Pedophilia is no where near the national problem that Alcoholism is in terms of total damage to lives and property, but alcoholics aren't required to be on a national list, or live a certain distance from schools (or bars), and are rarely run out of town or refused housing. The only reason that it is OK to write this guy off as being less than human is because his particular failing is taboo.
Alcoholics aren't required to be on a national list because by and large, they aren't a threat to society as a whole like pedophiles. Sure, some alcoholics will drink and drive and possibly kill/hurt someone but not all are like that, but pedophiles by definition will have hurt someone. They don't hurt themselves. Pedophilia is taboo but it isn't like alcoholism is just ignored. Both pedophilia and alcoholism are urges that have great rewards as long as the risks can be overcome and many people are not strong enough to fight the risks because the rewards are greater than what would happen otherwise. Gambling is the same way. It's a risk/reward issue, not a disease.
People are labeled by what they do in life, whether that be their greatest thing or their worst. Obviously for a guy who committed suicide with an initial intent to have sex with a minor it will make him known to everyone else because it was the worst thing he did which is greater than the best thing he did.
It won't work. If just having the means to prove something were actually enough to convince the faithful... well, how do you explain the southern USA?
Just because you think you have the means to prove something (and why wouldn't you think that with your agenda?) doesn't mean the faithful agree. They will be skeptical of those who do not share in their beliefs, especially those who try to change their beliefs.
I often wonder why the British (and now some Americans) say "Apple go on to identify..." Apple is ONE company. Shouldn't that be the singular "Apple goes on to identify"? If it were both Apple and Microsoft than indeed it would be "Apple and Microsoft go on to identify".
For the same reason Americans spell "color" as "color" and Britons spell it "colour". It's just the differences in the language and the more stupid Americans get (thanks to No Child Left Behind and computers) the more we will start changing our language to fit our intelligence (ebonics anyone?).
(amusingly, the capcha is "contrary". Again sorry for being OT)
Actually it is 'captcha': Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart.
But then again, maybe not. I know people who pay more for bottled water price-per-gallon than gasoline... and they complain about the price of gasoline.
Do they purchase 15-40 gallons worth of that water in a single purchase so that total costs can be $45-$120 for 1 purchase which usually lasts for about a week? It's easy to switch to another liquid to refresh yourself but to "splurge" on bottled water once in a while. It isn't so easy to switch fuels because it requires switching vehicles and not everyone can just ditch what they have to buy a vehicle that isn't aesthetically pleasing and renew a 5 year car loan at the same time. It always irks me when analysts say that demand for gasoline has gone up despite record prices. Gee, maybe it's because 95% vehicles out there still run on gasoline and people can't just switch on a whim assuming they even want to switch (goes back to that aesthetic issue again).
It's behavior like this that is pushing people right into home theaters. Sure, it's quite an investment. But you don't have to put up with all these myriad rules and regulations that are aimed at a very few at the expense of the many. Add to this the prices of tickets and concessions and interruptions during a film, and you got a surefire recipe for waiting and picking up a DVD that more than likely has an unrated cut. So why go to the theaters at all? At this point, On Demand cable has more perks than theaters do.
I go to the theater now to watch TV commercials. But seriously, I am boycotting Carmike and Hollywood Theaters (the 2 chains around here in WV) because of their policy of having 15 min of movie previews (not so bad but 15 min is a bit much) and now 15 min of commercials. I emailed both of them to let them know I'm boycotting them until their policy changes and received responses back from the VP of marketing of Hollywood and Director of Advertising of Carmike. The woman from Carmike said this in response to my email:
I handle the movie previews and I agree, they can be a bit too long. Im in the middle of a campaign to make Hollywood produce shorter previews. Some of them are while others are not. We are required to show a certain amount of previews before the features since we play their movies, but Carmike has limits. We try and only show no more than 6 previews per film. Depending on the runtimes of each preview, it usually runs in the neighborhood of 10-12 minutes. I'm hoping everyone in Hollywood agrees with me and the customers and start creating shorter previews.
The woman from Hollywood Theaters basically avoided everything I said about the length of previews and ticket cost and only commented on the commercials by stating:
Thank you very much for your message. We appreciate customers taking
the time to give us feedback and appreciate your comments.
We are currently looking into a different style of pre-feature
advertisement that is more entertaining, interactive and less
"commercial" like. I do hope that you will give our theater company
another chance when this change occurs.
I'm just glad I got responses from them. I can't wait til I get a house and have a home theater setup (3-6 months away).
Given your argument, and as someone else pointed out (and I agree with), there is no direct causation between intelligence and frequency of intercourse. There is only a negative correlation (more intelligence = less sex).
If something is alive and someone steps in to change that then it is considered murder.
Really? If it's a chicken I consider it dinner. If it's a tumor I consider it medicine. I think an unwanted fetus has a lot more in common with a tumor than it does with you or me.
If it's a chicken it is still being killed, and in the case of humans it would either be homicide or suicide. If thinking an unwanted fetus has more in common with a tumor than with you or me then go right ahead and keep thinking that if that helps minimize the guilt so you can sleep better at night. By that reasoning I guess a wanted fetus has more in common with us (except nothing has changed compared to an unwanted fetus) otherwise you would get rid of it too, right? It sounds like that if an entity does not have anything in common with humans it is justification enough for you to kill it, whether you are ultimately wrong or not concerning whether it is really a human.
Just because it has human DNA doesn't mean it's "human". I shed millions of human cells every day and don't shed a tear. No humanity is something deeper than that.
I'm glad my existence was not dependent on you. You seem to think you should have the power to control whether the living being in a woman's womb is allowed to reach its natural age before death can occur.
There is no alien that turns into a human magically at the time of birth.
Of course not, it's a slow process of development and maturation.
That slow process completes long before the ~9 months prior to the baby's birth. Before and after that process completes, a human exists. A human also exists before and after the birth has occurred. We just lie to ourselves (well, some of us do) if we say a human only exists after the baby comes out of the womb.
Which is why it is considered by most people to be 100% murder. Mankind has the intelligence and power to do a lot of things. Mankind has very little sense with regard to what it *should* do just because it can. If something is alive and someone steps in to change that then it is considered murder. The legal definition of murder defines it to involve the killing of a human. Whether some people like it or not, the living being in a female human is another human. There is no alien that turns into a human magically at the time of birth. Calling the human anything else just because it is on the wrong side of a vagina is an excuse for murder.
for males with IQs under 70, 63.3% were still virgins
70 is the beginning of mild mental retardation. How can 36.7% of those people already had sex by high school? I think that smarter people place more importance on doing good in school than having sex so they may not think about sex and/or they just don't have time for it because they concentrate more on school work. Just as your priorities change with your level of financial comfort, your priorities can change with your IQ, in general.
Re:Any consensus?
on
Blue Blu-ray
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Who wants H.D. pr0n? Do you really want to see cellulite, open pores, wrinkles, etc. all in high-def? You'll end up wishing porn really did make you go blind.
Not to mention that Japanese porn will have HD blurring out of portions of the video. Awesome!
As to the "difficulty" of finding the information on Apple's site:
Main iPhone support page [apple.com] -> Battery Service: FAQ [apple.com] and iPhone Service: FAQ [apple.com]
Can you prove the data on the last page was there prior to the iPhone being released? You say it was but there has to be proof. MSNBC disagrees with you that it was on the site prior to launch: "Apple spokeswoman Jennifer Hakes said Thursday the company posted the battery replacement details on its Web site last Friday after the product went on sale." The emphasis is mine. Now it could be argued that the information posted after launch is not required to be known to a customer prior to launch however there is no reason for them to wait until after the launch to post the information. I also read on MSNBC that the few national columnists (Walt Mossberg being one of them) who got to review the iPhone had very little info regarding the battery in their reviews because Apple provided hardly any information regarding the battery.
The intern himself could've taken the tapes home, read and copied all the data, returned the tapes, and no one would have known.
That could happen in some cases however if working for a large enough entity the ability for anyone to read the data off of the tapes is small because the likelihood of having a $20k StorageTek 9940 drive at home is a bit small so unless another corporation stole them and happen to have a tape drive that could read the tape (if it was unencrypted) no one could read a tape that was taken home and then stolen.
In my day we had Neo-Geo games. We paid $240 for each of them and we were happy to do it. Of course, the system was about $600 so we first had to work for many summers to get the console before we could play the games.
A few MMO's have been the exception, but I still feel like I'm getting a great deal with them. I've been playing EVE online for about a year and a half. At $15 per month, that's $270 that I've given them. That sounds like a lot, but if being distracted by EVE causes me to buy one less retail game at $50 every two months, then that's $450 worth of games I haven't paid for. Bump that up to a game every month, and you're approaching a grand.
This math seems vaguely familiar. Do you work for the RIAA by chance?
SD is roughly 480i. That's 640x480, 60 interlaced frames per second.
480i is 60 interlaced *fields* per second, or 30 complete frames per second. The same wording applies to 1080i. The math becomes simpler but arrives at the same answer.
Perhaps netflix thought - wth - if we go out for a few hours and people can choose their movies that's just tough luck.
Or perhaps not. Netflix stock dropped 7% due to a report today indicating a shrinking customer base. They can't afford to have any service outages if they want to compete with Blockbuster whose main advantage over Netflix is of course their brick and mortar stores.
So should the owner of the grocery store they visit once a week also protect them? Why does the college have any obligation to protect its students? They used the college's network and the college probably provided the student's info to the court was subpoenaed but who says they have to support/protect the person? If a student was wrongly accused of raping another student would the college have any connection to the student that is strong enough to make others believe the college also has an obligation to protect that student? Managing a student's personal affairs and protecting the student are not the responsibility of a college but that's just my opinion of course.
Maybe we should actually require people to be licensed programmers...while that would weed out some of the problem, though, we all know that professional engineering licenses or whatever don't guarantee competence...
Technically, in some states (like WV where I live), it is illegal for someone to call themselves a software engineer or a systems engineer because to be an engineer means you passed a licensing exam. Obviously a software engineer isn't exactly the same as a programmer/developer but if the law were applied equally your suggestion would actually be required for some people in the IT field. Hopefully if they were to start applying the law equally they would also be kind enough to create a licensing exam for IT people so that we have a way of actually being in compliance with the law.
Even if individual applications do not take advantage of 4 cores your system as a whole will benefit due to your process scheduler scheduling threads across all 4 cores making your system more responsive.
What you said could basically be said for any service industry. But I suppose you mean that making love is special and precious, and shouldn't be wasted? Well, I agree, but that is up to each individual, not something that society should dictate.
Society already dictates many things for individuals. There are societal norms and in many cases the legal system reflects those norms. Examples include a minimum age for which someone can provide consent for having intercourse with an adult and the view that stealing is wrong as well as rape and murder. People oust others from society when they commit certain acts because they are outside of the societial norms. Why should society not dictate whether someone should be able to rot their mind (and in some cases ruin their marriage) because they watch porn? Those who are affected by societal norms are the only ones who normally defend the opinion that society should not be able to dictate what they should or should not do.
And what is the difference between what I said which was The first cases of AIDS were associated with gay men and what you said which was the first cases detected were with gay's? The first cases of HIV were shown to come from Africa but they had to reach humans at some point for it to spread. I said that AIDS was associated with gays. I didn't say that HIV was because the origin of HIV was in Africa supposedly. But again, at some point there has to be a link between African monkeys and humans and also with HIV and AIDS as far as the infections are concerned. Maybe the link was heterosexuals but for some reason homosexuals seemed to be infected more than others.
As a homosexual, I must say this is great news! I really hate condoms, and this new vaccine will eliminate the need for them! We can go back to the glory days of the 70s, when you could just have sex with anyone you wanted to, with no consequences.
I don't know if you were kidding or not but this is exactly the reaction I'm afraid of if this vaccine works. I mean, it will be great if a cure can be created from this to save the millions of people in Africa who have contracted HIV and for the people in Africa who don't already have HIV to be given the vaccine, but to give a vaccine to certain people who don't already have HIV it just says to me that if not properly controlled some people will use it in a bad way, just like anything can be used in a bad way. It probably will be exploited but I hope it does not. The first cases of AIDS were associated with gay men (coincidence? I don't know) and although HIV may have a different origin this would just allow homosexual activity to run rampant again (of course there are still other STDs).
I think it's dangerous to think in absolutes--for atheists and believers alike. We humans are far too limited in our understanding of the universe and/or God to be certain of anything. That doesn't mean you can't have faith in whatever--it just means you shouldn't poo-poo everyone else who thinks differently.
Since you responded to me I'll say that you are preaching to the choir. You need to be able to explain your reasoning to the rest of the people on this site who make various derogatory comments towards religious people when there are scientific articles submitted regarding topics that believers and non-believers typically argue over. The believers don't make derogatory comments to non-believers because that isn't their nature but the non-believers, by their very nature, don't mind mocking believers.
Slashdot Mirror
Alcoholics aren't required to be on a national list because by and large, they aren't a threat to society as a whole like pedophiles. Sure, some alcoholics will drink and drive and possibly kill/hurt someone but not all are like that, but pedophiles by definition will have hurt someone. They don't hurt themselves. Pedophilia is taboo but it isn't like alcoholism is just ignored. Both pedophilia and alcoholism are urges that have great rewards as long as the risks can be overcome and many people are not strong enough to fight the risks because the rewards are greater than what would happen otherwise. Gambling is the same way. It's a risk/reward issue, not a disease.
People are labeled by what they do in life, whether that be their greatest thing or their worst. Obviously for a guy who committed suicide with an initial intent to have sex with a minor it will make him known to everyone else because it was the worst thing he did which is greater than the best thing he did.
Just because you think you have the means to prove something (and why wouldn't you think that with your agenda?) doesn't mean the faithful agree. They will be skeptical of those who do not share in their beliefs, especially those who try to change their beliefs.
For the same reason Americans spell "color" as "color" and Britons spell it "colour". It's just the differences in the language and the more stupid Americans get (thanks to No Child Left Behind and computers) the more we will start changing our language to fit our intelligence (ebonics anyone?).
(amusingly, the capcha is "contrary". Again sorry for being OT)Actually it is 'captcha': Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart.
Do they purchase 15-40 gallons worth of that water in a single purchase so that total costs can be $45-$120 for 1 purchase which usually lasts for about a week? It's easy to switch to another liquid to refresh yourself but to "splurge" on bottled water once in a while. It isn't so easy to switch fuels because it requires switching vehicles and not everyone can just ditch what they have to buy a vehicle that isn't aesthetically pleasing and renew a 5 year car loan at the same time. It always irks me when analysts say that demand for gasoline has gone up despite record prices. Gee, maybe it's because 95% vehicles out there still run on gasoline and people can't just switch on a whim assuming they even want to switch (goes back to that aesthetic issue again).
It's behavior like this that is pushing people right into home theaters. Sure, it's quite an investment. But you don't have to put up with all these myriad rules and regulations that are aimed at a very few at the expense of the many. Add to this the prices of tickets and concessions and interruptions during a film, and you got a surefire recipe for waiting and picking up a DVD that more than likely has an unrated cut. So why go to the theaters at all? At this point, On Demand cable has more perks than theaters do.
I go to the theater now to watch TV commercials. But seriously, I am boycotting Carmike and Hollywood Theaters (the 2 chains around here in WV) because of their policy of having 15 min of movie previews (not so bad but 15 min is a bit much) and now 15 min of commercials. I emailed both of them to let them know I'm boycotting them until their policy changes and received responses back from the VP of marketing of Hollywood and Director of Advertising of Carmike. The woman from Carmike said this in response to my email:
I handle the movie previews and I agree, they can be a bit too long. Im in the middle of a campaign to make Hollywood produce shorter previews. Some of them are while others are not. We are required to show a certain amount of previews before the features since we play their movies, but Carmike has limits. We try and only show no more than 6 previews per film. Depending on the runtimes of each preview, it usually runs in the neighborhood of 10-12 minutes. I'm hoping everyone in Hollywood agrees with me and the customers and start creating shorter previews.
The woman from Hollywood Theaters basically avoided everything I said about the length of previews and ticket cost and only commented on the commercials by stating:Thank you very much for your message. We appreciate customers taking the time to give us feedback and appreciate your comments.
We are currently looking into a different style of pre-feature advertisement that is more entertaining, interactive and less "commercial" like. I do hope that you will give our theater company another chance when this change occurs.
I'm just glad I got responses from them. I can't wait til I get a house and have a home theater setup (3-6 months away).
Given your argument, and as someone else pointed out (and I agree with), there is no direct causation between intelligence and frequency of intercourse. There is only a negative correlation (more intelligence = less sex).
If it's a chicken it is still being killed, and in the case of humans it would either be homicide or suicide. If thinking an unwanted fetus has more in common with a tumor than with you or me then go right ahead and keep thinking that if that helps minimize the guilt so you can sleep better at night. By that reasoning I guess a wanted fetus has more in common with us (except nothing has changed compared to an unwanted fetus) otherwise you would get rid of it too, right? It sounds like that if an entity does not have anything in common with humans it is justification enough for you to kill it, whether you are ultimately wrong or not concerning whether it is really a human.
Just because it has human DNA doesn't mean it's "human". I shed millions of human cells every day and don't shed a tear. No humanity is something deeper than that.I'm glad my existence was not dependent on you. You seem to think you should have the power to control whether the living being in a woman's womb is allowed to reach its natural age before death can occur.
There is no alien that turns into a human magically at the time of birth. Of course not, it's a slow process of development and maturation.That slow process completes long before the ~9 months prior to the baby's birth. Before and after that process completes, a human exists. A human also exists before and after the birth has occurred. We just lie to ourselves (well, some of us do) if we say a human only exists after the baby comes out of the womb.
And abortions are 100% effective.
Which is why it is considered by most people to be 100% murder. Mankind has the intelligence and power to do a lot of things. Mankind has very little sense with regard to what it *should* do just because it can. If something is alive and someone steps in to change that then it is considered murder. The legal definition of murder defines it to involve the killing of a human. Whether some people like it or not, the living being in a female human is another human. There is no alien that turns into a human magically at the time of birth. Calling the human anything else just because it is on the wrong side of a vagina is an excuse for murder.
for males with IQs under 70, 63.3% were still virgins
70 is the beginning of mild mental retardation. How can 36.7% of those people already had sex by high school? I think that smarter people place more importance on doing good in school than having sex so they may not think about sex and/or they just don't have time for it because they concentrate more on school work. Just as your priorities change with your level of financial comfort, your priorities can change with your IQ, in general.
Who wants H.D. pr0n? Do you really want to see cellulite, open pores, wrinkles, etc. all in high-def? You'll end up wishing porn really did make you go blind.
Not to mention that Japanese porn will have HD blurring out of portions of the video. Awesome!
Around.
As to the "difficulty" of finding the information on Apple's site: Main iPhone support page [apple.com] -> Battery Service: FAQ [apple.com] and iPhone Service: FAQ [apple.com]
Can you prove the data on the last page was there prior to the iPhone being released? You say it was but there has to be proof. MSNBC disagrees with you that it was on the site prior to launch: "Apple spokeswoman Jennifer Hakes said Thursday the company posted the battery replacement details on its Web site last Friday after the product went on sale." The emphasis is mine. Now it could be argued that the information posted after launch is not required to be known to a customer prior to launch however there is no reason for them to wait until after the launch to post the information. I also read on MSNBC that the few national columnists (Walt Mossberg being one of them) who got to review the iPhone had very little info regarding the battery in their reviews because Apple provided hardly any information regarding the battery.
1 person in the class buy the Premium version and then all the other students pay $5 for a copy of it. Problem solved.
The intern himself could've taken the tapes home, read and copied all the data, returned the tapes, and no one would have known.
That could happen in some cases however if working for a large enough entity the ability for anyone to read the data off of the tapes is small because the likelihood of having a $20k StorageTek 9940 drive at home is a bit small so unless another corporation stole them and happen to have a tape drive that could read the tape (if it was unencrypted) no one could read a tape that was taken home and then stolen.
In my day we had Neo-Geo games. We paid $240 for each of them and we were happy to do it. Of course, the system was about $600 so we first had to work for many summers to get the console before we could play the games.
A few MMO's have been the exception, but I still feel like I'm getting a great deal with them. I've been playing EVE online for about a year and a half. At $15 per month, that's $270 that I've given them. That sounds like a lot, but if being distracted by EVE causes me to buy one less retail game at $50 every two months, then that's $450 worth of games I haven't paid for. Bump that up to a game every month, and you're approaching a grand.
This math seems vaguely familiar. Do you work for the RIAA by chance?
SD is roughly 480i. That's 640x480, 60 interlaced frames per second.
480i is 60 interlaced *fields* per second, or 30 complete frames per second. The same wording applies to 1080i. The math becomes simpler but arrives at the same answer.
Perhaps netflix thought - wth - if we go out for a few hours and people can choose their movies that's just tough luck.
Or perhaps not. Netflix stock dropped 7% due to a report today indicating a shrinking customer base. They can't afford to have any service outages if they want to compete with Blockbuster whose main advantage over Netflix is of course their brick and mortar stores.
So should the owner of the grocery store they visit once a week also protect them? Why does the college have any obligation to protect its students? They used the college's network and the college probably provided the student's info to the court was subpoenaed but who says they have to support/protect the person? If a student was wrongly accused of raping another student would the college have any connection to the student that is strong enough to make others believe the college also has an obligation to protect that student? Managing a student's personal affairs and protecting the student are not the responsibility of a college but that's just my opinion of course.
Maybe we should actually require people to be licensed programmers...while that would weed out some of the problem, though, we all know that professional engineering licenses or whatever don't guarantee competence...
Technically, in some states (like WV where I live), it is illegal for someone to call themselves a software engineer or a systems engineer because to be an engineer means you passed a licensing exam. Obviously a software engineer isn't exactly the same as a programmer/developer but if the law were applied equally your suggestion would actually be required for some people in the IT field. Hopefully if they were to start applying the law equally they would also be kind enough to create a licensing exam for IT people so that we have a way of actually being in compliance with the law.
Even if individual applications do not take advantage of 4 cores your system as a whole will benefit due to your process scheduler scheduling threads across all 4 cores making your system more responsive.
What you said could basically be said for any service industry. But I suppose you mean that making love is special and precious, and shouldn't be wasted? Well, I agree, but that is up to each individual, not something that society should dictate.
Society already dictates many things for individuals. There are societal norms and in many cases the legal system reflects those norms. Examples include a minimum age for which someone can provide consent for having intercourse with an adult and the view that stealing is wrong as well as rape and murder. People oust others from society when they commit certain acts because they are outside of the societial norms. Why should society not dictate whether someone should be able to rot their mind (and in some cases ruin their marriage) because they watch porn? Those who are affected by societal norms are the only ones who normally defend the opinion that society should not be able to dictate what they should or should not do.
And what is the difference between what I said which was The first cases of AIDS were associated with gay men and what you said which was the first cases detected were with gay's? The first cases of HIV were shown to come from Africa but they had to reach humans at some point for it to spread. I said that AIDS was associated with gays. I didn't say that HIV was because the origin of HIV was in Africa supposedly. But again, at some point there has to be a link between African monkeys and humans and also with HIV and AIDS as far as the infections are concerned. Maybe the link was heterosexuals but for some reason homosexuals seemed to be infected more than others.
As a homosexual, I must say this is great news! I really hate condoms, and this new vaccine will eliminate the need for them! We can go back to the glory days of the 70s, when you could just have sex with anyone you wanted to, with no consequences.
I don't know if you were kidding or not but this is exactly the reaction I'm afraid of if this vaccine works. I mean, it will be great if a cure can be created from this to save the millions of people in Africa who have contracted HIV and for the people in Africa who don't already have HIV to be given the vaccine, but to give a vaccine to certain people who don't already have HIV it just says to me that if not properly controlled some people will use it in a bad way, just like anything can be used in a bad way. It probably will be exploited but I hope it does not. The first cases of AIDS were associated with gay men (coincidence? I don't know) and although HIV may have a different origin this would just allow homosexual activity to run rampant again (of course there are still other STDs).
I think it's dangerous to think in absolutes--for atheists and believers alike. We humans are far too limited in our understanding of the universe and/or God to be certain of anything. That doesn't mean you can't have faith in whatever--it just means you shouldn't poo-poo everyone else who thinks differently.
Since you responded to me I'll say that you are preaching to the choir. You need to be able to explain your reasoning to the rest of the people on this site who make various derogatory comments towards religious people when there are scientific articles submitted regarding topics that believers and non-believers typically argue over. The believers don't make derogatory comments to non-believers because that isn't their nature but the non-believers, by their very nature, don't mind mocking believers.