exception for parents checking out materials on their kids' cards, but make NO provision for any adult under any circumstances (short of a court order) to see the records of any other adult. There's no option for me to allow my wife to know the books I'm checking out.
OK, yeah, that's a problem with the policy. They probably should provide a means by which one adult can authorize another adult to have access to their borrowing records, along with a way for them to later withdraw that authorization if they so choose.
However, you have not provided any good reason why any adult's records should be available to anyone else in the absence of prior authorization and others have provided several reasons why they shouldn't.
Another example is the hassle I have to go through with EVERY medical provider about access to medical records or prescriptions for my grandmother with Alzheimers disease.
When my mother was unable to handle any of her medical affairs, an lawyer was contacted to file "power of attorney" documents granting my grandmother the authority to act on her behalf. Granted, that was a decade and a half ago, but I got the impression that the system of using "power of attorney" has been around for quite a while and it seems unlikely to have gone away since then. Given that it seems so well suited to situations such as this, you might want to look into it.
There was a time when this kind of "protection" was offered in the form of discretion on the part of the service provider
Yes. Discretion based on personal relationships. Do your librarian and pharmacist know you on a personal basis? Do they also know your wife and grandmother? And that you get along with your wife and your grandmother is too sick to go to the pharmacy herself? And that, overall, you're a trustworthy sort who isn't going to just sell grandma's drugs on the black market?
If not, and if there are no documents proving that your wife (or grandmother) has authorized you to act on her behalf in these matters, then they are absolutely right to refuse to provide service on her behalf to you.
I'm not sure how "A"dultery figures into that situation... Maybe a stylized "SR" (Statutory Rape)?
Remind me not to live in your neighborhood... Around here (Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN area), I can't remember how many years it's been since the last time I encountered an ISP with download limits, pay-per-minute/MB schemes, or anything like that. Well before wifi gear hit the consumer market, though.
And the fact that a 30-year-old man behaves like a pre-menstrual school girl just tells you something about our men today...
They're so desperate for attention that they'll record themselves as they troll a customer support rep, then post it online to get their 15 minutes of internet fame?
Personally, I think it's bad (or at least less-good) for two reasons:
1) It's further removed from a direct democracy, particularly given that most people do not consider "choosing the next President" to be one of the duties for which they're selecting their Representative. (Then again, most people don't seem to realize that they're voting for an elector, not a President, so perhaps letting it fall on the House would improve things by making it clearer as to what's actually happening.)
2) In the presence of political parties, it seems reasonable to assume that the House would tend to pick Presidents who are of the party which holds the most seats in the House, thus increasing the odds of a situation such as we have today, where Congress and the White House are both controlled by the same party, marginalizing everyone else. Checks and balances are much more effective when they are spread out across people who are not prone to acting in unison (whether for reasons of partisanship or otherwise).
If no Presidential candidate gets a majority of the (electoral college) votes, then the House picks from the three highest (electoral) vote-getters. It does not go to whoever got the most votes (either popular or electoral). Having a third party prominent enough to compete against the Republicans and Democrats would just split the vote such that nobody ever gets a majority and we get a string of Presidents chosen by Congress - ultimately selected by the people, sure, but even more indirectly than in the current electoral college system.
I'd have to disagree with you there. There are many laws I would like to see put into effect (whether by my own direct action or otherwise) which essentially make it illegal to restrict peoples' liberties without damn good reason, along with the removal of many existing laws. I can't imagine myself wanting to frivolously restrict the liberties of others - I want these laws because I can easily imagine that others would and I believe that it is harmful for them to do so. (I do not believe that such laws would fall into your smaller class, as it would serve to disrupt the current social order rather than attempt to maintain it.)
I also have a hard time imagining that Jack Thompson is so rabidly anti-game because he thinks he might one day want to play a violent game or give one to his (grand)kids.
There is far more to the world of "communication" than just face-to-face interaction. That may be the mode of communication that works best for you, but it's not best for everyone.
When I was running XP, I did manage a spam of 3 years without a single virus
Freudian slip?
Yes, but just because there are circumstances where having sex with a minor could be deemed immoral does not make all similar circumstances immoral, either.
We don't actually even know that much... If they had made the beast with two backs, Minnesota would classify it as "first-degree sexual assault". I'm sure there are also other states where similar terminology would be used rather than introducing the actual word "rape".
I suspect you're right that whatever happened didn't go that far, as the article would have been more sensational if it included the word "rape", but we don't know that it didn't.
Depends on where you are. As I recall Minnesota law, sex with a 14 year old is perfectly legal, as long as you're no more than 48 months older. But, if you're 48 months + 1 day older, it suddenly, magically becomes a major criminal offense. Why do your "lot of good reasons" only apply to some freshman/senior couples but not to others?
There is one little detail you omitted: Even if the 19-year-old was a decent guy and she had a really good time, it would still be classified as "(statutory) rape" in most states. In such a state, I think it would be fair to say that, by consenting to an illegal act, she would have "cause[d] the rape to happen". (Before anyone jumps on me for "blaming the victim", this is the only situation in which I would consider the notional "victim" of a rape to be at all responsible for it - and if she was willing, had a really good time, and suffered no ill effects, I have a hard time with the idea that the term "victim" is really appropriate in the first place.)
Anyhow, I agree that pressing charges and convicting (real, as opposed to "my girlfriend has the wrong birthday") rapists is a must. I also agree with the GP that, for the good of humanity, this lawsuit must fail. The girl and her mother should be going after the rapist, not MySpace. MySpace is not, in any real or meaningful way, responsible for what happened.
In other words, toast falling off the breakfast table lands butter-side down because the universe is made that way.
I've worked with a company in a situation like that. Citrix and some trivial scripting took care of it quite nicely. One Windows server to run the Windows-only legacy apps and Linux on every desktop. (Except the CEO's, because he just had to have his AOL...) I would imagine you could do something similar today using rdesktop and avoid the costs of licensing Citrix, but I don't really deal with the Windows world any more.
So you think the next great advance will be for my computer to start responding to spurious voice commands (coworkers chatting in the next cube)? And what useful response is the computer supposed to give to inconsistent eye contact and frequent changes in posture (both resulting from the fact that I'm bored out of my mind with my job)?
Some years ago, I read about some research that was supposed to make the mouse redundant by using eye tracking instead and I can't imagine wanting to use something like that because I don't want to have to pay attention to where I'm looking all the time. And voice interfaces... Cool for at home, sure, but in a cube farm? It's already enough of a pain in the ass having one nearby coworker chatting on the phone (or, worse, speakerphone). If everyone in the office was having constant (or even frequent) conversations with their computers, I'd issue a 'either let me telecommute or give me an office with a door that I can keep closed at all times, or else I'm quitting' ultimatum by the end of the day.
I'm not saying modern interfaces are at all likely to be the best possible interface, but most of the things I see proposed to replace them introduce more problems than they solve in various very common situations.
There are many parts of the world where reverse-engineering is legal. Even if Jeremy's post is indeed an admission that the SAMBA team has reverse-engineered CIFS, it is most definitely not an admission of any illegal activity.
7 Degrees of Online Gambling?
The pharmaceutical example is easily enough handled by a system of short-duration patents in which the clock stops running if the patented product cannot be commercially produced due to regulatory compliance. So (using the numbers from your post and the one you were replying to), everything would have a 3-5 year patent term, but drug patents' 3-5 year window would begin when the FDA approved the drug rather than when the patent was issued. During the intervening 8-12 years, they have the patent (giving them the ability to prevent anyone else from copying the drug), but would not be allowed to produce the drug for sale (since it hasn't been approved yet).
Ubiquitous might not be so good, but cheap (anyone can run and stand a chance of being elected!), pure (no more buying off Senators with generous "campaign contributions"!) politics sounds great to me. I'm all for a War on Politics.
Thanks... I should have known that I wouldn't be the only one constantly being reminded of that flock as I read the comments.
Wow... Auto Assault dropped off the chart that fast?
I was also in beta and played for a bit after release (since I had preordered and got the free month for that). It was pretty fun to start, but, before too long, the prospect of yet another "drive over there and blow stuff up" mission started losing its appeal. It seems that the primary catalyst for my loss of interest was when INC started charging for transport services. I no longer felt like it was viable to just airlift to the city nearest the target, blow it up, and airlift back to the guy who gave me the mission, so I started driving back and forth across the zone all the time, which got boring in no time flat - especially when little grey mobs that were too low-level to be worth any xp kept trying to harass me along the way... (That's one great thing from City of Heroes that I think every MMO should adopt: If a mob is so weak that you would get no xp for killing it, then it should know enough to not aggro on you unless you attack first.)