Science relies on empiricism, based on facts. Art is not a 'fact'; an opinion on art is just that, nothing more, and the weight of that opinion doesn't become more important just because the person spouting it got a degree in the subject.
You understand that you are arguing that there is no reason that you like a certain kind of music? That there is nothing rational about music to study and no way to compare anything. That studying music is nothing more than naval gazing.
If I am a rational person and you are an (irrational) emotional person then we already disagree upon the fundamental set of axioms. There is no point to us having a discussion other than to say that we disagree - and then to realize that we disagree because we are arguing from different premisses.
So unless you are going to take a U-turn and declare that you like music for a reason, then there is no more to this discussion.
> I don't look down on the people because of their poor choices in music
You just did, by assuming their choice in music is poor...simply because you say it is.
I like calculators. Say you purchase a calculator, say its a Casio. I have deemed that you have made a poor choice of calculator. Do I think you less of a person for purchasing a crappy Casio? Heaven's No. It's a fucking calculator. It doesn't amount to anything. What do you want me to say? Your boy band music is bad, but I love you anyway.
I see that in my original post I did refer to an Ashely Simpson listener as a stupid sheep. I did that completely out of humor (in responce to the parent post) and wasn't serious about the statement at all.
If anyone drew the wrong conclusion from that statement, I appologize.
What you're missing is that no one gets to decide for another person what is art, or what is good music. Only that person gets to decide. To state anything to the contrary is to show that you're nothing more than a megalomaniac with a complete disregard for anyone who happens to disagree with you. Just another typical elitist snob who goes about saying things like "people that really know art".
I only think you are getting about 1/4 of the point that I did not convey very well. You are assuming all kinds of things about my proposition that are not true.
1 Just because I don't like a particular instance of art does not make it bad. Just because I like a particular instance of art does not make it good.
I believe that art is a partially ordered. For some instances of art A and B it may be the case that A>B or A<B or it may be indeterminate. For instance you could say that Bach > Simpson, but you could not say that Bach or Mozart is better than the other.
2 Just as with science, the opinion of a person who understands the subject carries more weight than a layman's opinion.
Compare the two opinions: I like Missy Elliot because her music sounds good. I like Missy Elliot because she makes good use of syncopation.
The first opinion is entirely subjective. The second opinion has elements of objectivity and that is what your position lacks. And that is why I feel that your position is mostly baseless.
3 I don't look down on the people because of their poor choices in music. I do not feel superior in that regards. I am saying that I believe some music is better than others. And I quote you
We have a name for people like that. We call them "losers".
You are saying that you are a better person than I am. You have commited in the far greater sin.
You are looking at art as a method of deriving pleasure. By your definition only the fact that someone enjoys the art matters. Art to you is nothing more than a drug.
I am looking at art as something that can contain merit in and of itself. There is something that can constitute good art, and a person can spend their entire life just trying figure that out. Those persons get degrees in Literature, Music Theory,...
It appears as though we have a difference of definitions. No conclusion can be reached in this argument. All I can argue in my favor is that the majority of people that really know art would strongly disagree with you.
And now slashdot moderators, I would like to teach you how to detect a troll-crank. Let us disect this post.
these so called highly intelligent people at MIT
Why would a physicist speak in a derogatory manner towards a good school like MIT? Smells like a troll to me.
you're working against the Plasma rather than with.
Looks like this troll didn't read the article or even the article summary. What does that say about the moderators?
The only clear way to do this is via Focus Fusion
The only way to do something that has never been done is via some unproven theory that no one has ever heard of? Crank alarms ringing loudly now.
Tokamak reactors generate electricity by boiling water for a steam powered generator... Focus fusion reactors do not require a heat engine.
Wow! This is 2 Nobel winning discoveries in one. Coal, Fission, and potentially Fuision all use steam turbines. The crank meter has gone through the roof.
After all, electricity is just moving charged particles.
There are charged particles in my hands. I am waving my hands. Look it's electricity.
The particle decelerators in a focus fusion reactor merely transfer the electricity of charged particle beams into a wire.
Completely inane. Do I have to explain how this is worse than wrong?
A focus fusion reactor should be able to economically generate power in quantities as small as 20MW from a power plant the size of a two car garage. This means they will be useful for powering individual villages in the third world where regional electricity grids are not as well developed. And in developed nations focus fusion power can be generated near where it will be used to reduce transmission losses and can be owned by the communities it serves to reduce dependence on speculative energy markets.
Wow, we can throw in a Nobel peace prize too. Free energy for everyone. That is so economically absurd that it is just rediculous.
If there are any financiers out there who have the backbone to do what is right in this world and do what is right for mankind, I urge you to fund this research to banish forever the specter of Fossil Fuel shortages and associated ecological damage and begin a new era in Human History.
Real research continues via government grants and commercial R&D, but these guys need your money. Sounds about as legit as a televangelist.
You are absolutely correct. Ashley Simpson is a fantastic musician. She has the voice of a siren.
The kind of siren that could turn a ship full of lusty sailors into sailor scouts as their cocks turn inside out and streams of blood spray out of their ears.
When a talentless twit like Ashely Simpson gets put on record with songs made for sheep... when the bile-vomit brown notes that spew from her throat are artificially manufactured into a sugary snack... how can you possibly hold that opinion?
Ashley Simpson == Bad God Speed! You Black Emperor == Good
I just wanted to add that you may well be correct that the WinCE on the Dreamcast was as good as the Sega stuff. However given that
The dirth of WinCE games on the Dreamcast despite the familiar tools
The nonexistance of high quality Dreamcast games running WinCE
The fact that Sega, reviewers, developers, and everyone else all spouted the same line about how WinCE wasn't as good with less performance and capabilities
The burden of proof is upon you to establish that it was just as good and infact better in some areas.
You didn't give any proof, so I can't let myself believe you. Sorry.
>Microsoft: Oh you want to do networking? That's really to bad because were are making our own system now and you can go fuck your self.
Google around; we had full DirectPlay support right from the beginning. The Japanese version of Sega Rally 2 (a launch title if I recall correctly) used it for four-player head to head play, albeit to Sega-run centralized servers. The US version of Sega Rally 2 lacked this feature, alas.
I'm talking about SegaNet gaming network, not networking enabling specific games.
Again, Google around; it was a full blown operating system. If you think that an OS has to include the GUI and the apps, perhaps you should consider taking an operating systems design course. Or maybe just ask Linus Torvalds what he thinks about that.:)
Now you are just arguing semantics and being a smart ass. If you consider an OS with no GUI, shell, and where all processes share a single virtual address space to be a "full blown" OS then I am going to say that you are stretching the truth.
I retract my statement that there were no medium quality Windows CE games for the dreamcast. Sega Rally 2 was definitely of medium quality. For the record the frame rate problems were much worse than that, and in addition that game had serious clipping issues with trees poping up right infront of you.
I think that you citing Sega Rally 2 as the flagship WinCE game on the Dreamcast really justifies the fact that WinCE on the dreamcast just couldn't cut it.
>In my personal opinion Sega got used and abused by the deal with MS.
Just plain wrong. I was on the Windows CE for Dreamcast SDK development team, and as far as I can recall, we just provided an SDK and marketing services. As there wasn't much uptake of the SDK, there's not much that MS could have done to influence Sega's success.
Sega: Hey Microsoft, now that you have made an operating system and web browser for the Dreamcast we would really like to get momentum going on our network initiative. Microsoft: Oh you want to do networking? That's really to bad because were are making our own system now and you can go fuck your self.
Now Sega wasn't doing to well at this point, but it did not help that MS basically fucked them over at the end. It was a good buisness decision for MS to do this - just not worthy of sainthood.
That inferiority was a matter of opinion: Windows CE provided a full blown operating system to rely on whereas Sega's SDK required you to write to the bare metal. Despite the overhead of providing an OS, we still beat them on certain 3D benchmarks, much to their embarrassment.
Immediately I think you are lying, because CE on the dreamcast was heavily stripped down and was in no way a full blown operating system. But if you are telling the truth and just exagerating on the full blown operating system part, then you are just way too biased. WinCE on the Dreamcast was not good. None of the initial titles used it and I don't remember any title of medium quality or better using it. Performance wise WinCE on the Dreamcast was very poor and I don't think a single game exists to disprove that.
>In my opinion MS used the Dreamcast as an experiment in entering the console market.
Also wrong. To the best of my recollection, the carryover was minimal. There were actually two proposals for what became the Xbox. Ours was Windows CE based and lost out against the other. Only a handful from our team joined the Xbox team.
Experiments can sometimes have negative results. Perhaps if Microsoft never worked with Sega then the Xbox would be running WinCE and be a complete failure. Perhaps it was an experiment from which Microsoft did learn valuable information.
All that aside, I do not blame MS from killing the Dreamcast. I completely agree with you that Sega did it to themselves.
You have been in my kill file so long I have completely forgoten who you are. Oh well, off to another decade of ignoring your childish ranting. Carry on.
I think you may be confusing some of the language.
When you take Einstein's field equations and solve them given some initial data or constraints then you are solving for all past and future. You are solving for the entire spacetime manifold at once. Spacetime is frozen and you must "thaw" it out to see how the system evolves in time. Nothing moves in spacetime. Spacetime shows you how things have moved and will move. A point particle looks like a long curve in spacetime. The particle moves in space (given some notion of time - the thawing), but the world line it travels does not move in spacetime.
Mathematically you can have a perfectly valid solution to the field equations that allow time travel. But to be a valid solution it still must be single valued. Basically if you are to go back in time, then you were back in time. You cannot change history because you were already apart of history. Spacetime is still frozen, it is just that a particle's world line travels in a loop. The world line still does not move in spacetime.
The discussion at hand is what Einstien's theory of Gravity tells us about time travel. Reality has nothing to do with it:)
All this says is you can not alter the past and return the the future the modified past now has, you return to your start point with no changes. What is to say that you don't fork off an alternative time line where the past was changed and the alternative future played out.
GR does not allow that. The mathematics do not allow that. That would violate the single-valuedness of solutions to the PDE.
If the theory were like that, then you could equally as well branch out into the alternate time line before you went into the past. Such a theory would lack causality.
He actually believes (as does Kip Thorne, his Caltech buddy of wormhole fame) that relativity allows time travel. He is wrong.
Relativity does allow time travel, but only with very strong constraints of consistancy.
The spacetime of relativity is frozen
Yes. Spacetime is solved all at once. Everything past and future is set in stone.
from the infinite past to the infinite future, by definition.
No. There is no such constraint. I suggest you do some reading.
Nothing can move in spacetime.
Yes.
It is abstract.
No. No more than anything else.
Hawking is full blown crackpots.
Possibly. His soliton solutions of Quantum Cosmology are highly suspect to me.
In GR you solve everything all at once. All of spacetime: all past and future are all set in stone. That does NOT mean that you cannot travel into the past. Famous people have shown that there are mathematical solutions to Einstein's field equations that allow just that. However the past and future are still set in stone. You can travel into the past, but you cannot alter the past.
You end up with a one of three beliefs (1) It's rediculous that I can travel into the past but not kill my grandfather, therefore timetravel does not exist. (2) 12 Monkeys (3) Something must be wrong... blah blah blah... Quantum Gravity will give us the answer.
Well about a week ago I had to go into the registry and clean out a bunch of entries for a driver install that crashed halfway through. I couldn't install the driver because it said it was already installed even though it wasn't.
It's obviously more pessimistic and darker than the previous series. I was becoming sick lately of optimistic live-action adaptations of Marvel comics. I can't wait for this one.
Blade was optimistic?
I didn't see The Punisher, but that didn't look optimistic.
"Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD [co-author of Say No to Circumcision] underscored its importance when he commented, 'The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma.'" ("Where Is My Foreskin? The Case Against Circumcision," by Paul M. Fleiss, MD, Mothering, Winter 1997)
Anecdotal Evidence: Someone in my family got an infection after their circumcision and ganegreen rotted off most of their penis. Nobody got circumcised after that and those persons are AOK and have not had any trouble with hygene or tight foreskins.
Having foreskin problems is fairly uncommon and easily treatable. Having really bad infections after circumcision is probably less common in a place like America. Death from circumcision is even less common but does happen.
And, being an avid non-circumcist(?), she takes more time teaching them cleanliness, and still has problems.
She might be doing some cleaning that you aren't supposed to. For one thing, exposing certain parts to dirty bath water is a very, very bad idea. Those parts can stay unexposed, and don't need to be cleaned like that.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a degree in physics.
Fuck this.
I quit.
Science relies on empiricism, based on facts. Art is not a 'fact'; an opinion on art is just that, nothing more, and the weight of that opinion doesn't become more important just because the person spouting it got a degree in the subject.
You understand that you are arguing that there is no reason that you like a certain kind of music? That there is nothing rational about music to study and no way to compare anything. That studying music is nothing more than naval gazing.
If I am a rational person and you are an (irrational) emotional person then we already disagree upon the fundamental set of axioms. There is no point to us having a discussion other than to say that we disagree - and then to realize that we disagree because we are arguing from different premisses.
So unless you are going to take a U-turn and declare that you like music for a reason, then there is no more to this discussion.
> I don't look down on the people because of their poor choices in music
You just did, by assuming their choice in music is poor...simply because you say it is.
I like calculators.
Say you purchase a calculator, say its a Casio.
I have deemed that you have made a poor choice of calculator.
Do I think you less of a person for purchasing a crappy Casio?
Heaven's No. It's a fucking calculator. It doesn't amount to anything.
What do you want me to say? Your boy band music is bad, but I love you anyway.
I see that in my original post I did refer to an Ashely Simpson listener as a stupid sheep. I did that completely out of humor (in responce to the parent post) and wasn't serious about the statement at all.
If anyone drew the wrong conclusion from that statement, I appologize.
What you're missing is that no one gets to decide for another person what is art, or what is good music. Only that person gets to decide. To state anything to the contrary is to show that you're nothing more than a megalomaniac with a complete disregard for anyone who happens to disagree with you. Just another typical elitist snob who goes about saying things like "people that really know art".
I only think you are getting about 1/4 of the point that I did not convey very well. You are assuming all kinds of things about my proposition that are not true.
1
Just because I don't like a particular instance of art does not make it bad. Just because I like a particular instance of art does not make it good.
I believe that art is a partially ordered. For some instances of art A and B it may be the case that A>B or A<B or it may be indeterminate. For instance you could say that Bach > Simpson, but you could not say that Bach or Mozart is better than the other.
2
Just as with science, the opinion of a person who understands the subject carries more weight than a layman's opinion.
Compare the two opinions:
I like Missy Elliot because her music sounds good.
I like Missy Elliot because she makes good use of syncopation.
The first opinion is entirely subjective. The second opinion has elements of objectivity and that is what your position lacks. And that is why I feel that your position is mostly baseless.
3
I don't look down on the people because of their poor choices in music. I do not feel superior in that regards. I am saying that I believe some music is better than others. And I quote you
We have a name for people like that. We call them "losers".
You are saying that you are a better person than I am. You have commited in the far greater sin.
You are looking at art as a method of deriving pleasure. By your definition only the fact that someone enjoys the art matters. Art to you is nothing more than a drug.
...
I am looking at art as something that can contain merit in and of itself. There is something that can constitute good art, and a person can spend their entire life just trying figure that out. Those persons get degrees in Literature, Music Theory,
It appears as though we have a difference of definitions. No conclusion can be reached in this argument. All I can argue in my favor is that the majority of people that really know art would strongly disagree with you.
In other news physics cranks fool slashdot moderators again.
... Focus fusion reactors do not require a heat engine.
The only intelligent sci.physics post that Google could find.
And now slashdot moderators, I would like to teach you how to detect a troll-crank. Let us disect this post.
these so called highly intelligent people at MIT
Why would a physicist speak in a derogatory manner towards a good school like MIT? Smells like a troll to me.
you're working against the Plasma rather than with.
Looks like this troll didn't read the article or even the article summary. What does that say about the moderators?
The only clear way to do this is via Focus Fusion
The only way to do something that has never been done is via some unproven theory that no one has ever heard of? Crank alarms ringing loudly now.
Tokamak reactors generate electricity by boiling water for a steam powered generator
Wow! This is 2 Nobel winning discoveries in one. Coal, Fission, and potentially Fuision all use steam turbines. The crank meter has gone through the roof.
After all, electricity is just moving charged particles.
There are charged particles in my hands. I am waving my hands. Look it's electricity.
The particle decelerators in a focus fusion reactor merely transfer the electricity of charged particle beams into a wire.
Completely inane. Do I have to explain how this is worse than wrong?
A focus fusion reactor should be able to economically generate power in quantities as small as 20MW from a power plant the size of a two car garage. This means they will be useful for powering individual villages in the third world where regional electricity grids are not as well developed. And in developed nations focus fusion power can be generated near where it will be used to reduce transmission losses and can be owned by the communities it serves to reduce dependence on speculative energy markets.
Wow, we can throw in a Nobel peace prize too. Free energy for everyone. That is so economically absurd that it is just rediculous.
If there are any financiers out there who have the backbone to do what is right in this world and do what is right for mankind, I urge you to fund this research to banish forever the specter of Fossil Fuel shortages and associated ecological damage and begin a new era in Human History.
Real research continues via government grants and commercial R&D, but these guys need your money. Sounds about as legit as a televangelist.
You are absolutely correct. Ashley Simpson is a fantastic musician. She has the voice of a siren.
... when the bile-vomit brown notes that spew from her throat are artificially manufactured into a sugary snack ... how can you possibly hold that opinion?
The kind of siren that could turn a ship full of lusty sailors into sailor scouts as their cocks turn inside out and streams of blood spray out of their ears.
When a talentless twit like Ashely Simpson gets put on record with songs made for sheep
Ashley Simpson == Bad
God Speed! You Black Emperor == Good
Ashley Simpson Listener == stupid sheep
Nicolò Paganini Listener == intellectual superior
You should start out very young, age through the game and at some point in the future die of old age if the environment doesn't kill you.
Weeeellll then I would just play an elf.
And I would never leave the village.
Hasn't anyone noticed that consoles *always* require you to put the CD in the drive to play the game? How is this any better than the PC games?
Yeah. Except when you buy the HD for the PS2 and you install the game on it.
But in every other case, yeah.
The burden of proof is upon you to establish that it was just as good and infact better in some areas.
You didn't give any proof, so I can't let myself believe you. Sorry.
>Microsoft: Oh you want to do networking? That's really to bad because were are making our own system now and you can go fuck your self.
Google around; we had full DirectPlay support right from the beginning. The Japanese version of Sega Rally 2 (a launch title if I recall correctly) used it for four-player head to head play, albeit to Sega-run centralized servers. The US version of Sega Rally 2 lacked this feature, alas.
I'm talking about SegaNet gaming network, not networking enabling specific games.
Again, Google around; it was a full blown operating system. If you think that an OS has to include the GUI and the apps, perhaps you should consider taking an operating systems design course. Or maybe just ask Linus Torvalds what he thinks about that.
Now you are just arguing semantics and being a smart ass. If you consider an OS with no GUI, shell, and where all processes share a single virtual address space to be a "full blown" OS then I am going to say that you are stretching the truth.
I retract my statement that there were no medium quality Windows CE games for the dreamcast. Sega Rally 2 was definitely of medium quality. For the record the frame rate problems were much worse than that, and in addition that game had serious clipping issues with trees poping up right infront of you.
I think that you citing Sega Rally 2 as the flagship WinCE game on the Dreamcast really justifies the fact that WinCE on the dreamcast just couldn't cut it.
>In my personal opinion Sega got used and abused by the deal with MS.
Just plain wrong. I was on the Windows CE for Dreamcast SDK development team, and as far as I can recall, we just provided an SDK and marketing services. As there wasn't much uptake of the SDK, there's not much that MS could have done to influence Sega's success.
Sega: Hey Microsoft, now that you have made an operating system and web browser for the Dreamcast we would really like to get momentum going on our network initiative.
Microsoft: Oh you want to do networking? That's really to bad because were are making our own system now and you can go fuck your self.
Now Sega wasn't doing to well at this point, but it did not help that MS basically fucked them over at the end. It was a good buisness decision for MS to do this - just not worthy of sainthood.
That inferiority was a matter of opinion: Windows CE provided a full blown operating system to rely on whereas Sega's SDK required you to write to the bare metal. Despite the overhead of providing an OS, we still beat them on certain 3D benchmarks, much to their embarrassment.
Immediately I think you are lying, because CE on the dreamcast was heavily stripped down and was in no way a full blown operating system. But if you are telling the truth and just exagerating on the full blown operating system part, then you are just way too biased. WinCE on the Dreamcast was not good. None of the initial titles used it and I don't remember any title of medium quality or better using it. Performance wise WinCE on the Dreamcast was very poor and I don't think a single game exists to disprove that.
>In my opinion MS used the Dreamcast as an experiment in entering the console market.
Also wrong. To the best of my recollection, the carryover was minimal. There were actually two proposals for what became the Xbox. Ours was Windows CE based and lost out against the other. Only a handful from our team joined the Xbox team.
Experiments can sometimes have negative results. Perhaps if Microsoft never worked with Sega then the Xbox would be running WinCE and be a complete failure. Perhaps it was an experiment from which Microsoft did learn valuable information.
All that aside, I do not blame MS from killing the Dreamcast. I completely agree with you that Sega did it to themselves.
Ahhhh. I knew I recognized you.
You are the sci.physics troll
You have been in my kill file so long I have completely forgoten who you are. Oh well, off to another decade of ignoring your childish ranting. Carry on.
This debate has come to an end
before it started.
I'm sorry God didn't give you enough brains to understand real science. I just visited your website and you are a class A crank!
I think you may be confusing some of the language.
When you take Einstein's field equations and solve them given some initial data or constraints then you are solving for all past and future. You are solving for the entire spacetime manifold at once. Spacetime is frozen and you must "thaw" it out to see how the system evolves in time. Nothing moves in spacetime. Spacetime shows you how things have moved and will move. A point particle looks like a long curve in spacetime. The particle moves in space (given some notion of time - the thawing), but the world line it travels does not move in spacetime.
Mathematically you can have a perfectly valid solution to the field equations that allow time travel. But to be a valid solution it still must be single valued. Basically if you are to go back in time, then you were back in time. You cannot change history because you were already apart of history. Spacetime is still frozen, it is just that a particle's world line travels in a loop. The world line still does not move in spacetime.
Maybe, maybe not.
:)
The discussion at hand is what Einstien's theory of Gravity tells us about time travel. Reality has nothing to do with it
All this says is you can not alter the past and return the the future the modified past now has, you return to your start point with no changes.
What is to say that you don't fork off an alternative time line where the past was changed and the alternative future played out.
GR does not allow that. The mathematics do not allow that. That would violate the single-valuedness of solutions to the PDE.
If the theory were like that, then you could equally as well branch out into the alternate time line before you went into the past. Such a theory would lack causality.
He actually believes (as does Kip Thorne, his Caltech buddy of wormhole fame) that relativity allows time travel. He is wrong.
... blah blah blah ... Quantum Gravity will give us the answer.
Relativity does allow time travel, but only with very strong constraints of consistancy.
The spacetime of relativity is frozen
Yes. Spacetime is solved all at once. Everything past and future is set in stone.
from the infinite past to the infinite future, by definition.
No. There is no such constraint. I suggest you do some reading.
Nothing can move in spacetime.
Yes.
It is abstract.
No. No more than anything else.
Hawking is full blown crackpots.
Possibly. His soliton solutions of Quantum Cosmology are highly suspect to me.
In GR you solve everything all at once. All of spacetime: all past and future are all set in stone. That does NOT mean that you cannot travel into the past. Famous people have shown that there are mathematical solutions to Einstein's field equations that allow just that. However the past and future are still set in stone. You can travel into the past, but you cannot alter the past.
You end up with a one of three beliefs
(1) It's rediculous that I can travel into the past but not kill my grandfather, therefore timetravel does not exist.
(2) 12 Monkeys
(3) Something must be wrong
universal theory of gravity
before then apples falling and planets orbiting were totally unrelated
general applies to general relativity which is the incorporation of gravity into the special relativity
Well about a week ago I had to go into the registry and clean out a bunch of entries for a driver install that crashed halfway through. I couldn't install the driver because it said it was already installed even though it wasn't.
...
And there was this other time with a NIC
So I guess the answer is a quarter of the time.
The PS1 wasn't difficult to develop for.
The Sega Saturn, now that was a beast. Processors everywhere and no inherent capabilities for sound and movie compression.
???
Researchers have known that smegma doesn't cause penile cancer since the 1940's-1960's. That's an old myth.
You can look that information up on cancer.org, aka the American Cancer Society. They give a short blurb in the risk factor section.
It's obviously more pessimistic and darker than the previous series. I was becoming sick lately of optimistic live-action adaptations of Marvel comics. I can't wait for this one.
Blade was optimistic?
I didn't see The Punisher, but that didn't look optimistic.
"Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD [co-author of Say No to Circumcision] underscored its importance when he commented, 'The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma.'" ("Where Is My Foreskin? The Case Against Circumcision," by Paul M. Fleiss, MD, Mothering, Winter 1997)
Anecdotal Evidence: Someone in my family got an infection after their circumcision and ganegreen rotted off most of their penis. Nobody got circumcised after that and those persons are AOK and have not had any trouble with hygene or tight foreskins.
Having foreskin problems is fairly uncommon and easily treatable. Having really bad infections after circumcision is probably less common in a place like America. Death from circumcision is even less common but does happen.
And, being an avid non-circumcist(?), she takes more time teaching them cleanliness, and still has problems.
She might be doing some cleaning that you aren't supposed to. For one thing, exposing certain parts to dirty bath water is a very, very bad idea. Those parts can stay unexposed, and don't need to be cleaned like that.
SCO cannot distribute gcc with ELF and at the same time stop others from using ELF.
If I buy SCO Unix and it comes with gcc-fork then gcc has to be under the GPL.
If gcc-fork is under the GPL, then I can take ELF code from gcc-fork and include it in gcc.