"If you don't like the standards of the community you're in you can always change the standards or simply leave."
Lets see.
1) Change the standards. Hmm, I'll have to deal with 10,000 maurading Christians walking around and picketing, appealing to parents who are afraid to allow their "baby" to date at age 35. Standards are simply selective enforcement, so people aren't really worried about getting caught until they get screwed by the government with an ulterier motive. So I'll get 10,000 social conservatives fwapping me on the head with shovels and voting NO and no one will bother voting YES, and I'll be the one with a "ruined reputation" and shovel marks and footprints on me. Won't work. No one wants to admit IN PUBLIC that they want to watch porno, now do they?
2) Leave. There are idiots like this EVERYWHERE, and these people want to enforce their stupid laws (and morals) on EVERYONE.
"Furthermore, if a community can't set its own standards and expect people to abide by them there can be no such thing as government, law, or/."
Umm, I don't think that/. could put me in jail.
Government does not NEED these local obsenity standards. All they need to know is if someone is being coerced or not. But they LOVE these standards because it allows them to hold the glove of selective enforcement over you. Piss someone off in government, they will be SURE to "catch" you the next time you are having oral sex with your lover and haul you off to jail for "sodomy".
The whole IDEA of community standards is BULLSHIT. If someone near by me watches porno, I do NOT have to watch it because they did. If someone voluntarly pays someone for sex, that doesn't mean that the whole neighborhood will. The people who want community standards want to make people believe that if one person does something untasteful, that EVERYONE will do it. It is absolving individuals of their responsibilities.
This is how we are losing the bill of rights. Because of idiotic people who want these "standards".
"By saying "open the floodgates" to pornography, with no ability to do blocking, you have circumvented the ability of communities and of families to make and enforce their own decisions about what constititues community and family standards."
Who cares what "communities" think about what arbitary "standard" they are going to try to enforce this week? Who cares what parents think about what obscene material they're afraid their 16 yr old will try to see this week? Why not let the children have their own damn life for once?
Why not think about the INDIVIDUAL, who is the one that is actually CHOOSING what he or she WANTS to see? Blocker software is bullshit for that reason..it means that the individual is being blocked from what he or she believes his or her standards are. If I choose to view pornography, despite what some idiotic bible belt person thinks, I am NOT affecting a 82 yr old granny down the hall who doesn't want to see it. If I am FORCING her to see it, then I should be arrested for that COERCIVE action, not because I am violating "standards". Child Porn should be illegal because it was a COERCION of the children to pose for the pictures, NOT because they are obscene.
I say that communities do NOT have the right to "enforce" their own standards, because I refuse to allow some hypocritial idiot to remove my freedom to view what I want to so he can make a big political issue out of it (See Simon Leis).
"Community Standards" is a THEOCRATIC idea, and should be discredited as such. *ALL* young people see porn, and then most of them stop searching for it or start searching for better quality, less crass versions of it. If companies are really scared that their employees are going to look at porn during working hours, then they have a MORALE problem, not a porn viewing problem.
All you're saying by "Community Standards" is that someone who holds pathological and bizzare ideas about what is natural (such as sex) can dictate me or coerce me if I happen to live in the same community.
My typical Linux screen has Netscape, Kdevelop, Licq, X11amp, and about 12 "Konsoles" open. The GUI allows me to see several CLI's at the same time, and size them to whatever size I want them to be. I can work at the console if I need to (for example, on Linux boxes that are hard-core servers), but I find it annoying and limiting, even with 6 virtual consoles, and I eventually start my laptop into X-windows and ssh into the server if I need to work there for a prolonged period of time.
Just because you are running X doesn't mean that you can't (and aren't) using the power of the cli.
"Where do most of the child molestors come from ?"
They're usually straight...Gay != Child Molestor.
"OR mabye it's a result of moral and religious beliefs."
If your beliefs are that you will hate somebody based on their preferred sexual behaviour that is with a consenting adult, and you want to use COERCION to enforce those beliefs on others, then I shit all over your beliefs.:P
"1] 'crap' not including funding for schools, medicare/aid, sceience grants, NASA, etc.,"
Lets see...
1) Federal funding for schools? There's a nice graph showing standardized scores decreasing the moment that federal funding was introduced. The National Education Association has 2 main interests: 1) Being in bed with all the teachers Unions, who obviously have no interest in increasing the quality of education, and 2) advancing Outcome Based Education programs as a natural outgrowth of its liberal and big government ideology.
Hmm..sounds like Federal Funding for schools is Crap.
2) Medicare/aid? The same program that 1) makes it affordable for 14 yr olds to have children that they would have aborted/put up for adoption before? 2) A program that gives MORE benefits then a normal entry level job, giving people no incentive to get off it? 3) A program which has taken over 51% of the healthcare system, increasing health care costs to everyone based on the time that doctors have to fill out federal healthcare forms? 4) A program that totally demoralizes and dehumanizes everybody who is on it, telling them that they can't survive without the government?
Sounds like crap to me as well.
3) Science grants? Run by the government, they tend to be given to the people running the most politically popular experiments, not necessarly the people who are running the most beneficial experiments. Grants are good, run by the government is bad, therefore crap.
4) NASA has been productive because they have worked with many members of the private sector and are much more public minded then other government agencies. Why not spin them off into the private sector, where the gifted people who are responsible for their success can work even more productively and make their own decisions?
and finally, 5) If you want a more reasonable military budget, then we need to change our foreign policy, which currently consists of "Lets stick our nose into every other countries affairs." Of COURSE our military budget is outragious! We're trying to fight wars for 20 different countries! And in the meantime, we're pissing everybody off because we DON'T MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS! All our military needs to do is make sure that WE don't get invaded and that WE can't get nuked. All we need are troops that will fight in case of invasion and a ballistic missile defense so we don't have to worry about every damn dictator that gets a nuclear missile.
MOST of the current budget is crap. All we need is a government that protects our life, liberty, and property. If we want the government to do anything else, it will eventually enslave us.
"If the government does not have a right to "determine morality," then how can we justify murder being illegal? After, some people may have no moral objection to murder."
Because it is a coercive act that violates the right of the other person to live. You don't need to be religious to realize why it is wrong...
And I would quote pascals wager right back at you... every religious group wants you to pick THEIR god above all others...I can't follow all religions at the same time...and I would be forced to make a guess on what religion is the "correct" religion.
gee..you think that a "loving" god would give us a very explicit sign on what religion is actually "right", so I don't pick the "wrong" religion and go to hell.:P
"Just in case you missed it, the Starr Report was about official misconduct related to the President getting his dick sucked in the oval office. Its difficult to go for a conviction unless you are specific as to what was being covered up."
In case you missed it, the report showed that Clinton was fingering Monica each time she was caressing him..which showed that he DEFINATELY lied about not having sexual relations, even under the limited definition. That and the cigar incident proves that he committed purjury.
But the part that people miss (on purpose), is how Starr proves the pattern of the Jones sexual harassment case...showing how Clinton used the powers of the government and government officials to get Lewinsky different jobs that she wanted..how she got preferencial treatment in government affairs in exchange for sex. It's great for us to know that if any woman wants preferencial treatment from the president and the government, all she needs to do is sleep with the president. THAT was the point that the report made so well, but of course, we didn't want to hear it and admit that our form of government is a sham....
but that's what you get from idiotic collectivism.
It's a stupid and brainless cliche..black helicopters would attract much more attention then it would be worth.
No...if they were to "come for me" (and I'm sure they've got better things to do right now), it would look like just another routine break in or just another mugging, done by people that look (and act) like routine criminals. Except I'd be dead..and if they were in a real hurry, they'd forget to rob me of anything.
What, you think that political enemies that have powerful ammunition against the current leadership DON'T get murdered?
"For example, you have two families. Each family has one boy and one girl. Each boy marries the other girl. They have children. They children can't possibly reproduce due to the problem of genetic inbreeding. Think of this on a larger scale. If we start filling up the planet with duplicates, think of how close we become to having just two families left.
This is the frightening part, we will ultimately breed ourselves out of life."
From someone who earns his Biology degree next semester:
1) Duplicates would definately affect allele frequency (if not all people cloned themselves at the same rate), but this would not be considered "inbreeding", unless there was less stigma for a male clone and a female clone from the same family marrying then a brother and sister marrying...it wouldn't lead to a higher proportion of inbreeding.
2) When two different blood lines combine, it can be considered a "new" line of blood.
3) There are constant mutations, genetic drift, crossing-over, and other genetic forces that will create "new" blood lines and create diversity.
4) Due to geographic isolation, it is very unlikely that all blood-lines would converge faster then the forces that create new diversity.
Find something else to worry about.:-)
Bill Clinton and senators ate your tax money.
on
PBS Goes Digital
·
· Score: 1
It was wasted because the senators refused to do what was right even though they were handed all of the evidence on a silver platter..they decided to keep a federal criminal in office. Purjury is purjury.
This is kind of like you complaining that the money spent investigating a serial killer was wasted and never should have been spent because the jury wimped out and didn't convict him or her.
"Ken Starr's four year investigation of Clinton cost about as much money as a year of PBS. Can you actually tell me with a straight face that it did more good for the US than PBS does?"
Yes, I guess we should just admit that we have no concept of legality and any elected official can commit purjury openly, in otherwords, become a criminal, and face no punishment for it. Why even spend money to make an APPEARANCE that elected officials aren't above the law? We all know that they are perfectly above the law because they are the ones that hold the power of coercion and they can buy whoever they need to, or get them killed as a last resort (Mary Mahoney).
The government is only good for breaking your legs and then giving you crutches and saying how you "needed" them to come along and help you.
"the coffee wasn't spilled, it was in fact so hot, it dissolved the bottom of the cup, and that's how she was burned."
WRONG.
She put the coffee between her legs, she squeezed it a bit too hard, the top came off, which allowed the container to become compressed, and that made the coffee spill.
That would incluide telling us in the documentation or the release notes exactly which sections of mozilla are expected to ccmpile, and which ones don't. I end up doing 3-4 compiles until I get a./configure setting that works.
"It has many many problems with most current programs. Obviously mozilla m5 hasn't been ported to that version of glibc. Just use a pre-compiled version until it is fixed."
1) The only thing that glibc-2.1 really breaks (at compile time) is yacc's output (because it's a lovely file pointer = STDIN, STDOUT, etc)..
2) It DOES break some binary compatibilty though... if anything. pre-compiled binaries would have much more trouble then compiling the code.
"It is unfortunate that glibc 2.1 is largly incompatible with glibc 2.0."
How is it? It uses versioned symbols.
I'm glad it worked well for you...
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
The reason why it's such a strong peee of mine is not because of it being "outdated", it's the truely horrible things that I've witnessed because of parents trying to enforce this rule. Some women delierately chose men that they wouldn't have dated otherwise, just to get back. Others had very committed relationships that they hid underground. Lots of confrontations occurred. Some times, the woman never came home again.
"I didnt mind the rule at all. Most of the time i was thank full for it. It was an easy out when all the strang guys in Junior high started sniffing at my heels."
*sigh* why women don't just say "NO, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN YOU IN THAT WAY." and instead look for "easy outs" is something that will frustrate men for the rest of time...
But the reason why it worked well for you was that you didn't want to date at that time anyways.
Let me clarify something...were you just not allowed to date before you were 16 (as in going out on the town), or were you not allowed to have a "boyfriend" either? Most parents choose the latter interpretation of "no dating" rather then the former, the difference being that they aren't even allowed to promise exclusitivity to someone and they get "suspicious" when they start talking on the phone with someone for too long.
"I hope im not standing on soap boxes. The heights make me hard to understand."
I hope I'm not yelling from a soapbox either, i've just watched people suffer from having their parents try to influence their child's relationships, and then justify it because "They're only teens..they don't know any better."
And I recently had MY run in with my parents, where they tried to tell me at the age of 20, that I didn't know what I was doing relationship wise because I was in a relationship with one of lesser socioeconomic status then myself. After 2 years and getting to the point several times of almost never speaking to them again, I think they have FINALLY accepted her. But I still feel resentful that they felt like they had the right to interfere in my relationships, and I am much less likely to talk about anything having to do with this relationship in the future with them.
Personal pet peeve....
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
I agree with most of what your mother did..until I got to this point...
"My mother made a point of my knowing that I would not be allowed to date untill I was 16."
Having seen that she was a reasonable human being by your previous comments, I'm at a loss to see what made her use that out-dated and clichish rule.
It doesn't work, plain and simple. If a woman wants to have a relationship with a man, she will. And it will then be one with NO parental control whatsoever. It doesn't accomplish anything but lead to implicit disrespect of the parent who is attempting to control the RELATIONSHIPS of the son (or more likely) daughter.
Parents already have enough of a problem accepting the significant others of their children. They can't control who their sons or daughters see, they can only try to adjust the morals of the children to help them choose someone "reasonable". Putting this rule in place along with a "don't see tom" rule is just asking for the teenagers to take their "us against the world" stance. A female girl is more likely to run off with tom if her parents forbid her to see him, when she would have realized that tom was trying to take advantage of her if the parents had just given her slight hints (and NOT said tom's name outright).
I've personally known too many people hurt by this idiotic rule, and so I bristle inside everytime I hear it.
"Lock your daughters up" didn't even work in the 50's, and it SURE the hell won't work today!
"HELLOOO!!! anyone in there... this was a suicide mission. Under normal circumstances someone with a gun would think twice. However in this case, these kids went in, shot the place up, then killed themselves."
But there is a DIFFERENCE between killing oneself and being shot down. One is "going out in a blaze of glory." The other is "Being shot down." As I said before, being shot down is the final humilliation.
"It had nothing to do with games"
Sorry that I didn't make that clear...I meant games as having that one female beg for mercy and then killing everyone around her, saying exactly how they were going to kill people, etc..
Slashdot Mirror
One more semester till I graduate, and then off to Christchurch :-)
*starts circulating his resume*
BTW, how hard is it to get a New Zealand drivers licence if I already have a US license?
"If you don't like the standards of the community you're in you can always change the standards or simply leave."
/."
/. could put me in jail.
Lets see.
1) Change the standards. Hmm, I'll have to deal with 10,000 maurading Christians walking around and picketing, appealing to parents who are afraid to allow their "baby" to date at age 35. Standards are simply selective enforcement, so people aren't really worried about getting caught until they get screwed by the government with an ulterier motive. So I'll get 10,000 social conservatives fwapping me on the head with shovels and voting NO and no one will bother voting YES, and I'll be the one with a "ruined reputation" and shovel marks and footprints on me. Won't work. No one wants to admit IN PUBLIC that they want to watch porno, now do they?
2) Leave. There are idiots like this EVERYWHERE, and these people want to enforce their stupid laws (and morals) on EVERYONE.
"Furthermore, if a community can't set its own standards and expect people to abide by them there can be no such thing as government, law, or
Umm, I don't think that
Government does not NEED these local obsenity standards. All they need to know is if someone is being coerced or not. But they LOVE these standards because it allows them to hold the glove of selective enforcement over you. Piss someone off in government, they will be SURE to "catch" you the next time you are having oral sex with your lover and haul you off to jail for "sodomy".
The whole IDEA of community standards is BULLSHIT. If someone near by me watches porno, I do NOT have to watch it because they did. If someone voluntarly pays someone for sex, that doesn't mean that the whole neighborhood will. The people who want community standards want to make people believe that if one person does something untasteful, that EVERYONE will do it. It is absolving individuals of their responsibilities.
This is how we are losing the bill of rights. Because of idiotic people who want these "standards".
Sifl N Olly is still on? WHEN? WHERE?
I haven't seen it since last summer!
*pants expectingly*
"By saying "open the floodgates" to pornography, with no ability to do blocking, you have circumvented the ability of communities and of families to make and enforce their own decisions about what constititues community and family standards."
Who cares what "communities" think about what arbitary "standard" they are going to try to enforce this week? Who cares what parents think about what obscene material they're afraid their 16 yr old will try to see this week? Why not let the children have their own damn life for once?
Why not think about the INDIVIDUAL, who is the one that is actually CHOOSING what he or she WANTS to see? Blocker software is bullshit for that reason..it means that the individual is being blocked from what he or she believes his or her standards are. If I choose to view pornography, despite what some idiotic bible belt person thinks, I am NOT affecting a 82 yr old granny down the hall who doesn't want to see it. If I am FORCING her to see it, then I should be arrested for that COERCIVE action, not because I am violating "standards". Child Porn should be illegal because it was a COERCION of the children to pose for the pictures, NOT because they are obscene.
I say that communities do NOT have the right to "enforce" their own standards, because I refuse to allow some hypocritial idiot to remove my freedom to view what I want to so he can make a big political issue out of it (See Simon Leis).
"Community Standards" is a THEOCRATIC idea, and should be discredited as such. *ALL* young people see porn, and then most of them stop searching for it or start searching for better quality, less crass versions of it. If companies are really scared that their employees are going to look at porn during working hours, then they have a MORALE problem, not a porn viewing problem.
All you're saying by "Community Standards" is that someone who holds pathological and bizzare ideas about what is natural (such as sex) can dictate me or coerce me if I happen to live in the same community.
"The alternative to government (read, representative, elected) control of the internet is corporate control of the internet."
Hmm...lets see...
Corporate control: Allows you to choose how you get your connection, how fast it is, and what services you use through the free market.
Government control: Complete loss of choice about all three.
Of course, you don't WANT people to have any choice, otherwise you wouldn't be dumping on the Libertarians.
My typical Linux screen has Netscape, Kdevelop, Licq, X11amp, and about 12 "Konsoles" open. The GUI allows me to see several CLI's at the same time, and size them to whatever size I want them to be. I can work at the console if I need to (for example, on Linux boxes that are hard-core servers), but I find it annoying and limiting, even with 6 virtual consoles, and I eventually start my laptop into X-windows and ssh into the server if I need to work there for a prolonged period of time.
Just because you are running X doesn't mean that you can't (and aren't) using the power of the cli.
Ordered it last night when I saw it pop up on Freshmeat. :-)
"remove nospam for e-mail"
:P
You have to remove the dot after "nospam" as well.
Nuff said. :-)
(Big grin)
"Where do most of the child molestors come from ?"
:P
They're usually straight...Gay != Child Molestor.
"OR mabye it's a result of moral and religious beliefs."
If your beliefs are that you will hate somebody based on their preferred sexual behaviour that is with a consenting adult, and you want to use COERCION to enforce those beliefs on others, then I shit all over your beliefs.
"1] 'crap' not including funding for schools, medicare/aid, sceience grants, NASA, etc.,"
Lets see...
1) Federal funding for schools? There's a nice graph showing standardized scores decreasing the moment that federal funding was introduced. The National Education Association has 2 main interests: 1) Being in bed with all the teachers Unions, who obviously have no interest in increasing the quality of education, and 2) advancing Outcome Based Education programs as a natural outgrowth of its liberal and big government ideology.
Hmm..sounds like Federal Funding for schools is Crap.
2) Medicare/aid? The same program that 1) makes it affordable for 14 yr olds to have children that they would have aborted/put up for adoption before? 2) A program that gives MORE benefits then a normal entry level job, giving people no incentive to get off it? 3) A program which has taken over 51% of the healthcare system, increasing health care costs to everyone based on the time that doctors have to fill out federal healthcare forms? 4) A program that totally demoralizes and dehumanizes everybody who is on it, telling them that they can't survive without the government?
Sounds like crap to me as well.
3) Science grants? Run by the government, they tend to be given to the people running the most politically popular experiments, not necessarly the people who are running the most beneficial experiments. Grants are good, run by the government is bad, therefore crap.
4) NASA has been productive because they have worked with many members of the private sector and are much more public minded then other government agencies. Why not spin them off into the private sector, where the gifted people who are responsible for their success can work even more productively and make their own decisions?
and finally,
5) If you want a more reasonable military budget, then we need to change our foreign policy, which currently consists of "Lets stick our nose into every other countries affairs." Of COURSE our military budget is outragious! We're trying to fight wars for 20 different countries! And in the meantime, we're pissing everybody off because we DON'T MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS! All our military needs to do is make sure that WE don't get invaded and that WE can't get nuked. All we need are troops that will fight in case of invasion and a ballistic missile defense so we don't have to worry about every damn dictator that gets a nuclear missile.
MOST of the current budget is crap. All we need is a government that protects our life, liberty, and property. If we want the government to do anything else, it will eventually enslave us.
"If the government does not have a right to "determine morality," then how can we justify murder being illegal? After, some people may have no moral objection to murder."
Because it is a coercive act that violates the right of the other person to live. You don't need to be religious to realize why it is wrong...
And I would quote pascals wager right back at you... every religious group wants you to pick THEIR god above all others...I can't follow all religions at the same time...and I would be forced to make a guess on what religion is the "correct" religion.
:P
gee..you think that a "loving" god would give us a very explicit sign on what religion is actually "right", so I don't pick the "wrong" religion and go to hell.
"Just in case you missed it, the Starr Report was about official misconduct related to the President getting his dick sucked in the oval office. Its difficult to go for a conviction unless you are specific as to what was being covered up."
In case you missed it, the report showed that Clinton was fingering Monica each time she was caressing him..which showed that he DEFINATELY lied about not having sexual relations, even under the limited definition. That and the cigar incident proves that he committed purjury.
But the part that people miss (on purpose), is how Starr proves the pattern of the Jones sexual harassment case...showing how Clinton used the powers of the government and government officials to get Lewinsky different jobs that she wanted..how she got preferencial treatment in government affairs in exchange for sex. It's great for us to know that if any woman wants preferencial treatment from the president and the government, all she needs to do is sleep with the president. THAT was the point that the report made so well, but of course, we didn't want to hear it and admit that our form of government is a sham....
but that's what you get from idiotic collectivism.
HUH? You haven't heard people writing or debugging difficult code then. They swear all
the damn time.
It's a stupid and brainless cliche..black helicopters would attract much more attention then it would be worth.
No...if they were to "come for me" (and I'm sure they've got better things to do right now), it would look like just another routine break in or just another mugging, done by people that look (and act) like routine criminals. Except I'd be dead..and if they were in a real hurry, they'd forget to rob me of anything.
What, you think that political enemies that have powerful ammunition against the current leadership DON'T get murdered?
"For example, you have two families. Each family has one boy and one girl. Each boy marries the other girl. They have children. They children can't possibly reproduce due to the problem of genetic inbreeding. Think of this on a larger scale. If we start filling up the planet with duplicates, think of how close we become to having just two families left.
:-)
This is the frightening part, we will ultimately breed ourselves out of life."
From someone who earns his Biology degree next semester:
1) Duplicates would definately affect allele frequency (if not all people cloned themselves at the same rate), but this would not be considered "inbreeding", unless there was less stigma for a male clone and a female clone from the same family marrying then a brother and sister marrying...it wouldn't lead to a higher proportion of inbreeding.
2) When two different blood lines combine, it can be considered a "new" line of blood.
3) There are constant mutations, genetic drift, crossing-over, and other genetic forces that will create "new" blood lines and create diversity.
4) Due to geographic isolation, it is very unlikely that all blood-lines would converge faster then the forces that create new diversity.
Find something else to worry about.
It was wasted because the senators refused to do what was right even though they were handed all of the evidence on a silver platter..they decided to keep a federal criminal in office. Purjury is purjury.
This is kind of like you complaining that the money spent investigating a serial killer was wasted and never should have been spent because the jury wimped out and didn't convict him or her.
"Ken Starr's four year investigation of Clinton cost about as much money as a year of PBS. Can you actually tell me with a straight face that it did more good for the US than PBS does?"
Yes, I guess we should just admit that we have no concept of legality and any elected official can commit purjury openly, in otherwords, become a criminal, and face no punishment for it. Why even spend money to make an APPEARANCE that elected officials aren't above the law? We all know that they are perfectly above the law because they are the ones that hold the power of coercion and they can buy whoever they need to, or get them killed as a last resort (Mary Mahoney).
The government is only good for breaking your legs and then giving you crutches and saying how
you "needed" them to come along and help you.
"the coffee wasn't spilled, it was in fact so hot, it dissolved the bottom of the cup, and that's how she was burned."
WRONG.
She put the coffee between her legs, she squeezed it a bit too hard, the top came off, which allowed the container to become compressed, and that made the coffee spill.
That would incluide telling us in the documentation or the release notes exactly which sections of mozilla are expected to ccmpile, and which ones don't. I end up doing 3-4 compiles until I get a ./configure setting that works.
"It has many many problems with most current programs. Obviously mozilla m5 hasn't been ported to that version of glibc. Just use a pre-compiled version until it is fixed."
1) The only thing that glibc-2.1 really breaks (at compile time) is yacc's output (because it's a lovely file pointer = STDIN, STDOUT, etc)..
2) It DOES break some binary compatibilty though... if anything. pre-compiled binaries would have much more trouble then compiling the code.
"It is unfortunate that glibc 2.1 is largly incompatible with glibc 2.0."
How is it? It uses versioned symbols.
The reason why it's such a strong peee of mine is not because of it being "outdated", it's the truely horrible things that I've witnessed because of parents trying to enforce this rule. Some women delierately chose men that they wouldn't have dated otherwise, just to get back. Others had very committed relationships that they hid underground.
Lots of confrontations occurred. Some times, the woman never came home again.
"I didnt mind the rule at all. Most of the time i was thank full for it. It was an easy out when all the strang guys in Junior high started sniffing at my heels."
*sigh* why women don't just say "NO, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN YOU IN THAT WAY." and instead look for "easy outs" is something that will frustrate men for the rest of time...
But the reason why it worked well for you was that you didn't want to date at that time anyways.
Let me clarify something...were you just not allowed to date before you were 16 (as in going out on the town), or were you not allowed to have a "boyfriend" either? Most parents choose the latter interpretation of "no dating" rather then the former, the difference being that they aren't even allowed to promise exclusitivity to someone and they get "suspicious" when they start talking on the phone with someone for too long.
"I hope im not standing on soap boxes. The heights make me hard to understand."
I hope I'm not yelling from a soapbox either, i've just watched people suffer from having their parents try to influence their child's relationships, and then justify it because "They're only teens..they don't know any better."
And I recently had MY run in with my parents, where they tried to tell me at the age of 20, that I didn't know what I was doing relationship wise because I was in a relationship with one of lesser socioeconomic status then myself. After 2 years and getting to the point several times of almost never speaking to them again, I think they have FINALLY accepted her. But I still feel resentful that they felt like they had the right to interfere in my relationships, and I am much less likely to talk about anything having to do with this relationship in the future with them.
I agree with most of what your mother did..until I got to this point...
"My mother made a point of my knowing that I would not be allowed to date untill I was 16."
Having seen that she was a reasonable human being by your previous comments, I'm at a loss to see what made her use that out-dated and clichish rule.
It doesn't work, plain and simple. If a woman wants to have a relationship with a man, she will. And it will then be one with NO parental control whatsoever. It doesn't accomplish anything but lead to implicit disrespect of the parent who is attempting to control the RELATIONSHIPS of the son (or more likely) daughter.
Parents already have enough of a problem accepting the significant others of their children. They can't control who their sons or daughters see, they can only try to adjust the morals of the children to help them choose someone "reasonable".
Putting this rule in place along with a "don't see tom" rule is just asking for the teenagers to take their "us against the world" stance. A female girl is more likely to run off with tom if her parents forbid her to see him, when she would have realized that tom was trying to take advantage of her if the parents had just given her slight hints (and NOT said tom's name outright).
I've personally known too many people hurt by this idiotic rule, and so I bristle inside everytime I hear it.
"Lock your daughters up" didn't even work in the 50's, and it SURE the hell won't work today!
"HELLOOO!!! anyone in there... this was a suicide mission. Under normal circumstances someone with a gun would think twice. However in this case, these kids went in, shot the place up, then killed themselves."
But there is a DIFFERENCE between killing oneself and being shot down. One is "going out in a blaze of glory." The other is "Being shot down." As I said before, being shot down is the final humilliation.
"It had nothing to do with games"
Sorry that I didn't make that clear...I meant games as having that one female beg for mercy and then killing everyone around her, saying exactly how they were going to kill people, etc..