You have 2 inputs that can each be 1 or 0, so there are 4 different inputs. For each of those, you have 2 possible outputs, so there are 2^4=16 different truth tables.
Of these, 8 are symmetrical in A and B (gives the same output for input (1,0) and (0,1)). Theses are AND, OR, NAND, NOR, XOR, XNOR, TRUE and FALSE
The remaining 8 are 4 sets of duplicates (if you switch A and B, we call the gate the same name). These are A, not-A, A AND NOT-B, and its negation, NOT-A OR B. The two last does not seem to be standard gates, so no, there are, in fact, two more non-trivial truth tables for two inputs.
The Scandinavian countries punish customers, not the prostitutes. However, the thinking still seems to be that the women are to stupid to figure out what is good for them, so the state needs to do it for them.
So I can't critisise only part of your argument, or the way you present your argument, without being a spineless person with no original thought of my own?
You are hiring their WORK, and a very specific work at that.
Prostitutes hire out the use and control of their BODIES.
How are these different? Say I hire a masseuse. I am paying him to give me a massage, i.e. to do certain things with his body, so I am definitely hiring "the use and control of his BODY". Say I am setting up a broadway show. I am definately hiring "the use and control of the BODIES of the actors". Hell, that is more or less the definition of manual labor: Getting people to perform a certain task with their body for money.
A very idealistic and wrong idea of how prostitution works.
Do enlighten me on how it does work. And tell me how you have gotten this unidealistic and representative insight into how prostitution works?
The state does need to step in to protect people who cannot take care of themselves. However, I would prefer that the standard for "unable to take care of themselves" was a bit higher than "at some point might want to drink half a liter of soda".
The reasons for this 'outing of johns' is meant to keep young impressionable women from being exploited by more worldly men of low moral character, I'm all for that, and history usually judge's a society by how well it treats it's women
And being treated like moral imbeciles who needs the state to tell them who they can fuck and who they can't is treating them nice? Funny, I thought we looked down on cultures controlling the sex life of it's women.
No mentally stable, non-self-loathing woman with options will choose to be come a prostitute.
I see, you know the mind of every women on earth. Or are you going to define "mentally stable, non-self-loathing" as one who does not want to become a prostitute, true Scotsman-style?
There are women who want to be a prostitute but they do it for money/laughs.
I see, you chose "blatantly disagreeing with myself". I suppose you will claim you didn't write any of the things I quote you for?
The effect in Sweden have been that the prostitutes are no longer on the street, so they are harder to help. This has made their conditions worse. It has not decreased the number of prostitutes.
The effects in Norway have been that the prostitutes doesn't the police as a source of help, so they do not report crimes against them.
I don't know anything about the case of Iceland.
If the intended effect is to help the prostitutes, this kind of law seems the wrong tool.
Do you have a source for that? In Denmark, the police estimates that there is around 3000 prostitutes, and a maximum of 50 of those are trafficked. So closer to 1% than 90.
The act of prostitution deprives prostitutes of their freedom and of the control over their bodies.
Just like hiring somebody to do your lawn deprives them of their freedom. Quickly, outlaw jobs!
No matter how "high class" things get it is still closer to slavery than to a job of an entertainer.
Slavery is defined in that the slave have no choice in what to do, and that they cannot quit. When accepting clients for web-page coding, or sex, you do have a choice of what to do. Even when working for somebody else, the prostitute can quit. If he/she cannot do that, then it is slavery and should be illegal.
If you find slavery to be a bit over the top, try thinking about what you'd rather admit to your friends and family - that you're working in a sweatshop or that you're getting paid to be fucked up the ass?
Because doing things I would not like to tell my family about should be illegal. That should take care of those damn furries!!!
What does it take to make prostitution not "purely consensual"? Is it enough that thee money is part of the incentive? That the women is forced with the threat of bodily harm? That she is being kept as a slave? For any sane definition of "consensual", I challenge you to provide evidence that 99.9% of prostitution is non-consensual.
I completely agree with most of your post, and thank you for writing it, it is insightful and interesting. However:
There's nothing you can say about Japan's conduct during that time period that can equal the evil we visited upon the world at the same time.
I would say that murdering 6.000.000 prisoners of war, performing human vivisections, testing biological weapons, using chemical weapons, torturing prisoners, killing prisoners for human consumption and keeping sex slaves (source) stacks up pretty good against the US behavior, while admitting that that is a pretty low standard to beat, and that the US might not have beaten it by much.
Both of them are in non-compliance with the treaty, but only one has promised to comply. Why should the US threaten the one who has not broken this promises?
In that case, the answer to "how fast are we going?" is that there is no answer, as the question is not meaningful. My question was merely meant as a way to make the question meaningful, and the inertial frame of reference of the center of mass of the universe seems like the most universal frame of reference, given that all inertial frames of reference are equally good from a physics point of view.
Yes, it would. Unless there is a risk of them hitting someone, why do you get to decide what they do?
However, that was not what my main point. You compared adult citizens to children that the state, as a parent, needed to take care of. That is demeaning and oppressive.
BMI is useful on the population level. It correlates well enough with obesity, and it is easy to measure. The correlation is not good enough for it to be useful on the individual level.
Juice from Orange Concentrate(TM) or Apple Concentrate(TM), yes, should be banned. Regular unprocessed orange juice, nope.
Why? What is the difference?
Plus it easier to drink coke than orange juice. It is designed to appeal to you taste buds and to be able to drink pretty much unlimited amounts, unlike Orange/Apple juice.
But my taste buds are designed (OK, evolved) to find sweet fruits, and thus sweet fruit juices, appealing. My body is evolved to limit the amount of fruit I eat by making me full when I chew and when I get fiber in my stomach, neither of which applies to juices.
Don't forget that fructose is sweeter than sucrose, making HFCS slightly sweeter per calorie than sucrose. So, if you make sodas with the same sweetness, the HFCS one will contain less carbohydrates.
And how would that make people less fat? Sugar (sucrose) is quickly hydrolyzed to equal amounts of fructose and glucose in the stomach. HFCS contains around equal amounts of glucose and fructose. They behave exactly identical when ingested. The only difference is that fructose is much sweeter than sucrose, so HFCS is slightly sweeter per calorie than sucrose.
Nope, in Europe, they normally use glucose sirup from wheat as the main sweetener. Two reasons:
1) The sirup is a liquid, and liquids are easy to mix. Getting sugar dissolved is harder to do when you are working with cubic meters of solution.
2) Growing wheat is heavily subsidized, so whatever you can make from wheat is cheaper if it is made from wheat.
You compare the citizens with children that state needs to take care of them, and in the same sentence claim it has nothing to do with oppression. Wow.
Slashdot Mirror
You have 2 inputs that can each be 1 or 0, so there are 4 different inputs. For each of those, you have 2 possible outputs, so there are 2^4=16 different truth tables.
Of these, 8 are symmetrical in A and B (gives the same output for input (1,0) and (0,1)). Theses are AND, OR, NAND, NOR, XOR, XNOR, TRUE and FALSE
The remaining 8 are 4 sets of duplicates (if you switch A and B, we call the gate the same name). These are A, not-A, A AND NOT-B, and its negation, NOT-A OR B. The two last does not seem to be standard gates, so no, there are, in fact, two more non-trivial truth tables for two inputs.
The Scandinavian countries punish customers, not the prostitutes. However, the thinking still seems to be that the women are to stupid to figure out what is good for them, so the state needs to do it for them.
That threat [of bodily harm] ]is present in virtually all prostitution
How do you know that?
So I can't critisise only part of your argument, or the way you present your argument, without being a spineless person with no original thought of my own?
You are hiring their WORK, and a very specific work at that. Prostitutes hire out the use and control of their BODIES.
How are these different? Say I hire a masseuse. I am paying him to give me a massage, i.e. to do certain things with his body, so I am definitely hiring "the use and control of his BODY". Say I am setting up a broadway show. I am definately hiring "the use and control of the BODIES of the actors". Hell, that is more or less the definition of manual labor: Getting people to perform a certain task with their body for money.
A very idealistic and wrong idea of how prostitution works.
Do enlighten me on how it does work. And tell me how you have gotten this unidealistic and representative insight into how prostitution works?
The state does need to step in to protect people who cannot take care of themselves. However, I would prefer that the standard for "unable to take care of themselves" was a bit higher than "at some point might want to drink half a liter of soda".
The reasons for this 'outing of johns' is meant to keep young impressionable women from being exploited by more worldly men of low moral character, I'm all for that, and history usually judge's a society by how well it treats it's women
And being treated like moral imbeciles who needs the state to tell them who they can fuck and who they can't is treating them nice? Funny, I thought we looked down on cultures controlling the sex life of it's women.
No mentally stable, non-self-loathing woman with options will choose to be come a prostitute.
I see, you know the mind of every women on earth. Or are you going to define "mentally stable, non-self-loathing" as one who does not want to become a prostitute, true Scotsman-style?
There are women who want to be a prostitute but they do it for money/laughs.
I see, you chose "blatantly disagreeing with myself". I suppose you will claim you didn't write any of the things I quote you for?
The effect in Sweden have been that the prostitutes are no longer on the street, so they are harder to help. This has made their conditions worse. It has not decreased the number of prostitutes.
The effects in Norway have been that the prostitutes doesn't the police as a source of help, so they do not report crimes against them.
I don't know anything about the case of Iceland.
If the intended effect is to help the prostitutes, this kind of law seems the wrong tool.
70 to 90 percent [...] are slaves
Do you have a source for that? In Denmark, the police estimates that there is around 3000 prostitutes, and a maximum of 50 of those are trafficked. So closer to 1% than 90.
The act of prostitution deprives prostitutes of their freedom and of the control over their bodies.
Just like hiring somebody to do your lawn deprives them of their freedom. Quickly, outlaw jobs!
No matter how "high class" things get it is still closer to slavery than to a job of an entertainer.
Slavery is defined in that the slave have no choice in what to do, and that they cannot quit. When accepting clients for web-page coding, or sex, you do have a choice of what to do. Even when working for somebody else, the prostitute can quit. If he/she cannot do that, then it is slavery and should be illegal.
If you find slavery to be a bit over the top, try thinking about what you'd rather admit to your friends and family - that you're working in a sweatshop or that you're getting paid to be fucked up the ass?
Because doing things I would not like to tell my family about should be illegal. That should take care of those damn furries!!!
Make it a condition in your will that your heirs must display you in their living rooms. Best practical joke ever.
What does it take to make prostitution not "purely consensual"? Is it enough that thee money is part of the incentive? That the women is forced with the threat of bodily harm? That she is being kept as a slave? For any sane definition of "consensual", I challenge you to provide evidence that 99.9% of prostitution is non-consensual.
There's nothing you can say about Japan's conduct during that time period that can equal the evil we visited upon the world at the same time.
I would say that murdering 6.000.000 prisoners of war, performing human vivisections, testing biological weapons, using chemical weapons, torturing prisoners, killing prisoners for human consumption and keeping sex slaves (source) stacks up pretty good against the US behavior, while admitting that that is a pretty low standard to beat, and that the US might not have beaten it by much.
Both of them are in non-compliance with the treaty, but only one has promised to comply. Why should the US threaten the one who has not broken this promises?
In that case, the answer to "how fast are we going?" is that there is no answer, as the question is not meaningful. My question was merely meant as a way to make the question meaningful, and the inertial frame of reference of the center of mass of the universe seems like the most universal frame of reference, given that all inertial frames of reference are equally good from a physics point of view.
Yes, it would. Unless there is a risk of them hitting someone, why do you get to decide what they do?
However, that was not what my main point. You compared adult citizens to children that the state, as a parent, needed to take care of. That is demeaning and oppressive.
It's a restriction on portion size
So it is a ban on selling soda in certain portion sizes?
BMI is useful on the population level. It correlates well enough with obesity, and it is easy to measure. The correlation is not good enough for it to be useful on the individual level.
Juice from Orange Concentrate(TM) or Apple Concentrate(TM), yes, should be banned. Regular unprocessed orange juice, nope.
Why? What is the difference?
Plus it easier to drink coke than orange juice. It is designed to appeal to you taste buds and to be able to drink pretty much unlimited amounts, unlike Orange/Apple juice.
But my taste buds are designed (OK, evolved) to find sweet fruits, and thus sweet fruit juices, appealing. My body is evolved to limit the amount of fruit I eat by making me full when I chew and when I get fiber in my stomach, neither of which applies to juices.
Don't forget that fructose is sweeter than sucrose, making HFCS slightly sweeter per calorie than sucrose. So, if you make sodas with the same sweetness, the HFCS one will contain less carbohydrates.
And how would that make people less fat? Sugar (sucrose) is quickly hydrolyzed to equal amounts of fructose and glucose in the stomach. HFCS contains around equal amounts of glucose and fructose. They behave exactly identical when ingested. The only difference is that fructose is much sweeter than sucrose, so HFCS is slightly sweeter per calorie than sucrose.
Nope, in Europe, they normally use glucose sirup from wheat as the main sweetener. Two reasons:
1) The sirup is a liquid, and liquids are easy to mix. Getting sugar dissolved is harder to do when you are working with cubic meters of solution.
2) Growing wheat is heavily subsidized, so whatever you can make from wheat is cheaper if it is made from wheat.
You compare the citizens with children that state needs to take care of them, and in the same sentence claim it has nothing to do with oppression. Wow.
OK, let me correct that to "before after D-day".
Already in June? Reports form whom? Allied forces? Did they reach concentration camps that soon? Or the red cross?