To the point however, my girlfriend wants to replace her old film compact camera with a digital compact, so she asked me (more than a year ago now) to research a good digital compact for her. I have been looking at a lot of review sites and at the sample pictures and I just can't bring myself to recommend one. The chromatic aberration in almost every single digital compact I have looked at, is terrible!
Look dude, let me give you some advice. First off, I am married, and have been with my wife over 12 years. When she asks me for something that is in an area that I am interested in, I just get her something comparable. For instance, I know that I could get her a really nice stereo if she wanted to listen to radio, but I know (from talking with her) that she would be just as happy with an el-cheapo AM pocket radio.
I have a feeling your girlfriend is (likely) the same. She doesn't want a friggin' professional camera - she wants a crappy digital to replace a crappy analog model. In fact, I would bet that if you looked at the cheapo lenses in her current camera, they probably aren't much better than those in today's digital models. It sounds like she just wants a simple point-and-shoot job, maybe with a few "special functions" (zoom lens and other small things like that) - you know, something to take quick pictures with so she can share them with friends and family, maybe make a background wallpaper for her computer, and sell some things on eBay.
So - out of your research, just select the best one with the least lens problems, and be done with it. I can guarantee you, even if she isn't saying anything, that she is wondering (in the back of her mind, and occasionally in the front of it, especially every time she asks you to help her with something other than a camera) "when the hell is he going to get that camera for me - I am so SICK OF THIS!" - all the while smiling and being nice, and thanking you for helping. Trust me on this.
Believe me - I understand where you are coming from. You are wanting to get the best thing for your money so your GF can take beautiful pictures. However, you of all people should also know that it isn't the camera that makes a beautiful picture, but the photographer. Surely you too have seen the incredible pictures people take with Leikas (I think that is right) - el-cheapo plastic cameras with hella light leakage - yet these photographers create images of gasping beauty (in some cases) using JUNK. Same goes for photographers who use homemade pinhole cameras. So - just get her something good. Most likely, in all cases, no one (well, except you, of course) is going to notice any problems with the camera's photos.
You and your relationship will thank me for this advice, I promise...
Actually, in most (all?) nuclear fission plants using water as a moderator, you have two closed water loops - the loop for the reactor and the loop for the steam turbine.
The loop from the reactor circulates water around the core - the water acts as both a moderator and (partially) as a shield for (neutrons? can you tell IANANE?), as well as an absorber of the excess heat from the near-critical pile. This water is circulated in a closed loop system to a heat exchanger, which forms a part of the second loop. This heat exchanger is essentially a big tank and boiler - because the water in the reactor core loop is a closed system, it is under both pressure and heat, and so the water is superheated beyond boiling, but remains mostly a liquid. As it circulates through the heat exchanger tank/boiler, it gives up a lot of its heat to the water in this system, which in turn boils and forms steam, which circulate (closed system again) through the turbines, then out to a cooling/condensation system (ie, the big cooling towers you see at a lot of older nuclear plants - newer units use different systems similar to that used on coal and oil fired plants), then the condensed water is circulated via pump and pressure back to the heat exchanger.
Those are the basics - other plants can use other things as the core circulation/moderation fluid (one such system uses liquid sodium, others have used liquid sulfur - talk about a bad day if it ruptures), but the secondary turbine loop is always water (although, even here, some other working fluid could be used if the engine/turbine was designed properly to use it). As far as the "steam" you see rising from the cooling towers? Well, to cool off the radiators which the water circulates through, they circulate water from "cooling ponds" (which generally surround the tower, and are kept filled from a nearby water source) and "waterfall" this water over the hot radiators to cool them off - some of this water turns to "steam-like fog", and some of the "fog" also comes from moisture condensing from the air inside the towers (from what I understand, little weather systems sometimes form inside these large towers as well - it is supposed to be rather "tropical" in nature inside one).
Each of these water loops (with the exception of the external cooling pond loop) is "closed" - that is, none is supposed to release any water or exchange any water with any of the other loops. In practice, this isn't strictly the case, but nuclear engineers work very, very hard to keep the primary core loop completely separate from the turbine loop (the turbine loop/cooling pond loop isn't as critical). These loops are monitored for radiation, leakage, and other factors constantly, and (in theory and in practice, in the vast majority of cases - Chernobyl and TMI notwithstanding, of course), at the first time of possible trouble, the reactor is shut down and repairs are made to correct the problem (which, of course, the media always have a field day with - I mean, there have been several bruhahas here in Phoenix about SRP shutting down Palo Verde for repairs to pumps, like this is a big deal-OMG!-we-are-dead kind of thing! Pumps wear out people! Worry when they don't replace them regularly!).
Let me state here that I am not an apologist for the nuclear industry, but I do recognise its need, and I do understand, to a certain level, how these things work. What I don't understand, is why something so relatively simple isn't easily understandable by an ordinary person. I mean, it isn't like these things aren't documented as to how they work (on a high level) inside of encyclopedias and books available at any library, or anything, for like the past 50+ years, right?
Why does our society revel and bask in its ignorance, as if it were a pinnacle of achievement or something? Then again, there is our proud and illustrious President - a stunning C-average student! Yet we wonder why our children are (nearly) dead last in academics...
Yes, but normally the parts of the world where water is scarce normally have plenty of heat available in the form of solar energy. The only exception which comes to mind is the deserts in the Antarctic.
I am not sure what you are getting at here, whether you mean the Antarctic doesn't get enough sun or is too cold, but either way, it doesn't mean that solar heat energy can't be used there, either. Certainly, you probably couldn't use it year round (6 months?), and it may be difficult to use even when there is sun (due to the oblique angle the sun is at), but given a properly angled collector with relatively good optical and thermal efficiency (ie, plenty of insulation), you should be able to harvest a lot of heat from the sun. Your biggest issue would be dealing with thermal losses from the collector (which I admit, with the amount of snow, ice, and cold winds at both poles, would not be an easy task to conquer).
I guess what I am trying to get at is that people need to know that solar collectors for heating use (as opposed to photovoltaics) can be utilized in cold climates. They aren't limited to areas which receive sun all the time (and in fact, in cold climates, such as the northern states - see knowledgepublications.com for an example - heat in the form of solar energy can help offset your heating bills by a significant amount in the winter).
BTW - I am not affiliated with Knowledge Publications - I am just a satisfied customer...
But folks in the military should get to vote twice.
Actually, today, anybody can vote twice - at least I know it can work this way in Arizona. Basically, you live and have residence in another state (and a drivers license, and such - to be on the rolls), and you winter here. Request and fill out an absentee ballot for your home state, then on election day, show up with your "two forms of ID" here in AZ (to keep those pesky illegals out, natch!), and vote again!
The question is whether you would get caught or not appearing at both polls - however, appearing (and signing the poll book) doesn't mean you voted, it just means you probably did. Wear some gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints on the ballot, or wipe it down, and there isn't any way to prove anything after the fact.
Yes, it is illegal poll rigging - but currently, there isn't any way to combat it. The only way to really combat it would be to have a national database of voters, and who voted, and when, recorded in this database. The problem is you just know that wouldn't be all they would record - thus you get into all sorts of privacy issues and such...
Fortunately, the problem is a small (that is, the number of absentee ballots and dual voting is done only by a tiny percentage of the total number of voters) - however, if voter turnout drops even more...
If the precident is set that you are responsible for what people ultimately do with your product, nobody will every make anything ever again, fearing litigation.
Too late. The precedent has already been set with the tobacco companies, and sooner or later, gun manufacturers are next. Also, before you mod me as troll or flame me about the "tobacco companies knowing their product was bad", which most certainly seems true based on what I have read - the users of said product simply cannot claim that they didn't know that smoking tobacco was harmful. There were ample warning placed on the packages, there were also tons of ample warnings from many noted individuals (good, notorius and evil) saying smoking was bad, and it should just be plain common sense that inhaling the burning material of a plant may not be good for a human in the long run.
Those who claim otherwise, without taking any responsibilies for the consequences of their own choices, are damaging the very fabric of free American society, to the point where one day we may look back and wonder where free expression, the right of choice, and the democratic principles of governance have gone...
You are absolutely correct - the real question is, will we fix it (meaning us geeks and maintainers of the internet to develop and implement a new and more secure mail protocol and roll it out internetwork-wide, and fast), or will we wait for the government to fix it (whatever that means in an international arena, of course)?
One choice leads furtherance of the core values of an open, but secure, internet. The other may lead to a broken design, corruption, and a failing system that does nothing to help curb the problem, and may make it worse. I leave it to you (and the future) to decide which falls where...
Read the TOS of your provider - most have language to the effect that if you (which I read as "the machine(s) which you control") use their service to send malicious or illegal content, or to use the system in a way which is detrimental to the network as a whole, that your service can be cut off. Sadly, despite this claim in the TOS, they rarely enforce it (because as you note, AC, it makes them money - even though bandwidth for such activity must be through the roof).
I say it's about time to put an end to this insanity.
I'd say we are already f'kd, and have been for a long time. Don't believe me? Read up on how the "pirate" Captain Kidd was railroaded (then hanged, dipped in pitch, and stuck in a gibbet on the Thames) by the British government in the 17th century at the behest of the East India Company - all for performing his duty as set out by paperwork he had and turned over to the Crown in an effort to clear his name, which of course was coveniently "lost" for his trial.
At the time, Britain was at war with France, and he was given permission to capture and plunder any and all French vessels anywhere in the world. He managed to capture two separate vessels "flying under French authority", and he obtained papers from the captain's of those ships proving that. They were even entered into parlimentary record, and can still be read about today. Yet, at the time of Captain Kidd's trial during which he was trying to clear his name, the Court somehow lost those records. He also had several members of his mutinous crew (who took his ship and other plunder and items to boot) testify against him.
It was one big sham trial, resulting in the death of a man innocent of the crime of piracy, by a government working at the behest of the largest international corporation of the period. To think it can't happen again or that the populace will stop it simply because 300 years separates us from those events is simply folly.
And no, parents can't consent to a pedophilic relationship for their child
A conundrum: What about certain southern states in the US (and indeed, in other parts of the US), whereby parents can give consent for an older individual to marry their younger (below the age of consent for that state) child? It is certainly not done often, and times are changing, but as far as I know, the law is still on the books in many areas. Is this not an adult giving consent to a pedophilic (non-molestation, sexual or otherwise) relationship?
Or, do you believe that such laws are inherently "bad", and need to be changed? Of course, that would mean that if parents can't decide for their child on that focus, do they have any rights to decide for their child at all? Are children chattle of their parents, or are they free? There is no middle ground here (unless you want children to become the chattle of the government - then I suppose we hand them a gun and some training, then send them to Eastasia to fight - after all, we have already determined that children can be tried as adults for murder, so what's the difference between that and war?). Furthermore, if they should be free, shouldn't they be allowed to vote (not that I hold any confidence they would exercize such a right - we can't even get 50% of ADULT citizens to do that)?
You are an interesting character - I just wanted to comment on some of your arguments, and see where things go:
To help society run more smoothly, we don't go kill someone that makes us mad
I can easily demonstrate that this argument holds no water. I have a "War in Iraq" that puts lie to that argument. I can find numerous instances throughout history where this is shown as false. We are animals, and we kill each other. We will never be truely human until we understand this and erradicate it from our species. However, we are doing nothing to attain the goal of erradicating this meme, and everything to make sure it never occurs and continues to be perpetuated.
Children really don't have the ability to consent
Unless, of course (as I am sure you will agree!), they murder somebody - then all of a sudden, they really can make informed and consentual decisions which affect their lives, and therefore tried as an adult. Of course, even though this is possible, they have no right to vote on possible death penalty or other sentencing (adult or juvenile) laws, nor for the people who govern and supposedly represent them. These decisions, society has decreed, which affect all of our lives, both adult and child, should not be left in the incapable hands of children (not that it would really matter if we gave minors the right to vote, of course - we can't even get half of the ADULT citizenship to act on that!).
I know people that have altered their "sexual orientation" through self control
If you are speaking of those supposed "reformed homosexuals" (or whatever born-agains and others of their ilk call it), they are most likely lying to you (and themselves). They are probably self-loathing, and will either end up like Mark Foley, or dead (likely at their own hands, quite possibly after they have had a family, unfortunately). Had all of us as a society instead accepted them for who they were, instead of ostracizing (or forcibly changing them via coercion and hate) at the behest of an invisible sky-fairy's "words" (which tend to be lies put there by man), we would be a much healthier and understanding society. Instead of teaching each other (and our children) hate and loathing of others because of difference, shouldn't we instead teach love and acceptance, regardless of difference? Isn't that what those invisible sky-fairies supposedly told us as well (actually, I suppose it depends on what book/version of mythology you subscribe to)?
As for your (non-)question, no a common carrier doesn't give up its status by deciding which ISPs it's going to do business with.
Actually, common-carrier status won't change unless Congress or the FCC says it does. However, that decision would (in theory) be based upon why they decided to sever the business contract for peering: was it because of a gross violation of the contract, or was it because of the content of the ISP's traffic (coupled with notice and urging from a third, non-objective party)?
Ultimately, Verizon is going to craft and spin things to the effect of a violation of contract, regardless of the truth. Considering that they had no problem with this peering agreement for the past 10+ years, coupled with the fact that we know this severance only occurred after Perverted Justice got into the act, such a spin is utterly transparent. However, the public doesn't care, and wants unpopular speech surpressed. Given the current makeup of Congress (how I hope and pray it will change for the better today!), such blatent posturing will be allowed, and they likely won't lose that status.
We reap what we sow, though - just because what you say isn't unpopular or noticed today, doesn't mean it won't be tommorow. Unfortunately, the nannies in our irrational, illogical, and corrupted society cannot seem to think that far into the future. Whether this is due to ignorance, an uncaring attitude, or something else, is only something they can tell us; but they aren't speaking.
don't think I'm out of line by asking the question: What the fuck are you talking about.
AC, you obviously do not understand my arguments since you are being led by emotion and not by logic and reason. Other people seem to understand it, why not yourself?
A semantic argument about the origins or roots of the word 'Pedophile' is totally and completely irrelevant. Today, the meaning of pedophile is child molester, deal with it.
If you noticed, I kept my views on this brief, and even noted I was "tilting at windmills", so to speak. Even so, the argument still stands. Why doesn't "bibliophile" mean "book molester"? It is a complete perversion of language - explicit Orwellian newspeak designed to stir emotions and supress reason, thus changing the thoughts and actions of those persuaded. It seems like you may have drank the koolaid.
I don't know the specific details of perverted justices operation. From what I can tell, they advertise sex with children, wait for pederass would be child molesters to show up, and then get them arrested. Good, far worse should happen to them.
First off, the word is "pederast", and not "pederass" - but this is a minor point. From what I remember, PJ used to be a vigilante operation, who would bait and then "track down" as much information about such people as possible, sidestepping the authorities. They would release this information on the internet for any and all to see. No one knows the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if acts of vigilante violence occurred against those "outed". I am sure lives have been ruined or lost, without any real shred of evidence against anyone. It is known that PJ (at least in the past, perhaps even today) altered their chat logs. What effects this had on anything is anyone's guess. I do remember a discussion here on/. when they were first starting out (a few?) years ago, you might do well to read that archived discussion if you can find it.
It has only been recently that PJ has become more "legitimized", and changed their ways from "vigilante outing group" to a legitamitized "child advocacy" organization - mainly due to sponsorship and help from NBC's "catch-a-pedo" programs. Whether they will continue in this more respectable vein after NBC's sponsorship stops (someday, it will stop) is unknown.
Just because we don't have universal health care, and just because britney spears dresses up as a school girl, does not make it: ok, sane, normal, or acceptable to be sexually aroused by the violation of a minor.
I never said it did, but I did say that society pushes two different, yet opposing views regarding the sexualization of children via media channels, mainly. Why, I am not sure of (perhaps control of some section of the populace through fear and self-loathing?). I also said that this is ultimately not a good way to approach things in a society that supposedly cares about their children, and that the lack of serious pursuit of valid alternatives which would have a positive effect on our children's welfare seems to point to the fact that despite all the crys of "for the children", it ultimately has nothing to do with the children.
I doubt any of this will resonate with you. As I noted before, you seem to already have bought into what the propaganda machine wants you to think, without applying rational thought and logic to the entire situation, and how it integrates into the rest of the societal machine's processes. Still, I hold out hope that something in all of this and all that is Slashdot might persuade you to rethink your views and arguments. You may not come away changed in your viewpoint, but even re-examining your current viewpoints can lead to new modes of thinking.
Do we need people to mentor kids today? You bet we do. But that mentoring doesn't need to involve sexual contact.
Where did I ever say it did? I certainly don't think it does! However, society (mainly American society, here) currently holds, via an unspoken compact amongst people, a very illogical and irrational idea that if you are an adult, and you are "close" to a child or children, that you are somehow most likely what this society calls a "pedophile" (that is, "pedophile"="child molester", which is entymologically incorrect, since the word "pedophile" does not specify any coercion or harm from a relationship, based on its entymological roots - it is society which has twisted the meaning, unfortunately). Even if it is known you are not, you are still suspected, and watched.
This is one of the problems I speak of, because such distrust ultimately makes it easier for adults to simply avoid social contact (even brief social contact) with minors, out of fear of being branded something they are not. Over time, this will mean less social contact and attention from adults toward minors. Minors without such contact from the greater group will either become socially isolated, take on extremist views, or act out in other ways.
We already know how the single parent lifestyle causes many minors to perpetuate the cycle, which further leads to poverty and violence. What shape these and other minors turn into when an entire society ignores them out of fear is anyone's guess, but it won't be good.
Do bibliophiles have a romantic relationship with their books? I can tell you that I am a bibliophile (I have well over 1000 books in my personal library, and I seem unable to stop reading or buying them - yeah, I got a problem), but I do not have any romantic attachments to any of my books (some are very dear to me, though, mainly due to rarity of the edition). Same suffix, but you are telling me that if the root changes from biblio to pedo, it must change groups (that is, from non-romantic to romantic)?
Your logic just flew out the window, my friend. Of course, your logic might just be in line with that of society's "logic", which is anything but logical (in fact, most times it isn't even rational).
The term 'preventative detention' is too Kafka-esque to take seriously (especially these days).
No, such reasoning is taken "perfectly seriously" - it just so happens that it occurs in the darkness of American society's corners and isn't talked about much by this society, because for some twisted reason we are trying to lump all adult/child interactions (even if the adult is a parent in some cases) under the banner of "molestation".
You see, in many (most?) jurisdictions in the United States, if a person who has such tendancies (and fears they may act on them, but haven't yet) seeks counseling from a member in the medical profession (typically psychologists/psychotherapists), if the member of the medical community suspects that the individual has brought harm (ie, molested) to a child, they are legally bound to report the individual to the authorities, or be in danger of commiting a felony of ommission themselves (removal of license up to jailtime). Thus, these doctors and others typically notify the authorities regardless, almost immediately after the individual has left the office for the consultation, on the fear that they will either be sued by parents, or otherwise found guilty of harboring a fugutive or something of that nature. The individual ends up in the legal system, and in many cases, in the jail/prison system. The individual will be lucky to escape with his life. Treatment for his condition will be nil.
Is it any wonder that these individuals (I am not speaking of hardcore predatory child molestors, remember) who know this avoid contact with the very people who could help them deal with their issues? This isn't just me blabbing - this is the truth, look it up...
A Minor can be defined in many different ways and in fact most of the states in the US disagree on the age at which one can give consent.
Actually, most states agree: if a 12 year old kills another (especially if the other is an adult), then they can obviously give consent to murder, and are thus (in many cases) tried and sentenced as adults (but...but...THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!).
In other words, a minor can make the decision and reasoning necessary to kill another being, but lacks those self-same abilities to intimately love another being.
Remember, in America, the saying is: MAKE WAR, NOT LOVE!
Is it any wonder I am so sick of living in this hypocritical and ignorant society?
Actually, neither one of those (according the etymology of the words) "go after" anybody, regardless of age. The etymology of the suffix "-phile", is basically "love of" or "lover of". The etymology of "pedo-" is "child" or "young", of "epheb"/"ephebo", "early manhood" (no sexism implied).
Thus, the word "pedophile" means "lover of children", and the word "ephebophile" means "lover of early adults" - no sexual connotations should be implied by either. This is simple stuff, people - we supposed geeks here on Slashdot, with the tons of resources available to us, both on and off-line, should be able to figure this out. I have, why the hell can't you (I mean "you" as directed toward the denizens of Slashdot, not to you in particular, parent poster)?
It is only in recent history, most notably in America, has society sought to equate "pedophile" to "child molestor" (and, in theory, "ephebophile" to "statutory rapist", though given the lack of our societies knowledge of the word "ephebophile" as distinct from "pedophile", and the lumping of seemingly any adult interaction with children in the "pedophile" category, I sincerely doubt this is currently the case - give it a few years).
We as a society are going down the path where we are (at the very least entymologically, but quite possibly purposefully!) confusing "love" with "rape", of a good feeling/thought with that of a heinous and terrible action (regardless of the age of the victim!). Since words define and propel thoughts, and thus ultimately actions, to myself as a free-thinking person, none of this can end in good.
America, and American society as a whole, is spinning around the drain. Personally, and sadly, I would love to leave this cesspool of apathy, hypocrisy, and ignorance. However, short of establishing my own personal colony on the moon (read: never going to happen), nowhere else on this planet is really any better. Thus, I figure I might as well stay and stand ground right here, on a battlefield that I at least have some familiarity with.
Perverted Justice is getting thier way, and our society is eating it right up. These narrow-minded souls and others like them have already twisted the english language in such a manner as to cause (in many people's minds) to equate "pedophile" with "child molester", even though a simple etymological study of the words in question would quickly reveal that one has nothing to do with the other. I would think that here on Slashdot we geeks would be more intelligent than this. Then again, I might as well be Don Quioxte arguing about the differences between a hacker vs. a cracker. Even so, words help to define and propel thoughts, and what was once a valid word to describe a legitimate topic has now taken on a wholly wrong and sinister definition.
Why on earth is it that our society can't seem to fathom the idea that there could actually be people out there who truely and honestly love children (without any sexual connotations), on a level that isn't just mere lip-service meant to console the consciences of the "think of the children" moral hypocrites? The fact that this self-same group targets and rallies against such people, while entrenching the concept of "pedophile=child molester", further gives lie to their hypocrisy: This process has little to do with "thinking of the children", and everything to do with "thinking of myself and my power". What these people hope to acheive with this power is anyone's guess, but I can guarantee it will not be something free-thinking people will enjoy.
Instead, we are now a nation who constantly "thinks of the children", while simultaneously fearing them. This fear brings a cost onto our society, as such fear (ie, the legitimate fear of being branded a new-speak "pedophile") causes legitimate teachers and counselors to avoid working with children closely, doing what they do best - teaching, counseling, mentoring, and consoling. Our society, by deligitimizing contact between children and adults (including parents, on many occasions!), is slowly raising a generation of individuals who have never had honest adult guidance. Rather, the little guidance they may have had (from parents or others) was presented to them couched in fear, uncertainty, and doubt. These children aren't robots, they are picking up on these notions. One has to honestly wonder what effects such watered down (and dishonest through ommission) interactions will have on these children as they grow into adults. I sincerely doubt they will be good. In fact, it seems like it would serve to cause more of the same "for-the-children" behavior from these children-turned-adults, or it will flip 180 degrees from where it is today. Both of these outcomes are equally extreme, and neither are a world I want to live in.
Despite all of these cries of "for the children", though, our society continues to turn a blind eye toward the other side of the coin: The sexualizing of children and youth by the media. We the people legitimatize it by doing nothing about it - by letting it continue and expand in scope. By continuing to buy (for ourselves, and for the children, too) and consume the products being advertised, we are effectively saying out of one side of our mouths "this is OK", but lest any member of that society espouse an attraction to these youthful portrayals, we pounce on them and decry "PEDOPHILE" - figuratively rending the individual who dared to utter such thoughts limb-from-limb (interestingly, though, this seems to only apply to certain sub-groups within the larger whole - but this goes well outside the scope of this rant). We ostracize them as a pariah to the group. T
This is a very interesting article. A long time ago, I wrote a graphics library for mode 13h (320x200x256 colors) for QuickBasic 4.5, and also ported it to QBasic 1.1 and PowerBasic 3.5 (IIRC) - called "The Blast! Library" (I think you can still find it out there).
I wonder how well it would work under such a setup as depicted by that link? It is something I have wanted to try for a while (I am not sure it would work, though - I made heavy use of direct VGA hardware access to get the library to do what it did, which may limit it in these areas).
From one longtime BASIC programmer to another, I salute you for your support of the language...
With that said - I am curious how you deal/cope with people who verbally attack, etc - BASIC programmers and users, the language and such? For myself, I defend when needed, and ignore when absurd.
I personally love BASIC, and in my career I can't seem to leave it (currently I work for a company doing old-school ASP work, for example). At home, I have mainly moved on the Perl, PHP, and Python. While I know C/C++, I just don't find the development environment as easy to use, so I typically avoid it unless I absolutely need the speed or low-level access to hardware it can grant (which for most things I write, I don't). Really, it breaks down in "quick-scripts: Perl or Bash", "web-work: Perl or PHP", "regular application: Perl or Python".
But BASIC calls me - I haven't played with RealBasic, yet, but one that I did play with and even did some documentation for it was a real old-school-style interpreter called Blassic (supposedly "Classic BASIC"). It runs fairly quickly on a modern Linux system, and has features to target a windowed graphics screen (and capture mouse events) in X. If it allowed you to call on other libraries and could be compiled natively, I would probably do more than "play with it". Since Python can do both, and is very "BASIC-like", I use it instead.
I know other BASICs out there for Linux allow for compilation and such, but part of me is afraid of getting too "engrossed" with one so that I "forget" what I know of the other languages I do use for development, from lack of use. For me, I like the simplicity - it is just a syntax, after all. I have often thought about building a simple "BASIC" that has a structure and syntax similar to C, then run it through a pre-processor that would turn it into C, then that through the regular gcc/C toolchain to produce an executable. What ultimately holds me back is the fact that in order to do so, I would end up with a much greater in-depth understanding of C that I might as well use it instead of the new "BASIC language" I would end up creating. Even so, such a "BASIC compiler" should be possible, right?
I just don't understand why there is so much hate for BASIC - especially modern incarnations (yes, there are picky points about all languages, and BASIC has more than its share - but versions made since the QuickBasic 4.5 days and beyond aren't actually that bad - and VB6 came close to OOP. BTW, if you want to see a real OOP BASIC, although geared toward reporting only, check out the BASIC inside of Actuate's reporting software - it is like what VB6 should have been).
First off, no one is really sure that "global warming" is being caused by human activities. With that said, I sincerely doubt that humans are helping the matter any, and you are right that we should be reducing or eliminating waste. There are many things we could do, however, your list has a few errors that I think you need to clarify:
1.) No non-HGV which operates at less than 20 km/L will be allowed to be sold. Milage to increase by 1 km/L per year until further notice for a period of not less than 10 years.
First off, I am not sure what you mean by HGV (please, document your abbreviations before usage), but I can probably safely assume "Human Guided Vehicle", or something really close (why you just didn't say "automobiles" is beyond me - I don't know of any non-human guided vehicles in general use, outside of some factories, and maybe a few subways - in fact, most subway trains, freight trains, and other large vehicles are all human guided).
Anyhow, yes, more fuel efficient vehicles should be manufactured, but I think there is likely an upper limit to what we can expect as far as mileage, while still keeping the vehicle safe to use (there are certain minimum weight needs). What we really need is some kind of social engineering or something, which makes owning large SUVs for tasks where a 2-4 seat sedan would work fine a social faux-pas. Mind you, I don't want to outlaw the ownership of larger 4x4s - I enjoy owning a vehicle for this purpose, and I know there are others out there who need such vehicles for work purposes. However, there are a lot of people who own these larger vehicles (many not even suitable for off-road use - but large all the same requiring large engines to move them, or smaller engines struggling and wasting fuel doing the same) who don't really need them - most could get by with a small truck, or a sedan and maybe a trailer.
Outlawing them is not a good answer, something better needs to be done...
2.) No device shall be allowed to have a 'stand-by' mode. Either the item is in use, or it is consuming no power. Wherever reasonable a device must have an auto-off mode. (example: a television or lamp must be explicitely 'programmed' to not turn itself off after two hours.)
I can actually agree with this, just don't expect to have a TV that is "instant on" any more (although as LCDs replace CRTs, this will become less and less of an issue). The reason there is standby power in a CRT is to keep the tube "warmed up". This is just how tube electronics work, unfortunately. I see your reasoning here, otherwise.
3.) The use of fossil fuels for the raw, or derived, material for packaging is forbidden.
Then expect there to be a lot of spoiled food, and for humans to be travelling more often to the market (generally miles away) to get fresh food. The waste will be shifted to fuel, food, and time - instead of resources. However, I can see the use of plastics derived from renewable resources (plant cellulose-based plastics) working for some things - but costs for such plastics will be much greater than petroleum derived plastics. You and I may be willing to pay for the increase (provided our salaries increase as well!), but a lot of people wouldn't - or can't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated.
4.) Individually wrapped items of fruit or vegetable is not legal. Use of plastic carrier bags not allowed.
Yes and no here - basically the same argument as number 3, above. Some fruits and vegetables are fresher when wrapped individually. Of course, some of this may just be me remembering the way fruits and vegetables use to be like (what they tasted and smelled like) back not-too-many-years-ago, when you could actually get a tomato that smelled and tasted like a tomato, instead of blandness. Today, in many cases, you can only get this kind of food if you a) grow it yourself, or b) buy it (at an increased price) individually wrapped. I am not saying I like it this way, it is just that in our "race to the bottom",
Mods, please excuse this rant, or mod it down, I don't care - I just need to get this off my chest...
Call me more? I want them to care enough to call at all...
I have some "friends" that literally live about a block away. I have known these people over 10 years. I would go over to their house fairly regularly (in many cases, to help with some electronic work or other, in other cases, just to chat). One day I thought about it a little, and I wondered: Why am I always over at their house? Why am I helping them with things (one time I cleaned their kitchen for a party being held that night - the kitchen was nasty), but not getting anything back (a hello, how are you doing, that kind of thing)?
One year I even went out of my way to think what each of them might like for a Christmas gift (not expecting anything in return, mind you), and I went out and purchased these items. I took them over a couple of days before Christmas, and gave the gifts to them. A few thank-you's, some chatting, then I left. I never heard from any of them how they liked the gifts, what they thought, whether they even cared.
Another time I invited them to a party I was having at my house - this was after going to several of their parties, and helping out setting things up, and cleaning up afterward. Not a single one of them showed up, nor did any appologize or offer an explanation.
I was fed up, so I asked one of them: "You know where I live, you know my phone number, why don't you call?". I didn't get a good answer, just one excuse or another. So, I decided to do an experiment: I would no longer go over, call, or email any of them. I felt I had done my part as a friend for long enough, and I had done my best. If they cared at all, they would notice the absence.
So far, it has been over two years. I don't consider them "friends" any more than I consider my neighbors my "friends" (and these self-same neighbors have helped me and my wife out more than these other slobs I was actually friendly with!). These people that I know are nothing but lazy, good-for-nothing, narcissists who seem to care more about their insular world than they do about people who actually want to care for them.
Fuck them.
Currently I don't have any friends, and I am not sure I want to know people if this is the way they are going to treat me. I have my wife, my dog, my family, and most importantly, myself. Maybe it is best not to have any friends - they would only want you to fix things and borrow your tools...
Actually, the "cubic centimeter of water" definition is that of a gram of water, not a kilogram - however, I am pretty sure that definition is inaccurate, and most likely came about to give a "layman's" visual to teach Americans about the metric system. The metric system's "standards" (ie, physical representative objects of quantity) are based on objects with much greater accuracy (and even then, they are only a representation, which can and does change over time as our knowledge increases, and as better representative materials and systems of manufacture become available).
Slashdot Mirror
Look dude, let me give you some advice. First off, I am married, and have been with my wife over 12 years. When she asks me for something that is in an area that I am interested in, I just get her something comparable. For instance, I know that I could get her a really nice stereo if she wanted to listen to radio, but I know (from talking with her) that she would be just as happy with an el-cheapo AM pocket radio.
I have a feeling your girlfriend is (likely) the same. She doesn't want a friggin' professional camera - she wants a crappy digital to replace a crappy analog model. In fact, I would bet that if you looked at the cheapo lenses in her current camera, they probably aren't much better than those in today's digital models. It sounds like she just wants a simple point-and-shoot job, maybe with a few "special functions" (zoom lens and other small things like that) - you know, something to take quick pictures with so she can share them with friends and family, maybe make a background wallpaper for her computer, and sell some things on eBay.
So - out of your research, just select the best one with the least lens problems, and be done with it. I can guarantee you, even if she isn't saying anything, that she is wondering (in the back of her mind, and occasionally in the front of it, especially every time she asks you to help her with something other than a camera) "when the hell is he going to get that camera for me - I am so SICK OF THIS!" - all the while smiling and being nice, and thanking you for helping. Trust me on this.
Believe me - I understand where you are coming from. You are wanting to get the best thing for your money so your GF can take beautiful pictures. However, you of all people should also know that it isn't the camera that makes a beautiful picture, but the photographer. Surely you too have seen the incredible pictures people take with Leikas (I think that is right) - el-cheapo plastic cameras with hella light leakage - yet these photographers create images of gasping beauty (in some cases) using JUNK. Same goes for photographers who use homemade pinhole cameras. So - just get her something good. Most likely, in all cases, no one (well, except you, of course) is going to notice any problems with the camera's photos.
You and your relationship will thank me for this advice, I promise...
The loop from the reactor circulates water around the core - the water acts as both a moderator and (partially) as a shield for (neutrons? can you tell IANANE?), as well as an absorber of the excess heat from the near-critical pile. This water is circulated in a closed loop system to a heat exchanger, which forms a part of the second loop. This heat exchanger is essentially a big tank and boiler - because the water in the reactor core loop is a closed system, it is under both pressure and heat, and so the water is superheated beyond boiling, but remains mostly a liquid. As it circulates through the heat exchanger tank/boiler, it gives up a lot of its heat to the water in this system, which in turn boils and forms steam, which circulate (closed system again) through the turbines, then out to a cooling/condensation system (ie, the big cooling towers you see at a lot of older nuclear plants - newer units use different systems similar to that used on coal and oil fired plants), then the condensed water is circulated via pump and pressure back to the heat exchanger.
Those are the basics - other plants can use other things as the core circulation/moderation fluid (one such system uses liquid sodium, others have used liquid sulfur - talk about a bad day if it ruptures), but the secondary turbine loop is always water (although, even here, some other working fluid could be used if the engine/turbine was designed properly to use it). As far as the "steam" you see rising from the cooling towers? Well, to cool off the radiators which the water circulates through, they circulate water from "cooling ponds" (which generally surround the tower, and are kept filled from a nearby water source) and "waterfall" this water over the hot radiators to cool them off - some of this water turns to "steam-like fog", and some of the "fog" also comes from moisture condensing from the air inside the towers (from what I understand, little weather systems sometimes form inside these large towers as well - it is supposed to be rather "tropical" in nature inside one).
Each of these water loops (with the exception of the external cooling pond loop) is "closed" - that is, none is supposed to release any water or exchange any water with any of the other loops. In practice, this isn't strictly the case, but nuclear engineers work very, very hard to keep the primary core loop completely separate from the turbine loop (the turbine loop/cooling pond loop isn't as critical). These loops are monitored for radiation, leakage, and other factors constantly, and (in theory and in practice, in the vast majority of cases - Chernobyl and TMI notwithstanding, of course), at the first time of possible trouble, the reactor is shut down and repairs are made to correct the problem (which, of course, the media always have a field day with - I mean, there have been several bruhahas here in Phoenix about SRP shutting down Palo Verde for repairs to pumps, like this is a big deal-OMG!-we-are-dead kind of thing! Pumps wear out people! Worry when they don't replace them regularly!).
Let me state here that I am not an apologist for the nuclear industry, but I do recognise its need, and I do understand, to a certain level, how these things work. What I don't understand, is why something so relatively simple isn't easily understandable by an ordinary person. I mean, it isn't like these things aren't documented as to how they work (on a high level) inside of encyclopedias and books available at any library, or anything, for like the past 50+ years, right?
Why does our society revel and bask in its ignorance, as if it were a pinnacle of achievement or something? Then again, there is our proud and illustrious President - a stunning C-average student! Yet we wonder why our children are (nearly) dead last in academics...
I am not sure what you are getting at here, whether you mean the Antarctic doesn't get enough sun or is too cold, but either way, it doesn't mean that solar heat energy can't be used there, either. Certainly, you probably couldn't use it year round (6 months?), and it may be difficult to use even when there is sun (due to the oblique angle the sun is at), but given a properly angled collector with relatively good optical and thermal efficiency (ie, plenty of insulation), you should be able to harvest a lot of heat from the sun. Your biggest issue would be dealing with thermal losses from the collector (which I admit, with the amount of snow, ice, and cold winds at both poles, would not be an easy task to conquer).
I guess what I am trying to get at is that people need to know that solar collectors for heating use (as opposed to photovoltaics) can be utilized in cold climates. They aren't limited to areas which receive sun all the time (and in fact, in cold climates, such as the northern states - see knowledgepublications.com for an example - heat in the form of solar energy can help offset your heating bills by a significant amount in the winter).
BTW - I am not affiliated with Knowledge Publications - I am just a satisfied customer...
Actually, today, anybody can vote twice - at least I know it can work this way in Arizona. Basically, you live and have residence in another state (and a drivers license, and such - to be on the rolls), and you winter here. Request and fill out an absentee ballot for your home state, then on election day, show up with your "two forms of ID" here in AZ (to keep those pesky illegals out, natch!), and vote again!
The question is whether you would get caught or not appearing at both polls - however, appearing (and signing the poll book) doesn't mean you voted, it just means you probably did. Wear some gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints on the ballot, or wipe it down, and there isn't any way to prove anything after the fact.
Yes, it is illegal poll rigging - but currently, there isn't any way to combat it. The only way to really combat it would be to have a national database of voters, and who voted, and when, recorded in this database. The problem is you just know that wouldn't be all they would record - thus you get into all sorts of privacy issues and such...
Fortunately, the problem is a small (that is, the number of absentee ballots and dual voting is done only by a tiny percentage of the total number of voters) - however, if voter turnout drops even more...
Too late. The precedent has already been set with the tobacco companies, and sooner or later, gun manufacturers are next. Also, before you mod me as troll or flame me about the "tobacco companies knowing their product was bad", which most certainly seems true based on what I have read - the users of said product simply cannot claim that they didn't know that smoking tobacco was harmful. There were ample warning placed on the packages, there were also tons of ample warnings from many noted individuals (good, notorius and evil) saying smoking was bad, and it should just be plain common sense that inhaling the burning material of a plant may not be good for a human in the long run.
Those who claim otherwise, without taking any responsibilies for the consequences of their own choices, are damaging the very fabric of free American society, to the point where one day we may look back and wonder where free expression, the right of choice, and the democratic principles of governance have gone...
You are absolutely correct - the real question is, will we fix it (meaning us geeks and maintainers of the internet to develop and implement a new and more secure mail protocol and roll it out internetwork-wide, and fast), or will we wait for the government to fix it (whatever that means in an international arena, of course)?
One choice leads furtherance of the core values of an open, but secure, internet. The other may lead to a broken design, corruption, and a failing system that does nothing to help curb the problem, and may make it worse. I leave it to you (and the future) to decide which falls where...
Read the TOS of your provider - most have language to the effect that if you (which I read as "the machine(s) which you control") use their service to send malicious or illegal content, or to use the system in a way which is detrimental to the network as a whole, that your service can be cut off. Sadly, despite this claim in the TOS, they rarely enforce it (because as you note, AC, it makes them money - even though bandwidth for such activity must be through the roof).
I'd say we are already f'kd, and have been for a long time. Don't believe me? Read up on how the "pirate" Captain Kidd was railroaded (then hanged, dipped in pitch, and stuck in a gibbet on the Thames) by the British government in the 17th century at the behest of the East India Company - all for performing his duty as set out by paperwork he had and turned over to the Crown in an effort to clear his name, which of course was coveniently "lost" for his trial.
At the time, Britain was at war with France, and he was given permission to capture and plunder any and all French vessels anywhere in the world. He managed to capture two separate vessels "flying under French authority", and he obtained papers from the captain's of those ships proving that. They were even entered into parlimentary record, and can still be read about today. Yet, at the time of Captain Kidd's trial during which he was trying to clear his name, the Court somehow lost those records. He also had several members of his mutinous crew (who took his ship and other plunder and items to boot) testify against him.
It was one big sham trial, resulting in the death of a man innocent of the crime of piracy, by a government working at the behest of the largest international corporation of the period. To think it can't happen again or that the populace will stop it simply because 300 years separates us from those events is simply folly.
A conundrum: What about certain southern states in the US (and indeed, in other parts of the US), whereby parents can give consent for an older individual to marry their younger (below the age of consent for that state) child? It is certainly not done often, and times are changing, but as far as I know, the law is still on the books in many areas. Is this not an adult giving consent to a pedophilic (non-molestation, sexual or otherwise) relationship?
Or, do you believe that such laws are inherently "bad", and need to be changed? Of course, that would mean that if parents can't decide for their child on that focus, do they have any rights to decide for their child at all? Are children chattle of their parents, or are they free? There is no middle ground here (unless you want children to become the chattle of the government - then I suppose we hand them a gun and some training, then send them to Eastasia to fight - after all, we have already determined that children can be tried as adults for murder, so what's the difference between that and war?). Furthermore, if they should be free, shouldn't they be allowed to vote (not that I hold any confidence they would exercize such a right - we can't even get 50% of ADULT citizens to do that)?
To help society run more smoothly, we don't go kill someone that makes us mad
I can easily demonstrate that this argument holds no water. I have a "War in Iraq" that puts lie to that argument. I can find numerous instances throughout history where this is shown as false. We are animals, and we kill each other. We will never be truely human until we understand this and erradicate it from our species. However, we are doing nothing to attain the goal of erradicating this meme, and everything to make sure it never occurs and continues to be perpetuated.
Children really don't have the ability to consent
Unless, of course (as I am sure you will agree!), they murder somebody - then all of a sudden, they really can make informed and consentual decisions which affect their lives, and therefore tried as an adult. Of course, even though this is possible, they have no right to vote on possible death penalty or other sentencing (adult or juvenile) laws, nor for the people who govern and supposedly represent them. These decisions, society has decreed, which affect all of our lives, both adult and child, should not be left in the incapable hands of children (not that it would really matter if we gave minors the right to vote, of course - we can't even get half of the ADULT citizenship to act on that!).
I know people that have altered their "sexual orientation" through self control
If you are speaking of those supposed "reformed homosexuals" (or whatever born-agains and others of their ilk call it), they are most likely lying to you (and themselves). They are probably self-loathing, and will either end up like Mark Foley, or dead (likely at their own hands, quite possibly after they have had a family, unfortunately). Had all of us as a society instead accepted them for who they were, instead of ostracizing (or forcibly changing them via coercion and hate) at the behest of an invisible sky-fairy's "words" (which tend to be lies put there by man), we would be a much healthier and understanding society. Instead of teaching each other (and our children) hate and loathing of others because of difference, shouldn't we instead teach love and acceptance, regardless of difference? Isn't that what those invisible sky-fairies supposedly told us as well (actually, I suppose it depends on what book/version of mythology you subscribe to)?
Actually, common-carrier status won't change unless Congress or the FCC says it does. However, that decision would (in theory) be based upon why they decided to sever the business contract for peering: was it because of a gross violation of the contract, or was it because of the content of the ISP's traffic (coupled with notice and urging from a third, non-objective party)?
Ultimately, Verizon is going to craft and spin things to the effect of a violation of contract, regardless of the truth. Considering that they had no problem with this peering agreement for the past 10+ years, coupled with the fact that we know this severance only occurred after Perverted Justice got into the act, such a spin is utterly transparent. However, the public doesn't care, and wants unpopular speech surpressed. Given the current makeup of Congress (how I hope and pray it will change for the better today!), such blatent posturing will be allowed, and they likely won't lose that status.
We reap what we sow, though - just because what you say isn't unpopular or noticed today, doesn't mean it won't be tommorow. Unfortunately, the nannies in our irrational, illogical, and corrupted society cannot seem to think that far into the future. Whether this is due to ignorance, an uncaring attitude, or something else, is only something they can tell us; but they aren't speaking.
AC, you obviously do not understand my arguments since you are being led by emotion and not by logic and reason. Other people seem to understand it, why not yourself?
A semantic argument about the origins or roots of the word 'Pedophile' is totally and completely irrelevant. Today, the meaning of pedophile is child molester, deal with it.
If you noticed, I kept my views on this brief, and even noted I was "tilting at windmills", so to speak. Even so, the argument still stands. Why doesn't "bibliophile" mean "book molester"? It is a complete perversion of language - explicit Orwellian newspeak designed to stir emotions and supress reason, thus changing the thoughts and actions of those persuaded. It seems like you may have drank the koolaid.
I don't know the specific details of perverted justices operation. From what I can tell, they advertise sex with children, wait for pederass would be child molesters to show up, and then get them arrested. Good, far worse should happen to them.
First off, the word is "pederast", and not "pederass" - but this is a minor point. From what I remember, PJ used to be a vigilante operation, who would bait and then "track down" as much information about such people as possible, sidestepping the authorities. They would release this information on the internet for any and all to see. No one knows the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if acts of vigilante violence occurred against those "outed". I am sure lives have been ruined or lost, without any real shred of evidence against anyone. It is known that PJ (at least in the past, perhaps even today) altered their chat logs. What effects this had on anything is anyone's guess. I do remember a discussion here on /. when they were first starting out (a few?) years ago, you might do well to read that archived discussion if you can find it.
It has only been recently that PJ has become more "legitimized", and changed their ways from "vigilante outing group" to a legitamitized "child advocacy" organization - mainly due to sponsorship and help from NBC's "catch-a-pedo" programs. Whether they will continue in this more respectable vein after NBC's sponsorship stops (someday, it will stop) is unknown.
Just because we don't have universal health care, and just because britney spears dresses up as a school girl, does not make it: ok, sane, normal, or acceptable to be sexually aroused by the violation of a minor.
I never said it did, but I did say that society pushes two different, yet opposing views regarding the sexualization of children via media channels, mainly. Why, I am not sure of (perhaps control of some section of the populace through fear and self-loathing?). I also said that this is ultimately not a good way to approach things in a society that supposedly cares about their children, and that the lack of serious pursuit of valid alternatives which would have a positive effect on our children's welfare seems to point to the fact that despite all the crys of "for the children", it ultimately has nothing to do with the children.
I doubt any of this will resonate with you. As I noted before, you seem to already have bought into what the propaganda machine wants you to think, without applying rational thought and logic to the entire situation, and how it integrates into the rest of the societal machine's processes. Still, I hold out hope that something in all of this and all that is Slashdot might persuade you to rethink your views and arguments. You may not come away changed in your viewpoint, but even re-examining your current viewpoints can lead to new modes of thinking.
Where did I ever say it did? I certainly don't think it does! However, society (mainly American society, here) currently holds, via an unspoken compact amongst people, a very illogical and irrational idea that if you are an adult, and you are "close" to a child or children, that you are somehow most likely what this society calls a "pedophile" (that is, "pedophile"="child molester", which is entymologically incorrect, since the word "pedophile" does not specify any coercion or harm from a relationship, based on its entymological roots - it is society which has twisted the meaning, unfortunately). Even if it is known you are not, you are still suspected, and watched.
This is one of the problems I speak of, because such distrust ultimately makes it easier for adults to simply avoid social contact (even brief social contact) with minors, out of fear of being branded something they are not. Over time, this will mean less social contact and attention from adults toward minors. Minors without such contact from the greater group will either become socially isolated, take on extremist views, or act out in other ways.
We already know how the single parent lifestyle causes many minors to perpetuate the cycle, which further leads to poverty and violence. What shape these and other minors turn into when an entire society ignores them out of fear is anyone's guess, but it won't be good.
Do bibliophiles have a romantic relationship with their books? I can tell you that I am a bibliophile (I have well over 1000 books in my personal library, and I seem unable to stop reading or buying them - yeah, I got a problem), but I do not have any romantic attachments to any of my books (some are very dear to me, though, mainly due to rarity of the edition). Same suffix, but you are telling me that if the root changes from biblio to pedo, it must change groups (that is, from non-romantic to romantic)?
Your logic just flew out the window, my friend. Of course, your logic might just be in line with that of society's "logic", which is anything but logical (in fact, most times it isn't even rational).
No, such reasoning is taken "perfectly seriously" - it just so happens that it occurs in the darkness of American society's corners and isn't talked about much by this society, because for some twisted reason we are trying to lump all adult/child interactions (even if the adult is a parent in some cases) under the banner of "molestation".
You see, in many (most?) jurisdictions in the United States, if a person who has such tendancies (and fears they may act on them, but haven't yet) seeks counseling from a member in the medical profession (typically psychologists/psychotherapists), if the member of the medical community suspects that the individual has brought harm (ie, molested) to a child, they are legally bound to report the individual to the authorities, or be in danger of commiting a felony of ommission themselves (removal of license up to jailtime). Thus, these doctors and others typically notify the authorities regardless, almost immediately after the individual has left the office for the consultation, on the fear that they will either be sued by parents, or otherwise found guilty of harboring a fugutive or something of that nature. The individual ends up in the legal system, and in many cases, in the jail/prison system. The individual will be lucky to escape with his life. Treatment for his condition will be nil.
Is it any wonder that these individuals (I am not speaking of hardcore predatory child molestors, remember) who know this avoid contact with the very people who could help them deal with their issues? This isn't just me blabbing - this is the truth, look it up...
Actually, most states agree: if a 12 year old kills another (especially if the other is an adult), then they can obviously give consent to murder, and are thus (in many cases) tried and sentenced as adults (but...but...THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!).
In other words, a minor can make the decision and reasoning necessary to kill another being, but lacks those self-same abilities to intimately love another being.
Remember, in America, the saying is: MAKE WAR, NOT LOVE!
Is it any wonder I am so sick of living in this hypocritical and ignorant society?
Thus, the word "pedophile" means "lover of children", and the word "ephebophile" means "lover of early adults" - no sexual connotations should be implied by either. This is simple stuff, people - we supposed geeks here on Slashdot, with the tons of resources available to us, both on and off-line, should be able to figure this out. I have, why the hell can't you (I mean "you" as directed toward the denizens of Slashdot, not to you in particular, parent poster)?
It is only in recent history, most notably in America, has society sought to equate "pedophile" to "child molestor" (and, in theory, "ephebophile" to "statutory rapist", though given the lack of our societies knowledge of the word "ephebophile" as distinct from "pedophile", and the lumping of seemingly any adult interaction with children in the "pedophile" category, I sincerely doubt this is currently the case - give it a few years).
We as a society are going down the path where we are (at the very least entymologically, but quite possibly purposefully!) confusing "love" with "rape", of a good feeling/thought with that of a heinous and terrible action (regardless of the age of the victim!). Since words define and propel thoughts, and thus ultimately actions, to myself as a free-thinking person, none of this can end in good.
Perverted Justice is getting thier way, and our society is eating it right up. These narrow-minded souls and others like them have already twisted the english language in such a manner as to cause (in many people's minds) to equate "pedophile" with "child molester", even though a simple etymological study of the words in question would quickly reveal that one has nothing to do with the other. I would think that here on Slashdot we geeks would be more intelligent than this. Then again, I might as well be Don Quioxte arguing about the differences between a hacker vs. a cracker. Even so, words help to define and propel thoughts, and what was once a valid word to describe a legitimate topic has now taken on a wholly wrong and sinister definition.
Why on earth is it that our society can't seem to fathom the idea that there could actually be people out there who truely and honestly love children (without any sexual connotations), on a level that isn't just mere lip-service meant to console the consciences of the "think of the children" moral hypocrites? The fact that this self-same group targets and rallies against such people, while entrenching the concept of "pedophile=child molester", further gives lie to their hypocrisy: This process has little to do with "thinking of the children", and everything to do with "thinking of myself and my power". What these people hope to acheive with this power is anyone's guess, but I can guarantee it will not be something free-thinking people will enjoy.
Instead, we are now a nation who constantly "thinks of the children", while simultaneously fearing them. This fear brings a cost onto our society, as such fear (ie, the legitimate fear of being branded a new-speak "pedophile") causes legitimate teachers and counselors to avoid working with children closely, doing what they do best - teaching, counseling, mentoring, and consoling. Our society, by deligitimizing contact between children and adults (including parents, on many occasions!), is slowly raising a generation of individuals who have never had honest adult guidance. Rather, the little guidance they may have had (from parents or others) was presented to them couched in fear, uncertainty, and doubt. These children aren't robots, they are picking up on these notions. One has to honestly wonder what effects such watered down (and dishonest through ommission) interactions will have on these children as they grow into adults. I sincerely doubt they will be good. In fact, it seems like it would serve to cause more of the same "for-the-children" behavior from these children-turned-adults, or it will flip 180 degrees from where it is today. Both of these outcomes are equally extreme, and neither are a world I want to live in.
Despite all of these cries of "for the children", though, our society continues to turn a blind eye toward the other side of the coin: The sexualizing of children and youth by the media. We the people legitimatize it by doing nothing about it - by letting it continue and expand in scope. By continuing to buy (for ourselves, and for the children, too) and consume the products being advertised, we are effectively saying out of one side of our mouths "this is OK", but lest any member of that society espouse an attraction to these youthful portrayals, we pounce on them and decry "PEDOPHILE" - figuratively rending the individual who dared to utter such thoughts limb-from-limb (interestingly, though, this seems to only apply to certain sub-groups within the larger whole - but this goes well outside the scope of this rant). We ostracize them as a pariah to the group. T
I wonder how well it would work under such a setup as depicted by that link? It is something I have wanted to try for a while (I am not sure it would work, though - I made heavy use of direct VGA hardware access to get the library to do what it did, which may limit it in these areas).
Thanks for the link!
Thanks for the info - if I do get around to trying it out, I will keep it in mind...
With that said - I am curious how you deal/cope with people who verbally attack, etc - BASIC programmers and users, the language and such? For myself, I defend when needed, and ignore when absurd.
I personally love BASIC, and in my career I can't seem to leave it (currently I work for a company doing old-school ASP work, for example). At home, I have mainly moved on the Perl, PHP, and Python. While I know C/C++, I just don't find the development environment as easy to use, so I typically avoid it unless I absolutely need the speed or low-level access to hardware it can grant (which for most things I write, I don't). Really, it breaks down in "quick-scripts: Perl or Bash", "web-work: Perl or PHP", "regular application: Perl or Python".
But BASIC calls me - I haven't played with RealBasic, yet, but one that I did play with and even did some documentation for it was a real old-school-style interpreter called Blassic (supposedly "Classic BASIC"). It runs fairly quickly on a modern Linux system, and has features to target a windowed graphics screen (and capture mouse events) in X. If it allowed you to call on other libraries and could be compiled natively, I would probably do more than "play with it". Since Python can do both, and is very "BASIC-like", I use it instead.
I know other BASICs out there for Linux allow for compilation and such, but part of me is afraid of getting too "engrossed" with one so that I "forget" what I know of the other languages I do use for development, from lack of use. For me, I like the simplicity - it is just a syntax, after all. I have often thought about building a simple "BASIC" that has a structure and syntax similar to C, then run it through a pre-processor that would turn it into C, then that through the regular gcc/C toolchain to produce an executable. What ultimately holds me back is the fact that in order to do so, I would end up with a much greater in-depth understanding of C that I might as well use it instead of the new "BASIC language" I would end up creating. Even so, such a "BASIC compiler" should be possible, right?
I just don't understand why there is so much hate for BASIC - especially modern incarnations (yes, there are picky points about all languages, and BASIC has more than its share - but versions made since the QuickBasic 4.5 days and beyond aren't actually that bad - and VB6 came close to OOP. BTW, if you want to see a real OOP BASIC, although geared toward reporting only, check out the BASIC inside of Actuate's reporting software - it is like what VB6 should have been).
I can understand your pain, but do you remember the days before we had any anti-aliasing at all? Talk about pain!
1.) No non-HGV which operates at less than 20 km/L will be allowed to be sold. Milage to increase by 1 km/L per year until further notice for a period of not less than 10 years.
First off, I am not sure what you mean by HGV (please, document your abbreviations before usage), but I can probably safely assume "Human Guided Vehicle", or something really close (why you just didn't say "automobiles" is beyond me - I don't know of any non-human guided vehicles in general use, outside of some factories, and maybe a few subways - in fact, most subway trains, freight trains, and other large vehicles are all human guided).
Anyhow, yes, more fuel efficient vehicles should be manufactured, but I think there is likely an upper limit to what we can expect as far as mileage, while still keeping the vehicle safe to use (there are certain minimum weight needs). What we really need is some kind of social engineering or something, which makes owning large SUVs for tasks where a 2-4 seat sedan would work fine a social faux-pas. Mind you, I don't want to outlaw the ownership of larger 4x4s - I enjoy owning a vehicle for this purpose, and I know there are others out there who need such vehicles for work purposes. However, there are a lot of people who own these larger vehicles (many not even suitable for off-road use - but large all the same requiring large engines to move them, or smaller engines struggling and wasting fuel doing the same) who don't really need them - most could get by with a small truck, or a sedan and maybe a trailer.
Outlawing them is not a good answer, something better needs to be done...
2.) No device shall be allowed to have a 'stand-by' mode. Either the item is in use, or it is consuming no power. Wherever reasonable a device must have an auto-off mode. (example: a television or lamp must be explicitely 'programmed' to not turn itself off after two hours.)
I can actually agree with this, just don't expect to have a TV that is "instant on" any more (although as LCDs replace CRTs, this will become less and less of an issue). The reason there is standby power in a CRT is to keep the tube "warmed up". This is just how tube electronics work, unfortunately. I see your reasoning here, otherwise.
3.) The use of fossil fuels for the raw, or derived, material for packaging is forbidden.
Then expect there to be a lot of spoiled food, and for humans to be travelling more often to the market (generally miles away) to get fresh food. The waste will be shifted to fuel, food, and time - instead of resources. However, I can see the use of plastics derived from renewable resources (plant cellulose-based plastics) working for some things - but costs for such plastics will be much greater than petroleum derived plastics. You and I may be willing to pay for the increase (provided our salaries increase as well!), but a lot of people wouldn't - or can't. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated.
4.) Individually wrapped items of fruit or vegetable is not legal. Use of plastic carrier bags not allowed.
Yes and no here - basically the same argument as number 3, above. Some fruits and vegetables are fresher when wrapped individually. Of course, some of this may just be me remembering the way fruits and vegetables use to be like (what they tasted and smelled like) back not-too-many-years-ago, when you could actually get a tomato that smelled and tasted like a tomato, instead of blandness. Today, in many cases, you can only get this kind of food if you a) grow it yourself, or b) buy it (at an increased price) individually wrapped. I am not saying I like it this way, it is just that in our "race to the bottom",
Call me more? I want them to care enough to call at all...
I have some "friends" that literally live about a block away. I have known these people over 10 years. I would go over to their house fairly regularly (in many cases, to help with some electronic work or other, in other cases, just to chat). One day I thought about it a little, and I wondered: Why am I always over at their house? Why am I helping them with things (one time I cleaned their kitchen for a party being held that night - the kitchen was nasty), but not getting anything back (a hello, how are you doing, that kind of thing)?
One year I even went out of my way to think what each of them might like for a Christmas gift (not expecting anything in return, mind you), and I went out and purchased these items. I took them over a couple of days before Christmas, and gave the gifts to them. A few thank-you's, some chatting, then I left. I never heard from any of them how they liked the gifts, what they thought, whether they even cared.
Another time I invited them to a party I was having at my house - this was after going to several of their parties, and helping out setting things up, and cleaning up afterward. Not a single one of them showed up, nor did any appologize or offer an explanation.
I was fed up, so I asked one of them: "You know where I live, you know my phone number, why don't you call?". I didn't get a good answer, just one excuse or another. So, I decided to do an experiment: I would no longer go over, call, or email any of them. I felt I had done my part as a friend for long enough, and I had done my best. If they cared at all, they would notice the absence.
So far, it has been over two years. I don't consider them "friends" any more than I consider my neighbors my "friends" (and these self-same neighbors have helped me and my wife out more than these other slobs I was actually friendly with!). These people that I know are nothing but lazy, good-for-nothing, narcissists who seem to care more about their insular world than they do about people who actually want to care for them.
Fuck them.
Currently I don't have any friends, and I am not sure I want to know people if this is the way they are going to treat me. I have my wife, my dog, my family, and most importantly, myself. Maybe it is best not to have any friends - they would only want you to fix things and borrow your tools...
Actually, the "cubic centimeter of water" definition is that of a gram of water, not a kilogram - however, I am pretty sure that definition is inaccurate, and most likely came about to give a "layman's" visual to teach Americans about the metric system. The metric system's "standards" (ie, physical representative objects of quantity) are based on objects with much greater accuracy (and even then, they are only a representation, which can and does change over time as our knowledge increases, and as better representative materials and systems of manufacture become available).