From what I have read online in various forums, this actually may be some kind of weird "game" (I say "weird", because it falls into the same ruthless category as kids standing next to the road waiting for a car to pass and then "pretending" to run, jump, or throw a ball in front of the car, possibly causing the driver to swerve to avoid the mishap, thereby possibly causing a REAL accident). What I have read is girls doing it to men, but boys doing it to women is just as plausible.
From what I seen, this "game" is called "baiting" - as in, "jail-baiting". I don't know how far these kids take it - whether it stays online as a prank (probably the majority of cases), or whether it goes further to meetups and/or police involvement. I can easily imagine some of these 'tards going pretty gung-ho, emailing fake pictures (non-porn) from online sources of "who they are" to prove they are "adults" (plenty of source material on a GIS), then going into a chat via AIM or something, and having a pretty sexually explicit conversation with the adult - who of course thinks they are chatting up another adult.
Next thing you know, I am sure the kid could easily save a log of the conversation, then turn around and claim they were the ones baited, to their parents, a counselor at school, or directly to the police, perhaps showing the log (maybe edited, maybe not - who cares, right? It's just a game!). Guess what happens to the hapless adult's life?
Their shit is fucked up FOREVER, at least in the community they are living in. If they manage to get through whatever legal troubles they are likely to have (God help them if they have their own computer seized and they have porn on it!), they might still turn out to be a pariah in their community, their job, maybe their own family. If they are lucky, it is quickly found out to be a prank. If the kid persists though, they might find themselves in the end, in jail or prison. Furthermore, if they find themselves in prison, they will likely soon find themselves dead. Fellow prisoners don't care about truth, only perception (not that it is much different on the outside, though).
All for a supposed "game".
<sarcasm>Beat the little bastages soundly with a stick, stuff 'em in a gunney sack, and sell them to the gypsies - that'll learn 'em!</sarcasm>
...any stream of instructions (remember, in a non-Harvard architecture machine, code and data are interchangeble) for a Universal Turing Machine is executable, it is just that some streams of instructions are more executable than others. Some may stop at the first instruction, some may continue for N instructions before stopping. Some streams of instructions may actually perform the same task as the UTM upon which they are running - in other words, these instructions are themselves another implementation of a UTM.
At base level, a CPU is nothing more than software in physical form (conversely, software is nothing more than hardware in virtual form). It does not take many instructions to create a UTM: a simple, 6 instruction 2d cellular automata can do it, just ask Wolfram. Furthermore, any attempts to increase the complexity of such a system (by adding more dimensions, or a more complex instruction set), ultimately reduces down to the simpler system mathematically. It may take longer for this simpler system to perform the same tasks as the more complex solution, but perform them equally it can and does, otherwise it is not Turing Complete.
Lastly, the substrate upon which this system runs is unimportant - whether it is silicon etched with chemical and light running on electricity, squishy bits of DNA, RNA (messenger and transfer), and ribosomes, or atoms "randomly" bouncing around in the universe - it is all the same.
I bet the politicians are just wetting themselves over the idea that they can tax every quantum particle in the universe as "digital data". Most people, especially politicians, have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA just what the whole ball of wax that is computer science, information theory, network theory, chaos mathematics, emergence, etc - actually is. If they honestly, rationally, logically did, for most of them it would shake them to their very core, because these are the very tools by which we will "find God" (and ultimately realize the ephemeral, illogic nature of such a concept, as if you need those tools to see that).
Right; and tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer, people who were going to get lung cancer anyway are probably drawn to/self-medicating with tobacco.
I am not going to say that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, nor am I going to suggest that cancer doesn't have natural causes that can't be eliminated (it does), but I tend to wonder about the real truth about it. Personally, I think that smoking is but one, most likely minor (especially in the case of secondhand smoke!), component amongst much greater ones, in causing lung cancer and other cancers today.
The truth is, most of us live in a very dirty, polluted world. In our cities and suburbs - indeed, just about anywhere - we have air pollution, most of it caused by industry, but a significant portion of it (especially at ground level) caused by automobiles and other internal-combustion engine powered machines. We sit in these machines, and breath the exhalations of them. We walk by them, and breath not only that, but also the dust from the roads, tires, and brake linings. Some of this dust is likely fibrous and/or nanoscopic in size.
Couple all of this with benzene, pvc, and other contaminants - it should be a wonder that we arent' dying quicker from lung cancer and other cancers before we are 30. Actually, when it gets right down to it, we are...
Ignore all of that, though. It isn't the automobile, nor is it industry which is helping to cause high cancer rates - it is cigarettes, evil, nasty smokers - BOOO! BOOO!
And I am not an opthamologist, but I believe what they refer to as "eye strain" should more accurately be termed "eye muscle strain", specifically the muscles that control the focusing of the eye.
Basically, when you are viewing a monitor (or any other object less than 3 feet from your eye, generally much closer) for an extended period of time, the muscles that control the focusing of your lens (which is done by "stretching the lens", making it thinner or thicker, since muscles can only contract), become fatigued. This is similar to the fatigue you get if, say, you attempt to hold your arm out to the side of your body level for an extended period of time. After a while, your arm feels very heavy, and starts to ache, and you get tired of it.
This is mainly because this isn't something you do often. If you did, after a while you would not notice it as much, and you would be able to do so for longer periods of time. This doesn't mean you aren't causing stress on the muscle - you are. You have just become used to it. You might, over time, find it more difficult to raise and lower your arm, or raise it higher. Similarly, with the eyes, you would find you can't focus as well, your eyes hurt, burn, water, itch, etc - this is all "eye strain".
Our eyes haven't evolved to cope with extended periods of time of "fixed focused" at small (18-24 inches) distances. As an aside, an extreme example of such fatigue is part of the "simulator sickness" encountered by users of VR HMDs (head mounted displays) - due to the fact that these display devices, while attempting to have a focal range of "infinity", force the eye (via lenses) to focus on a screen only a few inches away from the eyeball. This is one of the big reasons (but by no means the only reason) behind headaches some users experience after more than 20-30 minutes of use.
What would be interesting to know is if the use of glasses for nearsightedness among the younger population (who read) increased after the wide availability of the printed book in Guttenberg's (sp?) time. Probably a near impossible research task to perform, but it would be interesting to know if glasses were primarily used by older people (whose muscles, including those of eye, atrophy over time, making it more difficult to focus), but when the printed book became popular among younger people, if thier eyes started to have problems due to close focusing (and limited light sources at night) for reading books...
Basically, the idea behind Internet0 is the development of a small, easily implemented protocol to allow for "everyday objects" to communicate to one another. For the purposes of home/office automation (especially in the case where it may be a "noisy" environment, like a large office building - or one where installing a lot of communication or control systems is difficult), where you want to control lights and other electrical systems, such a protocol and the simple physical interface (the original implementation relies on an ATMEL uController, but you could easily get away with any such device) - which could be anything from a couple of wires, RF communications, or an LED/phototransistor pair (short range, of course) make it ideal for such needs. Of course, I don't think there are any commercial offerings of Internet0, yet (though I could be wrong). Also, because it is based off of TCP, building a gateway or other hardware to interface it to the rest of the internet is certainly doable...
However, in the book FAB by Neil Gershefeld, there is described an interesting "Hello World" circuit, which is supposedly open-sourced in some manner by (MIT Media Lab?) - that uses a 2 or 3 wire physical layer protocol, coupled with a low-speed packet protocol, based on TCP, but in a much simpler format (similar to morse code) - it was supposedly dubbed "Internet0" or some weirdness. HERE IT IS - anyhow, I am pretty sure that is it - if not, it is probably located somewhere else in the FABLAB wiki. Also, look at this too...
Yeah, you'd think so but really, after a while they all blend together and the enjoyment ceases.
The first time I went to Burning Man (2003 - late in the game), I was intrigued by the number of "naked people". Not oogling them or judging them, or anything, but interested in the fact of the sheer number. By the end of that first day, it all became a part of the background. The environment of the nudists seemed to me just as normal as the clothed members...
I would imagine that the porn industry would be the same in regards to the models. Thinking about that, and hardcore pornography - seems like it would be a fairly crappy job, because of the routine - which is exactly opposite of the "fantasy" ideas of the profession. But it has to be true...
Because that is what is driving the whole damned thing. The quicker you understand this, the better off you will be - and you may just be the person that figures out how to exploit it and become wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. That, or destroy the planet.
Anyhow, if you want more insight to the processes behind everything (and it sounds like you have a clue anyhow), read the book "FAB" by Neil Gershenfeld (ISBN 0-465-02745-8, hardcover). In the last section, entitled "The Future", the author discusses how ribosomes, messenger RNA and transfer RNA work together to create proteins, one of the basic building blocks of life. When it gets right down to it, this combination is nothing more than a very funky version of a UTM (Universal Turing Machine), where the ribosomes are akin to the read/write head, and the messanger RNA/transfer RNA serve the role of the read/write head encoding and "infinite tape", with the output being new protein. A similar mechanism (to a ribosome) called DNA polymerase actually does copying of DNA.
If you could figure out how all of this work (simple thing there, uhuh), in theory you could build (grow?) anything (provided it was protein based, likely). If you could create a silicon (or other hard material) nanomachine analog, you could construct nearly anything.
Yeah - in each of our's and other species cells lie something very similar, if not the equivalent of, Turing Machines - miniature computers, whose instruction set is a series of codons in a certain sequence. When that sequence is "off" (either through chemical degradation or cosmic rays, or similar), the computer mis-translates, which in effect become "mutations". Some of these mutations may be helpful, some may be deadly. Ultimately, it is these mutations which serve to move things forward in harmony with evolution.
There are many other books I could reccommend you read as well - I have posted lists of these here on/. in the past, so I am not going to rehash it (suffice to say there are several). I suggest you track my lists down and read those books as well. Please note that I don't consider FAB to be one of these books, but it is a good, quick read - something I ran across at the library as I was thinking about building a 3-axis CNC milling machine...
Re:When will modern dentists stop using flint?
on
Stone Age Dentists
·
· Score: 1
Actually, there is a device out there (and will probably remain that way), that is essentially a retainer (custom shaped for your mouth) with some electronics in it to run a current (at a specific frequency? dunno) that you are supposed to wear at night and it is supposed to inhibit the growth of plaque while you sleep. I first saw this device on "Beyond 2000" back in the late 1980's - it was invented in Australia, IIRC. Then - nothing. Until sometime last year if I remember right, there was another trial of this device (or something similar) going on...
With that said, maybe you need to choose another dentist if you hate the hygenist's use of picks. While picks will always be necessary, there is other technology on the market for cleanings. My dentist prides himself on using the latest tech once he is familiar with it and has investigated it thoroughly. He isn't on my insurance plan (actually, he isn't on any), so I have to do the 80/20 route and get reimbursed later, but I like his office and work so much I won't go anywhere else.
For cleanings, he has the standard rotating polisher and picks, etc - but when the machines aren't out being cleaned and adjusted, my hygenist uses a different system. Basically, the cleaning instrument looks like a fat pick attached to an air/water line combo. With this combination, it vibrates (at the press of a footpedal) the pick at ultrasonic frequencies, which break up the plaque. The water flushes the plaque away, and the regular vacuum line picks up the excess water as it collects. I am not sure on how this device works, but it is either vibrating the pick using air in a venturi or something blowing over a reed (ultrasonic picolo?) - or it is using an ultrasonic version of "water hammering", like when your pipes groan and vibrate due to water and air bubbles/pressure etc (however that works). I suspect the latter, as it would have more power, but the former method is equally possible.
Now, once that is done, if needed my hygenist uses a pick to remove any stubborn areas. I would bet on some people this isn't needed, but I am unfortunate, it seems. Even so, since the pick is barely used, my gums don't feel like they are on fire afterward, so all is good. After that, the polishing is done not by the rotating dental drill tool as usual, but with a system that uses a pressurized water/flavored baking-soda mix sprayed out at high speed in "puffs", also controlled by a foot pedal. It is basically a miniature sandblaster for the teeth. It works great, it is fast, and a lot easier for the hygenist to use. However, if they have to go to the backup methods, they have all of that available, to be sure.
The last thing my dentist was talking about was the use of a laser drill. They already use laser light at my dentist, mainly to cure ceramic caps, fillings and other cosmetic stuff. He had gone to conferences and stuff where the tech was discussed and demonstrated, so maybe in the future that will be something he will use...
Anyone who listens to the radio or has passengers in their car, and complains about cell phones while driving is a hypocrate.
Actually, I mostly disagree with this statement, as a phone (landline or cellphone) is a fundamentally different beast. I say "mostly", because your statement about passengers is closest to a cellphone (but not exact), and radio is completely different.
It basically comes down to the nature of real-time interactive communication over alternative (virtual) communication mediums, like cellphones and the internet. When communicating with these mediums, the mind (for some psychological reason) becomes "lost", and is neither here, nor there, but somewhere "in between". If the "conversation" is long enough, and more importantly, if the other communication channels (sight and other sound) are "dimmed" (like nighttime driving with the windows rolled up), this "in betweenness" becomes greater. In effect, to borrow a phrase from virtual reality terminology, the mind becomes "immersed" in the medium (indeed, it is closer to an "audio only" virtual reality).
It also seems that some people are more susceptible to this than others, but all are susceptible to it by some extent (and if you claim you are not, you are only fooling yourself). The blocking out of the other senses only serves to raise the level of immersion - whether it is sitting in a darkened room browsing the web, or talking on the phone, while in lying down (hmm - I wonder if in a "video only" virtual reality, if hearing becomes "dimmed"?).
In a vehicle, the problem becomes even more compounded - we have all had the realization, after driving for a while, of wondering "how did I get here" - essentially forgetting conciously (sometimes, scarily enough, for miles) that we were driving. We all do this, but somehow we tend to arrive in one piece. This "auto-pilot" mode tends to get interrupted by "immersion" in the virtual communication medium, for some reason (might make an interesting psychological study using simulators and cell phones).
Radios, being one-way, do not tend to cause this immersion. Neither do CB radios - it is the real-time interaction in an alternate reality that is required for the immersion effect to take hold. CB radios require the user to "break" the conversation into chunks because transmission between the parties can only occur one party at a time. Thus, it isn't "real-time", and these breaks serve as discontinuities that don't allow for immersion.
While all of these things (passengers, cell phones, radio, and CB radios, etc) all can cause distractions (and thus, we all should be careful with every one of them while driving), none save for the cell phone causes the strong immersion trigger in the human mind. As I have noted before, this would make an excellent psychological study, to determine what and how this is triggered, what items trigger it and to what extent (cell phones, radios, food, CBs, passengers, etc), how it interacts with the "autopilot" mode we get into when we drive, how different driving conditions are affected by it, how our driving is effected quantitively, and how things could be changed to lessen the effect to the driver.
It may be as simple as having the cell-phone, when it senses it is moving at a speed above walking speed (surely the problem applies if the user is running or riding a bike as well) using GPS, to switch to a system where each user has to say "over" to break the conversation up. Maybe that would work, maybe it wouldn't.
Ultimately, it may come down to personal responsibility (so we are utterly doomed). If we turned the phone off or left it at home when we drove, and paid attention to our driving instead of everything else - everyone would be safer...
It isn't that you can do it, or that you can hire someone else to do it (mangle/compile the code) - but the fact that you can do it at all.
Say, for example, Microsoft or Oracle go "belly up". It can happen, quicker than you think, for a variety of reasons. There have been many examples throughout history of this happenning, either due to external or internal reasons. So in theory, if your company relies on MSSQL or Oracle's DB product, and the vendor goes belly up, what then?
Well, your company can probably continue with the software, as is (as long as there isn't any "call home" licensing checks). Hopefully, if your company is smart, they immediately begin a crash course to migrate to a new database product and/or vendor. However, let's say they don't, because they can't convince their clients to buy an all new DB backend or whatever, or the DB software being used has a feature not available anywhere else, or something like that. Time passes, then one day, a very nasty bug in the software is found, something that could possibly take down the business, leaving all the clients in the lurch - what then?
Since your company doesn't have the source to the DB software, you can't fix it. You better pray you can find a workaround. If not, it may be curtains for the business (and maybe some of your clients, who may have went with thier own version of "proprietary software" when they went with your company, unless your code is open source). Had you instead gone with an open-source DB solution (and/or rolled your own code to bring those "needed-features" the other proprietary guy had and gave them back to the community as a note of "thanks"), and had that open-source solution gone "belly-up", and had events transpired the same way (bugs found, etc)...
In theory, at that "darkest moment", you could "save yourself", either by hunting down the offending code and fixing it (and distributing the patch to clients), or hiring someone else to do the same. THAT is the power of open source, and why it is a good thing, even if you never touch it yourself. Frankly, having been in a variety of vertical-market software development jobs over the past 15 years, the above situation happens more often than you think (although in most cases it is with other software than databases), causing companies to almost grind to a halt as they look for yet another proprietary vertical market solution in their domain (most vertical market solutions are proprietary due to the nature and size of the business domains they serve - think insurance, medical, warehousing, distribution, etc) - paying huge amounts of money in their contracts to have the lucky winner "convert them over" to the new system...
At one time, long ago before I knew how to drive (I didn't learn until I was 21), I used to do this to get to my job, but at that time my job was only a few miles away.
I would love to bicycle to work again (it has been a while, and I would have to get back into riding shape to do it, but I think I could manage), but my current job is about 15 miles away from my house. I live on the west side of Phoenix, and my job is in Scottsdale. It isn't so much the distance, but what happens when you ride for that long of a distance: you get sweaty - especially here in Phoenix (and don't get me started about summertime - ugh).
Anyhow, how do you deal with that once you get to work? Do you ride for a long enough distance that this is a problem? Does your work have showers? Do you shower at a near-to-your-work gym, then arrive at work?
This is something that is always brought up, but generally in threads relating to bicycling vs using a car (for environmental or economic reasons). It would be interesting to find out how others who ride to work deal with this problem...
I find it difficult to maintain motivation developing software that there are already excellent alternatives to
Once you get into the "real world", you will find that your statement above is ultimately false.
I have been programming "out here" for about 15 years now. Not as long as some, but long enough. What I have seen continues to astound me.
The worst? The number of companies that continue to "reinvent the wheel", and do so each time badly. A big one is "data conversion", the converting of data (in a database, flat files, etc) from one formatting convention to another. This is something that is extremely useful, wanted by about every company out there, and they pay big bucks for it - most of the time to the vendor they are moving to (who invariably writes "one shot" conversion tools, thanks to the myriad of proprietary undocumented formatting schemes dreamed up by vertical market vendors).
One of the big pushes in an attempt to alleviate this problem was to move to create interfaces to communicate to the "outside world", using what became known as EDI. Good in theory, a nightmare to develop for. Standards were drawn up (and you had to pay for them, unless you coded to the drafts) by the UCC and other bodies. Ultimately, companies ended up extended and fragmenting the standards, so you never really knew what you got was what you wanted, and what you sent was what was needed. Things were still "flat files", but at least in a "semi-documented" (if not always rigidly followed) format. Various GUI-based tools and such were created to work with and develop conversion between the EDI "standard" and the actual needed format (for each implementation). It was a little better. Then XML came along - we all know how that turned out.
I am not saying any of these things are bad. All of them had their good points, and all are still used. What I am saying is that there is still a need for all of this. If you can come up with a tool or toolset to allow you to set up conversion templates from any format to any format, and sell it cheap, you could make a fortune. Yes, there are other companies that have attempted to do this, all to varying degrees of success. It isn't glamorous or anything, but it is something that companies pay for, and would make a good project to enhance your skills. You can't do any worse than the previous guy.
I can think of numerous other projects you could work on for which there aren't good solutions for certain target markets. For example, if you did what Peoplesoft (Oracle, now) does, and you did it better (probably not too hard to do, given what I have heard from every user of their software solutions), and cheaper (ie, so small to medium sized businesses could afford it), you would have people beating down your door. Once again, this isn't glamorous or sexy software, but companies pay for it through the nose. On a similar note - a low cost, very easy to use and develop for reporting (business intelligence) package, on the near-level to Actuate's software (good luck here - they know their stuff, and have great support to boot), would also be a boon to business. The two big players are Actuate and Crystal, but there are others. Either of these type of projects would be great to develop and learn from, and might lead to excellent business opportunities.
Finally, something else that is not quite "needed", but is a currently niche market that needs lower cost alternatives. This area is the "personal fabrication" and "rapid prototyping" market. A complete, but very easy to use end-to-end solution is needed. Right now, you buy your fabricators from one vendor (or your custom build your own) and software from another (or use various open-source solutions), and depending on what you are using, things may "snap together", or they may need some "customizing" to get them to work. Even once you have the toolset down, you still need to use generally arcane CAD/CAM software to design your parts, then convert that using other tools (which may be a part of the set or external to
You would really be surprised how easy it is to get people to "do certain things" in a repetitious fashion, or even to "loop" them (typical results of such "looping" are either extreme depression, a "nervous breakdown", or in extreme cases, suicide). Hell, marketing is a form of this stimulous, whose goal is to get you to "buy more".
Marketing is but one "do certain thing" - there are many others in the human animal. Most are "herd instincts", learned and patterned on from young ages. Since non-NT individuals are less susceptible to this patterning, such triggers don't have an effect (or not the same level of effect). Non-NT individuals can see this, know about it, and can apply it. It is a very powerful tool, and can be used for both good and bad (just like any tool). NT individuals can learn to use and recognize it, too. In fact, many have, and many continue to do so (hence, NLP training). However, it is more difficult for them, simply because sometimes, they have to overcome the very same patterns in themselves that they are trying to control in others.
It is also possible (but very, very difficult, unless you can map out the social nodal structure either in your head or another way) to cause others to perform patterns (as noted previously), to get them to interact with one another to cause them to trigger other patterns (and in theory, you can get looping here, too), to a final outcome. Group control to achieve desired ends, in which the nodes are unaware of the final output...
It really made me think what prudes we americans are. Yah seeing naked human bodies desensitzes us to seeing naked human bodies...
This is the truth! You want quick "desensitization"? Go to Burning Man! Nothing like seeing a naked and hairy, 35 year old, 350 lb man wearing nothing but a pair of goggles and a camelpak to desensitize you (among other things).
Honestly, my first time at Burning Man was a revelation - I realized there, out in the desert, was how mankind was "supposed to be", and that the way things are here, in the "real world" - all of this is lies and deception, a mockery of our true potential and nature.
I've seen many relationships broken up by "cheating" but none from porn. (although sometimes it is best to hide porn habits - some women feel threatened by it and arguing is rarely erotic)
It is NOT best to "hide t3h pr0n". This is dishonest to your partner - you are essentially lying to them about your interest in porn.
It is better to have an open, honest, and frank discussion with your partner about how you each feel about porn. Once you have established communications about it, you need to come to an agreement regarding it. Maybe it isn't the porn, maybe it is masturbation (strange, but I have heard such arguments). Whatever it is, you need to discuss it.
Ultimately, you need to act like adults in this issue. If it comes down to it, the relationship may need to end. But it is better that the relationship ends based on honest communication, than it ending based on lies and deceit.
Sitting at a computer and viewing pornography is no different than going out and having an affair. (Expect you are doing it by yourself. How pitiful!) I dare everyone who views pornography to go home and ask your wives or girlfriends how they feel about it. I'll bet a majority will hate it.
I thank $DEITY every day that my wife is NOT in the majority, on this point. I recognise that for a lot of men, this isn't the case - sucks to be them!
Ultimately, the key to happy and successful marriage is honesty and communication. My wife and I talk about and discuss everything, no matter how personal, embarassing, or private it may be. She knows my fears, concerns, and intimate details of my life, the same as I know hers. Consequent to this, it is very difficult for either of us to lie to the other, and have a hope of getting away with it. Which leads to my next point:
Viewing pornography is not the same as going out and having an affair!
Had you instead said that viewing pornography without your partner's knowledge and consent is the same as having an affair, I wouldn't be arguing this. An affair indicates deceit and lack of communication in the marriage. In a marriage based on trust and communication, a man (or woman) would be able to discuss such feelings, wants, and urges, and come to an understanding on them with thier significant other. An affair is a breach of such trust, discussing the idea of an "open marriage", and/or agreeing on it and/or such rules, however, IS NOT AN AFFAIR.
People have and do participate in "open marriages" - where such marriages fail, though, is when communications and trust break down in the participants. If one of members of a marriage "falls in love" with the other, and "falls out of love" with the person he or she is married to, and does not communicate this to them, then an affair could start, and the marriage could be in trouble. Such open relationships require trust, honesty, and open communication amongst all parties involved. Ultimately, if all parties are involved, open, trustworthy of each other, and have open communications with one another, the marriage (in union, not legal, sense) could become tighter all the way around, and a trusting polyamourous relationship could be formed between the participants.
My wife and I have discussed such things, ultimately we concluded that at the present time, it isn't for us or our relationship. I am fine with that, and we continue to discuss as well as joke on each other about it. We maintain our open communication and trust. We have fun, we play, we experiment in the bedroom. We even (GASP!) watch hardcore porn together! THE HORROR!
So far, things must be working - we just recently celebrated our 12th anniversary of being together...
Would there be a market then for explicit, hard core pornography, that was also instructional and did not promote degradation or extremism.
This already exists - peruse some of Adam and Eve's online selection, or any of the other "regular" sex toy and porn video outlets, and you will find plenty of "regular", non-extreme porn available. There is also several lines of "instructional" video series out there, designed to teach partners (straight, gay, bi, whatever) how to "do it better", be more open in love making, etc.
Many of these are designed, directed and produced by women for woman (and/or their partners). Most are pretty well done as instructional videos. Unfortunately, they all tend to be more expensive than regular porn DVDs and the like, simply because of the higher production value and the lower demand (yes, there is demand, but it is nowhere near as high as for regular porn).
Also, please be aware that these videos are most suitable for adults only, and are NOT meant as instructional aids for teenagers or children (ie, sex education).
I agree with you on all your points. The real power of Asperger's comes in understanding that in all likelyhood, the human brain is nothing more than a very advanced pattern recognition and playback device. The best argument and discussion of this can be found in the book On Intelligence, by Jeff Hawkins.
After much reading of liturature in various fields of artificial intelligence, emergence, chaos theory, network theory, psychology, etc - I have come to believe that recognizing this is paramount to understanding how the human mind works (as well as how it doesn't). Those with Asperger's and others on the autistic spectrum can use this knowledge, along with reason and logic, to almost scary benefit to themselves, if they so choose.
In a way, proper use of this knowledge is directly akin to application of the ideas inherent in NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming). In essence, since you, as a non-NT individual, may need to be able to conciously "see" (and learn to understand) others emotions, as well as conciously "playback" similar emotions based on other cues - you have at hand a very useful tool to control other people, if you can understand and master it. Because those patterns you playback will cause the other individuals or group to recognize (in an unconscious manner, for most) the pattern, and play back others. What we think of as "free will" is not so much randomness in what we think we are doing, but pattern recognition and playback of patterns in a network of complex emergent social interactions in an environment of (mathematical) chaos. Non-NT individuals are among the only ones in a group who can use this knowledge to their advantage. In NLP training (which is something which seeks to train non-NT individuals to recognize what an NT individual already has practice with), the goal is recognize these body, facial, and verbal cues of others, and to utilize your own, in a manner to direct and control the responses of other people.
Done right, what can be accomplished seems amazing. With enough practice, you can almost get people to do things for you that they themselves wouldn't ordinarily do, and they do them willingly! Mind control? Jedi-like power?
Not at all - you are simply using the pattern recognition and playback capabilities within the mind of a human organism(s) in a manner concious to yourself. Hacking others brains, emotions, and desires, if you will. Some might call that unethical. Why is it ok if everyone (NTs) already do it unconsciously, but not if you (a non-NT) do it consciously? In the end, it doesn't matter, because they can't really control it (unless they are non-NT as well, and recognize what you are doing).
My wife and I were driving back home after going to a friend's house. It was pretty late in the evening, around midnight. So, we are going down the freeway, when behind us there goes the blue and reds flashing. We are wondering, "what have we done? speeding? maybe. taillight out? possibly...".
So, we pull over to the side of the road, and wait for the officers to walk up. They stop behind us, get out of the car, walk on both sides of us, and ask us where we are going, and where we are headed from. "Home, from a friend's house" we both reply.
We are now thinking "this is odd", when one of them asks us (I shit you not) "so, why did you pull over and stop?" WTF?! We tell them point blank "because you were directly behind us in the far right lane with your flashers on, we figured you were pulling us over". They then tell us "no, we weren't", and we were like "but...we are here now, so what is going on?". They tell us "you are free to go". We got the hell out of dodge.
Mind you, this was late at night, on a freeway in the middle of Phoenix, Arizona. As far as I am aware, we weren't speeding, we didn't have any lights out. They pulled us over, then tell us they weren't, and let us go without any rhyme or reason. To this day, it makes no sense at all, and I haven't got a clue why this was done. We were never asked for licenses or registration. My wife and I think we were either pulled over by them because they wanted to do as you noted - "find a reason" - and then realized by the end of it all that we were pretty much "squeaky clean", or they were looking for a vehicle and occupants similar to us in the neighborhood, and given the late night, thought we were a match. Even so, it doesn't make sense that they would deny that they were pulling us over, when the reality was that they did (talk about cognitive dissonance).
Do you want to know what we are? We are the gear oil in the differential. We are perceived as the nasty stuff that has to be in there in order for it all to work. The greater American society knows this, and they despise us for it. They know, at some visceral level, that intelligence, reason, and logic is needed for the society to run, but it needs to be marginalized from the greater society lest it take over. We are the geeks. Here in America, we probably account for 1/10 or less of 1 percent of the entire US population. Furthermore, I doubt that even this number all have/. accounts.
American society despises intelligence, despises reason, despises logic. Is it any wonder when we laud and fawn over our sports "heroes" and entertainment "stars"? When more people vote for the next "American Idol" than vote for the person in charge of the entire nuclear arsenal of the United States (and then get a former coke addict and alcholic), we geeks realize there is something wrong. However, no matter what we say or inform our supposed non-geek peers about this and other issues, we are looked at with derision, with contempt. How dare we say they are wrong! How dare we upset the curve, once again!
Ultimately, the problems we see, the problems we know can and will grow larger, if only we controlled or eliminated them today (and they go way beyond mere societal issues), are all small and insignificant on the radars of the larger American society. For there to be any great change, the problems need to affect way more of the population, beyond just us little piss-ants of geekdom. Unfortunately, we geeks also know, given the technology and controls now in the hands of the controllers, that even if the problems become huge and unwieldy - so big as to drive stakes through the hearts, minds, and lives of the greater society - that ultimately there might not be a way out except through gross and sheer death. Millions of deaths. Those that die will be suicides, or worse.
I think I hear the trains pulling into the station - do you hear them...?
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, I don't think so...
From what I seen, this "game" is called "baiting" - as in, "jail-baiting". I don't know how far these kids take it - whether it stays online as a prank (probably the majority of cases), or whether it goes further to meetups and/or police involvement. I can easily imagine some of these 'tards going pretty gung-ho, emailing fake pictures (non-porn) from online sources of "who they are" to prove they are "adults" (plenty of source material on a GIS), then going into a chat via AIM or something, and having a pretty sexually explicit conversation with the adult - who of course thinks they are chatting up another adult.
Next thing you know, I am sure the kid could easily save a log of the conversation, then turn around and claim they were the ones baited, to their parents, a counselor at school, or directly to the police, perhaps showing the log (maybe edited, maybe not - who cares, right? It's just a game!). Guess what happens to the hapless adult's life?
Their shit is fucked up FOREVER, at least in the community they are living in. If they manage to get through whatever legal troubles they are likely to have (God help them if they have their own computer seized and they have porn on it!), they might still turn out to be a pariah in their community, their job, maybe their own family. If they are lucky, it is quickly found out to be a prank. If the kid persists though, they might find themselves in the end, in jail or prison. Furthermore, if they find themselves in prison, they will likely soon find themselves dead. Fellow prisoners don't care about truth, only perception (not that it is much different on the outside, though).
All for a supposed "game".
<sarcasm>Beat the little bastages soundly with a stick, stuff 'em in a gunney sack, and sell them to the gypsies - that'll learn 'em!</sarcasm>
At base level, a CPU is nothing more than software in physical form (conversely, software is nothing more than hardware in virtual form). It does not take many instructions to create a UTM: a simple, 6 instruction 2d cellular automata can do it, just ask Wolfram. Furthermore, any attempts to increase the complexity of such a system (by adding more dimensions, or a more complex instruction set), ultimately reduces down to the simpler system mathematically. It may take longer for this simpler system to perform the same tasks as the more complex solution, but perform them equally it can and does, otherwise it is not Turing Complete.
Lastly, the substrate upon which this system runs is unimportant - whether it is silicon etched with chemical and light running on electricity, squishy bits of DNA, RNA (messenger and transfer), and ribosomes, or atoms "randomly" bouncing around in the universe - it is all the same.
I bet the politicians are just wetting themselves over the idea that they can tax every quantum particle in the universe as "digital data". Most people, especially politicians, have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA just what the whole ball of wax that is computer science, information theory, network theory, chaos mathematics, emergence, etc - actually is. If they honestly, rationally, logically did, for most of them it would shake them to their very core, because these are the very tools by which we will "find God" (and ultimately realize the ephemeral, illogic nature of such a concept, as if you need those tools to see that).
I am not going to say that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, nor am I going to suggest that cancer doesn't have natural causes that can't be eliminated (it does), but I tend to wonder about the real truth about it. Personally, I think that smoking is but one, most likely minor (especially in the case of secondhand smoke!), component amongst much greater ones, in causing lung cancer and other cancers today.
The truth is, most of us live in a very dirty, polluted world. In our cities and suburbs - indeed, just about anywhere - we have air pollution, most of it caused by industry, but a significant portion of it (especially at ground level) caused by automobiles and other internal-combustion engine powered machines. We sit in these machines, and breath the exhalations of them. We walk by them, and breath not only that, but also the dust from the roads, tires, and brake linings. Some of this dust is likely fibrous and/or nanoscopic in size.
Couple all of this with benzene, pvc, and other contaminants - it should be a wonder that we arent' dying quicker from lung cancer and other cancers before we are 30. Actually, when it gets right down to it, we are...
Ignore all of that, though. It isn't the automobile, nor is it industry which is helping to cause high cancer rates - it is cigarettes, evil, nasty smokers - BOOO! BOOO!
Basically, when you are viewing a monitor (or any other object less than 3 feet from your eye, generally much closer) for an extended period of time, the muscles that control the focusing of your lens (which is done by "stretching the lens", making it thinner or thicker, since muscles can only contract), become fatigued. This is similar to the fatigue you get if, say, you attempt to hold your arm out to the side of your body level for an extended period of time. After a while, your arm feels very heavy, and starts to ache, and you get tired of it.
This is mainly because this isn't something you do often. If you did, after a while you would not notice it as much, and you would be able to do so for longer periods of time. This doesn't mean you aren't causing stress on the muscle - you are. You have just become used to it. You might, over time, find it more difficult to raise and lower your arm, or raise it higher. Similarly, with the eyes, you would find you can't focus as well, your eyes hurt, burn, water, itch, etc - this is all "eye strain".
Our eyes haven't evolved to cope with extended periods of time of "fixed focused" at small (18-24 inches) distances. As an aside, an extreme example of such fatigue is part of the "simulator sickness" encountered by users of VR HMDs (head mounted displays) - due to the fact that these display devices, while attempting to have a focal range of "infinity", force the eye (via lenses) to focus on a screen only a few inches away from the eyeball. This is one of the big reasons (but by no means the only reason) behind headaches some users experience after more than 20-30 minutes of use.
What would be interesting to know is if the use of glasses for nearsightedness among the younger population (who read) increased after the wide availability of the printed book in Guttenberg's (sp?) time. Probably a near impossible research task to perform, but it would be interesting to know if glasses were primarily used by older people (whose muscles, including those of eye, atrophy over time, making it more difficult to focus), but when the printed book became popular among younger people, if thier eyes started to have problems due to close focusing (and limited light sources at night) for reading books...
Basically, the idea behind Internet0 is the development of a small, easily implemented protocol to allow for "everyday objects" to communicate to one another. For the purposes of home/office automation (especially in the case where it may be a "noisy" environment, like a large office building - or one where installing a lot of communication or control systems is difficult), where you want to control lights and other electrical systems, such a protocol and the simple physical interface (the original implementation relies on an ATMEL uController, but you could easily get away with any such device) - which could be anything from a couple of wires, RF communications, or an LED/phototransistor pair (short range, of course) make it ideal for such needs. Of course, I don't think there are any commercial offerings of Internet0, yet (though I could be wrong). Also, because it is based off of TCP, building a gateway or other hardware to interface it to the rest of the internet is certainly doable...
Here is some more info - BTW, it is Neil Gershenfeld - small typo, sorry...
However, in the book FAB by Neil Gershefeld, there is described an interesting "Hello World" circuit, which is supposedly open-sourced in some manner by (MIT Media Lab?) - that uses a 2 or 3 wire physical layer protocol, coupled with a low-speed packet protocol, based on TCP, but in a much simpler format (similar to morse code) - it was supposedly dubbed "Internet0" or some weirdness. HERE IT IS - anyhow, I am pretty sure that is it - if not, it is probably located somewhere else in the FABLAB wiki. Also, look at this too...
The first time I went to Burning Man (2003 - late in the game), I was intrigued by the number of "naked people". Not oogling them or judging them, or anything, but interested in the fact of the sheer number. By the end of that first day, it all became a part of the background. The environment of the nudists seemed to me just as normal as the clothed members...
I would imagine that the porn industry would be the same in regards to the models. Thinking about that, and hardcore pornography - seems like it would be a fairly crappy job, because of the routine - which is exactly opposite of the "fantasy" ideas of the profession. But it has to be true...
...Fixed it for ya!
Anyhow, if you want more insight to the processes behind everything (and it sounds like you have a clue anyhow), read the book "FAB" by Neil Gershenfeld (ISBN 0-465-02745-8, hardcover). In the last section, entitled "The Future", the author discusses how ribosomes, messenger RNA and transfer RNA work together to create proteins, one of the basic building blocks of life. When it gets right down to it, this combination is nothing more than a very funky version of a UTM (Universal Turing Machine), where the ribosomes are akin to the read/write head, and the messanger RNA/transfer RNA serve the role of the read/write head encoding and "infinite tape", with the output being new protein. A similar mechanism (to a ribosome) called DNA polymerase actually does copying of DNA.
If you could figure out how all of this work (simple thing there, uhuh), in theory you could build (grow?) anything (provided it was protein based, likely). If you could create a silicon (or other hard material) nanomachine analog, you could construct nearly anything.
Yeah - in each of our's and other species cells lie something very similar, if not the equivalent of, Turing Machines - miniature computers, whose instruction set is a series of codons in a certain sequence. When that sequence is "off" (either through chemical degradation or cosmic rays, or similar), the computer mis-translates, which in effect become "mutations". Some of these mutations may be helpful, some may be deadly. Ultimately, it is these mutations which serve to move things forward in harmony with evolution.
There are many other books I could reccommend you read as well - I have posted lists of these here on /. in the past, so I am not going to rehash it (suffice to say there are several). I suggest you track my lists down and read those books as well. Please note that I don't consider FAB to be one of these books, but it is a good, quick read - something I ran across at the library as I was thinking about building a 3-axis CNC milling machine...
With that said, maybe you need to choose another dentist if you hate the hygenist's use of picks. While picks will always be necessary, there is other technology on the market for cleanings. My dentist prides himself on using the latest tech once he is familiar with it and has investigated it thoroughly. He isn't on my insurance plan (actually, he isn't on any), so I have to do the 80/20 route and get reimbursed later, but I like his office and work so much I won't go anywhere else.
For cleanings, he has the standard rotating polisher and picks, etc - but when the machines aren't out being cleaned and adjusted, my hygenist uses a different system. Basically, the cleaning instrument looks like a fat pick attached to an air/water line combo. With this combination, it vibrates (at the press of a footpedal) the pick at ultrasonic frequencies, which break up the plaque. The water flushes the plaque away, and the regular vacuum line picks up the excess water as it collects. I am not sure on how this device works, but it is either vibrating the pick using air in a venturi or something blowing over a reed (ultrasonic picolo?) - or it is using an ultrasonic version of "water hammering", like when your pipes groan and vibrate due to water and air bubbles/pressure etc (however that works). I suspect the latter, as it would have more power, but the former method is equally possible.
Now, once that is done, if needed my hygenist uses a pick to remove any stubborn areas. I would bet on some people this isn't needed, but I am unfortunate, it seems. Even so, since the pick is barely used, my gums don't feel like they are on fire afterward, so all is good. After that, the polishing is done not by the rotating dental drill tool as usual, but with a system that uses a pressurized water/flavored baking-soda mix sprayed out at high speed in "puffs", also controlled by a foot pedal. It is basically a miniature sandblaster for the teeth. It works great, it is fast, and a lot easier for the hygenist to use. However, if they have to go to the backup methods, they have all of that available, to be sure.
The last thing my dentist was talking about was the use of a laser drill. They already use laser light at my dentist, mainly to cure ceramic caps, fillings and other cosmetic stuff. He had gone to conferences and stuff where the tech was discussed and demonstrated, so maybe in the future that will be something he will use...
Actually, I mostly disagree with this statement, as a phone (landline or cellphone) is a fundamentally different beast. I say "mostly", because your statement about passengers is closest to a cellphone (but not exact), and radio is completely different.
It basically comes down to the nature of real-time interactive communication over alternative (virtual) communication mediums, like cellphones and the internet. When communicating with these mediums, the mind (for some psychological reason) becomes "lost", and is neither here, nor there, but somewhere "in between". If the "conversation" is long enough, and more importantly, if the other communication channels (sight and other sound) are "dimmed" (like nighttime driving with the windows rolled up), this "in betweenness" becomes greater. In effect, to borrow a phrase from virtual reality terminology, the mind becomes "immersed" in the medium (indeed, it is closer to an "audio only" virtual reality).
It also seems that some people are more susceptible to this than others, but all are susceptible to it by some extent (and if you claim you are not, you are only fooling yourself). The blocking out of the other senses only serves to raise the level of immersion - whether it is sitting in a darkened room browsing the web, or talking on the phone, while in lying down (hmm - I wonder if in a "video only" virtual reality, if hearing becomes "dimmed"?).
In a vehicle, the problem becomes even more compounded - we have all had the realization, after driving for a while, of wondering "how did I get here" - essentially forgetting conciously (sometimes, scarily enough, for miles) that we were driving. We all do this, but somehow we tend to arrive in one piece. This "auto-pilot" mode tends to get interrupted by "immersion" in the virtual communication medium, for some reason (might make an interesting psychological study using simulators and cell phones).
Radios, being one-way, do not tend to cause this immersion. Neither do CB radios - it is the real-time interaction in an alternate reality that is required for the immersion effect to take hold. CB radios require the user to "break" the conversation into chunks because transmission between the parties can only occur one party at a time. Thus, it isn't "real-time", and these breaks serve as discontinuities that don't allow for immersion.
While all of these things (passengers, cell phones, radio, and CB radios, etc) all can cause distractions (and thus, we all should be careful with every one of them while driving), none save for the cell phone causes the strong immersion trigger in the human mind. As I have noted before, this would make an excellent psychological study, to determine what and how this is triggered, what items trigger it and to what extent (cell phones, radios, food, CBs, passengers, etc), how it interacts with the "autopilot" mode we get into when we drive, how different driving conditions are affected by it, how our driving is effected quantitively, and how things could be changed to lessen the effect to the driver.
It may be as simple as having the cell-phone, when it senses it is moving at a speed above walking speed (surely the problem applies if the user is running or riding a bike as well) using GPS, to switch to a system where each user has to say "over" to break the conversation up. Maybe that would work, maybe it wouldn't.
Ultimately, it may come down to personal responsibility (so we are utterly doomed). If we turned the phone off or left it at home when we drove, and paid attention to our driving instead of everything else - everyone would be safer...
Say, for example, Microsoft or Oracle go "belly up". It can happen, quicker than you think, for a variety of reasons. There have been many examples throughout history of this happenning, either due to external or internal reasons. So in theory, if your company relies on MSSQL or Oracle's DB product, and the vendor goes belly up, what then?
Well, your company can probably continue with the software, as is (as long as there isn't any "call home" licensing checks). Hopefully, if your company is smart, they immediately begin a crash course to migrate to a new database product and/or vendor. However, let's say they don't, because they can't convince their clients to buy an all new DB backend or whatever, or the DB software being used has a feature not available anywhere else, or something like that. Time passes, then one day, a very nasty bug in the software is found, something that could possibly take down the business, leaving all the clients in the lurch - what then?
Since your company doesn't have the source to the DB software, you can't fix it. You better pray you can find a workaround. If not, it may be curtains for the business (and maybe some of your clients, who may have went with thier own version of "proprietary software" when they went with your company, unless your code is open source). Had you instead gone with an open-source DB solution (and/or rolled your own code to bring those "needed-features" the other proprietary guy had and gave them back to the community as a note of "thanks"), and had that open-source solution gone "belly-up", and had events transpired the same way (bugs found, etc)...
In theory, at that "darkest moment", you could "save yourself", either by hunting down the offending code and fixing it (and distributing the patch to clients), or hiring someone else to do the same. THAT is the power of open source, and why it is a good thing, even if you never touch it yourself. Frankly, having been in a variety of vertical-market software development jobs over the past 15 years, the above situation happens more often than you think (although in most cases it is with other software than databases), causing companies to almost grind to a halt as they look for yet another proprietary vertical market solution in their domain (most vertical market solutions are proprietary due to the nature and size of the business domains they serve - think insurance, medical, warehousing, distribution, etc) - paying huge amounts of money in their contracts to have the lucky winner "convert them over" to the new system...
I would love to bicycle to work again (it has been a while, and I would have to get back into riding shape to do it, but I think I could manage), but my current job is about 15 miles away from my house. I live on the west side of Phoenix, and my job is in Scottsdale. It isn't so much the distance, but what happens when you ride for that long of a distance: you get sweaty - especially here in Phoenix (and don't get me started about summertime - ugh).
Anyhow, how do you deal with that once you get to work? Do you ride for a long enough distance that this is a problem? Does your work have showers? Do you shower at a near-to-your-work gym, then arrive at work?
This is something that is always brought up, but generally in threads relating to bicycling vs using a car (for environmental or economic reasons). It would be interesting to find out how others who ride to work deal with this problem...
I find it difficult to maintain motivation developing software that there are already excellent alternatives to
Once you get into the "real world", you will find that your statement above is ultimately false.
I have been programming "out here" for about 15 years now. Not as long as some, but long enough. What I have seen continues to astound me.
The worst? The number of companies that continue to "reinvent the wheel", and do so each time badly. A big one is "data conversion", the converting of data (in a database, flat files, etc) from one formatting convention to another. This is something that is extremely useful, wanted by about every company out there, and they pay big bucks for it - most of the time to the vendor they are moving to (who invariably writes "one shot" conversion tools, thanks to the myriad of proprietary undocumented formatting schemes dreamed up by vertical market vendors).
One of the big pushes in an attempt to alleviate this problem was to move to create interfaces to communicate to the "outside world", using what became known as EDI. Good in theory, a nightmare to develop for. Standards were drawn up (and you had to pay for them, unless you coded to the drafts) by the UCC and other bodies. Ultimately, companies ended up extended and fragmenting the standards, so you never really knew what you got was what you wanted, and what you sent was what was needed. Things were still "flat files", but at least in a "semi-documented" (if not always rigidly followed) format. Various GUI-based tools and such were created to work with and develop conversion between the EDI "standard" and the actual needed format (for each implementation). It was a little better. Then XML came along - we all know how that turned out.
I am not saying any of these things are bad. All of them had their good points, and all are still used. What I am saying is that there is still a need for all of this. If you can come up with a tool or toolset to allow you to set up conversion templates from any format to any format, and sell it cheap, you could make a fortune. Yes, there are other companies that have attempted to do this, all to varying degrees of success. It isn't glamorous or anything, but it is something that companies pay for, and would make a good project to enhance your skills. You can't do any worse than the previous guy.
I can think of numerous other projects you could work on for which there aren't good solutions for certain target markets. For example, if you did what Peoplesoft (Oracle, now) does, and you did it better (probably not too hard to do, given what I have heard from every user of their software solutions), and cheaper (ie, so small to medium sized businesses could afford it), you would have people beating down your door. Once again, this isn't glamorous or sexy software, but companies pay for it through the nose. On a similar note - a low cost, very easy to use and develop for reporting (business intelligence) package, on the near-level to Actuate's software (good luck here - they know their stuff, and have great support to boot), would also be a boon to business. The two big players are Actuate and Crystal, but there are others. Either of these type of projects would be great to develop and learn from, and might lead to excellent business opportunities.
Finally, something else that is not quite "needed", but is a currently niche market that needs lower cost alternatives. This area is the "personal fabrication" and "rapid prototyping" market. A complete, but very easy to use end-to-end solution is needed. Right now, you buy your fabricators from one vendor (or your custom build your own) and software from another (or use various open-source solutions), and depending on what you are using, things may "snap together", or they may need some "customizing" to get them to work. Even once you have the toolset down, you still need to use generally arcane CAD/CAM software to design your parts, then convert that using other tools (which may be a part of the set or external to
Marketing is but one "do certain thing" - there are many others in the human animal. Most are "herd instincts", learned and patterned on from young ages. Since non-NT individuals are less susceptible to this patterning, such triggers don't have an effect (or not the same level of effect). Non-NT individuals can see this, know about it, and can apply it. It is a very powerful tool, and can be used for both good and bad (just like any tool). NT individuals can learn to use and recognize it, too. In fact, many have, and many continue to do so (hence, NLP training). However, it is more difficult for them, simply because sometimes, they have to overcome the very same patterns in themselves that they are trying to control in others.
It is also possible (but very, very difficult, unless you can map out the social nodal structure either in your head or another way) to cause others to perform patterns (as noted previously), to get them to interact with one another to cause them to trigger other patterns (and in theory, you can get looping here, too), to a final outcome. Group control to achieve desired ends, in which the nodes are unaware of the final output...
This is the truth! You want quick "desensitization"? Go to Burning Man! Nothing like seeing a naked and hairy, 35 year old, 350 lb man wearing nothing but a pair of goggles and a camelpak to desensitize you (among other things).
Honestly, my first time at Burning Man was a revelation - I realized there, out in the desert, was how mankind was "supposed to be", and that the way things are here, in the "real world" - all of this is lies and deception, a mockery of our true potential and nature.
It is NOT best to "hide t3h pr0n". This is dishonest to your partner - you are essentially lying to them about your interest in porn.
It is better to have an open, honest, and frank discussion with your partner about how you each feel about porn. Once you have established communications about it, you need to come to an agreement regarding it. Maybe it isn't the porn, maybe it is masturbation (strange, but I have heard such arguments). Whatever it is, you need to discuss it.
Ultimately, you need to act like adults in this issue. If it comes down to it, the relationship may need to end. But it is better that the relationship ends based on honest communication, than it ending based on lies and deceit.
I thank $DEITY every day that my wife is NOT in the majority, on this point. I recognise that for a lot of men, this isn't the case - sucks to be them!
Ultimately, the key to happy and successful marriage is honesty and communication. My wife and I talk about and discuss everything, no matter how personal, embarassing, or private it may be. She knows my fears, concerns, and intimate details of my life, the same as I know hers. Consequent to this, it is very difficult for either of us to lie to the other, and have a hope of getting away with it. Which leads to my next point:
Viewing pornography is not the same as going out and having an affair!
Had you instead said that viewing pornography without your partner's knowledge and consent is the same as having an affair, I wouldn't be arguing this. An affair indicates deceit and lack of communication in the marriage. In a marriage based on trust and communication, a man (or woman) would be able to discuss such feelings, wants, and urges, and come to an understanding on them with thier significant other. An affair is a breach of such trust, discussing the idea of an "open marriage", and/or agreeing on it and/or such rules, however, IS NOT AN AFFAIR.
People have and do participate in "open marriages" - where such marriages fail, though, is when communications and trust break down in the participants. If one of members of a marriage "falls in love" with the other, and "falls out of love" with the person he or she is married to, and does not communicate this to them, then an affair could start, and the marriage could be in trouble. Such open relationships require trust, honesty, and open communication amongst all parties involved. Ultimately, if all parties are involved, open, trustworthy of each other, and have open communications with one another, the marriage (in union, not legal, sense) could become tighter all the way around, and a trusting polyamourous relationship could be formed between the participants.
My wife and I have discussed such things, ultimately we concluded that at the present time, it isn't for us or our relationship. I am fine with that, and we continue to discuss as well as joke on each other about it. We maintain our open communication and trust. We have fun, we play, we experiment in the bedroom. We even (GASP!) watch hardcore porn together! THE HORROR!
So far, things must be working - we just recently celebrated our 12th anniversary of being together...
This already exists - peruse some of Adam and Eve's online selection, or any of the other "regular" sex toy and porn video outlets, and you will find plenty of "regular", non-extreme porn available. There is also several lines of "instructional" video series out there, designed to teach partners (straight, gay, bi, whatever) how to "do it better", be more open in love making, etc.
Many of these are designed, directed and produced by women for woman (and/or their partners). Most are pretty well done as instructional videos. Unfortunately, they all tend to be more expensive than regular porn DVDs and the like, simply because of the higher production value and the lower demand (yes, there is demand, but it is nowhere near as high as for regular porn).
Also, please be aware that these videos are most suitable for adults only, and are NOT meant as instructional aids for teenagers or children (ie, sex education).
Then:
Online pr0n is an excellent way to explode one's sexuality...
Dude - maybe you need to cut back...?
After much reading of liturature in various fields of artificial intelligence, emergence, chaos theory, network theory, psychology, etc - I have come to believe that recognizing this is paramount to understanding how the human mind works (as well as how it doesn't). Those with Asperger's and others on the autistic spectrum can use this knowledge, along with reason and logic, to almost scary benefit to themselves, if they so choose.
In a way, proper use of this knowledge is directly akin to application of the ideas inherent in NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming). In essence, since you, as a non-NT individual, may need to be able to conciously "see" (and learn to understand) others emotions, as well as conciously "playback" similar emotions based on other cues - you have at hand a very useful tool to control other people, if you can understand and master it. Because those patterns you playback will cause the other individuals or group to recognize (in an unconscious manner, for most) the pattern, and play back others. What we think of as "free will" is not so much randomness in what we think we are doing, but pattern recognition and playback of patterns in a network of complex emergent social interactions in an environment of (mathematical) chaos. Non-NT individuals are among the only ones in a group who can use this knowledge to their advantage. In NLP training (which is something which seeks to train non-NT individuals to recognize what an NT individual already has practice with), the goal is recognize these body, facial, and verbal cues of others, and to utilize your own, in a manner to direct and control the responses of other people.
Done right, what can be accomplished seems amazing. With enough practice, you can almost get people to do things for you that they themselves wouldn't ordinarily do, and they do them willingly! Mind control? Jedi-like power?
Not at all - you are simply using the pattern recognition and playback capabilities within the mind of a human organism(s) in a manner concious to yourself. Hacking others brains, emotions, and desires, if you will. Some might call that unethical. Why is it ok if everyone (NTs) already do it unconsciously, but not if you (a non-NT) do it consciously? In the end, it doesn't matter, because they can't really control it (unless they are non-NT as well, and recognize what you are doing).
Your wish is their command...
So, we pull over to the side of the road, and wait for the officers to walk up. They stop behind us, get out of the car, walk on both sides of us, and ask us where we are going, and where we are headed from. "Home, from a friend's house" we both reply.
We are now thinking "this is odd", when one of them asks us (I shit you not) "so, why did you pull over and stop?" WTF?! We tell them point blank "because you were directly behind us in the far right lane with your flashers on, we figured you were pulling us over". They then tell us "no, we weren't", and we were like "but...we are here now, so what is going on?". They tell us "you are free to go". We got the hell out of dodge.
Mind you, this was late at night, on a freeway in the middle of Phoenix, Arizona. As far as I am aware, we weren't speeding, we didn't have any lights out. They pulled us over, then tell us they weren't, and let us go without any rhyme or reason. To this day, it makes no sense at all, and I haven't got a clue why this was done. We were never asked for licenses or registration. My wife and I think we were either pulled over by them because they wanted to do as you noted - "find a reason" - and then realized by the end of it all that we were pretty much "squeaky clean", or they were looking for a vehicle and occupants similar to us in the neighborhood, and given the late night, thought we were a match. Even so, it doesn't make sense that they would deny that they were pulling us over, when the reality was that they did (talk about cognitive dissonance).
American society despises intelligence, despises reason, despises logic. Is it any wonder when we laud and fawn over our sports "heroes" and entertainment "stars"? When more people vote for the next "American Idol" than vote for the person in charge of the entire nuclear arsenal of the United States (and then get a former coke addict and alcholic), we geeks realize there is something wrong. However, no matter what we say or inform our supposed non-geek peers about this and other issues, we are looked at with derision, with contempt. How dare we say they are wrong! How dare we upset the curve, once again!
Ultimately, the problems we see, the problems we know can and will grow larger, if only we controlled or eliminated them today (and they go way beyond mere societal issues), are all small and insignificant on the radars of the larger American society. For there to be any great change, the problems need to affect way more of the population, beyond just us little piss-ants of geekdom. Unfortunately, we geeks also know, given the technology and controls now in the hands of the controllers, that even if the problems become huge and unwieldy - so big as to drive stakes through the hearts, minds, and lives of the greater society - that ultimately there might not be a way out except through gross and sheer death. Millions of deaths. Those that die will be suicides, or worse.
I think I hear the trains pulling into the station - do you hear them...?