I've tried the whole gay thing. I fall in love with people, not bodies. But men's bodies just aren't attractive to me. Cock is fun now and then for the kink factor, but I don't get hot thinking about it. I like curvy bodies, big breasts, wide hips and a nice round ass.
You are simply not going to affect me by insinuating I might be gay. I'm very comfortable with my sexuality and masculinity. The fact that you felt compelled to respond in such a way to my obvious trolling says a lot about you, none of it very good.
I don't believe genetics can select for a preference for generic healthiness. It has to be some specific feature that members of the species actually encounter that denotes healthiness, like a peacocks tail. Being fat shows a great ability to gather resources. Being skinny does not. I doubt that a preference for less curvy women is genetic, I'm guessing its cultural.
The same pictures were shown to women and they were asked what body type men prefer. Women generally say men prefer a body type several sizes smaller than their own, no matter their size. I concur wholeheartedly that it is other women that most influence women's self esteem. Women oppress other women at least as much as men do. Not that that lets us men off the hook for oppressive behavior, but it's something women need to look at more closely.
No, but I did just purchase Sid Meier's Pirate's! from the bargain bin. I loved the original as a kid, and this one has sucked me in just as much, so yes, I have pirates on the brain.
Really? Just as many hangups? Sure, in grade school maybe they get called names. But I don't think they get the same level of societal disrespect throughout life that fat women get. Now, obese people in general aren't attractive and a skinny girl with wide hips, a round ass and big tits can be quite attractive. For me, it's shape, not size. And like you, the face is important. But honestly, personality trumps all in my book. I've only fucked one pretty but vapid girl, and the horror of having to hear her talk after I fucked her put me off stupid people for life, no matter how attractive they are. Then there's Republicans, I would never fuck a Republican even if she were a nymphomaniac supermodel double jointed gymnast.
As for me being rude, you know it's Troll Thursday today, right? Everyone should make one troll post on Thursdays, it's an old Slashdot tradition.
In Hawaii, the beaches are all free. It is against the law to obscure beach access. Anyone can camp for free on any beach for up to a week. It goes back to old Hawaiian custom, one of the few that haven't been destroyed by missionaries. I've heard missionaries were the ones who introduced acacia trees onto the islands to keep people from hanging out barefoot on the beach, but that may just be an island legend.
I pirate games because there's nothing like the smell of black powder wafting across your forecastle after you've laid a broadside into an EA Game heavy with gold doubloons from the Spanish main. Aaarrrr!
Any habits are hard to change. Personal growth takes attention, honesty, and time. There are no shortcuts. Self help books continue to sell despite the fact that they don't work. If they did, people would stop buying self help books.
Eating and exercise habits present a different challenge from religious habits. They are more visible to introspection. It's pretty easy to notice when you are eating or exercising. It's harder to tell when you are, say, judging others.
Real men like women that look like women, not prepubescent boys. If you are turned on by a flat chest, flat ass, and straight hips, you might actually prefer men. Go on, give it a try. There's nothing wrong with liking the shape of a man's body. Just don't try to turn all women into your fantasy guy, okay closet cases?
Genetically speaking, it seems intuitive that men would want a fat curvy girl with big hips. Better for making babies, yes? Living closer to nature, being fat would be a sure sign of genetic superiority. But men also want a woman that other men find attractive. When asked to pick out the silhouette of a woman they would like to have with them if marooned on a desert island, most men picked a larger, curvier shape than expected. So guys are pretending to like a body type they don't actually prefer because they think other men prefer it!
No, AC. That was the point I was hoping someone would make. Any possible system of government is oppressive if it is the only possible choice. Even something like anarchism is still based on a set of first principles that not everyone agrees with. Libertarianism posits strong property rights, but what if I don't believe that individuals have a right to own natural resources? If the whole world is Libertarian, what am I to do? We need a "free market" of governmental systems. No country should be able to keep you in, and you should have access to any country whose contract for citizenship you are willing to sign.
Personally, I think everyone should be guaranteed access to the resources necessary for them to live. Not comfortably, but survive. And that guarantee should be universal. Otherwise, we have the problem where (for instance) the whole world decides to go Libertarian, all natural resources are bought up by a few people, and the only possible way to survive is to enter into a very unfavorable (to you!) contract. Hey, you freely chose to become a slave rather than starve, right? So you benefit, and should shut the hell up, right?
Or conversely, if the whole world became socialist and you really felt like you should be able to own some property, well, you should be able to own enough to survive on by yourself.
The real problem is that of upholding basic rights without imposing a set of beliefs. Who decides what rights are important? Who decides what belief structures are used to determine what rights are important? I don't have all the answers, which is why I enjoy discussing the topic. But from your snide tone, it sounds like you think you do. Perhaps you'd like to share?
Heh. I never got good slave lessons either. However, we are both still benefiting. Suppose someone offered you some food. You took it, then they demanded payment. You don't pay, and that is fair because they never told you there would be a price. But you keep taking their food and not paying, even after learning there is a price. Are you being fair? Why or why not?
Don't approach this as if I am trying to convince you of something. I'm not. I don't really care what you think. I'm just using your thoughts to come to a clearer understanding of my own beliefs. And perhaps my thoughts will lend some understanding to your position. That's the beauty of dialectic. Many of the arguments I'm presenting are things I've argued against in the past. Some I more or less believe, but there isn't a thought in my head that I'm unwilling to let go of if the evidence turns against it.
So let me finish by saying that I agree with you, but you haven't elucidated any underlying principles strong enough to support our shared position yet.
Are you pretending to be mentally challenged in order to troll, or do you really not understand even after having it explained to you a little further up the page? It is not the developer's ISP, or the hosting ISP that is doing this! It is the ISP of the people looking at the page. So, you left out a step in your patented eyeball method: signing up for every ISP in existence and loading your page, to see if that particular ISP does it.
Come on man, try a little reading comprehension. I am discussing hypothetical solutions to the current problem, not saying what the current status quo is.
And the problem with externalities is that they are things where you can not accurately determine the people who gain benefit or cause cost, or you can not enforce payment. You've just said that one of the classical failure modes of the free market, discussed and debated for over 100 years, doesn't exist. Or wouldn't, in a perfect market.
If you go into a restaurant, is a contract signed saying you will pay after you eat? No? Do you still pay? Why? No contract was signed, look after numero uno and do a dine and dash. See, you are eating US food, metaphorically speaking. You are benefiting, and the acceptance of that benefit is acceptance of the contract, just as in a restaurant.
You have no duty except to look after yourself. However, we are free to require you to help look after everyone else if you want to interact with us. Don't want to interact with other humans? DO what you please. Like interacting with humans? Follow the damn rules. See, we can make "looking after yourself" into anything we want. Doing what other people want you to because you derive benefit is still looking after yourself.
Exactly, no one should force anyone into slavery. When you are benefiting from something that others are paying for, you are forcing them into slavery to support you.
Let me give an example. Say I'm a pacifist, and I want to live in a place where the majority of the citizens believe in a strong national defense. The contract they offer says that if I want to trade with them, use their roads, fire protection, and police, then I have to help pay for national defense, too. As long as there is something of a free market in governance, I can go elsewhere and enter into a contract with a society are pacifists and that does not value national defense. The first society did not force me into slavery to support something I don't believe in. The same argument can be applied to the issue of public education. If you do not want to support it, nothing gives you the right to mooch of a society that does, or even to trade with that society's members, if they have entered a contract stating they will not trade with free riders.
The situation is of course very different if I have nowhere else to go, then they are forcing me to pay for something that I don't believe in. We run into the problem of the tyranny of the majority. But the opposite of that is the tyranny of the minority, where each individual gets to dictate to society what they will and won't support.
Well first, I didn't say there is a free market in government, only that it would be nice.
You seem to have missed the whole concept of externalities such as the public good of public education. Public education improves the economy, and you benefit. Even if you have no kids, and pay for your own schooling, you benefit from the fact that many more people have a better chance to accomplish something useful to you. Now, why should you obtain that benefit if you don't pay for it?
No one should be forced to do anything, but I'm sure you'll agree that includes governments or other people being forced to support you. Governments should be able to set a package deal, including trade. So, it would be perfectly fair for a group of people to say, if you want the benefits of membership in our group then: a.) you have to pay for externalities such as education, and b.) you may not ever trade with someone or some group that does not pay for those externalities.
Not saying that's how it is, but that's how it should be. It's fair to exclude free riders from obtaining the benefits that others paid for. In a system such as I describe, you would be free not to pay for public education. But everyone who does, and is a member of a group that helps discourage free riders, would be forbidden by their own voluntarily entered into contract from ever having anything to do for you. If they do have anything to do from you, they are ostracized as well. All perfectly voluntary and non coercive.
Would you like a system like that, where free riders can be punished, or do you admit that you want to take unfair advantage and have other people support you? If enough others didn't think public education was an externality worth protecting from free riders, it wouldn't be an issue for you. If they did, well, who are you to force them to think differently?
I know someone who was arrested for tax evasion. He didn't lie, he didn't fill in any tax forms, he just didn't pay. Where are you getting your information from?
Bullshit. A government is free to charge whatever it likes for its services. If you don't like the contract, don't be a citizen. There should be a free market of government styles to choose from. Governments today aren't a la cart, they're prix fixe, though there's nothing wrong with some systems having an a la carte option.
The problem is in externalities and free riders. Everyone benefits from public education, even those who do not use it directly. A better educated populace creates more wealth and opportunities for everyone. Why should you benefit from that if you don't pay?
Are you honestly claiming the government won't throw you in jail for tax evasion? They sure as hell will. The whole, "Sshhh! It's a secret! Taxes are voluntary!" thing is a myth. The people pushing that myth are criminal scam artists. If you ever meet someone who says something along those lines and wants to sell you more info, RUN! They are crooks, and likely connected with crazy violent militia types. I had a friend who, despite my warnings, was taken in by these shysters.
Just define those who control taxes (our elected officials, mind you) as "The Power Elite" and you've got an instant "argument" against government and taxes.
OOOOh! Scary! Our taxes are controlled by the Power Elite! (whoever they are, you know, the all purpose Bad Guys. The Man!) So all taxes are bad because they never do anything good for The People, only for the Power Elite. And all government is bad because it runs on taxes! Therefore (let me guess) Libertarianism is the only way to Freedom and Justice! Am I right?
You know, there are actually cogent arguments against our form of government, and against a system of taxation enforced through the threat of violence. Not saying I buy them, just that in comparison to your argument, they're decent and well thought out.
I've seen the mouse pointer lag on recent Windows and Linux operating systems, usually when it's a PS2 mouse and the system is doing heavy disk IO. Now that I think about it, I haven't noticed any lag in multimedia apps recently. Boot times, application switch and start times are not much different now than they were ten years ago. I think faster processors and more memory have only encouraged developers to write sloppier code.
Sure, I know it's news, but I think the original poster was being sarcastic. In think he thought it was news, too. It's just, you know, the umpteenth time you have to patch BIND, sometimes you just snap... BIND isn't chroot by default but on several distros, jailing it is as easy as firing up Ye Olde Distro Specific Configurator and checking the "run BIND chroot?" box. I agree, more server packaged should come with the nice little scripts to chroot them easily.
Come on, whoever marked this as troll has no idea of the history of BIND, or how many times many of us have had to patch BIND over the last ten years. Consider this: BIND is the only server that I've ever seen a distro package so as to be easily chrooted. Why do you suppose that is?
That's not what it's shooting. You know the dirty version of the joke, right?
So a panda hires a hooker. He eats her out and fucks her until he comes. He then gets up to leave without paying and she angrily stops him saying, "What are you doing? I'm a hooker!" The panda says, "Yeah, what's a hooker?" She says "Look it up! Right here, hooker: a person who gets payed for sex." The panda says, "Yeah, well, I'm a panda, look it up, here we go, Panda: Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
I remember when you could boot the Linux kernel on a 386 with 4MB of memory. You still can, but it's not a matter of merely running *config and stripping out what you don't need. You need to get in there and scrub the cruft out by hand.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not in the mood to argue with children today.
I've tried the whole gay thing. I fall in love with people, not bodies. But men's bodies just aren't attractive to me. Cock is fun now and then for the kink factor, but I don't get hot thinking about it. I like curvy bodies, big breasts, wide hips and a nice round ass.
You are simply not going to affect me by insinuating I might be gay. I'm very comfortable with my sexuality and masculinity. The fact that you felt compelled to respond in such a way to my obvious trolling says a lot about you, none of it very good.
I don't believe genetics can select for a preference for generic healthiness. It has to be some specific feature that members of the species actually encounter that denotes healthiness, like a peacocks tail. Being fat shows a great ability to gather resources. Being skinny does not. I doubt that a preference for less curvy women is genetic, I'm guessing its cultural.
The same pictures were shown to women and they were asked what body type men prefer. Women generally say men prefer a body type several sizes smaller than their own, no matter their size. I concur wholeheartedly that it is other women that most influence women's self esteem. Women oppress other women at least as much as men do. Not that that lets us men off the hook for oppressive behavior, but it's something women need to look at more closely.
No, but I did just purchase Sid Meier's Pirate's! from the bargain bin. I loved the original as a kid, and this one has sucked me in just as much, so yes, I have pirates on the brain.
Really? Just as many hangups? Sure, in grade school maybe they get called names. But I don't think they get the same level of societal disrespect throughout life that fat women get. Now, obese people in general aren't attractive and a skinny girl with wide hips, a round ass and big tits can be quite attractive. For me, it's shape, not size. And like you, the face is important. But honestly, personality trumps all in my book. I've only fucked one pretty but vapid girl, and the horror of having to hear her talk after I fucked her put me off stupid people for life, no matter how attractive they are. Then there's Republicans, I would never fuck a Republican even if she were a nymphomaniac supermodel double jointed gymnast.
As for me being rude, you know it's Troll Thursday today, right? Everyone should make one troll post on Thursdays, it's an old Slashdot tradition.
In Hawaii, the beaches are all free. It is against the law to obscure beach access. Anyone can camp for free on any beach for up to a week. It goes back to old Hawaiian custom, one of the few that haven't been destroyed by missionaries. I've heard missionaries were the ones who introduced acacia trees onto the islands to keep people from hanging out barefoot on the beach, but that may just be an island legend.
I pirate games because there's nothing like the smell of black powder wafting across your forecastle after you've laid a broadside into an EA Game heavy with gold doubloons from the Spanish main. Aaarrrr!
Any habits are hard to change. Personal growth takes attention, honesty, and time. There are no shortcuts. Self help books continue to sell despite the fact that they don't work. If they did, people would stop buying self help books.
Eating and exercise habits present a different challenge from religious habits. They are more visible to introspection. It's pretty easy to notice when you are eating or exercising. It's harder to tell when you are, say, judging others.
Real men like women that look like women, not prepubescent boys. If you are turned on by a flat chest, flat ass, and straight hips, you might actually prefer men. Go on, give it a try. There's nothing wrong with liking the shape of a man's body. Just don't try to turn all women into your fantasy guy, okay closet cases?
Genetically speaking, it seems intuitive that men would want a fat curvy girl with big hips. Better for making babies, yes? Living closer to nature, being fat would be a sure sign of genetic superiority. But men also want a woman that other men find attractive. When asked to pick out the silhouette of a woman they would like to have with them if marooned on a desert island, most men picked a larger, curvier shape than expected. So guys are pretending to like a body type they don't actually prefer because they think other men prefer it!
Humans are sick little monkeys.
No, AC. That was the point I was hoping someone would make. Any possible system of government is oppressive if it is the only possible choice. Even something like anarchism is still based on a set of first principles that not everyone agrees with. Libertarianism posits strong property rights, but what if I don't believe that individuals have a right to own natural resources? If the whole world is Libertarian, what am I to do? We need a "free market" of governmental systems. No country should be able to keep you in, and you should have access to any country whose contract for citizenship you are willing to sign.
Personally, I think everyone should be guaranteed access to the resources necessary for them to live. Not comfortably, but survive. And that guarantee should be universal. Otherwise, we have the problem where (for instance) the whole world decides to go Libertarian, all natural resources are bought up by a few people, and the only possible way to survive is to enter into a very unfavorable (to you!) contract. Hey, you freely chose to become a slave rather than starve, right? So you benefit, and should shut the hell up, right?
Or conversely, if the whole world became socialist and you really felt like you should be able to own some property, well, you should be able to own enough to survive on by yourself.
The real problem is that of upholding basic rights without imposing a set of beliefs. Who decides what rights are important? Who decides what belief structures are used to determine what rights are important? I don't have all the answers, which is why I enjoy discussing the topic. But from your snide tone, it sounds like you think you do. Perhaps you'd like to share?
Heh. I never got good slave lessons either. However, we are both still benefiting. Suppose someone offered you some food. You took it, then they demanded payment. You don't pay, and that is fair because they never told you there would be a price. But you keep taking their food and not paying, even after learning there is a price. Are you being fair? Why or why not?
Don't approach this as if I am trying to convince you of something. I'm not. I don't really care what you think. I'm just using your thoughts to come to a clearer understanding of my own beliefs. And perhaps my thoughts will lend some understanding to your position. That's the beauty of dialectic. Many of the arguments I'm presenting are things I've argued against in the past. Some I more or less believe, but there isn't a thought in my head that I'm unwilling to let go of if the evidence turns against it.
So let me finish by saying that I agree with you, but you haven't elucidated any underlying principles strong enough to support our shared position yet.
Are you pretending to be mentally challenged in order to troll, or do you really not understand even after having it explained to you a little further up the page? It is not the developer's ISP, or the hosting ISP that is doing this! It is the ISP of the people looking at the page. So, you left out a step in your patented eyeball method: signing up for every ISP in existence and loading your page, to see if that particular ISP does it.
Come on man, try a little reading comprehension. I am discussing hypothetical solutions to the current problem, not saying what the current status quo is.
And the problem with externalities is that they are things where you can not accurately determine the people who gain benefit or cause cost, or you can not enforce payment. You've just said that one of the classical failure modes of the free market, discussed and debated for over 100 years, doesn't exist. Or wouldn't, in a perfect market.
If you go into a restaurant, is a contract signed saying you will pay after you eat? No? Do you still pay? Why? No contract was signed, look after numero uno and do a dine and dash. See, you are eating US food, metaphorically speaking. You are benefiting, and the acceptance of that benefit is acceptance of the contract, just as in a restaurant.
You have no duty except to look after yourself. However, we are free to require you to help look after everyone else if you want to interact with us. Don't want to interact with other humans? DO what you please. Like interacting with humans? Follow the damn rules. See, we can make "looking after yourself" into anything we want. Doing what other people want you to because you derive benefit is still looking after yourself.
Exactly, no one should force anyone into slavery. When you are benefiting from something that others are paying for, you are forcing them into slavery to support you.
Let me give an example. Say I'm a pacifist, and I want to live in a place where the majority of the citizens believe in a strong national defense. The contract they offer says that if I want to trade with them, use their roads, fire protection, and police, then I have to help pay for national defense, too. As long as there is something of a free market in governance, I can go elsewhere and enter into a contract with a society are pacifists and that does not value national defense. The first society did not force me into slavery to support something I don't believe in. The same argument can be applied to the issue of public education. If you do not want to support it, nothing gives you the right to mooch of a society that does, or even to trade with that society's members, if they have entered a contract stating they will not trade with free riders.
The situation is of course very different if I have nowhere else to go, then they are forcing me to pay for something that I don't believe in. We run into the problem of the tyranny of the majority. But the opposite of that is the tyranny of the minority, where each individual gets to dictate to society what they will and won't support.
Well first, I didn't say there is a free market in government, only that it would be nice.
You seem to have missed the whole concept of externalities such as the public good of public education. Public education improves the economy, and you benefit. Even if you have no kids, and pay for your own schooling, you benefit from the fact that many more people have a better chance to accomplish something useful to you. Now, why should you obtain that benefit if you don't pay for it?
No one should be forced to do anything, but I'm sure you'll agree that includes governments or other people being forced to support you. Governments should be able to set a package deal, including trade. So, it would be perfectly fair for a group of people to say, if you want the benefits of membership in our group then: a.) you have to pay for externalities such as education, and b.) you may not ever trade with someone or some group that does not pay for those externalities.
Not saying that's how it is, but that's how it should be. It's fair to exclude free riders from obtaining the benefits that others paid for. In a system such as I describe, you would be free not to pay for public education. But everyone who does, and is a member of a group that helps discourage free riders, would be forbidden by their own voluntarily entered into contract from ever having anything to do for you. If they do have anything to do from you, they are ostracized as well. All perfectly voluntary and non coercive.
Would you like a system like that, where free riders can be punished, or do you admit that you want to take unfair advantage and have other people support you? If enough others didn't think public education was an externality worth protecting from free riders, it wouldn't be an issue for you. If they did, well, who are you to force them to think differently?
I'm naming my first son Rod Logic. Rod Logic Rightmer, has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
I know someone who was arrested for tax evasion. He didn't lie, he didn't fill in any tax forms, he just didn't pay. Where are you getting your information from?
Bullshit. A government is free to charge whatever it likes for its services. If you don't like the contract, don't be a citizen. There should be a free market of government styles to choose from. Governments today aren't a la cart, they're prix fixe, though there's nothing wrong with some systems having an a la carte option.
The problem is in externalities and free riders. Everyone benefits from public education, even those who do not use it directly. A better educated populace creates more wealth and opportunities for everyone. Why should you benefit from that if you don't pay?
Are you honestly claiming the government won't throw you in jail for tax evasion? They sure as hell will. The whole, "Sshhh! It's a secret! Taxes are voluntary!" thing is a myth. The people pushing that myth are criminal scam artists. If you ever meet someone who says something along those lines and wants to sell you more info, RUN! They are crooks, and likely connected with crazy violent militia types. I had a friend who, despite my warnings, was taken in by these shysters.
Just define those who control taxes (our elected officials, mind you) as "The Power Elite" and you've got an instant "argument" against government and taxes.
OOOOh! Scary! Our taxes are controlled by the Power Elite! (whoever they are, you know, the all purpose Bad Guys. The Man!) So all taxes are bad because they never do anything good for The People, only for the Power Elite. And all government is bad because it runs on taxes! Therefore (let me guess) Libertarianism is the only way to Freedom and Justice! Am I right?
You know, there are actually cogent arguments against our form of government, and against a system of taxation enforced through the threat of violence. Not saying I buy them, just that in comparison to your argument, they're decent and well thought out.
I've seen the mouse pointer lag on recent Windows and Linux operating systems, usually when it's a PS2 mouse and the system is doing heavy disk IO. Now that I think about it, I haven't noticed any lag in multimedia apps recently. Boot times, application switch and start times are not much different now than they were ten years ago. I think faster processors and more memory have only encouraged developers to write sloppier code.
Sure, I know it's news, but I think the original poster was being sarcastic. In think he thought it was news, too. It's just, you know, the umpteenth time you have to patch BIND, sometimes you just snap... BIND isn't chroot by default but on several distros, jailing it is as easy as firing up Ye Olde Distro Specific Configurator and checking the "run BIND chroot?" box. I agree, more server packaged should come with the nice little scripts to chroot them easily.
Come on, whoever marked this as troll has no idea of the history of BIND, or how many times many of us have had to patch BIND over the last ten years. Consider this: BIND is the only server that I've ever seen a distro package so as to be easily chrooted. Why do you suppose that is?
That's not what it's shooting. You know the dirty version of the joke, right?
So a panda hires a hooker. He eats her out and fucks her until he comes. He then gets up to leave without paying and she angrily stops him saying, "What are you doing? I'm a hooker!" The panda says, "Yeah, what's a hooker?" She says "Look it up! Right here, hooker: a person who gets payed for sex." The panda says, "Yeah, well, I'm a panda, look it up, here we go, Panda: Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
I remember when you could boot the Linux kernel on a 386 with 4MB of memory. You still can, but it's not a matter of merely running *config and stripping out what you don't need. You need to get in there and scrub the cruft out by hand.