I use CSS encryption for all my privacy needs. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that it would be illegal for me to provide you the software code that breaks it.
Many people I know buy a new computer because of all the spyware and adware on their old one. (No, don't hit reply, yes they should be installing Linux on their old boxes instead.) I wonder what will happen to Microsoft's profits if they were ever to win the battle against malware?
As an aside, I have never had trouble keeping my Windows XP box malware clean (I've been running XP since it came out). I run a spyware/anti-virus check every so often that never picks anything up except false positives. The secret to it is keeping your machine updated, not clicking OK to dodgy messages from websites, and not clicking on attachments.
The second article appeared in The Spectator, like I said. That's where I read it. The Catholic website is just the place where it's free online. You've really got to have a grudge against Catholics if you won't take a free link from them. City Journal, where the other article appears, is also a completely secular website.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that there are any mainstream Christians claiming that sex is evil. None since Origen, certainly. I happen to be an atheist, and I don't think that sex is evil. I know that Scruton doesn't. As far as sexual mores go, I see a lot of similarity between Christians and non-Christians. The biggest cultural differences are between the polygamous parts of the world and the monogamous parts of the world. As Sir Richard Burton says, that's mainly a function of climate. The non-monogamous parts of the world tend to have more serious strictures against sex outside of marriage, and fathers are expected to do more. The polygamous, mainly tropical, parts of the world tend to have less serious strictures against sex outside of marriage, and fathers are expected to do less. Those are the main outlines of sexual morality, not any of this Christian versus non-Christian crap.
Which type of sex suits your psychology, polygamous mating patterns versus monogamous mating patterns, probably depends more on genes than on culture.
As far as judging other people goes, check out the philosopher Roger Scruton's article Bring back Stigma in City Journal. He also has another good article Shameless and Loveless that appeared in the Spectator.
I wasn't clear with my statement. You read into it a meaning that I didn't mean to give. By "you're right, it's a bad thing that should be avoided," I did not mean "you're right that it's a bad thing that should be avoided." I meant "you're right; it's a bad thing that should be avoided." The first interpretation is obviously a logical fallacy, therefore I assumed that you would take the second as my meaning.
You're right, it's a bad thing that should be avoided. Teaching our children that sex is meaningless through the media we feed them is a bad thing too.
There are certainly exceptions to my statement about what makes people happy. Perhaps within a population they are on the order of < 2%-3%. And a good portion of the population, maybe 10% or so, simply can't be happy for anything.
There probably is an extension. The one I was able to find hadn't been updated in some time and didn't work with the last few releases, but I didn't scour the extensions page. I could probably find something if I were interested in using this myself.
Saying "that doesn't matter, it's fixed by an extension" is one of the big problems with Firefox. This is a basic usability issue. Is it going to be fixed in the browser itself, or will it get shuffled off into extension-land where it has to depend on some random maintainer fixing it for every new release of Firefox? I see "there's an extension for that" way too often in response to Firefox usability issues. It's holding back innovation.
I've spent the morning reading WONTFIX bugs on the Firefox text zoom issue. I'm feeling down on the browser just now.
There is no good option for making text zoom permanent if you have bad eyes. You can kludge by zooming default fonts and then disabling everything else in CSS.
The people working on Firefox are not interested in fixing this because "text zoom breaks page layouts." The fix that they've decided on, which may or may not come someday, is a page zoom feature that zooms everything. (Raise your hand if you love sideways scrolling.)
I am amazed at the lack of consideration for people with bad eyes -- it's not a small number of people either. Mozilla composer bends over backwards to enforce alt tags for images, but when it comes to usability nobody cares.
Maybe we'll start to see some consideration of this sort of thing once the average age of open source coders hits 50 and they find themselves having to squint more often.
That's probably why prostitutes are such happy creatures.
I hope that most of the people replying to this thread don't have children -- in fact I know they don't -- they'd have a different attitude if they did. The morality they're preaching is fine for 17-year-old boys, but it's no good for anybody else.
You say "there is nothing wrong with sex." That's true. There's nothing wrong with buying a home either. But there are consequences to both. It's very easy to hurt yourself with sex. What is far worse is that, especially for guys, it is very easy to hurt other people with sex. It is easy for guys to assume that women think about sex and relationships pretty much the same way they do. They're wrong.
In the past, I have wound up hurting girls that I have been in relationships with. I regret it more than anything else in my life. I thought of the sex as meaningless, they didn't. A girl, unless she has been seriously damaged, does not think that way. She might tell you that she does, but she's lying.
I wouldn't be very persuasive if I argued that sexual morality is just a way to avoid hurting other people. I also think that it's a bedrock condition to a fulfilling life. I am fairly sure that being faithful to one person and building a family is what happiness is all about. You can run around when you're younger, but it messes you up for the time when you realize that you need get started on something meaningful. And again, it messes girls up more than guys.
Anyone who doesn't think it's obvious is fairly stupid. Murder is rare. There have been a million studies that have failed to find a connection between violence in the media and real life violence. Sex isn't rare. Attitudes about sex are strongly influenced by culture.
This is the best example of the difference between the Linux/OSS philosophy and the Microsoft philosophy. Microsoft takes great care to make sure that upgrades don't break anything 95% of the time. In OSS, it's all about choice. You can configure your browser with a billion extensions, but good luck upgrading. The two philosophies are mostly incompatible.
Which is better? I don't know. I use some of each. I'm running Firefox on an XP box right now. But I use Cygwin for remote applications from a Linux box. (It would be nice if a full Gnome X-session would work across my LAN. Slow as molasses. I'd give a lot for something like Remote Desktop in Linux.)
You make my point. The patent system is about disclosing secrets, because secrets are bad for capitalism. Patents are s a hack to get the free market to work better. The hack even half-works some of the time.
Of course, if it's all about investment, there are lots of ways to spur investment. Investors love whenever they can legally lock down anything. Process patents are a great example. Government needs to resist this sort of thing though. It's not worth limiting competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a problem.
Maybe you can explain to me why Japan is the only place in the world that needs female-only commuter trains.
Before positing Japan as the beacon of enlightened thought on sex, do a Google search for something called "Enjo Kosai."
I use CSS encryption for all my privacy needs. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that it would be illegal for me to provide you the software code that breaks it.
Many people I know buy a new computer because of all the spyware and adware on their old one. (No, don't hit reply, yes they should be installing Linux on their old boxes instead.) I wonder what will happen to Microsoft's profits if they were ever to win the battle against malware?
As an aside, I have never had trouble keeping my Windows XP box malware clean (I've been running XP since it came out). I run a spyware/anti-virus check every so often that never picks anything up except false positives. The secret to it is keeping your machine updated, not clicking OK to dodgy messages from websites, and not clicking on attachments.
The second article appeared in The Spectator, like I said. That's where I read it. The Catholic website is just the place where it's free online. You've really got to have a grudge against Catholics if you won't take a free link from them. City Journal, where the other article appears, is also a completely secular website.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that there are any mainstream Christians claiming that sex is evil. None since Origen, certainly. I happen to be an atheist, and I don't think that sex is evil. I know that Scruton doesn't. As far as sexual mores go, I see a lot of similarity between Christians and non-Christians. The biggest cultural differences are between the polygamous parts of the world and the monogamous parts of the world. As Sir Richard Burton says, that's mainly a function of climate. The non-monogamous parts of the world tend to have more serious strictures against sex outside of marriage, and fathers are expected to do more. The polygamous, mainly tropical, parts of the world tend to have less serious strictures against sex outside of marriage, and fathers are expected to do less. Those are the main outlines of sexual morality, not any of this Christian versus non-Christian crap.
Which type of sex suits your psychology, polygamous mating patterns versus monogamous mating patterns, probably depends more on genes than on culture.
Beethoven goes better with the old Ultra Violence. You have to listen to Helter Skelter for 24 hours to get the same effect.
As far as judging other people goes, check out the philosopher Roger Scruton's article Bring back Stigma in City Journal. He also has another good article Shameless and Loveless that appeared in the Spectator.
I wasn't clear with my statement. You read into it a meaning that I didn't mean to give. By "you're right, it's a bad thing that should be avoided," I did not mean "you're right that it's a bad thing that should be avoided." I meant "you're right; it's a bad thing that should be avoided." The first interpretation is obviously a logical fallacy, therefore I assumed that you would take the second as my meaning.
Not everyone has "meaningless sex."
You're right, it's a bad thing that should be avoided. Teaching our children that sex is meaningless through the media we feed them is a bad thing too.
There are certainly exceptions to my statement about what makes people happy. Perhaps within a population they are on the order of < 2%-3%. And a good portion of the population, maybe 10% or so, simply can't be happy for anything.
There probably is an extension. The one I was able to find hadn't been updated in some time and didn't work with the last few releases, but I didn't scour the extensions page. I could probably find something if I were interested in using this myself.
Saying "that doesn't matter, it's fixed by an extension" is one of the big problems with Firefox. This is a basic usability issue. Is it going to be fixed in the browser itself, or will it get shuffled off into extension-land where it has to depend on some random maintainer fixing it for every new release of Firefox? I see "there's an extension for that" way too often in response to Firefox usability issues. It's holding back innovation.
I've spent the morning reading WONTFIX bugs on the Firefox text zoom issue. I'm feeling down on the browser just now.
There is no good option for making text zoom permanent if you have bad eyes. You can kludge by zooming default fonts and then disabling everything else in CSS.
The people working on Firefox are not interested in fixing this because "text zoom breaks page layouts." The fix that they've decided on, which may or may not come someday, is a page zoom feature that zooms everything. (Raise your hand if you love sideways scrolling.)
I am amazed at the lack of consideration for people with bad eyes -- it's not a small number of people either. Mozilla composer bends over backwards to enforce alt tags for images, but when it comes to usability nobody cares.
Maybe we'll start to see some consideration of this sort of thing once the average age of open source coders hits 50 and they find themselves having to squint more often.
That's probably why prostitutes are such happy creatures.
I hope that most of the people replying to this thread don't have children -- in fact I know they don't -- they'd have a different attitude if they did. The morality they're preaching is fine for 17-year-old boys, but it's no good for anybody else.
You say "there is nothing wrong with sex." That's true. There's nothing wrong with buying a home either. But there are consequences to both. It's very easy to hurt yourself with sex. What is far worse is that, especially for guys, it is very easy to hurt other people with sex. It is easy for guys to assume that women think about sex and relationships pretty much the same way they do. They're wrong.
In the past, I have wound up hurting girls that I have been in relationships with. I regret it more than anything else in my life. I thought of the sex as meaningless, they didn't. A girl, unless she has been seriously damaged, does not think that way. She might tell you that she does, but she's lying.
I wouldn't be very persuasive if I argued that sexual morality is just a way to avoid hurting other people. I also think that it's a bedrock condition to a fulfilling life. I am fairly sure that being faithful to one person and building a family is what happiness is all about. You can run around when you're younger, but it messes you up for the time when you realize that you need get started on something meaningful. And again, it messes girls up more than guys.
Anyone who doesn't think it's obvious is fairly stupid. Murder is rare. There have been a million studies that have failed to find a connection between violence in the media and real life violence. Sex isn't rare. Attitudes about sex are strongly influenced by culture.
Sexual entertainment can influence behavior. Violent entertainment does not. Is that simple enough for you?
Applications work well enough, but a new Gnome session does not.
I've had good experience with KDE. Well, I suppose it was time to end the Ubuntu experiment anyway.
RSS is the new spam.
I've used it. Remote Desktop has it beat by a long shot.
This is the best example of the difference between the Linux/OSS philosophy and the Microsoft philosophy. Microsoft takes great care to make sure that upgrades don't break anything 95% of the time. In OSS, it's all about choice. You can configure your browser with a billion extensions, but good luck upgrading. The two philosophies are mostly incompatible.
Which is better? I don't know. I use some of each. I'm running Firefox on an XP box right now. But I use Cygwin for remote applications from a Linux box. (It would be nice if a full Gnome X-session would work across my LAN. Slow as molasses. I'd give a lot for something like Remote Desktop in Linux.)
You make my point. The patent system is about disclosing secrets, because secrets are bad for capitalism. Patents are s a hack to get the free market to work better. The hack even half-works some of the time.
Of course, if it's all about investment, there are lots of ways to spur investment. Investors love whenever they can legally lock down anything. Process patents are a great example. Government needs to resist this sort of thing though. It's not worth limiting competition.
Yeah. But I have the feeling that I probably got insightful mods from people taking it both ways.
That's right. Because capitalism benefits when companies keep secrets.
Trust me, we're laughing with you, not at you.
*snicker*