Setting an age of consent based on calendar age is arbitrary. The age of consent should be defined as puberty, as this is based on biology instead of politics.
At what point in puberty? There are cases on record of some girls starting to grow breasts and pubic hair by 4. Normal age is 6-7.
First menarche? Some girls have their first period at age 9 and were developing far before that. Not only aren't their minds not magically more advanced than other girls their age, but their bodies aren't even large enough to successfully bear a pregnancy without serious risk to their health at that point.
"Based on biology" is a silly excuse since ultimately what biological markers to use are going to be based on politics. Further, it creates serious evidentiary difficulties as children rapidly develop and statutory rape might not be reported until months or years later.
Initiating sex with a minor by force, coercion, abuse of power, deceit, etc is punished as rape (just like if the victim was an adult)
Bah. In other words, you just advocate eliminating the age of consent completely if those are the only grounds for finding rape.
Becaauuuuse, it's bad precedent. Suppose someone has raped, tortured, and murdered over a thousand children. He get charged for those crimes, and in addition gets 20 years in prison for driving 62 on a 60 mph road. You may say 'who cares such a conviction is ridiculous, the guy deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life', but it sets bad precedent for all of us, not just the 'villains'.
Well, yours is an extreme example, but this is incredibly common in the law. Think of rape. Bad enough on its own, right? But if two people separately rape a woman, they are just guilty of rape. In some states, if they together rape the same woman, they are guilty of aggravated rape. Same with possession of an unlicensed firearm. Illegal enough, but if you're carrying an unlicensed firearm while committing a robbery, you've committed aggravated robbery in some jurisdictions. Doesn't matter if if you did the same damage you would've done with your fists or another nondeadly weapon in the course of the robbery. We think the harm is sufficient to justify a higher crime.
Even when there isn't a separate crime for doing two things at once, there often are sentencing guidelines that set certain minimums based on overall bad behavior. For example, federal sentencing guidelines mandate higher sentences if you're carrying drugs on you at the time, with worse sentences for more drugs.
So with that background, why not punish people having actual child porn more heavily than those having fictional child porn alone? It seems to be very strong evidence that the person is far more dangerous and has committed a greater social harm than someone who has only fictional porn.
I understand that parents get pretty scared about this and rightly so, but no one should be locked up because of something that solely exists in their head.
Think "Minority Report". And I know it is over used, but also Thought Crime from "1984".
Well, the problem here is one of utilitarian v. retributive criminal law philosophy. Which is more important? Preventing children from being hurt or punishing people after children have been hurt? And if you can't do either perfectly, where should you draw the line between them? Should you err on the side of catching people with... I wouldn't quite say "innocent" thoughts so much as too much cowardice to act on their urges, or should you err on the side of more kids getting molested because you don't know someone will one day molest a child yet.
If someone has a derangement but hasn't actually hurt anyone then [s]he should be helped and not locked up just so you can sleep a little better tonight.
There is little evidence that pedophiles can be rehabilitated. Does that weigh on where the balance should be placed?
Heck, Nabokov wrote Lolita over 50 years ago. Does that mean that fans of "lolita" erotica are now into "mature" women? No, because the titular character remains perenially twelve.
So what happens when the ages of the character are all screwed up due to various fictional devices?
Anime is filled with characters who are younger or older than they look. If you have a girl from a race of nigh-immortals that looks and acts like she's underage but is actually hundreds of years old, then is that child porn? (e.g. Vampire Princess Miyu.) What if you have an adult mind possessing an underage body? (e.g. Dante from Full Metal Alchemist.) What if you have a character who is a little girl who can transform into an older, mature body? (e.g. Full Moon wo Sagashite)
What if you have all three in the same character? (e.g. Sasami from Tenchi Muyo.)
I mean, let's face it. Most hentai is going to be about teenagers under American legal limits (since most anime series feature teenage protagonists), but what would a court do with characters of such indeterminate age? Even going with just appearance can't work because of overstacked fanservice teens. (Even worse, what do you do when one artist draws a girl more underage or more mature than the original artist does?)
So, what, do we insist on anything that *might* be construed as underage porn under *some* theory, or do we go with a dominant theory? I think it's a huge mess, myself.
Where things become difficult (and, I suspect, where this law is aimed at) is when computer-generated images look so realistic that any lay person would have trouble recognising it as being computer generated.
Well, 18 USC 2252 seems to suggest that with definitions that explicitly reference realism, but 18 USC 1466A simply explicitly doesn't care, mentioning cartoons specifically.
It's a cute example, but it fails all three prongs of the Miller test for obscenity.
1) It's not intended to "appeal to the prurient interest." (To put it crudely, no one's fapping to that one without a lot of imagination to fill in the blanks.) 2) It doesn't explicitly describe sex in a "patently offensive" way. (Saying two kids had sex is different from describing the act itself.) 3) The work does not lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." (Religious texts would be considered to meet the first three of four.)
In other words, as anyone with any common freaking sense should know, there's a whole lot of difference between the Bible and lolicon porn.
And if you think you have some right pull out a gun and kill or imprison someone else for drawing fiction just because they have better art skills than me, then you are just as dangerous and deluded.
Oh, come off it. You know damned good and well that the only reason you had the guts to "post child porn" is because you knew that no one is going to convict you for it. No matter what you call a hyphen or an equals sign, they aren't child porn because they don't depict anything that could possibly meet the Miller test for obscenity. Your claim to break the law is irrelevant to whether you have, and you know it.
You're no better than the Taliban-types that claim it is a criminal act to draw fictional images of Mohammad, and presume they have some fucked-up right to murder or imprison people for drawings, or to run around blowing up random building and random innocent people just because some drawing offends them.
For crying out loud. Do you seriously equate people who wish for the courts with all their due process protections to convict people collecting child porn with people who engage in hate-driven, vigilante murders?
You have simply no sense of proportion. What hysterical hyperbole, and in defense of collecting fantasies of child rape made more concrete...
I'm more concerned about how the court is reconciling the definitions in 18 USC 2256(8), (9), and (11) which very, very strongly suggest that only computer-generated images intended to look "virtually indistinguishable" from a real person would be prohibited. I need to research this more.
Never mind. He's being prosecuted under 18 USC 1466A, which explicitly includes cartoon porn.
So accessing pedo videos would be legal in the US as long as you only stream them and store them in/dev/null, making sure that there is no cache on your disk ?
No. A copy in memory will probably suffice for possession.
However, if your roommate keeps it on his computer and you watch it there, or he displays it for you, then you aren't guilty of possession -- specifically the offense in 18 USC 2252A(a)(5).
I'm more concerned about how the court is reconciling the definitions in 18 USC 2256(8), (9), and (11) which very, very strongly suggest that only computer-generated images intended to look "virtually indistinguishable" from a real person would be prohibited. I need to research this more.
I'm not sure even I'M quite that cynical.:) While situations like the above could happen, the more realistic outcome, provided you're otherwise clean, is that you defend yourself by pointing out that you had every reason to believe she was of age...
Only in some Model Penal Code states. Traditionally, statutory rape is strict liability with respect to the age element. Since there is no mental state requirement there, mistake of fact is no defense in common law jurisdictions.
The MPC erases this distinction but leaves rape screwed up in other ways (like only being when a man rapes a woman or putting an age limit at 10 instead of 16 or 18). States that adopt the MPC haven't followed it strictly, but I think some have eliminated the strict liability on the age. Others have not and have explicitly made age strict liability still.
If you actually read the text you pasted, you'd see that the only correct plural is octopodes.
No. Octopus is a loan word. The correct pluralization of loan words is the English pluralization form, not the form from the original language. Nothing in the above text suggests otherwise.
Insisting on Greek pluralization when we don't even use Greek spelling for the word is madness and only contributes to the ugly and illogical irregular grammar problems of English.
You're thinking Outlet -> Converter -> Switch -> Device. What I said was Outlet -> Switch -> Converter -> Device.
Actually, you seem to be thinking of either one of two scenarios:
1) Outlet -> Converter Switch -> Converter -> Device Switch -> Device. I'm pointing out that the Converter Switch is pointless because the whole problem is people not remembering to disconnect their wall warts. Giving them a switch when they could just pull it out isn't much better. It's still dependent on human interaction to avoid wasting power.
2) Outlet -> Switch -> Internal Converter -> Device. If you have a device like this, then you don't have a wall wart, and you don't have a problem. But that's not analogous to a wireless device because power conversion has to happen outside the unit for wireless power to get it to the device in the first place, and you need to decide when THAT converter is wasting power or not.
Alternately, you could be thinking of this:
3) Outlet -> Device Switch on the Converter -> External Converter -> Device with no Switch. That's just inconvenient and totally not translatable to the wireless medium.
Re:Herbal medicine has limited value
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The active ingredient in willow bark is salicylic acid. The active ingredient in Aspirin is, and always has been acetylsalicylic acid.
Yes, yes. Details. Aspirin was discovered through deliberate experiments on salicilin to create a more easily usable drug and rediscovered years later in an attempt to find something useful to do with plant dye wastes. Though it's not exactly the same chemical found naturally in willow bark, it's clearly the safe end result of an attempt to use willow bark's properties in medicine.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to misunderstand the problem like that. The whole complaint is that if you leave AC/DC converters plugged in, they still passively drain power, and wireless power is being offered as a solution somehow.
If you were smart enough to unplug them or turn them off manually, this wouldn't be a problem.
How sensitive does that have to be, and how much feedback is there from the power drain? I mean, aren't you just broadcasting power into the surroundings to be absorbed or just fade out over distance?
I mean, I'm not e-mag guru, so how much interaction is there between an antenna and a receiver?
If the Army is embracing acupuncture, I wouldn't be so quick to lump it in with the sugar pills and diluted solutions.
Well, I kind of agree with your statement in general, but I disagree entirely with your reasoning.
We know that acupuncture works in one scenario -- pain reduction. However, there's absolutely no proof that it has any of its other supposed benefits, and it works for pain reduction in a way that completely undermines the central thesis of acupuncture. i.e. If you ignore chi, meridians, and all the supposedly traditionally mapped out acupuncture points and just stick needles are random places in the body, you see exactly the same pain reduction effect.
But, I strongly dispute the idea of the Army being any kind of authority on scientific accuracy. The US military has a sweet tooth for junk science. Remote viewing, super soldier serums, cold fusion, anti-grav research, etc. have all been Pentagon funded programs embraced after the scientific community in general panned the ideas. Too many people at the Pentagon embrace fringe science and fantasy. Not surprising since there's a general lack of science training for the major decision makers and bean counters there.
You mean all those alkaloids that are the basis of most of the precription drug industry.
If you mean the ones which have been found to be effective after years of government mandated testing and double-blind scientific research which weeds them out from the useless and dangerous natural chemicals, and the ones which are presented in purified format, free of other natural byproducts and their own side-effects...
Then, yes.
Aspirin, for example, comes from willow bark originally. You have to consume a pretty decent amount of willow back to get the same amount of medication as found in one pill, and willow bark has a few additional side-effects not as common in pure aspirin, like diarrhea. Additionally, allergic reactions to the plant itself are a risk.
I don't see why so many people are so down on modern medicine's effectiveness. Why exactly do traditions handed down for centuries alongside superstition and other ignorance seem superior to objective laboratory testing in most people's minds? Why do we still praise herbalism while decrying leeches, faith healing, and purgatives as proven unsafe?
Sure, we haven't fully untapped the potential of natural herbs yet, but there is a method for finding out what's safe, what's effective, and how to deliver the drug in the way that best meets those two goals. It's called the scientific method. And, yes, the big pharma companies are greedy, self-serving bastards, but at least they're doing the research rather than just appealing to high holy tradition and fuzzy feel good "it's natural" rhetoric.
Why can't you do that with a wall-wart? And there's the additional problem with wireless power of figuring out when all the devices are finished charging so that you can shut off, or (better yet) how to know when to shut on when a new device (with no power to signal the base station) needs it to shut on.
Probably. Electronics is not an area of expertise for me, I'll admit. I knew enough to realize that you didn't need wireless to get those advantages but not enough to think about an even more practical solution. Thanks for pointing that out.
I remember when my friends at school called me a liar because I said our graphics card had 4MB of RAM. It was a sweet ATI VLB card for my dad's architecture workstation.
I remember when my roommate was working for a server middleware company and still had a 486 desktop. He worked with network cards that had a better processor and more RAM than his desktop at home. Good old Arctic 960! Ah, nostalgia.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually 18 USC 2256(8), (9), and (11) are all about preventing the Photoshop defense.
The cartoons are being nabbed under 18 USC 1466A which is very much intended to criminalize underage hentai.
Setting an age of consent based on calendar age is arbitrary. The age of consent should be defined as puberty, as this is based on biology instead of politics.
At what point in puberty? There are cases on record of some girls starting to grow breasts and pubic hair by 4. Normal age is 6-7.
First menarche? Some girls have their first period at age 9 and were developing far before that. Not only aren't their minds not magically more advanced than other girls their age, but their bodies aren't even large enough to successfully bear a pregnancy without serious risk to their health at that point.
"Based on biology" is a silly excuse since ultimately what biological markers to use are going to be based on politics. Further, it creates serious evidentiary difficulties as children rapidly develop and statutory rape might not be reported until months or years later.
Initiating sex with a minor by force, coercion, abuse of power, deceit, etc is punished as rape (just like if the victim was an adult)
Bah. In other words, you just advocate eliminating the age of consent completely if those are the only grounds for finding rape.
Becaauuuuse, it's bad precedent. Suppose someone has raped, tortured, and murdered over a thousand children. He get charged for those crimes, and in addition gets 20 years in prison for driving 62 on a 60 mph road. You may say 'who cares such a conviction is ridiculous, the guy deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life', but it sets bad precedent for all of us, not just the 'villains'.
Well, yours is an extreme example, but this is incredibly common in the law. Think of rape. Bad enough on its own, right? But if two people separately rape a woman, they are just guilty of rape. In some states, if they together rape the same woman, they are guilty of aggravated rape. Same with possession of an unlicensed firearm. Illegal enough, but if you're carrying an unlicensed firearm while committing a robbery, you've committed aggravated robbery in some jurisdictions. Doesn't matter if if you did the same damage you would've done with your fists or another nondeadly weapon in the course of the robbery. We think the harm is sufficient to justify a higher crime.
Even when there isn't a separate crime for doing two things at once, there often are sentencing guidelines that set certain minimums based on overall bad behavior. For example, federal sentencing guidelines mandate higher sentences if you're carrying drugs on you at the time, with worse sentences for more drugs.
So with that background, why not punish people having actual child porn more heavily than those having fictional child porn alone? It seems to be very strong evidence that the person is far more dangerous and has committed a greater social harm than someone who has only fictional porn.
I understand that parents get pretty scared about this and rightly so, but no one should be locked up because of something that solely exists in their head.
Think "Minority Report". And I know it is over used, but also Thought Crime from "1984".
Well, the problem here is one of utilitarian v. retributive criminal law philosophy. Which is more important? Preventing children from being hurt or punishing people after children have been hurt? And if you can't do either perfectly, where should you draw the line between them? Should you err on the side of catching people with... I wouldn't quite say "innocent" thoughts so much as too much cowardice to act on their urges, or should you err on the side of more kids getting molested because you don't know someone will one day molest a child yet.
If someone has a derangement but hasn't actually hurt anyone then [s]he should be helped and not locked up just so you can sleep a little better tonight.
There is little evidence that pedophiles can be rehabilitated. Does that weigh on where the balance should be placed?
Heck, Nabokov wrote Lolita over 50 years ago. Does that mean that fans of "lolita" erotica are now into "mature" women? No, because the titular character remains perenially twelve.
So what happens when the ages of the character are all screwed up due to various fictional devices?
Anime is filled with characters who are younger or older than they look. If you have a girl from a race of nigh-immortals that looks and acts like she's underage but is actually hundreds of years old, then is that child porn? (e.g. Vampire Princess Miyu.) What if you have an adult mind possessing an underage body? (e.g. Dante from Full Metal Alchemist.) What if you have a character who is a little girl who can transform into an older, mature body? (e.g. Full Moon wo Sagashite)
What if you have all three in the same character? (e.g. Sasami from Tenchi Muyo.)
I mean, let's face it. Most hentai is going to be about teenagers under American legal limits (since most anime series feature teenage protagonists), but what would a court do with characters of such indeterminate age? Even going with just appearance can't work because of overstacked fanservice teens. (Even worse, what do you do when one artist draws a girl more underage or more mature than the original artist does?)
So, what, do we insist on anything that *might* be construed as underage porn under *some* theory, or do we go with a dominant theory? I think it's a huge mess, myself.
Where things become difficult (and, I suspect, where this law is aimed at) is when computer-generated images look so realistic that any lay person would have trouble recognising it as being computer generated.
Well, 18 USC 2252 seems to suggest that with definitions that explicitly reference realism, but 18 USC 1466A simply explicitly doesn't care, mentioning cartoons specifically.
It's a cute example, but it fails all three prongs of the Miller test for obscenity.
1) It's not intended to "appeal to the prurient interest." (To put it crudely, no one's fapping to that one without a lot of imagination to fill in the blanks.)
2) It doesn't explicitly describe sex in a "patently offensive" way. (Saying two kids had sex is different from describing the act itself.)
3) The work does not lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." (Religious texts would be considered to meet the first three of four.)
In other words, as anyone with any common freaking sense should know, there's a whole lot of difference between the Bible and lolicon porn.
And if you think you have some right pull out a gun and kill or imprison someone else for drawing fiction just because they have better art skills than me, then you are just as dangerous and deluded.
Oh, come off it. You know damned good and well that the only reason you had the guts to "post child porn" is because you knew that no one is going to convict you for it. No matter what you call a hyphen or an equals sign, they aren't child porn because they don't depict anything that could possibly meet the Miller test for obscenity. Your claim to break the law is irrelevant to whether you have, and you know it.
You're no better than the Taliban-types that claim it is a criminal act to draw fictional images of Mohammad, and presume they have some fucked-up right to murder or imprison people for drawings, or to run around blowing up random building and random innocent people just because some drawing offends them.
For crying out loud. Do you seriously equate people who wish for the courts with all their due process protections to convict people collecting child porn with people who engage in hate-driven, vigilante murders?
You have simply no sense of proportion. What hysterical hyperbole, and in defense of collecting fantasies of child rape made more concrete...
I'm more concerned about how the court is reconciling the definitions in 18 USC 2256(8), (9), and (11) which very, very strongly suggest that only computer-generated images intended to look "virtually indistinguishable" from a real person would be prohibited. I need to research this more.
Never mind. He's being prosecuted under 18 USC 1466A, which explicitly includes cartoon porn.
So accessing pedo videos would be legal in the US as long as you only stream them and store them in /dev/null, making sure that there is no cache on your disk ?
No. A copy in memory will probably suffice for possession.
However, if your roommate keeps it on his computer and you watch it there, or he displays it for you, then you aren't guilty of possession -- specifically the offense in 18 USC 2252A(a)(5).
I'm more concerned about how the court is reconciling the definitions in 18 USC 2256(8), (9), and (11) which very, very strongly suggest that only computer-generated images intended to look "virtually indistinguishable" from a real person would be prohibited. I need to research this more.
I'm not sure even I'M quite that cynical. :) While situations like the above could happen, the more realistic outcome, provided you're otherwise clean, is that you defend yourself by pointing out that you had every reason to believe she was of age ...
Only in some Model Penal Code states. Traditionally, statutory rape is strict liability with respect to the age element. Since there is no mental state requirement there, mistake of fact is no defense in common law jurisdictions.
The MPC erases this distinction but leaves rape screwed up in other ways (like only being when a man rapes a woman or putting an age limit at 10 instead of 16 or 18). States that adopt the MPC haven't followed it strictly, but I think some have eliminated the strict liability on the age. Others have not and have explicitly made age strict liability still.
"I mean, a couple of centuries ago, they could've only imagined "horseless carriages"."
Two centuries ago = late 1808
Nicholas Cugnot produced a working steam-driven horseless carriage in 1769.
Okay. 2.39 centuries ago. So could you remind us all what the significant digits are for "a couple" again?
Oh, it's not like you can't just carry it in after you pull up near the door.
I mean, try to think practically here.
If you actually read the text you pasted, you'd see that the only correct plural is octopodes.
No. Octopus is a loan word. The correct pluralization of loan words is the English pluralization form, not the form from the original language. Nothing in the above text suggests otherwise.
Insisting on Greek pluralization when we don't even use Greek spelling for the word is madness and only contributes to the ugly and illogical irregular grammar problems of English.
You're thinking Outlet -> Converter -> Switch -> Device. What I said was Outlet -> Switch -> Converter -> Device.
Actually, you seem to be thinking of either one of two scenarios:
1) Outlet -> Converter Switch -> Converter -> Device Switch -> Device. I'm pointing out that the Converter Switch is pointless because the whole problem is people not remembering to disconnect their wall warts. Giving them a switch when they could just pull it out isn't much better. It's still dependent on human interaction to avoid wasting power.
2) Outlet -> Switch -> Internal Converter -> Device. If you have a device like this, then you don't have a wall wart, and you don't have a problem. But that's not analogous to a wireless device because power conversion has to happen outside the unit for wireless power to get it to the device in the first place, and you need to decide when THAT converter is wasting power or not.
Alternately, you could be thinking of this:
3) Outlet -> Device Switch on the Converter -> External Converter -> Device with no Switch. That's just inconvenient and totally not translatable to the wireless medium.
The active ingredient in willow bark is salicylic acid. The active ingredient in Aspirin is, and always has been acetylsalicylic acid.
Yes, yes. Details. Aspirin was discovered through deliberate experiments on salicilin to create a more easily usable drug and rediscovered years later in an attempt to find something useful to do with plant dye wastes. Though it's not exactly the same chemical found naturally in willow bark, it's clearly the safe end result of an attempt to use willow bark's properties in medicine.
+1, Pedantry.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to misunderstand the problem like that. The whole complaint is that if you leave AC/DC converters plugged in, they still passively drain power, and wireless power is being offered as a solution somehow.
If you were smart enough to unplug them or turn them off manually, this wouldn't be a problem.
How sensitive does that have to be, and how much feedback is there from the power drain? I mean, aren't you just broadcasting power into the surroundings to be absorbed or just fade out over distance?
I mean, I'm not e-mag guru, so how much interaction is there between an antenna and a receiver?
If the Army is embracing acupuncture, I wouldn't be so quick to lump it in with the sugar pills and diluted solutions.
Well, I kind of agree with your statement in general, but I disagree entirely with your reasoning.
We know that acupuncture works in one scenario -- pain reduction. However, there's absolutely no proof that it has any of its other supposed benefits, and it works for pain reduction in a way that completely undermines the central thesis of acupuncture. i.e. If you ignore chi, meridians, and all the supposedly traditionally mapped out acupuncture points and just stick needles are random places in the body, you see exactly the same pain reduction effect.
But, I strongly dispute the idea of the Army being any kind of authority on scientific accuracy. The US military has a sweet tooth for junk science. Remote viewing, super soldier serums, cold fusion, anti-grav research, etc. have all been Pentagon funded programs embraced after the scientific community in general panned the ideas. Too many people at the Pentagon embrace fringe science and fantasy. Not surprising since there's a general lack of science training for the major decision makers and bean counters there.
You mean all those alkaloids that are the basis of most of the precription drug industry.
If you mean the ones which have been found to be effective after years of government mandated testing and double-blind scientific research which weeds them out from the useless and dangerous natural chemicals, and the ones which are presented in purified format, free of other natural byproducts and their own side-effects...
Then, yes.
Aspirin, for example, comes from willow bark originally. You have to consume a pretty decent amount of willow back to get the same amount of medication as found in one pill, and willow bark has a few additional side-effects not as common in pure aspirin, like diarrhea. Additionally, allergic reactions to the plant itself are a risk.
I don't see why so many people are so down on modern medicine's effectiveness. Why exactly do traditions handed down for centuries alongside superstition and other ignorance seem superior to objective laboratory testing in most people's minds? Why do we still praise herbalism while decrying leeches, faith healing, and purgatives as proven unsafe?
Sure, we haven't fully untapped the potential of natural herbs yet, but there is a method for finding out what's safe, what's effective, and how to deliver the drug in the way that best meets those two goals. It's called the scientific method. And, yes, the big pharma companies are greedy, self-serving bastards, but at least they're doing the research rather than just appealing to high holy tradition and fuzzy feel good "it's natural" rhetoric.
I mean, bah. Tapeworms and hemlock are natural.
Why can't you do that with a wall-wart? And there's the additional problem with wireless power of figuring out when all the devices are finished charging so that you can shut off, or (better yet) how to know when to shut on when a new device (with no power to signal the base station) needs it to shut on.
Probably. Electronics is not an area of expertise for me, I'll admit. I knew enough to realize that you didn't need wireless to get those advantages but not enough to think about an even more practical solution. Thanks for pointing that out.
I remember when my friends at school called me a liar because I said our graphics card had 4MB of RAM. It was a sweet ATI VLB card for my dad's architecture workstation.
I remember when my roommate was working for a server middleware company and still had a 486 desktop. He worked with network cards that had a better processor and more RAM than his desktop at home. Good old Arctic 960! Ah, nostalgia.
Clearly you don't value a close shave.
That's the ticket! My desktop isn't ancient and decrepit. I'm just rugged.
Like your family jewels do better in a microwave without tinfoil.