What a twit. Pull it out of your ass already - your personal opinion on what is and is not appropriate for business counts for dick outside of your office.
The business I work at has no dress code and an absolutely assured future with hundreds of clients who don't fucking care how we're dressed so long as we get the job done. Just like most successful businesses.
Please cite an empirical paper published in an accredited, scientific peer-reviewed journal which:
a) conclusively links salted and smoked meat to
a high incidence of stomach cancer, and
b) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that stomach
cancer from *any cause* was a leading killer
prior to refrigeration.
Try as I might, I can find no evidence *of the kind I listed above* to support your claims. In fact, it appears that the leading killer prior to refrigeration was DISEASE. All kinds of disease. Since this was also before ANTIBIOTICS.
So, pray tell, give me a cite from an accredited journal that I can actually look up and confirm your assertions for myself.
Sure you can. It's called a 'ramscoop' and it has the advantage of scooping up it's fuel (free hydrogen in 'empty' space) as it goes. The primary problem with a ramscoop is that it doesn't become efficient until you reach 10% of the speed of light or so.
But wait - with an antimatter booster to get us up to 10% of the speed of light we could then turn off the AM drive and switch to the scoop. No need to carry any fuel past what we need for the initial boost.
A ramscoop can reach speeds of around 90% of the speed of light, perhaps a little faster. That means Alpha Centauri in about 5 years, plus another year for acceleration/deceleration at 1 g (it takes a year at 1 g to reach 90% of the speed of light).
Much better than AM any way you cut it, except for that initial boost phase.
From how I read the article the company is basing it's insurance rates on the OS running on the *servers*, not the *clients*. The clients could be running anything - even Windows - so long as the servers are running Linux.
Given that, any whiner arguing that this 'forces' companies to teach their employees the oh-so-complicated Linux is a blooming idiot. It only does so for the sysadmins, who should be competent enough to master Linux-as-a-server with relatively little pain.
If they aren't that competent then they need to be fired. But oh, perhaps that's part of the reason why NT is so easily compromised? It invites the hiring of morons?
Any which way you cut it, the insurance company covers both possibilities - bad software *and* incompetent system administrators, all in one fell swoop. Rather canny, actually.
Max
I wonder if anyone took into account Microsoft's 'creative' accounting practices - y'know, the ones they're being investigated for by the government. All those nasty charges of 'fraud', 'double-booking', and the like might - just might - have some bearing on how profitable MS appears to the public (especially the stock market).
Hey, not that a conviction would make any difference. AOL did the same thing for it's entire corporate lifetime, was convicted of fraud, fined a lousy $3 million (the largest amount allowed under law) and it affected their stock price not at all. Heck, less than a year later they bought Time-Warner with stock that the SEC investigators called "no better than junk bonds", at a time when AOL "should be delisted for its accounting practices".
If it worked for AOL why not MIcrosoft? What's a lousy $3 million if it keeps stock prices up with bogus business reports?
It seems a badge of honor to some people to proclaim the superiority of independent artists over those sponsored by corporations, decrying the evil sell-outs as unable to compete against underfunded garage bands.
Really, now, swallow that crap before you choke on your own shallow self-righteousness. What you like ain't what I like and my music preferences have nothing to do with getting up on a high horse and 'sticking it to the man' by not buying CDs. I *enjoy* alot of mainstream artists and could care less for idiot geeks who politicize what is essentially an enjoyable time-waster of an activity - listening to music.
When you do the lemming and run down this 'Indies rule!' path you sound just as ridiculous as the vegans who call us meat-eaters 'murderers': so far out in left field that you almost aren't worth the time or effort required to pay attention to.
Collectivist, borg-like extremism advertised as 'independent' thought has zero to do with the original topic, that being that every alternative avenue to purchasing overpriced cds of mainstream music is being squashed by profiteering monopolists. *This* is the issue. Screw the indies - they have nothing to do with the topic other than to inflate the moralistic pinings of weak egos.
Speaking as someone with actual experience in the field (one of my many jobs is to teach 5 middle-school computer classes) I'd say the question is a silly one, especially the way it's phrased.
Computers don't make anyone smarter. They're tools, that's all - tools that can be used to search for information, write papers, or play games. In this fashion they're no different than calculators, toasters, or cars - a means to an end, for most people.
In terms of education the computer is useful because it teaches salable skills, the kind that kids will need once they leave the educational system. This has little to do with content; the paper that a child writes might be of little practical value in and of itself, but the skills required to write that paper are the same skills needed to write a business report or a memorandum or a meeting summary. Same goes for spreadsheets, presentations, web pages, and yes - even games. The skills required to find a demo on the internet, download it, install it, configure it, figure out a fix if it doesn't work properly on the machine, etc., are the very same skills needed to install a commercial software package. The game is a waste of time; the skills needed to install and play that game are not.
Asking if a computer makes anyone smarter is silly. Better to ask if how that computer is used teaches something that can be of practical value in the job market. The Boomers might be able to get away with being relatively clueless when it comes to the machines, but their children won't have the same luxury; so anything which increases the computer skills of their child is a good thing, regardless of how these skills are actually used before they leave the secondary education system.
And as any scientist learns in the first year at college (or should), the only science that counts is the empirical kind. Which is why I insisted on the 'accredited, peer-reviewed journal'. If it isn't good enough to publish in such a journal, then it isn't science.
The point of peer-reviewing is much the same as open-source; so that your *peers* can examine your methods and tear you a new asshole if it turns out you did a shoddy job. Refusing to publish in this fashion generally means that you aren't interested in science, but in something else - press, fame, talk show appearances, government grants, etc. But not science.
Max
Amusing how the WinFanatics(tm) are so eager to jump into the fray throwing silly insults as they go.
I found your pathetic attempt at trolling mildly amusing. My wife concluded that you must be around thirteen years of age.
Max
Where are all the anti-Linux trolls coming from? MS had some extra money to burn and hired some out-of-work college dropouts to spread a little pre-puberty venom?
Max
This assumes that parents on average are actually more mature than their teenage children - which, from my purely anecdotal viewpoint, is one hell of a stretch.
Better at *faking* it, perhaps. But actually more mature? Wishful thinking, I suspect.
Max
Funny, my wife insisted that I install Linux to both boxes because she's bloody well tired of the crashes, lockups, lost data, and corruption within the system. I took too long to do the second box (the nice one, that I use for games and she uses for everything) so she set up a dual-boot herself (so I can still play my games).
I did say something about an 'accredited, peer-reviewed journal'. "New Scientist" isn't even on the list of standard scientific journals, indicating that either a) it doesn't exist, or b) the editorial process is so lacking that any quack with a good schtick can get something 'newsworthy' (read 'it will sell lots of issues') published.
Science, people, science! It's the only thing that counts here!
What's truly amazing is that yet another group of do-gooder idiots (read "I want power! waaah!") is out to 'save the world' from spam.
I hate spam. But I sure as hell don't want *you* deciding for *me* what I can and cannot get in my inbox. I signed up for no such service; to have a backbone blindly implement yet another anal control-groups blacklist is annoying, to say the least. If they offered to allow me to opt-in to their program, no problem; but I don't have a choice in the matter.
Bah. Extremist morons. Next you'll be telling me what web sites I can go to...oops!
My experience has been that any 'understanding of life' stops accruing shortly after puberty, when most people decide (generally against all available evidence) what irrational, inane views they're going to hold until death pries them from their cold, dead fingers.
Aging generally only brings a better ability to bullshit your decisions as being 'rational', when in truth they're just an attempt to impress your own warped world-view upon everyone else, or an end-run to make sure that you hold on to your particular piece of the pie (and screw everyone else!).
The aged are rarely wise. Bitter and vengeful, possessive and self-absorbed, sure. Devoted to their own gene-line, without a doubt. But wise? I don't think so.
In case it matters, I'm middle-aged. No whining youth here. Just a guy who thinks his generation is particularly immature and gluttonous compared to those that've gone before, or those that are on the rise.
There has never been an empirical, scientific study published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal statistically linking the viewing of porn to "various mental and sexual problems." None.
I'm a psychologist and fairly current in the field. If you have evidence to support your claim - collected and published in the manner required of all science - then please post in what journal and when the article was published. It would be fascinating to discover how in the world I missed something this big in the field.
And no, "Christian Science Monitor" and "Reader's Digest" do not count.
Scientologists - cultists? Blithering idiots? Suckers so deftly fooled by a failed science fiction writer in a scam that even P.T. Barnum would envy?
Scientology is a fraud and scam perpetrated by scum that make our own American politicians look saintly by comparison. Those that follow the church and actually believe it's incomprehensible double-speak are morons of the worst sort and shouldn't be allowed to breed.
It's about time that someone gave Scientology, the rat's-ass vermin of cult 'religions', a swift kick in the nuts. They need to be trounced, legally, and called out as the insane hucksters they really are.
Seriously, what irks me the most is the way that so many people dance around the topic for fear of getting sued. To those quaking, quivering cowards I say "get a backbone, you pathetic geeks. Say what you think or get off the pot."
Like this: Scientology is nothing more than a way to sucker people from their money under the shield of religion. Scientology is no better than any drug cartel, offering an incomprehensible salvation in return for your soul instead of the immediate gratification of cocaine or heroine - but just as invasive, just as mind-destroying, and just as bad.
I believe that high-ranking scientologists perpetrate this fraud in full knowledge of exactly what it is, using the legal system to silence critics in their quest for money, power, and (most likely) the sexual favors of their converts. I've no doubt whatsoever that they'd commit any crime - *any* crime, including murder - to further their goals. I also have no doubt they have no respect whatsoever for the law, except where they can use it to further their own interests.
Scientology isn't a religion or a church, but a criminal organization without morals or ethical principles. This is my judgement and I'll be damned if they think they can silence me from saying it wherever, whenever, and to whomever I please.
If any scientologists out there think otherwise, I invite you to 'bite me'. Or sue.
Scientologists - cultists? Blithering idiots? Suckers so deftly fooled by a failed science fiction writer in a scam that even P.T. Barnum would envy?
Scientology is a fraud and scam perpetrated by scum that make our own American politicians look saintly by comparison. Those that follow the church and actually believe it's incomprehensible double-speak are morons of the worst sort and shouldn't be allowed to breed.
It's about time that someone gave Scientology, the rat's-ass vermin of cult 'religions', a swift kick in the nuts. They need to be trounced, legally, and called out as the insane hucksters they really are.
Seriously, what irks me the most is the way that so many people dance around the topic for fear of getting sued. To those quaking, quivering cowards I say "get a backbone, you pathetic geeks. Say what you think or get off the pot."
Like this: Scientology is nothing more than a way to sucker people from their money under the shield of religion. Scientology is no better than any drug cartel, offering an incomprehensible salvation in return for your soul instead of the immediate gratification of cocaine or heroine - but just as invasive, just as mind-destroying, and just as bad.
I believe that high-ranking scientologists perpetrate this fraud in full knowledge of exactly what it is, using the legal system to silence critics in their quest for money, power, and (most likely) the sexual favors of their converts. I've no doubt whatsoever that they'd commit any crime - *any* crime, including murder - to further their goals. I also have no doubt they have no respect whatsoever for the law, except where they can use it to further their own interests.
Scientology isn't a religion or a church, but a criminal organization without morals or ethical principles. This is my judgement and I'll be damned if they think they can silence me from saying it wherever, whenever, and to whomever I please.
If any scientologists out there think otherwise, I invite you to 'bite me'. Or sue.
Max
tossing aside any technical merits, I have to say that the look and feel of the GUI are a hell of alot nicer than either KDE or Gnome. And one guy did this? Jesus, if that's the case then both the KDE I-look-like-Windows and Gnome boys should take a look at AtheOS.
If you're concerned about filtering, don't use AOL. Simple as that. I can't see why any rational person would deliberately subject themselves to this kind of 'service' anyway, so if they've already willfully entered into a contract with this sub-minion of the lower hells they pretty much deserve what they get.
It's actually a pretty decent tool - for *me*. If my child's friend's parents (apostrophe check!) use filtering rather than trying to impart actual values to their off-spring, then I know *never* to leave my child in their care. And to keep a close watch on my child's friend to see if they're a bad influence and need to be drop-kicked from my kids life.
In that sense filtering is good. For me it flags the parents who would probably have been better off not passing along their genes in the first place, and so most likely incapable of being a proper role model where my child is concerned (or even adequately responsible, for that matter). Kind of like hearing the words "I'm a Scientologist" come out of someone's mouth - an instant warning sign that Something Is Not Right.
Max
Slashdot Mirror
What a twit. Pull it out of your ass already - your personal opinion on what is and is not appropriate for business counts for dick outside of your office.
The business I work at has no dress code and an absolutely assured future with hundreds of clients who don't fucking care how we're dressed so long as we get the job done. Just like most successful businesses.
Max
"Being interested in war nowadays is a sign of weakness, not strength."
Or, in the case of President Bush, small dick size.
Max
Please cite an empirical paper published in an accredited, scientific peer-reviewed journal which:
a) conclusively links salted and smoked meat to
a high incidence of stomach cancer, and
b) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that stomach
cancer from *any cause* was a leading killer
prior to refrigeration.
Try as I might, I can find no evidence *of the kind I listed above* to support your claims. In fact, it appears that the leading killer prior to refrigeration was DISEASE. All kinds of disease. Since this was also before ANTIBIOTICS.
So, pray tell, give me a cite from an accredited journal that I can actually look up and confirm your assertions for myself.
Max
Sure you can. It's called a 'ramscoop' and it has the advantage of scooping up it's fuel (free hydrogen in 'empty' space) as it goes. The primary problem with a ramscoop is that it doesn't become efficient until you reach 10% of the speed of light or so.
But wait - with an antimatter booster to get us up to 10% of the speed of light we could then turn off the AM drive and switch to the scoop. No need to carry any fuel past what we need for the initial boost.
A ramscoop can reach speeds of around 90% of the speed of light, perhaps a little faster. That means Alpha Centauri in about 5 years, plus another year for acceleration/deceleration at 1 g (it takes a year at 1 g to reach 90% of the speed of light).
Much better than AM any way you cut it, except for that initial boost phase.
Max
From how I read the article the company is basing it's insurance rates on the OS running on the *servers*, not the *clients*. The clients could be running anything - even Windows - so long as the servers are running Linux. Given that, any whiner arguing that this 'forces' companies to teach their employees the oh-so-complicated Linux is a blooming idiot. It only does so for the sysadmins, who should be competent enough to master Linux-as-a-server with relatively little pain. If they aren't that competent then they need to be fired. But oh, perhaps that's part of the reason why NT is so easily compromised? It invites the hiring of morons? Any which way you cut it, the insurance company covers both possibilities - bad software *and* incompetent system administrators, all in one fell swoop. Rather canny, actually. Max
I wonder if anyone took into account Microsoft's 'creative' accounting practices - y'know, the ones they're being investigated for by the government. All those nasty charges of 'fraud', 'double-booking', and the like might - just might - have some bearing on how profitable MS appears to the public (especially the stock market).
Hey, not that a conviction would make any difference. AOL did the same thing for it's entire corporate lifetime, was convicted of fraud, fined a lousy $3 million (the largest amount allowed under law) and it affected their stock price not at all. Heck, less than a year later they bought Time-Warner with stock that the SEC investigators called "no better than junk bonds", at a time when AOL "should be delisted for its accounting practices".
If it worked for AOL why not MIcrosoft? What's a lousy $3 million if it keeps stock prices up with bogus business reports?
Max
It seems a badge of honor to some people to proclaim the superiority of independent artists over those sponsored by corporations, decrying the evil sell-outs as unable to compete against underfunded garage bands.
Really, now, swallow that crap before you choke on your own shallow self-righteousness. What you like ain't what I like and my music preferences have nothing to do with getting up on a high horse and 'sticking it to the man' by not buying CDs. I *enjoy* alot of mainstream artists and could care less for idiot geeks who politicize what is essentially an enjoyable time-waster of an activity - listening to music.
When you do the lemming and run down this 'Indies rule!' path you sound just as ridiculous as the vegans who call us meat-eaters 'murderers': so far out in left field that you almost aren't worth the time or effort required to pay attention to.
Collectivist, borg-like extremism advertised as 'independent' thought has zero to do with the original topic, that being that every alternative avenue to purchasing overpriced cds of mainstream music is being squashed by profiteering monopolists. *This* is the issue. Screw the indies - they have nothing to do with the topic other than to inflate the moralistic pinings of weak egos.
Max
If they shut down Aimster, where am I gonna get my pics of that hot Aimee Deep girl?
Max
Speaking as someone with actual experience in the field (one of my many jobs is to teach 5 middle-school computer classes) I'd say the question is a silly one, especially the way it's phrased.
Computers don't make anyone smarter. They're tools, that's all - tools that can be used to search for information, write papers, or play games. In this fashion they're no different than calculators, toasters, or cars - a means to an end, for most people.
In terms of education the computer is useful because it teaches salable skills, the kind that kids will need once they leave the educational system. This has little to do with content; the paper that a child writes might be of little practical value in and of itself, but the skills required to write that paper are the same skills needed to write a business report or a memorandum or a meeting summary. Same goes for spreadsheets, presentations, web pages, and yes - even games. The skills required to find a demo on the internet, download it, install it, configure it, figure out a fix if it doesn't work properly on the machine, etc., are the very same skills needed to install a commercial software package. The game is a waste of time; the skills needed to install and play that game are not.
Asking if a computer makes anyone smarter is silly. Better to ask if how that computer is used teaches something that can be of practical value in the job market. The Boomers might be able to get away with being relatively clueless when it comes to the machines, but their children won't have the same luxury; so anything which increases the computer skills of their child is a good thing, regardless of how these skills are actually used before they leave the secondary education system.
Max
And as any scientist learns in the first year at college (or should), the only science that counts is the empirical kind. Which is why I insisted on the 'accredited, peer-reviewed journal'. If it isn't good enough to publish in such a journal, then it isn't science. The point of peer-reviewing is much the same as open-source; so that your *peers* can examine your methods and tear you a new asshole if it turns out you did a shoddy job. Refusing to publish in this fashion generally means that you aren't interested in science, but in something else - press, fame, talk show appearances, government grants, etc. But not science. Max
Amusing how the WinFanatics(tm) are so eager to jump into the fray throwing silly insults as they go. I found your pathetic attempt at trolling mildly amusing. My wife concluded that you must be around thirteen years of age. Max
Where are all the anti-Linux trolls coming from? MS had some extra money to burn and hired some out-of-work college dropouts to spread a little pre-puberty venom? Max
This assumes that parents on average are actually more mature than their teenage children - which, from my purely anecdotal viewpoint, is one hell of a stretch. Better at *faking* it, perhaps. But actually more mature? Wishful thinking, I suspect. Max
Funny, my wife insisted that I install Linux to both boxes because she's bloody well tired of the crashes, lockups, lost data, and corruption within the system. I took too long to do the second box (the nice one, that I use for games and she uses for everything) so she set up a dual-boot herself (so I can still play my games).
;-)
I married the perfect woman.
Max
I did say something about an 'accredited, peer-reviewed journal'. "New Scientist" isn't even on the list of standard scientific journals, indicating that either a) it doesn't exist, or b) the editorial process is so lacking that any quack with a good schtick can get something 'newsworthy' (read 'it will sell lots of issues') published.
Science, people, science! It's the only thing that counts here!
Max
What's truly amazing is that yet another group of do-gooder idiots (read "I want power! waaah!") is out to 'save the world' from spam.
I hate spam. But I sure as hell don't want *you* deciding for *me* what I can and cannot get in my inbox. I signed up for no such service; to have a backbone blindly implement yet another anal control-groups blacklist is annoying, to say the least. If they offered to allow me to opt-in to their program, no problem; but I don't have a choice in the matter.
Bah. Extremist morons. Next you'll be telling me what web sites I can go to...oops!
Max
My experience has been that any 'understanding of life' stops accruing shortly after puberty, when most people decide (generally against all available evidence) what irrational, inane views they're going to hold until death pries them from their cold, dead fingers.
Aging generally only brings a better ability to bullshit your decisions as being 'rational', when in truth they're just an attempt to impress your own warped world-view upon everyone else, or an end-run to make sure that you hold on to your particular piece of the pie (and screw everyone else!).
The aged are rarely wise. Bitter and vengeful, possessive and self-absorbed, sure. Devoted to their own gene-line, without a doubt. But wise? I don't think so.
In case it matters, I'm middle-aged. No whining youth here. Just a guy who thinks his generation is particularly immature and gluttonous compared to those that've gone before, or those that are on the rise.
Max
There has never been an empirical, scientific study published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal statistically linking the viewing of porn to "various mental and sexual problems." None.
I'm a psychologist and fairly current in the field. If you have evidence to support your claim - collected and published in the manner required of all science - then please post in what journal and when the article was published. It would be fascinating to discover how in the world I missed something this big in the field.
And no, "Christian Science Monitor" and "Reader's Digest" do not count.
Max
Scientologists - cultists? Blithering idiots? Suckers so deftly fooled by a failed science fiction writer in a scam that even P.T. Barnum would envy?
Scientology is a fraud and scam perpetrated by scum that make our own American politicians look saintly by comparison. Those that follow the church and actually believe it's incomprehensible double-speak are morons of the worst sort and shouldn't be allowed to breed.
It's about time that someone gave Scientology, the rat's-ass vermin of cult 'religions', a swift kick in the nuts. They need to be trounced, legally, and called out as the insane hucksters they really are.
Seriously, what irks me the most is the way that so many people dance around the topic for fear of getting sued. To those quaking, quivering cowards I say "get a backbone, you pathetic geeks. Say what you think or get off the pot."
Like this: Scientology is nothing more than a way to sucker people from their money under the shield of religion. Scientology is no better than any drug cartel, offering an incomprehensible salvation in return for your soul instead of the immediate gratification of cocaine or heroine - but just as invasive, just as mind-destroying, and just as bad.
I believe that high-ranking scientologists perpetrate this fraud in full knowledge of exactly what it is, using the legal system to silence critics in their quest for money, power, and (most likely) the sexual favors of their converts. I've no doubt whatsoever that they'd commit any crime - *any* crime, including murder - to further their goals. I also have no doubt they have no respect whatsoever for the law, except where they can use it to further their own interests.
Scientology isn't a religion or a church, but a criminal organization without morals or ethical principles. This is my judgement and I'll be damned if they think they can silence me from saying it wherever, whenever, and to whomever I please.
If any scientologists out there think otherwise, I invite you to 'bite me'. Or sue.
Max
Scientologists - cultists? Blithering idiots? Suckers so deftly fooled by a failed science fiction writer in a scam that even P.T. Barnum would envy? Scientology is a fraud and scam perpetrated by scum that make our own American politicians look saintly by comparison. Those that follow the church and actually believe it's incomprehensible double-speak are morons of the worst sort and shouldn't be allowed to breed. It's about time that someone gave Scientology, the rat's-ass vermin of cult 'religions', a swift kick in the nuts. They need to be trounced, legally, and called out as the insane hucksters they really are. Seriously, what irks me the most is the way that so many people dance around the topic for fear of getting sued. To those quaking, quivering cowards I say "get a backbone, you pathetic geeks. Say what you think or get off the pot." Like this: Scientology is nothing more than a way to sucker people from their money under the shield of religion. Scientology is no better than any drug cartel, offering an incomprehensible salvation in return for your soul instead of the immediate gratification of cocaine or heroine - but just as invasive, just as mind-destroying, and just as bad. I believe that high-ranking scientologists perpetrate this fraud in full knowledge of exactly what it is, using the legal system to silence critics in their quest for money, power, and (most likely) the sexual favors of their converts. I've no doubt whatsoever that they'd commit any crime - *any* crime, including murder - to further their goals. I also have no doubt they have no respect whatsoever for the law, except where they can use it to further their own interests. Scientology isn't a religion or a church, but a criminal organization without morals or ethical principles. This is my judgement and I'll be damned if they think they can silence me from saying it wherever, whenever, and to whomever I please. If any scientologists out there think otherwise, I invite you to 'bite me'. Or sue. Max
tossing aside any technical merits, I have to say that the look and feel of the GUI are a hell of alot nicer than either KDE or Gnome. And one guy did this? Jesus, if that's the case then both the KDE I-look-like-Windows and Gnome boys should take a look at AtheOS.
Max
If you're concerned about filtering, don't use AOL. Simple as that. I can't see why any rational person would deliberately subject themselves to this kind of 'service' anyway, so if they've already willfully entered into a contract with this sub-minion of the lower hells they pretty much deserve what they get. It's actually a pretty decent tool - for *me*. If my child's friend's parents (apostrophe check!) use filtering rather than trying to impart actual values to their off-spring, then I know *never* to leave my child in their care. And to keep a close watch on my child's friend to see if they're a bad influence and need to be drop-kicked from my kids life. In that sense filtering is good. For me it flags the parents who would probably have been better off not passing along their genes in the first place, and so most likely incapable of being a proper role model where my child is concerned (or even adequately responsible, for that matter). Kind of like hearing the words "I'm a Scientologist" come out of someone's mouth - an instant warning sign that Something Is Not Right. Max