The fact that some women are even under the impression that insisting that the toilet seat always be down to convenience them is in any way right-thinking at all completely boggles my mind. . . . if she starts throwing a shit fit about the toilet seat, dump her. I'm serious. It's the tip of the iceberg, and you'll end up unhappy in the long run.
If right-thinking is what you what you want in the relationship, then this is good advice. If what you want in the relationship is something else (children, cooking, laughter, money, sex, etc.), then keep her or dump her on the basis of something that matters to you. Some men rank the efficiency and logic of toilet seat position relatively low among the ten thousand things.
Like TFA, the parent supposes that the inconvenience (C) of moving the toilet seat is the same to both John and Marsha. Let me suggest that the whole game is not driven by (C). It is driven by (Y), the yuck of performing a sitting operation without realizing that the seat is up.
TFA correctly notes that the cost of yelling (D) is much greater that (C). (Y), in turn, is much, much greater than (D). (Y) is so much greater than (C) that Marsha will choose a strategy that calls for creating (D) daily rather than endure even one (Y) a year.
It's hard to believe that this list is complete at 50 office holders. Is 50 really enough to ensure success? Wouldn't they have tried to acquire closer to half of the federal office holders (536/2+1=269)? That money (269* ~$5000 = $1.4 million) is a drop in the bucket.
Did this list really backtrack all of RIAA's members and their proxies? The recorded music industry gave $3.1 million in the last presidential election cycle (2004) and $2.4 million in the off year (2006). Not every company in the recorded music industry is RIAA, but these recipients got a lot more money overall than TFA reports.
. . . it's like using our water and simply because there's no precedent doesn't . ..
Tribes v U.S.: How can there not be precedent? There are rivers that flow into tribal land; could the U.S. divert them? There are rivers that flow out of tribal land; could the tribe divert them? What about airplanes? What about wildlife? There are plenty of things that pass into and out of tribal land. There must be precedent.
Other Sovereign Nations v U.S.: How can there not be precedent? Both Canada and Mexico must have reached some agreement with the U.S. on how to handle near-border cell phone, TV, and radio signals. There must be precedent.
It's been shown time and again that maintenance of a free market requires government intervention . . . e.g., the copyright statute, without which, their protected position here would collapse as this market overflowed with new entrants.
The point is not that people want less copyright, the point is that these corporations want MORE. They're shifting the paradigm (pardon my French) from "copyright is a government granted monopoly" to "copyright is ours by default and you're a pirate."
I don't believe I will pardon the French. Moral rights of authors, indeed!
These prohibitions on copying do not exist by default. They were granted on the whim of men. When they no longer serve us, they can be ungranted. What they call 'piracy' is nothing more than the natural state of being.
The best way to create more pirates is . . . apparently a complex brew of Maya, Gentle Giant, CloneCam, Zeno, and ZBrush known only to the Wizards of Ilm.
Does that seem right? Should you be able to patent an alloy? . . . Isn't that something mother nature made possible?
At least in the U.S., an alloy is patentable. 35 U.S.C. 101:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor . ..
An alloy is considered a 'composition of matter' and the recipe for producing it is considered a 'process'. While some people believe that items simply found in nature should not be patentable, most people agree that something that has to be brewed according to a recipe is patentable. (The exception being those people who advocate the complete abolition of patents.)
Whose bright idea was it to color that map in those particular shades of red and blue? Interesting how it makes the perennially urban areas pale into insignificance, isn't it?
If you're thinking, "It's not supposed to be a population density map, it's supposed to draw the eye to areas that are becoming more rural and less rural", then answer this question: why use the colors blue and red?
This is easily the most exciting time period in the history of astronomy (to date). New discoveries of real interest (even to nonexperts) are being made monthly. What a marvelous time to be living!
You're not supposed (at least according to that pesky Constitution) to be required to show ID everywhere you go within the US. But, that has largely been trampled upon since 9/11.
These issues aren't that hard to solve technically, are they? We used to have problems with PKs killing players in places where that wasn't acceptable. Most of those bugs are now solved. We used to have problems with traders cheating. Now, some systems have secure mutual-consent trading mechanisms.
Can't a game that codes for player on player sex put in a couple of 'do you consent' dialogs? No, no, but 'do you really consent?' 'Are you double-secret-probation sure you consent?'
Can't a game that allows children to have accounts simply code the child's account so that they can neither participate in sex nor even be aware of sexual actions by other players? In VR, we can do such elegant things to mask a player's vision of things going on around them that they don't want to see. Such masking could even be optional for adults who don't want to participate in the sexual part of the game.
Heck, we can put in a kill-file, such that you can tag anyone who so much as annoys you, rendering them invisible to you forever after.
In short, we can do in VR what the real world only aspires to do: require mutual consent for all player to player interactions.
Is virtual theft prosecuted as theft? Is virtual killing prosecuted as murder? Then, we have our answer. For now.
But, here's the thing. Providers will have to spell out carefully what behaviors violate the Terms of Service. The more people become invested in their online identities, the more they will expect from the provider when they are accused of a crime. Suppose Second Life (or something like it) becomes an accepted platform for transacting real-world business? Reputable merchants will not put up with things like slander, harassment, or stalking from their detractors. On the flip side, reputable merchants will not look kindly on being banned by the provider because a detractor accused them of something. The issue of VR 'law' is just getting started.
Until some game/VR codes routines for the avatars to have virtual sex with each other, even the appearance of virtual rape is not possible. Until then, it's just talk.
Sooner or later, some game/VR will code sex routines, if they haven't already. At that point, if they don't include a mechanism for each avatar to refuse consent, they are asking for trouble.
And that proves what? It is a known medical fact that . . .
I don't have the slightest idea what if proves. Before we can begin 'proving' anything, we need a list of the effects of sex and the effects of no sex. Physical effects, emotional effects, group/morale effects. That list needs to be backed up by something better than a slashdotter's opinion of what is or is not a known medical fact to help weed out the myths (e.g., sperm poisons breast milk, or sex with a virgin cures HIV, or ejaculation decreases a man's vitality). Opinions without a citation (see, that wasn't so hard, was it?) are not helpful.
Once we have that list, then we can start talking rationally about what a crew needs or doesn't need.
Frankly, I cited the Planned Parenthood article because it was the only thing I could find that expressed an opinion about the physical effects of prolonged no-sex. Researching this topic proved harder than I expected.
There has arisen this notion that sexual activity is a requirement for health. As/. can attest, nothing is further from the truth. This part of the discussion would be improved by some citations. I'll start.
Planned Parenthood, not known as a religious promoter of abstinence, notes no negative medical effects of abstaining.
Our cultural history has so often placed taboos on sex that we're not able to think clearly about this issue, it seems. Thinking clearly about sex would have to include considering abstaining from it. The goal here is the successful completion of the mission objectives, not the advancement of anyone's cultural/political agenda, right?
Sex is a primary human function and drive, and to brush it under the carpet on an extended space mission would be the height of irresponsibility. To be sure, if sex is likely to cause problems for the mission, then how best to reduce the problems must be addressed. Ditto absence of sex.
The human body has many natural needs and functions which, if not addressed, make it go downhill, and eventually become impaired and disfunctional. Will absence of sex for 3 years cause an impairment of mission performance in a healthy individual in this age range?
The success of a mission . . . [is] at stake, and to ignore a central function of the human body would be the height of folly, and disaster in the making . .. "Disaster in the making"? Really? "Height of folly"? So, banning sex is the dumbest thing the mission could do? I'm willing to be convinced, but I can't take it as a given that the physical effects of no sex are that dangerous.
One danger that I am convinced exists is the danger to morale created by the emotional dynamics issues in a small group that is having sex. I do hope that whoever decides the expectations of conduct between crew members will have tried to quantify the relative risks before deciding what policy to select.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that some women are even under the impression that insisting that the toilet seat always be down to convenience them is in any way right-thinking at all completely boggles my mind. . . . if she starts throwing a shit fit about the toilet seat, dump her. I'm serious. It's the tip of the iceberg, and you'll end up unhappy in the long run.
If right-thinking is what you what you want in the relationship, then this is good advice. If what you want in the relationship is something else (children, cooking, laughter, money, sex, etc.), then keep her or dump her on the basis of something that matters to you. Some men rank the efficiency and logic of toilet seat position relatively low among the ten thousand things.
Like TFA, the parent supposes that the inconvenience (C) of moving the toilet seat is the same to both John and Marsha. Let me suggest that the whole game is not driven by (C). It is driven by (Y), the yuck of performing a sitting operation without realizing that the seat is up.
TFA correctly notes that the cost of yelling (D) is much greater that (C). (Y), in turn, is much, much greater than (D). (Y) is so much greater than (C) that Marsha will choose a strategy that calls for creating (D) daily rather than endure even one (Y) a year.
It's hard to believe that this list is complete at 50 office holders. Is 50 really enough to ensure success? Wouldn't they have tried to acquire closer to half of the federal office holders (536/2+1=269)? That money (269* ~$5000 = $1.4 million) is a drop in the bucket.
Did this list really backtrack all of RIAA's members and their proxies? The recorded music industry gave $3.1 million in the last presidential election cycle (2004) and $2.4 million in the off year (2006). Not every company in the recorded music industry is RIAA, but these recipients got a lot more money overall than TFA reports.
If you had a blank canvas to start with, what would you do? Run CAT-5 or fiber optics?
Me, I'd run empty conduit to every room. No matter what you run today, there will be something better 10 years from now. Maybe 5.
. . . it's like using our water and simply because there's no precedent doesn't . . .
Tribes v U.S.: How can there not be precedent? There are rivers that flow into tribal land; could the U.S. divert them? There are rivers that flow out of tribal land; could the tribe divert them? What about airplanes? What about wildlife? There are plenty of things that pass into and out of tribal land. There must be precedent.
Other Sovereign Nations v U.S.: How can there not be precedent? Both Canada and Mexico must have reached some agreement with the U.S. on how to handle near-border cell phone, TV, and radio signals. There must be precedent.
It's been shown time and again that maintenance of a free market requires government intervention . . .
e.g., the copyright statute, without which, their protected position here would collapse as this market overflowed with new entrants.
The point is not that people want less copyright, the point is that these corporations want MORE. They're shifting the paradigm (pardon my French) from "copyright is a government granted monopoly" to "copyright is ours by default and you're a pirate."
I don't believe I will pardon the French. Moral rights of authors, indeed!
These prohibitions on copying do not exist by default. They were granted on the whim of men. When they no longer serve us, they can be ungranted. What they call 'piracy' is nothing more than the natural state of being.
The best way to create more pirates is . . . apparently a complex brew of Maya, Gentle Giant, CloneCam, Zeno, and ZBrush known only to the Wizards of Ilm.
At least in the U.S., an alloy is patentable. 35 U.S.C. 101:An alloy is considered a 'composition of matter' and the recipe for producing it is considered a 'process'. While some people believe that items simply found in nature should not be patentable, most people agree that something that has to be brewed according to a recipe is patentable. (The exception being those people who advocate the complete abolition of patents.)
Sort of. I can explain why the mods thought it was +5 funny.
YMMV.
Whose bright idea was it to color that map in those particular shades of red and blue? Interesting how it makes the perennially urban areas pale into insignificance, isn't it?
If you're thinking, "It's not supposed to be a population density map, it's supposed to draw the eye to areas that are becoming more rural and less rural", then answer this question: why use the colors blue and red?
Politics much?
This is easily the most exciting time period in the history of astronomy (to date). New discoveries of real interest (even to nonexperts) are being made monthly. What a marvelous time to be living!
- a cork-board where a bunch of fliers are posted
- a television program
- a library of articles, sound recordings, or videos
- a rolodex
- a letters-to-the editor page like that of a newspaper
- a mail (or instant message) delivery system
- an encrypted dead-drop for clandestine messages
- a telephone system
- a dedicated computer in a closet somewhere
- one of many tasks running on a bunch of massive computers
Do you suppose that the judge wondered, too?Under _what_ age, exactly?
It seems to me that the cable companies only embraced DVRs in an attempt to kill them off, . . .
Silly Jedi!
Why would the Sith kill the DVR if they can turn it to the dark side. The DVR is strong in content delivery. Together, they could rule the galaxy.
You're not supposed (at least according to that pesky Constitution) to be required to show ID everywhere you go within the US. But, that has largely been trampled upon since 9/11.
The right to remain anonymous died in 2004 in the Supreme Court case, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. All we're haggling about now is what kind of ID they can force us to show.
These issues aren't that hard to solve technically, are they? We used to have problems with PKs killing players in places where that wasn't acceptable. Most of those bugs are now solved. We used to have problems with traders cheating. Now, some systems have secure mutual-consent trading mechanisms.
Can't a game that codes for player on player sex put in a couple of 'do you consent' dialogs? No, no, but 'do you really consent?' 'Are you double-secret-probation sure you consent?'
Can't a game that allows children to have accounts simply code the child's account so that they can neither participate in sex nor even be aware of sexual actions by other players? In VR, we can do such elegant things to mask a player's vision of things going on around them that they don't want to see. Such masking could even be optional for adults who don't want to participate in the sexual part of the game.
Heck, we can put in a kill-file, such that you can tag anyone who so much as annoys you, rendering them invisible to you forever after.
In short, we can do in VR what the real world only aspires to do: require mutual consent for all player to player interactions.
Is virtual theft prosecuted as theft? Is virtual killing prosecuted as murder? Then, we have our answer. For now.
But, here's the thing. Providers will have to spell out carefully what behaviors violate the Terms of Service. The more people become invested in their online identities, the more they will expect from the provider when they are accused of a crime. Suppose Second Life (or something like it) becomes an accepted platform for transacting real-world business? Reputable merchants will not put up with things like slander, harassment, or stalking from their detractors. On the flip side, reputable merchants will not look kindly on being banned by the provider because a detractor accused them of something. The issue of VR 'law' is just getting started.
Until some game/VR codes routines for the avatars to have virtual sex with each other, even the appearance of virtual rape is not possible. Until then, it's just talk.
Sooner or later, some game/VR will code sex routines, if they haven't already. At that point, if they don't include a mechanism for each avatar to refuse consent, they are asking for trouble.
But, it still won't be rape.
More photos, until we slashdot them, too.
- speak freely during class
- refuse to converse with the teachers
- habitually arrive just 5 minutes late
- use a proxy server to make the school's computers do things the school doesn't want them to do
- use your own notebook paper to design paper airplanes (even if never flown)
- play with the cafeteria food, even on your tray
- carry a concealed squirt gun, even if never loaded or fired
- bring a cat, toad, or owl to class
- play quid^H^H^H^H football in the building . . .
Disobeying a school rule results in punishment. Go figure."violent agreement" -- I like that. I seem to wind up there frequently.
And that proves what? It is a known medical fact that . . .
I don't have the slightest idea what if proves. Before we can begin 'proving' anything, we need a list of the effects of sex and the effects of no sex. Physical effects, emotional effects, group/morale effects. That list needs to be backed up by something better than a slashdotter's opinion of what is or is not a known medical fact to help weed out the myths (e.g., sperm poisons breast milk, or sex with a virgin cures HIV, or ejaculation decreases a man's vitality). Opinions without a citation (see, that wasn't so hard, was it?) are not helpful.
Once we have that list, then we can start talking rationally about what a crew needs or doesn't need.
Frankly, I cited the Planned Parenthood article because it was the only thing I could find that expressed an opinion about the physical effects of prolonged no-sex. Researching this topic proved harder than I expected.
There has arisen this notion that sexual activity is a requirement for health. As /. can attest, nothing is further from the truth.
This part of the discussion would be improved by some citations. I'll start.
Planned Parenthood, not known as a religious promoter of abstinence, notes no negative medical effects of abstaining.
Others?
Our cultural history has so often placed taboos on sex that we're not able to think clearly about this issue, it seems.
.
Thinking clearly about sex would have to include considering abstaining from it. The goal here is the successful completion of the mission objectives, not the advancement of anyone's cultural/political agenda, right?
Sex is a primary human function and drive, and to brush it under the carpet on an extended space mission would be the height of irresponsibility.
To be sure, if sex is likely to cause problems for the mission, then how best to reduce the problems must be addressed. Ditto absence of sex.
The human body has many natural needs and functions which, if not addressed, make it go downhill, and eventually become impaired and disfunctional.
Will absence of sex for 3 years cause an impairment of mission performance in a healthy individual in this age range?
The success of a mission . . . [is] at stake, and to ignore a central function of the human body would be the height of folly, and disaster in the making . .
"Disaster in the making"? Really? "Height of folly"? So, banning sex is the dumbest thing the mission could do? I'm willing to be convinced, but I can't take it as a given that the physical effects of no sex are that dangerous.
One danger that I am convinced exists is the danger to morale created by the emotional dynamics issues in a small group that is having sex. I do hope that whoever decides the expectations of conduct between crew members will have tried to quantify the relative risks before deciding what policy to select.