I want you to define 'skewed version of sexuality'.
I'd suggest viewing my post two levels up.
But if a 12 year old thinks a brown shower or felching is part of what's expected from them before they've ever reached second base, that is what I'd consider 'skewed'.
Are you God now, defining what is normal or skewed?
Fuck no, and I don't particularly care what people define as normal for them... I'm just not convinced that young teenagers who don't really know much about how the basics work are well served by thinking that everyone does these things.
When you're an adult and can better understand it, feel free to try any and all things which float your boat. I'm not passing value judgements on what consenting people do -- I might not get it, but I don't care if you are into it.
But if you're 13 and think that's what you're "supposed" to do, that might not be the healthiest thing for someone who is still trying to grasp what's going on.
I mean, really, you try to explain "two girls one cup" or "tubgirl" or something like that to a 12 year old and what it means to their own burgeoning sexuality. Because, in all honesty, I'm not sure you could explain it to me -- and I've seen some strange stuff on the interwebs over the last 25 years.
Possibly for the most part, but there's always the chance that this little bit of mythology is rooted in something which actually happened. I'm not sure I'd be willing to say that no group of teens anywhere has ever done this.
And, the problem is that if kids are getting their sex education form the internet before they've learned enough critical thinking to know if something is true or not... they might just do it.
Hell, I still see stuff forwarded to me by adults which demonstrates a complete inability to differentiate between things which are bogus and things which are true. At 11 or 12, I expect them to be far less able to do that.
Have an solid parent/child relationship, where your kids feel comfortable asking you questions about non-sexual things, and when sex related topics come up, they might feel comfortable talking to you about those, too.
It's great in theory, but I don't believe I've ever known a single person who has indicated they've ever gone to their parents with a sex-related question.
I suspect if most parents suddenly were asked by their children "mommy, what's fisting?" they'd run screaming from the room -- and some of them might not even know what it is.
Or you could always just keep a couple classy Playboys "hidden" in locations where the kids are bound to find them.
I have seen all sorts of weird stuff on the internet in my years
And, just to play devil's advocate, at what age did you start using the internet? Were you already old enough to have some context, or still quite young?
The argument seems to hinge on the fact that quite young kids are accessing this, and growing up with a very distorted view of sexuality -- google for "Rainbow Parties" as an example. I believe one of the things often cited is that younger boys don't get the boundaries on what defines rape and consent.
But if 11 year olds are growing up thinking bukkake, gang bangs and fisting are just part of 'normal'(*) sexuality and what's expected from them, they might be somewhat at risk for risky behavior or never learning how to date and hang out.
I don't agree that the censorship is a good idea, but I can see how people growing up on the weird stuff you see on the internet can lead to a very messed up outlook and set of expectations about later in life.
(*) You decide on your own normal, what two or more consenting adults do is their own damned business. But the argument that young kids are growing up with a very skewed version of sexuality isn't entirely without merit.
They're not going for criminal copyright violation
I don't understand why. They sold songs they didn't have legal rights to.
If any of us had done that, we'd have *AA lawyers hammering on our doors. So why in hell should a media company be given anything less than the full penalty for this?
But somehow an incompetent company who can't keep tabs on what they're licensed to sell is only going to be pursued for civil violations?
Google has fixed the security hole in Android, but it is now in the control of handset manufacturers to produce and release the updates for mobile devices to patch the flaws.
So, in other words, most people are screwed, because most of the manufacturers pretty much never really do updates.
I think that has to be the biggest limitation of the platform -- it is so fragmented, you could easily end up with a device which is never going to see updates.
If you have to resort to shocking your dog then you are doing something wrong.
It really really depends on the dog.
A friend had a shitzu who wouldn't stop barking. Put one of those collars on it that zaps it, and it barks until it's practically cooked. Put one of those collars on it that sprays in its face, and it keeps barking.
After she went through every technique anybody could recommend, she had no choice but to have the dog debarked. The dog never stopped barking -- leaves, shadows, wind, you name it, the dog would bark at it. Constantly.
She's owned plenty of other dogs before and since -- but this one particular dog was essentially un-trainable in a lot of regards.
You mean reprogram them with something better and slap a different label on them? Cause thats what actually happened with ET according to people who worked at atari.
On the other hand, ISPs have a clear business incentive to improve their speed and capacity (not that they've been actually doing so).
Clearly, they don't.
They have incentive to keep the networks exactly as they are, gradually charge us more over time, oversubscribe their services, and do nothing until they're forced to and then directly charge us for network improvements -- because that's pretty much what they do now.
If they were expanding capacity and bandwidth, we'd see the price of telecom services going down -- instead over time, it's been going up and hasn't really been improved.
Then Google disables WiFi button because 'gotta have this location data no mater what!'
Are you saying they have done this or projecting they will?
I have two Android devices running pretty current versions, and I have a button to disable wifi.
In fact, I routinely turn off wifi on both devices to prevent ads and other network traffic when I don't want it. Neither has access to cellular data.
My test for a new application is airplane mode... if it can't operate in airplane mode, it gets immediately deleted. As wifi is a subset of airplane mode, I don't think they could ever remove the ability to turn this off. Games and stuff which is local only are much better if I deny them access to their ads.
And, yes, I agree that we should be able to come in later and revoke certain permissions on apps. Because I don't think the app itself needs to read my phone calls, I believe that should be taken care of by the OS. And things which are essentially local post-it notes, those apps don't need network access at all.
For me, Google is increasingly becoming a "kinda trust, but not always", and many of the apps don't get much trust at all.
I set this up the other week for the mother in law, and me, I'd stick with cloud printing through Chrome the way I set it up for her.
Why? Because I can sign out of Chrome until I need it again.
Installing this as a driver into Windows means I've now put Google into the operating system -- and increasingly I believe they will take advantage of that and record and send data when I'm not directly using it.
So, I will pass on installing a Google cloud-print driver, because I prefer the option of being able to turn them off. I prefer my trust relationship with Google to be something I can meter a little more closely, and disable when I'm not using it.
Where are they going to get the pilots to fly their shiny new F-35s?
They'll just turn the F-35 into a UAV then.
Or, since I'm skeptical the F-35 will ever fly because it was a badly conceived project from the get go (you know, make everyone sign on for and pay for your R&D costs on a plane whose feature lists reads like a demand for a pony)... you may never have to worry about F-35 pilots at all.
I think a lot of governments are starting to decide they may have been hoodwinked with this F-35 program, and are starting to reconsider if it is (or ever was) a good investment.
Let me explain 'derivative', because you can come up with easy examples.
When a movie studio announces a new project, another movie studio will almost immediately come out with a movie based on almost exactly the same premise -- so when "A Bugs Life" was announced, a few months later we got "Antz".
Movies tend to come in groups, where someone says "hey, we're doing a movies based on X", and someone will immediately rush to get some turd out the door based on X.
Dreamworks is terrible for this, but I'm sure they all do. If one studio announced they'd have a story about a wise cracking orphan who chews tobacco and wears a funny hat, at least one other one will immediately rush out and try to not miss the new trend of movies about wise cracking orphans who chew tobacco and wear funny hats.
Disney has always been horrible for this, cranking out an endless stream of sequels which are crap, intended to go straight to video, and just more of the continuing adventures of characters which have already ran their course. And, more recently, turning the girl from Brave into yet another formulaic Disney princess.
Some days it seems like they don't ever try any more -- and with a lot of movies about a week or so after you hear about it, you also start hearing about something which is based on almost exactly the same premise which will also be out soon.
By the time you see it long enough, it's hard not to class most of it as derivative, because they just steal the high points of the plot and make a very similar movie -- and usually the copy cat doesn't do nearly as well because it's a hastily written script intended to get into theaters before the competition does.
so they made up Google+, moved many of their existing services over to it which didn't really need it, and have used various ways to try to force users to use it, probably in the hope that they'll get tired of Facebook and just want to do everything on Google.
I'm finding it is having the opposite effect... I'm getting tired of Google.
There is a way, and they've started doing it... so, what were you saying about how super awesome the security is again and how impossible it is to snoop on?
I am fine with trusting Microsoft and Google, and indeed anyone with a reliable infrastructure, to provide a backup hosting service that significantly improves the experience with my phone in the event of a disaster
As random bits they can't decode, sure... to access the entire contents of the backup and do with as they please because the ToS says so... no freakin' way.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd suggest viewing my post two levels up.
But if a 12 year old thinks a brown shower or felching is part of what's expected from them before they've ever reached second base, that is what I'd consider 'skewed'.
Fuck no, and I don't particularly care what people define as normal for them ... I'm just not convinced that young teenagers who don't really know much about how the basics work are well served by thinking that everyone does these things.
When you're an adult and can better understand it, feel free to try any and all things which float your boat. I'm not passing value judgements on what consenting people do -- I might not get it, but I don't care if you are into it.
But if you're 13 and think that's what you're "supposed" to do, that might not be the healthiest thing for someone who is still trying to grasp what's going on.
I mean, really, you try to explain "two girls one cup" or "tubgirl" or something like that to a 12 year old and what it means to their own burgeoning sexuality. Because, in all honesty, I'm not sure you could explain it to me -- and I've seen some strange stuff on the interwebs over the last 25 years.
Possibly for the most part, but there's always the chance that this little bit of mythology is rooted in something which actually happened. I'm not sure I'd be willing to say that no group of teens anywhere has ever done this.
And, the problem is that if kids are getting their sex education form the internet before they've learned enough critical thinking to know if something is true or not ... they might just do it.
Hell, I still see stuff forwarded to me by adults which demonstrates a complete inability to differentiate between things which are bogus and things which are true. At 11 or 12, I expect them to be far less able to do that.
It's great in theory, but I don't believe I've ever known a single person who has indicated they've ever gone to their parents with a sex-related question.
I suspect if most parents suddenly were asked by their children "mommy, what's fisting?" they'd run screaming from the room -- and some of them might not even know what it is.
It was good enough for us.
Once he's out, I'm sure the CIA or someone will send in a team to black bag him in the middle of the night.
It's not like they've never done that before.
Only in terms of optics and messaging ... I expect their handlers to be as illiterate on the technology as the pols are.
Wow, so lawmakers advocating for laws controlling technology don't grasp the basics of that technology.
I thought I'd pretty much summed that up already.
And, just to play devil's advocate, at what age did you start using the internet? Were you already old enough to have some context, or still quite young?
The argument seems to hinge on the fact that quite young kids are accessing this, and growing up with a very distorted view of sexuality -- google for "Rainbow Parties" as an example. I believe one of the things often cited is that younger boys don't get the boundaries on what defines rape and consent.
But if 11 year olds are growing up thinking bukkake, gang bangs and fisting are just part of 'normal'(*) sexuality and what's expected from them, they might be somewhat at risk for risky behavior or never learning how to date and hang out.
I don't agree that the censorship is a good idea, but I can see how people growing up on the weird stuff you see on the internet can lead to a very messed up outlook and set of expectations about later in life.
(*) You decide on your own normal, what two or more consenting adults do is their own damned business. But the argument that young kids are growing up with a very skewed version of sexuality isn't entirely without merit.
Film at 11.
I don't understand why. They sold songs they didn't have legal rights to.
If any of us had done that, we'd have *AA lawyers hammering on our doors. So why in hell should a media company be given anything less than the full penalty for this?
But somehow an incompetent company who can't keep tabs on what they're licensed to sell is only going to be pursued for civil violations?
That makes no sense to me at all.
So, in other words, most people are screwed, because most of the manufacturers pretty much never really do updates.
I think that has to be the biggest limitation of the platform -- it is so fragmented, you could easily end up with a device which is never going to see updates.
Which is essentially what happens now.
It really really depends on the dog.
A friend had a shitzu who wouldn't stop barking. Put one of those collars on it that zaps it, and it barks until it's practically cooked. Put one of those collars on it that sprays in its face, and it keeps barking.
After she went through every technique anybody could recommend, she had no choice but to have the dog debarked. The dog never stopped barking -- leaves, shadows, wind, you name it, the dog would bark at it. Constantly.
She's owned plenty of other dogs before and since -- but this one particular dog was essentially un-trainable in a lot of regards.
It was debarked or destroyed at a certain point.
I'm pretty sure he means dump into landfil and walk away.
Now, as to if that ever actually happened, I couldn't say.
Clearly, they don't.
They have incentive to keep the networks exactly as they are, gradually charge us more over time, oversubscribe their services, and do nothing until they're forced to and then directly charge us for network improvements -- because that's pretty much what they do now.
If they were expanding capacity and bandwidth, we'd see the price of telecom services going down -- instead over time, it's been going up and hasn't really been improved.
Are you saying they have done this or projecting they will?
I have two Android devices running pretty current versions, and I have a button to disable wifi.
In fact, I routinely turn off wifi on both devices to prevent ads and other network traffic when I don't want it. Neither has access to cellular data.
My test for a new application is airplane mode ... if it can't operate in airplane mode, it gets immediately deleted. As wifi is a subset of airplane mode, I don't think they could ever remove the ability to turn this off. Games and stuff which is local only are much better if I deny them access to their ads.
And, yes, I agree that we should be able to come in later and revoke certain permissions on apps. Because I don't think the app itself needs to read my phone calls, I believe that should be taken care of by the OS. And things which are essentially local post-it notes, those apps don't need network access at all.
For me, Google is increasingly becoming a "kinda trust, but not always", and many of the apps don't get much trust at all.
I set this up the other week for the mother in law, and me, I'd stick with cloud printing through Chrome the way I set it up for her.
Why? Because I can sign out of Chrome until I need it again.
Installing this as a driver into Windows means I've now put Google into the operating system -- and increasingly I believe they will take advantage of that and record and send data when I'm not directly using it.
So, I will pass on installing a Google cloud-print driver, because I prefer the option of being able to turn them off. I prefer my trust relationship with Google to be something I can meter a little more closely, and disable when I'm not using it.
They'll just turn the F-35 into a UAV then.
Or, since I'm skeptical the F-35 will ever fly because it was a badly conceived project from the get go (you know, make everyone sign on for and pay for your R&D costs on a plane whose feature lists reads like a demand for a pony) ... you may never have to worry about F-35 pilots at all.
I think a lot of governments are starting to decide they may have been hoodwinked with this F-35 program, and are starting to reconsider if it is (or ever was) a good investment.
Wow, are you always such an ass?
Let me explain 'derivative', because you can come up with easy examples.
When a movie studio announces a new project, another movie studio will almost immediately come out with a movie based on almost exactly the same premise -- so when "A Bugs Life" was announced, a few months later we got "Antz".
Movies tend to come in groups, where someone says "hey, we're doing a movies based on X", and someone will immediately rush to get some turd out the door based on X.
Dreamworks is terrible for this, but I'm sure they all do. If one studio announced they'd have a story about a wise cracking orphan who chews tobacco and wears a funny hat, at least one other one will immediately rush out and try to not miss the new trend of movies about wise cracking orphans who chew tobacco and wear funny hats.
Disney has always been horrible for this, cranking out an endless stream of sequels which are crap, intended to go straight to video, and just more of the continuing adventures of characters which have already ran their course. And, more recently, turning the girl from Brave into yet another formulaic Disney princess.
Some days it seems like they don't ever try any more -- and with a lot of movies about a week or so after you hear about it, you also start hearing about something which is based on almost exactly the same premise which will also be out soon.
By the time you see it long enough, it's hard not to class most of it as derivative, because they just steal the high points of the plot and make a very similar movie -- and usually the copy cat doesn't do nearly as well because it's a hastily written script intended to get into theaters before the competition does.
No wonder most movies seem like derivative things you can predict what will happen ... because they apparently are.
Still, keep making the superhero movies, and I'll keep going. =)
If the schools are focused on increasing revenue, something along the way is horribly broken.
I'm finding it is having the opposite effect ... I'm getting tired of Google.
And then they caved in and allowed it to happen.
There is a way, and they've started doing it ... so, what were you saying about how super awesome the security is again and how impossible it is to snoop on?
*sigh* So, all of the dystopian future without any of the fun technology?
That's because they're not.
As random bits they can't decode, sure ... to access the entire contents of the backup and do with as they please because the ToS says so ... no freakin' way.