Most of these executives gained their position due to crafty manipulation and NOT by actually, really improving a product or product line, increasing profitability or market share. But they were and will be always great at presenting their (short or very short term) results in the best light possible, and excellent at knowing and manipulating the right people.
...of the editors posting provocative and largely worthless flamebait, due to having mistaken it as news.
Factual reporting of actual events counts as news. Trolling, attention seeking, punditry, or navel gazing do not, and I don't care how supposedly "respected," said navel gazer is.
I've got mod points at the moment, so I could take the cowardly option and mod you down, but I won't.
I live in Melbourne, Australia. We've just had our hottest Summer on record, with temperatures reaching 46.5 degrees C. Last Summer was also host to some of the most devastating bushfires our country has ever had, as well. We're also currently experiencing our warmest Winter on record.
I'm not sure whether you're unintelligent, immoral (as in, you want people to think that there isn't a problem when there is, so that corporations can continue moving towards rendering the planet uninhabitable, all the while making more money, which of course, you possibly think is more important than us having drinkable water, breathable air, or a climate that doesn't literally kill us due to heat exhaustion) or some combination of both, but let me spell it out to you.
Global warming is not theoretical, and it is not controversial. It is very real. If you doubt that, it is very easy to verify. Simply compare historically recorded temperature and rainfall averages for the last ten years, with virtually any period in recorded history before the last decade.
The governance of this planet by the aforementioned corporations (which are populated by many individuals who feel that making money is more important than literally being alive to spend it) must, for the sake of the continuation of human life, immediately end. We can't keep making rationalisations for them, and we can't keep claiming that there is no proof of how destructive what they do is.
The continuation of any life on Earth, and the continuation of the existence of the Corporation, as a very concept, in contemporary terms, are mutually exclusive. For one of these two things to continue to exist, the other must be entirely destroyed. This, honestly without exaggeration or hyperbole, is the situation we currently face.
If humanity's survival is something which you are remotely interested in, I would urgently ask you to surrender any notions of ambiguity or controversy where global warming or environmental degradation are concerned; although as I said, given the chronically obvious nature of the reality of these things, I'm not sure how anyone can still consider them controversial anyway.
If we do not reach consensus on this, and act soon, we will all die.
That supports my claim that the government is out to control prices and demolishes your claim that it is not. It would appear that you have reflexively invoked government propaganda in defense of government policy without even reading the article linked in the slashdot summary.
Government controlling prices is something which I quite willingly endorse. Want to call me a Communist? In this case, at least, I will quite happily accept that pejorative. Guilty as charged.
Bluntly, consoles are where games get dumbed down.
WoW has already been dumbed down. I know this will get the usual comeback from the usual idiots about how WoW is still great, the Arena is awesome, etc; but seriously, the last few players who mattered left the game at the beginning of the year. I'm talking about people like this. People who played the game almost since initial release, back when WoW still required actual skill, and they had said skill.
WoW is dead. Truthfully it really died at patch 2.3, but contrary to what the idiots who will likely respond to this will maintain, it was the Arena that killed it.
This is a GOOD thing: it strikes a blow against John Gabriel's Greater Theory of Internet Fuckwads.
If you are a fuckwad online, and get outed for it, good. Perhaps this will discourage fewer anonymous fuckwads in the future.
Lawsuits will never happen often enough to cause people to care, though. For every one incident where this happens, there's a few million where someone gets slagged off on the World of Warcraft forums, and the perpetrator gets away with it scot free.
The drug war is one of the most inhumane, counterproductive, unethical, and mostly illegal uses of government power in the course of human history. It kills, injures, and incarcerates millions of people worldwide, strips people of their hard-won rights, and provides money to illicit/secret government programs.
Something tells me you're a stoner. I'm not sure how I know this; it's just this funny feeling I've got in the pit of my stomach.
Carmack effectively committed corporate suicide with the Zenimax deal. He can try and make defensive noises to the contrary as much as he wants, but things like this only prove it.
Where this really hurts Linux, however, isn't even so much the end of id itself, but more the work being done at icculus.org, and similar efforts. Nexiuz and Darkplaces both presumably owe their existence almost entirely to the GPL licensing of id's earlier engines, and what we're seeing here is the end of any further public code influx, from Carmack's future engines.
So we have, in sum, a scenario where Carmack's genius is no longer going to truly serve the common good, but has instead been subjugated by the suits.
The "X% of abusive users" excuse is complete crap. They know it. We know it. They just hope the majority of their userbase aren't clueful.
Which, sadly, is generally a very safe assumption.
Artificial scarcity of bandwidth will come, and will be accepted by the same silent, ovine majority who willingly accept every other form of government or corporate abuse that is inflicted upon them.
This statistic is about right, however much we might not want to look at it. I'm 32, at least mildly overweight, and am slowly recovering from a 2.5 year addiction to World of Warcraft.
World of Warcraft is my generation's real life answer to the Matrix. We sit in something close enough to a pod, stuffing ourselves with junk food while we attempt to distract ourselves from the misery of contemporary mainstream existence, yet it doesn't make us happy.
The only real difference between WoW and the Matrix is that in WoW's case, the gameplay is no longer as good.;)
Where the majority of the "Dancing with the Stars," generation are concerned these days, that's about the level of competence that the police need to get the job done. People who know how to access MySQL databases at all probably aren't a large group, relative to the general population.
If you are unable or unwilling to abide by GPL, there is a whole world of BSD software available for you.
Yeah; and it'd be too damn bad if there wasn't, wouldn't it?
I love it when you tyrannical pro-GPL jerks keep making rhetorical, "if you don't like it, you know what to do," statements. All you accomplish is publically demonstrating your character (or lack of) for everyone to see. Free As In Do As I Say.
So by all means, keep going. Feel free to make ample use of the provided rope, and continue to hang yourselves. With a bit of luck, you'll end up discrediting the GPL in the minds of whoever's watching, more or less completely.
That's actually the other reason why, truthfully, I find myself wondering why I even bother expending emotional energy where the FSF or its' drones are concerned any more. You're so brainlessly stupid, inept, and chronically socially disabled that you really don't need any help going over the proverbial cliff at all. You manage magnificently, entirely on your own.
1. If you contribute back, any contribution is going to be free for all.
Bwahahahaha. This was a Freudian slip par excellence. I think next time I notice one of the usual GNU drones talking about how the GPL is the most free and altruistic possible license, I might have to actually remember this post.
Companies use the GPL over the BSD licenses for two reasons, I suspect.
a) Social pressure. The GPL is incumbent, not IMHO because it's genuinely a better license, but more primarily because of the rabidly cultic nature of the FSF and its' followers. As a result, companies think that if they want to be popular with "the community," they have to use the GPL whether they're really comfortable with its' terms or not, and with version 3, it has also become a lot more difficult to know exactly what those terms are.
b) The second reason why I believe business stays away from the BSD license is actually a lot darker. Corporations don't want to have to compete on product merit, these days, because that means they have to invest actual work and expense on research and development, and it's also a lot more risky than simply churning out the same generic thing, year in and year out. The approach these days favours uniformity and stagnancy over innovation, because uniformity is considered a guarantee to producing more consistent profits; and as we all know, making money is literally more important than being alive to spend it.
The GPL effectively kills any possibility of competition between vendors, because with it, any improvements made by any single vendor have to remain open, so nobody ends up obtaining a unique selling position. It is a sad testament to the level of evil which currently exists in the corporate world, when we realise that contemporary corporations would actually prefer to ensure that there is no chance of their competitors gaining any kind of competitive edge, rather than being able to have the ability to potentially gain an advantage themselves.
Conglomeration and the cartel is becoming the standard business model in the 21st century; not competition. The truly delicious and hilarious irony, of course, is that Stallman's intention with the GPL was anti-commercial. What he has really done, on the other hand, is hand business the means to create potentially intractable oligopolies, at least where software is concerned, on a scale never before seen, which as an outcome, is the direct opposite of what he was hoping for.
Wikipedia has always (yes, since its' inception) suffered from two major problems.
a) Its' policy is terrible. b) The people running it are a serious problem.
The policy is a continually moving target, with flavour-of-the-month, entirely subjective and arbitrary fads dictating editing style. Edits get rejected because of such vague and ridiculous notions as, "weasel words," or "peacock phrases." One of my edits, to the character bio of John MacClaine from the Die Hard movies, was rejected because it sounded "too much like a magazine article." WTF does that mean?
Another problem is overwhelming bias, particularly in the direction of materialistic/scientistic atheistic bias. The biographical article for Richard Stallman is a good case in point; it's a blatant, totally unrepentant whitewash. Stallman is a lot more controversial than that article makes him out to be; it's not NPOV at all. There were a number of people who for some time were trying to add information about the other side of that particular story, but the article's self-appointed keeper is an individual of the alias Gronky, whose slavish, utterly single-minded worship of Stallman would simply induce pity if it wasn't so disturbing. He has continually deflected every attempt to add links to any material that is in any way critical of Stallman at all, to the point where the people who were trying to add said links have apparently given up.
This type of scenario is also deeply typical for Wikipedia. It's very common for a single individual or small group of individuals to use a particular article as a podium for expressing their view, and only their view, about the given topic, and any attempts to make edits contrary to their perspective will be continually reverted.
The claim that it is "an encyclopedia which anyone can edit," is thus, in practice, a complete lie. You can make an edit, sure; but good luck having it last for more then thirty seconds before one the army of pedantic atheistic fanatics reverts it for some entirely arbitrary reason, that generally makes sense to them alone. A lot of the time they don't even bother citing a reason, now; there's no point. That more than anything else, is the reason why I haven't bothered trying to edit on a regular basis for probably nine months now.
Do you even know what you're talking about, or are you just a troll shill for the fact cats who want to mooch off the table and not give anything back?
You need a new argument. This one is well and truly worn out.
It is predictable also, that this comment was made by an AC. If there is one thing that the FSF's supporters are not known for, it is courage.
If you don't like the smell stay out of the kitchen.
Nobody is forcing you to use GPL except your own infatuation with certain GPL'ed libraries, so suck it down, or code it yourself.
This is an attitude based primarily on fear, and the predictably resulting malice.
Fortunately, there are enough people who are not sufficiently afflicted with blind terror of corporations, that the BSD and similar licenses are able to survive.
Ask yourself; if FOSS is really as vulnerable as the FSF believes, then how come the BSDs themselves have not yet been destroyed by corporations?
I have said it before, and I will say it again; for me anyway, BSD UNIX represents the manner in which God intended man to use a computer. I continually hope that the day finally comes when these systems, and their license, are given the recognition they deserve.
I will not attack the FSF or the GPL, here; I will merely focus on the object of my own love, as it pertains to this article.
The BSDs are going to grow to be the foundational light of the Aquarian Age; and I look forward to watching it happen. I have seen the hand of God in them before, and I have at times been moved to tears because of it.
...a more relevant question would probably be, why are you using Ubuntu in the first place?
Ubuntu is a gateway drug for Windows refugees who don't know any better. For people who actually know their way around Linux, you're likely to find just about anything else more desirable.
I can't speak for anyone else, but usually the only reason why that happens in my own case is if there's something in there that has hardened and is sticking into the wall of one of my nostrils, and it itches, or even hurts.
So to remove the pain, I remove the source of it.;)
...but get married, and then get back to us in five years.
The bottom line is that if you haven't ever lived with her for a minimum of probably three weeks, you have no idea what she is really like, and she wouldn't know that about you, either. The difference between the two of you on that score though is that if she finds out you're not what she expected, she will then start trying to change you.
As far as I'm concerned, monogamy is strictly for people who do not value personal freedom, and who also don't really plan to do anything genuinely worthwhile with their lives. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that where sex is concerned, for men at least, there are only really two viable options; polygamy, or celibacy. So far, I have chosen the latter.
Realise also that as a male in particular, marriage basically boils down to a very simple transaction. You are going to trade personal freedom, (in every respect, not only sexual) and the right to direct your own personal development, for a certain amount of emotional, physical, and sexual gratification. You will also most likely end up trading most of your money for this, as well. The only way monogamy works is if one partner in the relationship voluntarily allows themselves to be subjugated, and don't let yourself be fooled; in most cases, in reality, it's the man. Anyone who tries to tell you that monogamy based on genuine equality can or does exist is lying both to you, and to themselves.
It's up to you, but I'd be smart and avoid it. Monogamy, as I've said, is strictly for the birds. People don't get married to have someone to live with; they get married to make sure they have someone to die with.
I always thought it interesting how mythology gets distorted and passed down through time. The heart, for example, is the only organ with special, emotional status these days. Strange for an unseen hunk of ugly muscle.
The origin of this idea is probably the esoteric belief in the heart chakra, an element of the energetic system which was supposed to occupy the same space.
Although, the Ancient Egyptians thought the heart was the seat of intelligence, too.
I've seen some RC Coanda models before. The concept is very interesting, but unfortunately any attempted design based on the principle runs into a lot of problems. The main issue I've seen with the RC models is slow turning, and very steep listing to either side on turns.
I know virtually nothing about aeronautics, but I've only just finished reading about how apparently this idea was studied for close to 20 years by people who are experts, and in the end they couldn't produce a working craft out of it. That tells me that there are obviously some almost intractable problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of these executives gained their position due to crafty manipulation and NOT by actually, really improving a product or product line, increasing profitability or market share. But they were and will be always great at presenting their (short or very short term) results in the best light possible, and excellent at knowing and manipulating the right people.
Tom, is that you?
...of the editors posting provocative and largely worthless flamebait, due to having mistaken it as news.
Factual reporting of actual events counts as news. Trolling, attention seeking, punditry, or navel gazing do not, and I don't care how supposedly "respected," said navel gazer is.
I've got mod points at the moment, so I could take the cowardly option and mod you down, but I won't.
I live in Melbourne, Australia. We've just had our hottest Summer on record, with temperatures reaching 46.5 degrees C. Last Summer was also host to some of the most devastating bushfires our country has ever had, as well. We're also currently experiencing our warmest Winter on record.
I'm not sure whether you're unintelligent, immoral (as in, you want people to think that there isn't a problem when there is, so that corporations can continue moving towards rendering the planet uninhabitable, all the while making more money, which of course, you possibly think is more important than us having drinkable water, breathable air, or a climate that doesn't literally kill us due to heat exhaustion) or some combination of both, but let me spell it out to you.
Global warming is not theoretical, and it is not controversial. It is very real. If you doubt that, it is very easy to verify. Simply compare historically recorded temperature and rainfall averages for the last ten years, with virtually any period in recorded history before the last decade.
The governance of this planet by the aforementioned corporations (which are populated by many individuals who feel that making money is more important than literally being alive to spend it) must, for the sake of the continuation of human life, immediately end. We can't keep making rationalisations for them, and we can't keep claiming that there is no proof of how destructive what they do is.
The continuation of any life on Earth, and the continuation of the existence of the Corporation, as a very concept, in contemporary terms, are mutually exclusive. For one of these two things to continue to exist, the other must be entirely destroyed. This, honestly without exaggeration or hyperbole, is the situation we currently face.
If humanity's survival is something which you are remotely interested in, I would urgently ask you to surrender any notions of ambiguity or controversy where global warming or environmental degradation are concerned; although as I said, given the chronically obvious nature of the reality of these things, I'm not sure how anyone can still consider them controversial anyway.
If we do not reach consensus on this, and act soon, we will all die.
That supports my claim that the government is out to control prices and demolishes your claim that it is not. It would appear that you have reflexively invoked government propaganda in defense of government policy without even reading the article linked in the slashdot summary.
Government controlling prices is something which I quite willingly endorse. Want to call me a Communist? In this case, at least, I will quite happily accept that pejorative. Guilty as charged.
Bluntly, consoles are where games get dumbed down.
WoW has already been dumbed down. I know this will get the usual comeback from the usual idiots about how WoW is still great, the Arena is awesome, etc; but seriously, the last few players who mattered left the game at the beginning of the year. I'm talking about people like this. People who played the game almost since initial release, back when WoW still required actual skill, and they had said skill.
WoW is dead. Truthfully it really died at patch 2.3, but contrary to what the idiots who will likely respond to this will maintain, it was the Arena that killed it.
This is a GOOD thing: it strikes a blow against John Gabriel's Greater Theory of Internet Fuckwads.
If you are a fuckwad online, and get outed for it, good. Perhaps this will discourage fewer anonymous fuckwads in the future.
Lawsuits will never happen often enough to cause people to care, though. For every one incident where this happens, there's a few million where someone gets slagged off on the World of Warcraft forums, and the perpetrator gets away with it scot free.
The drug war is one of the most inhumane, counterproductive, unethical, and mostly illegal uses of government power in the course of human history. It kills, injures, and incarcerates millions of people worldwide, strips people of their hard-won rights, and provides money to illicit/secret government programs.
Something tells me you're a stoner. I'm not sure how I know this; it's just this funny feeling I've got in the pit of my stomach.
Carmack effectively committed corporate suicide with the Zenimax deal. He can try and make defensive noises to the contrary as much as he wants, but things like this only prove it.
Where this really hurts Linux, however, isn't even so much the end of id itself, but more the work being done at icculus.org, and similar efforts. Nexiuz and Darkplaces both presumably owe their existence almost entirely to the GPL licensing of id's earlier engines, and what we're seeing here is the end of any further public code influx, from Carmack's future engines.
So we have, in sum, a scenario where Carmack's genius is no longer going to truly serve the common good, but has instead been subjugated by the suits.
I repeat what I wrote earlier; R.I.P id Software.
The "X% of abusive users" excuse is complete crap. They know it. We know it. They just hope the majority of their userbase aren't clueful.
Which, sadly, is generally a very safe assumption.
Artificial scarcity of bandwidth will come, and will be accepted by the same silent, ovine majority who willingly accept every other form of government or corporate abuse that is inflicted upon them.
This statistic is about right, however much we might not want to look at it. I'm 32, at least mildly overweight, and am slowly recovering from a 2.5 year addiction to World of Warcraft.
World of Warcraft is my generation's real life answer to the Matrix. We sit in something close enough to a pod, stuffing ourselves with junk food while we attempt to distract ourselves from the misery of contemporary mainstream existence, yet it doesn't make us happy.
The only real difference between WoW and the Matrix is that in WoW's case, the gameplay is no longer as good. ;)
Where the majority of the "Dancing with the Stars," generation are concerned these days, that's about the level of competence that the police need to get the job done. People who know how to access MySQL databases at all probably aren't a large group, relative to the general population.
If you are unable or unwilling to abide by GPL, there is a whole world of BSD software available for you.
Yeah; and it'd be too damn bad if there wasn't, wouldn't it?
I love it when you tyrannical pro-GPL jerks keep making rhetorical, "if you don't like it, you know what to do," statements. All you accomplish is publically demonstrating your character (or lack of) for everyone to see. Free As In Do As I Say.
So by all means, keep going. Feel free to make ample use of the provided rope, and continue to hang yourselves. With a bit of luck, you'll end up discrediting the GPL in the minds of whoever's watching, more or less completely.
That's actually the other reason why, truthfully, I find myself wondering why I even bother expending emotional energy where the FSF or its' drones are concerned any more. You're so brainlessly stupid, inept, and chronically socially disabled that you really don't need any help going over the proverbial cliff at all. You manage magnificently, entirely on your own.
1. If you contribute back, any contribution is going to be free for all.
Bwahahahaha. This was a Freudian slip par excellence. I think next time I notice one of the usual GNU drones talking about how the GPL is the most free and altruistic possible license, I might have to actually remember this post.
Companies use the GPL over the BSD licenses for two reasons, I suspect.
a) Social pressure. The GPL is incumbent, not IMHO because it's genuinely a better license, but more primarily because of the rabidly cultic nature of the FSF and its' followers. As a result, companies think that if they want to be popular with "the community," they have to use the GPL whether they're really comfortable with its' terms or not, and with version 3, it has also become a lot more difficult to know exactly what those terms are.
b) The second reason why I believe business stays away from the BSD license is actually a lot darker. Corporations don't want to have to compete on product merit, these days, because that means they have to invest actual work and expense on research and development, and it's also a lot more risky than simply churning out the same generic thing, year in and year out. The approach these days favours uniformity and stagnancy over innovation, because uniformity is considered a guarantee to producing more consistent profits; and as we all know, making money is literally more important than being alive to spend it.
The GPL effectively kills any possibility of competition between vendors, because with it, any improvements made by any single vendor have to remain open, so nobody ends up obtaining a unique selling position. It is a sad testament to the level of evil which currently exists in the corporate world, when we realise that contemporary corporations would actually prefer to ensure that there is no chance of their competitors gaining any kind of competitive edge, rather than being able to have the ability to potentially gain an advantage themselves.
Conglomeration and the cartel is becoming the standard business model in the 21st century; not competition. The truly delicious and hilarious irony, of course, is that Stallman's intention with the GPL was anti-commercial. What he has really done, on the other hand, is hand business the means to create potentially intractable oligopolies, at least where software is concerned, on a scale never before seen, which as an outcome, is the direct opposite of what he was hoping for.
I said scientistic, not scientific. There's a difference; look it up.
Although I give you some credit for not having been an Anonymous Coward, at least.
Wikipedia has always (yes, since its' inception) suffered from two major problems.
a) Its' policy is terrible.
b) The people running it are a serious problem.
The policy is a continually moving target, with flavour-of-the-month, entirely subjective and arbitrary fads dictating editing style. Edits get rejected because of such vague and ridiculous notions as, "weasel words," or "peacock phrases." One of my edits, to the character bio of John MacClaine from the Die Hard movies, was rejected because it sounded "too much like a magazine article." WTF does that mean?
Another problem is overwhelming bias, particularly in the direction of materialistic/scientistic atheistic bias. The biographical article for Richard Stallman is a good case in point; it's a blatant, totally unrepentant whitewash. Stallman is a lot more controversial than that article makes him out to be; it's not NPOV at all. There were a number of people who for some time were trying to add information about the other side of that particular story, but the article's self-appointed keeper is an individual of the alias Gronky, whose slavish, utterly single-minded worship of Stallman would simply induce pity if it wasn't so disturbing. He has continually deflected every attempt to add links to any material that is in any way critical of Stallman at all, to the point where the people who were trying to add said links have apparently given up.
This type of scenario is also deeply typical for Wikipedia. It's very common for a single individual or small group of individuals to use a particular article as a podium for expressing their view, and only their view, about the given topic, and any attempts to make edits contrary to their perspective will be continually reverted.
The claim that it is "an encyclopedia which anyone can edit," is thus, in practice, a complete lie. You can make an edit, sure; but good luck having it last for more then thirty seconds before one the army of pedantic atheistic fanatics reverts it for some entirely arbitrary reason, that generally makes sense to them alone. A lot of the time they don't even bother citing a reason, now; there's no point. That more than anything else, is the reason why I haven't bothered trying to edit on a regular basis for probably nine months now.
Do you even know what you're talking about, or are you just a troll shill for the fact cats who want to mooch off the table and not give anything back?
You need a new argument. This one is well and truly worn out.
It is predictable also, that this comment was made by an AC. If there is one thing that the FSF's supporters are not known for, it is courage.
If you don't like the smell stay out of the kitchen.
Nobody is forcing you to use GPL except your own infatuation with certain GPL'ed libraries, so suck it down, or code it yourself.
This is an attitude based primarily on fear, and the predictably resulting malice.
Fortunately, there are enough people who are not sufficiently afflicted with blind terror of corporations, that the BSD and similar licenses are able to survive.
Ask yourself; if FOSS is really as vulnerable as the FSF believes, then how come the BSDs themselves have not yet been destroyed by corporations?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqgLxfjJK6k
I have said it before, and I will say it again; for me anyway, BSD UNIX represents the manner in which God intended man to use a computer. I continually hope that the day finally comes when these systems, and their license, are given the recognition they deserve.
I will not attack the FSF or the GPL, here; I will merely focus on the object of my own love, as it pertains to this article.
The BSDs are going to grow to be the foundational light of the Aquarian Age; and I look forward to watching it happen. I have seen the hand of God in them before, and I have at times been moved to tears because of it.
...a more relevant question would probably be, why are you using Ubuntu in the first place?
Ubuntu is a gateway drug for Windows refugees who don't know any better. For people who actually know their way around Linux, you're likely to find just about anything else more desirable.
I can't speak for anyone else, but usually the only reason why that happens in my own case is if there's something in there that has hardened and is sticking into the wall of one of my nostrils, and it itches, or even hurts.
So to remove the pain, I remove the source of it. ;)
Ever seen how long my freaks list is? I'm not exactly well loved, around here. ;)
Thanks, though. :)
...but get married, and then get back to us in five years.
The bottom line is that if you haven't ever lived with her for a minimum of probably three weeks, you have no idea what she is really like, and she wouldn't know that about you, either. The difference between the two of you on that score though is that if she finds out you're not what she expected, she will then start trying to change you.
As far as I'm concerned, monogamy is strictly for people who do not value personal freedom, and who also don't really plan to do anything genuinely worthwhile with their lives. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that where sex is concerned, for men at least, there are only really two viable options; polygamy, or celibacy. So far, I have chosen the latter.
Realise also that as a male in particular, marriage basically boils down to a very simple transaction. You are going to trade personal freedom, (in every respect, not only sexual) and the right to direct your own personal development, for a certain amount of emotional, physical, and sexual gratification. You will also most likely end up trading most of your money for this, as well. The only way monogamy works is if one partner in the relationship voluntarily allows themselves to be subjugated, and don't let yourself be fooled; in most cases, in reality, it's the man. Anyone who tries to tell you that monogamy based on genuine equality can or does exist is lying both to you, and to themselves.
It's up to you, but I'd be smart and avoid it. Monogamy, as I've said, is strictly for the birds. People don't get married to have someone to live with; they get married to make sure they have someone to die with.
I always thought it interesting how mythology gets distorted and passed down through time. The heart, for example, is the only organ with special, emotional status these days. Strange for an unseen hunk of ugly muscle.
The origin of this idea is probably the esoteric belief in the heart chakra, an element of the energetic system which was supposed to occupy the same space.
Although, the Ancient Egyptians thought the heart was the seat of intelligence, too.
I've seen some RC Coanda models before. The concept is very interesting, but unfortunately any attempted design based on the principle runs into a lot of problems. The main issue I've seen with the RC models is slow turning, and very steep listing to either side on turns.
I know virtually nothing about aeronautics, but I've only just finished reading about how apparently this idea was studied for close to 20 years by people who are experts, and in the end they couldn't produce a working craft out of it. That tells me that there are obviously some almost intractable problems.