Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Of course it's foolish to say never. If someone died because they were crushed by their pile of porn, they would be "harmed by porn."
However, it's also foolish to say only, as in "the only question is..."
Now the thing here is the chain of reasoning. And the critical thing in this chain is that porn only hurts those who believe they are hurt by it. For the people who don't believe it, it doesn't harm them.
Now, wouldn't the harmful agent here, then, be their belief?
Shouldn't we be talking about dangerous beliefs that cause people harm?
Is it not legitimate to say that anti-pornographic beliefs are harmful?
I can demonstrate, with studies and evidence, that anti-pornographic beliefs are harmful to relationships.
Re:I haven't read the book, but...
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
For many people, porn has quasi-addictive characteristics, requiring escalation to maintain a constant level of stimulation.
This is, quite simply, and even demonstratably, not true. Anybody can repeat the experiment, and find out for themself.
If this were really true, then the Internet would have pumped out millions of psycho mass-murderers right now, since everyone who viewed porn would need greater and greater amounts of sex and violence to fill his or her appetite.
It's just simply, demonstratably, not true.
As for Bukakke, it seems to me (and reasonable people around me) to be a kink. I'm not into it, I've never really understood it, I don't personally know of anybody who's talked about being into it, but hey- it's a kink, and I accept that there are some people into it. There are kinks for everything. There are people who get off of balloons. Yes, strange but true, there are "balloon people" out there. Who am I to argue?
The whole porn scare, and strange claims behind it, leave me baffled.
Usually people who are new to porn, there's a period (perhaps for a few years) of getting comfortable with it, and then trying out different things. Eventually people find something they like, and stick with it. They may change from subject to subject in their life, or go through periods of one interest or another. But that's a very far cry from "escalation."
This is simply the truth, and anybody can observe it for themselves.
It's simply a fact that most Americans are not ready to discover some things about themselves. As far as I can tell, that's the situation here.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but on the flip side, you can't say that porn weakens relationships, if there is significant population for which it does not.
It seems more likely to me that a combination of beliefs that run contrary to human sexual nature, and porn, are the magic combo that go bad.
So if this is the case then, why not state it? Why do beliefs contrary to huuman sexual nature have to be assumed?
We who do not hold such beliefs can reasonably consider it an attack on our position, and an effort at coersion.
You know, when the Patriot Act came up the first time, all the Republicans said: "Cut your whining! This is only for a short time."
"When things go back to normal, the laws will go back to normal."
Granted, these are not quite "single-person emergency powers." But the Patriot Act has just been made permanent law, and you'll excuse me for thinking that's worrisome.
Now, I don't know about this particular technology, but, speaking long term:
There will be lots and lots of high-speed short-range wireless relays. The relays will service a limited number of communicators within a finite range, as well as other relays (which will carry the signal further on.)
There will be gradiations in range, if I understand right. Some wireless devices will go only a few feet, like bluetooth. Others will extend further, further, and still further. My suspicion is that the larger, more far reaching (and likely more expensive) bandwith will be used to negotiate traffic paths between the short range relays.
I suspect that, eventually, everything that can be used to signal will signal. Wireless, wired, light, sound,...
This stuff has been demonstrated to be inexpensive, cheap, and work right.
I don't know why you imagine that computers and sensors are getting more and more expensive.
And I don't understand why you believe that this is not public transportation infrastructure. Public transportation infrastructure is exactly what this is.
It's first going to come in through the highway system, in special lanes, like when they trialed on I-15 in 1997. There's nothing for intra-city commuters for a while; That's just not technically feasible right now.
It doesn't require every single car to participate. In trials, they are probably going to use special lanes. Second, the cars have light sensors, for detecting cars around them that don't play along with the system. My guess is that eventually, after 0 (zero) controlled-car accidents (outside of crackers) it will become required to participate in the electronic transport system: Human casualities will be just way to high, and human drivers will not be trusted.
The predicitions by AHS experts that I've seen say that the first generation will roll out around 2015, and work over the wireless infrastructure that is now being sold to consumers as "Internet, computers, and toys, in the car!" The second generation is predicted and planned to roll out around 2025, and extend the system to urban core.
When people get used to doing stuff in their car other than driving, they'll quickly forget the romance of driving, just as they forget the romance of "actually seeing the other person" at the gas pump (unless you're in Oregon) or the bank teller at the ATM.
When I took Chem lab at UW, the teachers put far more emphasis on voice than they did on content or clarity.
I was punished for writing in a plain, human voice. (Not to be confused with wordy or coarse. However, it wasn't sterile.) I wrote how I did the experiment, and how things happened, and what my conclusions were, and why.
I was angry that I was punished for writing in a human voice.
Then I looked at other students papers. They were doing things like carrying out calculations to as many decimal places as their calculators could go. They did not show regions of error on their charts. None of these things were punished.
Perhaps you can't be punished for using Excel to make all your charts. Hand-written charts seems to be a no-no, though.
What I have learned from this is that colleges are more focused on obedience to form, than content and clarity. This may help you understand your problem.
Nah, the study can be "done correctly" (follow the steps, just as it said it did,) but still come out with bad results (conclusions.)
For example: "We put these 100 kids through a test. 3 did really well. Therefor, we conclude, that these 3 kids are intrinsicly smarter than the rest."
The study was "done correctly." The people carried out the tests just like they said, and they made sure that there was no cheating.
Just their conclusions are all screwy.
As it happens, 3 kids happen to be really intensely interested in dinosaurs, and, therefor, know all about them. The other kids couldn't care less.
The study was done correctly, but the conclusions do not follow from the study.
So even if a study is done correctly, you can have every right to get offended by the controversial study.
In this case, it sounds like he's just studying IQ among populations. There is little to explain why. He's just assuming that it's intrinsic.
The rest of us don't buy it. We think that if you are priviledged, have a more positive self-image, yadda yadda yadda- it will result in a higher IQ score. We know for a fact that self-image affects test scores. Why wouldn't it be different for IQ tests? Could it be that oppressed people have lower IQ scores, everywhere? In fact, there are some studies that just show this. (In particular, I am thinking of an IQ study of a population of Japanese that are are segregated against in Japan. Their children in Japan do poorly, their children in the US do great, if memory serves me right.)
So, we have every reason to be outraged when racists and sexists carry out studies, and then make premature conclusions.
It's not just the 2 or 3 lines in the Apache server.
It's:
The 2 or 3 lines in the Apache server.
Learning where in the Apache documentation those 2 or 3 lines are, and familiarizing myself with them.
Debugging those 2 or 3 lines, fiddling with Apache a bunch.
Figuring out the details of where the CherryPy server is going to run, with what priviledges, with what permissions on what directories.
Figuring out how to configure the CherryPy server.
Figuring out how to make the CherryPy server automatically start when the computer boots up.
Making the changes so that it autostarts when the computer boots.
And then testing that it autostarts when the computer reboots, by actually rebooting it.
I just plain don't like any of that stuff. None of it.
I'm not a sysadmin; I'm lucky to have cobbled together my 20 wiki, 5 custom web apps, and a few WordPress installs. I dread upgrading my Wordpress blogs, one of which isn't even working right now, and has been custom hacked. Something about not being able to connect with the MySQL db for some reason, I don't know. I don't even care at this point. I dislike diddling with stuff.
Gimme as few pieces as possible. Don't make me think about security, don't make me make things automatically start at boot time, plug into my existing framework, yadda yadda yadda.
It says "All it does is connect the Web server to your Python code with as little fuss as possible. It doesn't make decisions about what other tools to use,..."
And then in the very next paragraph, it says: "Instead of relying on Apache or another Web server, CherryPy runs its own small Python-based Web server."
No, no, no!
I love CherryPy as a way of routing requests to Python objects and functions. Rock on!
But look, I'm running like 20 wiki and 5 custom web apps and a few WordPress installations on my server.
And they are all plugged into Apache.
So, actually, in fact, CherryPy has now made some decisions about what tools I'm supposed to use.
Sure, I can forward requests from Apache to the CherryPy server, but that is yet another hassle, it is yet another thing to support and maintain and think about.
I wish instead that the CherryPy dev's had made it so there were multiple adapters to the CherryPy system.
All that said:
CherryPy is my favorite system for doing web apps in Python. I've used it, I've loved it, it's great. It does make programming WebApps "fun," which is perverse. So, it's succeeded.
But I strongly dislike how I have to do this funny Apache business to get it to run on port 80, or I have to give people weird 8080 addresses, like you saw in the article.
Another thing I dislike, is that it's kind of tricky to get it to do XML-RPC, in my experience. (Then again, that was 3 months ago. Perhaps things have changed now.)
But again: CherryPy is my favorite, when there is no XML-RPC aspect, and when I don't mind the weird config stuff I have to do to get it to cooperate with Apache.
Anonymous Coward, you are hereby requested to identify yourself.
You have been found guilty of swearing, which is a verifiable gateway activity to criminal activity, and a negative influence on children. Your sentence is 10 years in prison. Identify yourself, or have another 10 years attached to your sentence for evading authority.
Your side would like the finiteness of oil to be respected and appreciated. Your side would like long term consideration of transportation and housing to be thought about. Your side has constructed some good ideas about how life can go on, should the worse come to pass.
Very well then; I respect that, and am glad that someone is covering those bases, should those things come to pass.
I don't believe it'll hit $5.00. The reason gas prices are so high is because there were a bunch of outages (fires, accidents, lockdown due to terrorist threats in Saudi Arabia, strikes in South America), and because OPEC underestimated oil demand for this year.
The summer season, too, works against you. Every summer, gas prices go up.
They will be back to normal soon, probably within a year.
"Soviet Cybernetics" was a vision of a Soviet Internet and the "New Soviet Man" was envisioned to be a Cyborg. It scared the hell out of the Americans, and inspired DARPA.
My subjective observation is that more people are listening to longer songs for their "entertainment listening."
But I really can't prove it.
This may be just a dumb subjective observation.
That said, I think the idea about Sequels being a part of interest in Worlds is valid. Sure, Good Night Moon and Runaway Bunny link to one another, but it seems to me like it's more common now, that people are intentionally seeking out a way to make continuous Worlds rather than individual movies, or individual books, or whatever. And I think it's part of all these new media and crossovers that are possible now.
Not that nobody has never done these things before.
There are complexities that are rarely addressed by people who want to call other people hypocrites.
An extreme version, to help illustrate the point: "You say you believe in gravity, but you think people should try to fly! Hypocrite!" That is, the person shouting "hypocrite" is not allowing for complexity in the other side's argument.
No, it's not a new thing. (Myself, I've been listening to the Grateful Dead, and they go on for ages.)
I am talking about the younger generation's listening habits. I think my generation is listening to longer "songs" for longer periods of time. I don't have the data for you, but I think a study would show that more people are listening to longer songs.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it's foolish to say never. If someone died because they were crushed by their pile of porn, they would be "harmed by porn."
However, it's also foolish to say only, as in "the only question is..."
Now the thing here is the chain of reasoning. And the critical thing in this chain is that porn only hurts those who believe they are hurt by it. For the people who don't believe it, it doesn't harm them.
Now, wouldn't the harmful agent here, then, be their belief?
Shouldn't we be talking about dangerous beliefs that cause people harm?
Is it not legitimate to say that anti-pornographic beliefs are harmful?
I can demonstrate, with studies and evidence, that anti-pornographic beliefs are harmful to relationships.
For many people, porn has quasi-addictive characteristics, requiring escalation to maintain a constant level of stimulation.
This is, quite simply, and even demonstratably, not true. Anybody can repeat the experiment, and find out for themself.
If this were really true, then the Internet would have pumped out millions of psycho mass-murderers right now, since everyone who viewed porn would need greater and greater amounts of sex and violence to fill his or her appetite.
It's just simply, demonstratably, not true.
As for Bukakke, it seems to me (and reasonable people around me) to be a kink. I'm not into it, I've never really understood it, I don't personally know of anybody who's talked about being into it, but hey- it's a kink, and I accept that there are some people into it. There are kinks for everything. There are people who get off of balloons. Yes, strange but true, there are "balloon people" out there. Who am I to argue?
The whole porn scare, and strange claims behind it, leave me baffled.
Usually people who are new to porn, there's a period (perhaps for a few years) of getting comfortable with it, and then trying out different things. Eventually people find something they like, and stick with it. They may change from subject to subject in their life, or go through periods of one interest or another. But that's a very far cry from "escalation."
This is simply the truth, and anybody can observe it for themselves.
It's simply a fact that most Americans are not ready to discover some things about themselves. As far as I can tell, that's the situation here.
Yes, but on the flip side, you can't say that porn weakens relationships, if there is significant population for which it does not.
It seems more likely to me that a combination of beliefs that run contrary to human sexual nature, and porn, are the magic combo that go bad.
So if this is the case then, why not state it? Why do beliefs contrary to huuman sexual nature have to be assumed?
We who do not hold such beliefs can reasonably consider it an attack on our position, and an effort at coersion.
You know, when the Patriot Act came up the first time, all the Republicans said: "Cut your whining! This is only for a short time."
"When things go back to normal, the laws will go back to normal."
Granted, these are not quite "single-person emergency powers." But the Patriot Act has just been made permanent law, and you'll excuse me for thinking that's worrisome.
Now, I don't know about this particular technology, but, speaking long term:
...
There will be lots and lots of high-speed short-range wireless relays. The relays will service a limited number of communicators within a finite range, as well as other relays (which will carry the signal further on.)
There will be gradiations in range, if I understand right. Some wireless devices will go only a few feet, like bluetooth. Others will extend further, further, and still further. My suspicion is that the larger, more far reaching (and likely more expensive) bandwith will be used to negotiate traffic paths between the short range relays.
I suspect that, eventually, everything that can be used to signal will signal. Wireless, wired, light, sound,
People are just going to stop having kids.
Seriously. It's population implosion.
In Japan, they call you "selfish," if you don't have kids!
Fewer and fewer adults are interested in the hassle of having kids. It's the farmers looking for profitable farmhands that are having kids.
This stuff has been demonstrated to be inexpensive, cheap, and work right.
I don't know why you imagine that computers and sensors are getting more and more expensive.
And I don't understand why you believe that this is not public transportation infrastructure. Public transportation infrastructure is exactly what this is.
It's first going to come in through the highway system, in special lanes, like when they trialed on I-15 in 1997. There's nothing for intra-city commuters for a while; That's just not technically feasible right now.
It doesn't require every single car to participate. In trials, they are probably going to use special lanes. Second, the cars have light sensors, for detecting cars around them that don't play along with the system. My guess is that eventually, after 0 (zero) controlled-car accidents (outside of crackers) it will become required to participate in the electronic transport system: Human casualities will be just way to high, and human drivers will not be trusted.
The predicitions by AHS experts that I've seen say that the first generation will roll out around 2015, and work over the wireless infrastructure that is now being sold to consumers as "Internet, computers, and toys, in the car!" The second generation is predicted and planned to roll out around 2025, and extend the system to urban core.
When people get used to doing stuff in their car other than driving, they'll quickly forget the romance of driving, just as they forget the romance of "actually seeing the other person" at the gas pump (unless you're in Oregon) or the bank teller at the ATM.
When I took Chem lab at UW, the teachers put far more emphasis on voice than they did on content or clarity.
I was punished for writing in a plain, human voice. (Not to be confused with wordy or coarse. However, it wasn't sterile.) I wrote how I did the experiment, and how things happened, and what my conclusions were, and why.
I was angry that I was punished for writing in a human voice.
Then I looked at other students papers. They were doing things like carrying out calculations to as many decimal places as their calculators could go. They did not show regions of error on their charts. None of these things were punished.
Perhaps you can't be punished for using Excel to make all your charts. Hand-written charts seems to be a no-no, though.
What I have learned from this is that colleges are more focused on obedience to form, than content and clarity. This may help you understand your problem.
Nah, the study can be "done correctly" (follow the steps, just as it said it did,) but still come out with bad results (conclusions.)
For example: "We put these 100 kids through a test. 3 did really well. Therefor, we conclude, that these 3 kids are intrinsicly smarter than the rest."
The study was "done correctly." The people carried out the tests just like they said, and they made sure that there was no cheating.
Just their conclusions are all screwy.
As it happens, 3 kids happen to be really intensely interested in dinosaurs, and, therefor, know all about them. The other kids couldn't care less.
The study was done correctly, but the conclusions do not follow from the study.
So even if a study is done correctly, you can have every right to get offended by the controversial study.
In this case, it sounds like he's just studying IQ among populations. There is little to explain why. He's just assuming that it's intrinsic.
The rest of us don't buy it. We think that if you are priviledged, have a more positive self-image, yadda yadda yadda- it will result in a higher IQ score. We know for a fact that self-image affects test scores. Why wouldn't it be different for IQ tests? Could it be that oppressed people have lower IQ scores, everywhere? In fact, there are some studies that just show this. (In particular, I am thinking of an IQ study of a population of Japanese that are are segregated against in Japan. Their children in Japan do poorly, their children in the US do great, if memory serves me right.)
So, we have every reason to be outraged when racists and sexists carry out studies, and then make premature conclusions.
Sexists and racists get outraged at our outrage.
It doesn't really matter.
Really, it doesn't. It's like picking what color wire you want.
That said: ATOM specifies a bunch of stuff about how to publish entries and stuff.
It's working it's way through the IETF, if I understand right.
Basically, serious net work is going into Atom. I strongly suspect I'll be using it in the near future.
But again, it hardly matters at all. There are tons of tools that accept and publish everything.
It's:
I just plain don't like any of that stuff. None of it.
I'm not a sysadmin; I'm lucky to have cobbled together my 20 wiki, 5 custom web apps, and a few WordPress installs. I dread upgrading my Wordpress blogs, one of which isn't even working right now, and has been custom hacked. Something about not being able to connect with the MySQL db for some reason, I don't know. I don't even care at this point. I dislike diddling with stuff.
Gimme as few pieces as possible. Don't make me think about security, don't make me make things automatically start at boot time, plug into my existing framework, yadda yadda yadda.
Gimme gimme gimmy!
It says "All it does is connect the Web server to your Python code with as little fuss as possible. It doesn't make decisions about what other tools to use, ..."
And then in the very next paragraph, it says: "Instead of relying on Apache or another Web server, CherryPy runs its own small Python-based Web server."
No, no, no!
I love CherryPy as a way of routing requests to Python objects and functions. Rock on!
But look, I'm running like 20 wiki and 5 custom web apps and a few WordPress installations on my server.
And they are all plugged into Apache.
So, actually, in fact, CherryPy has now made some decisions about what tools I'm supposed to use.
Sure, I can forward requests from Apache to the CherryPy server, but that is yet another hassle, it is yet another thing to support and maintain and think about.
I wish instead that the CherryPy dev's had made it so there were multiple adapters to the CherryPy system.
All that said:
CherryPy is my favorite system for doing web apps in Python. I've used it, I've loved it, it's great. It does make programming WebApps "fun," which is perverse. So, it's succeeded.
But I strongly dislike how I have to do this funny Apache business to get it to run on port 80, or I have to give people weird 8080 addresses, like you saw in the article.
Another thing I dislike, is that it's kind of tricky to get it to do XML-RPC, in my experience. (Then again, that was 3 months ago. Perhaps things have changed now.)
(I just use AutoXmlRpcServer or AutoXmlRpcCgi for when it's XML-RPC alone, without a web side along with it.)
But again: CherryPy is my favorite, when there is no XML-RPC aspect, and when I don't mind the weird config stuff I have to do to get it to cooperate with Apache.
Anonymous Coward, you are hereby requested to identify yourself.
You have been found guilty of swearing, which is a verifiable gateway activity to criminal activity, and a negative influence on children. Your sentence is 10 years in prison. Identify yourself, or have another 10 years attached to your sentence for evading authority.
Yeah, I don't have an answer for you; The things you just said are beyond my comprehension.
I'll take these things you are saying back on over to the people I know and trust, and see what they have to say in response.
Passages of perspective.
Your side would like the finiteness of oil to be respected and appreciated. Your side would like long term consideration of transportation and housing to be thought about. Your side has constructed some good ideas about how life can go on, should the worse come to pass.
Very well then; I respect that, and am glad that someone is covering those bases, should those things come to pass.
I don't believe it'll hit $5.00. The reason gas prices are so high is because there were a bunch of outages (fires, accidents, lockdown due to terrorist threats in Saudi Arabia, strikes in South America), and because OPEC underestimated oil demand for this year.
The summer season, too, works against you. Every summer, gas prices go up.
They will be back to normal soon, probably within a year.
They should have held a lottery.
Everybody gets a numbered ticket. The ticket numbers are jumbled in a hat. Pick ticket numbers.
Each winning ticket has the opportunity to pay $50 for a laptop.
Keep drawing numbers from the hat until all laptops are sold.
We're just going to get copies of "All of Recorded Music."
You'll go to your friends' house, pick up your copy of All of Recorded Music, and there you go.
We'll have government "get tough" policies against illegal ownership of "All of Recorded Music."
"Congradulations, you have just stolen $10,000,000,000,000 worth of music," they'll say.
But everyone'll do it, anyways. At least have easy access to it.
Many scientists were talking about and forseeing computers, the media just wasn't paying attention.
As We May Think, Norbert Weiner.
"Soviet Cybernetics" was a vision of a Soviet Internet and the "New Soviet Man" was envisioned to be a Cyborg. It scared the hell out of the Americans, and inspired DARPA.
The future's indeed being rebooted; It's just not what people imagined.
No, the sex will be better, and entirely virtual.
Yeah, I know about all that stuff.
(I listen to the Dead, myself.)
My subjective observation is that more people are listening to longer songs for their "entertainment listening."
But I really can't prove it.
This may be just a dumb subjective observation.
That said, I think the idea about Sequels being a part of interest in Worlds is valid. Sure, Good Night Moon and Runaway Bunny link to one another, but it seems to me like it's more common now, that people are intentionally seeking out a way to make continuous Worlds rather than individual movies, or individual books, or whatever. And I think it's part of all these new media and crossovers that are possible now.
Not that nobody has never done these things before.
There are complexities that are rarely addressed by people who want to call other people hypocrites.
An extreme version, to help illustrate the point: "You say you believe in gravity, but you think people should try to fly! Hypocrite!" That is, the person shouting "hypocrite" is not allowing for complexity in the other side's argument.
No, it's not a new thing. (Myself, I've been listening to the Grateful Dead, and they go on for ages.)
I am talking about the younger generation's listening habits. I think my generation is listening to longer "songs" for longer periods of time. I don't have the data for you, but I think a study would show that more people are listening to longer songs.