You're confused about a great deal here. This is normal. Many men are confused about sex, and what they want from a partner. To put it bluntly, while a sex robot might or might not be okay as a substitution for masturbation, it is a long stretch from being a substitute for sex. While it's true that men and women have different flavors of interest in sexual relations, the differences aren't so great as all that, and a belief that a robot is a potential substitute for the man's half in all this illustrates a profound lack of understanding of both what it is men want and need, as well as a profound lack of self-understanding. I.e., to wit: whatever you think you know about men, and even yourself, is illusory. Look deeper, young padiwan.
The two party system is nothing that is codified. Rather, it's something of a natural consequence to the basic system that we do have. To get rid of the two party monopoly, you'd have to roll over to coalition government, or a cascading vote system, or something else. That's a fundamental change to the U.S. Constitution. That's not likely to happen any time soon, at all. Constitutional Amendments aren't even seriously discussed any more. It would take a crisis of epic proportion to even have any hope.
In the US, a great many States are "at will" employment states. This means you are employed "at will". If the employer no longer wills it, you are no longer employed. It's that simple. But in this case it's worse. If an employer tells you not to listen to music at work, and you continue to do so, in most states you can be fired for "cause" for insubordination. It would then be a matter of your employment record that you were terminated for cause as opposed to merely let go. Any reasonable sized company will not be frivolous about this, due to the possibilities of litigation, but a small employer might.
That was a pretty accurate discussion on ethics and morals, yes.
I don't think the example was bad. I think that the right to privacy to protect from humiliation trumps the larger interest in a particular communicable disease. What I meant by "interesting" is that comparing the two interests provides a thought framework for considering the matter.
There are a few states that make failure to disclose VD a crime. It's a felony offense in 27 states if it's HIV. I saw several places saying that some states make failure to disclose herpes a crime, but I cannot corroborate that. Certainly, we know that it's actionable, which is to say that it's a wrong doing according to our tradition of common law.
But we dont require people to legally disclose that to partners.
Yes, we do. In many states willfully failing to disclose VD to a partner is a criminal offense.
Anyway, you're missing my point. It was the dichotomy of interests that makes it interesting. I.e., both a right to privacy AND a public interest. You're arguing one side, pretending there's not two. There are in fact two sides.
As far as your lecture on ethics versus morality, you may wish to read this:
While twiddling with the body willy nilly is a fool's recipe, let's not go down the path of assuming that the way things are are the way they should be. We already no otherwise, that's why we don't take dying laying down. So to speak.
They don't want heavy soldiers for the most part, no. The game in soldiery is endurance, not physical size.
They might be interested in something that promotes lean body mass, but understand that pure testosterone will do that right now, and they're not buying.
Venereal diseases put potential partners in harm's way. This matter is not merely hypothetical; unfortunately the number of people who have gotten VD from a partner who did not disclose this are legion.
These are not the same as lying to your mom, no. The fact that you consider them to be. Well. Defective moral compass, chap. Something for you to work on.
Herpes is not a crime, but I bet if you had it you would want to keep that fact private.
This sentiment is such an interesting one. For example, private for what purpose? I totally understand what's being said here, but. Well I can see an argument on how this should perhaps NOT be private information. There are two layers of privacy here. 1, the general public, from which the person wants to be protected from humiliation, and 2) possible mates, for which no ethical argument for privacy applies. Should 1 or 2 be the one that rules the day? And that's what I meant by "interesting". There is no clear and obvious answer.
Yes. I knew someone who was jailed for a crime he did not commit. This turned him into a sociopath. Society "owed" him after that. He was later convicted under California's three strikes laws, and will never emerge from prison.
This is what happens to the minds of a lot of drug offenders. They KNOW what they are doing is not wrong, they are right, and the law is wrong. Once you hurt someone for doing nothing wrong, they will harbor rather ill feelings towards "society," you can pretty well count on it.
This is one of my favorite asinine party tricks. If someone tells me something isn't a word, I bet them that it is, according to THEIR dictionary. I've never lost this bet. It has the added virtue of verbally pinching the anal retentive word monger right on the nose.:-)
Not really. If someone has a bunch (bunch left undefined here) of child porn on their computer, intent will be assumed and accepted by the jury.
Anyway, not to mince words: you are right in a case involving a small handful of pictures. If this is true of his case, no self-respecting prosecutor would bring the case to jury in the first place.
I haven't RTFA'd, but from the description you are right.
The most common type of marginal porn is porn from some euro-country, where the age of consent is 16. There's lots of that out there, technically quite illegal in the US. OTOH, I've gotten the impression that prosecutors leave this stuff alone, precisely because it's both somewhat difficult for anyone to tell, and because of the slight difference in moral boundaries between various countries.
So basically what you are saying is that if I hacked Time Warner Cable and disseminated child porn on it, the local authorities would be required by law to arrest everyone with a TiVO?
Absurd, and I don't really believe this is true. I believe that case law requires intent to possess. I.e., if someone else had put the child porn on his computer, without his knowledge, and he could prove this to be true, there'd be no case.
Well, accidental possession doesn't even count. Intent is affirmatively required. The deal is, he has to prove accidental, make the jury believe that, etc. If this case is going to court, I'm sure that the prosecutor has reason to believe that this is a case of intent, not accident.
What we do know,affirmatively, is that if someone commits a second felony after a first imprisonment, the chances are they are a lifelong career criminal. That's why California has the three strikes law. The third strike is actually generous. You know in two.
This is barring all the drug related imprisonments. These probably actually CREATE criminals, because you have to have the ethical capability of a brick to not know that imprisoning someone for a victimless crime is itself and injustice. Unfortunately, our society is composed of countless people with the ethical capability of bricks.
BTW. One thing you may wish to consider is that criminal justice systems are designed to deter people who are essentially sociopaths. Sociopaths are mostly unreformable. As soon as one establishes a lack of empathy for other human beings, one is mostly a lost cause. With these folks, you have to teach them that there are CONSEQUENCES. Indeed, that's the only thing they really care about (the feelings of their victims don't bother them at all, QED).
You talk about "sensible or statistically," but even highly intensive therapy has a hard time with SPD and NPD. And we can't afford a therapist per felon, mon.
Anyway, supposing we could. We'd have to dump all the drug related offenses first. These are clogging up the prisons like crazy, and are intrinsically evil.
Which open source license protects you better? None. Anyway, you're missing the point. There are an army of folks out there who make proprietary code. They cannot use your code if it is GPL'd. If it is BSD'ed, they can.
I can see, however, in reviewing the thread that you're not interested in any kind of open source at all. I'm not quite sure why you replied at all.
The GPL does not intrude on your right to license your code under other licenses. In fact, as the originator, you're the one party that continues to hold the right to license your code commercially if you use the GPL. I'm curious to hear which other FOSS license thinks protects you better. For example if you use BSD and family, you have essentially given up the right to license your code commercially (because you give that right away with many of the other licenses).
Why is it that we always deal with the word "communist" as a pejorative? Free software is one of the few examples in the world of successful communism at work: from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need. The objection to communism historically--and a fair one, I say--is that it just doesn't work. And that instituting it at a nation state level causes nothing but misery. But volunteer-only based communism, in a context where it has proven itself effective? To object to that is just small minded, and mean spirited.
Windows could have NEVER been a good Unix. Unix is based on the philosophy of elegant, minimalist components working together to compose a whole. Windows is an intractable monolith that not even programmers inside Microsoft know very well (yes, this is a problem that even Microsoft recognizes internally).
There won't be a sudden shift of developer time to non copyleft software. Most developers are somewhat jealous of their code. The GPL provides them an emotional lozenge to chew on, where the less restrictive licenses lead them to fear that some commercial company is going to grab up their code without giving them credit and so forth. The emotional lozenge of the GPL: "at least my code, and anything based on it, will always be free".
Slashdot Mirror
You're confused about a great deal here. This is normal. Many men are confused about sex, and what they want from a partner. To put it bluntly, while a sex robot might or might not be okay as a substitution for masturbation, it is a long stretch from being a substitute for sex. While it's true that men and women have different flavors of interest in sexual relations, the differences aren't so great as all that, and a belief that a robot is a potential substitute for the man's half in all this illustrates a profound lack of understanding of both what it is men want and need, as well as a profound lack of self-understanding. I.e., to wit: whatever you think you know about men, and even yourself, is illusory. Look deeper, young padiwan.
Joe.
Hmmm. I think they're calling this client virtualization now. Desktop virtualization is where the desktop is in the data center.
Strange terminology, I know.
rofl
Where is the "Mod +1, Witty and Cutting" option? LOL.
The two party system is nothing that is codified. Rather, it's something of a natural consequence to the basic system that we do have. To get rid of the two party monopoly, you'd have to roll over to coalition government, or a cascading vote system, or something else. That's a fundamental change to the U.S. Constitution. That's not likely to happen any time soon, at all. Constitutional Amendments aren't even seriously discussed any more. It would take a crisis of epic proportion to even have any hope.
C//
In the US, a great many States are "at will" employment states. This means you are employed "at will". If the employer no longer wills it, you are no longer employed. It's that simple. But in this case it's worse. If an employer tells you not to listen to music at work, and you continue to do so, in most states you can be fired for "cause" for insubordination. It would then be a matter of your employment record that you were terminated for cause as opposed to merely let go. Any reasonable sized company will not be frivolous about this, due to the possibilities of litigation, but a small employer might.
C//
That was a pretty accurate discussion on ethics and morals, yes.
I don't think the example was bad. I think that the right to privacy to protect from humiliation trumps the larger interest in a particular communicable disease. What I meant by "interesting" is that comparing the two interests provides a thought framework for considering the matter.
There are a few states that make failure to disclose VD a crime. It's a felony offense in 27 states if it's HIV. I saw several places saying that some states make failure to disclose herpes a crime, but I cannot corroborate that. Certainly, we know that it's actionable, which is to say that it's a wrong doing according to our tradition of common law.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51350
C//
But we dont require people to legally disclose that to partners.
Yes, we do. In many states willfully failing to disclose VD to a partner is a criminal offense.
Anyway, you're missing my point. It was the dichotomy of interests that makes it interesting. I.e., both a right to privacy AND a public interest. You're arguing one side, pretending there's not two. There are in fact two sides.
As far as your lecture on ethics versus morality, you may wish to read this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morals
C//
They're soft muscle tissue, not skeletal muscle tissue. So, no, I doubt it.
C//
The body is the way it is for good reasons.
While twiddling with the body willy nilly is a fool's recipe, let's not go down the path of assuming that the way things are are the way they should be. We already no otherwise, that's why we don't take dying laying down. So to speak.
C//
They don't want heavy soldiers for the most part, no. The game in soldiery is endurance, not physical size.
They might be interested in something that promotes lean body mass, but understand that pure testosterone will do that right now, and they're not buying.
C//
Venereal diseases put potential partners in harm's way. This matter is not merely hypothetical; unfortunately the number of people who have gotten VD from a partner who did not disclose this are legion.
These are not the same as lying to your mom, no. The fact that you consider them to be. Well. Defective moral compass, chap. Something for you to work on.
C//
Herpes is not a crime, but I bet if you had it you would want to keep that fact private.
This sentiment is such an interesting one. For example, private for what purpose? I totally understand what's being said here, but. Well I can see an argument on how this should perhaps NOT be private information. There are two layers of privacy here. 1, the general public, from which the person wants to be protected from humiliation, and 2) possible mates, for which no ethical argument for privacy applies. Should 1 or 2 be the one that rules the day? And that's what I meant by "interesting". There is no clear and obvious answer.
C//
Yes. I knew someone who was jailed for a crime he did not commit. This turned him into a sociopath. Society "owed" him after that. He was later convicted under California's three strikes laws, and will never emerge from prison.
This is what happens to the minds of a lot of drug offenders. They KNOW what they are doing is not wrong, they are right, and the law is wrong. Once you hurt someone for doing nothing wrong, they will harbor rather ill feelings towards "society," you can pretty well count on it.
C//
Any dictionary I have ever seen would consider "ginormous" to be a word.
See the definition of "word" here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word
This is one of my favorite asinine party tricks. If someone tells me something isn't a word, I bet them that it is, according to THEIR dictionary. I've never lost this bet. It has the added virtue of verbally pinching the anal retentive word monger right on the nose. :-)
C//
Not really. If someone has a bunch (bunch left undefined here) of child porn on their computer, intent will be assumed and accepted by the jury.
Anyway, not to mince words: you are right in a case involving a small handful of pictures. If this is true of his case, no self-respecting prosecutor would bring the case to jury in the first place.
I haven't RTFA'd, but from the description you are right.
C//
The most common type of marginal porn is porn from some euro-country, where the age of consent is 16. There's lots of that out there, technically quite illegal in the US. OTOH, I've gotten the impression that prosecutors leave this stuff alone, precisely because it's both somewhat difficult for anyone to tell, and because of the slight difference in moral boundaries between various countries.
So basically what you are saying is that if I hacked Time Warner Cable and disseminated child porn on it, the local authorities would be required by law to arrest everyone with a TiVO?
Absurd, and I don't really believe this is true. I believe that case law requires intent to possess. I.e., if someone else had put the child porn on his computer, without his knowledge, and he could prove this to be true, there'd be no case.
C//
Well, accidental possession doesn't even count. Intent is affirmatively required. The deal is, he has to prove accidental, make the jury believe that, etc. If this case is going to court, I'm sure that the prosecutor has reason to believe that this is a case of intent, not accident.
Hmmm.
What we do know,affirmatively, is that if someone commits a second felony after a first imprisonment, the chances are they are a lifelong career criminal. That's why California has the three strikes law. The third strike is actually generous. You know in two.
This is barring all the drug related imprisonments. These probably actually CREATE criminals, because you have to have the ethical capability of a brick to not know that imprisoning someone for a victimless crime is itself and injustice. Unfortunately, our society is composed of countless people with the ethical capability of bricks.
BTW. One thing you may wish to consider is that criminal justice systems are designed to deter people who are essentially sociopaths. Sociopaths are mostly unreformable. As soon as one establishes a lack of empathy for other human beings, one is mostly a lost cause. With these folks, you have to teach them that there are CONSEQUENCES. Indeed, that's the only thing they really care about (the feelings of their victims don't bother them at all, QED).
You talk about "sensible or statistically," but even highly intensive therapy has a hard time with SPD and NPD. And we can't afford a therapist per felon, mon.
Anyway, supposing we could. We'd have to dump all the drug related offenses first. These are clogging up the prisons like crazy, and are intrinsically evil.
C//
Which open source license protects you better? None. Anyway, you're missing the point. There are an army of folks out there who make proprietary code. They cannot use your code if it is GPL'd. If it is BSD'ed, they can.
I can see, however, in reviewing the thread that you're not interested in any kind of open source at all. I'm not quite sure why you replied at all.
C//
"I like My code,to STAY My code."
The GPL does not intrude on your right to license your code under other licenses. In fact, as the originator, you're the one party that continues to hold the right to license your code commercially if you use the GPL. I'm curious to hear which other FOSS license thinks protects you better. For example if you use BSD and family, you have essentially given up the right to license your code commercially (because you give that right away with many of the other licenses).
C//
You're in good company. Larry Wall calls himself a "programmer".
C//
Was it planned, or did you get home in the evening and say "let's go out tonight"?
I was curious about this one. Is there a right answer here? I would have thought both would be good.
C//
Why is it that we always deal with the word "communist" as a pejorative? Free software is one of the few examples in the world of successful communism at work: from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need. The objection to communism historically--and a fair one, I say--is that it just doesn't work. And that instituting it at a nation state level causes nothing but misery. But volunteer-only based communism, in a context where it has proven itself effective? To object to that is just small minded, and mean spirited.
Windows could have NEVER been a good Unix. Unix is based on the philosophy of elegant, minimalist components working together to compose a whole. Windows is an intractable monolith that not even programmers inside Microsoft know very well (yes, this is a problem that even Microsoft recognizes internally).
There won't be a sudden shift of developer time to non copyleft software. Most developers are somewhat jealous of their code. The GPL provides them an emotional lozenge to chew on, where the less restrictive licenses lead them to fear that some commercial company is going to grab up their code without giving them credit and so forth. The emotional lozenge of the GPL: "at least my code, and anything based on it, will always be free".
C//