... earn yourself a permanent spot in the Darwin Awards category, right alongside people who lay down in front of 100+ car trains, people who put their hands in front of oxy-acetylene torches (just to see if it hurts, y'know) and many of the other idiots out there.
Next question... why is this even a question? There are two types of people, dead extremist masochists, and the rest of us...
to "try" to bring it back on it's offtopic track. Human discourse often follows quantum rules. It's *there" when you post, it's somewhere else when the post is read;-)
If you feel you have a good case, call up the EFF. This is exactly the kind of thing they are fighting against. Won't be an immediate solution, but at least you'd be doing something.
One point about the generalities - I'm a computer tech who owns his own business, and when I have time I also do remodeling/carpentry/maintenance. The woman I live with is one of my best friends - almost twenty years now, living together when life brings us to the same place - and she works in professional handicap care - and neither of us are capable, nor have the time to, understand completely what the other does for a living. Yet our best times together, when we can make our schedules coincide (too rarely) are when we can sit and talk about what each of us does - and I've found that despite not having near the educational level I do, she is completely capable of understanding what I do - and despite me not having *her* educational level, I can understand and am fascinated by much of what she does.
As to 5) - She points out that there are lots of ways to hurt someone else, and they aren't always physical. We hurt each other on a semi-regular basis - but always make up. It helps a lot that neither of us rely completely on the other for emotional, intellectual, nor sexual support - we don't have an "agreement" about seeing other people, we just don't get crazy about it. Jealousy, whether it's the emotional, intellectual or physical kind, kills more good relationships than just about any other factor.
Great points, the rest... thanks. Life is hard enough without the angst that comes with demanding one's partner or close friends be "perfect".
I'll point out that among the women who are my closest friends, we have discussed pretty much all of the points you raise. The men I count as friends... not so much, there seems to be an ingrained knee-jerk reaction against doing so with many of them - not all , but many, I do know some men who would agree with what you said. As one of my male friends said recently, "It's not "macho", just being a human being. "
Oh, 3) Eye/Arm/Social candy is, in *our* view (people who enjoy that sort of thing, male or female, are not the sort of people I consider friends, so I'm biased), just grandstanding, "look what I have!" and therefore not worth engaging in, in any form...
If what your potential partner is looking for is something that you "put on" just for the big event, they're going to be awfully damned disappointed the first time they wake up with you and discover that you're a normal person.*
You know what has gotten me much more serious female interest than anything you posted above?
Just being myself. I'm a pretty nice guy, I'm intelligent, I can hold a conversation on a lot of topics, I'm not the funniest guy in the world (that's Robin Williams) but I'm not a dead stick either... and I give a good backrub;-)
Seriously. Just be yourself. If they don't like you for yourself, the relationship is doomed from the start, anyway (this of course has the exceptions of the people who play social games, but I am not one of them and don't give a fractional hoot for those who are)... and no, I'm not married. Legal ties aren't my sort of thing - and I am always clear about that. Long term friendships, along with friendly sex, are. There are four Women (not girls) in my life right now, all of them are people I count among my best friends, all aware of each other, we look out for each other, we get together when our schedules permit and just spend time talking, maybe a bottle of wine, maybe sex, maybe not... as I said in my last post above this, lay off the damned intensity already, if you really want the best out of life.
Of course, if you want to get married, then get to know the person first - for years; people change. That is not necessarily bad - but until one has known someone thru the changes, one can't be sure... it's better than getting nuked from orbit in divorce court, for both parties. Since I will never consider legal/religious ties (marriage) I am not qualified to speak there - but none of my best woman friends would ever consider it, either.
Disclaimer: I am not a therapist/counselor/advice column writer, and this is not professional advice;-)
* I am of course speaking about people who aren't just plastic imitations of the tabloids. YMMV.
Women end up frustrated and disappointed because they choose to. When women are frustrated and disappointed, it's because they can't get a specific man. There are lots of other men, they are just being too picky.
Sure. Whereas lots of men, on the other hand, set their standards too low and end up married to "that bitch", then the usual child support, etc.
Women and men really aren't all that different - there's a fair proportion of both who are 1) looking for a quick lay 2) looking for some media-promulgated version of "Mr(s) Right" 3) Don't know what the hell they are looking for, or in rare and wonderful cases, 4) Are comfortable with their own lives enough that they don't worry about it all that much, and just date when someone they really like comes along.
At one point or another in my life I have fallen into all of the first three categories. For some years now I've been living in the fourth one - and it's the happiest one. My advice to both sexes is - Take it slow, lay off the damned intensity already. It can be a real turnoff to someone decent, who has their own life, who you really want to get to know.
I'm not writing any love advice columns soon, few listen to practical advice;-D
Which is why, when cases like this come to the media, the media has the responsibility not only to emphasize that the charges are alleged, but to PUBLISH RETRACTIONS AND/OR PUBLISH THE RESULTS OF TRIALS THAT RESULT IN A VERDICT OF INNOCENT.
Unfortunately, too few media outlets do that - scandals sell, innocence doesn't. Perhaps the judges in such cases should make it a requirement that the local/involved media publish the results- and not buried in two lines somewhere on the back page.
I too know of a few people who have been falsely accused and exonerated - and when the subject comes up in ordinary conversations, I always make a point of stressing to the people I'm talking with not to get carried away with rumor and innuendo, because they could be next. It seems to get their attention, somewhat...
(About eight years ago I was asked to be a potential witness in exactly this same thing - because I had worked on this person's computer a few times before that. I was never called to witness, and he was completely exonerated, but the ugly commentary I heard in public around me during the trial was disgustingly reminiscent of what I've read about witch trials from the dark ages. I can certainly blame the wagging tongues of the local media outlets for THAT one. )
That is actually good ethical practice in any environment when one is dealing with someone else entering passwords, PINs, etc. I've had quite a few of my customers in the field ask me why, when I ask them to enter their password for something, I turn around and walk off some feet away, and keep my back turned. The action itself seems to be a lot more effective in teaching them password control than just explaining it to them does;-)
Some people might say your dad has(had?) wisdom - I won't argue that one. I think we can certainly say that your Dad paid attention to the world around him and didn't naively block out the worst things that humans do to each other; which makes him wise:-)
My old man once told me something similar, after I'd been ambushed after grade school by a bunch of bullies who just wanted to beat on someone. I don't remember his exact words, but they were along the lines of "If this is the worst thing that ever happens to you in your life, be grateful - for there are many people who go thru worse things. Just remember not to let it get you down, to love people, to enjoy life - but always, always keep your mind on the situations you are in, and never give complete trust unearned. Trust is not black or white. "
If you people go out sometimes (you know, the big blue room with the bright light) do you always wear your bullet-proof west, keep your back against the wall at all times and look for cover points in case somebody around you is a raving psychopath looking to stab someone or lurking with a sniper rifle?
No, but I do lock my doors when I'm not home, keep my important financial and personal papers locked in a safe or safety deposit box, ensure that nobody can read my pin over my shoulder at ATMs, and keep track of my wallet and checkbook - and if they were stolen I'd take measures to change my account passwords, etc.
Which is a lot more reasonable analogy to home computer security than what you came up with. I'm more worried about someone pulling ID theft on me and ripping me off - but if it was someone who really, really hated me, then they could very well plant about anything they wanted to if they had some of my personal information.
It's called a reasonable level of caution - and it's what I preach to all the home computer customers I get, especially those who get ripped off by the various unsavory black hat pricks on the internet, both of whom there is an increasing number every year.
BTW, sometimes that big room outside is really, really dark, with little christismasy lights in the sky and brighter ones scattered around on the ground. Which brings up the times when I go downtown at night, and keep an eye out for muggers and other unsavory type folk - but that has nothing to do with computer security.
Perhaps as part of his sentence, the judge should require him to get up in front of the tv cameras of the local television stations and confess what he did; and in addition spend his own money to publish large ads in the local newspapers doing the same.
In some ways that may be a better atonement for what he did than sitting in a prison somewhere watching cable tv and eating on the taxpayer's dime.
Of course UFOs are real - people see Unidentified Flying Objects all the time.
That doesn't mean that the UFOs are aliens, or anything else, just that they are Unidentified Flying Objects.
That aside, why would alien spacecraft be hovering around missile bases making missiles malfunction? Don't they better things to do, like abducting hillbillies, dissecting cattle, or making mysterious circles in farmer's fields? Don't the heads of the Homo Sap Studies Department know that those wild joyriding xenobiology students could get shot down? Might have a bad effect on the next orbit's departmental budget...
What blew my mind the first time I loaded the BeOS (I think it was a Pentium or PII, forgot the specs now, '99?) was the six-sided 3D rotating cube with videos playing in realtime on all six sides...
Because some moderators don't know enough about what they are doing to mod it offtopic?
Crap posts like the GP's and moderators that think they are relevant is why I've almost quit visiting this site anymore. The GP might have been trying to make a Funny, but it wasn't. Seriously, while it was a SF quote, it still had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. There are bots that do better.
There are a lot of really intelligent, knowledgeable people who post on this site, but they are steadily being drowned out (and "moderated") by the same sorts of idiots who make other sites into shelters for ignorant, repetitive loudmouths.
Don't care about karma, either, my karma has been "excellent" for many years no matter how my posts are moderated. It's a meaningless metric.
As theories regarding Comment Sense go, yours makes about as much sense as any other I've seen, at least with respect to Insightful/Interesting/Informative moderations.
It is well known that Common Sense ain't, at least amongst those in the know.
Human beings are such a bunch of silly buggers, present company included.
Roddenberry was probably trying to point out that the capacity for intricate self deception probably requires a certain level of self-awareness. Given the available evidence he was right.
Ah, but we've only begun to explore the realms of math, right?;-)
I'll leave this with one quote I've found to be excessionally insightful:
--
Metamathics: (n) (short form of 'metamathematics')
The investigation of the properties of realities intrinsically unknowable by and from our own, but whose general principles can be hazarded at.
-- Iain M Banks, 'Excession'
--
Which seems to me to be wisdom without portfolio, but worth paying attention to (ie, where the realm of mathematics is meeting the realm of physics theory and observation) It at least has the virtue of not relying on supernatural and unknowable deities to solve problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Mythbusters in general is a bad thing. They don't teach physics.
SB
Just make sure to put your expensive uv grade sunglasses on. Wouldn't want you to get hurt.
SB
Next question... why is this even a question? There are two types of people, dead extremist masochists, and the rest of us...
SB
Yeah, well, subtle humor seems to escape many people nowadays, particularly here; and I'm not talking about my posts.
Maybe I'm just getting old.
SB
Better yet, both of them working together. Why does it have to be an either/or thing?
SB
to "try" to bring it back on it's offtopic track. Human discourse often follows quantum rules. It's *there" when you post, it's somewhere else when the post is read ;-)
SB
A few successful class action suits against ISPs for violating their contracts without sufficient legal procedure cause might take of this problem.
SB
If you feel you have a good case, call up the EFF. This is exactly the kind of thing they are fighting against. Won't be an immediate solution, but at least you'd be doing something.
SB
That is very well said!
One point about the generalities - I'm a computer tech who owns his own business, and when I have time I also do remodeling/carpentry/maintenance. The woman I live with is one of my best friends - almost twenty years now, living together when life brings us to the same place - and she works in professional handicap care - and neither of us are capable, nor have the time to, understand completely what the other does for a living. Yet our best times together, when we can make our schedules coincide (too rarely) are when we can sit and talk about what each of us does - and I've found that despite not having near the educational level I do, she is completely capable of understanding what I do - and despite me not having *her* educational level, I can understand and am fascinated by much of what she does.
As to 5) - She points out that there are lots of ways to hurt someone else, and they aren't always physical. We hurt each other on a semi-regular basis - but always make up. It helps a lot that neither of us rely completely on the other for emotional, intellectual, nor sexual support - we don't have an "agreement" about seeing other people, we just don't get crazy about it. Jealousy, whether it's the emotional, intellectual or physical kind, kills more good relationships than just about any other factor.
Great points, the rest... thanks. Life is hard enough without the angst that comes with demanding one's partner or close friends be "perfect".
I'll point out that among the women who are my closest friends, we have discussed pretty much all of the points you raise. The men I count as friends... not so much, there seems to be an ingrained knee-jerk reaction against doing so with many of them - not all , but many, I do know some men who would agree with what you said. As one of my male friends said recently, "It's not "macho", just being a human being. "
Oh, 3) Eye/Arm/Social candy is, in *our* view (people who enjoy that sort of thing, male or female, are not the sort of people I consider friends, so I'm biased), just grandstanding, "look what I have!" and therefore not worth engaging in, in any form...
SB
Real Geeks wear pants with lots of pockets. Can't ever have enough tools with you when you're away from your workbench, you know ;-)
SB
If what your potential partner is looking for is something that you "put on" just for the big event, they're going to be awfully damned disappointed the first time they wake up with you and discover that you're a normal person.*
You know what has gotten me much more serious female interest than anything you posted above?
Just being myself. I'm a pretty nice guy, I'm intelligent, I can hold a conversation on a lot of topics, I'm not the funniest guy in the world (that's Robin Williams) but I'm not a dead stick either... and I give a good backrub ;-)
Seriously. Just be yourself. If they don't like you for yourself, the relationship is doomed from the start, anyway (this of course has the exceptions of the people who play social games, but I am not one of them and don't give a fractional hoot for those who are) ... and no, I'm not married. Legal ties aren't my sort of thing - and I am always clear about that. Long term friendships, along with friendly sex, are. There are four Women (not girls) in my life right now, all of them are people I count among my best friends, all aware of each other, we look out for each other, we get together when our schedules permit and just spend time talking, maybe a bottle of wine, maybe sex, maybe not... as I said in my last post above this, lay off the damned intensity already, if you really want the best out of life.
Of course, if you want to get married, then get to know the person first - for years; people change. That is not necessarily bad - but until one has known someone thru the changes, one can't be sure... it's better than getting nuked from orbit in divorce court, for both parties. Since I will never consider legal/religious ties (marriage) I am not qualified to speak there - but none of my best woman friends would ever consider it, either.
Disclaimer: I am not a therapist/counselor/advice column writer, and this is not professional advice ;-)
* I am of course speaking about people who aren't just plastic imitations of the tabloids. YMMV.
SB
Women end up frustrated and disappointed because they choose to. When women are frustrated and disappointed, it's because they can't get a specific man. There are lots of other men, they are just being too picky.
Sure. Whereas lots of men, on the other hand, set their standards too low and end up married to "that bitch", then the usual child support, etc.
Women and men really aren't all that different - there's a fair proportion of both who are 1) looking for a quick lay 2) looking for some media-promulgated version of "Mr(s) Right" 3) Don't know what the hell they are looking for, or in rare and wonderful cases, 4) Are comfortable with their own lives enough that they don't worry about it all that much, and just date when someone they really like comes along.
At one point or another in my life I have fallen into all of the first three categories. For some years now I've been living in the fourth one - and it's the happiest one. My advice to both sexes is - Take it slow, lay off the damned intensity already. It can be a real turnoff to someone decent, who has their own life, who you really want to get to know.
I'm not writing any love advice columns soon, few listen to practical advice ;-D
SB
Any lawyer worth his salt
Yeah, all eight of them.
SB
Parent post has been up half a day, now, and there's not one pedantic "but that's Star Trek" reply (other than mine, of course).
I feel a new hope for slashdot.
SB
Which is why, when cases like this come to the media, the media has the responsibility not only to emphasize that the charges are alleged, but to PUBLISH RETRACTIONS AND/OR PUBLISH THE RESULTS OF TRIALS THAT RESULT IN A VERDICT OF INNOCENT.
Unfortunately, too few media outlets do that - scandals sell, innocence doesn't. Perhaps the judges in such cases should make it a requirement that the local/involved media publish the results- and not buried in two lines somewhere on the back page.
I too know of a few people who have been falsely accused and exonerated - and when the subject comes up in ordinary conversations, I always make a point of stressing to the people I'm talking with not to get carried away with rumor and innuendo, because they could be next. It seems to get their attention, somewhat...
(About eight years ago I was asked to be a potential witness in exactly this same thing - because I had worked on this person's computer a few times before that. I was never called to witness, and he was completely exonerated, but the ugly commentary I heard in public around me during the trial was disgustingly reminiscent of what I've read about witch trials from the dark ages. I can certainly blame the wagging tongues of the local media outlets for THAT one. )
SB
That is actually good ethical practice in any environment when one is dealing with someone else entering passwords, PINs, etc. I've had quite a few of my customers in the field ask me why, when I ask them to enter their password for something, I turn around and walk off some feet away, and keep my back turned. The action itself seems to be a lot more effective in teaching them password control than just explaining it to them does ;-)
SB
Some people might say your dad has(had?) wisdom - I won't argue that one. I think we can certainly say that your Dad paid attention to the world around him and didn't naively block out the worst things that humans do to each other; which makes him wise :-)
My old man once told me something similar, after I'd been ambushed after grade school by a bunch of bullies who just wanted to beat on someone. I don't remember his exact words, but they were along the lines of "If this is the worst thing that ever happens to you in your life, be grateful - for there are many people who go thru worse things. Just remember not to let it get you down, to love people, to enjoy life - but always, always keep your mind on the situations you are in, and never give complete trust unearned. Trust is not black or white. "
SB
Nice strawman...
If you people go out sometimes (you know, the big blue room with the bright light) do you always wear your bullet-proof west, keep your back against the wall at all times and look for cover points in case somebody around you is a raving psychopath looking to stab someone or lurking with a sniper rifle?
No, but I do lock my doors when I'm not home, keep my important financial and personal papers locked in a safe or safety deposit box, ensure that nobody can read my pin over my shoulder at ATMs, and keep track of my wallet and checkbook - and if they were stolen I'd take measures to change my account passwords, etc.
Which is a lot more reasonable analogy to home computer security than what you came up with. I'm more worried about someone pulling ID theft on me and ripping me off - but if it was someone who really, really hated me, then they could very well plant about anything they wanted to if they had some of my personal information.
It's called a reasonable level of caution - and it's what I preach to all the home computer customers I get, especially those who get ripped off by the various unsavory black hat pricks on the internet, both of whom there is an increasing number every year.
BTW, sometimes that big room outside is really, really dark, with little christismasy lights in the sky and brighter ones scattered around on the ground. Which brings up the times when I go downtown at night, and keep an eye out for muggers and other unsavory type folk - but that has nothing to do with computer security.
SB
Perhaps as part of his sentence, the judge should require him to get up in front of the tv cameras of the local television stations and confess what he did; and in addition spend his own money to publish large ads in the local newspapers doing the same.
In some ways that may be a better atonement for what he did than sitting in a prison somewhere watching cable tv and eating on the taxpayer's dime.
SB
Of course UFOs are real - people see Unidentified Flying Objects all the time.
That doesn't mean that the UFOs are aliens, or anything else, just that they are Unidentified Flying Objects.
That aside, why would alien spacecraft be hovering around missile bases making missiles malfunction? Don't they better things to do, like abducting hillbillies, dissecting cattle, or making mysterious circles in farmer's fields? Don't the heads of the Homo Sap Studies Department know that those wild joyriding xenobiology students could get shot down? Might have a bad effect on the next orbit's departmental budget...
SB
What blew my mind the first time I loaded the BeOS (I think it was a Pentium or PII, forgot the specs now, '99?) was the six-sided 3D rotating cube with videos playing in realtime on all six sides...
SB
Because some moderators don't know enough about what they are doing to mod it offtopic?
Crap posts like the GP's and moderators that think they are relevant is why I've almost quit visiting this site anymore. The GP might have been trying to make a Funny, but it wasn't. Seriously, while it was a SF quote, it still had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. There are bots that do better.
There are a lot of really intelligent, knowledgeable people who post on this site, but they are steadily being drowned out (and "moderated") by the same sorts of idiots who make other sites into shelters for ignorant, repetitive loudmouths.
Don't care about karma, either, my karma has been "excellent" for many years no matter how my posts are moderated. It's a meaningless metric.
I have better things to do. See ya.
SB
As theories regarding Comment Sense go, yours makes about as much sense as any other I've seen, at least with respect to Insightful/Interesting/Informative moderations.
It is well known that Common Sense ain't, at least amongst those in the know.
Human beings are such a bunch of silly buggers, present company included.
SB
Nice ref, loved it ;-)
Roddenberry was probably trying to point out that the capacity for intricate self deception probably requires a certain level of self-awareness. Given the available evidence he was right.
SB
Ah, but we've only begun to explore the realms of math, right? ;-)
I'll leave this with one quote I've found to be excessionally insightful:
--
Metamathics: (n) (short form of 'metamathematics')
The investigation of the properties of realities intrinsically unknowable by and from our own, but whose general principles can be hazarded at.
-- Iain M Banks, 'Excession'
--
Which seems to me to be wisdom without portfolio, but worth paying attention to (ie, where the realm of mathematics is meeting the realm of physics theory and observation) It at least has the virtue of not relying on supernatural and unknowable deities to solve problems.
SB