Au contraire. In an email, I can carefully choose the exact words to tell you what I think of you, your ideas, and describe in precise detail where you exist on the food chain. After reading that email, you will have no doubt as to what was said.
I'm assuming you're being sarcastic here, but in case you're not...
"Choosing the exact words" is how most flame wars get started on the internet, usually over things that no party actually meant but which other people "read into" the text. I've seen this plenty of times in email conversations with colleagues, too. I have had colleagues who seem almost willfully to misread everything I wrote and assume the weirdest possible or most complicated scenario, rather than just answering a simple question about a straightforward matter.
Often there's a significant disconnect in email reading/writing styles. An email that is fired off quickly and barely proofread may be scrutinized in detail by a recipient with all sorts of "implications" read into it that completely warp the original intent. Or the reverse -- the subtlety of a meticulously crafted message is lost by some idiot who just glances at it and says, "Sounds great! Cheers!"
At least conversation happens in real time, and you often can correct misunderstandings or misinterpretations before they get out of hand.
That people know it's rude and do it anyway... that's the part that really annoys the crap out of me. Go away, and I'll send you an email if you prefer. But stop constantly checking the damned thing, because I'm just going to walk away.
I learned an important lesson about this many years ago, long before cell phones became ubiquitous.
I remember as an undergraduate meeting with a senior university official (a provost, actually), and the phone on her desk started ringing. We were seated at a table elsewhere in her office, but I paused, thinking she would probably need to answer it. But she just kept on talking to me, and the meeting went on normally.
I ended up becoming a research assistant for her, and when this occurred in another meeting, I paused in what I was saying and said, "Uh... do you need to get that?" Her response was very logical and clear:
It was a matter of respect, she told me. A scheduled personal meeting with someone should receive her full attention, since I had taken the time to be there with her. Whether I was a lowly undergraduate or the university president, a scheduled in-person meeting was more important than whatever random person might be calling on her phone. If the situation was truly urgent, there were other ways people would get messages to her.
I never forgot that, and to this day I try to live up to her example. If you're in a meeting and you know that you may need to be interrupted, the polite thing to do is to inform the person you're meeting with at the outset that you might need to take a call or check email or whatever because you have an urgent matter to attend to. (But most of the time, you probably don't really have anything that urgent.)
Doing otherwise is disrespectful. With the growth of ubiquitous smart phones, the temptations have grown stronger, I guess. But if someone is taking their time to meet in-person with you, the least you can do is respect that time by giving them your attention.
BTW, I'm hardly the only one suggesting that there's no "true" event horizon, only apparent horizons - Hawking himself suggests that. Any argument you make declaring the "true" horizon to be absolute truth and the apparent horizon to just be an illusion isn't just going against me, it's going against Hawking.
First, Hawking's idea here is far from widely accepted. Second, his use of "apparent horizons" is mostly to resolve the so-called "firewall" paradox. (You're probably aware of that, but it's hard to tell based on your posts.) It is NOT suggesting that event horizons "don't exist" or that someone falling into a black hole could never pass one -- it's more like they're "fuzzy" in a quantum mechanical way. Third, I'm really not sure what you're talking about as the "true" event horizon as observed by someone falling into a black hole and its recession. As you point out later in your post, an event horizon is mostly a concept relevant to external observers, not someone falling into a black hole.
From the perspective of an outside observer, if the energy of an infalling particle could keep being perceived (however weak and distorted), it would never seem to move past the event horizon - until the black hole evaporates and the event horizon recedes.
Except that's a somewhat misleading interpretation of what Hawking is claiming. And in any case, It really depends on how you interpret what goes on with Hawking radiation and the firewall paradox.
Your "wrongs" are 1) Hawking is wrong, and 2) "I'm going to complain about practicalities rather than actualities".
Well, (1) Hawking very well could be wrong (certainly many physicists have doubts), and (2) your entire first post was an attempt to put a very practical intuitive spin on general relativistic phenomena.
Time can flow differently from the perspective of different observers, but the events observed, when they occur, must match and follow in order. If an outside observer perceives a black hole as slowly radiating, then an infalling observer whose time is perceived by the same observer as running at 1000000 times slower must perceive the object as radiating 1000000 times more intensely. Otherwise reality itself is different from different perspectives, not just the flow of time.
I'm not sure what "reality" is, other than how we perceive the universe from a particular vantage point. And "reality" will be vastly different or distorted from different perspectives. You say that I'm making inappropriate claims about "true" event horizons, etc. (which I did not mean at all), but you're doing similar things in your attempt to apply practical intuition to this situation where you have a confluence of general relativistic and quantum effects going on.
You're the one confusing these concepts, invoking an infalling observer crossing the so-called "real" event horizon when the "real" event horizon is a concept perceived only by an external observer. Keep your reference frames consistent.
Huh? You're the one who started your first post talking about how the infalling observer perceived the "apparent" event horizon, or at least that somehow there was an "apparent" event horizon "receding before it." How could the infalling observer know that the event horizon was receding unless the observer had some way of evaluating where that event horizon ("apparent" or not) was? And if you're now saying that the infalling observer doesn't have an exact perception of where the event horizon ("apparent" or not) might be -- which I basically agree with -- then your first paragraph of your first post was just sort of gobbledygook, since it doesn't have any meaning or relevance to your argument.
This whole thing is getting muddled, so I'll just stop trying to respond now. Bottom line (for me) is that Hawking's interpretations about what happens at event horizons have received a lot of popu
A particle falling into a black hole never perceives itself as having moved past an event horizon, as an apparent event horizon recedes before it. The horizon keeps receding in the direction of the "singularity" until it's torn apart on the way in.
This isn't true. Particles do in fact pass the event horizon in finite time (as judged in their own time frame). In fact, for very large black holes (tens of thousands of solar masses), it would easily be possible to pass the event horizon without experiencing tidal forces strong enough to rip you apart... in finite time.
An external observer never perceives a particle falling past the so-called "true" horizon; it perceives the falling object's time as slowing down to a virtual stop at the event horizon.
While this is sort of true, the idea of an external observing viewing an astronaut "frozen in time" just above the event horizon is just not true in any practical sense.
What you'd actually observe if you watched someone fall into a black hole is the light from that person exponentially getting dimmer and fading out basically completely in finite time (i.e., probably within a fraction of a second for reasonable sized black holes). Yes, theoretically you can get a photon emitted and taking years or centuries to reach an external observer, but the amount of emitted light decays exponentially fairly quickly -- so as an external observer you'd actually see someone basically "disappear" at the event horizon in finite time (and fairly quickly actually). (For some details and a sample calculation with explanation, see here.)
Both of these views are logically consistent under a simple constraint: nothing ever passes an event horizon, and there's no such thing as a "true" horizon, only apparent horizons. The outside observer's view of "truth" should be given no more precedence as being reality than the infalling observer's perception.
Well, since both of your "views" are sort of wrong (or, well, at least misleading), I'm not sure the rest of your explanation should be taken as true.
Also, the problem is notions of simultaneity and where time and space is in black holes is quite complex when you try to compare observers in general relativity -- basically, you really can't come up with objective metrics that will satisfy notions of simultaneity for observers except in a local sense. So talking about whether a black hole "has formed" or where the event horizon "is" at a particular moment of time becomes quite complicated when you start to involve "external" observers. (For some details, see here for a bit of an explanation.)
Anyhow, there's lots of debate going on with Hawking about what exactly goes on with black holes (and information), but my point is that trying to apply simple intuition to general relativistic effects around black holes is pretty much destined to fail, or at least lead to a lot of misunderstandings.
No, they are not legally bound to it. Unless your marriage contract has some weird (and potentially invalid) clauses, you can't sue your spouse for cheating. It now won't even be taken into consideration when, for example, calculating alimony.
That depends on the state. Currently, in 21 states, adultery is still a criminal offense. It is very rarely prosecuted, but the laws are still on the books. In the majority of states, adultery can be taken into account to some extent in divorce settlements when determining division of property, alimony, or child custody.
You're correct that in some states adultery has very little standing in marital cases and divorces, but those principles vary significantly from state to state. It is still a generally established legal principle in most states that sexual fidelity is a general expectation in marriage. And it tends to be an official legal reason for divorce (in states that still allow divorce "for cause," rather than only "no-fault" divorces).
As for fidelity being an assumption, even though there's no real stats about it, the idea that a lot of people will cheat is well accepted. Because of that, still having this assumption of fidelity is pretty much wishful thinking.
Given that polls have consistently shown that 90+% of the American public believes adultery is "morally wrong," it may be "wishful thinking" for some people or some relationships -- but clearly it is an established social and moral expectation.
Infidelity does not cause direct harm. Any harm someone may feel because of infidelity is only in his own head. It's the same kind of harm some religious fanatics claim when someone "insults" their religion. We do not have a moral obligation to bow to anyone "sensitivities", no matter how they will be psychologically affected by the destruction of their illusions.
Every marriage is different, but at its basis it is an agreement about a relationship between two parties. As I said in the post you replied to, I have absolutely no problem with those two parties allowing sex with whomever if that's what they wish.
Again, the problem is deception and fidelity to the agreement. If you want to get married and have a clear and open agreement with your spouse that allows you to have an "open marriage," I have absolutely NO problem with that.
But clearly established legal opinion and the vast majority of public opinion believes adultery to be incompatible with the "default" position of a marital agreement. If you don't want a part of that, either don't get married, or be clear with your spouse about the fact that you expect an open marriage. Doing otherwise is benefitting from someone else in significant ways through deceit.
I can understand why you think a legal contract should generally be respected (of course sometimes respecting a legal contract can be morally wrong), but fidelity is simply not part of the legal contract.
Yes, it is in many states, as I already mentioned. But regardless of LEGAL circumstances -- there's also the morality of general agreements too.
Even if you don't have a legal right to sue someone for a breach of a particular contract, there is a notion of moral "fair dealing" and "honesty" in most contractual agreements. You posed your questions initially in moral terms, not only legal ones. Even if the law does not compel you to act in certain ways, morality may still dictate that certain courses are right and wrong.
Generally speaking, lying to someone to gain their affection (not to mention all the other benefits that generally accrue in marriages -- financial, social, etc.) is morally wrong.
What next? Will you say the obligation to cherish your spouse until death is also part of the con
So for the sake of arguments... can you explain why you view banging someone else's spouse as immoral? What is the basis for this moral judgement?
Marriage is a civil law agreement which generally has the assumption of sexual fidelity. Unless the two spouses agree to waive that part of the agreement, they are bound to it by remaining married.
Doing otherwise is deceitful. Deliberately participating in a deceitful action that has a propensity to cause a great deal of harm to another is generally considered immoral.
For example, is it because you think the spouse is some form of property, so banging someone else spouse is like stealing?
No, and I view such perspectives as patriarchal BS. Spouses are not "property."
But spouses do enter into agreements as part of marriage. Marital fidelity is generally a standard assumption, as is general openness and honesty.
I mean, do we really have to go into explaining why participating in deceitful behavior that could ruin people's lives is wrong? Many, many marriages are broken up over secret affairs. You want to have sex with people outside your marriage? I have absolutely no problem with that -- just as long as your spouse agrees. If you go ahead without their knowledge, then you are benefitting from their affection, love, and loyality through deceit. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that such an action is generally wrong, whatever the context.
As a related question, why do you think it's moral to forbid your spouse to have sex with whoever he or she wants?
It's generally part of marital agreements in the vast majority of human cultures. It's part of the basic assumption of what it means to "get married." You don't want to agree to that? Fine -- DON'T GET MARRIED. It's that simple.
Many (perhaps most) people get married because they believe that having such a structure where people voluntarily agree to be faithful to each other has mutual benefits.
Some people don't want to be part of such an agreement. Fine -- they shouldn't get married. Or, if they do get married and find it no longer suits them, they should get a divorce (or try to ask for an "open marriage" or whatever). But they do NOT have the moral high ground if they lie to keep the benefits of their married life while secretly violating their agreement with their spouse.
I have no problem if someone wants to have sex with whomever, married or not. I have a big problem with people who make a critical agreement as part of a legal contract and then break the terms of that agreement while lying to maintain the benefits of the agreement. I don't care whether this is a marriage contract or a business contract or whatever -- it's morally wrong.
The site advertises itself as a place for people wanting to cheat on their spouses to do so.
Yeah, so what? I sign up, if you want to cheat on your spouse, you can cheat with me. What's the problem?
What's the problem?
I suppose none, if you think it's morally okay to be a party to a deception which could potentially rip people's lives apart.
Don't get me wrong -- I have absolutely no problem with people who want to have "open marriages" or swingers or whatever they want to call it. As long as they are honest and upfront about it, I think people should be free to do whatever they want.
But if a person is with a partner who believes in fidelity as a moral part of marriage, and that person seeks to deceive that partner while having an affair, yes I do think it's morally wrong to facilitate such actions -- let alone be a direct party to participating in one.
Affairs are generally not just "little white lies" to most folks. Marriages, to many people, are fundamental relationships where people define their lives, have children, and place a great deal of trust in the strength and honesty of that relationship.
Maybe people have unreasonable expectations about fidelity. Okay -- then they have options if they don't want to agree to those anymore: they can ask for an open marriage, they can ask for a divorce... or even they can just openly assert to their spouse that they are going ahead with an affair with or without the spouse's consent... and let the spouse determine the correct course of action to take (divorce or whatever).
Just violating a spouse's trust and continuing to benefit for that spouse's affection and loyalty through deception is immoral. And those who would take advantage of such situations just to score a little sex share in this immorality.
Again, I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to have sex with anyone else, married or not -- as long as they are honest. But when you promise someone not to have sex with other people and benefit from that trust, you have a moral responsibility not to violate it. And if you're a single person who knowingly participates in such should be justly condemned as wella violation, well... yeah, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that's wrong too.
But hey -- if you don't mind potentially ripping people's lives apart, I guess that's okay for you then.
Maybe it's about time to open up the conversation on why we find one physical activity with another person to be taboo, but not another (like say tennis).
In a 1991 study, sex researcher Shere Hite found that 70 percent of married women have cheated on their partners; a 1993 follow-up study found that 72 percent of married men have as well. According to a 2004 University of Chicago study, 25 percent of married men have had at least one extramarital affair.
Interestingly, for the past few decades, surveys have consistently shown that only 5-8% of people find adultery "morally acceptable," while 90+% always find it "morally wrong."
So, even if your study numbers are accurate, some simply math shows it's pretty clear that the vast majority of those cheaters are willing to morally condemn their own behavior.
I'm noMaybe it's about time to open up the conversation on why we find one physical activity with another person to be taboo, but not another (like say tennis).
In a 1991 study, sex researcher Shere Hite found that 70 percent of married women have cheated on their partners; a 1993 follow-up study found that 72 percent of married men have as well. According to a 2004 University of Chicago study, 25 percent of married men have had at least one extramarital affair. t saying I disagree with your idea that perhaps people should talk about these numbers. But whether people cheat or not, it seems clear that VAST majorities disapprove of the behavior in general... probably because in most cases they wouldn't want to be deceived and cheated upon (even if they did it themselves). And that observation perhaps speaks just to how strongly people want to BELIEVE in the idea of fidelity, even if they may not be very good at it.
Furthermore, such laws are plainly totalitarian, they misplace responsibility, they view a marriage as little more than a property deed, and they elevate particular religions to sources of law.
While I agree with you that criminalizing adultery is a bit ridiculous, that's certainly not the only place where adultery enters law in most states.
In particular, adultery is also used in many states in divorce proceedings as official legal grounds for divorce (where divorce can still happen "for cause," as opposed to "no-fault"), and in most states adultery can be a factor in determining various aspects of asset division, child custody, etc. in a divorce.
In those latter cases, adultery is a symptom of a kind of breach of the marriage contract -- and if you want to get your "particular religions" out of marriage law, then marriage is basically reduced to a civil contract.
That civil contract of marriage has been pretty well understood in most cultures throughout human history to preclude adultery (or at least adultery that is not approved by all parties in the marriage). Even polygamous cultures generally recognize marriage (i.e., plural marriage) as a place for valid sexual relationships to take place. Many cultures have traditionally held women to higher standards of fidelity than men, but the basic idea of some sort of sexual fidelity coupled to marriage is nearly universal among human societies.
So -- given that fact, it seems reasonable to me that there can be legal consequences to adultery, as a violation of a civil contract -- unless the parties in a particular marriage choose to waive that requirement. Though I do agree with you that criminal penalties are a bit ridiculous (though the whole civil regulation of marriage has quite a bit of ridiculous nonsense appended to it).
No small government conservative, nor any other supporter of a free society, could possibly support such a law. The only reason they haven't been declared unconstitutional is that no relevant case has yet reached the Supreme Court.
As long as the government is bothering to regulate marriage, it seems like it has to mean something. That something seems very much in flux these days, but approval ratings for adultery are always ridiculously low -- much lower than even approval ratings for polygamy. Given that SCOTUS tends to mostly overturn laws when they have public opinion on their side (or nearly on their side), I think it's at least possible -- though perhaps unlikely -- that theat all part of the general meaning of marriage.y might still uphold the constitutionality of adultery statutes. And even if they overturn criminal statutes, they certainly aren't going to expunge adultery statutes from divorce law... and nor should they as long as sexual fidelity is assumed to be part of the common law meaning of marriage.
You couldn't have twenty browser windows open, that's for sure, but people managed OK with lots of swapping and patience.
Why would you even WANT to have 20 browser windows open in 1995??
Remember that back then most people were still using dialup for internet, if they were using it at all. Even at most businesses, internet was often still dialup.
And the web was small enough that you often still went to search engines which collected pretty much all the substantive links on a particular topic, so even wanting to have more than a couple browser windows open at once would fairly unnecessary.
Anyhow, the bottleneck wouldn't have been RAM or swapping -- it would have been the fact that you were downloading on a pretty slow modem interface, where it could take many seconds even for a single image to render.
And yet, even with 8 MB of RAM, you still could enjoyably surf the web with a fast internet connection. There just weren't as many complex images and graphics everywhere. People today just don't realize how "lightweight" on memory an OS and standard apps could be if they were efficient.
Who is to say that he doesn't respect her? If he is happily married I can only assume that he does respect her.
For most people, "respect" does not include lying. If he respected his wife, he would have asked for an open marriage before breaking his marriage agreement. If she refused and he still needed to screw around to be "happy," then his next option is divorce. Marriage is an agreement between two parties -- a person cannot be "happily married" while violating the agreement without the other's knowledge.
However, every male spouse I have ever talked to has desired more sex from his mate than she was willing to give.
Have you ever talked to a person over the age of 30 or who has been married for more than 5 or 10 years? Sex may be great, but people who are married long-term tend to often be concerned about other benefits from a durable, caring relationship.
The unfairness is that not only do wives not give husbands the sex that they want, but they also hold husbands to not going out and getting it elsewhere.
Unfairness? No -- what's unfair is if you agree to something in exchange for a person's affection and then you secretly break that agreement and lie to that person while continuing to benefit from that affection.
You don't want to be married? Fine -- don't get married. You get married, and you find it doesn't make you happy (because you can't get enough sex or whatever)? Fine. You have a legal option since no-fault divorce was created.
But what we're talking about here is a person who wants to benefit from his marriage and all the good things it brings him while lying to the people who give those good things to him. If he doesn't like the terms, get out of the marriage. But claiming that he's "happily married" while deliberately lying and cheating on those terms is just nonsensical.
Monogamy is not actually in the standard Catholic marriage vows or its derivatives.
No, it doesn't need to be, because it's a stipulation that defines marital behavior in the Sixth Commandment, as well as numerous other places in both Old and New Testaments. (See official Catholic catechism.) To someone who assents to a Christian "marriage," they are inherently agreeing to the basic definition of that word, which precludes adultery. I don't think this is a secret.
Even if it were implied, marriage is a civil contract, many non-religious people get married, and there is no legal requirement for monogamy.
False. Adultery is still officially a criminal offense in roughly 20 states. Prosecutions are exceedingly rare these days, but they used to happen. States are repealing these laws, but they're still on the books many places. And even if adultery isn't prosecuted, in almost all states divorce law allows adultery to be considered as part of "bad behavior" which can either be cause for a divorce (in states that still allow grounds for cause) or at a minimum it is something that judges can explicitly use as evidence against a spouse in making a determination about how to split assets.
The expectation is culturally-specific, and lots of cultures have completely divergent expectations (including polygamy, as among some Mormons, Muslims, etc.)
That's true, of course. But we're talking here about one specific dude who signed up on Ashley Madison, and clearly lied to his wife because he thought it was wrong. So whether someone else may have different expectations about marriage, this guy is clear that the "no adultery" clause is pretty relevant to his own marriage.
Furthermore: Is it even feasible to promise a "forever" thing like that at a young age? I would argue "no"; people don't really have a capacity or right to make such an oath, time and variations are deeper than the young person can digest, and the demographic statistics bear that out.
There are two options for such people. Divorce and "open marriage." Both involve talking to your spouse. Choosing instead to continue to benefit from the marriage while lying to your spouse and breaking your vows is definitely not adhering to spirit of the marriage agreement.
To the extent that young people are deluded, tricked, or forced into a commitment of implied eternal monogamy, it's not entirely their fault, and they should be given some sympathy and charity as they try to naturally relieve or find their way out of the situation.
"Oops, my penis just accidentally fell into the lady parts of another woman. It isn't entirely my fault!"
Seriously, owning your decisions is part of being an adult. You don't want to be married anymore? Fine. Get divorced. At a minimum, be honest with your spouse about what you need and what's wrong -- you might be surprised that many people who make an effort can find that they actually can be happy in their marriage... but when you make unilateral decisions about that relationship and lie about them, that's not going to be good for anyone.
I am happy to give honest people "sympathy and charity." I understand that many young people make mistakes in getting married. But that doesn't mean you get to reap the benefits of a "happily married life" (as TFS puts it) while lying and cheating on the person who's giving that life to you.
Hopefully the long arc of history will continue to degrade this unrealistic expectation and allow people to be happy and connected without being condemned on by uptight, moralizing craphats.
Look -- I think marriage is pretty much a stupid idea for many folks, too. I never said otherwise. But it is a thing, a
Nope, it's not our business. But when someone claims to be "happily married" but also clearly chooses to violate the terms of the marriage agreement for his own pleasure, clearly he isn't as "happily married" as he thinks... and if this cheating was something part of his "happy marriage," then why does his wife not know, as a party to that agreement? Doesn't she get a vote about whether they are "happily married," and can't she only evaluate that if she knows whether the other party has actually been faithful to terms?
The wife is the body. I respect my body, but I occasionally eat a Sundae. At the moment I eat unhealthy foods it is hard to argue that I respect my body 100%, but it would be equally absurd to claim I have no respect for my body.
It may be absurd to claim that you have "no respect" for your wife if you cheat, but it is NOT absurd to claim that you have "no respect" for your MARRIAGE, which is an agreement between you and your wife. And usually pretty high on the list of terms of that agreement for most spouses is no adultery. Some may be okay with it, but that's generally something you negotiate with the spouse's consent. This is not the "fine print" of what marriage means -- it's pretty fundamental to the agreement.
To go back to your analogy, you may not completely disrespect your body by eating some ice cream, but if you made an explicit agreement stated before hundreds of witnesses in a formal ceremony that you would not eat ice cream, then you are completely disrespecting that agreement (and, by extension, you are disrespecting all who took part it in, at least to some extent).
You don't want that agreement? Fine. Don't take a vow to it. Or negotiate out of it. Some people want a diet where they can also eat ice cream. Be honest with your body and say that's the only kind of diet you want, and if your body can't deal, well... no diet for the body at all.
I'm getting tired of this analogy. Point is: this is about a formal, binding agreement. Honest people sign onto agreements that they plan to keep. And if they can't hold up the terms, honest people admit to it and either get out of the agreement or negotiate for something else.
And not only that, but we're not talking about some sort of accidental drunken hook-up here... we're talking about a guy who signs up on a website explicitly devoted to cheating and then deliberately makes a choice to cheat.
It's not like you were just at a party and somebody stuck a scoop of ice cream in your mouth, and you succumbed to accidental temptation. You sat at your computer, deliberately sought out a place to acquire ice cream, checked it out in detail, and then made plans to surreptitiously go eat it. A person who respects his dietary plan and is honest about how he is "happily dieting" does not do such things.
An unhappy marriage is not the defining feature leading to an affair, and a number of happily married people do fall into affairs.
This is pointless rationalization. What you're talking about are people who delude themselves into thinking they're "happily married" but also don't like to live by the rules of marriage... They may be "happy" (in some one-sided "relationship" as they like to define it themselves), but they actually aren't happily married (which, you know, requires both parties to understand and consent to such actions).
You see, the rules are actually quite simple here. Don't "fall into affairs" (as you so nicely put it) by accidentally getting out your genitals and putting them in someone not your spouse.
Sorry, but this is NOT something one just "falls into" -- "Oops, I'm sorry my penis just accidentally fell into there." That's teenage boy logic. Grow up. I don't care how some psychologist may rationalize it.
A hug that goes a little too far? Sure. A woman gives you a drunken kiss at a party? Sure. These can happen, and you stop it and say "sorry -- I'm married, and that makes me happy." That's what people who are actually "happy" to be "married" do.
You sign up for a website, make plans, and stick your genitals in someone else? Sorry -- no, you didn't just "fall into" that. And then you keep it a secret from your wife when it does happen? Nope -- you're definitely not "happily married," as least not when you took a whole bunch of deliberate actions to cheat on the normal principle of marriage.
"I think you accomplished that all on your own, sir."
You are confusing the precipitating event with blame.
And I think you're confusing what GP was talking about.
The man has to accept responsibility and blame for committing the wrong, but that fact remains that the blackmail is the (potential) precipitating event that results in the actual fallout. He put himself in the situation that allows him to be vulnerable.
While this may all be true, what GP quoted from TFS was that the man was worried about: "the fallout, which he said could endanger his happily married life with his wife and kids."
Let's be clear here -- this statement is deluded. A man who has a "happily married life" does not lie to his spouse and participate in affairs without her knowledge. It's as simple as that. GP is absolutely correct to say that the man is primarily responsible for "endangering" this life, because this life clearly does NOT exist for him. He's living a lie, or at least has clearly lived a significant lie at some point. And now he's lying to others about that supposed "happily married life."
That in no way excuses the blackmailer from exploiting the vulnerability.
Of course not. Blackmail is of course still wrong. But if you commit a violent crime and think you got away with it, you can't go walking around saying you live a "happily non-violent life" and expect other people to excuse you from blame when you get caught.
It is possible for events to have more than one "cause." While blackmail is wrong, this man's actions are the primary thing that ended his own delusional myth of a "happily married life." Should his wife and kids suffer because of his actions? Probably not -- but they'd probably be better off in the long run knowing what kind of scumbag they're trusting: the kind who not only cheats, but then complains that he's "happily married" when he doesn't get away with it.
I recall when my office moved from Wordperfect 5 to the first Windows version pf MS-Word. It was a fucking nightmare.
Hmm, still is.
Despite the obvious advantages WYSIWYG, there were months worth of bitching and moaning, and a few people who pretty much convinced management to let them keep using Wordperfect in a DOS window.
If only those people had won. Seriously.
I know somebody's going to mod me "troll" for saying this, but hear me out...
Word processors are for typing text. They are not layout editors. They are not publishing software. So much time is wasted in office environments with people tweaking their ridiculous Word files (direct formatting with tabs and carriage returns and whatever), which inevitably break the next time they save the file, or move one word, or (heaven forbid!) try to open the thing in another version of the same software or a version on a different OS (Windows vs. Mac).
People who need documents that should look publication-ready should be using proper software that has layout and design capabilities built-in.
People who are just making up reports with a bunch of text which barely needs formatting don't need WYSIWYG -- in fact, it ends up wasting HUGE amounts of work time for little gain.
Not true. A single data point can invalidate a theory. It just can't "prove" anything.
But invalidate, yes.
This is one those things that makes for a great scientific methodology soundbite, but doesn't really accord with real-world scientific practice.
In the real world, and in actual scientific practice, empirical data is frequently flawed or inaccurate in some way. Data points that appear to disagree with a theory may actually agree with it once measurement errors and other methodological problems are taken into account.
If you only have 9 data points that adhere to a theory, but 1 data point that disagrees -- sure, that's probably a good reason to rethink your hypothesis. If you 999,999,999 data points that adhere to a theory, but 1 data point that disagrees, you're not going to just throw up your hands and say, "Oh well, I guess we've disproved it! Science wins!"
No -- actual scientists in that circumstance will spend days or weeks checking every single possible source of error to figure out whether that data point could be wrong. And, chances are, if a billion data points disagree with it, then there's probably something wrong with the data point -- not with the theory.
Of course, we're not dealing with anything close to that level of certainty here. My point is that there are all sorts of reasons why the posts further up in this thread with the anecdotal data could have bad data. It's a well-known fact that people are TERRIBLE at measuring their calorie input, even if they claim to make "food diaries" or whatever. People who are trying to eat less tend to cheat, or they don't measure their food very exactly, or whatever. When you put people into highly controlled lab situations and feed them controlled diets where calories are accurately measured, many of these supposed "anecdotes" turn out to be just examples of poorly collected, and thus inaccurate, data.
Until proven otherwise or backed up by lab results, I always take any anecdotal data about diet claims with a huge grain of salt. Yes, there are variations between people for BMR, and those who criticize fat people need to realize that. But outside of labs, food measurement to determine calorie intake is often inaccurate, due to measurement errors or false/misleading reports or both. There are also plenty of other inputs into the bodily system (and the whole psychology and culture of eating) which can have an influence and can often cause huge measurement errors for these supposed "anecdotes."
I don't like Microsoft OR its formats but what costs actual money, taxpayer money, is having some manager somewhere tell you what you need to support and have it cost nothing to make the switch, by the way these documents need to be accessible to the public by the way these documents need to be accessible to law enforcement by the way by the way by the way
Umm... if the problem is reading a document and preserving layout, why not pay someone to do a one-time conversion of all these documents to a format that will actually do what you need? Turn 'em all into PDF/A or something. Then ditch your MS license. Because those old documents are going to need updating anyway -- I've opened a lot of files I've created in the 90s in MS Office, and the layout just isn't what it was when I made them.
So for ppl who don't get why this is something to pay attention to (i.e. news) or don't get what the big problem is, work with a giant documentation warehouse full of various aging electronic formats
Sounds like it's time to archive these in a more permanent format. Word processor formats are NOT stable and interpreted consistently across versions of the same software on different platforms, let alone compatible with new versions of that software 20 years later.
You know what's "costing taxpayers money" in this case? Maintaining stashes of old documents in formats that are guaranteed to be screwed up in few years, as the proprietary software world moves onto to through the next five versions and gradually breaks compatibility.
If you have this problem, you need to implement a policy to archive documents in better formats immediately, before the problems gets worse.
There is also the code's implementation of how to handle various edge cases, special circumstances, guessing as to the user's intent, defaults defined outside the document, etc.
Yes, and most of this will be handled better by a publication tool for which layout (including things like pagination) is critical.
A word processor is just a glorified text editor, today with a bunch of WYSIWYG whizbangs. It isn't supposed to understand pagination, unless you actually explicitly tell it to (e.g., by inserting a page break).
GP is right -- the problem is users are using the wrong tool, or at least using it very poorly. Rather than simply migrating them back to MS Office, they'd be better off using that training money to teach people how to use software (any software) correctly.
If it paginates wrong an OpenOffice developer should fix that.
If will paginate wrong if a different MS Office setup is being used as well.
That is absolutely true. I frequently have to go back and forth between Windows and Mac versions of MS Office, and documents get pagination screwed up ALL THE TIME. Same thing if I open a document that's from a previous version of Office.
Long and short of it: you want precise pagination, use a Page Layout program, not a Word Processor. Or at least don't expect the space bar and Return key to be the determinants on where the pages break.
This is the real issue here. If TFS is accurate, and people were complaining over having to maintain pagination, then they were using the wrong tool.
If you want pagination to remain reasonable and keep your document editable, you have a few choices: (1) use a page layout program, (2) use a typesetting program that does automatic pagination in smart places 99% of the time (LaTeX, with the right settings, can do this), or (3) use page breaks in MS Word and always keep a huge amount of space at the bottom of each page (but make sure it isn't full of carriage returns or whatever -- just empty space)... and hope for the best.
If you have to maintain documents where pagination is important, but you're having to reflow and fix things with every new version of the software (or when moving to roughly compatible software), you're doing it wrong.
And no Linux advocates the average user does NOT want to keep a second system around (usually Windows) to Google for fixes to the first, play "hunt the forum for a solution" nor spend hours in the 1970s GUI known as Bash trying to work around the fact that Linux doesn't have simple tools that allow rollback of drivers nor a system restore, both of which Windows has had since 2000. All they want is a system that will work for the lifetime of the hardware and as my little challenge has shown conclusively while you can take every version of Windows from 2K up from RTM to currently without the drivers breaking sadly the same is not true of Linux.
I don't know. This sounds like a rant from the past.
I remember ranting like this on Slashdot maybe 7-8 years ago. Back then, what you're saying was still relatively accurate for even many common PC configurations... most things would work, but for full functionality you'd have to do annoying tweaks that would require editing text files and work on the command line. And then some update would break a bunch of things you fixed.
I complained about this crap on Linux for over 10 years, since I first started using it in the 90s. Linux fans would dismiss me, but the inconvenience was real. But maybe 5 years ago or so, it became stable enough on a lot of common desktop and laptop hardware that I have no reason to use anything else anymore.
I've had Linux installed on the same system for over 5 years (and I've done that on multiple different systems), keep updated with security patches, and I haven't seen the crap you're talking about in several years. Just a couple months ago, I also installed a new version of Linux Mint on a tiny convertible laptop from 2006 that I found in a closet, and everything worked immediately except for the touchscreen (which never worked out of the box on Linux). This was a pretty unusual machine back in 2006, and it still worked fine on Linux... in fact, it worked BETTER than when I tried installing Linux on it back in 2007 or so, when I had to do a bunch of tweaks to get the wireless working and the screen resolution right, etc. Now everything worked out of the box.
So, yeah -- I used to complain like you. But now I think your rant is a bit outdated.
(Also, by the way, TFA is about OpenOffice/LibreOffice, which runs on various platforms, not just Linux. One can run it on Windows, and many people do.)
Slashdot Mirror
Au contraire. In an email, I can carefully choose the exact words to tell you what I think of you, your ideas, and describe in precise detail where you exist on the food chain. After reading that email, you will have no doubt as to what was said.
I'm assuming you're being sarcastic here, but in case you're not...
"Choosing the exact words" is how most flame wars get started on the internet, usually over things that no party actually meant but which other people "read into" the text. I've seen this plenty of times in email conversations with colleagues, too. I have had colleagues who seem almost willfully to misread everything I wrote and assume the weirdest possible or most complicated scenario, rather than just answering a simple question about a straightforward matter.
Often there's a significant disconnect in email reading/writing styles. An email that is fired off quickly and barely proofread may be scrutinized in detail by a recipient with all sorts of "implications" read into it that completely warp the original intent. Or the reverse -- the subtlety of a meticulously crafted message is lost by some idiot who just glances at it and says, "Sounds great! Cheers!"
At least conversation happens in real time, and you often can correct misunderstandings or misinterpretations before they get out of hand.
That people know it's rude and do it anyway ... that's the part that really annoys the crap out of me. Go away, and I'll send you an email if you prefer. But stop constantly checking the damned thing, because I'm just going to walk away.
I learned an important lesson about this many years ago, long before cell phones became ubiquitous.
I remember as an undergraduate meeting with a senior university official (a provost, actually), and the phone on her desk started ringing. We were seated at a table elsewhere in her office, but I paused, thinking she would probably need to answer it. But she just kept on talking to me, and the meeting went on normally.
I ended up becoming a research assistant for her, and when this occurred in another meeting, I paused in what I was saying and said, "Uh... do you need to get that?" Her response was very logical and clear:
It was a matter of respect, she told me. A scheduled personal meeting with someone should receive her full attention, since I had taken the time to be there with her. Whether I was a lowly undergraduate or the university president, a scheduled in-person meeting was more important than whatever random person might be calling on her phone. If the situation was truly urgent, there were other ways people would get messages to her.
I never forgot that, and to this day I try to live up to her example. If you're in a meeting and you know that you may need to be interrupted, the polite thing to do is to inform the person you're meeting with at the outset that you might need to take a call or check email or whatever because you have an urgent matter to attend to. (But most of the time, you probably don't really have anything that urgent.)
Doing otherwise is disrespectful. With the growth of ubiquitous smart phones, the temptations have grown stronger, I guess. But if someone is taking their time to meet in-person with you, the least you can do is respect that time by giving them your attention.
BTW, I'm hardly the only one suggesting that there's no "true" event horizon, only apparent horizons - Hawking himself suggests that. Any argument you make declaring the "true" horizon to be absolute truth and the apparent horizon to just be an illusion isn't just going against me, it's going against Hawking.
First, Hawking's idea here is far from widely accepted. Second, his use of "apparent horizons" is mostly to resolve the so-called "firewall" paradox. (You're probably aware of that, but it's hard to tell based on your posts.) It is NOT suggesting that event horizons "don't exist" or that someone falling into a black hole could never pass one -- it's more like they're "fuzzy" in a quantum mechanical way. Third, I'm really not sure what you're talking about as the "true" event horizon as observed by someone falling into a black hole and its recession. As you point out later in your post, an event horizon is mostly a concept relevant to external observers, not someone falling into a black hole.
From the perspective of an outside observer, if the energy of an infalling particle could keep being perceived (however weak and distorted), it would never seem to move past the event horizon - until the black hole evaporates and the event horizon recedes.
Except that's a somewhat misleading interpretation of what Hawking is claiming. And in any case, It really depends on how you interpret what goes on with Hawking radiation and the firewall paradox.
Your "wrongs" are 1) Hawking is wrong, and 2) "I'm going to complain about practicalities rather than actualities".
Well, (1) Hawking very well could be wrong (certainly many physicists have doubts), and (2) your entire first post was an attempt to put a very practical intuitive spin on general relativistic phenomena.
Time can flow differently from the perspective of different observers, but the events observed, when they occur, must match and follow in order. If an outside observer perceives a black hole as slowly radiating, then an infalling observer whose time is perceived by the same observer as running at 1000000 times slower must perceive the object as radiating 1000000 times more intensely. Otherwise reality itself is different from different perspectives, not just the flow of time.
I'm not sure what "reality" is, other than how we perceive the universe from a particular vantage point. And "reality" will be vastly different or distorted from different perspectives. You say that I'm making inappropriate claims about "true" event horizons, etc. (which I did not mean at all), but you're doing similar things in your attempt to apply practical intuition to this situation where you have a confluence of general relativistic and quantum effects going on.
You're the one confusing these concepts, invoking an infalling observer crossing the so-called "real" event horizon when the "real" event horizon is a concept perceived only by an external observer. Keep your reference frames consistent.
Huh? You're the one who started your first post talking about how the infalling observer perceived the "apparent" event horizon, or at least that somehow there was an "apparent" event horizon "receding before it." How could the infalling observer know that the event horizon was receding unless the observer had some way of evaluating where that event horizon ("apparent" or not) was? And if you're now saying that the infalling observer doesn't have an exact perception of where the event horizon ("apparent" or not) might be -- which I basically agree with -- then your first paragraph of your first post was just sort of gobbledygook, since it doesn't have any meaning or relevance to your argument.
This whole thing is getting muddled, so I'll just stop trying to respond now. Bottom line (for me) is that Hawking's interpretations about what happens at event horizons have received a lot of popu
A particle falling into a black hole never perceives itself as having moved past an event horizon, as an apparent event horizon recedes before it. The horizon keeps receding in the direction of the "singularity" until it's torn apart on the way in.
This isn't true. Particles do in fact pass the event horizon in finite time (as judged in their own time frame). In fact, for very large black holes (tens of thousands of solar masses), it would easily be possible to pass the event horizon without experiencing tidal forces strong enough to rip you apart... in finite time.
An external observer never perceives a particle falling past the so-called "true" horizon; it perceives the falling object's time as slowing down to a virtual stop at the event horizon.
While this is sort of true, the idea of an external observing viewing an astronaut "frozen in time" just above the event horizon is just not true in any practical sense.
What you'd actually observe if you watched someone fall into a black hole is the light from that person exponentially getting dimmer and fading out basically completely in finite time (i.e., probably within a fraction of a second for reasonable sized black holes). Yes, theoretically you can get a photon emitted and taking years or centuries to reach an external observer, but the amount of emitted light decays exponentially fairly quickly -- so as an external observer you'd actually see someone basically "disappear" at the event horizon in finite time (and fairly quickly actually). (For some details and a sample calculation with explanation, see here.)
Both of these views are logically consistent under a simple constraint: nothing ever passes an event horizon, and there's no such thing as a "true" horizon, only apparent horizons. The outside observer's view of "truth" should be given no more precedence as being reality than the infalling observer's perception.
Well, since both of your "views" are sort of wrong (or, well, at least misleading), I'm not sure the rest of your explanation should be taken as true.
Also, the problem is notions of simultaneity and where time and space is in black holes is quite complex when you try to compare observers in general relativity -- basically, you really can't come up with objective metrics that will satisfy notions of simultaneity for observers except in a local sense. So talking about whether a black hole "has formed" or where the event horizon "is" at a particular moment of time becomes quite complicated when you start to involve "external" observers. (For some details, see here for a bit of an explanation.)
Anyhow, there's lots of debate going on with Hawking about what exactly goes on with black holes (and information), but my point is that trying to apply simple intuition to general relativistic effects around black holes is pretty much destined to fail, or at least lead to a lot of misunderstandings.
No, they are not legally bound to it. Unless your marriage contract has some weird (and potentially invalid) clauses, you can't sue your spouse for cheating. It now won't even be taken into consideration when, for example, calculating alimony.
That depends on the state. Currently, in 21 states, adultery is still a criminal offense. It is very rarely prosecuted, but the laws are still on the books. In the majority of states, adultery can be taken into account to some extent in divorce settlements when determining division of property, alimony, or child custody.
You're correct that in some states adultery has very little standing in marital cases and divorces, but those principles vary significantly from state to state. It is still a generally established legal principle in most states that sexual fidelity is a general expectation in marriage. And it tends to be an official legal reason for divorce (in states that still allow divorce "for cause," rather than only "no-fault" divorces).
As for fidelity being an assumption, even though there's no real stats about it, the idea that a lot of people will cheat is well accepted. Because of that, still having this assumption of fidelity is pretty much wishful thinking.
Given that polls have consistently shown that 90+% of the American public believes adultery is "morally wrong," it may be "wishful thinking" for some people or some relationships -- but clearly it is an established social and moral expectation.
Infidelity does not cause direct harm. Any harm someone may feel because of infidelity is only in his own head. It's the same kind of harm some religious fanatics claim when someone "insults" their religion. We do not have a moral obligation to bow to anyone "sensitivities", no matter how they will be psychologically affected by the destruction of their illusions.
Every marriage is different, but at its basis it is an agreement about a relationship between two parties. As I said in the post you replied to, I have absolutely no problem with those two parties allowing sex with whomever if that's what they wish.
Again, the problem is deception and fidelity to the agreement. If you want to get married and have a clear and open agreement with your spouse that allows you to have an "open marriage," I have absolutely NO problem with that.
But clearly established legal opinion and the vast majority of public opinion believes adultery to be incompatible with the "default" position of a marital agreement. If you don't want a part of that, either don't get married, or be clear with your spouse about the fact that you expect an open marriage. Doing otherwise is benefitting from someone else in significant ways through deceit.
I can understand why you think a legal contract should generally be respected (of course sometimes respecting a legal contract can be morally wrong), but fidelity is simply not part of the legal contract.
Yes, it is in many states, as I already mentioned. But regardless of LEGAL circumstances -- there's also the morality of general agreements too.
Even if you don't have a legal right to sue someone for a breach of a particular contract, there is a notion of moral "fair dealing" and "honesty" in most contractual agreements. You posed your questions initially in moral terms, not only legal ones. Even if the law does not compel you to act in certain ways, morality may still dictate that certain courses are right and wrong.
Generally speaking, lying to someone to gain their affection (not to mention all the other benefits that generally accrue in marriages -- financial, social, etc.) is morally wrong.
What next? Will you say the obligation to cherish your spouse until death is also part of the con
So for the sake of arguments... can you explain why you view banging someone else's spouse as immoral? What is the basis for this moral judgement?
Marriage is a civil law agreement which generally has the assumption of sexual fidelity. Unless the two spouses agree to waive that part of the agreement, they are bound to it by remaining married.
Doing otherwise is deceitful. Deliberately participating in a deceitful action that has a propensity to cause a great deal of harm to another is generally considered immoral.
For example, is it because you think the spouse is some form of property, so banging someone else spouse is like stealing?
No, and I view such perspectives as patriarchal BS. Spouses are not "property."
But spouses do enter into agreements as part of marriage. Marital fidelity is generally a standard assumption, as is general openness and honesty.
I mean, do we really have to go into explaining why participating in deceitful behavior that could ruin people's lives is wrong? Many, many marriages are broken up over secret affairs. You want to have sex with people outside your marriage? I have absolutely no problem with that -- just as long as your spouse agrees. If you go ahead without their knowledge, then you are benefitting from their affection, love, and loyality through deceit. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that such an action is generally wrong, whatever the context.
As a related question, why do you think it's moral to forbid your spouse to have sex with whoever he or she wants?
It's generally part of marital agreements in the vast majority of human cultures. It's part of the basic assumption of what it means to "get married." You don't want to agree to that? Fine -- DON'T GET MARRIED. It's that simple.
Many (perhaps most) people get married because they believe that having such a structure where people voluntarily agree to be faithful to each other has mutual benefits.
Some people don't want to be part of such an agreement. Fine -- they shouldn't get married. Or, if they do get married and find it no longer suits them, they should get a divorce (or try to ask for an "open marriage" or whatever). But they do NOT have the moral high ground if they lie to keep the benefits of their married life while secretly violating their agreement with their spouse.
I have no problem if someone wants to have sex with whomever, married or not. I have a big problem with people who make a critical agreement as part of a legal contract and then break the terms of that agreement while lying to maintain the benefits of the agreement. I don't care whether this is a marriage contract or a business contract or whatever -- it's morally wrong.
The site advertises itself as a place for people wanting to cheat on their spouses to do so.
Yeah, so what? I sign up, if you want to cheat on your spouse, you can cheat with me. What's the problem?
What's the problem?
I suppose none, if you think it's morally okay to be a party to a deception which could potentially rip people's lives apart.
Don't get me wrong -- I have absolutely no problem with people who want to have "open marriages" or swingers or whatever they want to call it. As long as they are honest and upfront about it, I think people should be free to do whatever they want.
But if a person is with a partner who believes in fidelity as a moral part of marriage, and that person seeks to deceive that partner while having an affair, yes I do think it's morally wrong to facilitate such actions -- let alone be a direct party to participating in one.
Affairs are generally not just "little white lies" to most folks. Marriages, to many people, are fundamental relationships where people define their lives, have children, and place a great deal of trust in the strength and honesty of that relationship.
Maybe people have unreasonable expectations about fidelity. Okay -- then they have options if they don't want to agree to those anymore: they can ask for an open marriage, they can ask for a divorce... or even they can just openly assert to their spouse that they are going ahead with an affair with or without the spouse's consent... and let the spouse determine the correct course of action to take (divorce or whatever).
Just violating a spouse's trust and continuing to benefit for that spouse's affection and loyalty through deception is immoral. And those who would take advantage of such situations just to score a little sex share in this immorality.
Again, I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to have sex with anyone else, married or not -- as long as they are honest. But when you promise someone not to have sex with other people and benefit from that trust, you have a moral responsibility not to violate it. And if you're a single person who knowingly participates in such should be justly condemned as wella violation, well... yeah, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that's wrong too.
But hey -- if you don't mind potentially ripping people's lives apart, I guess that's okay for you then.
Maybe it's about time to open up the conversation on why we find one physical activity with another person to be taboo, but not another (like say tennis).
In a 1991 study, sex researcher Shere Hite found that 70 percent of married women have cheated on their partners; a 1993 follow-up study found that 72 percent of married men have as well. According to a 2004 University of Chicago study, 25 percent of married men have had at least one extramarital affair.
Interestingly, for the past few decades, surveys have consistently shown that only 5-8% of people find adultery "morally acceptable," while 90+% always find it "morally wrong."
So, even if your study numbers are accurate, some simply math shows it's pretty clear that the vast majority of those cheaters are willing to morally condemn their own behavior.
I'm noMaybe it's about time to open up the conversation on why we find one physical activity with another person to be taboo, but not another (like say tennis). In a 1991 study, sex researcher Shere Hite found that 70 percent of married women have cheated on their partners; a 1993 follow-up study found that 72 percent of married men have as well. According to a 2004 University of Chicago study, 25 percent of married men have had at least one extramarital affair. t saying I disagree with your idea that perhaps people should talk about these numbers. But whether people cheat or not, it seems clear that VAST majorities disapprove of the behavior in general... probably because in most cases they wouldn't want to be deceived and cheated upon (even if they did it themselves). And that observation perhaps speaks just to how strongly people want to BELIEVE in the idea of fidelity, even if they may not be very good at it.
Maybe we all need to grow up and act like adults.
In other words, you're arguing to "put the adult back into adultery," right? :)
Affairs are probably illegal in most states in the U.S. If not all.
Also bullshit. Just a few states still have these laws on the books.
Nope. Adultery is still a criminal offense in 21 states, which isn't quite the "most states" the GP mentioned, but it is nearly half.
Furthermore, such laws are plainly totalitarian, they misplace responsibility, they view a marriage as little more than a property deed, and they elevate particular religions to sources of law.
While I agree with you that criminalizing adultery is a bit ridiculous, that's certainly not the only place where adultery enters law in most states.
In particular, adultery is also used in many states in divorce proceedings as official legal grounds for divorce (where divorce can still happen "for cause," as opposed to "no-fault"), and in most states adultery can be a factor in determining various aspects of asset division, child custody, etc. in a divorce.
In those latter cases, adultery is a symptom of a kind of breach of the marriage contract -- and if you want to get your "particular religions" out of marriage law, then marriage is basically reduced to a civil contract.
That civil contract of marriage has been pretty well understood in most cultures throughout human history to preclude adultery (or at least adultery that is not approved by all parties in the marriage). Even polygamous cultures generally recognize marriage (i.e., plural marriage) as a place for valid sexual relationships to take place. Many cultures have traditionally held women to higher standards of fidelity than men, but the basic idea of some sort of sexual fidelity coupled to marriage is nearly universal among human societies.
So -- given that fact, it seems reasonable to me that there can be legal consequences to adultery, as a violation of a civil contract -- unless the parties in a particular marriage choose to waive that requirement. Though I do agree with you that criminal penalties are a bit ridiculous (though the whole civil regulation of marriage has quite a bit of ridiculous nonsense appended to it).
No small government conservative, nor any other supporter of a free society, could possibly support such a law. The only reason they haven't been declared unconstitutional is that no relevant case has yet reached the Supreme Court.
As long as the government is bothering to regulate marriage, it seems like it has to mean something. That something seems very much in flux these days, but approval ratings for adultery are always ridiculously low -- much lower than even approval ratings for polygamy. Given that SCOTUS tends to mostly overturn laws when they have public opinion on their side (or nearly on their side), I think it's at least possible -- though perhaps unlikely -- that theat all part of the general meaning of marriage.y might still uphold the constitutionality of adultery statutes. And even if they overturn criminal statutes, they certainly aren't going to expunge adultery statutes from divorce law... and nor should they as long as sexual fidelity is assumed to be part of the common law meaning of marriage.
You couldn't have twenty browser windows open, that's for sure, but people managed OK with lots of swapping and patience.
Why would you even WANT to have 20 browser windows open in 1995??
Remember that back then most people were still using dialup for internet, if they were using it at all. Even at most businesses, internet was often still dialup.
And the web was small enough that you often still went to search engines which collected pretty much all the substantive links on a particular topic, so even wanting to have more than a couple browser windows open at once would fairly unnecessary.
Anyhow, the bottleneck wouldn't have been RAM or swapping -- it would have been the fact that you were downloading on a pretty slow modem interface, where it could take many seconds even for a single image to render.
And yet, even with 8 MB of RAM, you still could enjoyably surf the web with a fast internet connection. There just weren't as many complex images and graphics everywhere. People today just don't realize how "lightweight" on memory an OS and standard apps could be if they were efficient.
Who is to say that he doesn't respect her? If he is happily married I can only assume that he does respect her.
For most people, "respect" does not include lying. If he respected his wife, he would have asked for an open marriage before breaking his marriage agreement. If she refused and he still needed to screw around to be "happy," then his next option is divorce. Marriage is an agreement between two parties -- a person cannot be "happily married" while violating the agreement without the other's knowledge.
However, every male spouse I have ever talked to has desired more sex from his mate than she was willing to give.
Have you ever talked to a person over the age of 30 or who has been married for more than 5 or 10 years? Sex may be great, but people who are married long-term tend to often be concerned about other benefits from a durable, caring relationship.
The unfairness is that not only do wives not give husbands the sex that they want, but they also hold husbands to not going out and getting it elsewhere.
Unfairness? No -- what's unfair is if you agree to something in exchange for a person's affection and then you secretly break that agreement and lie to that person while continuing to benefit from that affection.
You don't want to be married? Fine -- don't get married. You get married, and you find it doesn't make you happy (because you can't get enough sex or whatever)? Fine. You have a legal option since no-fault divorce was created.
But what we're talking about here is a person who wants to benefit from his marriage and all the good things it brings him while lying to the people who give those good things to him. If he doesn't like the terms, get out of the marriage. But claiming that he's "happily married" while deliberately lying and cheating on those terms is just nonsensical.
Monogamy is not actually in the standard Catholic marriage vows or its derivatives.
No, it doesn't need to be, because it's a stipulation that defines marital behavior in the Sixth Commandment, as well as numerous other places in both Old and New Testaments. (See official Catholic catechism.) To someone who assents to a Christian "marriage," they are inherently agreeing to the basic definition of that word, which precludes adultery. I don't think this is a secret.
Even if it were implied, marriage is a civil contract, many non-religious people get married, and there is no legal requirement for monogamy.
False. Adultery is still officially a criminal offense in roughly 20 states. Prosecutions are exceedingly rare these days, but they used to happen. States are repealing these laws, but they're still on the books many places. And even if adultery isn't prosecuted, in almost all states divorce law allows adultery to be considered as part of "bad behavior" which can either be cause for a divorce (in states that still allow grounds for cause) or at a minimum it is something that judges can explicitly use as evidence against a spouse in making a determination about how to split assets.
The expectation is culturally-specific, and lots of cultures have completely divergent expectations (including polygamy, as among some Mormons, Muslims, etc.)
That's true, of course. But we're talking here about one specific dude who signed up on Ashley Madison, and clearly lied to his wife because he thought it was wrong. So whether someone else may have different expectations about marriage, this guy is clear that the "no adultery" clause is pretty relevant to his own marriage.
Furthermore: Is it even feasible to promise a "forever" thing like that at a young age? I would argue "no"; people don't really have a capacity or right to make such an oath, time and variations are deeper than the young person can digest, and the demographic statistics bear that out.
There are two options for such people. Divorce and "open marriage." Both involve talking to your spouse. Choosing instead to continue to benefit from the marriage while lying to your spouse and breaking your vows is definitely not adhering to spirit of the marriage agreement.
To the extent that young people are deluded, tricked, or forced into a commitment of implied eternal monogamy, it's not entirely their fault, and they should be given some sympathy and charity as they try to naturally relieve or find their way out of the situation.
"Oops, my penis just accidentally fell into the lady parts of another woman. It isn't entirely my fault!"
Seriously, owning your decisions is part of being an adult. You don't want to be married anymore? Fine. Get divorced. At a minimum, be honest with your spouse about what you need and what's wrong -- you might be surprised that many people who make an effort can find that they actually can be happy in their marriage... but when you make unilateral decisions about that relationship and lie about them, that's not going to be good for anyone.
I am happy to give honest people "sympathy and charity." I understand that many young people make mistakes in getting married. But that doesn't mean you get to reap the benefits of a "happily married life" (as TFS puts it) while lying and cheating on the person who's giving that life to you.
Hopefully the long arc of history will continue to degrade this unrealistic expectation and allow people to be happy and connected without being condemned on by uptight, moralizing craphats.
Look -- I think marriage is pretty much a stupid idea for many folks, too. I never said otherwise. But it is a thing, a
One can honour an agreement. One cannot respect an agreement.
Sure one can, at least in the English language.
However, the fact that we have to type sans trousers makes us sort of unemployable but that's a decent trade-off.
Is that some sort of typographical euphemism?
Personally I like my fonts equipped with study "trousers," and I iron a good "serif" into my trousers themselves for good measure.
But I suppose even this "Sans Trousers" has to be better than Comic Sans... I don't even think that's appropriate for work on Casual Font Day.
Who cares? Is it any of your business?
Nope, it's not our business. But when someone claims to be "happily married" but also clearly chooses to violate the terms of the marriage agreement for his own pleasure, clearly he isn't as "happily married" as he thinks... and if this cheating was something part of his "happy marriage," then why does his wife not know, as a party to that agreement? Doesn't she get a vote about whether they are "happily married," and can't she only evaluate that if she knows whether the other party has actually been faithful to terms?
The wife is the body. I respect my body, but I occasionally eat a Sundae. At the moment I eat unhealthy foods it is hard to argue that I respect my body 100%, but it would be equally absurd to claim I have no respect for my body.
It may be absurd to claim that you have "no respect" for your wife if you cheat, but it is NOT absurd to claim that you have "no respect" for your MARRIAGE, which is an agreement between you and your wife. And usually pretty high on the list of terms of that agreement for most spouses is no adultery. Some may be okay with it, but that's generally something you negotiate with the spouse's consent. This is not the "fine print" of what marriage means -- it's pretty fundamental to the agreement.
To go back to your analogy, you may not completely disrespect your body by eating some ice cream, but if you made an explicit agreement stated before hundreds of witnesses in a formal ceremony that you would not eat ice cream, then you are completely disrespecting that agreement (and, by extension, you are disrespecting all who took part it in, at least to some extent).
You don't want that agreement? Fine. Don't take a vow to it. Or negotiate out of it. Some people want a diet where they can also eat ice cream. Be honest with your body and say that's the only kind of diet you want, and if your body can't deal, well... no diet for the body at all.
I'm getting tired of this analogy. Point is: this is about a formal, binding agreement. Honest people sign onto agreements that they plan to keep. And if they can't hold up the terms, honest people admit to it and either get out of the agreement or negotiate for something else.
And not only that, but we're not talking about some sort of accidental drunken hook-up here... we're talking about a guy who signs up on a website explicitly devoted to cheating and then deliberately makes a choice to cheat.
It's not like you were just at a party and somebody stuck a scoop of ice cream in your mouth, and you succumbed to accidental temptation. You sat at your computer, deliberately sought out a place to acquire ice cream, checked it out in detail, and then made plans to surreptitiously go eat it. A person who respects his dietary plan and is honest about how he is "happily dieting" does not do such things.
An unhappy marriage is not the defining feature leading to an affair, and a number of happily married people do fall into affairs.
This is pointless rationalization. What you're talking about are people who delude themselves into thinking they're "happily married" but also don't like to live by the rules of marriage... They may be "happy" (in some one-sided "relationship" as they like to define it themselves), but they actually aren't happily married (which, you know, requires both parties to understand and consent to such actions).
You see, the rules are actually quite simple here. Don't "fall into affairs" (as you so nicely put it) by accidentally getting out your genitals and putting them in someone not your spouse.
Sorry, but this is NOT something one just "falls into" -- "Oops, I'm sorry my penis just accidentally fell into there." That's teenage boy logic. Grow up. I don't care how some psychologist may rationalize it.
A hug that goes a little too far? Sure. A woman gives you a drunken kiss at a party? Sure. These can happen, and you stop it and say "sorry -- I'm married, and that makes me happy." That's what people who are actually "happy" to be "married" do.
You sign up for a website, make plans, and stick your genitals in someone else? Sorry -- no, you didn't just "fall into" that. And then you keep it a secret from your wife when it does happen? Nope -- you're definitely not "happily married," as least not when you took a whole bunch of deliberate actions to cheat on the normal principle of marriage.
"I think you accomplished that all on your own, sir."
You are confusing the precipitating event with blame.
And I think you're confusing what GP was talking about.
The man has to accept responsibility and blame for committing the wrong, but that fact remains that the blackmail is the (potential) precipitating event that results in the actual fallout. He put himself in the situation that allows him to be vulnerable.
While this may all be true, what GP quoted from TFS was that the man was worried about: "the fallout, which he said could endanger his happily married life with his wife and kids."
Let's be clear here -- this statement is deluded. A man who has a "happily married life" does not lie to his spouse and participate in affairs without her knowledge. It's as simple as that. GP is absolutely correct to say that the man is primarily responsible for "endangering" this life, because this life clearly does NOT exist for him. He's living a lie, or at least has clearly lived a significant lie at some point. And now he's lying to others about that supposed "happily married life."
That in no way excuses the blackmailer from exploiting the vulnerability.
Of course not. Blackmail is of course still wrong. But if you commit a violent crime and think you got away with it, you can't go walking around saying you live a "happily non-violent life" and expect other people to excuse you from blame when you get caught.
It is possible for events to have more than one "cause." While blackmail is wrong, this man's actions are the primary thing that ended his own delusional myth of a "happily married life." Should his wife and kids suffer because of his actions? Probably not -- but they'd probably be better off in the long run knowing what kind of scumbag they're trusting: the kind who not only cheats, but then complains that he's "happily married" when he doesn't get away with it.
I recall when my office moved from Wordperfect 5 to the first Windows version pf MS-Word. It was a fucking nightmare.
Hmm, still is.
Despite the obvious advantages WYSIWYG, there were months worth of bitching and moaning, and a few people who pretty much convinced management to let them keep using Wordperfect in a DOS window.
If only those people had won. Seriously.
I know somebody's going to mod me "troll" for saying this, but hear me out...
Word processors are for typing text. They are not layout editors. They are not publishing software. So much time is wasted in office environments with people tweaking their ridiculous Word files (direct formatting with tabs and carriage returns and whatever), which inevitably break the next time they save the file, or move one word, or (heaven forbid!) try to open the thing in another version of the same software or a version on a different OS (Windows vs. Mac).
People who need documents that should look publication-ready should be using proper software that has layout and design capabilities built-in.
People who are just making up reports with a bunch of text which barely needs formatting don't need WYSIWYG -- in fact, it ends up wasting HUGE amounts of work time for little gain.
Not true. A single data point can invalidate a theory. It just can't "prove" anything.
But invalidate, yes.
This is one those things that makes for a great scientific methodology soundbite, but doesn't really accord with real-world scientific practice.
In the real world, and in actual scientific practice, empirical data is frequently flawed or inaccurate in some way. Data points that appear to disagree with a theory may actually agree with it once measurement errors and other methodological problems are taken into account.
If you only have 9 data points that adhere to a theory, but 1 data point that disagrees -- sure, that's probably a good reason to rethink your hypothesis. If you 999,999,999 data points that adhere to a theory, but 1 data point that disagrees, you're not going to just throw up your hands and say, "Oh well, I guess we've disproved it! Science wins!"
No -- actual scientists in that circumstance will spend days or weeks checking every single possible source of error to figure out whether that data point could be wrong. And, chances are, if a billion data points disagree with it, then there's probably something wrong with the data point -- not with the theory.
Of course, we're not dealing with anything close to that level of certainty here. My point is that there are all sorts of reasons why the posts further up in this thread with the anecdotal data could have bad data. It's a well-known fact that people are TERRIBLE at measuring their calorie input, even if they claim to make "food diaries" or whatever. People who are trying to eat less tend to cheat, or they don't measure their food very exactly, or whatever. When you put people into highly controlled lab situations and feed them controlled diets where calories are accurately measured, many of these supposed "anecdotes" turn out to be just examples of poorly collected, and thus inaccurate, data.
Until proven otherwise or backed up by lab results, I always take any anecdotal data about diet claims with a huge grain of salt. Yes, there are variations between people for BMR, and those who criticize fat people need to realize that. But outside of labs, food measurement to determine calorie intake is often inaccurate, due to measurement errors or false/misleading reports or both. There are also plenty of other inputs into the bodily system (and the whole psychology and culture of eating) which can have an influence and can often cause huge measurement errors for these supposed "anecdotes."
I don't like Microsoft OR its formats but what costs actual money, taxpayer money, is having some manager somewhere tell you what you need to support and have it cost nothing to make the switch, by the way these documents need to be accessible to the public by the way these documents need to be accessible to law enforcement by the way by the way by the way
Umm... if the problem is reading a document and preserving layout, why not pay someone to do a one-time conversion of all these documents to a format that will actually do what you need? Turn 'em all into PDF/A or something. Then ditch your MS license. Because those old documents are going to need updating anyway -- I've opened a lot of files I've created in the 90s in MS Office, and the layout just isn't what it was when I made them.
So for ppl who don't get why this is something to pay attention to (i.e. news) or don't get what the big problem is, work with a giant documentation warehouse full of various aging electronic formats
Sounds like it's time to archive these in a more permanent format. Word processor formats are NOT stable and interpreted consistently across versions of the same software on different platforms, let alone compatible with new versions of that software 20 years later.
You know what's "costing taxpayers money" in this case? Maintaining stashes of old documents in formats that are guaranteed to be screwed up in few years, as the proprietary software world moves onto to through the next five versions and gradually breaks compatibility.
If you have this problem, you need to implement a policy to archive documents in better formats immediately, before the problems gets worse.
There is also the code's implementation of how to handle various edge cases, special circumstances, guessing as to the user's intent, defaults defined outside the document, etc.
Yes, and most of this will be handled better by a publication tool for which layout (including things like pagination) is critical.
A word processor is just a glorified text editor, today with a bunch of WYSIWYG whizbangs. It isn't supposed to understand pagination, unless you actually explicitly tell it to (e.g., by inserting a page break).
GP is right -- the problem is users are using the wrong tool, or at least using it very poorly. Rather than simply migrating them back to MS Office, they'd be better off using that training money to teach people how to use software (any software) correctly.
If it paginates wrong an OpenOffice developer should fix that.
If will paginate wrong if a different MS Office setup is being used as well.
That is absolutely true. I frequently have to go back and forth between Windows and Mac versions of MS Office, and documents get pagination screwed up ALL THE TIME. Same thing if I open a document that's from a previous version of Office.
Long and short of it: you want precise pagination, use a Page Layout program, not a Word Processor. Or at least don't expect the space bar and Return key to be the determinants on where the pages break.
This is the real issue here. If TFS is accurate, and people were complaining over having to maintain pagination, then they were using the wrong tool.
If you want pagination to remain reasonable and keep your document editable, you have a few choices: (1) use a page layout program, (2) use a typesetting program that does automatic pagination in smart places 99% of the time (LaTeX, with the right settings, can do this), or (3) use page breaks in MS Word and always keep a huge amount of space at the bottom of each page (but make sure it isn't full of carriage returns or whatever -- just empty space)... and hope for the best.
If you have to maintain documents where pagination is important, but you're having to reflow and fix things with every new version of the software (or when moving to roughly compatible software), you're doing it wrong.
And no Linux advocates the average user does NOT want to keep a second system around (usually Windows) to Google for fixes to the first, play "hunt the forum for a solution" nor spend hours in the 1970s GUI known as Bash trying to work around the fact that Linux doesn't have simple tools that allow rollback of drivers nor a system restore, both of which Windows has had since 2000. All they want is a system that will work for the lifetime of the hardware and as my little challenge has shown conclusively while you can take every version of Windows from 2K up from RTM to currently without the drivers breaking sadly the same is not true of Linux.
I don't know. This sounds like a rant from the past.
I remember ranting like this on Slashdot maybe 7-8 years ago. Back then, what you're saying was still relatively accurate for even many common PC configurations... most things would work, but for full functionality you'd have to do annoying tweaks that would require editing text files and work on the command line. And then some update would break a bunch of things you fixed.
I complained about this crap on Linux for over 10 years, since I first started using it in the 90s. Linux fans would dismiss me, but the inconvenience was real. But maybe 5 years ago or so, it became stable enough on a lot of common desktop and laptop hardware that I have no reason to use anything else anymore.
I've had Linux installed on the same system for over 5 years (and I've done that on multiple different systems), keep updated with security patches, and I haven't seen the crap you're talking about in several years. Just a couple months ago, I also installed a new version of Linux Mint on a tiny convertible laptop from 2006 that I found in a closet, and everything worked immediately except for the touchscreen (which never worked out of the box on Linux). This was a pretty unusual machine back in 2006, and it still worked fine on Linux... in fact, it worked BETTER than when I tried installing Linux on it back in 2007 or so, when I had to do a bunch of tweaks to get the wireless working and the screen resolution right, etc. Now everything worked out of the box.
So, yeah -- I used to complain like you. But now I think your rant is a bit outdated.
(Also, by the way, TFA is about OpenOffice/LibreOffice, which runs on various platforms, not just Linux. One can run it on Windows, and many people do.)