Except that the Webb telescope will be beyond the range of the shuttle. It will orbit at one of the Lagrange points, which is a higher orbit than the shuttle can obtain.
Because of that, if anything goes wrong with the Webb telescope, it becomes another worthless piece of space junk.
Of course, the parent could create the desire within the child not to let his or her parents down by earning the child's trust and respect. But that would require the parent to do actual work, so never mind.
Not once did I say that parents shouldn't talk to their kids about sex.
What I said was that parents shouldn't try to use embarassment as a punishment. Read the post that I was replying to again. The poster in question admitted that he was trying to shame his son into not looking at porn.
Nothing will stop a 16 year old from viewing porn like having to face dad for an open and frank discussion that starts out as "so son, notice you've been looking at a lot of sex pages..Do you think all women are like that?? I noticed you were spending most of your time on pages where the women were doing X. Why is that ?? "
And nothing will give a 16 year old a complex about sex like that, either. Trying to discourage any sort of behavior through needless embarassment will do just that: needlessly embarass him. If you really are enough of an uptight, sexually repressed parent that you absolutely forbid that a teenage boy be interested in sex or women, well, good luck with that. Either your son will turn out gay, be afraid of sex and women, or become a sexual freak (weird/disgusting fetishes and whatnot).
As for the porn thing: guess what? There are worse things your kids could be doing online than looking at pictures of naked women or people having sex.
I respect your right to have an oppinion different from mine. It just happens that I disagree with it.
But if you disagree with the idea that everyone has a right to be heard, no matter how unpopular what they have to say is, feel free not to post here. While I would never do anything to make you be silent, you seem to be violating your own ethos. After all, your oppinion that not everyone has a right to be heard is unpopular, and because that oppinion is unpopular it shouldn't be heard, yes?:)
Somebody please explain to me how this is trolling? Moderators: just because you disagree with a post's content doesn't mean you should mod it down. Fuckwads.
btw how much effort have you made to listen to my point of view that not all point of views should be listened to in an equal manner?
What the fuck? I did listen to your point of view. I just happen to disagree with it.
I believe that everyone has the right to be heard, no matter how unpopular what they have to say might be. This belief is one of the founding principles of America.
Your oppinion that not all points of view are worthy of being listened to in an equal matter is so fundamentally wrong that I can't even think of where to begin discrediting it. But you know what? As much as I disagree, I listened anyway.
The issue, which you're ignoring, is that libraries are REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES LAW to use filtering software such as the programs made by Symantec. So, by installing the new version of Symantec's filtering software, you wouldn't be able to access any pro-gun sites FROM A PUBLIC LIBRARY.
But you ignore a few other things as well: 1)Not everyone who owns a gun uses it to kill people. 2)When it comes to the defense of your home, you do not need to shoot someone for a gun to be effective. The mere sound of a shotgun being pumped is enough to scare away most people. 3)Banned or not, criminals will always have access to guns.
...the lunatic rantings of gun nuts who believe that their safety depends on their ability to blow other people away on a whim.
Yes, there are gun nuts, but sorry, not all gun owners are lunatics. And I don't know about where you live, but where I live the police don't have an immediate response time. You don't even need to shoot someone for a gun to scare them away; merely not knowing whether a house's occupants are armed or not is enough to keep many criminals from breaking into a house while the owners are home, also, see the bit above about the sound of a shotgun being pumped scaring criminals away.
So, it's OK for a company to arbitrarily block political content that it disagrees with, as long as you disagree with it too? Fuck you.
If parents want to block pro-gun sites instead of letting their kids decide for themselves, fine.
The problem arises out of the fact that libraries in the US are REQUIRED to use filtering software, and Symantec's stuff is pretty popular. Imagine visiting a library to do some anti-gun research. One of the best tools to change people's viewpoints is to discredit the opposing viewpoint. So, you decide to head on over to the NRA's law website, looking for some crazy pro-gun statements to refute. But instead, lo and behold, you can't access the site. It isn't a site about making guns, using guns, buying guns, or anything that could be considered dangerous. It doesn't have pornography, so it can't be considered obscene. Yet, because Symantec shipped their software to block all pro-gun sites by default, you can't access the information you want, and are left to trot out the same, tired anti-gun arguments that everyone else does. So, you see, regardless of where you stand, having access to information from both sides is important.
Ask yourself, "Would I be upset if the situation was reversed? If Symantec was blocking all anti-gun sites, yet letting all the pro-gun sites through?" If yes, then you are a hypocrite.
You see, in the US, both sides of an issue being able to be heard is considered a good thing, regardless of how dangerous or stupid one side may seem.
So, the NRA's law site is somehow dangerous? Remember, these aren't sites detailing how to build/use/acquire guns, but are presenting the opposite side of the gun control coin. And, for that, Symantec censors them.
You're a hypocrite for suggesting that pro-gun sites should be censored, then turning around and saying you don't like censorship.
You and your ilk are missing the point. It isn't a pro-gun vs anti-gun issue. It's an issue about a company deciding to filter out political content that it disagrees with, and libraries being required by law to use that company and other companies' filtering software.
You're an idiot. If VFX studios could use free programs, they would. The less they spend on software, the more they can increase their profit margins.
In some cases, this has already happened. VFX studios are dropping SGI hardware and IRIX in favor of PCs running Linux like crazy. The free image sequence touch-up program CinePaint is used at several major studios.
But where the non-free software is superior, they will continue to use it. It makes no sense for them to cripple their artists' productivity by making the artists suffer through Blender's wretched interface.
And when it comes to The GIMP, just about everything is superior, at least interface-wise. It's interface rivals Blender in terms of how much work has to be done just to accomplish simple tasks, and that's simply unacceptable for artists working on somebody else's schedule.
Get off your high horse. This isn't new. Maya PLE has been available since at least 2002.
Maya Complete is already fairly cheap as it is, at least as far as professional-level programs go.
It's called the Personal Learning Edition for a reason. The SDK and plug-in support are disabled so that you can't do the majority of your studio's work on Maya PLE and then buy one Maya Complete license when you're nearly done for rendering.
Don't blame Alias when they give away a watermarked version of their bread and butter, only to have CmdrTaco & Co. and all the Slashbots misconstrue it as though Alias decided to give the full version away for the good of humanity.
IIRC it wasn't the huns who brought down the Roman empire (though they certainly didn't help keep it going).
It was, AFAIK, because the constant civil wars towards the end had left the army so depleted that there weren't enough troops to keep the frontier secure. Then the idiot emperor decided to fix this problem by enlisting barbarians into the Roman army, even letting them keep their barbarian commanders IIRC. It doesn't take a genius to guess what happened next.
How does be more emotional, have rapid mood swings, and yet still be more rational? Oh, one can't be. Trying to generalize such things as "all men are this way, all women are that way" is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, what? Doom was all about atmosphere. At least, Episode I was.
No, it means you get to talk to your now-deceased dad from 30 years ago.
People who are 18, 19, and 20 aren't minors. So why exclude them?
Except that the Webb telescope will be beyond the range of the shuttle. It will orbit at one of the Lagrange points, which is a higher orbit than the shuttle can obtain.
Because of that, if anything goes wrong with the Webb telescope, it becomes another worthless piece of space junk.
It has nothing to do with religion.
It is entirely possible for someone to be psychologically conditioned to be attracted to men instead of women. You have heard of prison, right?
And guess why the child would think that porn is wrong and/or inappropriate? Oh, that's right, it's because the parent has told them that it is.
Of course, the parent could create the desire within the child not to let his or her parents down by earning the child's trust and respect. But that would require the parent to do actual work, so never mind.
Not once did I say that parents shouldn't talk to their kids about sex.
What I said was that parents shouldn't try to use embarassment as a punishment. Read the post that I was replying to again. The poster in question admitted that he was trying to shame his son into not looking at porn.
And nothing will give a 16 year old a complex about sex like that, either. Trying to discourage any sort of behavior through needless embarassment will do just that: needlessly embarass him. If you really are enough of an uptight, sexually repressed parent that you absolutely forbid that a teenage boy be interested in sex or women, well, good luck with that. Either your son will turn out gay, be afraid of sex and women, or become a sexual freak (weird/disgusting fetishes and whatnot).
"Tuckus?" Jesus.
As for the porn thing: guess what? There are worse things your kids could be doing online than looking at pictures of naked women or people having sex.
You realize that faux is pronounced "foe" rather than "fox" right?
I respect your right to have an oppinion different from mine. It just happens that I disagree with it.
:)
But if you disagree with the idea that everyone has a right to be heard, no matter how unpopular what they have to say is, feel free not to post here. While I would never do anything to make you be silent, you seem to be violating your own ethos. After all, your oppinion that not everyone has a right to be heard is unpopular, and because that oppinion is unpopular it shouldn't be heard, yes?
Somebody please explain to me how this is trolling? Moderators: just because you disagree with a post's content doesn't mean you should mod it down. Fuckwads.
What the fuck? I did listen to your point of view. I just happen to disagree with it.
I believe that everyone has the right to be heard, no matter how unpopular what they have to say might be. This belief is one of the founding principles of America.
Your oppinion that not all points of view are worthy of being listened to in an equal matter is so fundamentally wrong that I can't even think of where to begin discrediting it. But you know what? As much as I disagree, I listened anyway.
But you ignore a few other things as well:
1)Not everyone who owns a gun uses it to kill people.
2)When it comes to the defense of your home, you do not need to shoot someone for a gun to be effective. The mere sound of a shotgun being pumped is enough to scare away most people.
3)Banned or not, criminals will always have access to guns.
Yes, there are gun nuts, but sorry, not all gun owners are lunatics. And I don't know about where you live, but where I live the police don't have an immediate response time. You don't even need to shoot someone for a gun to scare them away; merely not knowing whether a house's occupants are armed or not is enough to keep many criminals from breaking into a house while the owners are home, also, see the bit above about the sound of a shotgun being pumped scaring criminals away.
So, it's OK for a company to arbitrarily block political content that it disagrees with, as long as you disagree with it too? Fuck you.
If parents want to block pro-gun sites instead of letting their kids decide for themselves, fine.
The problem arises out of the fact that libraries in the US are REQUIRED to use filtering software, and Symantec's stuff is pretty popular. Imagine visiting a library to do some anti-gun research. One of the best tools to change people's viewpoints is to discredit the opposing viewpoint. So, you decide to head on over to the NRA's law website, looking for some crazy pro-gun statements to refute. But instead, lo and behold, you can't access the site. It isn't a site about making guns, using guns, buying guns, or anything that could be considered dangerous. It doesn't have pornography, so it can't be considered obscene. Yet, because Symantec shipped their software to block all pro-gun sites by default, you can't access the information you want, and are left to trot out the same, tired anti-gun arguments that everyone else does. So, you see, regardless of where you stand, having access to information from both sides is important.
Ask yourself, "Would I be upset if the situation was reversed? If Symantec was blocking all anti-gun sites, yet letting all the pro-gun sites through?" If yes, then you are a hypocrite.
You see, in the US, both sides of an issue being able to be heard is considered a good thing, regardless of how dangerous or stupid one side may seem.
So, the NRA's law site is somehow dangerous? Remember, these aren't sites detailing how to build/use/acquire guns, but are presenting the opposite side of the gun control coin. And, for that, Symantec censors them.
You're a hypocrite for suggesting that pro-gun sites should be censored, then turning around and saying you don't like censorship.
You and your ilk are missing the point. It isn't a pro-gun vs anti-gun issue. It's an issue about a company deciding to filter out political content that it disagrees with, and libraries being required by law to use that company and other companies' filtering software.
As much as I disapprove of Gestapo tactics, the Secret Service was named long before the Nazis and their SS existed.
You're an idiot. If VFX studios could use free programs, they would. The less they spend on software, the more they can increase their profit margins.
In some cases, this has already happened. VFX studios are dropping SGI hardware and IRIX in favor of PCs running Linux like crazy. The free image sequence touch-up program CinePaint is used at several major studios.
But where the non-free software is superior, they will continue to use it. It makes no sense for them to cripple their artists' productivity by making the artists suffer through Blender's wretched interface.
And when it comes to The GIMP, just about everything is superior, at least interface-wise. It's interface rivals Blender in terms of how much work has to be done just to accomplish simple tasks, and that's simply unacceptable for artists working on somebody else's schedule.
Get off your high horse. This isn't new. Maya PLE has been available since at least 2002.
Maya Complete is already fairly cheap as it is, at least as far as professional-level programs go.
It's called the Personal Learning Edition for a reason. The SDK and plug-in support are disabled so that you can't do the majority of your studio's work on Maya PLE and then buy one Maya Complete license when you're nearly done for rendering.
Don't blame Alias when they give away a watermarked version of their bread and butter, only to have CmdrTaco & Co. and all the Slashbots misconstrue it as though Alias decided to give the full version away for the good of humanity.
To say that Maya is in the same realm as Blender is to say that Linux is in the same realm as Minix.
The fact is, Maya has Blender beat, hands down. Hell, Alias' previous 3D animation package, PowerAnimator, probably had Blender beat too.
Exactly.
What do people say to a guy who's complaining about an ache? "Dude, shut up and quit acting like a girl."
Congratulations, sir. You made my day :)
IIRC it wasn't the huns who brought down the Roman empire (though they certainly didn't help keep it going).
It was, AFAIK, because the constant civil wars towards the end had left the army so depleted that there weren't enough troops to keep the frontier secure. Then the idiot emperor decided to fix this problem by enlisting barbarians into the Roman army, even letting them keep their barbarian commanders IIRC. It doesn't take a genius to guess what happened next.
If only they'd had Russel Crowe...
How does be more emotional, have rapid mood swings, and yet still be more rational? Oh, one can't be. Trying to generalize such things as "all men are this way, all women are that way" is stupid.
Male bashing is the new Polish jokes.