Oh, they do. It can be fixed by an unrelated checkin (or even a related checkin, with work going on in another bug.) From the user's perspective, the bug just disappear.
Often the bug is still there, it's just happens in slightly different circumstances. Overflow bugs are notorious for this, and memory access bugs are worse.
And you ignored the different libraries issue. Sure, it runs on your RedHat box, running glibc 2.2, but the slightly non-standard function calls break on glibc 2.3, which is what my Debian box is running. Or vice versa - it runs fine on your system running glibc 2.3, but does nasty things on a system running glibc 2.1.
In my experience, such a head-in-the-sand attitude is very rare;
I have to disagree. I'm not claiming that there are many developers who ignore all bugs; but I've met several who are more then willing to glance at the bug, make a half-assed attempt at replicating it, say "I know that code works" and go on without ever really checking out the problem. Or worse, "it works right if you use it right" ignoring the fact that it's not fault-tolerant and that the way to use it right is nowhere documented.
I refute that accusation. Having reread the document, there's nothing there that I would call rude.
A paraphrase from the document:
Is there a spellchecker for Mozilla?
Yes, it's between the keyboard and the chair.
Maybe rude's a little strong, but it's not blunt (blunt would "No.") and it immediately gives the reader the idea you don't give a damn and you wish he would just go the f*** away. You say you was intended as a clue-stick, instead of a public document, but a clue-stick is not funny, and it tends to drive away bystanders.
They will be glad to pick it up from your home for free with thankful eyes and faces.
Right. Someone talked Project Gutenberg into accepting a bunch of Pentium Pro 133s. Any one associated with the project can get one for the price of shipping. Last newsletter, the guy was begging for his basement back.
The first thing any slashdotter is going to do is strip the old computer for stuff that's going in the new computer (video card, hard drive, exotic hardware). Given that, who really needs another junk machine? It costs $15 for them to have it hauled off, just like you.
The Spell Checker FAQ was the result of a frankly ridiculous amount of the behaviour decried in the Etiquette document. Rather than be rude to users, we attempted to use humour to make our point.
But it wasn't humorous; it was increadibly rude to your users. Treat everyone like they're jerks, and you'll find that people don't want to work with you. Why would I want to develop a spellchecker for Mozilla; after all, after that document, I feel you'd insult me and my spelling abilities and tell me to get lost.
It is; it often denotes that the bug has been fixed between the time it was reported and the time the QA person got to look
But it's often wrong. I once reported a bug "if I hit this tab, and then hit another tab real quick, the tabs will get out of sequence with the pages". It was basically closed as "works for me", and I later discovered that he hadn't even really looked at the problem, because he knew it worked (which it didn't). This, mind you, was with a developer I was working closely with, not a random off-the-street bug report.
"Works for me" also misses two other facts: your system is probably different from his system, and bugs don't just disappear. It's very easy for a undocumented dependency on a library version or some system (distro or OS) specific feature to creep in, and developers almost always use the latest and greatest version. Also, bugs don't just disappear; they have to be fixed. If you can respond that it was fixed in such and such patch, then you're probably all right; if nothing has happened to the appropriate code since Mozilla 0.6, then the bug was probably not fixed.
But developers on an open source project have no incentive to misclassify bugs in this way, because they have no obligation to fix them. So, simply ignoring a bug is a reasonable thing to do.
What about ego? No one likes a bunch of bugs on their code; it doesn't look good. This goes along with arrogance; I know my code works right, so why should I deeply inspect the bug report for something that was probably user error anyway? Just close it and go on.
a lot of euopean countries? name them. I can show you a map that has France, Gremany, Belgum, denmark, norway, sewden,greece, and finland as being anti-this war. the rest of europe is on our side. more than 2 times the amount against the war are for the war.
So every economic powerhouse in Europe besides England and Ireland are against the war. (I thought Russia - also a European nation - was against the war, too.) But the countries still trying to rebuild from the Cold War are on our side - woo hoo.
the Bible's individual books were largely the works of single authors, with little or no collaboration between authors across different books.
There may not have been collaboration, but each author was adding on to the writings of his predecessors.
I would bet that either: (1) The separate portions of the Kalevala are as disconnected as the books of the Bible (i.e., not a single narrative), or (2) Lönnrot changed the source texts significantly during his re-telling. In the first case you've again cheated by taping books together, while in the second case case the Kalevala is effectively the work of a single author.
I understand your point that multiple authors often spoil the book, and agree for a large part, but I feel you're begging the question here. There are three ways to make a printable multiple author work: intensive collaboration (used for one of the Wild Cards books, though I haven't read it and it'll never be required reading in English), and two ways you mentioned: making the seperate sections independent enough to not need extensive collaboration, or having one editor go back through with a heavy pen. The Old Testament does have one narrative: the story of the Jews from Creation to a fairly random cutoff before the exile. The Kalevala may have strong editing, but there's still the distinct work of many authors.
Project Gutenberg links: The Whole Family, a novel by twelve authors. Never read it, but on topic. The Kalevala in English translation. PG also has it in Finnish, but it was probably required reading in school if you speak Finnish.
The TRON project was started in 1984*, meaning they've been using the name for 15 years. If Nucleus wanted to press a claim, they would lose and possibly be countersued for trademark infringement, or just have the trademark lost as a generic term.
* http://tronweb.super-nova.co.jp/projecthistory.h tm l
Mentor, the makers of the real time operating system "Nucleus" (tm), would appear to have reasonable grounds for confusion with a product in the same market place "The Real Time Operating system Nucleus Linux" aka TRON-Linux.
TRON is a system that dates back at least to the early 80s. Nucleus - their website is obviously targeted for marketing droids - probably postdates it, making a trademark infringement suit pointless and possibly dangerous.
Also, Nucleus has little grounds for a trademark infringement suit with TRON - the N could be changed, as the system is always called TRON.
I challenge you to name a single book written by >3 people that doesn't suck, or to name a book written by >1 person that is a genuine classic.
The Bible. The Kalevala.
Re:Most math writers are terrible writers.
on
Imagining Numbers
·
· Score: 1
However, it wouldn't be this way if math writers were good writers. I have never seen a math book in which the author did all that could be done to make the subject clear. Maybe subconsciously they don't really want you to know what they know. Mathemeticians did not get into the field because they like people.
I think that's unfair to mathematicians; a lot of them may not be "people people", but that doesn't mean they dislike people; it means they don't understand the social behavior of people, and don't enjoy being around large groups of people (because they behave in a way that non-people people percive as irrational and scary), an entirely different matter.
I think the blame for unclear math books is fourfold. First, writing is a different skill from mathematics. Most good clear science works are written by tech writers, not by scientists. Secondly, when writing we tend follow the examples we have before us, especially those don't consider ourselves skilled writers. Thirdly, if we can write as clear a book as those who have come before us, no one will complain; if we totally change the rules and write in a whole new style, then someone might complain. Lastly, scholarly math is hard. You can't just omit the proofs, so large chunks of your book has to be taken up with complex material. Some may like Mandelbrot's "The Fractal Geometry of Nature", but from a mathematician (or computer scientists)'s point of view, it sucks, because it omits all the fine details. All that does not make for clear texts.
and for you, to bitch about a local school system's CHOICE (you know, 'choice', like abortion choice) in its curriculum and call it censorship borders on mental instability....
The history of 1st century AD Judea (for example) doesn't change based on where you are in the United States. But some states don't like the truth, so they would rather remove that part of the history, so their students never learn about it. Call it what you want, but it isn't for academic freedom and teaching children the truth.
Not when they're going to walk into a job and be expected to know Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Outlook
Like that's hard. Maybe if they expect you to be an expert in those programs, yes, but I did quite well on my Word and Excel tests for the temp agency having only touched those programs a couple of times.
I'd say it's a feminist issue rather than a religous issue,[...]american men have bad views of women, and I say that it is because of pornography.
I group these two together, because I think it shows a fundamental flaw in your thinking. It's not a feminist issue rather then a religious issue; it is both. I find it ludicrous, but a similar simplification, to say that something so superficial in our society has such a deep effect on male-female relations. It is but one part in a much, much larger chain of connections.
most men who view porn start at a very young age, so it's hard to see how their attitudes towards women change because of it
Even given that argument, you can still compare parts of society, and I don't think that the parts of society that deplore pornography would come up on top. Many, many obfusicating factors, but I think it clearly rules against pornography being the factor.
And just because they write it off to "man's inhumanity" doesn't mean that they don't think that it is, on some level, wrong,
Note that when I said "man's inhumanity" in was in reference to the some parts of the current production system; I doubt most of them find it fundamentally wrong.
we're probably better off making sure our sons and daughters don't wind up in some 12 second clip on Kazaa.
I would love for my future children to be the Nobel prize winners of the world; but should they end up making porn flicks, there's worse things they could be doing.
No offense. I'm not saying you're dumb. Probably, you've just never thought it.
I do take offense; I have thought about it, and your answer doesn't persuade in the least.
Non-religious people have morals, too, and pornography is a moral issue.
So is the eating of unclean animals, but most non-religious people continue to eat unclean animals. Everything is a moral issue to someone, but while that person or group may take issue with it, doesn't mean the larger world, or any subset thereof, takes issue with it.
Pornography is wrong (I mean the business, not looking at it here) and by viewing pornography, you're contributing to it, however slightly.
You can make that argument, but that doesn't mean that most atheists agree with it. Most of us would lump it (what part of it is true and not antedotal stores taken out of context) in with the sweatshops involved in the making of clothes and the racist, tyrannical regiemes involved in the making of gasoline, mumble something about man's inhumanity to man, and go on with our lives. And most of us would also argue that it's not endemic to the system, but just something that happens. If someone forces his wife to be a porn star, do you think she would be any better off if he didn't have that outlet?
But saying that pornography is mostly a religious issue is downright dumb.
The only friends of mine who have Playboy centerfolds hanging on the wall are Unitarian, and I understand tend towards pantheism when the question comes up. My highly Christian friends turn off wrestling when they start the lingere matches. [Cut other examples that I might share in personal discussion, but not here.] No matter what any one person believes, in my experiance, strong anti-pornography opinions are much more common in church going Christians.
Looking at pornography is a subtle form of adultery, whether you'd like to admit it or not.
That's argument by assertion. Some would argue that betrayal is the key point of adultery; then the question revolves around whether the spouse feels betrayed. Others would argue that sex is the key point of adultery; in which case, masturbation would be adultery, and looking at pornography in and of itself would not be adultery. Some would argue that lust is the key point of adultery, in which case pornography is but one part of the almost continous act of adultery most males commit.
In any case, this is all a definition game; you want to pin the tag "adultery" on pornography for the same reason illegal copying is called "pirating" - it makes it sound bad. It's not that we don't admit it; it's that we don't agree with the fundamental premise of the statement.
Are you suggesting that those rapists must have been punished for religious reasons, since all atheists condone pornography?
Honestly, how many atheists care about pornography? There's a small group of atheist feminists that believe it's wrong because it's exploative, but the vast majority don't care. But I've dealt with many, many Christians who believe that pornography is evil.
Or are you suggesting that people who believe in certain moral guidelines are more likely to violate those guidelines than people who don't believe in them?
How is punishing someone for viewing pornography a violation of Christan moral guidelines? "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is a viewpoint most associated with Christianity.
Mind you, the Iranians have talked of (US-backed) Saddam's horrors for a couple decades, and the (US-backed) Shah's horrors for a few decades before that. Who's been quick to admit that they were right all along?
I'd have to admit WHO was "right all along?"
Iran.
Additionally, these seem to be blanket accusations, with zero proof or citations
This was all reading in hardcopy. But any decent history of Iran in the twentyth century will document the Shah's secret police and the forced westernization of Iran by the Shah. Furthermore, I would have thought that Iraq's use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war was common knowledge; isn't that one of the reasons we're having this little dispute with Saddam, the fear he's got and plans to use more chemical weapons?
Not just a math mistake, it nullifies your argument. An "extra" 24 hrs in a week = more than 3 and a half more hours a day you can spend with your family.
An extra 24 hrs compared to what? I could have said that there was a fixed number of hours in the week, and made the same point.
And since when is 55 hrs/week so horrible? 8am-6:30pm, M-F is 53 hours right there.
Adding a half hour commute each way, you're getting up at 6:30am, getting home at 7:00 (too late for dinner with your family, unless they eat really late), probably too tired from work to spend quality time with your family and going to bed at 10:30 (for 8 hours of sleep), after spending three and a half hours with your wife and children. The type of dynamics that make a husband feel that his wife and children only think of him as a paycheck, and make wife and children think of father as a drag.
OT: Afterwards, when all the Iraqis talk of Saddam's horrors, no one will admit the US was right all along
Mind you, the Iranians have talked of (US-backed) Saddam's horrors for a couple decades, and the (US-backed) Shah's horrors for a few decades before that. Who's been quick to admit that they were right all along?
And twenty years later, when everyone's got a family, yours will be more well-off because you've got a much better job.
I've lived with both my parents, my father who worked 48 hours a week (once travel was added in) and made good money, and my mom and stepfather who worked part-time jobs making between okay wages to just above minimum wage. I know from first-hand experiance that just because you make more money, doesn't mean your family will be happier.
Do "good enough" work, get a mediocre, low-paying job, and be a wage slave for the rest of your life?
How about take work, like everything else, in moderation. Work as hard as you can at work, but when the workday is over, it's over. Work hard, but never forget to play just as hard.
And how is that a bad thing? No more shareware syndrome. Panic installing of random software is a sure fire way to hose your system. Experts know this, lusers don't.
And how exactly do you take 8 different programs to do the same thing and find the one that's best for you? The advantage of Debian for me is that I do it all the time, and it doesn't hose my system (which I understand most Linux and BSD distributions have also got down pat.)
Joe-sixpack windows (and mac) users are very prone to the shareware syndrome, _because_ it's do frigging easy to install random software.
Again, that's not a bad thing. When I hear jokes about "I'm going to make Windows stable by reinstalling Windows and only installing a few programs." and the other character stares while he installs ICQ, Winamp and a couple dozen other programs, it makes me shake my head. I can install all the programs I like in Linux without worrying about stability.
Slashdot Mirror
I was wondering if anyone could explain the logic behind protesting a war that is already started?
I guess all the Vietnam war protesters should have just gone home, too.
The reason why you weren't listened to is because you acted like a child, so was it any wonder that people figured you'd say childish things?
No, the reason you weren't listened to is because you were a child, and everyone jumped to the conclusion that what you said didn't matter.
Oh, they do. It can be fixed by an unrelated checkin (or even a related checkin, with work going on in another bug.) From the user's perspective, the bug just disappear.
Often the bug is still there, it's just happens in slightly different circumstances. Overflow bugs are notorious for this, and memory access bugs are worse.
And you ignored the different libraries issue. Sure, it runs on your RedHat box, running glibc 2.2, but the slightly non-standard function calls break on glibc 2.3, which is what my Debian box is running. Or vice versa - it runs fine on your system running glibc 2.3, but does nasty things on a system running glibc 2.1.
In my experience, such a head-in-the-sand attitude is very rare;
I have to disagree. I'm not claiming that there are many developers who ignore all bugs; but I've met several who are more then willing to glance at the bug, make a half-assed attempt at replicating it, say "I know that code works" and go on without ever really checking out the problem. Or worse, "it works right if you use it right" ignoring the fact that it's not fault-tolerant and that the way to use it right is nowhere documented.
I refute that accusation. Having reread the document, there's nothing there that I would call rude.
A paraphrase from the document:
Is there a spellchecker for Mozilla?
Yes, it's between the keyboard and the chair.
Maybe rude's a little strong, but it's not blunt (blunt would "No.") and it immediately gives the reader the idea you don't give a damn and you wish he would just go the f*** away. You say you was intended as a clue-stick, instead of a public document, but a clue-stick is not funny, and it tends to drive away bystanders.
They will be glad to pick it up from your home for free with thankful eyes and faces.
Right. Someone talked Project Gutenberg into accepting a bunch of Pentium Pro 133s. Any one associated with the project can get one for the price of shipping. Last newsletter, the guy was begging for his basement back.
The first thing any slashdotter is going to do is strip the old computer for stuff that's going in the new computer (video card, hard drive, exotic hardware). Given that, who really needs another junk machine? It costs $15 for them to have it hauled off, just like you.
The Spell Checker FAQ was the result of a frankly ridiculous amount of the behaviour decried in the Etiquette document. Rather than be rude to users, we attempted to use humour to make our point.
But it wasn't humorous; it was increadibly rude to your users. Treat everyone like they're jerks, and you'll find that people don't want to work with you. Why would I want to develop a spellchecker for Mozilla; after all, after that document, I feel you'd insult me and my spelling abilities and tell me to get lost.
"Works 4 ME!!" is not a problem resolution.
It is; it often denotes that the bug has been fixed between the time it was reported and the time the QA person got to look
But it's often wrong. I once reported a bug "if I hit this tab, and then hit another tab real quick, the tabs will get out of sequence with the pages". It was basically closed as "works for me", and I later discovered that he hadn't even really looked at the problem, because he knew it worked (which it didn't). This, mind you, was with a developer I was working closely with, not a random off-the-street bug report.
"Works for me" also misses two other facts: your system is probably different from his system, and bugs don't just disappear. It's very easy for a undocumented dependency on a library version or some system (distro or OS) specific feature to creep in, and developers almost always use the latest and greatest version. Also, bugs don't just disappear; they have to be fixed. If you can respond that it was fixed in such and such patch, then you're probably all right; if nothing has happened to the appropriate code since Mozilla 0.6, then the bug was probably not fixed.
But developers on an open source project have no incentive to misclassify bugs in this way, because they have no obligation to fix them. So, simply ignoring a bug is a reasonable thing to do.
What about ego? No one likes a bunch of bugs on their code; it doesn't look good. This goes along with arrogance; I know my code works right, so why should I deeply inspect the bug report for something that was probably user error anyway? Just close it and go on.
A good way to prevent spamming is to use javascript to generate your address
.)
But does it work for text-only browsers? (I know that doesn't really matter with your website, but still . .
a lot of euopean countries? name them. I can show you a map that has France, Gremany, Belgum, denmark, norway, sewden,greece, and finland as being anti-this war. the rest of europe is on our side. more than 2 times the amount against the war are for the war.
So every economic powerhouse in Europe besides England and Ireland are against the war. (I thought Russia - also a European nation - was against the war, too.) But the countries still trying to rebuild from the Cold War are on our side - woo hoo.
the Bible's individual books were largely the works of single authors, with little or no collaboration between authors across different books.
There may not have been collaboration, but each author was adding on to the writings of his predecessors.
I would bet that either: (1) The separate portions of the Kalevala are as disconnected as the books of the Bible (i.e., not a single narrative), or (2) Lönnrot changed the source texts significantly during his re-telling. In the first case you've again cheated by taping books together, while in the second case case the Kalevala is effectively the work of a single author.
I understand your point that multiple authors often spoil the book, and agree for a large part, but I feel you're begging the question here. There are three ways to make a printable multiple author work: intensive collaboration (used for one of the Wild Cards books, though I haven't read it and it'll never be required reading in English), and two ways you mentioned: making the seperate sections independent enough to not need extensive collaboration, or having one editor go back through with a heavy pen. The Old Testament does have one narrative: the story of the Jews from Creation to a fairly random cutoff before the exile. The Kalevala may have strong editing, but there's still the distinct work of many authors.
Project Gutenberg links:
The Whole Family, a novel by twelve authors. Never read it, but on topic.
The Kalevala in English translation. PG also has it in Finnish, but it was probably required reading in school if you speak Finnish.
The TRON project was started in 1984*, meaning they've been using the name for 15 years. If Nucleus wanted to press a claim, they would lose and possibly be countersued for trademark infringement, or just have the trademark lost as a generic term.
h tm l
*
http://tronweb.super-nova.co.jp/projecthistory.
Mentor, the makers of the real time operating system "Nucleus" (tm), would appear to have reasonable grounds for confusion with a product in the same market place "The Real Time Operating system Nucleus Linux" aka TRON-Linux.
TRON is a system that dates back at least to the early 80s. Nucleus - their website is obviously targeted for marketing droids - probably postdates it, making a trademark infringement suit pointless and possibly dangerous.
Also, Nucleus has little grounds for a trademark infringement suit with TRON - the N could be changed, as the system is always called TRON.
I challenge you to name a single book written by >3 people that doesn't suck, or to name a book written by >1 person that is a genuine classic.
The Bible. The Kalevala.
However, it wouldn't be this way if math writers were good writers. I have never seen a math book in which the author did all that could be done to make the subject clear. Maybe subconsciously they don't really want you to know what they know. Mathemeticians did not get into the field because they like people.
I think that's unfair to mathematicians; a lot of them may not be "people people", but that doesn't mean they dislike people; it means they don't understand the social behavior of people, and don't enjoy being around large groups of people (because they behave in a way that non-people people percive as irrational and scary), an entirely different matter.
I think the blame for unclear math books is fourfold. First, writing is a different skill from mathematics. Most good clear science works are written by tech writers, not by scientists. Secondly, when writing we tend follow the examples we have before us, especially those don't consider ourselves skilled writers. Thirdly, if we can write as clear a book as those who have come before us, no one will complain; if we totally change the rules and write in a whole new style, then someone might complain. Lastly, scholarly math is hard. You can't just omit the proofs, so large chunks of your book has to be taken up with complex material. Some may like Mandelbrot's "The Fractal Geometry of Nature", but from a mathematician (or computer scientists)'s point of view, it sucks, because it omits all the fine details. All that does not make for clear texts.
and for you, to bitch about a local school system's CHOICE (you know, 'choice', like abortion choice) in its curriculum and call it censorship borders on mental instability....
The history of 1st century AD Judea (for example) doesn't change based on where you are in the United States. But some states don't like the truth, so they would rather remove that part of the history, so their students never learn about it. Call it what you want, but it isn't for academic freedom and teaching children the truth.
Not when they're going to walk into a job and be expected to know Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Outlook
Like that's hard. Maybe if they expect you to be an expert in those programs, yes, but I did quite well on my Word and Excel tests for the temp agency having only touched those programs a couple of times.
I'd say it's a feminist issue rather than a religous issue,[...]american men have bad views of women, and I say that it is because of pornography.
I group these two together, because I think it shows a fundamental flaw in your thinking. It's not a feminist issue rather then a religious issue; it is both. I find it ludicrous, but a similar simplification, to say that something so superficial in our society has such a deep effect on male-female relations. It is but one part in a much, much larger chain of connections.
most men who view porn start at a very young age, so it's hard to see how their attitudes towards women change because of it
Even given that argument, you can still compare parts of society, and I don't think that the parts of society that deplore pornography would come up on top. Many, many obfusicating factors, but I think it clearly rules against pornography being the factor.
And just because they write it off to "man's inhumanity" doesn't mean that they don't think that it is, on some level, wrong,
Note that when I said "man's inhumanity" in was in reference to the some parts of the current production system; I doubt most of them find it fundamentally wrong.
we're probably better off making sure our sons and daughters don't wind up in some 12 second clip on Kazaa.
I would love for my future children to be the Nobel prize winners of the world; but should they end up making porn flicks, there's worse things they could be doing.
No offense. I'm not saying you're dumb. Probably, you've just never thought it.
I do take offense; I have thought about it, and your answer doesn't persuade in the least.
Non-religious people have morals, too, and pornography is a moral issue.
So is the eating of unclean animals, but most non-religious people continue to eat unclean animals. Everything is a moral issue to someone, but while that person or group may take issue with it, doesn't mean the larger world, or any subset thereof, takes issue with it.
Pornography is wrong (I mean the business, not looking at it here) and by viewing pornography, you're contributing to it, however slightly.
You can make that argument, but that doesn't mean that most atheists agree with it. Most of us would lump it (what part of it is true and not antedotal stores taken out of context) in with the sweatshops involved in the making of clothes and the racist, tyrannical regiemes involved in the making of gasoline, mumble something about man's inhumanity to man, and go on with our lives. And most of us would also argue that it's not endemic to the system, but just something that happens. If someone forces his wife to be a porn star, do you think she would be any better off if he didn't have that outlet?
But saying that pornography is mostly a religious issue is downright dumb.
The only friends of mine who have Playboy centerfolds hanging on the wall are Unitarian, and I understand tend towards pantheism when the question comes up. My highly Christian friends turn off wrestling when they start the lingere matches. [Cut other examples that I might share in personal discussion, but not here.] No matter what any one person believes, in my experiance, strong anti-pornography opinions are much more common in church going Christians.
Looking at pornography is a subtle form of adultery, whether you'd like to admit it or not.
That's argument by assertion. Some would argue that betrayal is the key point of adultery; then the question revolves around whether the spouse feels betrayed. Others would argue that sex is the key point of adultery; in which case, masturbation would be adultery, and looking at pornography in and of itself would not be adultery. Some would argue that lust is the key point of adultery, in which case pornography is but one part of the almost continous act of adultery most males commit.
In any case, this is all a definition game; you want to pin the tag "adultery" on pornography for the same reason illegal copying is called "pirating" - it makes it sound bad. It's not that we don't admit it; it's that we don't agree with the fundamental premise of the statement.
Are you suggesting that those rapists must have been punished for religious reasons, since all atheists condone pornography?
Honestly, how many atheists care about pornography? There's a small group of atheist feminists that believe it's wrong because it's exploative, but the vast majority don't care. But I've dealt with many, many Christians who believe that pornography is evil.
Or are you suggesting that people who believe in certain moral guidelines are more likely to violate those guidelines than people who don't believe in them?
How is punishing someone for viewing pornography a violation of Christan moral guidelines? "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is a viewpoint most associated with Christianity.
Mind you, the Iranians have talked of (US-backed) Saddam's horrors for a couple decades, and the (US-backed) Shah's horrors for a few decades before that. Who's been quick to admit that they were right all along?
I'd have to admit WHO was "right all along?"
Iran.
Additionally, these seem to be blanket accusations, with zero proof or citations
This was all reading in hardcopy. But any decent history of Iran in the twentyth century will document the Shah's secret police and the forced westernization of Iran by the Shah. Furthermore, I would have thought that Iraq's use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war was common knowledge; isn't that one of the reasons we're having this little dispute with Saddam, the fear he's got and plans to use more chemical weapons?
Not just a math mistake, it nullifies your argument. An "extra" 24 hrs in a week = more than 3 and a half more hours a day you can spend with your family.
An extra 24 hrs compared to what? I could have said that there was a fixed number of hours in the week, and made the same point.
And since when is 55 hrs/week so horrible? 8am-6:30pm, M-F is 53 hours right there.
Adding a half hour commute each way, you're getting up at 6:30am, getting home at 7:00 (too late for dinner with your family, unless they eat really late), probably too tired from work to spend quality time with your family and going to bed at 10:30 (for 8 hours of sleep), after spending three and a half hours with your wife and children. The type of dynamics that make a husband feel that his wife and children only think of him as a paycheck, and make wife and children think of father as a drag.
OT: Afterwards, when all the Iraqis talk of Saddam's horrors, no one will admit the US was right all along
Mind you, the Iranians have talked of (US-backed) Saddam's horrors for a couple decades, and the (US-backed) Shah's horrors for a few decades before that. Who's been quick to admit that they were right all along?
Wow, sucks to be you. I've been managing to squeeze about 168 hours of activities (including sleep) out of each of my weeks for most of my life :P.
And gee, you're the fourth person (third at score 2) to point out that I made a simple math mistake.
And twenty years later, when everyone's got a family, yours will be more well-off because you've got a much better job.
I've lived with both my parents, my father who worked 48 hours a week (once travel was added in) and made good money, and my mom and stepfather who worked part-time jobs making between okay wages to just above minimum wage. I know from first-hand experiance that just because you make more money, doesn't mean your family will be happier.
Do "good enough" work, get a mediocre, low-paying job, and be a wage slave for the rest of your life?
How about take work, like everything else, in moderation. Work as hard as you can at work, but when the workday is over, it's over. Work hard, but never forget to play just as hard.
And how is that a bad thing? No more shareware syndrome. Panic installing of random software is a sure fire way to hose your system. Experts know this, lusers don't.
And how exactly do you take 8 different programs to do the same thing and find the one that's best for you? The advantage of Debian for me is that I do it all the time, and it doesn't hose my system (which I understand most Linux and BSD distributions have also got down pat.)
Joe-sixpack windows (and mac) users are very prone to the shareware syndrome, _because_ it's do frigging easy to install random software.
Again, that's not a bad thing. When I hear jokes about "I'm going to make Windows stable by reinstalling Windows and only installing a few programs." and the other character stares while he installs ICQ, Winamp and a couple dozen other programs, it makes me shake my head. I can install all the programs I like in Linux without worrying about stability.