Esspecially as I have never heard of Mr. Howdershelt, and it appears that he writes some very interesting fiction. Purely on the amusement value of his various self-written bio blurbs ("I was born at a very early age. I joined the army in order to dodge the draft...") I think I'm going to have to read some.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply dump gatorade or something similar into the drinking water supply? After all, the human body can't go much more than a few days without drinking water, and less than that under exertion. I doubt all the military research in the world is likely to change that.
Er, I suggest you actually read one of the atkins books, rather than spouting what other people say.
1. Atkins heavily endorses exercise. I believe he's the one who says in one of his books that if you are over 100 and/or confined to bed for non-weight medical reasons, you can call him and he'll write you a note saying you don't have to exercise, but that everyone else needs to exercise.
2. Atkins in no way says that his diet is for everybody. It works very well for most people who have been significantly overweight for a long time and have failed to get results from low-fat, low-protein high carb diets. Specifically it works very well for people who are prone to high insulin levels and a few other metabolic things.
3. There is no evidence that I know of that 'most Atkins-diet people complain of low energy levels' after the first 1-4 days. The first 1-4 days are crappy if you happen to have abnormally high insulin levels, because if you're not dumping sugar by the bucketful into your bloodstream, that insulin has nothing to do but knock your blood sugar ridiculously low. This goes away after a few days as insulin levels normalize and your energy levels go back to normal or higher than normal. If they don't, then you may not be a good candidate for the Atkins diet. People's metabolisms are different. Some people can eat huge amount of the crappiest food, remain healthy and never get fat. Some people can eat the healthiest diet in the world and still have issues.
3. Induction is certainly not a balanced diet or appropriate for long term use, but it's only supposed to be used for 2 weeks. After that, one slowly brings up one's carbs -- first to the level that allows sustainable weight loss, then slowly up to the level that allows one to maintain that weight loss, rather than gain it back. The last level varies from person to person, but is usually at least 60-100 grams of carbohydrate a day, sometimes more. This is sufficient to create a balanced diet, though it means that you can't eat the USDA suggest amount of 11(!!!!!) servings of bread a day. I've always felt that that was an insane amount anyway, but maybe that's just because I can't eat bread at all.
I suppose it's worth mentioning that I may have a skewed opinion of how easy it is to create balanced diet, because I've spent my adult life making a balanced diet out of a highly restricted list of foods, due to food allergy and celiac disease. Compared to this, just avoiding high carb foods is a cinch.
4. Atkins is not inherently high in fat or cholesterol. I'll grant it doesn't inherently limit these in the way that most diets do, but it is easy to set up a low fat low cholesterol atkins compliant diet, and Atkins does suggest that this is wise. That said, dietary fat and cholesterol intake do not necessarily correspond with blood levels. I've known plenty of vegans with high cholesterol, and my cholesterol went down when I moved off a vegan diet, even though my cholesterol intake went up. (Though I went off because of sudden onset of soy allergy, not because of the cholesterol).
Incidently, for some people, lack of fat is worse than too much fat (at least up to a point). The only thing that helped my eczema (and other health issues) more than getting the stuff I was allergic to out of my diet was getting off a low fat diet. Your body needs fat too. (IT's worth knowing that not all fat is created alike, as well)
Also, I used to jog 30 minutes a day, followed by weightlifting and stretching, which, combined with warmup and cool down meant that I was exercising for about 1 hour 20 minutes every day. I did this for six months. I didn't lose any weight at all (though I did see other health benefits). Combining it with a low fat/low calorie diet didn't help, either, no matter where I drew the calorie line or fat line (I tried fat levels from 10% to 30% and calorie levels from 1000 to 2000kCal/day). This may have something to do with the fact that in the great karmic game of life I drew the 'crazy mom' card and
There are laws, federal and state, that mandate certain safety features and outlaw things that are considered unsafe In MA, those running lights that some car-modders are so fond of are illegal. In most states there is some form of safety inspection that must be passed before a car can be registered. And for the most part, this all makes sense. It's not really an unreasonable burden to pay something under $50 (I don't know of a state where the safety inspection costs more, but I haven't lived in all states, either) and wait in line/wait for them to check your car once every year or two in order to make the roads safer for everybody. None of us really wants a car with no brakes out on the road.
But this is ridiculous. First, because it's an unreasonable financial burden on *somebody*, whomever has to pay to put a huge number of devices in every car. Second, because if all of those devices are enabled (the legislation says that the devices have to be installed, but doesn't mention if they have to be enabled or not), it is a significant burden on every driver in the state, for reasons that have been well discussed here.
Sounds like a real PITA. Next time consider buying with cash. My current vehicle ('87 Toyota 4runner, just turned 208k, was around 203k when I bought it) cost me $810 (actually, the $10 was for the manual that the previous owner had). Right now it requires outlays of about $200/mo in repairs and maintainance, which is less than or equal to what I'd have to pay monthly for a relatively inexpensive used car purchased on credit. I'm expecting that to end sometime in May. Even so, it's quite drivable and has yet to strand me, which is more than I can say about my $10k 1997 saturn, which stranded me three times in the year I owned it, and ended up requiring an average of $400/mo maintainance and repair over that year (mostly fixing the transmission and brakes), on top of the $255.55 monthly payment. Not to mention the extra cost of insurance. My insurance payment with the truck is half of what the saturn was, simply because I don't have to pay for comprehensive, just the state minimum.
Granted, it's a pain in the butt when someone steals it and/or crunches it (it got stolen, crunched and abandoned within a few weeks of buying it. I've done some modding to keep that from happening again, but I couldn't prevent someone else from driving into it while it was legally and well parked on the side of the road at a friends. Dorchester drivers *suck* -- it was parked at the same friend's house when it was stolen, too) but even after repairs I've still come out ahead (though it pushed the length of the heavy repair/maintainance period -- the $200/mo until may -- out, since I had to repair the damage these dorks did to my truck as well as the existing issues).
So you might consider all this next time you're in the market for a car. Www.cartalk.com is a useful resource (and rather amusing, too).
If the 'buy a really cheap older reliable car and run it until it dies' doesn't appeal to you, at least do yourself a favor and next time you buy a new car, get the loan from a bank or credit union, rather than the dealer. Those loans are where dealers make ridiculous amounts of money -- on interest and surcharges, yadda. And apparently where they find new and interesting ways to make you bend over for them, if your story is any indication.
Better yet, find a credit union you can join, join it, and never leave. You can move states (and probably countries) and keep your accounts at most credit unions. They normally don't charge monthly fees for basic account usage, so it doesn't cost you anything to keep a minimal amount of money in there (it requires $5 to keep my credit union account open) and they'll give you the best deal on a car loan (and mortgages, and often credit cards -- I have a permanant 12.9 APR on my credit card, and my credit is not spotless by any means). And likely, they won't ask you to input little numbers once a month.
I would think that there would be good cause to sue SCO for extortion and racketeering, far more than the RIAA (who suck, but I do think the logic is a bit thin). If SCO loses their case (and face it, nothing substantative has come out of this yet, and I'm of the opinion that if they had something substantative, anything at all, it would have come out already), anyone who bought one of their $700 "Linux Licenses" ought to be all over them.
While 'skyrocketing' is overstatement, it's not fair to compare the individual costs of unemployment in very socialized countries to those in not so socialized countries.
Over half of those in prison are there because of minor drug offenses that would not be crimes if not for the war on some drugs (as opposed to drug offenses that still would be -- murder is murder and robbery is robbery, no matter if drugs are involved or not). Prisons take money from taxpayers and keep people out of the work force. The economic cost of keeping people prisoner is very high. In the case of people who actually criminally harm other people, the cost/benefits ratio is high. In the case of people who happened to be carrying around a plant, it's pretty damn low.
The U.S. has the highest percentage of citizens in prison of any industrialized country. It does *not* have the lowest crime rates, not even nearly. Are we locking more people up than we need to or are we producing more criminals? Either of these cases is a problem.
American children aren't obese because of an excess of food, exactly. If this were the case, it would affect the upper classes *more* than the lower classes. The problem is a combination of readily available food that is calorie dense but not nutrient dense, often a lack of nutrient dense food and a lack of exercise. Nutrient dense foods are expensive, marketing has completely screwed up most americans -- and that includes american parents -- ideas of what healthy food is, and it requires time to prepare nutrious food (or even more money to have someone prepare it for you) which many parents simply don't have, because they are working two and three jobs just to keep a roof over their kids' head and food -- any food -- on the table. The U.S. has a fairly large number of people whom are both obese and malnourished, at the same time.
The exercise problem is also exacerbated by poverty. TV becomes a babysitter when parents are too tired and burnt out from working to actually parent. Kids can't go out and play because mom and/or dad are at work and there's no one to make sure they don't get kidnapped from the playground. In some areas there's simply no place for kids to play. And in a misguided attempt to increase academic acheivement, some schools are loading their pupils down with so much work that they simply don't have time. They do away with things like Phys ed and shorten recess time for budget reasons and to increase time for academics, and give even second graders two and three hours of homework a night. At least one school I know of has a rule -- one hour of homework for each grade -- their sixth graders are expected to complete six hours of homework a night.
And *some* poor people in the U.S. get cable TV. And some don't even have TVs, and if they did, they'd have no use for them, and no room in the car they live in, or the shelter they stay in. People do die of starvation and exposure due to poverty in the U.S. Just because a few poor people decide that paying for cable TV is a priority, doesn't mean that everyone who is poor in this country even has that option. The poverty level in this country is around $600/month for a single person (I don't remember exactly) -- but there is a *huge* difference between having nothing, or even $100/mo and $600 -- "low income" goes up to $1500/mo or so (again, for a single person) -- the difference between $600 and $1500/month is *huge*. If you don't believe me, try looking at your own budget. Cut it back until you could survive on $1500 a month. Now cut it back until you could survive on $600. Bet it was a hell of a lot harder. Imagine how much fun it would be to live out that budget of yours now. For extra credit, you could pretend that you have asthma and no health insurance and must buy $220 worth of meds a month to continue breathing. Feel free to repeat with any other health condition or other complicating factors in one's life.
Certainly, someone who is healthy and very good at managi
A. Because if they hold your money, they know they'll get it. Plus, the spectre of a refund is incentive to do your taxes.
B. Because then they wouldn't get to hold your money interest free. (Hey, interest free loans are great -- given inflation, the borrower technically makes money on them)
I think Maryland must be doing something similar. Several months ago they hit me for something like $5000 for 2001. The problem with this was that I lived in California for the entirety of 2001, with the exception of the last three weeks. Two of those were spent in transit across country, and the last was spent in Philadelphia. No Maryland anywhere in there. However, I did move to Maryland breifly in Feb 2002, filed my taxes, stayed a while longer and then moved to Taxachusetts. And because I filed my taxes there they decided they were entiled to a cut of 2001 as well as 2002 (they already had their cut of 2002).
So I sent back a reply explaining this and haven't heard from them since.
Re:Another source of reliable information
on
Cyberchondria
·
· Score: 1
Your money, guided in part by special interests.
I'm not saying that all government funded/published studies are trash (they aren't) but using just the U.S. government as a source is probably not wise (just as using any one source for information is not wise). And there are a few topics on which the U.S. gets some very different results than other trustworthy institutions.
OTOH, most vendors are a really lousy source of information.
But I am personally of the opinion that any professional (doctor or otherwise) that discourages me from educating myself about their field is problematic.
For example, if one of my customers comes to me and says "I did this research and I think the best server to buy for my purpose is this," I would *never* tell them that they shouldn't do their own research. If they were wrong, I'd tell them that and why I thought that they were wrong, offer better options and explain why they were better. But I'd never tell them that it was a bad idea to go look up information on their own.
If my doc is on the up and up (and I think most are) then my doing research shouldn't threaten him (or her). If my doc is upset by my research, either they have serious personality issues or aren't on the up and up. Either of these things is a good reason to find another doctor.
Can you imagine people being told by their accountants that they shouldn't read http://www.irs.gov? Or computer professionals telling users that they should never look things up on microsoft or redhat's websites? What would you think if your car mechanic told you not to look up an allegedly needed repair in a haynes or chilton manual? All of these cases would be suspect, and so should any doctor who has an issue with people doing their own homework.
Perhaps the dosage was appropriate. Perhaps it was so for good reasons, but the doctor coudln't remember exactly why. The appropriate response in this case is to offer to get back to the patient with more information at a later time, not to tell the patient to stop doing research.
Until ten years later you discover that they symptoms that the doctor said were 'stress' turn out to be a genetic disease that, untreated, leads to malnutrition, diabetes and cancer (and possibly a number of 'lesser' issues -- mental and physical, but those haven't been proven).
Until they forget to tell you that your biopsy came back positive. And you don't find out for two years, and then only because you decided you needed your records for, well, your records. Fortunately, the 'positive' in that case was a lab error. At least, I think it was, since later (two *years* later) biopsies were negative. However, the original doctors had no way of knowing that it was a mistake. What even better is that at the time they claimed that they had never done the test.
Until they screw up a lab (different doctors, different states even), declare you to have an untreatable STD and tell you never to have sex again. Esspecially when your second (and then third) opinion docs find that you never had said STD to begin with.
And that doesn't touch the great psychotropic debacle.
These aren't 'friend of a friend' stories -- all of these things happened to me, personally.
And then there's the flip side -- overprescribed medication is a major problem in the U.S. And the second or third leading cause of death in this country are doctors and hospitals-- either because of medical mistakes or because of drug reactions (this doesn't take into account people who purposely OD, but does take into account people who OD because of prescription mistakes).
These days, I do my own research (it helps that I have a good background -- my mom is a nurse and I read her books for fun when I was a kid) and I treat doctors as equals. I'll listen to them, but at the end of the day, I only trust my own judgement. It is *my* health and *my* life, after all.
It's 'well known' that during nursing school/med school, for some time period (which varies from person to person) one will feel as if one has every disease one is learning about. I got over this at about eight years of age (yes, I did it too -- used to cry myself to sleep because I was sure I was dying of cancer or radiation poisoning or something). I wonder how many of these people are 'true' hypochondriacs, and how many of these people will get over it in a reasonable amount of time.
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but not knowing you broke the law (for reasons other than ignorance of the laws themselves) is, sometimes.
This is why 'not guilty by reason of [insanity/mental defect/etc]' exists. If you killed someone because you believed them to be a monster who was going to kill you if you didn't kill them first (due to something other than illegal drugs) and did not realize at the time you were doing it that it was wrong (because you really thought you were in danger, not because you didn't know murder was against the law) than you aren't culpable. In theory, anyway.
If one could convince the jury that one really didn't know that 'cookingrecipies.zip' was the windows source code, then one would have a good chance and getting off. The question is whether or not the jury believes one (which is a function of who the jury is, and expert testimony, and other stuff).
Incidently, this would *not* be carte blanche for [insert baddies here], because it's relatively easy to prove (unless one is very security clued, in which case, why wasn't your whole hard drive encrypted anyway) that one opened the archive and viewed what was inside, and if one did not delete it immediately, one obviously knew what was in it and kept it anyway.
Another example. Say I steal a car, fake up some documentation for it and put an ad in the classifieds. You see the ad and decide to buy the car from me. Later, the police stop you and discover that the car was stolen. Since you had no way of knowing it was stolen, after they have confirmed this (they probably won't believe what you say, but the documentation will clear you) you won't be held responsible for buying stolen property (which is a crime too). They will, however, take the car away from you, not because you are guilty of a crime, but because it's still not yours.
The rest of your examples involve kids, which are a special legal case. In general, parents (and gaurdians and sometimes other 'adults in charge')are considered to be responsible for the behavior of their children. Whether or not this is right or a good idea is certainly debateable, but the practical upshot is that, no matter whether you know what your kid (or any child under your care) is up to, whether or not you encourage or discourage their behavior, it is assumed that you have responsibility for them and control over them and their behaviors are a direct result of yours, whether or not this is actually the case.
And this is why the grandfather in your examples got hit so hard -- it is assumed that since he was 'in charge' (of the computer and the kids using it) he had control of their behavior. He is, in effect, being punished because he failed to supervise the kids well enough. (Again, fairness of this is debateable, but that's the logic).
The beer example also assumes that the adults were supposed to supervise the kids and the beer. If, instead of your kid running off with a beer from a cooler, the case was that a neighborhood kid who wasn't invited, snuck into the house while everyone was in the backyard and raided the fridge, there'd be less culpability. Certainly, if some kids broke into your house and got drunk on your liquor cabinet while you were out of town, they'd have to prove some serious negligence on your part to make charges stick.
There are some exceptions to this. Most notable is the guy I knew (in Olympia, WA) who sold beer to someone who showed him what appeared to be a valid WA driver's license. The license was so good that the police officer who later stopped that person (who had the beer and receipt with them) didn't realize it was a fake until he ran it through the computer and the number didn't match the info. The cashier did not have access to any way of confirming the number. Despite this, the cashier and store were fined and the cashier may not work at any store that sells alcohol (so yes, he lost his job) for a period of some years.
All of the 'exceptions' I can think of seem to invo
I'm going to end up back in school next year, and I've been reevaluating (it's been six or seven years since I've been in school) my strategy.
Unlike a lot of people here, for me a laptop for taking notes is a great improvement over the pen and paper way because I have small motor control issues that make handwriting a real issue.
And for this reason I was looking at tablets a few months ago. The conclusion I came to was this is still awfully young technology. Not worth it to me to gamble on it, either in terms of money or in terms of potential future tech problem headaches and time. I'll be using the updated version of the setup I've been using since 1991 -- Laptop computer (actually, I didn't get one of those until 1995, prior to that I had to transcribe notes daily, and borrow other people's or ask the teacher for help filling in the blanks if I couldn't keep up), desktop computer (for syncing and to run the heavy stuff), paper notebook and scanner. Type words in, lable where the figures go, draw the figures on the paper and scan them in later.
In this case, the laptop cost me $200 last year (it's not new, but it's an amd k6-2-233/64MB system -- more than enough for running a few editors. heavy processor stuff can be run on the desktop), the scanner $40 at Fry's three years ago, and my desktop, which i'd provide an estimate for if I had any clue (my desktop is always an ongoing project -- I'm sure there's plenty of folks here who understand how that works).
But the best part -- not only did all this stuff cost me less than a new tablet PC, but I already own it, would own it whether or not I go to school, and use it, so it's cost doesn't even really count.
So I can consider spending money on upgrades for the current system, like a flat panel monitor to replace the CRT, or a twiddler which I think might be more convenient for note taking in lecture, or a new motherboard/processor, if it turns out that the PIII with half a gig of RAM in the desktop isn't quite up the requirements of modern education (though I'm inclined to wait on that, simply because the system works fine now, and I don't yet see any obvious application that would require more power). Or I can spend my money on my secondary (because it's still experimental) solution. I already have a device with a touch screen -- a Palm VIIx. I've been wanting to outfit it with a keyboard. Unfortunately, the cheaper 3rd party ones that I've tried don't work with it, so I may end up forking out for the offical palm keyboard. But in theory, combined with a good palm drawing program (of which there are several) this would provide full functionality for note taking. And even if one doesn't have a palm (or similar device) now, one can be had for *much* cheaper than any tablet, and the technology is more mature and stable.
Not to mention, a palm (or similar) and keyboard weights far less than a tablet (or a laptop, for that matter).
Yeah, humans have this whole social hierarchy thing, and it is somehow more distilled in high school. And a balanced approach (like yours, though the same approach wouldn't be balanced in, say, an office) seems to be the best way to deal with it. Don't bully people who aren't causing problems, because that's unfair and cruel, and don't back down when other people are causing problems, because that just encourages them.
The problem that I have is that this system does the opposite -- it 'backs down' and rewards people who are showing signs of aggression and 'bullies' (though I'll grant that's overstatement) those who remain patient and reasonable by making them get in line behind those who are being aggressive.
From my experience, I think that giving 'lower classes' shit and/or badmouthing them, etc in order to gain social standing is only required if you are trying to gain social standing by joining or trying to gain the favor of the more popular group, AND if that popular group chooses to use negative tactics such as that to maintain popularity. There are other ways to improve social standing, such as not taking shit from anybody, and becoming more popular because people are more drawn to you (because of confidence/charisma is one to think about in your case, btw -- this may have more to do with it than aggressivness) and these tactics don't require negativity.
Incidently, ignore all the adults who say that this sort of thing doesn't happen in adult life. It does, it just becomes more subtle and 'civilized' (beating up one's lessers gets one charged with battery, as does putting your coworkers heads in toliets).
more than that, the comments in the first paragraph were a little, er, loose with the science. In schizophrenia the social implications come from the brain not getting other information correct. It's difficult to handle social interaction when your reality is different from everyone else's. Whether or not this is the case in autism is more debateable, but I think if you floated the idea that autism is caused or would be significantly helped by an increase in bonding hormones, you'd have to provide far more evidence than handwaving to be taken seriously. There's too much evidence for other causes (like scrambled sensory input during the years where social interaction schemes are first put down -- this also explains why some infants/toddlers in institutions where they do not receive significant interaction from caregivers display 'autistic like' behavior -- they do so because they don't get the interaction that an autistic child does get, but can't take advantage of because of the sensory scrambling -- I'm not saying that this set of theories is correct either, but there's a hell of a lot more evidence that that approach than a hormonal imbalance).
But it sort of quietly echos the refrigerator mother hypothesis, which is well disproven now. It also implies that people with autism or schizophrenia have some innate issue with falling in love or bonding, caused by their illness, which isn't generally the case and is a problematic assumption made by people who don't have these conditions who then manage to project them on those that do.
Cursing (there's a scientific word for this -- corpra-something, but I'm too lazy to go look it up) is actually only a tic in a significant minority of people with Tourettes syndrome. It usually manifests with both physical and verbal tics, but the verbal tics are 'bad words' in only about 40% of people with Tourettes.
Actually, that's the official word. What I find, personally, is that about 90% of my verbal tics are *not* cursing -- I tend to announce that objects are blue and then order them to go home (note, I didn't say it made *sense*) or make strange noises (of which 'rark' is one), but every so often I get a several minute stream of 'fuck' or 'fuck you'.
Go fig. Tourettes is strange, but the cursing is only a small part of it experienced by some but not the majority of people with tourettes.
You know, there are plenty of people who don't speak english as a first language who do speak it fluently. Presumably you merely want the (quite practical) result of speaking to someone whom you understand and who can understand you, rather than the (quite bigoted) result of only speaking to someone who was born and raised in an english speaking country.
So really, you want a way to route your calls to someone who actually speaks english *fluently*, rather than as a first language.
(plus, trust me, there are plenty of people who speak english as a first, or only, language who are unintelligible)
the same thing that many other things in society do -- rewards assholic behaviour, punishes 'nice' behavior.
I've spent a fair bit of time pondering my way out of that connumdrum -- I'm naturally a 'nice' person -- which is to say that I consider the viewpoints of the other people around me when choosing my actions. This means that I don't scream or curse or insult people on the other end of the phone. Even when they are telemarketers calling my cell phone (they get told, firmly but politely, that this is a cell phone and they'd best not call it anymore).
But it also means that it takes me longer to get things done, compared with my friend who pretty much starts throwing temper tantrums from the get go. I've noticed this repeatedly (with different people). There are situations in which I come out ahead, or get to the same point faster than my friend, but not as many as one might like. And a few times he's been able to wrangle a solution to a problem of mine (dealing with customer service) that I have not, because I won't throw a temper tantrum on the line. Call it having too much pride or something.
Use some form of public key encryption. Give each camera it's own private key, which cannot be read without destroying the camera (or maybe not even then). The Camera should also come with a copy of it's public key on some appropriate media. The camera should deliver a two files -- the picture and the signature, which can be checked against the public key.
Actually, I'm not sure you even win anything with the write only memory here.
Er, there's a difference between circumference and length. 3.75 inches would be reference to length, not circumference.
So all the guys who are only 4" long ought be consider themselves enough, which is good.
Well, except (to throw a little reality in here), that some (not all) women like to have pressure on their cervix, which requires a little more than 4" (and the exact length varies widely from woman to woman), and some really hate the sensation.
And that leaves out the opinions of gay men (which also vary widely:) )
So, in purely practical terms, the 'ideal' penis size actually is a function of the beholder (shock!)
But I'm rather of the opinion that dildoes are probably cheaper to acquire than partners, so one should probably use other indicators of partner quality. But that's just me.
The thing that everyone seems to overlook is that none of the content issues on the internet are new. In the U.S. (can't speak for Britain) violent porn is legal (except in a few localities, and assuming all actors are over 18), and prior to the net could be acquired via U.S. mail relatively inexpensively. Of course, it's somewhat easier to get it now, just as it's easier to get any data off the internet than it is to send away for it via snail mail.
In short, These problems are not new. Governments haven't 'solved' them in years, why should we suddenly assume they can solve them an an entirely new context?
We do show non-consentual sex in movies and TV. We even do it in ways that puts the viewer 'in the place of' the rapist. There was an interesting study on this several years ago, but it's something that I noticed a long time ago without the benefit of a study -- just observation. If you don't believe me, watch a few hours of Law and Order, SVU and try to think about it in the mindset of someone who would find such a thing exciting (rape/violence, I mean, not necessarily the TV show).
In other words, *if* violent porn helped nurture fantasies that otherwise would have gone unnurtured (an arguable conclusion at best) it's still quite probable that that person would have found a place to nurture those fantasies.
Near as I can tell, crime, even violent crime and sexual crimes, has not gone up due to the advent of the internet.
You know, when I took my first on road driving test (in Virginia, circa 1994) the instructor yelled at me for looking over my shoulder. He said I should keep my eyes forward at all times and only use the mirrors (and this even though my car lacked a passenger side mirror -- in many states they are only mandatory for hearing impaired or other special case drivers). I think they said it in class, too, though honestly I wasn't paying much attention (they said a lot of things that were stupid. My favorite was that one should never shift the car into neutral at a stop light...even if it was a manual).
If this sort of belief/behavior is typical, it's no wonder drivers suck so much.
I've found that intelligent use of blind spot mirrors can make looking over one's shoulder unnecessary in many cases. Of course, one still has to know which cases are which.
> Cats land on their feet. Toast lands jellyside > down. A cat glued to some jelly toast will > hover in quantum indecision
No, the strength of the "cat lands on feet" force is much greater than the strength of the "jelly side down" force. So jelly toast strapped to a cat will always land cat side down (assuming a drop of sufficient length, as cats do not land feet side down if dropped upside down from a height insufficient for turning around). At least, that's what my extensive (and messy) experimentation shows. However, I have been unable to ascertain the effects of lashing two cats together back to back.
(obdisclaimer: no animals were hurt in the making of this post. I do not really think that anyone should lash two cats together back to back -- or lash jelly toast to a cat, for that matter)
Slashdot Mirror
Fixed. Thank you for the heads up.
Esspecially as I have never heard of Mr. Howdershelt, and it appears that he writes some very interesting fiction. Purely on the amusement value of his various self-written bio blurbs ("I was born at a very early age. I joined the army in order to dodge the draft...") I think I'm going to have to read some.
> There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
.sig.
Thank you for the new
Wouldn't it be easier to simply dump gatorade or something similar into the drinking water supply? After all, the human body can't go much more than a few days without drinking water, and less than that under exertion. I doubt all the military research in the world is likely to change that.
Dexedrine -- you mean the drug that if you want in the states and you aren't narcoleptic will get you a one way ticket to a drug treatment program?
Ah, the hippocracy of the war on (some) drugs rears it's ugly head again.
Why am I not surprised?
Er, I suggest you actually read one of the atkins books, rather than spouting what other people say.
1. Atkins heavily endorses exercise. I believe he's the one who says in one of his books that if you are over 100 and/or confined to bed for non-weight medical reasons, you can call him and he'll write you a note saying you don't have to exercise, but that everyone else needs to exercise.
2. Atkins in no way says that his diet is for everybody. It works very well for most people who have been significantly overweight for a long time and have failed to get results from low-fat, low-protein high carb diets. Specifically it works very well for people who are prone to high insulin levels and a few other metabolic things.
3. There is no evidence that I know of that 'most Atkins-diet people complain of low energy levels' after the first 1-4 days. The first 1-4 days are crappy if you happen to have abnormally high insulin levels, because if you're not dumping sugar by the bucketful into your bloodstream, that insulin has nothing to do but knock your blood sugar ridiculously low. This goes away after a few days as insulin levels normalize and your energy levels go back to normal or higher than normal. If they don't, then you may not be a good candidate for the Atkins diet. People's metabolisms are different. Some people can eat huge amount of the crappiest food, remain healthy and never get fat. Some people can eat the healthiest diet in the world and still have issues.
3. Induction is certainly not a balanced diet or appropriate for long term use, but it's only supposed to be used for 2 weeks. After that, one slowly brings up one's carbs -- first to the level that allows sustainable weight loss, then slowly up to the level that allows one to maintain that weight loss, rather than gain it back. The last level varies from person to person, but is usually at least 60-100 grams of carbohydrate a day, sometimes more. This is sufficient to create a balanced diet, though it means that you can't eat the USDA suggest amount of 11(!!!!!) servings of bread a day. I've always felt that that was an insane amount anyway, but maybe that's just because I can't eat bread at all.
I suppose it's worth mentioning that I may have a skewed opinion of how easy it is to create balanced diet, because I've spent my adult life making a balanced diet out of a highly restricted list of foods, due to food allergy and celiac disease. Compared to this, just avoiding high carb foods is a cinch.
4. Atkins is not inherently high in fat or cholesterol. I'll grant it doesn't inherently limit these in the way that most diets do, but it is easy to set up a low fat low cholesterol atkins compliant diet, and Atkins does suggest that this is wise. That said, dietary fat and cholesterol intake do not necessarily correspond with blood levels. I've known plenty of vegans with high cholesterol, and my cholesterol went down when I moved off a vegan diet, even though my cholesterol intake went up. (Though I went off because of sudden onset of soy allergy, not because of the cholesterol).
Incidently, for some people, lack of fat is worse than too much fat (at least up to a point). The only thing that helped my eczema (and other health issues) more than getting the stuff I was allergic to out of my diet was getting off a low fat diet. Your body needs fat too. (IT's worth knowing that not all fat is created alike, as well)
Also, I used to jog 30 minutes a day, followed by weightlifting and stretching, which, combined with warmup and cool down meant that I was exercising for about 1 hour 20 minutes every day. I did this for six months. I didn't lose any weight at all (though I did see other health benefits). Combining it with a low fat/low calorie diet didn't help, either, no matter where I drew the calorie line or fat line (I tried fat levels from 10% to 30% and calorie levels from 1000 to 2000kCal/day). This may have something to do with the fact that in the great karmic game of life I drew the 'crazy mom' card and
There are laws, federal and state, that mandate certain safety features and outlaw things that are considered unsafe In MA, those running lights that some car-modders are so fond of are illegal. In most states there is some form of safety inspection that must be passed before a car can be registered. And for the most part, this all makes sense. It's not really an unreasonable burden to pay something under $50 (I don't know of a state where the safety inspection costs more, but I haven't lived in all states, either) and wait in line/wait for them to check your car once every year or two in order to make the roads safer for everybody. None of us really wants a car with no brakes out on the road.
But this is ridiculous. First, because it's an unreasonable financial burden on *somebody*, whomever has to pay to put a huge number of devices in every car. Second, because if all of those devices are enabled (the legislation says that the devices have to be installed, but doesn't mention if they have to be enabled or not), it is a significant burden on every driver in the state, for reasons that have been well discussed here.
I hope it gets knocked down as unconstitutional.
Sounds like a real PITA. Next time consider buying with cash. My current vehicle ('87 Toyota 4runner, just turned 208k, was around 203k when I bought it) cost me $810 (actually, the $10 was for the manual that the previous owner had). Right now it requires outlays of about $200/mo in repairs and maintainance, which is less than or equal to what I'd have to pay monthly for a relatively inexpensive used car purchased on credit. I'm expecting that to end sometime in May. Even so, it's quite drivable and has yet to strand me, which is more than I can say about my $10k 1997 saturn, which stranded me three times in the year I owned it, and ended up requiring an average of $400/mo maintainance and repair over that year (mostly fixing the transmission and brakes), on top of the $255.55 monthly payment. Not to mention the extra cost of insurance. My insurance payment with the truck is half of what the saturn was, simply because I don't have to pay for comprehensive, just the state minimum.
Granted, it's a pain in the butt when someone steals it and/or crunches it (it got stolen, crunched and abandoned within a few weeks of buying it. I've done some modding to keep that from happening again, but I couldn't prevent someone else from driving into it while it was legally and well parked on the side of the road at a friends. Dorchester drivers *suck* -- it was parked at the same friend's house when it was stolen, too) but even after repairs I've still come out ahead (though it pushed the length of the heavy repair/maintainance period -- the $200/mo until may -- out, since I had to repair the damage these dorks did to my truck as well as the existing issues).
So you might consider all this next time you're in the market for a car. Www.cartalk.com is a useful resource (and rather amusing, too).
If the 'buy a really cheap older reliable car and run it until it dies' doesn't appeal to you, at least do yourself a favor and next time you buy a new car, get the loan from a bank or credit union, rather than the dealer. Those loans are where dealers make ridiculous amounts of money -- on interest and surcharges, yadda. And apparently where they find new and interesting ways to make you bend over for them, if your story is any indication.
Better yet, find a credit union you can join, join it, and never leave. You can move states (and probably countries) and keep your accounts at most credit unions. They normally don't charge monthly fees for basic account usage, so it doesn't cost you anything to keep a minimal amount of money in there (it requires $5 to keep my credit union account open) and they'll give you the best deal on a car loan (and mortgages, and often credit cards -- I have a permanant 12.9 APR on my credit card, and my credit is not spotless by any means). And likely, they won't ask you to input little numbers once a month.
I would think that there would be good cause to sue SCO for extortion and racketeering, far more than the RIAA (who suck, but I do think the logic is a bit thin). If SCO loses their case (and face it, nothing substantative has come out of this yet, and I'm of the opinion that if they had something substantative, anything at all, it would have come out already), anyone who bought one of their $700 "Linux Licenses" ought to be all over them.
I can't believe this was modded up.
While 'skyrocketing' is overstatement, it's not fair to compare the individual costs of unemployment in very socialized countries to those in not so socialized countries.
Over half of those in prison are there because of minor drug offenses that would not be crimes if not for the war on some drugs (as opposed to drug offenses that still would be -- murder is murder and robbery is robbery, no matter if drugs are involved or not). Prisons take money from taxpayers and keep people out of the work force. The economic cost of keeping people prisoner is very high. In the case of people who actually criminally harm other people, the cost/benefits ratio is high. In the case of people who happened to be carrying around a plant, it's pretty damn low.
The U.S. has the highest percentage of citizens in prison of any industrialized country. It does *not* have the lowest crime rates, not even nearly. Are we locking more people up than we need to or are we producing more criminals? Either of these cases is a problem.
American children aren't obese because of an excess of food, exactly. If this were the case, it would affect the upper classes *more* than the lower classes. The problem is a combination of readily available food that is calorie dense but not nutrient dense, often a lack of nutrient dense food and a lack of exercise. Nutrient dense foods are expensive, marketing has completely screwed up most americans -- and that includes american parents -- ideas of what healthy food is, and it requires time to prepare nutrious food (or even more money to have someone prepare it for you) which many parents simply don't have, because they are working two and three jobs just to keep a roof over their kids' head and food -- any food -- on the table. The U.S. has a fairly large number of people whom are both obese and malnourished, at the same time.
The exercise problem is also exacerbated by poverty. TV becomes a babysitter when parents are too tired and burnt out from working to actually parent. Kids can't go out and play because mom and/or dad are at work and there's no one to make sure they don't get kidnapped from the playground. In some areas there's simply no place for kids to play. And in a misguided attempt to increase academic acheivement, some schools are loading their pupils down with so much work that they simply don't have time. They do away with things like Phys ed and shorten recess time for budget reasons and to increase time for academics, and give even second graders two and three hours of homework a night. At least one school I know of has a rule -- one hour of homework for each grade -- their sixth graders are expected to complete six hours of homework a night.
And *some* poor people in the U.S. get cable TV. And some don't even have TVs, and if they did, they'd have no use for them, and no room in the car they live in, or the shelter they stay in. People do die of starvation and exposure due to poverty in the U.S. Just because a few poor people decide that paying for cable TV is a priority, doesn't mean that everyone who is poor in this country even has that option. The poverty level in this country is around $600/month for a single person (I don't remember exactly) -- but there is a *huge* difference between having nothing, or even $100/mo and $600 -- "low income" goes up to $1500/mo or so (again, for a single person) -- the difference between $600 and $1500/month is *huge*. If you don't believe me, try looking at your own budget. Cut it back until you could survive on $1500 a month. Now cut it back until you could survive on $600. Bet it was a hell of a lot harder. Imagine how much fun it would be to live out that budget of yours now. For extra credit, you could pretend that you have asthma and no health insurance and must buy $220 worth of meds a month to continue breathing. Feel free to repeat with any other health condition or other complicating factors in one's life.
Certainly, someone who is healthy and very good at managi
A. Because if they hold your money, they know they'll get it. Plus, the spectre of a refund is incentive to do your taxes.
B. Because then they wouldn't get to hold your money interest free. (Hey, interest free loans are great -- given inflation, the borrower technically makes money on them)
I think Maryland must be doing something similar. Several months ago they hit me for something like $5000 for 2001. The problem with this was that I lived in California for the entirety of 2001, with the exception of the last three weeks. Two of those were spent in transit across country, and the last was spent in Philadelphia. No Maryland anywhere in there. However, I did move to Maryland breifly in Feb 2002, filed my taxes, stayed a while longer and then moved to Taxachusetts. And because I filed my taxes there they decided they were entiled to a cut of 2001 as well as 2002 (they already had their cut of 2002).
So I sent back a reply explaining this and haven't heard from them since.
Your money, guided in part by special interests.
I'm not saying that all government funded/published studies are trash (they aren't) but using just the U.S. government as a source is probably not wise (just as using any one source for information is not wise). And there are a few topics on which the U.S. gets some very different results than other trustworthy institutions.
OTOH, most vendors are a really lousy source of information.
Maybe.
But I am personally of the opinion that any professional (doctor or otherwise) that discourages me from educating myself about their field is problematic.
For example, if one of my customers comes to me and says "I did this research and I think the best server to buy for my purpose is this," I would *never* tell them that they shouldn't do their own research. If they were wrong, I'd tell them that and why I thought that they were wrong, offer better options and explain why they were better. But I'd never tell them that it was a bad idea to go look up information on their own.
If my doc is on the up and up (and I think most are) then my doing research shouldn't threaten him (or her). If my doc is upset by my research, either they have serious personality issues or aren't on the up and up. Either of these things is a good reason to find another doctor.
Can you imagine people being told by their accountants that they shouldn't read http://www.irs.gov? Or computer professionals telling users that they should never look things up on microsoft or redhat's websites? What would you think if your car mechanic told you not to look up an allegedly needed repair in a haynes or chilton manual? All of these cases would be suspect, and so should any doctor who has an issue with people doing their own homework.
Perhaps the dosage was appropriate. Perhaps it was so for good reasons, but the doctor coudln't remember exactly why. The appropriate response in this case is to offer to get back to the patient with more information at a later time, not to tell the patient to stop doing research.
Yeah, peace of mind.
Until ten years later you discover that they symptoms that the doctor said were 'stress' turn out to be a genetic disease that, untreated, leads to malnutrition, diabetes and cancer (and possibly a number of 'lesser' issues -- mental and physical, but those haven't been proven).
Until they forget to tell you that your biopsy came back positive. And you don't find out for two years, and then only because you decided you needed your records for, well, your records. Fortunately, the 'positive' in that case was a lab error. At least, I think it was, since later (two *years* later) biopsies were negative. However, the original doctors had no way of knowing that it was a mistake. What even better is that at the time they claimed that they had never done the test.
Until they screw up a lab (different doctors, different states even), declare you to have an untreatable STD and tell you never to have sex again. Esspecially when your second (and then third) opinion docs find that you never had said STD to begin with.
And that doesn't touch the great psychotropic debacle.
These aren't 'friend of a friend' stories -- all of these things happened to me, personally.
And then there's the flip side -- overprescribed medication is a major problem in the U.S. And the second or third leading cause of death in this country are doctors and hospitals-- either because of medical mistakes or because of drug reactions (this doesn't take into account people who purposely OD, but does take into account people who OD because of prescription mistakes).
These days, I do my own research (it helps that I have a good background -- my mom is a nurse and I read her books for fun when I was a kid) and I treat doctors as equals. I'll listen to them, but at the end of the day, I only trust my own judgement. It is *my* health and *my* life, after all.
It's 'well known' that during nursing school/med school, for some time period (which varies from person to person) one will feel as if one has every disease one is learning about. I got over this at about eight years of age (yes, I did it too -- used to cry myself to sleep because I was sure I was dying of cancer or radiation poisoning or something). I wonder how many of these people are 'true' hypochondriacs, and how many of these people will get over it in a reasonable amount of time.
Er, not exactly.
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but not knowing you broke the law (for reasons other than ignorance of the laws themselves) is, sometimes.
This is why 'not guilty by reason of [insanity/mental defect/etc]' exists. If you killed someone because you believed them to be a monster who was going to kill you if you didn't kill them first (due to something other than illegal drugs) and did not realize at the time you were doing it that it was wrong (because you really thought you were in danger, not because you didn't know murder was against the law) than you aren't culpable. In theory, anyway.
If one could convince the jury that one really didn't know that 'cookingrecipies.zip' was the windows source code, then one would have a good chance and getting off. The question is whether or not the jury believes one (which is a function of who the jury is, and expert testimony, and other stuff).
Incidently, this would *not* be carte blanche for [insert baddies here], because it's relatively easy to prove (unless one is very security clued, in which case, why wasn't your whole hard drive encrypted anyway) that one opened the archive and viewed what was inside, and if one did not delete it immediately, one obviously knew what was in it and kept it anyway.
Another example. Say I steal a car, fake up some documentation for it and put an ad in the classifieds. You see the ad and decide to buy the car from me. Later, the police stop you and discover that the car was stolen. Since you had no way of knowing it was stolen, after they have confirmed this (they probably won't believe what you say, but the documentation will clear you) you won't be held responsible for buying stolen property (which is a crime too). They will, however, take the car away from you, not because you are guilty of a crime, but because it's still not yours.
The rest of your examples involve kids, which are a special legal case. In general, parents (and gaurdians and sometimes other 'adults in charge')are considered to be responsible for the behavior of their children. Whether or not this is right or a good idea is certainly debateable, but the practical upshot is that, no matter whether you know what your kid (or any child under your care) is up to, whether or not you encourage or discourage their behavior, it is assumed that you have responsibility for them and control over them and their behaviors are a direct result of yours, whether or not this is actually the case.
And this is why the grandfather in your examples got hit so hard -- it is assumed that since he was 'in charge' (of the computer and the kids using it) he had control of their behavior. He is, in effect, being punished because he failed to supervise the kids well enough. (Again, fairness of this is debateable, but that's the logic).
The beer example also assumes that the adults were supposed to supervise the kids and the beer. If, instead of your kid running off with a beer from a cooler, the case was that a neighborhood kid who wasn't invited, snuck into the house while everyone was in the backyard and raided the fridge, there'd be less culpability. Certainly, if some kids broke into your house and got drunk on your liquor cabinet while you were out of town, they'd have to prove some serious negligence on your part to make charges stick.
There are some exceptions to this. Most notable is the guy I knew (in Olympia, WA) who sold beer to someone who showed him what appeared to be a valid WA driver's license. The license was so good that the police officer who later stopped that person (who had the beer and receipt with them) didn't realize it was a fake until he ran it through the computer and the number didn't match the info. The cashier did not have access to any way of confirming the number. Despite this, the cashier and store were fined and the cashier may not work at any store that sells alcohol (so yes, he lost his job) for a period of some years.
All of the 'exceptions' I can think of seem to invo
Hear hear.
I'm going to end up back in school next year, and I've been reevaluating (it's been six or seven years since I've been in school) my strategy.
Unlike a lot of people here, for me a laptop for taking notes is a great improvement over the pen and paper way because I have small motor control issues that make handwriting a real issue.
And for this reason I was looking at tablets a few months ago. The conclusion I came to was this is still awfully young technology. Not worth it to me to gamble on it, either in terms of money or in terms of potential future tech problem headaches and time. I'll be using the updated version of the setup I've been using since 1991 -- Laptop computer (actually, I didn't get one of those until 1995, prior to that I had to transcribe notes daily, and borrow other people's or ask the teacher for help filling in the blanks if I couldn't keep up), desktop computer (for syncing and to run the heavy stuff), paper notebook and scanner. Type words in, lable where the figures go, draw the figures on the paper and scan them in later.
In this case, the laptop cost me $200 last year (it's not new, but it's an amd k6-2-233/64MB system -- more than enough for running a few editors. heavy processor stuff can be run on the desktop), the scanner $40 at Fry's three years ago, and my desktop, which i'd provide an estimate for if I had any clue (my desktop is always an ongoing project -- I'm sure there's plenty of folks here who understand how that works).
But the best part -- not only did all this stuff cost me less than a new tablet PC, but I already own it, would own it whether or not I go to school, and use it, so it's cost doesn't even really count.
So I can consider spending money on upgrades for the current system, like a flat panel monitor to replace the CRT, or a twiddler which I think might be more convenient for note taking in lecture, or a new motherboard/processor, if it turns out that the PIII with half a gig of RAM in the desktop isn't quite up the requirements of modern education (though I'm inclined to wait on that, simply because the system works fine now, and I don't yet see any obvious application that would require more power). Or I can spend my money on my secondary (because it's still experimental) solution. I already have a device with a touch screen -- a Palm VIIx. I've been wanting to outfit it with a keyboard. Unfortunately, the cheaper 3rd party ones that I've tried don't work with it, so I may end up forking out for the offical palm keyboard. But in theory, combined with a good palm drawing program (of which there are several) this would provide full functionality for note taking. And even if one doesn't have a palm (or similar device) now, one can be had for *much* cheaper than any tablet, and the technology is more mature and stable.
Not to mention, a palm (or similar) and keyboard weights far less than a tablet (or a laptop, for that matter).
Yeah, humans have this whole social hierarchy thing, and it is somehow more distilled in high school. And a balanced approach (like yours, though the same approach wouldn't be balanced in, say, an office) seems to be the best way to deal with it. Don't bully people who aren't causing problems, because that's unfair and cruel, and don't back down when other people are causing problems, because that just encourages them.
The problem that I have is that this system does the opposite -- it 'backs down' and rewards people who are showing signs of aggression and 'bullies' (though I'll grant that's overstatement) those who remain patient and reasonable by making them get in line behind those who are being aggressive.
From my experience, I think that giving 'lower classes' shit and/or badmouthing them, etc in order to gain social standing is only required if you are trying to gain social standing by joining or trying to gain the favor of the more popular group, AND if that popular group chooses to use negative tactics such as that to maintain popularity. There are other ways to improve social standing, such as not taking shit from anybody, and becoming more popular because people are more drawn to you (because of confidence/charisma is one to think about in your case, btw -- this may have more to do with it than aggressivness) and these tactics don't require negativity.
Incidently, ignore all the adults who say that this sort of thing doesn't happen in adult life. It does, it just becomes more subtle and 'civilized' (beating up one's lessers gets one charged with battery, as does putting your coworkers heads in toliets).
more than that, the comments in the first paragraph were a little, er, loose with the science. In schizophrenia the social implications come from the brain not getting other information correct. It's difficult to handle social interaction when your reality is different from everyone else's. Whether or not this is the case in autism is more debateable, but I think if you floated the idea that autism is caused or would be significantly helped by an increase in bonding hormones, you'd have to provide far more evidence than handwaving to be taken seriously. There's too much evidence for other causes (like scrambled sensory input during the years where social interaction schemes are first put down -- this also explains why some infants/toddlers in institutions where they do not receive significant interaction from caregivers display 'autistic like' behavior -- they do so because they don't get the interaction that an autistic child does get, but can't take advantage of because of the sensory scrambling -- I'm not saying that this set of theories is correct either, but there's a hell of a lot more evidence that that approach than a hormonal imbalance).
But it sort of quietly echos the refrigerator mother hypothesis, which is well disproven now. It also implies that people with autism or schizophrenia have some innate issue with falling in love or bonding, caused by their illness, which isn't generally the case and is a problematic assumption made by people who don't have these conditions who then manage to project them on those that do.
bah. rantrant
Cursing (there's a scientific word for this -- corpra-something, but I'm too lazy to go look it up) is actually only a tic in a significant minority of people with Tourettes syndrome. It usually manifests with both physical and verbal tics, but the verbal tics are 'bad words' in only about 40% of people with Tourettes.
Actually, that's the official word. What I find, personally, is that about 90% of my verbal tics are *not* cursing -- I tend to announce that objects are blue and then order them to go home (note, I didn't say it made *sense*) or make strange noises (of which 'rark' is one), but every so often I get a several minute stream of 'fuck' or 'fuck you'.
Go fig. Tourettes is strange, but the cursing is only a small part of it experienced by some but not the majority of people with tourettes.
You know, there are plenty of people who don't speak english as a first language who do speak it fluently. Presumably you merely want the (quite practical) result of speaking to someone whom you understand and who can understand you, rather than the (quite bigoted) result of only speaking to someone who was born and raised in an english speaking country.
So really, you want a way to route your calls to someone who actually speaks english *fluently*, rather than as a first language.
(plus, trust me, there are plenty of people who speak english as a first, or only, language who are unintelligible)
the same thing that many other things in society do -- rewards assholic behaviour, punishes 'nice' behavior.
I've spent a fair bit of time pondering my way out of that connumdrum -- I'm naturally a 'nice' person -- which is to say that I consider the viewpoints of the other people around me when choosing my actions. This means that I don't scream or curse or insult people on the other end of the phone. Even when they are telemarketers calling my cell phone (they get told, firmly but politely, that this is a cell phone and they'd best not call it anymore).
But it also means that it takes me longer to get things done, compared with my friend who pretty much starts throwing temper tantrums from the get go. I've noticed this repeatedly (with different people). There are situations in which I come out ahead, or get to the same point faster than my friend, but not as many as one might like. And a few times he's been able to wrangle a solution to a problem of mine (dealing with customer service) that I have not, because I won't throw a temper tantrum on the line. Call it having too much pride or something.
rantrant
Use some form of public key encryption. Give each camera it's own private key, which cannot be read without destroying the camera (or maybe not even then). The Camera should also come with a copy of it's public key on some appropriate media. The camera should deliver a two files -- the picture and the signature, which can be checked against the public key.
;)
Actually, I'm not sure you even win anything with the write only memory here.
Damn I should patent this already
Er, there's a difference between circumference and length. 3.75 inches would be reference to length, not circumference.
:) )
So all the guys who are only 4" long ought be consider themselves enough, which is good.
Well, except (to throw a little reality in here), that some (not all) women like to have pressure on their cervix, which requires a little more than 4" (and the exact length varies widely from woman to woman), and some really hate the sensation.
And that leaves out the opinions of gay men (which also vary widely
So, in purely practical terms, the 'ideal' penis size actually is a function of the beholder (shock!)
But I'm rather of the opinion that dildoes are probably cheaper to acquire than partners, so one should probably use other indicators of partner quality. But that's just me.
What good is free speech, then?
The thing that everyone seems to overlook is that none of the content issues on the internet are new. In the U.S. (can't speak for Britain) violent porn is legal (except in a few localities, and assuming all actors are over 18), and prior to the net could be acquired via U.S. mail relatively inexpensively. Of course, it's somewhat easier to get it now, just as it's easier to get any data off the internet than it is to send away for it via snail mail.
In short, These problems are not new. Governments haven't 'solved' them in years, why should we suddenly assume they can solve them an an entirely new context?
We do show non-consentual sex in movies and TV. We even do it in ways that puts the viewer 'in the place of' the rapist. There was an interesting study on this several years ago, but it's something that I noticed a long time ago without the benefit of a study -- just observation. If you don't believe me, watch a few hours of Law and Order, SVU and try to think about it in the mindset of someone who would find such a thing exciting (rape/violence, I mean, not necessarily the TV show).
In other words, *if* violent porn helped nurture fantasies that otherwise would have gone unnurtured (an arguable conclusion at best) it's still quite probable that that person would have found a place to nurture those fantasies.
Near as I can tell, crime, even violent crime and sexual crimes, has not gone up due to the advent of the internet.
You know, when I took my first on road driving test (in Virginia, circa 1994) the instructor yelled at me for looking over my shoulder. He said I should keep my eyes forward at all times and only use the mirrors (and this even though my car lacked a passenger side mirror -- in many states they are only mandatory for hearing impaired or other special case drivers). I think they said it in class, too, though honestly I wasn't paying much attention (they said a lot of things that were stupid. My favorite was that one should never shift the car into neutral at a stop light...even if it was a manual).
If this sort of belief/behavior is typical, it's no wonder drivers suck so much.
I've found that intelligent use of blind spot mirrors can make looking over one's shoulder unnecessary in many cases. Of course, one still has to know which cases are which.
> Cats land on their feet. Toast lands jellyside
> down. A cat glued to some jelly toast will
> hover in quantum indecision
No, the strength of the "cat lands on feet" force is much greater than the strength of the "jelly side down" force. So jelly toast strapped to a cat will always land cat side down (assuming a drop of sufficient length, as cats do not land feet side down if dropped upside down from a height insufficient for turning around). At least, that's what my extensive (and messy) experimentation shows. However, I have been unable to ascertain the effects of lashing two cats together back to back.
(obdisclaimer: no animals were hurt in the making of this post. I do not really think that anyone should lash two cats together back to back -- or lash jelly toast to a cat, for that matter)