The reduced chance of STDs, the improved hygiene, etc is not due to the circumcision.
It's due to the fact that people (parents) who are more concerned about health will be more likely to circumcise their child (based on the bullshit claims that it's healthier).
Health-conscious people circumcise their kids, who are also health-conscious people.
Circumcision does NOT provide any mechanism to improve hygiene. All it provides is a risk for infection or terrible mishap.
Anyone unhygienic enough to get nasty funk trapped under their foreskin is going to by unhygienic enough to get nasty gunk on the rest of their cock.
Sex is NOT better for the male, it's worse. It lasts longer because there are millions of nerves lost, and the constantly-exposed head becomes calloused.
Cleaner when performing fellatio? Seems to me foreskin is pulled back, behind the head. A penis with the foreskin pulled back looks exactly like a circumcised penis, with the notable exception that the head isn't a thick, rough callous.
Hate to break it to you, but I can implement a cryptosystem that no supercomputer now, or ever invented is or will be capable of cracking through brute force if I can get my hands upon a sufficient source of entropy and a good key distribution channel. Period.
Good luck finding a good key-distribution system. There is no such thing as a secure distribution system, and there never will be.
If some terrorist planted a nuke in New York and the government had to decrypt some files to find out where the fuck it was, you can bet your ass that shit would be decrypted within the hour.
Besides brute force includes torture. (And yes, torture is effective. Very, very effective. And no, water boarding is not torture.)
WPA2 makes it difficult to crack wireless encryption. But thats not where the weak link is.
The fact is, built in hardware backdoors and software backdoors allow those in the know to completely walk around the encryption being used. This is where the real issue is.
Do they have backdoors that make the range extend beyond 6 feet and the throughput go higher than 1 MB/sec?
Corollary: any encryption technology that you need to rely on should be open source and well-understood. The hardware you use it on should be completely open and you should understand how things work on that hardware. Even better if you have compiled that code yourself.
Oh fuck off. I suppose you wrote the compiler too? I suppose to used an electron microscope and scanned every fucking bit of your CPU and memory and such?
If you want to be fucking paranoid, be paranoid all the way. Don't use paranoia FUD to push your FOSS agenda.
While it's true that there's shit they can do, it's also true that there's NOTHING you can do about it. FOSS cloak or not.
The correct solution would be to use public key cryptography, where the credit card has an associated secret key, known only to the user (not even the credit card company).
A regular old password should only ever be known by a single person. The person doing the verification should hold the hash and salt only.
Public key bullshit is the same deal.
ALL NON-PHYSICAL SECURITY is the same deal.
It ALL boils down to keeping information secret. Whether that's your private key, your password, or your stool sample.
Imagine if we were all nuked into the stone age and only crawled out of the bunkers 5-10 years later. Getting back to the state of fabricating 3GHz x86 chips would take a long time and lots of investment.
If we had any fucking sense left we wouldn't repeat the fucking travesty of the x86 ISA.
Most people think of banks, bankers, and those with large investments as being part of an exclusive club (to the extent that they, they average person, will never get in on the action).
The bank that placed that ad was simply trying to convey the idea that they treat average people just as well as wealthy people with large investments.
The advertising line is ironic. It uses the phrase "exclusive club" to refer to the treatment and service one would expect to receive if they were a wealthy investor.
Does anything seem wrong about that sentence? I'm referring to "wrong" in the grammatical sense, not the glaring, unintentional irony created by a horde of devout fanatics clinging mindlessly to a slogan, a saint, and anything shiny.
If you were educated in the English language during or after the 1980s, you may not notice it.
Consider the following sentences:
"Emily sings lovely." "Sarah is acting foolish." "Your dog smells funny."
The first sentence should be "Emily sings lovelily", the second should be "Sarah is acting foolishly", and the third is correct. If, however, we are talking about a precocious canine who had an odd habit of sniffing things in a humorous manner, then the third sentence should be "Your dog smells funnily.".
Going back to the original example, it becomes immediately clear that "Think Different" should in fact be "Think Differently".
The death of the adverb is not a simple "evolution of language" as some often say. People are actively out to destroy the English language. These are the people who consider it acceptable to say "I could care less" when expressing disdain for something. These are the people who think inflammable means non-flammable. These are the people who think that "irregardless" is a word. These are the people who think "literally" means "figuratively".
To these defilers of language I say "NO MORE!". I will continue to use adverbs when appropriate. I will not cede to an incorrect tool that underlines my "errors" in a glaring red; I will wear that underline as a badge of honor. I will not capitulate to an auto-correct suggestion for a simple search query. I will refer to a pre-1980, physical, unabridged dictionary for reference. The active deletion of adverbs from online and physically published dictionaries will not affect me.
The fact that our nation's public schools actively fought against teaching proper grammar and spelling (and continue to do so) is a travesty. I fear that they have irrevocably damaged the language.
It's because they can see in more than 16 colours.
I'm a straight male and the females I know all have TERRIBLE color coordination. Not only that, they seem to not have any heightened acuity for it.
The myth that women see colors better than men is just that - a myth. Women are simply socialized to act as if they give a shit about goldenrod vs canary vs saffron vs paella. There are cases where women DO see more colors (due to a sex-linked trait causing them to have more distinct sets of cones), but this essentially results in a tradeoff between scope and resolution as the raw number of cones is not increased by the trait.
I am thoroughly convinced that women simply are conditioned to think they know about color and the resulting overconfidence results in men thinking "What? That's terrible." or "They're almost exactly the same and it's gonna fucking fade anyway." while only saying "Uh, ok dear".
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that "iSlate" could be rephrased as "Is Late," but compared to iPad...
I worried when I heard Apple iSlate.
I'm so glad they're using the iPad now.
I dodged a babby bullet.
I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that these marketing dweeds thought that it was a good name.
They're trying to ape Nintendo (Wii).
The reduced chance of STDs, the improved hygiene, etc is not due to the circumcision.
It's due to the fact that people (parents) who are more concerned about health will be more likely to circumcise their child (based on the bullshit claims that it's healthier).
Health-conscious people circumcise their kids, who are also health-conscious people.
Circumcision does NOT provide any mechanism to improve hygiene. All it provides is a risk for infection or terrible mishap.
Anyone unhygienic enough to get nasty funk trapped under their foreskin is going to by unhygienic enough to get nasty gunk on the rest of their cock.
Sex is NOT better for the male, it's worse. It lasts longer because there are millions of nerves lost, and the constantly-exposed head becomes calloused.
Cleaner when performing fellatio? Seems to me foreskin is pulled back, behind the head. A penis with the foreskin pulled back looks exactly like a circumcised penis, with the notable exception that the head isn't a thick, rough callous.
I asked all the questions
And did you get the real answers?
is it necessary
No, it is unnecessary
is it recommended
Yes, it is recommended
why
Because they can charge you for it, and then sell the foreskin.
You made the choice based on scientific data?
Which data? The data showing almost zero correlation between circumcision and reduced health risks?
It's mutilation. It's wrong. It should be illegal.
They cut it off so they can sell it to cosmetics manufacturers.
Yes ladies, your makeup has foreskin in it.
Rub those cocks all over your faces.
Hate to break it to you, but I can implement a cryptosystem that no supercomputer now, or ever invented is or will be capable of cracking through brute force if I can get my hands upon a sufficient source of entropy and a good key distribution channel. Period.
Good luck finding a good key-distribution system.
There is no such thing as a secure distribution system, and there never will be.
If some terrorist planted a nuke in New York and the government had to decrypt some files to find out where the fuck it was, you can bet your ass that shit would be decrypted within the hour.
Besides brute force includes torture.
(And yes, torture is effective. Very, very effective. And no, water boarding is not torture.)
WPA2 makes it difficult to crack wireless encryption. But thats not where the weak link is.
The fact is, built in hardware backdoors and software backdoors allow those in the know to completely walk around the encryption being used. This is where the real issue is.
Do they have backdoors that make the range extend beyond 6 feet and the throughput go higher than 1 MB/sec?
V fcrnx va ebg 13. Gbgny frphevgl.
My mother's a frphevgl, you insensitive khdfsji!
Corollary: any encryption technology that you need to rely on should be open source and well-understood. The hardware you use it on should be completely open and you should understand how things work on that hardware. Even better if you have compiled that code yourself.
Oh fuck off.
I suppose you wrote the compiler too?
I suppose to used an electron microscope and scanned every fucking bit of your CPU and memory and such?
If you want to be fucking paranoid, be paranoid all the way.
Don't use paranoia FUD to push your FOSS agenda.
While it's true that there's shit they can do, it's also true that there's NOTHING you can do about it. FOSS cloak or not.
How was he able to use the card in the US without the magnetic stripe?
Were the merchants phoning it in?
Running the carbon paper over the credit card?
The correct solution would be to use public key cryptography, where the credit card has an associated secret key, known only to the user (not even the credit card company).
A regular old password should only ever be known by a single person. The person doing the verification should hold the hash and salt only.
Public key bullshit is the same deal.
ALL NON-PHYSICAL SECURITY is the same deal.
It ALL boils down to keeping information secret.
Whether that's your private key, your password, or your stool sample.
You have to sign up for it.
The merchant has to offer the option to use it.
And even if you don't put in your password it still goes through.
It's all a bunch of bullshit.
How about no?
Z E R O benefit to this bullshit.
OEMS after rumors of Apple tablet:
Tablet? Tablet!
Omg tablet! Guys, guys! TABLET!
WE WILL TABLET!
OEMS after rumors of Apple tablet solidify:
APPLE?
OMG iSlate? iSlate!
OMG! TABLET! TABLET!
WE WILL TABLET BETTER!
Media after Apple's reveal:
OMG OMG OMG iPad!
SPAZ SPAZ SPAZ!
Anyone with a brain after Apple's reveal:
Ugh, iPad! Ew, iPad!
Ugh! Shit! Crap! $$$! iPass!
Other OEMS after Apple's reveal:
NOW OUR TABLET WILL FAIL BECAUSE APPLE RUINED MARKET WITH SHITTY LOCK INS.
Groups opposed to Apple, after Apple's reveal:
FUCKING APPLE AND FUCKING MARKET FUCKING MY FREEDOM SOMEONE PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEEEEEEE.
Internets, after Apple's reveal:
FUCKING PLEBES AND HIPSTERS.
If apple get's away with it, you know they will follow in their footsteps.
The moment MS even thinks about following a similar model the EU will be repeatedly suing them over it.
It sells.
No. It being available up front before the transfer on moneys is one of many requirements.
Perhaps if you would have read my post you would have understood that.
Imagine if we were all nuked into the stone age and only crawled out of the bunkers 5-10 years later. Getting back to the state of fabricating 3GHz x86 chips would take a long time and lots of investment.
If we had any fucking sense left we wouldn't repeat the fucking travesty of the x86 ISA.
Japanese invasion of the Allusion Islands doesn't count
Seems to me some planes came by and blew up a bunch of shit and killed a bunch of guys.
Why wouldn't it count?
I have: I own an apartment in Beijing; and I used to be a beekeeper. So there.
So you went from master to drone?
Get back to work.
You actually don't own the games you buy physically either. You're getting a license to use them, like with any other software.
Until it's put up front on the outside of the box, an EULA is not a legally-binding contract.
Until stores accept returns for opened software, an EULA is not a legally-binding contract.
Until minors can enter into a contract, an EULA is not a legally-binding contract.
Until all users of a product can be proven to have read and understood it, an EULA is not a legally-binding contract.
Most people think of banks, bankers, and those with large investments as being part of an exclusive club (to the extent that they, they average person, will never get in on the action).
The bank that placed that ad was simply trying to convey the idea that they treat average people just as well as wealthy people with large investments.
The advertising line is ironic. It uses the phrase "exclusive club" to refer to the treatment and service one would expect to receive if they were a wealthy investor.
First, there's your' problem.
Yes, "oldly" would be correct.
Consider "Think Different.".
Does anything seem wrong about that sentence? I'm referring to "wrong" in the grammatical sense, not the glaring, unintentional irony created by a horde of devout fanatics clinging mindlessly to a slogan, a saint, and anything shiny.
If you were educated in the English language during or after the 1980s, you may not notice it.
Consider the following sentences:
"Emily sings lovely."
"Sarah is acting foolish."
"Your dog smells funny."
The first sentence should be "Emily sings lovelily", the second should be "Sarah is acting foolishly", and the third is correct. If, however, we are talking about a precocious canine who had an odd habit of sniffing things in a humorous manner, then the third sentence should be "Your dog smells funnily.".
Going back to the original example, it becomes immediately clear that "Think Different" should in fact be "Think Differently".
The death of the adverb is not a simple "evolution of language" as some often say. People are actively out to destroy the English language. These are the people who consider it acceptable to say "I could care less" when expressing disdain for something. These are the people who think inflammable means non-flammable. These are the people who think that "irregardless" is a word. These are the people who think "literally" means "figuratively".
To these defilers of language I say "NO MORE!". I will continue to use adverbs when appropriate. I will not cede to an incorrect tool that underlines my "errors" in a glaring red; I will wear that underline as a badge of honor. I will not capitulate to an auto-correct suggestion for a simple search query. I will refer to a pre-1980, physical, unabridged dictionary for reference. The active deletion of adverbs from online and physically published dictionaries will not affect me.
The fact that our nation's public schools actively fought against teaching proper grammar and spelling (and continue to do so) is a travesty. I fear that they have irrevocably damaged the language.
It's because they can see in more than 16 colours.
I'm a straight male and the females I know all have TERRIBLE color coordination. Not only that, they seem to not have any heightened acuity for it.
The myth that women see colors better than men is just that - a myth. Women are simply socialized to act as if they give a shit about goldenrod vs canary vs saffron vs paella. There are cases where women DO see more colors (due to a sex-linked trait causing them to have more distinct sets of cones), but this essentially results in a tradeoff between scope and resolution as the raw number of cones is not increased by the trait.
I am thoroughly convinced that women simply are conditioned to think they know about color and the resulting overconfidence results in men thinking "What? That's terrible." or "They're almost exactly the same and it's gonna fucking fade anyway." while only saying "Uh, ok dear".
Also -
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=fashion
Scroll to red lipstick section.