Don't underestimate human behaviour. I think it's pretty save to say that if Microsoft gives us Europeans the finger, we're going to be pretty pissed and we'll be looking for the most hurtful alternative we can find just out of spite. Yeah, we're funny that way.
What has me stumped, though, is this negative attitude toward this idea. Perhaps my memory is just failing me, but I thought this was exactly what Slashdotters were crying out for just weeks ago when they said they would sell 7 without any browser at all (which I found pretty amusing an idea).
I'm aware of that possibility. I did try to comment on the OS itself, though. It wouldn't be useful to comment on 7's ability to mount ext4 after installing special third-party drivers, after all, so I limited it to its native capabilities.
The only things that didn't work for me are really old DOS games (but I had trouble with them in XP too) and such things as those 4kb landscape thingies that were discussed on Slashdot a few days ago.
So far, I've really had nothing to complain about, the new UI aside. I was pretty pissed that there was no classic theme. Now I've gotten used to it and I must say, although I certainly won't pay what Microsoft is asking, this is the first MS OS that I WOULD pay for if the price was right.
I completely agree. My country lacks that insight, I'm afraid.
On the other hand, while I am against the death penalty, I sometimes ask myself whether it wouldn't be a good idea anyway to just get rid of that kind of people once they do become violent.
I don't much care if someone thinks I'm scum because of my skin colour, my belief system or whatever. Just as long as they accept that I have the same right to live in peace as they have they can think I'm raping and eating children as a hobby for all I care.
The question, in my opinion, is thus: Can these people be educated once they have proven to be able and willing to inflict harm upon others?
I would agree with you but for the last statement.
Do you mean to say you think it would be right for a bunch of cool kids to harass and belittle certain students on a daily basis and be protected under free speech? Would it be alright for them to make up suggestions of a defamatory nature about said student under your kind of free speech?
So if you think it's the kid's responsibility to not protect himself from psychological harm by physical force... then, pray tell, how is the kid supposed to protect himself against these odds? Answer me that and I'll concede the point.
Why raise taxes? There is so much government bloat that just by using your effing BRAIN you could probably save millions that are going to waste right now.
Before I am willing to pay more taxes, my government should first prove that they are willing and able to keep a budget and actually run a country instead of patching holes left and right.
Whether you carry oxygen and hydrogen up there or water doesn't really make a difference, does it? Furthermore, is the product of fuel cells not pure water, meaning completely free of any kinds of minerals? Drinking that as it is isn't particularly healthy either.
I seem to be 95% immune to my cats when they pull tricks like that. My cats know damn well that I'll feed them before going to bed. It can happen anywhere between coming home and right before actually going to bed.
My cats are persistent, make no mistake, and my wife can be very annoyed with them, but I usually wait until I happen to feel like feeding them. So if their mewling is comparable to a baby's cry I shudder to think what kind of dad I'd make;).
I should mention, though, that they have dry food available at any time so it's not like they're hungry when I feed them. It is actually a very interesting way to learn to not give in to annoying behaviour.
So plunging into open hostility is your idea of rationalizing, a word that contains 'rational'?
Now let me ask you what you deem sexual activity? I pity the fool who believes sex revolves around penetration. Seriously, you need serious sex-ed if you think that was even close to having a point.
Children are sexual beings. That is a fact. Therefore, they are old enough to enjoy sexual activity. WHAT KIND of sexual activity that would be, I have in no way defined. It was YOUR mind that instantly produced an adult MALE trying to shove his DICK into an underage vagina that can't have reached puberty according to your statement.
Do you honestly not see anything wrong with the conclusions your mind came to based on the very vague words I've been using?
You've made an example out of yourself. Thanks for that.
Oh, and I think the parent poster's whole statement is a rather brave assumption. The kids I know can pretty easily decide whether they like a certain situation or not.
Personally, I think there is only a crime if there is a victim. A child knows when something is uncomfortable or/and painful, wouldn't you agree? So let's assume a child does have sexual contact with an adult, yet does not feel the situation was a bad one.
Under that hypothetical scenario, where is the victim? Is it important to make the child feel bad about the situation after the fact? Why? Because society deemed the act bad? Why did it do so? We know the Romans were pretty laid back about such things, so obviously that worked out for them, didn't it?
I was under the... uh... delusion that we try to protect the children from harm. This whole witch-hunt for supposed paedophiles feels a lot like pushing a situation into a preconceived mould that we deemed harmful and are therefore no longer willing to allow for those situations to be anything but.
And before you people explode and jump me like starved vultures a carcass, I have had contact with people who have had sexual relations with adults while they were kids and actually have fond memories of those encounters. There is thus evidence that such encounters can be positive. So how is it we're all so single-minded about this matter?
Frankly, I think the police couldn't care less. They're just as brainwashed as everyone else, but in a hypothetical situation, where an informed and rational adult consumes drugs responsibly, what would they care? What would anyone care?
What people are scared of is the abuse. And someone made them believe that every drug user will abuse the drug and become a liability to society. And THAT is the crux of the matter.
It's the same thing with a lot of other 'problems'. Guns come to mind or people with unusual sexual tendencies. Somehow, the first thing people think about is 'Oh God, what if someone MAKES me participate? What if I become the VICTIM!!!11!!!'. It happened with homosexuals, it's happening now with pedophiles and private gun owners.
I mean most police officers don't do the job for the cash, as far as I'm informed, they don't make much money. Wouldn't you agree that they'd rather go after those who hurt and kill other people, rather than those who've been made into bogeymen?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, people watch cock-fights (the avian kind) as well, so why should this be far-fetched?
So he can't just not like FPS games (which must all have SOMETHING in common to be categorized in the same group) without you calling him names?
You're an ass.
Don't underestimate human behaviour. I think it's pretty save to say that if Microsoft gives us Europeans the finger, we're going to be pretty pissed and we'll be looking for the most hurtful alternative we can find just out of spite. Yeah, we're funny that way.
What has me stumped, though, is this negative attitude toward this idea. Perhaps my memory is just failing me, but I thought this was exactly what Slashdotters were crying out for just weeks ago when they said they would sell 7 without any browser at all (which I found pretty amusing an idea).
I'm aware of that possibility. I did try to comment on the OS itself, though. It wouldn't be useful to comment on 7's ability to mount ext4 after installing special third-party drivers, after all, so I limited it to its native capabilities.
The only things that didn't work for me are really old DOS games (but I had trouble with them in XP too) and such things as those 4kb landscape thingies that were discussed on Slashdot a few days ago.
So far, I've really had nothing to complain about, the new UI aside. I was pretty pissed that there was no classic theme. Now I've gotten used to it and I must say, although I certainly won't pay what Microsoft is asking, this is the first MS OS that I WOULD pay for if the price was right.
American walls or European ones? ;)
I suppose that's the same thing they said to Galileo back then.
And we all know teachers are at least as scared of bullies as nerds are. Heck, most of them are nerds themselves.
So schools seldom protect the underdogs. What now?
See, on principle, you're absolutely right. Problem is, it just doesn't quite work like that in real life.
And in an ideal world, we wouldn't even be forced to have this discussion, eh?
I completely agree. My country lacks that insight, I'm afraid.
On the other hand, while I am against the death penalty, I sometimes ask myself whether it wouldn't be a good idea anyway to just get rid of that kind of people once they do become violent.
I don't much care if someone thinks I'm scum because of my skin colour, my belief system or whatever. Just as long as they accept that I have the same right to live in peace as they have they can think I'm raping and eating children as a hobby for all I care.
The question, in my opinion, is thus: Can these people be educated once they have proven to be able and willing to inflict harm upon others?
I would agree with you but for the last statement.
Do you mean to say you think it would be right for a bunch of cool kids to harass and belittle certain students on a daily basis and be protected under free speech? Would it be alright for them to make up suggestions of a defamatory nature about said student under your kind of free speech?
So if you think it's the kid's responsibility to not protect himself from psychological harm by physical force... then, pray tell, how is the kid supposed to protect himself against these odds? Answer me that and I'll concede the point.
Why raise taxes? There is so much government bloat that just by using your effing BRAIN you could probably save millions that are going to waste right now.
Before I am willing to pay more taxes, my government should first prove that they are willing and able to keep a budget and actually run a country instead of patching holes left and right.
when installing a new system, be it server or my own machine, is to hide IE7+8 from the listed updates.
Of course with Windws 7 I've had no choice ;)
Whether you carry oxygen and hydrogen up there or water doesn't really make a difference, does it? Furthermore, is the product of fuel cells not pure water, meaning completely free of any kinds of minerals? Drinking that as it is isn't particularly healthy either.
Your attention span obviously does not cover more than two or three lines of text, eyh? ;)
I'm hoping so, but only time and actually raising one or two will tell :).
I seem to be 95% immune to my cats when they pull tricks like that. My cats know damn well that I'll feed them before going to bed. It can happen anywhere between coming home and right before actually going to bed.
My cats are persistent, make no mistake, and my wife can be very annoyed with them, but I usually wait until I happen to feel like feeding them. So if their mewling is comparable to a baby's cry I shudder to think what kind of dad I'd make ;).
I should mention, though, that they have dry food available at any time so it's not like they're hungry when I feed them. It is actually a very interesting way to learn to not give in to annoying behaviour.
Your being fifteen must have been a looooooooooong time ago if you truly think 'icky' would enter a boy's mind at this age when asked about girls.
Dude, fifteen year old girls have BREASTS, remember that. ;)
But I concur, if such an article has much more audience than your usual content you should really start thinking about changing your usual content.
We aren't lawyers so let's not bullshit each other with semantics, yea? ;)
So plunging into open hostility is your idea of rationalizing, a word that contains 'rational'?
Now let me ask you what you deem sexual activity? I pity the fool who believes sex revolves around penetration. Seriously, you need serious sex-ed if you think that was even close to having a point.
Children are sexual beings. That is a fact. Therefore, they are old enough to enjoy sexual activity. WHAT KIND of sexual activity that would be, I have in no way defined. It was YOUR mind that instantly produced an adult MALE trying to shove his DICK into an underage vagina that can't have reached puberty according to your statement.
Do you honestly not see anything wrong with the conclusions your mind came to based on the very vague words I've been using?
You've made an example out of yourself. Thanks for that.
Oh, and I think the parent poster's whole statement is a rather brave assumption. The kids I know can pretty easily decide whether they like a certain situation or not.
Personally, I think there is only a crime if there is a victim. A child knows when something is uncomfortable or/and painful, wouldn't you agree? So let's assume a child does have sexual contact with an adult, yet does not feel the situation was a bad one.
Under that hypothetical scenario, where is the victim? Is it important to make the child feel bad about the situation after the fact? Why? Because society deemed the act bad? Why did it do so? We know the Romans were pretty laid back about such things, so obviously that worked out for them, didn't it?
I was under the... uh... delusion that we try to protect the children from harm. This whole witch-hunt for supposed paedophiles feels a lot like pushing a situation into a preconceived mould that we deemed harmful and are therefore no longer willing to allow for those situations to be anything but.
And before you people explode and jump me like starved vultures a carcass, I have had contact with people who have had sexual relations with adults while they were kids and actually have fond memories of those encounters. There is thus evidence that such encounters can be positive. So how is it we're all so single-minded about this matter?
Ah, because they're all the same, aren't they?
[ ] You know how paedophiles work.
[x] You are mixing up paedophiles and pederasts.
Frankly, I think the police couldn't care less. They're just as brainwashed as everyone else, but in a hypothetical situation, where an informed and rational adult consumes drugs responsibly, what would they care? What would anyone care?
What people are scared of is the abuse. And someone made them believe that every drug user will abuse the drug and become a liability to society. And THAT is the crux of the matter.
It's the same thing with a lot of other 'problems'. Guns come to mind or people with unusual sexual tendencies. Somehow, the first thing people think about is 'Oh God, what if someone MAKES me participate? What if I become the VICTIM!!!11!!!'. It happened with homosexuals, it's happening now with pedophiles and private gun owners.
I mean most police officers don't do the job for the cash, as far as I'm informed, they don't make much money. Wouldn't you agree that they'd rather go after those who hurt and kill other people, rather than those who've been made into bogeymen?
OR he's just a fourteen year old kid who thought this was funny.
I think dissecting his post like you did gave him about 3000% more attention than he actually deserved.
On the other hand, it was pretty funny and right out of left field ;).
Being Swiss it seems kind of funny that WE haven't heard anything about this supposed incident.