I'm saying that the policy is stupid. Whatever "protection" provided by limiting access to that information is limited to such a small number of people and circumstances that it infringes greatly against the masses to "protect" the edge condition.
If you're looking to the government to help preserve your relationship, you're looking in the wrong place. If your relationship is on such unstable ground that you need to block information from your spouse, you need to get help with that or get away from a dangerous spouse.
It says that they make an exception for parents checking out materials on their kids' cards, but make NO provision for any adult under any circumstances (short of a court order) to see the records of any other adult. There's no option for me to allow my wife to know the books I'm checking out.
There's this little thing in relatinships called "transparency" perhaps you should look into it. If my relationship with my wife has deteriorated to the point that she feels a need to conceal from me a disease, a pregnancy, adultery, lesbianism, religion, other sexuality, or "odd" topics - access to her library records would be the least of my concerns.
I understand that there are people who are not in safe relationships with a spouse, and may not want their records shared. The library should provide an offer of protection for people as needed, but it seems to me that we're writing policy on the exceptions. I'm sick ot death of the me-ism that came with the boomer generation, and the "my rights" ideas that trickle down into stupid policies.
Another example is the hassle I have to go through with EVERY medical provider about access to medical records or prescriptions for my grandmother with Alzheimers disease. She CAN'T come to the pharmacy. She's DYING! I'm filling prescriptions for her, paying her bills, making sure that she gets to the doctor or hospital as needed, cutting her grass, doing her home maintenance and whatever else she needs. Why must it be a big deal with every doctor, every pharmacy, every lab? There was a time when this kind of "protection" was offered in the form of discretion on the part of the service provider - when deals didn't require a written contract because people had (on the whole) more integrity, and people had less rights. Culturally people were more "in your business." Frankly that was not a bad thing.
When I was a kid and a jerk around the neighborhood, people who lived there called me on it. If I didn't change my behavior, they'd call my mom. It made sense.
Now what happens? When a kid is a jerk - should I call the police? I'd hate to trample on his rights by directly addressing his irresponsibility....
I hate telemarketing calls as much as the next guy - perhaps more - and I sometimes attempt to screen those courtesy of caller ID.
However, because the world does not revolve around me, and because I love my family and friends enough, I'll take the risk that I'll end up talking to some telemarketer for a few seconds.
What if it is an emergency? It's not about me. I'll pick up the phone - and when it *is* an emergency, I'll be available to care for someone else's needs. But that's just me. In your world, it sure seems to be all about you.
I'm the father of a five year old. We go to the library regularly. We check out books and return them. I'm pretty sure that I'm familiar with the titles that my kid is reading - since I read them with him.
Recently when returning books to the library, we were short a title. I asked which one it was so that I could look for it more carefully when I returned home. Since for that particular visit my wife had taken my gone to GET the books, the libarian refused to tell me which title it was. It was checked out on my wife's card, not mine. When my kid is old enough to have his own card, but still a minor, I suppose the librarians will protect his privacy be refusing to tell me what books he checks out, too.
I'm the parent, dammit. I should be able to have that information. This is ridiculous. In the example above, my wife wanted to know what the title was, too. Making her call to see what it was did not protect or help her.
It's gone too far. Where did the common sense go? I think it left when the sense of entitlement and privacy arrived as a consequence of the warped ideology of the boomers.
I think that we agree that actions are punishable. My concern is that we as a society are on a slippery slope. Under the pennant of "free speech" we are promoting the creation, dissemination, and "consumption" of more perverse and formerly forbidden images and ideas. This is most prevalent in terms of internet porn which is trivially easy to find and free for the taking. This is much simpler than in previous generations where one would have to go to a store and see a person who would know that you were buying *that.* It was a restraining influence on society.
A lesser form is the lowering of standards on commercial and cable television. Even "mainstream" shows like Friends promote the idea that "everyone" is sexually active outside of marriage, and that it's not uncommon for "friends" to have slept with each other - even inside a relatively small group!
These concepts normalize behavior which as a whole is not beneficial to society and culture. Much less of these actions would take place in a society which has more social restraint.
Before someone jumps down my throat, let me be clear - no matter what the restraints in culture, abuses occur. Rape, sexual abuse, physical abuse - they all occur in at least a small percentage of every society with which I am familiar. What I *am* saying is that as society puts social controls on what constitutes acceptable, normative actions and thoughts, society as a whole is strengthened, not weakened.
This of course flies in the face of the fundamental American right to "be happy" and "do what I want." Many people in this forum find the kinds of ideas I espouse here dangerous - and uncomfortable. Should my thoughts and ideas be censored? But I digress....
I think that the more that one indulges fantasy, the less restraint one has in controlling one's behavior. The law should punish conspiracy to commit crimes as well as crimes themselves for this very reason.
For those who find this concept distasteful, please keep in mind that intent is *always* relevant when it comes to the criminal justice system, so it's already interpreting your "thoughts."
And a darn good thing, too. I want those perverts in jail where they can a) be away from kids, and b) know the fear and intimidation of being powerless against their attackers.
I know people get bent out of shape 'round here about "Your Rights Online" and claim that the thought police are unfairly busting people for mere fantasy, but I strongly object to that characterization.
No physical act every occurs that doesn't first occur in someone's mind. Sexual "fantasy" eventually moves from thought to action. Lust is demanding, and unchecked, is never satisfied. We're talking about adults, making plans to go see young teenage boys or girls with the explicit intent to have sex with them. These people *do* take advantage of kids, and I think it's great that someone is stepping in to hold them accountable.
You don't have the right to nurture fantasies about sex with children. I don't care if you think you do. It's twisted, and kids will be harmed if that kind of thinking is not stopped.
To put it another way, when it was almost universally "unthinkable" in our culture to hit little old ladies over the head with rocks, it *almost* never happened. The prevalence and anonymity of internet pornography increases the undercurrent of societal acceptance of this kind of behavior. As more people become perverted in their thinking, molestation of kids *will* increase. Someone needs to stop it.
At the end of your life, as you look back to this point in your life, which choice will you wish you would have made?
What REALLY matters to you? How do you define success as a man?
For me, the amount of closeness in my relationship with my wife and my kids is fundamentally important. I refuse to consider any opportunities which will require me to be away from home on a regular basis. Does this limit me? In some ways, yes. I know for sure that I could make more money - perhaps double or triple what I'm making now. The fact is, I would not trade any amount of money for the relationships I have.
On their deathbed, I know of few people who long to have made more upwardly mobile career choices, or who desire having spent more time working. At the end of life, people usually think about legacy.
What legacy would you leave if today you breathed your last? Are you happy with that? If not, make different choices tonight, tomorrow and each day for the days you have left.
I have 4 kids 5 and under, and my wife is pregnant with our 5th child.
I suppose that it's *technically* possible that I'm celibate and that she's involved in infidelity. However, I'm definitely not celibate, and the repeated pregancies should provide ample evidence that I'm having intercourse on a regular basis. I guess you'll have to take my word for that, though.:)
I love to tinker. I'm writing this on a Windows Laptop, but I'm also listening to some music playing on my Apple desktop, and this post flows through my home network where http proxies are running on my Linux server - which hosts my mail, proxy server, internet filter, backup drives, and probably about a dozen other services I'm forgetting at the moment. My point is that I probably don't qualify as one you would describe as a "lazy user."
Having made that disclaimer, most people buy computers to do a task, not to tinker. In fact, the reason I switched my desktops to Mac OS X from Linux (where I had been an almost exclusive linux desktop user for 6-7 years) was because what was possible on Linux was made easy under Mac OS X. I looked seriously at cinelerra and Kino and other tools for editing home movies, and decided that iMovie/iDVD was quite adequate to meet my needs. Does that make me lazy? No. It means that I wanted a tool for a particular purpose, and found one.
Windows *owns* the market. You want to "beat" them? Make the transition seamless and painless for the customer. It's like making a "better" car where the turn signal lever is mounted on the right by default. (You've got 300 other options available from the config file, too) Also, the clutch pedal is on the far left - about twice as far as in "regular" cars, and the shift lever is longer and includes the volume control for the stereo. You might make the argument that people would prefer these changes, and it's not hard to get used to them, or that they could "easily" modify the configuration to match the "inferior" standard car. Would that make people who are frustrated by these minor differences lazy?
I submit that it's this "insult the user" mindset on the part of the OS community that slows adoption of superior tools. People are not stupid - they also generally have no interest in becoming an auto mechanic or a PC mechanic. There's nothing wrong with you being an expert in lots of different configurations - that interests you. Good for you. Make the "better" product just like the original - only better, and people will want to follow in your footsteps.
As an example, I suggest to you Vim. It's pretty geeky, but look at what it did. It incorporated all of the fuctions that vi provided - exactly the same way that vi provides them, and ALSO provides about a zillion enhancements. People who switch back and forth find basic functions work exactly the same in either product, and enhanced functions are available when on the better product. Does that make Vim designers bad designers, or people who choose Vim stupid or lazy? I suggest not. Your mileage may vary.
if a "shiny new car would impress customers" and that was important to the business, then the company can lease a shiny new car for me and write it off as a business expense. I'll keep driving my clunker, thanks.:)
I'm not getting upside down financially for anyone.
when I read the link in your.sig, I laughed so hard I almost wet myself. I don't have any idea where you could have come up with the kind of time it took to make that crap up.
Whatever OS you have running at the time would be able to read the 25% of the space native to the OS (HFS under OS X, NTFS under XP) plus the 50% that is allocated to fat32.
It's just a thought. I don't have an Intel mac at home, and don't anticipate upgrading for more than a year or so at the soonest. I don't have XP at home, and don't need it. Between Linux and OS X, my home needs are met. (I'm not a game player anyway.)
It *would* be fun to get my work to buy a macbook pro for me, especially if someone gets virtualization working well so I can use OS X apps and XP apps fairly transparently. Picture Office and IE in conjunction with my corporate VPN, running concurrently with OS X for my "real life" apps.:)
So it seems to me that you could partition the disk 25% HFS, 25% NTFS, and 50% fat32 and have access to 75% of your disk space at any given time. Doesn't that address the core of the filesystem problem?
The issue is both broader and deeper than you suggest. Essentially you imply that creationists are irrational and motivated by emotion, who are not introspective.
It's not an emotional rejection, but rather a world view that says that speciation through mutation and time is not correct. I don't make such assertions about those who have an a priori commitment to naturalism, and I would appreciate it if you might offer a bit more charity to those with whom you disagree.
Of course I have an a priori commitment to a philosophy that rejects the time and chance model. In addition, I see a number of things that don't fit the model of a designerless universe, and that don't seem to follow logic in terms of "mutations and adaptations lead to beneficial change, given enough time." That does not mean that I don't see difficulties with alternate theories, just that I disagree with the conclusions drawn by evolutionists.
For what it's worth, I'm a big believer in the scientific method.
I've been working on this project off and on for months. I bought one for around $500 from eBay, and plan to sell it once I'm done. I finally finished scanning recent history, and am as far back as college. After that, I'm taking on dad's slide collection. At this rate I should be done in about 6 months.
This is not an urgent thing for me, but I'm pretty happy with the scans I'm getting. I settled on jpeg and decided to live with scans that end up ~10MB/photo. In raw format, at the highest bit depth, I'd be at over 140MB/photo. Disk is cheap, but not *that* cheap. What I'm getting is darn good, and will more than suffice. I'm not a professional, tho.
Whenever I walk past the computer, I swap out the negatives and queue up four more to be scanned. It takes a while, but my life is not consumed with this effort, either. Thankfully I switched to a digital camera about 4 years ago, so all new pictures are already digital. I know that the scope is limited to the one big container of photos and negatives I've got left to scan.
As I finish a group of pictures, I move the scans to a directory with the rough date of when the photos were taken. I then run a batch utility to update the EXIF data with the "originally taken" date. iPhoto works VERY well with that.
When I'm done I plan to sell the scanner on eBay. We'll see how that works out.:)
Sorry to say that time does not permit me to make a full response to all of your points. I do have a little time, and have decided that an abbreviated response is preferable to no response.
I'd like to address a couple of points that you made. You may not consider them related, but I do for reasons I hope become obvious shortly.
I'd like to start by pointing out a fundamental fact that seems to be missing from your logic... Homosexuality is not a choice. For such a worldly traveller and intense thinker I'd have thought such a thing would be immediately obvious, but it seems the doctrine behind your faith has clouded your judgment. It's not a "lifestyle" or a "perversion", it's your sexuality. You're born with it. If this wasn't the case then why would you choose it? It merely invites trouble from those with a zeal for faith. It being a choice makes no sense - its like choosing the path of most resistance for the reward of eternal damnation. The idea of homosexuality being unnatural is just a symptom of the puritan hangover that afflicts our society..
I appreciate that it is your position that homosexual attraction is set at or before birth. There are many people who disagree with you, but I refuse to address that point with you. *For the purposes of this discussion,* let me allow that your view is the correct one. This is irrelevant to my response.
With all due respect - and I mean that not in a cliche' sort of way (I do respect you) I think that you may fundamentally misunderstand some of what I believe Christianity to teach. Specifically, the Bible says "the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked" and "all have sinned" It's worse than that. In fact, it says "there is none righteous, not even one." "There is none who seeks after God."
In case you are potentially getting defensive or feeling attacked, please remember that these ideas apply to EVERYONE - not just you. This absolutely includes me as well. How does this relate?
If you will indulge me a bit further, the Bible goes on to say "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers....nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. " That's a pretty long list of bad things, and it applies pretty much across the board to all people. You see, from a pure and holy (undefiled) God's perspective, even a single imperfection would prevent us from having relationship with Him. If He did, He would no longer be undefiled and pure.
You see, the natural state of mankind is that we are imperfect and unable to be in right relationship with God. Our natural bent is opposed to God - regardless with whom you have sex. (The passage above talks about homosexual behavior as well, but it was not relevant to my point here.)
What I asked for is an explanation for the lack of personal responsibility in most of the population. Have you got an explanation outside the greed encouraged by advertising and the education system?
The root cause of this is the same as *every* sin. The natural desire of man is selfishness and pride.
God made a way to overcome the sinful nature of man. He came to earth and lived a life of perfection. As a result, those who essentially say to God "don't look at me - talk to my attorney - Jesus Christ" have hope. Those who trust in Christ's righteousness have the following said about them as the passage above continues... "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
God's standard is perfect righteousness and holiness. The natural desire of man is to rebel against God - regardless of the gender of your sexual partners.
Am I screaming at the wall here trying to convey the idea that it's not all missionary position? If it were any of your business what I do in my bedroo
I can't explain how much I respect the fact that you use a tone of derision while failing to address any of the meaningful components of my response. It's admirable how much you demonstrated the capabilities of your intellect.
Want to score some points? Drop the ridiculous attitude, and start conversing like an adult. I brought up some points that are *not* misdirection, ad hominem, or "inferiority-complex" related and you ignore those. Thanks for your ad hominem attack against me personally, and against people like me, though.
Hind-quarters of a large rodent, indeed.
I appreciate that you can respect Dembski's intellect. For what it's worth, Gould was brilliant - although his worldview affected his science to the point of making his intellect lack productivity. He was, simply, wrong.
I fully comprehend the difference between abiogenesis and speciation through evolution.
It's vain of you to claim that you know how I think. In fact, you don't know me, or my thoughts. Lumping me in with the stereotype in your head of thoughtless religious nuts is really pretty small minded of you as well.
Let me ask you this, smart guy. It seems to me that the problem is somewhat greater than spontaneous generation from existent matter.
Where did the first matter come from?
Science is about observability and repetition of the observed phenomenon.
Scientists did not observe the initiation of the existence of matter, and were not present at the genesis of this universe. As such, they are limited to the facts that they can collect today. It is not possible to repeat the genesis of the universe, either. As such, it's not possible to follow the scientific method to evaluate the therories. Origins is not the stuff of science because it's really speculation. Note that I am not disputing that evidence can be collected, relationships between pieces of evidence can be noted, and explanations can be created, but not TESTED!
WRT speciation, it's true that we see differentiation between members of the same species and it is demonstrable fact that an evolutionary process exists within a kind of creature. However, it is not conclusive that lots of adaptation leads directly to speciation given enough time, adaptation and mutation.
We're not mindless religious zealots. We have the same evidence you have, and have differing theories about the activities behind the evidence. You don't have to like it, but it's pretty thoughtless of you to generalize our worldview as the province of morons or the deluded.
I can hear the naturalists clacking away at their keyboards in glee with the "smoking gun" that evolution has finally been "proven" and that the creationists will have to sit in stunned silence under the weight of the evidence finally presented.
Let's not oversimplify this discussion. Thoughtful, intelligent people on both sides of this debate have passion, and conviction. As a creationist, I welcome advances in knowledge that arise from investigation of the physical realm. I respect men (and women) of science, and applaud this new discovery - but that changes not my conviction that a creator made the planet as it is. There are enough complexities and challenges with the idea of evolution as a means of speciation that one more discovery does not put a nail in the coffin of creationism.
I'm not looking to start a debate on this issue, but I am hoping to raise the level of discussion by respectfully asking those who would use this occasion to ridicule people with whom they disagree to please refrain. This is a complex issue and cheap shots are not productive. I will refrain from ridicule as well. Deal?
I have looked at splunk. I've got a copy of their eval of professional installed, and it's interesting. There are a lot of things that they do well. Marketing isn't one of them, but the underlying technology is pretty cool.
Here's where they shine: finding data lost in a log file. Picture if you will a log file with free-form text in parts and XML in other parts. With no training about what the log looked like, their tool could do a great job of identifying patterns in the free-form text - essentially blocks or "records" of data there, and pulling out the XML sections.
You can search for patterns in the data, and splunk will help identify them for you. The data import and pattern-matching parts of their code are platform agnostic. There are no adapters to buy, and no "training" to find useful data patterns. I think that they are doing a good job on the technologyside of things, and it's definitely worth the time to look at this tool.
Please note: I have no affiliation with Splunk. I'm not even one of their customers. I have no reason to promote their product. I've looked at it and they do a good job of finding obscure data.
I've enjoyed this interchange, but my famlilial responsibilities will call me away soon. Some final thoughts, if you'll indulge me.
it's the fact that people who don't share all those views are forced to live by them when they are written in law. Isn't that unfair? It's called democracy. Change the hearts and minds of the masses and then you can have your way. Don't like that? I know of no other option than to suggest revolution or move to another place. Here's the challenge: What do you do when your value system and mine directly conflict? What if your value system called for you to consume large quantities of alcohol then barf on my lawn. What about what I want?
On the issue of divorce: Couples give up FAR too easily. It's not a real choice to say "fight all the time or divorce" The big problem is a lack of relationship skills which leaves people feeling like separation is the only viable option. I'm not suggesting divorce be eliminated, but we as a culture should do more to shore up the family unit - perhaps making divorce more difficult by requiring some counseling and coaching before the court grants the divorce.
Lack of responsibility: So, you suggest that the law is unfair or unjustly limiting your personal freedoms, and that you want to be freed to live out the values that you choose because you are a responsible person. Can you see that the culture around you has laws to restrain behavior, and even with that help, people seem largely unable or unwilling to take that responsibility? It seems to me that removal of law would worsen not help that problem.
Health issues of homosexuals: Anecdotes do not a good study make. As I read on this issue (and I do read lay literature with some regularity - not the journals themselves) it seems to me that the studies indicate that the relative mental health you assess in your friends is not consistent with the homosexual population at large. The science appears pretty clear here. Can you point to scientific analysis on this issue that supports your experience?
Homophobia hurts more than anal sex. Will you please define homophobia? The reason I ask is that I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. If tolerance is a part of your response, would you kindly define that term for me? My belief is that the colloquial use of that word differs significantly from the denotative meaning, and I want to make sure that we mean the same thing when we use emotionally charged words.
STDs are an epidemic in the heterosexual community. Condom use is not the answer. There is no substitute for abstinence until a lifelong marriage to protect one from emotional and physical challenges. Heterosexual men and women need to quit having sex outside marriage, but the message of sex without consequenses is rampant, and when viewed through the lens of objective science, is demonstrably false.
I get the feeling that you haven't exposed yourself to a lot of political thought alternative to the system you now live under. Your replies all smack of pamphlet rhetoric rather than having any semblance of reflection behind them. It's as if you've blindly accepted everything taught to you without an iota of analysis. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they don't think. It's vain of you to believe that this is the case.
Frankly you know little of me, my life history or the path I've taken to arrive at this philosophical destination. I have looked into a number of other world views, I've traveled internationally and seen firsthand the outcomes of some of those world views. I've taken a long, thoughtful and winding path to get here.
Accept nothing at face value - there's usually something deeper going on. Should I accept that prescription at face value?:)
Why were the following small list of fun activities outlawed in Ireland: Homosexuality, sodomy, contraception, divorce...? I know that we'll hit a brick wall on this, but I'll try again anyway. The law is a teacher and a protector of society. Let me first address the areas other than contraception.
Speaking sociologically and physically these things are to the detriment of the individual and to the culture. Divorce is detrimental because thousands of studies have consistently shown that children have the best opportunity to grow up and be productive members of society when there is a mother and a father in the home. Financially, when the resources allocated for the family are split between two households, the standard of living declines for everyone. Stepfamilies are particularly unsafe places - the risk of physical and sexual abuse are much higher in those situations.
Homosexuality is unhealthy for people - males in particular. The GLMA lists the top 10 health risks for gays and lesbians. Are you aware that only 1 of the top 10 risks to gay men is the same as for heterosexual men? (Prostate cancer.) The large intestine and rectum were not designed for the trauma of sexual activity and the human immune system is threatened by that type of activity as well. This may offend, but the medical evidence stands against this activity.
So what if it hurts only you and the other person? Should it be legal then? I don't think so. You are a part of society and we all bear the cost of psychological and medical care for people who make bad choices. From the alcoholic with liver damage, to the drug addict who has no insurance and needs emergency care, to the increased health complications of *all* bad health choices. For what it's worth, I think that we should do something to address the financial implications of the obesity epidemic sweeping the US these days. I have not yet decided what I think should be done, but it's to the detriment of our culture that people have so little self-discipline that they are becoming obese in record numbers. Some may have legitimate medical roots of obesity, but the majority are simply undisciplined. This lack of personal discipline and accountability will eventually do great harm to our nation.
I've never made an argument in favor of outlawing contraception, but I can see that it's possible to argue for that. In the US, we have a problem. The number of Americans headed for retirement age is huge. The baby boomer generation is going to begin to collect social security, and the number of people paying into the social security system is dwindling. If we had not allowed 40 million legal abortions in the last 35 years, we'd have at least 30 million + more adults in the US who could have helped contribute to the economy and also pay taxes to help support the boomers.
Having more kids is *not* bad for society or the economy. There are consequenses of extramarital sex, even without pregnancy or STDs, there are emotional problems that come from that behavior. With no access to contraceptives, there would b
I note you're omitting a lot of the points I'm making for some reason. I'll give you five reasons. My wife, and each of my 4 sons.:)
All truth is relative Is that statement absolutely true?
the idea of law if I might. I find a lot of it evil. Sure, there's stuff that most of us can agree with like assault, murder and (if you like to own things) damage to or theft of property. The rest of it smacks of either religiously inspired restriction of personal freedom or mindless beaurocracy that seems designed purely to make life difficult.
I'm sure that you would agree with me that we have a history of at least 5,000 years of organized society. Where can you point to an example of a successful society without the rule of law?
Does law deny free will?.... Religion influences my existence and restricts the choices I can make for no reason I am able to fathom. If you know why please explain it to me - I want my free will! Don't we all? Of course all of us want to do what we want. Ask a newborn baby about that! The fact is that we share this space and interact with each other mean that we do need "rules of the road" as you pointed out in a former posting.
Here's how I see it: Without the law as a teacher and a restraint, you would not have the opportunity to consider the things you think you want to do. If you look at countries where the rule of law is not present - like present-day Zimbabwe. Unemployment there hovers around 80%. Please keep in mind that in the great depression, unemployment in the US was around 25%.
You might not like the laws we've got, but your freedoms would be greatly reduced. You need the law. If there are laws you dislike, get them changed!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying that the policy is stupid. Whatever "protection" provided by limiting access to that information is limited to such a small number of people and circumstances that it infringes greatly against the masses to "protect" the edge condition.
If you're looking to the government to help preserve your relationship, you're looking in the wrong place. If your relationship is on such unstable ground that you need to block information from your spouse, you need to get help with that or get away from a dangerous spouse.
The library policy is pointless.
It says that they make an exception for parents checking out materials on their kids' cards, but make NO provision for any adult under any circumstances (short of a court order) to see the records of any other adult. There's no option for me to allow my wife to know the books I'm checking out.
There's this little thing in relatinships called "transparency" perhaps you should look into it.
If my relationship with my wife has deteriorated to the point that she feels a need to conceal from me a disease, a pregnancy, adultery, lesbianism, religion, other sexuality, or "odd" topics - access to her library records would be the least of my concerns.
I understand that there are people who are not in safe relationships with a spouse, and may not want their records shared. The library should provide an offer of protection for people as needed, but it seems to me that we're writing policy on the exceptions. I'm sick ot death of the me-ism that came with the boomer generation, and the "my rights" ideas that trickle down into stupid policies.
Another example is the hassle I have to go through with EVERY medical provider about access to medical records or prescriptions for my grandmother with Alzheimers disease. She CAN'T come to the pharmacy. She's DYING! I'm filling prescriptions for her, paying her bills, making sure that she gets to the doctor or hospital as needed, cutting her grass, doing her home maintenance and whatever else she needs. Why must it be a big deal with every doctor, every pharmacy, every lab? There was a time when this kind of "protection" was offered in the form of discretion on the part of the service provider - when deals didn't require a written contract because people had (on the whole) more integrity, and people had less rights. Culturally people were more "in your business." Frankly that was not a bad thing.
When I was a kid and a jerk around the neighborhood, people who lived there called me on it. If I didn't change my behavior, they'd call my mom. It made sense.
Now what happens? When a kid is a jerk - should I call the police? I'd hate to trample on his rights by directly addressing his irresponsibility....
I hate telemarketing calls as much as the next guy - perhaps more - and I sometimes attempt to screen those courtesy of caller ID.
However, because the world does not revolve around me, and because I love my family and friends enough, I'll take the risk that I'll end up talking to some telemarketer for a few seconds.
What if it is an emergency? It's not about me. I'll pick up the phone - and when it *is* an emergency, I'll be available to care for someone else's needs. But that's just me. In your world, it sure seems to be all about you.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I'm the father of a five year old. We go to the library regularly. We check out books and return them. I'm pretty sure that I'm familiar with the titles that my kid is reading - since I read them with him.
Recently when returning books to the library, we were short a title. I asked which one it was so that I could look for it more carefully when I returned home. Since for that particular visit my wife had taken my gone to GET the books, the libarian refused to tell me which title it was. It was checked out on my wife's card, not mine. When my kid is old enough to have his own card, but still a minor, I suppose the librarians will protect his privacy be refusing to tell me what books he checks out, too.
I'm the parent, dammit. I should be able to have that information. This is ridiculous. In the example above, my wife wanted to know what the title was, too. Making her call to see what it was did not protect or help her.
It's gone too far. Where did the common sense go? I think it left when the sense of entitlement and privacy arrived as a consequence of the warped ideology of the boomers.
Anomaly
I think that we agree that actions are punishable. My concern is that we as a society are on a slippery slope. Under the pennant of "free speech" we are promoting the creation, dissemination, and "consumption" of more perverse and formerly forbidden images and ideas. This is most prevalent in terms of internet porn which is trivially easy to find and free for the taking. This is much simpler than in previous generations where one would have to go to a store and see a person who would know that you were buying *that.* It was a restraining influence on society.
A lesser form is the lowering of standards on commercial and cable television. Even "mainstream" shows like Friends promote the idea that "everyone" is sexually active outside of marriage, and that it's not uncommon for "friends" to have slept with each other - even inside a relatively small group!
These concepts normalize behavior which as a whole is not beneficial to society and culture. Much less of these actions would take place in a society which has more social restraint.
Before someone jumps down my throat, let me be clear - no matter what the restraints in culture, abuses occur. Rape, sexual abuse, physical abuse - they all occur in at least a small percentage of every society with which I am familiar. What I *am* saying is that as society puts social controls on what constitutes acceptable, normative actions and thoughts, society as a whole is strengthened, not weakened.
This of course flies in the face of the fundamental American right to "be happy" and "do what I want." Many people in this forum find the kinds of ideas I espouse here dangerous - and uncomfortable. Should my thoughts and ideas be censored? But I digress....
I think that the more that one indulges fantasy, the less restraint one has in controlling one's behavior. The law should punish conspiracy to commit crimes as well as crimes themselves for this very reason.
For those who find this concept distasteful, please keep in mind that intent is *always* relevant when it comes to the criminal justice system, so it's already interpreting your "thoughts."
Did I clarify or cloud?
Regards,
Anomaly
And a darn good thing, too. I want those perverts in jail where they can
.02
a) be away from kids, and
b) know the fear and intimidation of being powerless against their attackers.
I know people get bent out of shape 'round here about "Your Rights Online" and claim that the thought police are unfairly busting people for mere fantasy, but I strongly object to that characterization.
No physical act every occurs that doesn't first occur in someone's mind. Sexual "fantasy" eventually moves from thought to action. Lust is demanding, and unchecked, is never satisfied. We're talking about adults, making plans to go see young teenage boys or girls with the explicit intent to have sex with them. These people *do* take advantage of kids, and I think it's great that someone is stepping in to hold them accountable.
You don't have the right to nurture fantasies about sex with children. I don't care if you think you do. It's twisted, and kids will be harmed if that kind of thinking is not stopped.
To put it another way, when it was almost universally "unthinkable" in our culture to hit little old ladies over the head with rocks, it *almost* never happened. The prevalence and anonymity of internet pornography increases the undercurrent of societal acceptance of this kind of behavior. As more people become perverted in their thinking, molestation of kids *will* increase. Someone needs to stop it.
Just my
At the end of your life, as you look back to this point in your life, which choice will you wish you would have made?
What REALLY matters to you? How do you define success as a man?
For me, the amount of closeness in my relationship with my wife and my kids is fundamentally important. I refuse to consider any opportunities which will require me to be away from home on a regular basis. Does this limit me? In some ways, yes. I know for sure that I could make more money - perhaps double or triple what I'm making now. The fact is, I would not trade any amount of money for the relationships I have.
On their deathbed, I know of few people who long to have made more upwardly mobile career choices, or who desire having spent more time working. At the end of life, people usually think about legacy.
What legacy would you leave if today you breathed your last? Are you happy with that? If not, make different choices tonight, tomorrow and each day for the days you have left.
This is *your* life. Are you who you want to be?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
One reason I go by the moniker "anomaly" :)
I have 4 kids 5 and under, and my wife is pregnant with our 5th child.
:)
I suppose that it's *technically* possible that I'm celibate and that she's involved in infidelity. However, I'm definitely not celibate, and the repeated pregancies should provide ample evidence that I'm having intercourse on a regular basis. I guess you'll have to take my word for that, though.
Thanks for giving me a laugh.
I love to tinker. I'm writing this on a Windows Laptop, but I'm also listening to some music playing on my Apple desktop, and this post flows through my home network where http proxies are running on my Linux server - which hosts my mail, proxy server, internet filter, backup drives, and probably about a dozen other services I'm forgetting at the moment. My point is that I probably don't qualify as one you would describe as a "lazy user."
Having made that disclaimer, most people buy computers to do a task, not to tinker. In fact, the reason I switched my desktops to Mac OS X from Linux (where I had been an almost exclusive linux desktop user for 6-7 years) was because what was possible on Linux was made easy under Mac OS X. I looked seriously at cinelerra and Kino and other tools for editing home movies, and decided that iMovie/iDVD was quite adequate to meet my needs. Does that make me lazy? No. It means that I wanted a tool for a particular purpose, and found one.
Windows *owns* the market. You want to "beat" them? Make the transition seamless and painless for the customer. It's like making a "better" car where the turn signal lever is mounted on the right by default. (You've got 300 other options available from the config file, too) Also, the clutch pedal is on the far left - about twice as far as in "regular" cars, and the shift lever is longer and includes the volume control for the stereo. You might make the argument that people would prefer these changes, and it's not hard to get used to them, or that they could "easily" modify the configuration to match the "inferior" standard car. Would that make people who are frustrated by these minor differences lazy?
I submit that it's this "insult the user" mindset on the part of the OS community that slows adoption of superior tools. People are not stupid - they also generally have no interest in becoming an auto mechanic or a PC mechanic. There's nothing wrong with you being an expert in lots of different configurations - that interests you. Good for you. Make the "better" product just like the original - only better, and people will want to follow in your footsteps.
As an example, I suggest to you Vim. It's pretty geeky, but look at what it did. It incorporated all of the fuctions that vi provided - exactly the same way that vi provides them, and ALSO provides about a zillion enhancements. People who switch back and forth find basic functions work exactly the same in either product, and enhanced functions are available when on the better product. Does that make Vim designers bad designers, or people who choose Vim stupid or lazy? I suggest not. Your mileage may vary.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
if a "shiny new car would impress customers" and that was important to the business, then the company can lease a shiny new car for me and write it off as a business expense. I'll keep driving my clunker, thanks. :)
I'm not getting upside down financially for anyone.
when I read the link in your .sig, I laughed so hard I almost wet myself. I don't have any idea where you could have come up with the kind of time it took to make that crap up.
Thanks for a good belly laugh tonight.
OS X reads fat32, XP reads fat32.
:)
Whatever OS you have running at the time would be able to read the 25% of the space native to the OS (HFS under OS X, NTFS under XP) plus the 50% that is allocated to fat32.
It's just a thought. I don't have an Intel mac at home, and don't anticipate upgrading for more than a year or so at the soonest. I don't have XP at home, and don't need it. Between Linux and OS X, my home needs are met. (I'm not a game player anyway.)
It *would* be fun to get my work to buy a macbook pro for me, especially if someone gets virtualization working well so I can use OS X apps and XP apps fairly transparently. Picture Office and IE in conjunction with my corporate VPN, running concurrently with OS X for my "real life" apps.
So it seems to me that you could partition the disk 25% HFS, 25% NTFS, and 50% fat32 and have access to 75% of your disk space at any given time. Doesn't that address the core of the filesystem problem?
The issue is both broader and deeper than you suggest. Essentially you imply that creationists are irrational and motivated by emotion, who are not introspective.
It's not an emotional rejection, but rather a world view that says that speciation through mutation and time is not correct. I don't make such assertions about those who have an a priori commitment to naturalism, and I would appreciate it if you might offer a bit more charity to those with whom you disagree.
Of course I have an a priori commitment to a philosophy that rejects the time and chance model. In addition, I see a number of things that don't fit the model of a designerless universe, and that don't seem to follow logic in terms of "mutations and adaptations lead to beneficial change, given enough time." That does not mean that I don't see difficulties with alternate theories, just that I disagree with the conclusions drawn by evolutionists.
For what it's worth, I'm a big believer in the scientific method.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I've been working on this project off and on for months. I bought one for around $500 from eBay, and plan to sell it once I'm done. I finally finished scanning recent history, and am as far back as college. After that, I'm taking on dad's slide collection. At this rate I should be done in about 6 months.
:)
This is not an urgent thing for me, but I'm pretty happy with the scans I'm getting. I settled on jpeg and decided to live with scans that end up ~10MB/photo. In raw format, at the highest bit depth, I'd be at over 140MB/photo. Disk is cheap, but not *that* cheap. What I'm getting is darn good, and will more than suffice. I'm not a professional, tho.
Whenever I walk past the computer, I swap out the negatives and queue up four more to be scanned. It takes a while, but my life is not consumed with this effort, either. Thankfully I switched to a digital camera about 4 years ago, so all new pictures are already digital. I know that the scope is limited to the one big container of photos and negatives I've got left to scan.
As I finish a group of pictures, I move the scans to a directory with the rough date of when the photos were taken. I then run a batch utility to update the EXIF data with the "originally taken" date. iPhoto works VERY well with that.
When I'm done I plan to sell the scanner on eBay. We'll see how that works out.
Sorry to say that time does not permit me to make a full response to all of your points. I do have a little time, and have decided that an abbreviated response is preferable to no response.
I'd like to address a couple of points that you made. You may not consider them related, but I do for reasons I hope become obvious shortly.
I'd like to start by pointing out a fundamental fact that seems to be missing from your logic... Homosexuality is not a choice. For such a worldly traveller and intense thinker I'd have thought such a thing would be immediately obvious, but it seems the doctrine behind your faith has clouded your judgment. It's not a "lifestyle" or a "perversion", it's your sexuality. You're born with it. If this wasn't the case then why would you choose it? It merely invites trouble from those with a zeal for faith. It being a choice makes no sense - its like choosing the path of most resistance for the reward of eternal damnation. The idea of homosexuality being unnatural is just a symptom of the puritan hangover that afflicts our society..
I appreciate that it is your position that homosexual attraction is set at or before birth. There are many people who disagree with you, but I refuse to address that point with you. *For the purposes of this discussion,* let me allow that your view is the correct one. This is irrelevant to my response.
With all due respect - and I mean that not in a cliche' sort of way (I do respect you) I think that you may fundamentally misunderstand some of what I believe Christianity to teach. Specifically, the Bible says "the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked" and "all have sinned" It's worse than that. In fact, it says "there is none righteous, not even one." "There is none who seeks after God."
In case you are potentially getting defensive or feeling attacked, please remember that these ideas apply to EVERYONE - not just you. This absolutely includes me as well. How does this relate?
If you will indulge me a bit further, the Bible goes on to say "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers....nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. "
That's a pretty long list of bad things, and it applies pretty much across the board to all people. You see, from a pure and holy (undefiled) God's perspective, even a single imperfection would prevent us from having relationship with Him. If He did, He would no longer be undefiled and pure.
You see, the natural state of mankind is that we are imperfect and unable to be in right relationship with God. Our natural bent is opposed to God - regardless with whom you have sex. (The passage above talks about homosexual behavior as well, but it was not relevant to my point here.)
What I asked for is an explanation for the lack of personal responsibility in most of the population. Have you got an explanation outside the greed encouraged by advertising and the education system?
The root cause of this is the same as *every* sin. The natural desire of man is selfishness and pride.
God made a way to overcome the sinful nature of man. He came to earth and lived a life of perfection. As a result, those who essentially say to God "don't look at me - talk to my attorney - Jesus Christ" have hope. Those who trust in Christ's righteousness have the following said about them as the passage above continues...
"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
God's standard is perfect righteousness and holiness. The natural desire of man is to rebel against God - regardless of the gender of your sexual partners.
Am I screaming at the wall here trying to convey the idea that it's not all missionary position?
If it were any of your business what I do in my bedroo
I can't explain how much I respect the fact that you use a tone of derision while failing to address any of the meaningful components of my response. It's admirable how much you demonstrated the capabilities of your intellect.
Want to score some points? Drop the ridiculous attitude, and start conversing like an adult. I brought up some points that are *not* misdirection, ad hominem, or "inferiority-complex" related and you ignore those. Thanks for your ad hominem attack against me personally, and against people like me, though.
Hind-quarters of a large rodent, indeed.
I appreciate that you can respect Dembski's intellect. For what it's worth, Gould was brilliant - although his worldview affected his science to the point of making his intellect lack productivity. He was, simply, wrong.
I fully comprehend the difference between abiogenesis and speciation through evolution.
It's vain of you to claim that you know how I think. In fact, you don't know me, or my thoughts. Lumping me in with the stereotype in your head of thoughtless religious nuts is really pretty small minded of you as well.
Let me ask you this, smart guy. It seems to me that the problem is somewhat greater than spontaneous generation from existent matter.
Where did the first matter come from?
Science is about observability and repetition of the observed phenomenon.
Scientists did not observe the initiation of the existence of matter, and were not present at the genesis of this universe. As such, they are limited to the facts that they can collect today. It is not possible to repeat the genesis of the universe, either. As such, it's not possible to follow the scientific method to evaluate the therories. Origins is not the stuff of science because it's really speculation. Note that I am not disputing that evidence can be collected, relationships between pieces of evidence can be noted, and explanations can be created, but not TESTED!
WRT speciation, it's true that we see differentiation between members of the same species and it is demonstrable fact that an evolutionary process exists within a kind of creature. However, it is not conclusive that lots of adaptation leads directly to speciation given enough time, adaptation and mutation.
We're not mindless religious zealots. We have the same evidence you have, and have differing theories about the activities behind the evidence. You don't have to like it, but it's pretty thoughtless of you to generalize our worldview as the province of morons or the deluded.
Anomaly
I can hear the naturalists clacking away at their keyboards in glee with the "smoking gun" that evolution has finally been "proven" and that the creationists will have to sit in stunned silence under the weight of the evidence finally presented.
Let's not oversimplify this discussion. Thoughtful, intelligent people on both sides of this debate have passion, and conviction. As a creationist, I welcome advances in knowledge that arise from investigation of the physical realm. I respect men (and women) of science, and applaud this new discovery - but that changes not my conviction that a creator made the planet as it is. There are enough complexities and challenges with the idea of evolution as a means of speciation that one more discovery does not put a nail in the coffin of creationism.
I'm not looking to start a debate on this issue, but I am hoping to raise the level of discussion by respectfully asking those who would use this occasion to ridicule people with whom they disagree to please refrain. This is a complex issue and cheap shots are not productive. I will refrain from ridicule as well. Deal?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I have looked at splunk. I've got a copy of their eval of professional installed, and it's interesting. There are a lot of things that they do well. Marketing isn't one of them, but the underlying technology is pretty cool.
Here's where they shine: finding data lost in a log file. Picture if you will a log file with free-form text in parts and XML in other parts. With no training about what the log looked like, their tool could do a great job of identifying patterns in the free-form text - essentially blocks or "records" of data there, and pulling out the XML sections.
You can search for patterns in the data, and splunk will help identify them for you. The data import and pattern-matching parts of their code are platform agnostic. There are no adapters to buy, and no "training" to find useful data patterns. I think that they are doing a good job on the technologyside of things, and it's definitely worth the time to look at this tool.
Please note: I have no affiliation with Splunk. I'm not even one of their customers. I have no reason to promote their product. I've looked at it and they do a good job of finding obscure data.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I've enjoyed this interchange, but my famlilial responsibilities will call me away soon. Some final thoughts, if you'll indulge me.
it's the fact that people who don't share all those views are forced to live by them when they are written in law. Isn't that unfair?
It's called democracy. Change the hearts and minds of the masses and then you can have your way. Don't like that? I know of no other option than to suggest revolution or move to another place. Here's the challenge: What do you do when your value system and mine directly conflict? What if your value system called for you to consume large quantities of alcohol then barf on my lawn. What about what I want?
On the issue of divorce:
Couples give up FAR too easily. It's not a real choice to say "fight all the time or divorce" The big problem is a lack of relationship skills which leaves people feeling like separation is the only viable option. I'm not suggesting divorce be eliminated, but we as a culture should do more to shore up the family unit - perhaps making divorce more difficult by requiring some counseling and coaching before the court grants the divorce.
Lack of responsibility:
So, you suggest that the law is unfair or unjustly limiting your personal freedoms, and that you want to be freed to live out the values that you choose because you are a responsible person. Can you see that the culture around you has laws to restrain behavior, and even with that help, people seem largely unable or unwilling to take that responsibility? It seems to me that removal of law would worsen not help that problem.
Health issues of homosexuals:
Anecdotes do not a good study make. As I read on this issue (and I do read lay literature with some regularity - not the journals themselves) it seems to me that the studies indicate that the relative mental health you assess in your friends is not consistent with the homosexual population at large. The science appears pretty clear here. Can you point to scientific analysis on this issue that supports your experience?
Homophobia hurts more than anal sex. Will you please define homophobia? The reason I ask is that I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. If tolerance is a part of your response, would you kindly define that term for me? My belief is that the colloquial use of that word differs significantly from the denotative meaning, and I want to make sure that we mean the same thing when we use emotionally charged words.
STDs are an epidemic in the heterosexual community. Condom use is not the answer. There is no substitute for abstinence until a lifelong marriage to protect one from emotional and physical challenges. Heterosexual men and women need to quit having sex outside marriage, but the message of sex without consequenses is rampant, and when viewed through the lens of objective science, is demonstrably false.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I get the feeling that you haven't exposed yourself to a lot of political thought alternative to the system you now live under. Your replies all smack of pamphlet rhetoric rather than having any semblance of reflection behind them. It's as if you've blindly accepted everything taught to you without an iota of analysis.
:)
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they don't think. It's vain of you to believe that this is the case.
Frankly you know little of me, my life history or the path I've taken to arrive at this philosophical destination. I have looked into a number of other world views, I've traveled internationally and seen firsthand the outcomes of some of those world views. I've taken a long, thoughtful and winding path to get here.
Accept nothing at face value - there's usually something deeper going on.
Should I accept that prescription at face value?
Why were the following small list of fun activities outlawed in Ireland: Homosexuality, sodomy, contraception, divorce...?
I know that we'll hit a brick wall on this, but I'll try again anyway. The law is a teacher and a protector of society. Let me first address the areas other than contraception.
Speaking sociologically and physically these things are to the detriment of the individual and to the culture. Divorce is detrimental because thousands of studies have consistently shown that children have the best opportunity to grow up and be productive members of society when there is a mother and a father in the home. Financially, when the resources allocated for the family are split between two households, the standard of living declines for everyone. Stepfamilies are particularly unsafe places - the risk of physical and sexual abuse are much higher in those situations.
Homosexuality is unhealthy for people - males in particular. The GLMA lists the top 10 health risks for gays and lesbians. Are you aware that only 1 of the top 10 risks to gay men is the same as for heterosexual men? (Prostate cancer.) The large intestine and rectum were not designed for the trauma of sexual activity and the human immune system is threatened by that type of activity as well. This may offend, but the medical evidence stands against this activity.
So what if it hurts only you and the other person? Should it be legal then? I don't think so. You are a part of society and we all bear the cost of psychological and medical care for people who make bad choices. From the alcoholic with liver damage, to the drug addict who has no insurance and needs emergency care, to the increased health complications of *all* bad health choices. For what it's worth, I think that we should do something to address the financial implications of the obesity epidemic sweeping the US these days. I have not yet decided what I think should be done, but it's to the detriment of our culture that people have so little self-discipline that they are becoming obese in record numbers. Some may have legitimate medical roots of obesity, but the majority are simply undisciplined. This lack of personal discipline and accountability will eventually do great harm to our nation.
I've never made an argument in favor of outlawing contraception, but I can see that it's possible to argue for that. In the US, we have a problem. The number of Americans headed for retirement age is huge. The baby boomer generation is going to begin to collect social security, and the number of people paying into the social security system is dwindling. If we had not allowed 40 million legal abortions in the last 35 years, we'd have at least 30 million + more adults in the US who could have helped contribute to the economy and also pay taxes to help support the boomers.
Having more kids is *not* bad for society or the economy. There are consequenses of extramarital sex, even without pregnancy or STDs, there are emotional problems that come from that behavior. With no access to contraceptives, there would b
I note you're omitting a lot of the points I'm making for some reason. :)
.... Religion influences my existence and restricts the choices I can make for no reason I am able to fathom. If you know why please explain it to me - I want my free will!
I'll give you five reasons. My wife, and each of my 4 sons.
All truth is relative
Is that statement absolutely true?
the idea of law if I might. I find a lot of it evil. Sure, there's stuff that most of us can agree with like assault, murder and (if you like to own things) damage to or theft of property. The rest of it smacks of either religiously inspired restriction of personal freedom or mindless beaurocracy that seems designed purely to make life difficult.
I'm sure that you would agree with me that we have a history of at least 5,000 years of organized society. Where can you point to an example of a successful society without the rule of law?
Does law deny free will?
Don't we all? Of course all of us want to do what we want. Ask a newborn baby about that! The fact is that we share this space and interact with each other mean that we do need "rules of the road" as you pointed out in a former posting.
Here's how I see it: Without the law as a teacher and a restraint, you would not have the opportunity to consider the things you think you want to do. If you look at countries where the rule of law is not present - like present-day Zimbabwe. Unemployment there hovers around 80%. Please keep in mind that in the great depression, unemployment in the US was around 25%.
You might not like the laws we've got, but your freedoms would be greatly reduced. You need the law. If there are laws you dislike, get them changed!
Respectfully,
Anomaly