It just doesn't make any sense to me why someone might hate a software developer for actually charging for their work.
Charging for software and restricting the freedom of the software are not the same thing.
The GPL doesn't require that you release your software at no cost, it just guarantees that anyone who receives the software has access to the source code.
Of course, this means that I can take your code, compile it, and distribute it for free with no legal repercussions.
So, in a sense, it's not that we as a community hate making money off of software itself, we're just willing to collaborate and develop our own alternative if the only software that exists doesn't provide the source code.
Microsoft and the closed source world want to make hardware a commodity, and software and software support valuable. We want to make both hardware and software a commodity, and keep the support valuable.
And, actually, from an end user perspective, the support becomes free too when entire communities emerge around pieces of software.
It's not that we hate software developers--we're software developers too! Software developers that make money off of their software still have a place in two big markets. First, you can still make money off of contract jobs. Secondly, companies that support and do consulting for other companies may need new software. They hire you to write it, and just plain don't care if the rest of the world has it or not, because they're not making money off of what their software can do, but what problems they solve.
Or, conversely, you could set up a thin client setup in your house without your sound having to go through your network which hurts latency.
Slightly.
If you recorded audio in your home and you kept the workstation in a separate room from where you play your instrunment, this would help with the monitor headphones.
At this point, there is no way to defeat Linux by leveraging market dominance.
Not even chips in your motherboard only running Microsoft software. People would just buy hardware without those chips. They would hack them. They would take them out.
According to Libertarian economics, the DMCA would never fly. The government exsts (economically) to make sure the possiblity of competition always exists.
Why? I genuinely don't get it - someone is providing a product they have invested their time and effort in; where is the evil in that? I don't see how people can be expected to work for free when there is no open source equivalent of housing and food;) I know some people manage to, but we don't all have funding from a government/company/rich person, and yet we still have to eat.
Because there's always a group of loose-knit hackers that are willing work together and make a free alternative. This is only an exception because Cedega is open sourced already--they're just paying for precompiled binaries and an easy installer.
Open source software has yet to produce an entirely free game on par with existing commercial products, because more than just coding is required. However, as more and more artists, musicians, writers, etc., move to Linux, we may see this start to happen.
That's a software issue. Most people manually breaching systems are nmapping, finding services that are vulnerable, and exploiting them.
Furthermore, unlike worms, crackers might not know what operating system the site is running until they attempt to infiltrate it. It's not like people go looking for Linux boxes randomly.
I think that the argument that Linux is installed on more target machines than the other operating systems is acceptible here, even though it is somewhat fallacious when it is used to defend Windows security against automated attacks like viruses and worms.
Gentoo (with -O3 and march=pentium4) significantly outperforms everything else. During run-to-failure testing, Gentoo held up 30% longer than Mandrake or Red Hat, and Windows never really showed up for the race.
-O3 generates larger code than -O2, so you lose the performance gains in increased application startup for most types of programs. I suggest -O2 or even -Os.
I'm interested in how the systems were configured--what was installed specifically on each system, what services were running.
I've been building linux systems from scratch and toying with source-based distributions almost exclusively for some years now, and I'm going to submit that there is nothing about Gentoo that increases the potential speed of each package. It's all in who's building the systems.
A lot of people read comments like yours and assume that Gentoo does something magic with the software running on it to make it go faster--just not true.
For what it's worth, I consider your comment on topic.
Gentoo brings to the user certain paradigm shifts--mainly, installing software and having it not ready for a seemingly arbitrary period of time. Not only that, but during this time, your system can start choking.
I stopped reading when he started pushing that there's no way to resolve dependencies with RPM files, and then went on to compare a packaging system (RPM) with a tool that lives on top of one (apt-get).
Garr! Don't you know it? If rpm were compared to dpkg they'd be...just about the same.
That goes for portage, ports, pacman, etc. too--it's just not the same thing as rpm.
The only thing I hate about rpm is it's "default" method of calculating dependencies is through ldd output--not user friendly, to say the least.
That being said, neither apt nor yum can really handle automatic dependency handling on the package removal side. If I have to install three packages just to get evolution working, they should be removed when I remove evolution (unless another package has come along that now depends on one of them).
Plus, the limitation of binary packages themselves is that you have to rebuild the package if you don't like the way it was built. Let's say you don't want python scripts to be added to your installation--too bad.
I'm starting a perl based binary package system that solves this--about 700 LOC into it already. Hopefully I can bring the power of./configure && make && make install to binary packaging.
Your argument has a fallacy in it--the aquisition of mass wealth is required to then feed the masses, in which case, you either exterminate the motives for aquiring wealth altogether, or you curtail it by making it harder to get wealthy. Hence companies move overseas, hence the people you were trying to be a champion for are screwed.
Those greedy corporations that hire people to work 60 hours a week at minimum wage provide more jobs than any liberal flapping his jaw about the injustices of the system ever will.
Assuming welfare were done at the local or state levels, where I could stomach even the thought, I would like to see those who receive welfare held accountable for their fiscal (ir)responsibility.
Here we come to the next fallacy--If the assumption is that they don't have the skills needed to support their famility, can we also make the probable assumption that they don't know how to manage money?
States rights are far more in danger, have been curtailed far more, and are far more important in keeping the Constitution alive, than individual rights.
You can be an anti-abortionist libertarian, for example--the Constitution doesn't address murder; it's left up to the states. You can be Libertarian that wants to set up a Marxist utopia in your home town. It's all about devolution of powers to the lowest possible level of government.
As far as the official party is concerned, I think they're far too concerned with personal liberties and corporate liberties than with states rights. Registered Libertarians, however, usually agree with me here.
No, poorer countries will adopt OpenSource because its cheaper. Period.
When I read the parent, I thought he meant that poor countries would adopt FOSS because it's cheaper, and then, as an unforseen side effect, the FOSS software will "encourage creativy and growth of IT."
Whether or not he made that point, I can somewhat agree with it. If kids can grow up in schools with cheap Pentiums running Linux, then they're on their way to being IT experts.
And I personally think that it is not necessarily harmful, if the famous person is sufficiently prepared. I do not think Britney Spears is, but that is irrelevant.
I like disgreeing on basic things, it makes arguing clean.
Yes, I've come to the realization that slashdot forums are a place peole come to intellectually "spar," and nine times out of ten most of us are ill-prepared.
Although I will say I do think that there can be and probably is a percentage of women who pose nude who suffer no real or imagined psycholigical damage. You seem to be set against that possibility, which is fine.
I think this issue has gotten to the point where it's a matter of "to what extent" rather than "does it really?" Without any quantifiable data, as you suggested, there really is nowhere to go.
All that remains is for me to scream about you trying to tell me what I ought to do, which we can all just take as read (if you don't mind) since my heart isn't in it.
In my opinion, we ought to rely on eachother, not the government, to keep us in check. I envision a society where people are willing to address problems with eachother in a civil manner and have a genuine, thoughtful discourse. I think when we disagree with others we almost have a moral responsibility to try and convince others--the problem is that often times we prove so unwilling to make the kind of concession that we expect out of others.
I don't think, for example, religions would cause wars if people just said how they feel. Without speaking to one another, we lock ourselves in to tribal roles where we demonize the "other side" until we don't know where the points of contension actually are.
There's just too much wrong with our society to begin with. The moral absolutists are a very powerful group, and while I agree with most of their sentiments, I can't stand their disdain for intellectualism. For all of it's haughty arrogance, it's a lot better than haughty arrogance without rationality. Moral decisions made without critical thought are like death penalties being administered before the trial has even commenced.
Besides, I'd wager your religion is more damaging than pornography and has killed more people.
Nobody's religion has killed anyone. Do you blame Atheism for the death of so many Buddhists in Tibet? Or at least Marxism? Neither of these ideologies prescribe mass murder or war as a solution to problems they address.
You can attribute things however you wish. I attribute rising divorce rates to spiders. Or McDonalds. Or the growing cost of child care. It doesn't make them true.
You're right. I'm not inventing a moral absolute, just explaining why I have one.
I have a healthy relationship. I watch porn frequently with or without my spouse. People should envy the type of commitment, trust, and respect that is present in my relationship? You know why? No hiding. We made a commitment to each other, but in no way am I going to stop being attracted to other women; nor her to men.
I could argue that you have less of a capacity for closeness, but I just plain don't want to go there.
To deny that is to deny the essence of what we truly are: animals. You can try to promote yourself as a higher being, but really, that is more damaging than all of the nude women could ever accomplish, if damaging men was their goal.
Well, I'd like to think that that cereberal cortex of ours makes us unique. Your rebuttal suggests that we are more than animals. We don't drop our drawers at the first hint of pheromones in the air.
You need to study history just a touch more. Find 2 points through history where homosexuality was not just accepted, but openly promoted. Go ahead, it's a good excercise.
You don't understand my point--it's that my view that pornography is wrong is not tolerated by others who claim to promote more tolerance.
Your morals are imaginary. Just like mine are.
First of all, you had mispelt 'where.'
That's an unscientific statement; your morals may very well be "true." In a certain sense, the idea that morals can "exist" is very easy to verify--what validates them is entirely different. The Judeo-Christian perspective (I believe this includes Islam) is that if something is "wrong" it will have a negative consequence on the perpetrator. Of course, we'd have a difficult time agreeing on what consequences can be considered "negative," so there really is no point in going down this road.
Besides, if our morals are imaginary, is not love then imaginary also? In the same way we supposedly choose a set of standards to live by, do we not then agree upon a set of standards to live by with our spouses? Isn't this agreement just as arbitrary as our morals?
What makes the decision to jerk off to porn any different than the decision to engange in adultery? You've still made another woman the object of your sexual desire--hence any pretension that sex is somehow a binding factor in such a marriage ought to be dropped. In a sense, in this case one chooses to put sexual desires above one's spouse.
You can do as you will, but I'm going to try for a marriage that is based on a more binding contract--because without room for difficulty and sacrifice, there is no room for love.
If you think it should not be done, then perhaps people should not be allowed to do it.
You'll find it re-assuring that I completely disagree with that line of reasoning that is so common today among moralists.
I'm more of a libertarian here--what is legal isn't necessarily acceptable, and you can't create a moral society through legislation. I personally believe that if a society loses it's moral foundation (as was the case with the Greeks, the Romans, and many other empires), it loses the threads that bind it together.
I don't like legislated morality, and this smacks of such to me.
I hate this kind of legislated morality. If I genuinely wanted you to change because what you were doing was harmful, then legislation would just get in the way of an honest debate.
I honestly don't see what damage I'm doing to men: I'd like to debate the point, but I need something to go on.
I attribute rising divorce rates and broken marriages (which are quite damaging to the children) to sexual infidelity, and I make no distinction between actually carrying out infidelity and imagining yourself in the act. Furthermore, I think whetting your appetite, so to speak, before beginning the big responsibility of starting a family hurts that families chances.
I also think that constantly feeding sexual desires makes us crave it more and more. If I try and eat with abandon, I'll maybe eat for two, but sex is something that we never really get tired of for any meaningful amount of time.
Anyways, I find you much more interesting and thoughtful than people I agree with on this. I'm sort of wierd in that I enjoy talking to people with different opinions more than ones with similar opinions.
Someone who is raised completely alone, completely ignored, tends to have a whole slew of problems.
I agree there. I'm talking about a different kind of attention-getting--where the attention-getting is a means of self validation, not a motive for social gathering and entertainment.
The only people who'd only see my genitals are those who would consume any images produced and not know me. My friends could care less what I do, though some appreciate that side of me as well. People who think less of me for doing this are not the kind of people I really want in my life, anyway. There are many caring, accepting people around I'd rather spend time with.
I agree with this somewhat, but I feel that humans have a certain obligation to produce sometihng useful for society. Call it the open-sourcer in me, I even go so far as to think this need to "add something to the table" is part of our psyche. When we add our naked flesh to be devoured by others who are almost devolving into lower forms of life by being consumed by lust, we're not giving anything useful.
Pornography has a base and cheap feel to me. I wish there were no demand for it. I wish we could exist together without glorifying sex so much--it gets in the way. That's not to think that I feel sex is bad--on the contrary, I think sex is wonderful, when it's not exploited.
I'll admit to a huge bias here. But I know the way I work. It is exceedingly difficult to even speak about sex in an adult manner without occasionally straying to more impure thoughts. You see, I'm no better than the next guy--and it's because of my own experiences with sexuality that I think "man, I know these other guys looking at porn all the time are just as bad as me--so I know it's doing them harm." It would be doing me harm if I looked at porn.
I don't think they've ever expanded my mind or body =)
I agree that not everything we do needs to have lasting benefit. What we do to earn money should, however.
I have hobbies, and my hobbies can help me grow regardless of my day job.
Hobbies seldom provide lasting benefit to others. I love watching movies, but no one is the better for it.
Technically a constructure worker rents his body as well. I rent my brain out every day I go to work. This is life. So if a woman rents her body and provides a service in, say, a Wal Mart checkout it's okay, but if she does it in a bed it isn't? Who says?
I think you're talking about legality--in this case, I think I agree with you. We'll never approach an agreement here. There are folks that don't even think a midriff should be shown in a movie--I'd be hard-pressed to let them decide what can get put into a movie.
So because we have no chance at agreeing upon standards for acceptible sexual conduct, we'll have to settle for anything consentual. My point is that I believe that posing naked is destructive to the poser, and the viewer. You don't have to accept it, I'm just disagreeing with someone else's post.
Can it be proven that selling sex is inherently self destructive?
It's not a strictly scientific claim from a logical positivist perspective, but a case can certainly be made to suggest it. I think a famous sexual predator was quoted as saying something like in jail, there wasn't a single sex offender that wasn't a frequent viewer of pornography.
Porn changes us when we view it, and it changes us when we're part of it. The extent to which it does, and whether or not the effects are good or bad, is open for debate. And certainly the degradation of women is almost a requirement in much pornography
So if that's what you think, never having been one, and someone who has been one swears it's not true. what is the reality?
The woman who has posed naked has certainly not become a sex object--she didn't charge, and she doesn't do it regularly.
You wont admit they're right, because you are comitted to the idea that (at the very least) they can't tell, or more likely wont admit, that they have been damaged.
Sure--I can't fathom how selling your body out for cash won't damage you. I'm not making a case for women that casually pose naked for the 'thrill' of it. I'm talking about women that pose naked as their primary source of income. Do you really believe that it doesn't harm them?
Resign yourself: It's impossible to know for sure. You speak with no weight of authority, none of us do. We can only cite specific cases back and forth until we get tired and go home.
You're right--I'm certainly no expert here. And I'll even concede that it's possible that posing naked is completely harmless. However, this seems unlikely to me, and I don't think my reasons for thinking that it is harmful are totally off base.
I'll resign myself if you concede that because none of us speak with authority, none of us knows whether or not a life of pseude-prostitution is acutally harmful. In which case, the original parent that I was rebutting, who claimed that there is nothing wrong with posing naked, is equally baseless.
If we're all going to settle for ignorance, then we should at least have a desire to investigate this further before we view more porn. It could be the case that these women are living in hell right now, and that by purchasing porn that they're part of, we're perpetuating that living hell. This kind possibility deserves some kind of consideration.
In the end, I'll just get labeled a moralist that wants to impose my views of right and wrong on everyone else.
My political belief is that porn ought not be illegal, at least at the federal level. Not even child porn.
It's a sign of sad times when we take philisophical ideas and make them into political ones. What is legal isn't necessarily acceptable.
I guess there are just a lot of moralists out there who want to impose their morality on us through legislation that we get jumpy when we hear anyone speak of moral absolutes.
I have (for no fee other than copies of the images) volunteered as a nude model in a class run by a professional photographer before. Did it improve my sense of self-worth that I was accepted? Of course. Is my sense of self-worth dependent on it? Hell no. I own my body and my sexuality, and I don't see any reason why I should limit myself in that regard by what someone else thinks is right. There is nothing better about using my body to sell fast food or my brain to write code than using my image to produce something people like to look at, in whatever state of dress or undress.
I definately think it would be a crime to humanity if you used your body to shovel fries. However, I'm going to ask you to more deeply question your motives for why you liked getting accepted by the photographer.
I'll concede that you're self worth isn't dependent upon you being considered sexually attractive when naked, but you don't do this for a living. If all you provided the world was pictures of your genitals, I think a lot of things would change.
I own my body and my sexuality, and I don't see any reason why I should limit myself in that regard by what someone else thinks is right.
And you don't have to. I'm just saying I think posing naked is wrong. Forget any damage it does to you, think of what it does to men--there may be much more to you than your sexuality, but if you were to begin earning all your income by posing naked, I think you would find that those other parts of you seem to come out less and less--and certainly not many people would even care about them. My claim for damaging the poser stems from this--when all they see is your genitals, when all they care about is your naked body, who cares about you?
I don't think your case refutes my point because you just don't do this enough. While I do think that posing naked has probably had a malignant side effect, that's really something you'll have to wrestle with. Of course I think you've already pigeon-holed me, so I don't expect anything other than a reaction like "this guy is an arrogant jerk."
Often times I accept the premise that I disagree with in order to entertain it's plausibility for a second. Suppose posing naked is a reflection of deeper sexual issues. Would it be more helpful if you genuinely considered the possibility rather than label me a self-richeous hypocrite and not consider it? The only things at stake here are my pride and your mental well being. I'll tell you right now my pride isn't that valuable to me.
Of course I enjoy the attention. I also enjoy the attention when I play a game or dance. Humans are gregarious creatures. I simply can't see what's wrong with that.
I know women (and men) that often strive to get attention from others, and it's usually a sign of low self esteem, and become the center of attention to compensate. I'm not going to pretend to know you well enough to say that this is the case, but I'm not going to concede that all humans are attention-getters, and that attention-getting is a healthy and normal thing. Normal, maybe, but healthy, no.
Hi! Welcome to Slashdot! You don't know me, I don't know you, and yet you are still posting, an act that assumes that strangers are going to give you attention. How does your self worth feel today?
This is (somewhat) rational discussion--a process by which humans grow.
I'm not asking you to look at these pictures. I'm not asking you to want your daughter to pose. I'm asking you to respect me, my independance, my choices, and not try to protect me from the icky, scary men out there. Or from myself. Thank you.
I'm not trying to control you. People have this immature opinion these days that anyone trying to suggest that something they do is wrong is trying to control them. I have no desire to do that. This is like the teenager who defends a drug habit by accusing his parents of wanting to control every aspect of the teenager's life, when really they're just concerned
Sexual boundaries, or boundaries in relation to any topic is subjective to the individual. For you to make a blanket statement asserting that your view is more correct or moral is quite selfish. For some, it's a way to pay the bills, for others, it's the experience of it all. How is selling images of your naked body fundamentally any different than selling images of landscapes? Both are natural, both are beautiful.
Am I making a blanket statement that my view is more correct? In my view, I'm simply showing why myself and others can legitimately have problems with women posing naked.
Moral absolutes exist everywhere, in every clique. You've made this point without realising that you were shooting down your own argument.
At what point did my argument become a request to change? Meaning, I think it is you that have assumed that I'm trying to bring other people to accept my moral standards. I'm really not--just trying to demonstrate that there are perfectly good reasons for thinking that it is wrong to pose naked.
Personally, I enjoy sex without emotional context on some occasions. It doesn't mean that I am incapable of conveying and nurturing more connected sexual relations. It is also neither necessarily disrespectful nor illegal. Thus drawing a comparison with your emotional boundary to the boundary of pedarasty and necrophilia is ridiculous.
It is only ridiculous if your enjoyment of sex without emotional context is clearly not perverse. While I have nothing against you as an individual, I personally think that this kind of sex is perverse. I'm sure you could find a thousand and one things I don't do quite right if you knew even the least bit about me.
I agree that there's a diffence between consentual, meaningless sex, and nonconsentual, meaningless sex, and of the two, I'd prefer consentual, but that doesn't mean that my view that meaningless sex is wrong is out of the question.
Again, I'm not asking you to rally behind my flag here, just showing that I am no less rational for taking my position.
Are you saying that artists, musicians and actors, whose professions by definition is soliciting strangers, have serious psychological problems? More so than your average person? Art of any kind only becomes such when it is exposed to others to create an impression or evoke an emotion. It can't be art until that has happened.
I should have put the word 'sexual' in front of attention. The problem I have here is trying to get people horny watching you naked.
People also work at McDonald's. I highly doubt that many of them were fulfilling any sort of long-term goal by doing so. It's simple, some people like doing what they do and others don't. Act upon it.
Oh I completely agree. I just don't think these women that pose naked really want to be doing what they're doing.
If they have a deep-instilled, genuine desire to be the jerk-off material for men they don't know, then hey, I'm powerless to stop them. But I just don't think that's the case.
Again, I'm not telling everyone else why they should throw away their porn stash, or wipe out their hard drives--I'm just refuting the statement that there isn't anything wrong with posing naked. I have a serious problem with it, and I'm only trying to get people to say "O.K. I can respect this guys opinion--it does kind of make sense that someone would think posing naked is wrong."
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't do that, I've already got a patent on multi or extra dimensional storage of data in an heirarchal structure or metaphorical system.
And I've got a patent to use that extra dimensional storage structure to store lots of pr0n.
I think the reason Bush won was because people got tired of the left throwing insults.
I'm totally going to seed this on bittorrent if it isn't already...thanks!
It just doesn't make any sense to me why someone might hate a software developer for actually charging for their work.
Charging for software and restricting the freedom of the software are not the same thing.
The GPL doesn't require that you release your software at no cost, it just guarantees that anyone who receives the software has access to the source code.
Of course, this means that I can take your code, compile it, and distribute it for free with no legal repercussions.
So, in a sense, it's not that we as a community hate making money off of software itself, we're just willing to collaborate and develop our own alternative if the only software that exists doesn't provide the source code.
Microsoft and the closed source world want to make hardware a commodity, and software and software support valuable. We want to make both hardware and software a commodity, and keep the support valuable.
And, actually, from an end user perspective, the support becomes free too when entire communities emerge around pieces of software.
It's not that we hate software developers--we're software developers too! Software developers that make money off of their software still have a place in two big markets. First, you can still make money off of contract jobs. Secondly, companies that support and do consulting for other companies may need new software. They hire you to write it, and just plain don't care if the rest of the world has it or not, because they're not making money off of what their software can do, but what problems they solve.
Slightly.
If you recorded audio in your home and you kept the workstation in a separate room from where you play your instrunment, this would help with the monitor headphones.
Not even chips in your motherboard only running Microsoft software. People would just buy hardware without those chips. They would hack them. They would take them out.
According to Libertarian economics, the DMCA would never fly. The government exsts (economically) to make sure the possiblity of competition always exists.
Why? I genuinely don't get it - someone is providing a product they have invested their time and effort in; where is the evil in that? I don't see how people can be expected to work for free when there is no open source equivalent of housing and food ;) I know some people manage to, but we don't all have funding from a government/company/rich person, and yet we still have to eat.
Because there's always a group of loose-knit hackers that are willing work together and make a free alternative. This is only an exception because Cedega is open sourced already--they're just paying for precompiled binaries and an easy installer.
Open source software has yet to produce an entirely free game on par with existing commercial products, because more than just coding is required. However, as more and more artists, musicians, writers, etc., move to Linux, we may see this start to happen.
That's a software issue. Most people manually breaching systems are nmapping, finding services that are vulnerable, and exploiting them.
Furthermore, unlike worms, crackers might not know what operating system the site is running until they attempt to infiltrate it. It's not like people go looking for Linux boxes randomly.
I think that the argument that Linux is installed on more target machines than the other operating systems is acceptible here, even though it is somewhat fallacious when it is used to defend Windows security against automated attacks like viruses and worms.
Kapla! Long live the Gentoo Empire! Any ko'tal who cannot compile his own apps is a weak piece of baktag.
Right--and using Gentoo, which handles the compilation of applications for you, teaches you how to compile your own apps...how?
You're exactly right--and it's all because of those stinking liberals!
Gentoo (with -O3 and march=pentium4) significantly outperforms everything else. During run-to-failure testing, Gentoo held up 30% longer than Mandrake or Red Hat, and Windows never really showed up for the race.
-O3 generates larger code than -O2, so you lose the performance gains in increased application startup for most types of programs. I suggest -O2 or even -Os.
I'm interested in how the systems were configured--what was installed specifically on each system, what services were running.
I've been building linux systems from scratch and toying with source-based distributions almost exclusively for some years now, and I'm going to submit that there is nothing about Gentoo that increases the potential speed of each package. It's all in who's building the systems.
A lot of people read comments like yours and assume that Gentoo does something magic with the software running on it to make it go faster--just not true.
I read somewhere that both apache and mysql don't run on openmosix.
For what it's worth, I consider your comment on topic.
Gentoo brings to the user certain paradigm shifts--mainly, installing software and having it not ready for a seemingly arbitrary period of time. Not only that, but during this time, your system can start choking.
I stopped reading when he started pushing that there's no way to resolve dependencies with RPM files, and then went on to compare a packaging system (RPM) with a tool that lives on top of one (apt-get).
Garr! Don't you know it? If rpm were compared to dpkg they'd be...just about the same.
That goes for portage, ports, pacman, etc. too--it's just not the same thing as rpm.
The only thing I hate about rpm is it's "default" method of calculating dependencies is through ldd output--not user friendly, to say the least.
That being said, neither apt nor yum can really handle automatic dependency handling on the package removal side. If I have to install three packages just to get evolution working, they should be removed when I remove evolution (unless another package has come along that now depends on one of them).
Plus, the limitation of binary packages themselves is that you have to rebuild the package if you don't like the way it was built. Let's say you don't want python scripts to be added to your installation--too bad.
I'm starting a perl based binary package system that solves this--about 700 LOC into it already. Hopefully I can bring the power of ./configure && make && make install to binary packaging.
Not to mention that what you put in your mouth and how much exercise probably has much more to do with how long you live.
I was beginning to stuff my face with McDonalds as I read it.
Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda.'"
Let me be the first to breathe a huge sigh of relief.
Your argument has a fallacy in it--the aquisition of mass wealth is required to then feed the masses, in which case, you either exterminate the motives for aquiring wealth altogether, or you curtail it by making it harder to get wealthy. Hence companies move overseas, hence the people you were trying to be a champion for are screwed.
Those greedy corporations that hire people to work 60 hours a week at minimum wage provide more jobs than any liberal flapping his jaw about the injustices of the system ever will.
Assuming welfare were done at the local or state levels, where I could stomach even the thought, I would like to see those who receive welfare held accountable for their fiscal (ir)responsibility.
Here we come to the next fallacy--If the assumption is that they don't have the skills needed to support their famility, can we also make the probable assumption that they don't know how to manage money?
You can be an anti-abortionist libertarian, for example--the Constitution doesn't address murder; it's left up to the states. You can be Libertarian that wants to set up a Marxist utopia in your home town. It's all about devolution of powers to the lowest possible level of government.
As far as the official party is concerned, I think they're far too concerned with personal liberties and corporate liberties than with states rights. Registered Libertarians, however, usually agree with me here.
When I read the parent, I thought he meant that poor countries would adopt FOSS because it's cheaper, and then, as an unforseen side effect, the FOSS software will "encourage creativy and growth of IT."
Whether or not he made that point, I can somewhat agree with it. If kids can grow up in schools with cheap Pentiums running Linux, then they're on their way to being IT experts.
And I personally think that it is not necessarily harmful, if the famous person is sufficiently prepared. I do not think Britney Spears is, but that is irrelevant.
I like disgreeing on basic things, it makes arguing clean.
Yes, I've come to the realization that slashdot forums are a place peole come to intellectually "spar," and nine times out of ten most of us are ill-prepared.
Although I will say I do think that there can be and probably is a percentage of women who pose nude who suffer no real or imagined psycholigical damage. You seem to be set against that possibility, which is fine.
I think this issue has gotten to the point where it's a matter of "to what extent" rather than "does it really?" Without any quantifiable data, as you suggested, there really is nowhere to go.
All that remains is for me to scream about you trying to tell me what I ought to do, which we can all just take as read (if you don't mind) since my heart isn't in it.
In my opinion, we ought to rely on eachother, not the government, to keep us in check. I envision a society where people are willing to address problems with eachother in a civil manner and have a genuine, thoughtful discourse. I think when we disagree with others we almost have a moral responsibility to try and convince others--the problem is that often times we prove so unwilling to make the kind of concession that we expect out of others.
I don't think, for example, religions would cause wars if people just said how they feel. Without speaking to one another, we lock ourselves in to tribal roles where we demonize the "other side" until we don't know where the points of contension actually are.
There's just too much wrong with our society to begin with. The moral absolutists are a very powerful group, and while I agree with most of their sentiments, I can't stand their disdain for intellectualism. For all of it's haughty arrogance, it's a lot better than haughty arrogance without rationality. Moral decisions made without critical thought are like death penalties being administered before the trial has even commenced.
Besides, I'd wager your religion is more damaging than pornography and has killed more people.
Nobody's religion has killed anyone. Do you blame Atheism for the death of so many Buddhists in Tibet? Or at least Marxism? Neither of these ideologies prescribe mass murder or war as a solution to problems they address.
You can attribute things however you wish. I attribute rising divorce rates to spiders. Or McDonalds. Or the growing cost of child care. It doesn't make them true.
You're right. I'm not inventing a moral absolute, just explaining why I have one.
I have a healthy relationship. I watch porn frequently with or without my spouse. People should envy the type of commitment, trust, and respect that is present in my relationship? You know why? No hiding. We made a commitment to each other, but in no way am I going to stop being attracted to other women; nor her to men.
I could argue that you have less of a capacity for closeness, but I just plain don't want to go there.
To deny that is to deny the essence of what we truly are: animals. You can try to promote yourself as a higher being, but really, that is more damaging than all of the nude women could ever accomplish, if damaging men was their goal.
Well, I'd like to think that that cereberal cortex of ours makes us unique. Your rebuttal suggests that we are more than animals. We don't drop our drawers at the first hint of pheromones in the air.
You need to study history just a touch more. Find 2 points through history where homosexuality was not just accepted, but openly promoted. Go ahead, it's a good excercise.
You don't understand my point--it's that my view that pornography is wrong is not tolerated by others who claim to promote more tolerance.
Your morals are imaginary. Just like mine are.
First of all, you had mispelt 'where.'
That's an unscientific statement; your morals may very well be "true." In a certain sense, the idea that morals can "exist" is very easy to verify--what validates them is entirely different. The Judeo-Christian perspective (I believe this includes Islam) is that if something is "wrong" it will have a negative consequence on the perpetrator. Of course, we'd have a difficult time agreeing on what consequences can be considered "negative," so there really is no point in going down this road.
Besides, if our morals are imaginary, is not love then imaginary also? In the same way we supposedly choose a set of standards to live by, do we not then agree upon a set of standards to live by with our spouses? Isn't this agreement just as arbitrary as our morals?
What makes the decision to jerk off to porn any different than the decision to engange in adultery? You've still made another woman the object of your sexual desire--hence any pretension that sex is somehow a binding factor in such a marriage ought to be dropped. In a sense, in this case one chooses to put sexual desires above one's spouse.
You can do as you will, but I'm going to try for a marriage that is based on a more binding contract--because without room for difficulty and sacrifice, there is no room for love.
If you think it should not be done, then perhaps people should not be allowed to do it.
You'll find it re-assuring that I completely disagree with that line of reasoning that is so common today among moralists.
I'm more of a libertarian here--what is legal isn't necessarily acceptable, and you can't create a moral society through legislation. I personally believe that if a society loses it's moral foundation (as was the case with the Greeks, the Romans, and many other empires), it loses the threads that bind it together.
I don't like legislated morality, and this smacks of such to me.
I hate this kind of legislated morality. If I genuinely wanted you to change because what you were doing was harmful, then legislation would just get in the way of an honest debate.
I honestly don't see what damage I'm doing to men: I'd like to debate the point, but I need something to go on.
I attribute rising divorce rates and broken marriages (which are quite damaging to the children) to sexual infidelity, and I make no distinction between actually carrying out infidelity and imagining yourself in the act. Furthermore, I think whetting your appetite, so to speak, before beginning the big responsibility of starting a family hurts that families chances.
I also think that constantly feeding sexual desires makes us crave it more and more. If I try and eat with abandon, I'll maybe eat for two, but sex is something that we never really get tired of for any meaningful amount of time.
Anyways, I find you much more interesting and thoughtful than people I agree with on this. I'm sort of wierd in that I enjoy talking to people with different opinions more than ones with similar opinions.
Someone who is raised completely alone, completely ignored, tends to have a whole slew of problems.
I agree there. I'm talking about a different kind of attention-getting--where the attention-getting is a means of self validation, not a motive for social gathering and entertainment.
The only people who'd only see my genitals are those who would consume any images produced and not know me. My friends could care less what I do, though some appreciate that side of me as well. People who think less of me for doing this are not the kind of people I really want in my life, anyway. There are many caring, accepting people around I'd rather spend time with.
I agree with this somewhat, but I feel that humans have a certain obligation to produce sometihng useful for society. Call it the open-sourcer in me, I even go so far as to think this need to "add something to the table" is part of our psyche. When we add our naked flesh to be devoured by others who are almost devolving into lower forms of life by being consumed by lust, we're not giving anything useful.
Pornography has a base and cheap feel to me. I wish there were no demand for it. I wish we could exist together without glorifying sex so much--it gets in the way. That's not to think that I feel sex is bad--on the contrary, I think sex is wonderful, when it's not exploited.
I'll admit to a huge bias here. But I know the way I work. It is exceedingly difficult to even speak about sex in an adult manner without occasionally straying to more impure thoughts. You see, I'm no better than the next guy--and it's because of my own experiences with sexuality that I think "man, I know these other guys looking at porn all the time are just as bad as me--so I know it's doing them harm." It would be doing me harm if I looked at porn.
I don't think they've ever expanded my mind or body =)
I agree that not everything we do needs to have lasting benefit. What we do to earn money should, however.
I have hobbies, and my hobbies can help me grow regardless of my day job.
Hobbies seldom provide lasting benefit to others. I love watching movies, but no one is the better for it.
I'm not here to convince you that yo
Technically a constructure worker rents his body as well. I rent my brain out every day I go to work. This is life. So if a woman rents her body and provides a service in, say, a Wal Mart checkout it's okay, but if she does it in a bed it isn't? Who says?
I think you're talking about legality--in this case, I think I agree with you. We'll never approach an agreement here. There are folks that don't even think a midriff should be shown in a movie--I'd be hard-pressed to let them decide what can get put into a movie.
So because we have no chance at agreeing upon standards for acceptible sexual conduct, we'll have to settle for anything consentual. My point is that I believe that posing naked is destructive to the poser, and the viewer. You don't have to accept it, I'm just disagreeing with someone else's post.
Can it be proven that selling sex is inherently self destructive?
It's not a strictly scientific claim from a logical positivist perspective, but a case can certainly be made to suggest it. I think a famous sexual predator was quoted as saying something like in jail, there wasn't a single sex offender that wasn't a frequent viewer of pornography.
Porn changes us when we view it, and it changes us when we're part of it. The extent to which it does, and whether or not the effects are good or bad, is open for debate. And certainly the degradation of women is almost a requirement in much pornography
So if that's what you think, never having been one, and someone who has been one swears it's not true. what is the reality?
The woman who has posed naked has certainly not become a sex object--she didn't charge, and she doesn't do it regularly.
You wont admit they're right, because you are comitted to the idea that (at the very least) they can't tell, or more likely wont admit, that they have been damaged.
Sure--I can't fathom how selling your body out for cash won't damage you. I'm not making a case for women that casually pose naked for the 'thrill' of it. I'm talking about women that pose naked as their primary source of income. Do you really believe that it doesn't harm them?
Resign yourself: It's impossible to know for sure. You speak with no weight of authority, none of us do. We can only cite specific cases back and forth until we get tired and go home.
You're right--I'm certainly no expert here. And I'll even concede that it's possible that posing naked is completely harmless. However, this seems unlikely to me, and I don't think my reasons for thinking that it is harmful are totally off base.
I'll resign myself if you concede that because none of us speak with authority, none of us knows whether or not a life of pseude-prostitution is acutally harmful. In which case, the original parent that I was rebutting, who claimed that there is nothing wrong with posing naked, is equally baseless.
If we're all going to settle for ignorance, then we should at least have a desire to investigate this further before we view more porn. It could be the case that these women are living in hell right now, and that by purchasing porn that they're part of, we're perpetuating that living hell. This kind possibility deserves some kind of consideration.
In the end, I'll just get labeled a moralist that wants to impose my views of right and wrong on everyone else.
My political belief is that porn ought not be illegal, at least at the federal level. Not even child porn.
It's a sign of sad times when we take philisophical ideas and make them into political ones. What is legal isn't necessarily acceptable.
I guess there are just a lot of moralists out there who want to impose their morality on us through legislation that we get jumpy when we hear anyone speak of moral absolutes.
I have (for no fee other than copies of the images) volunteered as a nude model in a class run by a professional photographer before. Did it improve my sense of self-worth that I was accepted? Of course. Is my sense of self-worth dependent on it? Hell no. I own my body and my sexuality, and I don't see any reason why I should limit myself in that regard by what someone else thinks is right. There is nothing better about using my body to sell fast food or my brain to write code than using my image to produce something people like to look at, in whatever state of dress or undress.
I definately think it would be a crime to humanity if you used your body to shovel fries. However, I'm going to ask you to more deeply question your motives for why you liked getting accepted by the photographer.
I'll concede that you're self worth isn't dependent upon you being considered sexually attractive when naked, but you don't do this for a living. If all you provided the world was pictures of your genitals, I think a lot of things would change.
I own my body and my sexuality, and I don't see any reason why I should limit myself in that regard by what someone else thinks is right.
And you don't have to. I'm just saying I think posing naked is wrong. Forget any damage it does to you, think of what it does to men--there may be much more to you than your sexuality, but if you were to begin earning all your income by posing naked, I think you would find that those other parts of you seem to come out less and less--and certainly not many people would even care about them. My claim for damaging the poser stems from this--when all they see is your genitals, when all they care about is your naked body, who cares about you?
I don't think your case refutes my point because you just don't do this enough. While I do think that posing naked has probably had a malignant side effect, that's really something you'll have to wrestle with. Of course I think you've already pigeon-holed me, so I don't expect anything other than a reaction like "this guy is an arrogant jerk."
Often times I accept the premise that I disagree with in order to entertain it's plausibility for a second. Suppose posing naked is a reflection of deeper sexual issues. Would it be more helpful if you genuinely considered the possibility rather than label me a self-richeous hypocrite and not consider it? The only things at stake here are my pride and your mental well being. I'll tell you right now my pride isn't that valuable to me.
Of course I enjoy the attention. I also enjoy the attention when I play a game or dance. Humans are gregarious creatures. I simply can't see what's wrong with that.
I know women (and men) that often strive to get attention from others, and it's usually a sign of low self esteem, and become the center of attention to compensate. I'm not going to pretend to know you well enough to say that this is the case, but I'm not going to concede that all humans are attention-getters, and that attention-getting is a healthy and normal thing. Normal, maybe, but healthy, no.
Hi! Welcome to Slashdot! You don't know me, I don't know you, and yet you are still posting, an act that assumes that strangers are going to give you attention. How does your self worth feel today?
This is (somewhat) rational discussion--a process by which humans grow.
I'm not asking you to look at these pictures. I'm not asking you to want your daughter to pose. I'm asking you to respect me, my independance, my choices, and not try to protect me from the icky, scary men out there. Or from myself. Thank you.
I'm not trying to control you. People have this immature opinion these days that anyone trying to suggest that something they do is wrong is trying to control them. I have no desire to do that. This is like the teenager who defends a drug habit by accusing his parents of wanting to control every aspect of the teenager's life, when really they're just concerned
Sexual boundaries, or boundaries in relation to any topic is subjective to the individual. For you to make a blanket statement asserting that your view is more correct or moral is quite selfish. For some, it's a way to pay the bills, for others, it's the experience of it all. How is selling images of your naked body fundamentally any different than selling images of landscapes? Both are natural, both are beautiful.
Am I making a blanket statement that my view is more correct? In my view, I'm simply showing why myself and others can legitimately have problems with women posing naked.
Moral absolutes exist everywhere, in every clique. You've made this point without realising that you were shooting down your own argument.
At what point did my argument become a request to change? Meaning, I think it is you that have assumed that I'm trying to bring other people to accept my moral standards. I'm really not--just trying to demonstrate that there are perfectly good reasons for thinking that it is wrong to pose naked.
Personally, I enjoy sex without emotional context on some occasions. It doesn't mean that I am incapable of conveying and nurturing more connected sexual relations. It is also neither necessarily disrespectful nor illegal. Thus drawing a comparison with your emotional boundary to the boundary of pedarasty and necrophilia is ridiculous.
It is only ridiculous if your enjoyment of sex without emotional context is clearly not perverse. While I have nothing against you as an individual, I personally think that this kind of sex is perverse. I'm sure you could find a thousand and one things I don't do quite right if you knew even the least bit about me.
I agree that there's a diffence between consentual, meaningless sex, and nonconsentual, meaningless sex, and of the two, I'd prefer consentual, but that doesn't mean that my view that meaningless sex is wrong is out of the question.
Again, I'm not asking you to rally behind my flag here, just showing that I am no less rational for taking my position.
Are you saying that artists, musicians and actors, whose professions by definition is soliciting strangers, have serious psychological problems? More so than your average person? Art of any kind only becomes such when it is exposed to others to create an impression or evoke an emotion. It can't be art until that has happened.
I should have put the word 'sexual' in front of attention. The problem I have here is trying to get people horny watching you naked.
People also work at McDonald's. I highly doubt that many of them were fulfilling any sort of long-term goal by doing so. It's simple, some people like doing what they do and others don't. Act upon it.
Oh I completely agree. I just don't think these women that pose naked really want to be doing what they're doing.
If they have a deep-instilled, genuine desire to be the jerk-off material for men they don't know, then hey, I'm powerless to stop them. But I just don't think that's the case.
Again, I'm not telling everyone else why they should throw away their porn stash, or wipe out their hard drives--I'm just refuting the statement that there isn't anything wrong with posing naked. I have a serious problem with it, and I'm only trying to get people to say "O.K. I can respect this guys opinion--it does kind of make sense that someone would think posing naked is wrong."