I've had participants tell me they used *salad dressing* for lube because they couldn't find anything legit and thought it *had* to be safe because you eat it.
ROFL, alright... you win. As a functioning adult, it's sometimes easy to forget how unbelievably stupid young people can be...:)
You neglected to check the foil to make sure it was sealed. You neglected to make sure that the condom was new rather than some crusty thing that's been sitting in a wallet for several years. You neglected to check to make sure it was a latex condom and lubricated rather than one made from animal products or dry. You neglected to make sure that whatever lubricant you're using is not oil based/is latex safe. Oops. You might say that those steps are no-brainers or implied, but the fact is, they aren't no-brainers, they aren't implied, and they are very, very, VERY important parts of proper condom use.
No, they aren't no-brainers, and they aren't implied, but they *aren't* steps to actually using a condom. Those are all steps for purchasing and properly maintaining your condoms. ie, if you bought the condoms, you should've inspected them to see if they're sealed and aren't expired. You should've made sure to purchase proper latex condoms. You should be using a lube you already know is safe. Additionally, you should be storing them in a cool place where they won't be damaged. And you should be using condoms you've personally purchased, inspected, and stored, rather than relying on someone else's stash.
So, at least in my mind, part of the problem is you're significantly over-complicating things. Maintaining condoms and actually using them are really two distinct aspects of condom use, so why convolve them?
Okay, I'll be honest. I don't know where to get any street drug, including pot. And I'm honestly perplexed at the people who claim that everyone already knows where to get them. (I'm not asking for directions, FBI.) I don't know of any friends who do them, and any friend who I suspect would have connections, I haven't talked to in so long they'd probably be suspicious.
So, how much of an outlier am I?
Oh, you're not an outlier. But you may not know your friends as well as you think you do.:) Personally, I went from knowing zero friends who smoked pot, to knowing at least a half dozen. And my list of friends hasn't changed.
See, your average pot user doesn't going around advertising it. They aren't going to randomly bring it up in conversation. They aren't, out of the blue, going to offer you a joint while you're hanging out at their place. They will, in all probability, keep it between themselves and their other known-pot-smoking friends, because a) it's not their place to push it on people, b) it's illegal so it's worth keeping quiet about, and c) many people aren't comfortable talking about it, so why bother bringing it up?
So, while I'm sure you *think* you don't have connections, you probably do. Heck, even if your immediate friends aren't users, they probably know someone, or know someone who knows someone, who is.
The PS3 is certainly a gaming platform. It's also very much a first class Blu-Ray player, and planned as such.
I'm not saying they didn't plan it that way. Of course they did. Why wouldn't they try to use the PS3 as a way to increase penetration of their media format? Hell, they've tried the same damn thing with MemoryStick and MD... typically they've just failed *miserably* at it.
So, to clarify, what I *am* saying is that Sony never once marketed the PS3 as "first and foremost, a Blu-Ray player". It was, and continues to be, a gaming system first, and a Blu-Ray player second.
A quarter of the voters rejected the plan, they are being looted.
Wow, 75% of people supported the idea, and you're claiming it's somehow anti-democratic and immoral? Geez. I mean, if it had been 51/49 or something, I could see the issue, but a full three quarters of the population supported this measure. That's a mandate by any standard.
Besides, if that 25% don't like it, they should move to a more conservative municipality. They voiced their opinions. They lost. I know, it's tough, but they should suck it up, leave, or fight to change the system through democratic means. That's the way the system works (well, save for things that are fundamentally human rights issues, in which case you have to balance tyranny of the majority against the rights of individuals... but this is definitely not one of those cases).
I just wanted to say, *this* post is an example of why I still bother reading Slashdot. Among the piles and piles of dreck, there are occasionally shining lights, and you, my friend, are one of them. Well written and poignant. Thanks for taking the time to rant!:)
When I look at the internet, I see a lot of illusions, but very little that approaches the factual power of a good book.
Funny, that. Just recently, I was reading a couple posts by The Bad Astronomer, along with some linked blogs (god I still hate that word), and later found myself perusing a photo set from The Big Picture, and I thought to myself, nothing has been able to approach what those resources can do today, delivering high quality science and news journalism, for free, outside the walls of established media. Pretty damn impressive, if you ask me.
Not really - the GP is completely reasonable here. That's about the distance from the back of my living room to the TV, and SD vs HD image changes are incredibly apparent, even at that distance.
Again, you're willing to ignore simple, physical and physiological facts just because your anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it's wrong?
Look, a chart like that is based on one simple thing: the angular resolution of the human eye. Yeah, there's probably a bit of personal variability there, but at some point, it comes down to physics. So, you may *think* you can see a difference, but unless you hand me a properly executed study proving you can, I think it's far more likely you're just seeing what you want to see.
As an aside, I'm specifically referring to the ability to tell the difference between a DVD 480p source and Blu-Ray. Broadcast TV looks like shit compared to even a DVD, so I have no trouble believing you can tell broadcast SD from broadcast HD. But DVD to HD at those viewing distances on that size of TV? Sorry buddy, I don't buy it.
So, unless she's the big bread winner, she's really got nothing to say in the matters. And it did say girlfriend, not wife, so she has even less say in it.
Well, I did say "mature" adult, so I suppose it's not surprising you don't understand.
Don't get me wrong...I'll compromise 99% of the time, because I'm easy going, but, on the other hand no chick TELLS me what to do or orders me around. I have final decision as long as it is my house, and if she doesn't like it...well, there are plenty of others out there to replace her after she hits the street.
I bet you tell yourself that every day while your mommy makes your lunch as you hang out in your dingy basement.
But don't worry, some day, you might move out of your mommy's basement and learn what it's like to live with a woman in an adult relationship. Maybe. Well, okay, probably not.
The PS3 is, first and foremost, a Blu-Ray player. That's how it was designed, that's how it was marketed
Buh?? I call bullshit. The PS3 is a gaming platform that happens to double as a Blu-Ray player, just as the PS2 was a gaming platform that doubled as a DVD player. I've never seen any evidence that it was ever marketed as anything else, and I'd love to see support for such an outlandish claim.
Why they hell would your girlfriend get mad at YOU for spending your own money on something you wanted?!?!
Well, if they're living together, and thus sharing expenses and working on a coordinated budget, then mature adults will consult each other when spending money frivolously, particularly if said budget is tight.
Alternatively, his girlfriend might realize that blowing money on BluRay is fucking idiotic when DVD is perfectly fine, and so it may not be the expense that would piss her off so much as the blatant demonstration of stupidity.
If you have 10 people and none of them have jobs, you have 100% unemployment. If you then bring in 90 people with jobs and keep the 10 people with no jobs, you have 100 people and only 10% unemployment.
Even better, if you hire those 90 people, while those 10 people stop looking for work because they can't find a job in their industry, or take a low-paying part-time job, you have 0% unemployment (based on how the US government tallies the numbers)!
Heh, if Harper has his way on that one, I'll eat my bicycle helmet. That bill, or something like it, has been proposed and re-proposed many times, now. There's absolutely no reason to believe it'll be passed this time (particularly given how shaky our government has been of late).
No, that bill will die on the floor come an election some time this fall. Count on it.
Actually, for configuration, what you want is a singleton, which, if I understand what this "god class" thing is, is a very different thing, and certainly a standard design pattern that's quite effective (if used sparingly).
In Canada a lot of places will ask for a SSN but it's not required. It's even technically illegal to ask in many situations, I believe.
For more information on this topic, see here. To quote:
A private-sector organization cannot make clients provide their SIN as a condition for receiving a product or service, unless there is a legal requirement for the SIN.
As an example, banks are required, by law, to request a SIN from individuals holding interest-paying accounts. In addition, employers are required to request a SIN for various reasons (tax purposes, verifying employment status, etc). Furthermore, any business that does collect SINs must comply with specific laws about privacy protections.
In short: Canada may do a lot of things wrong, but if there's one thing we've done pretty well to date, it's protecting privacy.
US health care may be expensive, but it's also the best.
Citation, please. Every study I've ever read shows that socialized medicine provides better outcomes, while offering better coverage at lower cost. I know, the idea doesn't fit with your worldview, but you know what they say about reality...
Oh, a just a little hint: being able to get the fanciest technology if you have the bucks doesn't actually equate to a better system.
Barack Obama has decided that copyright issues are a matter of national security [slashdot.org], and has appointed a number of former RIAA lawyers [wired.com] to various positions in his administration.
Yes... god forbid teh ev1l goverment should hire people familiar with copyright law to work in the justice department...
FYI: lawyers defend who they're paid to defend, and prosecute who they're paid to prosecute. That's their job. Just because they worked for the RIAA, doesn't mean they are, by default, shills for the media conglomerates.
I would say that violent and sexual imagery are the primary reason for the degeneration of art in the modern world.
I'm sorry, art has degenerated in the modern world? WTF gives you that idea?
Sounds to me like your thinking is clouded by survivorship bias. The only reason you consider old art "good" is because the crap is long forgotten. Similarly, a hundred years from now, I guarantee you, most people will forget Scary Movie ever existed, while Apocalypse Now will be considered a great work of art.
So get the stick out of your ass and relax. The world of art is fine. It doesn't need you to defend it.
Hollywood made a lot of great movies in the Hayes Code era, thus demonstrating that it is possible to create Great Art while refraining from constantly spewing foul language, women hanging out their breasts, constantly showing blood and gore, or hopping into someone else's bed every other moment.
Sure, but how many perfectly valid pieces of art never got made because of those very laws?
Personally, while I don't believe *any* videogame has achieved the level of "art", and while I have serious personal issues with games that glorify random killing (GTA, et al), war, and so forth, I also don't believe those efforts should be censored. Derided? Sure. Criticized? Absolutely. But censored? Hell no. We westerners claim to live in a free society, where people can speak their minds so long as they don't violate the rights of others... there's no reason games should be treated any differently.
As an aside, I think the biggest problem games will have, going forward, is the difficulty of independent works, thanks to the sheer expense and manpower required to make a modern game (yes, I've seen games written by amateurs yes, in general, they suck, save for a few exceptions (I'm looking at you Nethack):). In contrast, a talented guy with a few thousand bucks and a bunch of friends can put together an excellent film (Primer comes to mind). Modern technology has mad it trivial for any artist to create music in his home. And it's always been true that painting, writing, and many other artforms have been easily accessible to those with the necessary time and talent. But games are a whole other animal. As a consequence, at least for now, I strongly suspect games will remain the purview of the corporation, and that means catering to public whim and taste... which unfortunately means self-censorship.
And you're missing the point. Let's assume, for the moment, that you're right, and that Facebook/MySpace has, or will, overtake email as the primary way people communicate. Now, the only reason I can see this being a problem is if one or both of them suddenly turn evil and... I don't know... do something... evil.
Anyway, let's suppose this happens. OHNOES, whatever will you do! Oh... wait... that's right, regular ol' email still exists (you can't send ebills over Facebook, and last I checked, no business is going to allow their communications to occur over MySpace, so SMTP ain't going away). You can still deploy a web server. So, in the end, who gives a shit?
I'm disturbed by the centralization taking place on the web, where by networks like email are replaced with proprietary walled-garden social networks, and entire webpages once written in the open html standard are being done entirely in flash.
I know! For example, Facebook has made it completely impossible to deploy and host one's own website. They simply *force* you to put everything in their system. And don't get me started on the likes of Twitter, which has forced everyone to stop using Twitter in favour of their system. I mean, at least if I could *choose*, but you can't because they can control your *mind*! Yes, very disturbing indeed...
Slashdot Mirror
I've had participants tell me they used *salad dressing* for lube because they couldn't find anything legit and thought it *had* to be safe because you eat it.
ROFL, alright... you win. As a functioning adult, it's sometimes easy to forget how unbelievably stupid young people can be... :)
You neglected to check the foil to make sure it was sealed. You neglected to make sure that the condom was new rather than some crusty thing that's been sitting in a wallet for several years. You neglected to check to make sure it was a latex condom and lubricated rather than one made from animal products or dry. You neglected to make sure that whatever lubricant you're using is not oil based/is latex safe. Oops. You might say that those steps are no-brainers or implied, but the fact is, they aren't no-brainers, they aren't implied, and they are very, very, VERY important parts of proper condom use.
No, they aren't no-brainers, and they aren't implied, but they *aren't* steps to actually using a condom. Those are all steps for purchasing and properly maintaining your condoms. ie, if you bought the condoms, you should've inspected them to see if they're sealed and aren't expired. You should've made sure to purchase proper latex condoms. You should be using a lube you already know is safe. Additionally, you should be storing them in a cool place where they won't be damaged. And you should be using condoms you've personally purchased, inspected, and stored, rather than relying on someone else's stash.
So, at least in my mind, part of the problem is you're significantly over-complicating things. Maintaining condoms and actually using them are really two distinct aspects of condom use, so why convolve them?
Okay, I'll be honest. I don't know where to get any street drug, including pot. And I'm honestly perplexed at the people who claim that everyone already knows where to get them. (I'm not asking for directions, FBI.) I don't know of any friends who do them, and any friend who I suspect would have connections, I haven't talked to in so long they'd probably be suspicious.
So, how much of an outlier am I?
Oh, you're not an outlier. But you may not know your friends as well as you think you do. :) Personally, I went from knowing zero friends who smoked pot, to knowing at least a half dozen. And my list of friends hasn't changed.
See, your average pot user doesn't going around advertising it. They aren't going to randomly bring it up in conversation. They aren't, out of the blue, going to offer you a joint while you're hanging out at their place. They will, in all probability, keep it between themselves and their other known-pot-smoking friends, because a) it's not their place to push it on people, b) it's illegal so it's worth keeping quiet about, and c) many people aren't comfortable talking about it, so why bother bringing it up?
So, while I'm sure you *think* you don't have connections, you probably do. Heck, even if your immediate friends aren't users, they probably know someone, or know someone who knows someone, who is.
The PS3 is certainly a gaming platform. It's also very much a first class Blu-Ray player, and planned as such.
I'm not saying they didn't plan it that way. Of course they did. Why wouldn't they try to use the PS3 as a way to increase penetration of their media format? Hell, they've tried the same damn thing with MemoryStick and MD... typically they've just failed *miserably* at it.
So, to clarify, what I *am* saying is that Sony never once marketed the PS3 as "first and foremost, a Blu-Ray player". It was, and continues to be, a gaming system first, and a Blu-Ray player second.
A quarter of the voters rejected the plan, they are being looted.
Wow, 75% of people supported the idea, and you're claiming it's somehow anti-democratic and immoral? Geez. I mean, if it had been 51/49 or something, I could see the issue, but a full three quarters of the population supported this measure. That's a mandate by any standard.
Besides, if that 25% don't like it, they should move to a more conservative municipality. They voiced their opinions. They lost. I know, it's tough, but they should suck it up, leave, or fight to change the system through democratic means. That's the way the system works (well, save for things that are fundamentally human rights issues, in which case you have to balance tyranny of the majority against the rights of individuals... but this is definitely not one of those cases).
I just wanted to say, *this* post is an example of why I still bother reading Slashdot. Among the piles and piles of dreck, there are occasionally shining lights, and you, my friend, are one of them. Well written and poignant. Thanks for taking the time to rant! :)
When I look at the internet, I see a lot of illusions, but very little that approaches the factual power of a good book.
Funny, that. Just recently, I was reading a couple posts by The Bad Astronomer, along with some linked blogs (god I still hate that word), and later found myself perusing a photo set from The Big Picture, and I thought to myself, nothing has been able to approach what those resources can do today, delivering high quality science and news journalism, for free, outside the walls of established media. Pretty damn impressive, if you ask me.
Not really - the GP is completely reasonable here. That's about the distance from the back of my living room to the TV, and SD vs HD image changes are incredibly apparent, even at that distance.
Again, you're willing to ignore simple, physical and physiological facts just because your anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it's wrong?
Look, a chart like that is based on one simple thing: the angular resolution of the human eye. Yeah, there's probably a bit of personal variability there, but at some point, it comes down to physics. So, you may *think* you can see a difference, but unless you hand me a properly executed study proving you can, I think it's far more likely you're just seeing what you want to see.
As an aside, I'm specifically referring to the ability to tell the difference between a DVD 480p source and Blu-Ray. Broadcast TV looks like shit compared to even a DVD, so I have no trouble believing you can tell broadcast SD from broadcast HD. But DVD to HD at those viewing distances on that size of TV? Sorry buddy, I don't buy it.
So, unless she's the big bread winner, she's really got nothing to say in the matters. And it did say girlfriend, not wife, so she has even less say in it.
Well, I did say "mature" adult, so I suppose it's not surprising you don't understand.
Don't get me wrong...I'll compromise 99% of the time, because I'm easy going, but, on the other hand no chick TELLS me what to do or orders me around. I have final decision as long as it is my house, and if she doesn't like it...well, there are plenty of others out there to replace her after she hits the street.
I bet you tell yourself that every day while your mommy makes your lunch as you hang out in your dingy basement.
But don't worry, some day, you might move out of your mommy's basement and learn what it's like to live with a woman in an adult relationship. Maybe. Well, okay, probably not.
I can't take that chart seriously.
So you can't take physical and physiological facts seriously? Okay...
Did you ever consider that you're just imagining you can see the difference because you know there must be one?
The PS3 is, first and foremost, a Blu-Ray player. That's how it was designed, that's how it was marketed
Buh?? I call bullshit. The PS3 is a gaming platform that happens to double as a Blu-Ray player, just as the PS2 was a gaming platform that doubled as a DVD player. I've never seen any evidence that it was ever marketed as anything else, and I'd love to see support for such an outlandish claim.
The iPhone does not run OS X.
Not according to Wikipedia, which claims the iPhone OS is derived from OS X. Unfortunately, it appears to be an uncited claim...
Why they hell would your girlfriend get mad at YOU for spending your own money on something you wanted?!?!
Well, if they're living together, and thus sharing expenses and working on a coordinated budget, then mature adults will consult each other when spending money frivolously, particularly if said budget is tight.
Alternatively, his girlfriend might realize that blowing money on BluRay is fucking idiotic when DVD is perfectly fine, and so it may not be the expense that would piss her off so much as the blatant demonstration of stupidity.
If you have 10 people and none of them have jobs, you have 100% unemployment. If you then bring in 90 people with jobs and keep the 10 people with no jobs, you have 100 people and only 10% unemployment.
Even better, if you hire those 90 people, while those 10 people stop looking for work because they can't find a job in their industry, or take a low-paying part-time job, you have 0% unemployment (based on how the US government tallies the numbers)!
Heh, if Harper has his way on that one, I'll eat my bicycle helmet. That bill, or something like it, has been proposed and re-proposed many times, now. There's absolutely no reason to believe it'll be passed this time (particularly given how shaky our government has been of late).
No, that bill will die on the floor come an election some time this fall. Count on it.
Actually, for configuration, what you want is a singleton, which, if I understand what this "god class" thing is, is a very different thing, and certainly a standard design pattern that's quite effective (if used sparingly).
In Canada a lot of places will ask for a SSN but it's not required. It's even technically illegal to ask in many situations, I believe.
For more information on this topic, see here. To quote:
As an example, banks are required, by law, to request a SIN from individuals holding interest-paying accounts. In addition, employers are required to request a SIN for various reasons (tax purposes, verifying employment status, etc). Furthermore, any business that does collect SINs must comply with specific laws about privacy protections.
In short: Canada may do a lot of things wrong, but if there's one thing we've done pretty well to date, it's protecting privacy.
US health care may be expensive, but it's also the best.
Citation, please. Every study I've ever read shows that socialized medicine provides better outcomes, while offering better coverage at lower cost. I know, the idea doesn't fit with your worldview, but you know what they say about reality...
Oh, a just a little hint: being able to get the fanciest technology if you have the bucks doesn't actually equate to a better system.
Opera has advanced memory caching. When you close a tab, it remains cached in RAM.
And yet, when Firefox does this (and it does), people bitch that it's bloated.
Funny, that.
Barack Obama has decided that copyright issues are a matter of national security [slashdot.org], and has appointed a number of former RIAA lawyers [wired.com] to various positions in his administration.
Yes... god forbid teh ev1l goverment should hire people familiar with copyright law to work in the justice department...
FYI: lawyers defend who they're paid to defend, and prosecute who they're paid to prosecute. That's their job. Just because they worked for the RIAA, doesn't mean they are, by default, shills for the media conglomerates.
I would say that violent and sexual imagery are the primary reason for the degeneration of art in the modern world.
I'm sorry, art has degenerated in the modern world? WTF gives you that idea?
Sounds to me like your thinking is clouded by survivorship bias. The only reason you consider old art "good" is because the crap is long forgotten. Similarly, a hundred years from now, I guarantee you, most people will forget Scary Movie ever existed, while Apocalypse Now will be considered a great work of art.
So get the stick out of your ass and relax. The world of art is fine. It doesn't need you to defend it.
Hollywood made a lot of great movies in the Hayes Code era, thus demonstrating that it is possible to create Great Art while refraining from constantly spewing foul language, women hanging out their breasts, constantly showing blood and gore, or hopping into someone else's bed every other moment.
Sure, but how many perfectly valid pieces of art never got made because of those very laws?
Personally, while I don't believe *any* videogame has achieved the level of "art", and while I have serious personal issues with games that glorify random killing (GTA, et al), war, and so forth, I also don't believe those efforts should be censored. Derided? Sure. Criticized? Absolutely. But censored? Hell no. We westerners claim to live in a free society, where people can speak their minds so long as they don't violate the rights of others... there's no reason games should be treated any differently.
As an aside, I think the biggest problem games will have, going forward, is the difficulty of independent works, thanks to the sheer expense and manpower required to make a modern game (yes, I've seen games written by amateurs yes, in general, they suck, save for a few exceptions (I'm looking at you Nethack) :). In contrast, a talented guy with a few thousand bucks and a bunch of friends can put together an excellent film (Primer comes to mind). Modern technology has mad it trivial for any artist to create music in his home. And it's always been true that painting, writing, and many other artforms have been easily accessible to those with the necessary time and talent. But games are a whole other animal. As a consequence, at least for now, I strongly suspect games will remain the purview of the corporation, and that means catering to public whim and taste... which unfortunately means self-censorship.
You aren't taking network effects into account
And you're missing the point. Let's assume, for the moment, that you're right, and that Facebook/MySpace has, or will, overtake email as the primary way people communicate. Now, the only reason I can see this being a problem is if one or both of them suddenly turn evil and... I don't know... do something... evil.
Anyway, let's suppose this happens. OHNOES, whatever will you do! Oh... wait... that's right, regular ol' email still exists (you can't send ebills over Facebook, and last I checked, no business is going to allow their communications to occur over MySpace, so SMTP ain't going away). You can still deploy a web server. So, in the end, who gives a shit?
rofl, man I gotta proof read. I believe I meant "stop using email"... :)
I'm disturbed by the centralization taking place on the web, where by networks like email are replaced with proprietary walled-garden social networks, and entire webpages once written in the open html standard are being done entirely in flash.
I know! For example, Facebook has made it completely impossible to deploy and host one's own website. They simply *force* you to put everything in their system. And don't get me started on the likes of Twitter, which has forced everyone to stop using Twitter in favour of their system. I mean, at least if I could *choose*, but you can't because they can control your *mind*! Yes, very disturbing indeed...