Herearethree peer reviewed studies. Had I spent more than 2 minutes with Google Scholar, I could have found more.
I do stress that this is emerging evidence, and a lot more work needs to be done. But even if there's no link found, the simple fact is that porn is not information about sex, it's misinformation about sex.
Romance novels (I've read a few to see what the fuss was about) have the redeeming feature that at least they link sex to love and emotions. You can't say that about the vast majority of porn.
All of your points (with the possible exception of #3) implicitly assume that porn is sex. It isn't, as anyone who has actually had sex can tell you.
My kids (all under the age of 13) know about sex. They know that their parents have sex. They've seen pictures of childbirth. I let them watch The Big Bang Theory, where it's mentioned and even implied all the time. They've been to art galleries regularly since they were 2, where there's plenty of nudity.
I don't have a problem with sex and nudity. The problem with porn is that it's not sex. It's not that it's too explicit, it's that it's not nearly explicit enough. It invariably contains no emotion, nothing about relationships, nothing about negotiation... it leaves out everything that's good about sex beyond the purely mechanical. And that's leaving aside the the fact that it compounds existing dysfunctions in our society like body image dysmorphia.
There's a lot of emerging evidence that young adults who watched a lot of porn have problems with intimate relationships. It makes intuitive sense when you think about it, like how exclusively using Visual Basic teaches you bad programming habits, or eating a diet of junk food gives you bad dietary habits and can even permanently affect your physiology.
That there exists "good" porn is beside the point. The vast majority of it is bad for a developing brain. They would be far better off with trashy erotic romance novels than they would be with porn, because at least they contain some actual emotional content.
Anecdote: My daughter (when she was eight) and I were passing an "adult shop". She asked what it was. I thought about it for a moment and said: You know the annoying boys at your school who tell dumb, unfunny, stupid jokes? It's like that, only sex.
If you're arguing that the US should get a decent social safety net and a working health care (especially mental health) system, otherwise it can't be trusted with guns, I can respect that argument.
No, those stats don't talk about suicide or accidents. But that's also beside the point.
The key point is that if you own a gun which is in your house, then you are more likely to be harmed by that gun than by a gun brought in by someone else. That's true even if you exclude suicide and accidents.
They still do film processing (most films are still shot on film), and provide a significant amount of expertise and lab work in film restoration and archiving.
If you're asking what they've invented in the last 20 years, the answer is essentially nothing.
Analytic solutions are not necessarily easier to calculate.
Analytic solutions tend to involve special functions for which the computer can only compute an approximation anyway. Have you ever tried to write code to evaluate the error function over the entire domain of floating point numbers? (Yes, I know, it's now in the standard library; ten years ago, it wasn't.) That's one of the easier ones.
Even if there are no special functions, analytic solutions are still often harder to calculate if the problem is big enough. Think of solving systems of linear equations, one of the standard workhorses of numeric programming. We're talking really big ones; hundreds of thousands of equations in hundreds of thousands of unknowns or bigger. In the real world, this problem would almost certainly be solved using successive approximations, even though high school students know how to solve them analytically.
Finally, and most importantly, the problem statement is usually an approximation. Take the OP as an example. What this kid almost certainly solved was an analytic solution to the problem of a particle in a gravitational field with linear air resistance. Well, air resistance is not linear. At low velocities, and for projectiles with a sufficiently small cross-section, it's close enough. But it's still an approximation.
The advantages of analytic solutions are almost always not computational. What they buy you is understanding. The methods of obtaining the solution, and the form of the final equations, often reveal some deep insights about the problem. For many situations, that's far more valuable. And it's certainly something that no computer can give you.
The exceptions that use it - like access violation, or division by zero - are not the kind of things that should be generated in the first place, and if they do, the best thing you can do is let the process crash right there and then, so that the crash dump has full context of what went wrong.
I'm guessing you don't write high-reliability software.
There are plenty of situations where you can recover from a SEH situation. Division by zero is one of them; think of a user-scriptable application with an embedded interpreter. It's much more efficient for the CPU to catch the exception than for you to keep check the divisor.
Even in the case of an access violation, there are some applications where dropping the connection which caused the problem but keeping the others going is an acceptable solution.
As I noted above, the 6502's design relies on the MOSFETs being analogue devices in various nontrivial ways, particularly the bypass MOSFETs between the data bus and the secondary bus. The 6502 is a good candidate for realisation in redstone logic; it would be much simpler and achieve a much higher clock rate than doing a Z80. But you can't just plug the reverse engineered 6502 into Minecraft. There's at least a little redesign that needs to be done.
I've toyed with building the 6502 in redstone logic. If you know anything about the internals of the 6502, it actually lends itself to emulation better than, say, the Z80, since it doesn't use microcode and has a data path which is simply laid-out geometrically. Plus, there are quirks in the 6502's design which mean that the delay in getting a slow clock signal around the device wouldn't be a problem in practice.
The complication is that the 6502 has two logical internal busses (the data bus and the secondary bus) which are connected by a set of bypass MOSFETs which are bidirectional: they can pass data in either direction. That's okay when you're realising the 6502 in analogue electronics (which is what transistors are, after all), but it makes it difficult in digital electronics. At the very least, you'd need to separate the one control signal into two (one for each direction). It's a bit of a mess.
Where I live, it's legal to borrow your friend's car if they think it's okay. They also have cars that you can hire on a pay-only-for-what-you-use basis. They even have ones where someone will drive it for you.
I can only imagine what it's like to live in a place where cars are sold by the manufacturer on the condition that they're not resold, hired out or lent. I feel bad for you, dude.
You can't watch Game of Thrones on free-to-air TV, because the outdated-but-still-better-than-the-US ratings system won't let you show R-rated content there.
I'm still planning on voting for him. I think that the two party system we have is inherently broken.
I don't endorse candidates in a race in which I don't have an interest, but let me propose another option for you.
Realistically, either Obama will be re-elected or (slightly less likely) Romney will be elected. Nothing will stop that. Your best bet now is to get someone else in the presidential debates who will ask the right questions and shake things up. That someone else is not Ron Paul. To get into the debate under the current rules, you need to poll 15% nationally. There's only one person who is even close to that: Buddy Roemer, who is currently at 7%.
As others have noted, it depends. It's sometimes convenient to consider -1 as being prime, for example, because it allows you to extend the notion of squarefree numbers to negative integers.
There are senses in which it's arguably correct to make the distinction. You can, for example, distinguish between "Christianity" as a collection of organisations and "Christianity" as a collection of beliefs and practices. Similarly, many people distinguish between "Buddhism" the belief system and "Buddhism" the philosophical system.
It's unfortunate that the word "religion" has attracted a negative connotation, because it leads to people to engage in mental and verbal contortions in order to explain why their system of beliefs and/or practices aren't really "religion". Why can't we just admit that some religions are harmless?
Oh, and it's not just theists. Sam Harris famously follows a form of Buddhism which he claims is not really religion just because it doesn't have any supernatural beliefs. Christopher Hitchens wrote a book with the subtitle "how religion poisons everything" while sending his daughter to a Quaker school (also justifying it with a phrase to the effect of "it's not really religion").
Of course, this article does nothing to help the situation.
To be fair, there are a few notable physicists who have made major contributions to other fields. Dijkstra is the one that most computer scientists know. They are, of course, notable because they're the exceptions.
When I was an undergrad, biology was the science you did if you liked science but didn't like maths. That's the reason why I was turned off biology back in the day. Boy how things have changed.
Having said that, it's my experience that it's easier to teach a computer scientist (not just a "tech guy") enough biology than it is to teach a biologist enough software engineering, where "enough" means sufficient to form a productive working partnership. There are, of course, notable exceptions in both directions. But that generally seems to be the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there's a wider variety of erotic romance than you seem to think. Have you ever read any chick lit?
Good point. I just gave the first link I found.
Here are three peer reviewed studies. Had I spent more than 2 minutes with Google Scholar, I could have found more.
I do stress that this is emerging evidence, and a lot more work needs to be done. But even if there's no link found, the simple fact is that porn is not information about sex, it's misinformation about sex.
Romance novels (I've read a few to see what the fuss was about) have the redeeming feature that at least they link sex to love and emotions. You can't say that about the vast majority of porn.
All of your points (with the possible exception of #3) implicitly assume that porn is sex. It isn't, as anyone who has actually had sex can tell you.
My kids (all under the age of 13) know about sex. They know that their parents have sex. They've seen pictures of childbirth. I let them watch The Big Bang Theory, where it's mentioned and even implied all the time. They've been to art galleries regularly since they were 2, where there's plenty of nudity.
I don't have a problem with sex and nudity. The problem with porn is that it's not sex. It's not that it's too explicit, it's that it's not nearly explicit enough. It invariably contains no emotion, nothing about relationships, nothing about negotiation... it leaves out everything that's good about sex beyond the purely mechanical. And that's leaving aside the the fact that it compounds existing dysfunctions in our society like body image dysmorphia.
There's a lot of emerging evidence that young adults who watched a lot of porn have problems with intimate relationships. It makes intuitive sense when you think about it, like how exclusively using Visual Basic teaches you bad programming habits, or eating a diet of junk food gives you bad dietary habits and can even permanently affect your physiology.
That there exists "good" porn is beside the point. The vast majority of it is bad for a developing brain. They would be far better off with trashy erotic romance novels than they would be with porn, because at least they contain some actual emotional content.
Anecdote: My daughter (when she was eight) and I were passing an "adult shop". She asked what it was. I thought about it for a moment and said: You know the annoying boys at your school who tell dumb, unfunny, stupid jokes? It's like that, only sex.
If you're arguing that the US should get a decent social safety net and a working health care (especially mental health) system, otherwise it can't be trusted with guns, I can respect that argument.
No, those stats don't talk about suicide or accidents. But that's also beside the point.
The key point is that if you own a gun which is in your house, then you are more likely to be harmed by that gun than by a gun brought in by someone else. That's true even if you exclude suicide and accidents.
Hint: Think about domestic violence.
If by "films" you mean mainstream Hollywood films, that's correct.
They still do film processing (most films are still shot on film), and provide a significant amount of expertise and lab work in film restoration and archiving.
If you're asking what they've invented in the last 20 years, the answer is essentially nothing.
The law is whatever The Decider says it is.
Analytic solutions are not necessarily easier to calculate.
Analytic solutions tend to involve special functions for which the computer can only compute an approximation anyway. Have you ever tried to write code to evaluate the error function over the entire domain of floating point numbers? (Yes, I know, it's now in the standard library; ten years ago, it wasn't.) That's one of the easier ones.
Even if there are no special functions, analytic solutions are still often harder to calculate if the problem is big enough. Think of solving systems of linear equations, one of the standard workhorses of numeric programming. We're talking really big ones; hundreds of thousands of equations in hundreds of thousands of unknowns or bigger. In the real world, this problem would almost certainly be solved using successive approximations, even though high school students know how to solve them analytically.
Finally, and most importantly, the problem statement is usually an approximation. Take the OP as an example. What this kid almost certainly solved was an analytic solution to the problem of a particle in a gravitational field with linear air resistance. Well, air resistance is not linear. At low velocities, and for projectiles with a sufficiently small cross-section, it's close enough. But it's still an approximation.
The advantages of analytic solutions are almost always not computational. What they buy you is understanding. The methods of obtaining the solution, and the form of the final equations, often reveal some deep insights about the problem. For many situations, that's far more valuable. And it's certainly something that no computer can give you.
I love ISABELLE myself, but hey, whatever floats your sequent.
The exceptions that use it - like access violation, or division by zero - are not the kind of things that should be generated in the first place, and if they do, the best thing you can do is let the process crash right there and then, so that the crash dump has full context of what went wrong.
I'm guessing you don't write high-reliability software.
There are plenty of situations where you can recover from a SEH situation. Division by zero is one of them; think of a user-scriptable application with an embedded interpreter. It's much more efficient for the CPU to catch the exception than for you to keep check the divisor.
Even in the case of an access violation, there are some applications where dropping the connection which caused the problem but keeping the others going is an acceptable solution.
As I noted above, the 6502's design relies on the MOSFETs being analogue devices in various nontrivial ways, particularly the bypass MOSFETs between the data bus and the secondary bus. The 6502 is a good candidate for realisation in redstone logic; it would be much simpler and achieve a much higher clock rate than doing a Z80. But you can't just plug the reverse engineered 6502 into Minecraft. There's at least a little redesign that needs to be done.
I've toyed with building the 6502 in redstone logic. If you know anything about the internals of the 6502, it actually lends itself to emulation better than, say, the Z80, since it doesn't use microcode and has a data path which is simply laid-out geometrically. Plus, there are quirks in the 6502's design which mean that the delay in getting a slow clock signal around the device wouldn't be a problem in practice.
The complication is that the 6502 has two logical internal busses (the data bus and the secondary bus) which are connected by a set of bypass MOSFETs which are bidirectional: they can pass data in either direction. That's okay when you're realising the 6502 in analogue electronics (which is what transistors are, after all), but it makes it difficult in digital electronics. At the very least, you'd need to separate the one control signal into two (one for each direction). It's a bit of a mess.
That's the same thing, only you spelled out that the content is "unauthorized" by Apple, as opposed to a legally-constituted authority.
Where I live, it's legal to borrow your friend's car if they think it's okay. They also have cars that you can hire on a pay-only-for-what-you-use basis. They even have ones where someone will drive it for you.
I can only imagine what it's like to live in a place where cars are sold by the manufacturer on the condition that they're not resold, hired out or lent. I feel bad for you, dude.
You can't watch Game of Thrones on free-to-air TV, because the outdated-but-still-better-than-the-US ratings system won't let you show R-rated content there.
We sell those too.
You may have missed the word "squarefree" in my comment.
I'm still planning on voting for him. I think that the two party system we have is inherently broken.
I don't endorse candidates in a race in which I don't have an interest, but let me propose another option for you.
Realistically, either Obama will be re-elected or (slightly less likely) Romney will be elected. Nothing will stop that. Your best bet now is to get someone else in the presidential debates who will ask the right questions and shake things up. That someone else is not Ron Paul. To get into the debate under the current rules, you need to poll 15% nationally. There's only one person who is even close to that: Buddy Roemer, who is currently at 7%.
I have no idea what his platform is, but Lawrence Lessig is backing him, so he's clearly an anti-corruption candidate.
You can vote for whomever you like in November, but you might want to follow the Lessig path in the mean time.
He is the only major party candidate that talks truth, which of course makes him unelectable.
FTFY
As others have noted, it depends. It's sometimes convenient to consider -1 as being prime, for example, because it allows you to extend the notion of squarefree numbers to negative integers.
There are senses in which it's arguably correct to make the distinction. You can, for example, distinguish between "Christianity" as a collection of organisations and "Christianity" as a collection of beliefs and practices. Similarly, many people distinguish between "Buddhism" the belief system and "Buddhism" the philosophical system.
It's unfortunate that the word "religion" has attracted a negative connotation, because it leads to people to engage in mental and verbal contortions in order to explain why their system of beliefs and/or practices aren't really "religion". Why can't we just admit that some religions are harmless?
Oh, and it's not just theists. Sam Harris famously follows a form of Buddhism which he claims is not really religion just because it doesn't have any supernatural beliefs. Christopher Hitchens wrote a book with the subtitle "how religion poisons everything" while sending his daughter to a Quaker school (also justifying it with a phrase to the effect of "it's not really religion").
Of course, this article does nothing to help the situation.
To be fair, there are a few notable physicists who have made major contributions to other fields. Dijkstra is the one that most computer scientists know. They are, of course, notable because they're the exceptions.
When I was an undergrad, biology was the science you did if you liked science but didn't like maths. That's the reason why I was turned off biology back in the day. Boy how things have changed.
Having said that, it's my experience that it's easier to teach a computer scientist (not just a "tech guy") enough biology than it is to teach a biologist enough software engineering, where "enough" means sufficient to form a productive working partnership. There are, of course, notable exceptions in both directions. But that generally seems to be the case.