I do not agree that this is a good use of public resources, part of which are mine. That's the point of having a discussion about it.
If she wants to hire a private investigator out of her own pocket, that's all well and good.
That's the thing about a democracy... it's not based on principles, it's based on unity. If you can't convince the vast number of people who agree with me, you have no right to use our tax money to finance your investigation.
I remember when SnapChat first hit the scene, thinking that such a service shouldn't exist, that it's inherently malignant in nature. Seeing these people get burned by its failure makes me happy, and I have no interest in working extra hours so I can fund a team of people to shore up what was a bad idea in the first place.
Perhaps, if you hope to see your vision of how things ought to be realized, you should stop making authoritative statements and start providing compelling arguments that take my demographics interests into account.
If you measure yourself against the world, you'll always have room to improve.
If you measure yourself against other men, if you're the best, you'll never reach your potential.
And, because your peers have motivation to celebrate your failures, rather than your successes, you'll actually be fighting those who should be benefiting from your achievements.
On a personal level... dealing with competitive people is too tiresome to bear. Nothing they have to offer is worth dealing with their ego driven crap.
And, you can see the idiocy in their posts here. ISPs in the states are the most "free market" in the world, and they are also among the worst. The countries that treat ISPs as critical infrastructure like roads are the ones with the fastest infrastructure, but the "free market ra ra ra" crowd are still convinced that the way to improve the situation is to move further away from what is working better elsewhere.
Now, this isn't an academic debate. When you can look around, see that other people are getting better results, and you ignore that, that is just plain stupid.
Shoplifting is a great example. If a shopkeeper catches the perp in the act, they get charged with a minor crime. But, zero public resources are spent on investigation, because it just isn't worth the trouble.
Let's accept the arguments and move past them. What is she seeking when she asks us to accept that she is the victim of a sex crime?
She is seeking for us to take responsibility for locating and punishing the people who distributed these photos at our expense.
Each of us asks ourselves: Will going along with her position protect me? Will it protect people I care about? Will it encourage society to change in ways that I prefer? Will it put me at risk by criminalizing behavior that I enjoy engaging in? Will it put me at risk by criminalizing behavior I might engage in unknowingly, and burden me with the need for increased vigilance? How much will it cost? What will we be sacrificing to pay that cost? Is it all worthwhile?
She wants to make this our responsibility. The "victim blamers" do not want to assume this responsibility. She is selling something and some of us aren't buying it.
And, in typical fashion, those who fancy themselves the Champions of Women are attempting to paint those who are unsympathetic as hateful and shame them into submission, making them angry and defensive.
Which is smart, because when you rationally consider the reward on investment involved in treating this as a serious crime, it's open and shut. Only an emotional thinker could think this is a rational response.
I've been doing this for the better part of a decade. Except, I know I'll be repeating this phrase to myself every day, so I take it as an opportunity to engage in a little self programming. It makes the passphrase personal instead of generic, and useful instead of burdensome.
"I don't like drinking with my buddies till 3 because it makes me feel rotten the next day" = "Idldwmbt3bimmfrtnd"
Now when my buddies ask me to stay out drinking on Thursday night, I'll hear "I don't like drinking with my buddies till 3 because it makes me feel rotten the next day" in my head and make the responsible choice.
Or whatever. "I put the toilet seat down because even though it's inconvenient it's better than listening to my wife criticize me"?
Speaking for myself, the reason for the negativity is illustrated in this line from the article:
"The Evince appâ"GNOMEâ(TM)s PDF viewerâ"now has less interface getting in the way"
This is not just something that applies to Gnome. This attitude is pervasive across the entire industry. Windows 8, OSX, Gnome, Unity... I can't speak for KDE, haven't used it in years.
I consider this attitude to represent a regression. They're crippling the tools I use to solve problems based on the advice of fluffy headed artists and usability experts who are more interested in how an ignoramus reacts to something they've never seen before.
Frankly, if you're not interested in what you're doing enough to learn to master your tool, then what you're doing isn't important.
Crippling the tools that people use to do work so intellectually lazy baby boomers can have a toy that's easy to play with is bad for everyone.
The more you design something to be popular, the crappier it is.
If I'm free, does that mean I'm free to participate in social networks that have a "real name" policy of my own volition?
If there's a social network that has a "real name" policy, and I join it, and then someone else comes along and insists that they should be able to join this network without using their real name, what happens to me?
Do we flat out not have the right to participate in a social network that has a real name policy?
I've got far more experience in this realm than the vast majority of my social circle, but you immediately decided that, because my advice doesn't jive with what you think you know, that I must be a socially awkward guy who is useless with the opposite sex.
You didn't even ask me. You just assumed.
That's what makes you stupid instead of just ignorant. Ignorance can be rectified. Stupid, not so much.
It has nothing to do with your body being in working order or not. They're a bacterial colony that grows on your skin. Like grass growing on a field. The earth does not extrude the grass, and your body doesn't produce the bacteria.
Soap is unnecessary to get dirt off your body. You can scrub yourself with sand, you can rinse yourself in clear water and rub yourself with a scrubber.
If you do this, you'll have healthier skin and it will look nicer and feel softer.
Of course, you'd know all this if you read the fucking article.
Dude, I've met a lot of women off dating sites. A LOT of women. The reality is, the best approach is to look at the people, decide if you're mutually attracted on a physical level, and then meet in person straight away.
You can't get to know a person online. What you're getting to know isn't who they are. It's a strange brew of how they see themselves and what you'd like them to be.
The more time you spend "getting to know" someone online, the more attached you'll become to something that doesn't exist, and the more angry you'll be when you're inevitably disappointed.
I've met hundreds of women through dating sites. In the beginning, I spent time making my mistakes with women who lived in a different town, so I could experiment without having to face the consequences of my mistakes at the grocery store.
I've slept with so many of them that I literally got bored with it. I haven't been on a dating site in over a year. But, before I called it quits, I honestly had guys I worked with come up and ask me what my secret was, how I managed to get SO many dates with SO many good looking women, because they knew that I was meeting at least one new woman a week and sometimes more than that, and getting laid all the fucking time.
I'm single by choice, because I decided I deserve something better. But make no mistake, the things I say are true, and I learned these things through vast amounts of experience.
The problem is, women in western cultures have been taught that it's insulting for men to express desire for them.
If you whistle at a beautiful woman walking down the street in North America, you get a dirty look.
If you whistle at a beautiful woman walking down the street in a country like Italy or Brazil, you get a smile, and maybe some playful flirtation in return.
It's considered wrong for a man to be genuine about his desire and what motivates it in our culture. We're expected to lie.
The way it works is, you try to learn a little bit about things like what music they like, what their career and educational choices are, that sort of crap, and then you assure them that it's these things that you're interested in, even though you'd already decided you were attracted to them before you knew their name.
If you do it smoothly, they'll let you fuck them.
It's really funny, because they spend their teens and early twenties acting outraged and reacting to admiration with anger, then they hit their thirties and no one really wants them any more, and they pine for the days when they had the power to attract men, but it's too late.
I could burn it in the streets to get rid of it, I suppose.
I already paid the city garbage man to come over here and get it once via my taxes and he didn't do the job... I'm not going to pay a second person to do it.
If you instruct the garbage man to leave the garbage in the streets, you'll have to deal with garbage in the streets. Pretty simple. I'm not keeping it in my house.
In science fiction, you generally have some quantified differences from the real physical world, and then you play within the boundaries of the ramifications of that.
In fantasy, you don't bother with any of that.
Many of the great science fiction classics were written to criticize the world we live in without being straightforward enough to be censored, and pitch different social structured and value structures.
Heinlein and Gordon R Dickson come to mind immediately.
Well, lets take an example. I think most people who are well read in the genre would agree that Larry Niven writes "Hard" SF. So... Ringworld.
Ringworld, at it's core, was about "What if we had access to an impossibly strong substance. How might that change everything."
The setting was an extrapolation on that one question. But, it's not about the possibilities of technology, because there is no such substance. It's an impossible technology, a technology based on an ever so slightly different set of universal rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Comparing Internet service in the US to other nations is mostly pointless.
Do you get how amusing that is, given the context?
I do not agree that this is a good use of public resources, part of which are mine. That's the point of having a discussion about it.
If she wants to hire a private investigator out of her own pocket, that's all well and good.
That's the thing about a democracy... it's not based on principles, it's based on unity. If you can't convince the vast number of people who agree with me, you have no right to use our tax money to finance your investigation.
I remember when SnapChat first hit the scene, thinking that such a service shouldn't exist, that it's inherently malignant in nature. Seeing these people get burned by its failure makes me happy, and I have no interest in working extra hours so I can fund a team of people to shore up what was a bad idea in the first place.
Perhaps, if you hope to see your vision of how things ought to be realized, you should stop making authoritative statements and start providing compelling arguments that take my demographics interests into account.
Competition brings out the least in people.
If you measure yourself against the world, you'll always have room to improve.
If you measure yourself against other men, if you're the best, you'll never reach your potential.
And, because your peers have motivation to celebrate your failures, rather than your successes, you'll actually be fighting those who should be benefiting from your achievements.
On a personal level... dealing with competitive people is too tiresome to bear. Nothing they have to offer is worth dealing with their ego driven crap.
And, you can see the idiocy in their posts here. ISPs in the states are the most "free market" in the world, and they are also among the worst. The countries that treat ISPs as critical infrastructure like roads are the ones with the fastest infrastructure, but the "free market ra ra ra" crowd are still convinced that the way to improve the situation is to move further away from what is working better elsewhere.
Now, this isn't an academic debate. When you can look around, see that other people are getting better results, and you ignore that, that is just plain stupid.
Shoplifting is a great example. If a shopkeeper catches the perp in the act, they get charged with a minor crime. But, zero public resources are spent on investigation, because it just isn't worth the trouble.
I'm bored enough to play...
Let's accept the arguments and move past them. What is she seeking when she asks us to accept that she is the victim of a sex crime?
She is seeking for us to take responsibility for locating and punishing the people who distributed these photos at our expense.
Each of us asks ourselves: Will going along with her position protect me? Will it protect people I care about? Will it encourage society to change in ways that I prefer? Will it put me at risk by criminalizing behavior that I enjoy engaging in? Will it put me at risk by criminalizing behavior I might engage in unknowingly, and burden me with the need for increased vigilance? How much will it cost? What will we be sacrificing to pay that cost? Is it all worthwhile?
She wants to make this our responsibility. The "victim blamers" do not want to assume this responsibility. She is selling something and some of us aren't buying it.
And, in typical fashion, those who fancy themselves the Champions of Women are attempting to paint those who are unsympathetic as hateful and shame them into submission, making them angry and defensive.
Which is smart, because when you rationally consider the reward on investment involved in treating this as a serious crime, it's open and shut. Only an emotional thinker could think this is a rational response.
Of course, it does mean that you don't have any buddies anymore and you've got piss all over your toilet seat.
These sorts of comments remind me that, even though my opponents are anonymous, I am nevertheless wounding them with my rhetoric. That makes me smile.
Thank you!
I've been doing this for the better part of a decade. Except, I know I'll be repeating this phrase to myself every day, so I take it as an opportunity to engage in a little self programming. It makes the passphrase personal instead of generic, and useful instead of burdensome.
"I don't like drinking with my buddies till 3 because it makes me feel rotten the next day" = "Idldwmbt3bimmfrtnd"
Now when my buddies ask me to stay out drinking on Thursday night, I'll hear "I don't like drinking with my buddies till 3 because it makes me feel rotten the next day" in my head and make the responsible choice.
Or whatever. "I put the toilet seat down because even though it's inconvenient it's better than listening to my wife criticize me"?
You can have fun with it.
I didn't realize she's only 24. She looks old for her years...
Like I said, I don't know who she is, and don't really care. Entertainers are a dime a dozen, and they're as replaceable as a washer.
Aside from being a slag who has nude pics on the Internet, have no idea who she is, so I guess I'm doing it right.
She's really too old looking for me anyways. .. not into MILF porn
Speaking for myself, the reason for the negativity is illustrated in this line from the article:
"The Evince appâ"GNOMEâ(TM)s PDF viewerâ"now has less interface getting in the way"
This is not just something that applies to Gnome. This attitude is pervasive across the entire industry. Windows 8, OSX, Gnome, Unity... I can't speak for KDE, haven't used it in years.
I consider this attitude to represent a regression. They're crippling the tools I use to solve problems based on the advice of fluffy headed artists and usability experts who are more interested in how an ignoramus reacts to something they've never seen before.
Frankly, if you're not interested in what you're doing enough to learn to master your tool, then what you're doing isn't important.
Crippling the tools that people use to do work so intellectually lazy baby boomers can have a toy that's easy to play with is bad for everyone.
The more you design something to be popular, the crappier it is.
If I'm free, does that mean I'm free to participate in social networks that have a "real name" policy of my own volition?
If there's a social network that has a "real name" policy, and I join it, and then someone else comes along and insists that they should be able to join this network without using their real name, what happens to me?
Do we flat out not have the right to participate in a social network that has a real name policy?
You are an idiot.
I've got far more experience in this realm than the vast majority of my social circle, but you immediately decided that, because my advice doesn't jive with what you think you know, that I must be a socially awkward guy who is useless with the opposite sex.
You didn't even ask me. You just assumed.
That's what makes you stupid instead of just ignorant. Ignorance can be rectified. Stupid, not so much.
You're a fucking idiot.
If I said "Human beings aren't supposed to have 6 legs and snakes growing out of their head", would you make the same ridiculous comment?
Go soak your head till the bubbles stop.
It has nothing to do with your body being in working order or not. They're a bacterial colony that grows on your skin. Like grass growing on a field. The earth does not extrude the grass, and your body doesn't produce the bacteria.
Soap is unnecessary to get dirt off your body. You can scrub yourself with sand, you can rinse yourself in clear water and rub yourself with a scrubber.
If you do this, you'll have healthier skin and it will look nicer and feel softer.
Of course, you'd know all this if you read the fucking article.
Dude, I've met a lot of women off dating sites. A LOT of women. The reality is, the best approach is to look at the people, decide if you're mutually attracted on a physical level, and then meet in person straight away.
You can't get to know a person online. What you're getting to know isn't who they are. It's a strange brew of how they see themselves and what you'd like them to be.
The more time you spend "getting to know" someone online, the more attached you'll become to something that doesn't exist, and the more angry you'll be when you're inevitably disappointed.
I've met hundreds of women through dating sites. In the beginning, I spent time making my mistakes with women who lived in a different town, so I could experiment without having to face the consequences of my mistakes at the grocery store.
I've slept with so many of them that I literally got bored with it. I haven't been on a dating site in over a year. But, before I called it quits, I honestly had guys I worked with come up and ask me what my secret was, how I managed to get SO many dates with SO many good looking women, because they knew that I was meeting at least one new woman a week and sometimes more than that, and getting laid all the fucking time.
I'm single by choice, because I decided I deserve something better. But make no mistake, the things I say are true, and I learned these things through vast amounts of experience.
If you wash religiously, you won't stink.
If you don't wash, you won't stink.
If you wash periodically, you will stink.
Human beings aren't supposed to stink. We're supposed to have bacterial cultures on our skin that prevent it. Washing kills those cultures.
Here's some evidence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...
Long story short, we use too much soap.
The problem is, women in western cultures have been taught that it's insulting for men to express desire for them.
If you whistle at a beautiful woman walking down the street in North America, you get a dirty look.
If you whistle at a beautiful woman walking down the street in a country like Italy or Brazil, you get a smile, and maybe some playful flirtation in return.
It's considered wrong for a man to be genuine about his desire and what motivates it in our culture. We're expected to lie.
The way it works is, you try to learn a little bit about things like what music they like, what their career and educational choices are, that sort of crap, and then you assure them that it's these things that you're interested in, even though you'd already decided you were attracted to them before you knew their name.
If you do it smoothly, they'll let you fuck them.
It's really funny, because they spend their teens and early twenties acting outraged and reacting to admiration with anger, then they hit their thirties and no one really wants them any more, and they pine for the days when they had the power to attract men, but it's too late.
In a place as corrupt as the US, you shouldn't trust anyone or anything.
I could burn it in the streets to get rid of it, I suppose.
I already paid the city garbage man to come over here and get it once via my taxes and he didn't do the job... I'm not going to pay a second person to do it.
If you instruct the garbage man to leave the garbage in the streets, you'll have to deal with garbage in the streets. Pretty simple. I'm not keeping it in my house.
So, garbage men in Seattle now have the authority to issue people tickets.
Here in Vancouver, they just leave the garbage there in the street in front of your house, I've recently learned.
God, I hate west coast culture.
I chose to respond by going out at night and spreading my garbage up and down the streets.
Fuckers wanna play passive aggressive games? I can play them too.
In science fiction, you generally have some quantified differences from the real physical world, and then you play within the boundaries of the ramifications of that.
In fantasy, you don't bother with any of that.
Many of the great science fiction classics were written to criticize the world we live in without being straightforward enough to be censored, and pitch different social structured and value structures.
Heinlein and Gordon R Dickson come to mind immediately.
You should read Niven. I recommend Neutron Star, Ringworld and The Integral Trees.
Well, lets take an example. I think most people who are well read in the genre would agree that Larry Niven writes "Hard" SF. So... Ringworld.
Ringworld, at it's core, was about "What if we had access to an impossibly strong substance. How might that change everything."
The setting was an extrapolation on that one question. But, it's not about the possibilities of technology, because there is no such substance. It's an impossible technology, a technology based on an ever so slightly different set of universal rules.
But the story was a human story.
Science fiction has never been about predicting future technology.
Science fiction is about considering and exploring the human ramifications when certain aspects of reality are changed.
You can only watch Corner Gas a few hundred times before it gets boring.
We have Just for Laughs. Canadian comedy is the best on the planet. Why would we need anything Americans make?