I hear what you are saying. But it is important to remember that ~there are consequences~ for having sex. One of them is that women get pregnant. Another is that people get sexually transmitted diseases. One takes a ~risk~ every time one ~has sex~.
Even with condoms, there is a chance for failure. I don't have any statistics handy, but I know from experience that condoms break. And whenever I was using a condom, it was with someone who was a casual partner. NOT good. At that point, it is virtually the same as having unprotected sex.
The attitude seems to be that people have to have the "right" or priveledge to have sex with whomever they please. Also, people think that condoms are 100% effective. They most certainly are not. To support the distribution of condoms to everyone can send a mixed message. Yes, condoms DO help reduce the transmission of the virus per sexual act. But if the volume of sexual acts increases, due to some (false) sense of security, then you could be back in the same situation that you were in before.
And then you say, wow. If I would control myself, or if I would get married and have sex with one person for the remainder of my life, then I have ZERO risk of acquiring AIDS through sexual relations. (Yes, I know that there are accidents which occur that can introduce AIDS to a monogamous relationship. But these are comparatively rare).
People also seem to think that going out and having sex with everyone that one choosesis just an unfortunate consequence of belonging to the animal kingdom. We can't possibly control our animal desires by using some moral or social code as guidance. This is garbage. We already do control our urges. For sake of comparison, think about sexual relations among street cats (stray cats). Then ponder how we animals are better off with our modified behavior.
Now, what is wrong with the government refusing to give money to a government that refuses to condemn prostitution? I would get more upset about the failure of a government to condemn prostitution than I would over the failure of the US government to give charity to another country who refuses to take such a basic step. You should be embarrassed to even bring this up!!!
The main issue here is that the US government is requiring people to do something that they don't want to do. But doing what people want to do (having multiple sex partners and rampant prostitution) is causing a big problem. People can restrain themselves to healthier, monogamous relations (coincidentally the position of the Christian churches who practice what they preach) or no relations at all.
Education, Condoms, Blood testing. One of the reasons that AIDS hasn't exploded in the West is that people headed the warnings and started using Condoms. There are programmes with drug addicts to ensure they get clean needles, education of teenagers in using condoms etc etc
I agree with you about all of these things, but I wish to emphasize that it is the application of the education that has somewhat contained the spread of AIDS in the west.
First culprit has to be the wonderful folks in the Vatican who forbid the use of Condoms and have a large degree of control in the 3rd World.
The Vatican logic largely follows two trains of thought. The first and foremost is that its doctrines state that one should not have sex outside of marriage. This marriage is monogamous. Therefore, two people who are married and who do not have AIDS, and who do not have sex outside of this union will not get AIDS from sexual encounters. People who are not married do not have sex. They are celibate/abstinate. What is the "side benefit?" People who do not have sex will not get AIDS from sexual encounters. Makes sense, right? This is the ideal scenario.
Now the second train of thought is more, ummm... worldly. People do not follow their religion 100% of the time. People are going to have sex outside of marriage. In the worst case scenario, people will not use condoms because they can not get them. These are the ones who are most likely to get AIDS spread through sexual encounters.
Now let condoms be available. By the truckload. The simple fact is that condoms are not perfect 100% of the time. By analogy, look at the pregnancy rate of condoms. They really aren't ~that~ good, when compared to the pill. But the danger of failure to one's own life are much greater from AIDS than from getting pregnant. I would concede that condoms help prevent AIDS from spreading (sexually), but it is misleading to think that a method that fails around 10% of the time (for pregnancy) is worth betting the farm on when it comes to stopping AIDS.
The US Goverment is beginning to match the Vatican by trying to promote celibacy as a primary driver rather than tackling the problem in situ with a piece of latex.
Figuratively speaking, if we were to distribute a bazillion million condoms in Africa, do you think that the AIDS epidemic would cease? I am skeptical.
Second up of course is plain poverty and lack of education.
Africans may be poor, but they are not ignorant. The West does not need to think for these "poor savages." People are dying all around them. They know what is causing the problem. And they know how the problem can be stopped.
One answer is abstinence. This is a 100% effective way to stop sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. There is a less than 100% effective way to stop HIV/AIDS--and that is to use a condom when having sex. I do not think that it is fair to knock someone (an individual, a government, a small or large religious denomination) for striving for the 100% solution, especially when it meshes so well with the tenets that it has espoused for nearly two... thousand... years.
Nooooo!!!! Not Fortran 77! We need to be moving people AWAY from Fortran 77 and into the more modern Fortran 90/95. Awhile ago Slashdot, there was a piece about what was killing Fortran. Indeed, in my opinion, g77 is killing Fortran, due to the fact that the only free Fortran compiler is (was) based on Fortran 77. Please, everyone look at Fortran 95. Intel makes an awesome Fortran 77/90/95 compiler (ifc) which is free for non-commercial use under Linux. It is link-compatible with gcc. I have been doing scientific programming for ten years now, and I have yet to come across a problem where I had to write a piece of C or C++ code! Fortran is for scientific computing, and C (and its ilk) are for systems programming and GUIs and stuff. What allowed C to gain any ground whatsoever was the fact that Fortran 77 lacked dynamic memory allocation and had a rigid code layout. Not anymore, baby. Look at Fortran 95. It beats the pants off of C and C++ for scientific and mathematical computing!
I do not understand how this holds up, in a moral sense. It seems like this is analagous to a situation where I'm tagging along with IBM while it robs a bank, and then IBM turns and tells me "don't worry, I'll take the rap."
This is a reasonable set of criteria. With this in mind, I would say that Mathematica (http://www.wolfram.com) meets each of the above requirements. Note that cost was not one of the criteria.
Interactivity: The programmer opens a window much like a word processor and types commands, presses the enter button, and the result appears. Push the up arrow or click on the line above, and you are back to where you started.
Feedback: Visualizing Mandelbrot sets is much cooler than "Enter a name:" "Thank you for your input, NAME" (shit, i forgot the $ and the \n).
Growth Potential: One doesn't need to "learn" what an object is (~everything~ is an object in Mathematica). In the beginner's life, most things, except emotions, have probably been thought of as objects. Move this graph here. Make this graph red. Make this picture of grandma that i scanned in psychadelic colored.
Easy to use: Very easy to use Mathematica
Plot[ Cos[x], {x,-Pi, Pi}] --- mathematica vs. program plot_for_me real, parameter:: pi=3.1416 integer, parameter:: npoints=30 integer x real:: xpoints(:) allocate(xpoints(npoints)) do x=1,npoints
xpoints(x) = cos( whateverthehellitis ) end do
call plot(xpoints) -- if you are lucky, and your plot routine doesn't require other parameters stop end program plot_for_me
I mean, come on! I want to teach my ten year old how to program! Perl, python and their ilk are a more pleasant mix of the two.
Flexibility: The above example doesn't tell the whole story: Mathematica, too, has a fullblown C-like syntax available. Object-oriented and procedural programming are both welcome. Then let the learner fall in to their own natural way of setting up and solving problems with a computer.
BTW, it might be slow, but one should have the mindset that you ~can~ ~do~ ~it~ with Mathematica.
Real World Applicability: Mathematica is a tool that is available on all platforms. There are excellent student discounts available, both K-12 and college. If the learner goes to college, Mathematica will be there. There is a copy in nearly every physical sciences computer laboratory.
In conclusion, we should not automatically think of programming as being necessarily being "do loops" and "inheritance." All learners comes from the same background: they do not know how to program. I say you teach something that meets the above criteria, plot some cool pictures along the way, and let the student decide how much he wants to immerse himself into the nitty-gritty of telling a computer what to do. The learner might fall in love with it, or might realize that it's not for him.
High-level language, lots of functionality, and the ability to express yourself in many ways. Mathematica fits the bill, as might other math suites.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear what you are saying. But it is important to remember that ~there are consequences~ for having sex. One of them is that women get pregnant. Another is that people get sexually transmitted diseases. One takes a ~risk~ every time one ~has sex~.
Even with condoms, there is a chance for failure. I don't have any statistics handy, but I know from experience that condoms break. And whenever I was using a condom, it was with someone who was a casual partner. NOT good. At that point, it is virtually the same as having unprotected sex.
The attitude seems to be that people have to have the "right" or priveledge to have sex with whomever they please. Also, people think that condoms are 100% effective. They most certainly are not. To support the distribution of condoms to everyone can send a mixed message. Yes, condoms DO help reduce the transmission of the virus per sexual act. But if the volume of sexual acts increases, due to some (false) sense of security, then you could be back in the same situation that you were in before.
And then you say, wow. If I would control myself, or if I would get married and have sex with one person for the remainder of my life, then I have ZERO risk of acquiring AIDS through sexual relations. (Yes, I know that there are accidents which occur that can introduce AIDS to a monogamous relationship. But these are comparatively rare).
People also seem to think that going out and having sex with everyone that one choosesis just an unfortunate consequence of belonging to the animal kingdom. We can't possibly control our animal desires by using some moral or social code as guidance. This is garbage. We already do control our urges. For sake of comparison, think about sexual relations among street cats (stray cats). Then ponder how we animals are better off with our modified behavior.
Now, what is wrong with the government refusing to give money to a government that refuses to condemn prostitution? I would get more upset about the failure of a government to condemn prostitution than I would over the failure of the US government to give charity to another country who refuses to take such a basic step. You should be embarrassed to even bring this up!!!
The main issue here is that the US government is requiring people to do something that they don't want to do. But doing what people want to do (having multiple sex partners and rampant prostitution) is causing a big problem. People can restrain themselves to healthier, monogamous relations (coincidentally the position of the Christian churches who practice what they preach) or no relations at all.
Education, Condoms, Blood testing. One of the reasons that AIDS hasn't exploded in the West is that people headed the warnings and started using Condoms. There are programmes with drug addicts to ensure they get clean needles, education of teenagers in using condoms etc etc
I agree with you about all of these things, but I wish to emphasize that it is the application of the education that has somewhat contained the spread of AIDS in the west.
First culprit has to be the wonderful folks in the Vatican who forbid the use of Condoms and have a large degree of control in the 3rd World.
The Vatican logic largely follows two trains of thought. The first and foremost is that its doctrines state that one should not have sex outside of marriage. This marriage is monogamous. Therefore, two people who are married and who do not have AIDS, and who do not have sex outside of this union will not get AIDS from sexual encounters. People who are not married do not have sex. They are celibate/abstinate. What is the "side benefit?" People who do not have sex will not get AIDS from sexual encounters. Makes sense, right? This is the ideal scenario.
Now the second train of thought is more, ummm... worldly. People do not follow their religion 100% of the time. People are going to have sex outside of marriage. In the worst case scenario, people will not use condoms because they can not get them. These are the ones who are most likely to get AIDS spread through sexual encounters.
Now let condoms be available. By the truckload. The simple fact is that condoms are not perfect 100% of the time. By analogy, look at the pregnancy rate of condoms. They really aren't ~that~ good, when compared to the pill. But the danger of failure to one's own life are much greater from AIDS than from getting pregnant. I would concede that condoms help prevent AIDS from spreading (sexually), but it is misleading to think that a method that fails around 10% of the time (for pregnancy) is worth betting the farm on when it comes to stopping AIDS.
The US Goverment is beginning to match the Vatican by trying to promote celibacy as a primary driver rather than tackling the problem in situ with a piece of latex.
Figuratively speaking, if we were to distribute a bazillion million condoms in Africa, do you think that the AIDS epidemic would cease? I am skeptical.
Second up of course is plain poverty and lack of education.
Africans may be poor, but they are not ignorant. The West does not need to think for these "poor savages." People are dying all around them. They know what is causing the problem. And they know how the problem can be stopped.
One answer is abstinence. This is a 100% effective way to stop sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. There is a less than 100% effective way to stop HIV/AIDS--and that is to use a condom when having sex. I do not think that it is fair to knock someone (an individual, a government, a small or large religious denomination) for striving for the 100% solution, especially when it meshes so well with the tenets that it has espoused for nearly two... thousand... years.
p.s. I'm not a Catholic
Nooooo!!!! Not Fortran 77! We need to be moving people AWAY from Fortran 77 and into the more modern Fortran 90/95. Awhile ago Slashdot, there was a piece about what was killing Fortran. Indeed, in my opinion, g77 is killing Fortran, due to the fact that the only free Fortran compiler is (was) based on Fortran 77. Please, everyone look at Fortran 95. Intel makes an awesome Fortran 77/90/95 compiler (ifc) which is free for non-commercial use under Linux. It is link-compatible with gcc. I have been doing scientific programming for ten years now, and I have yet to come across a problem where I had to write a piece of C or C++ code! Fortran is for scientific computing, and C (and its ilk) are for systems programming and GUIs and stuff. What allowed C to gain any ground whatsoever was the fact that Fortran 77 lacked dynamic memory allocation and had a rigid code layout. Not anymore, baby. Look at Fortran 95. It beats the pants off of C and C++ for scientific and mathematical computing!
I do not understand how this holds up, in a moral sense. It seems like this is analagous to a situation where I'm tagging along with IBM while it robs a bank, and then IBM turns and tells me "don't worry, I'll take the rap."
This is a reasonable set of criteria. With this in mind, I would say that Mathematica (http://www.wolfram.com) meets each of the above requirements. Note that cost was not one of the criteria.
:: pi=3.1416 :: npoints=30 :: xpoints(:)
Interactivity:
The programmer opens a window much like a word processor and types commands, presses the enter button, and the result appears. Push the up arrow or click on the line above, and you are back to where you started.
Feedback:
Visualizing Mandelbrot sets is much cooler than "Enter a name:" "Thank you for your input, NAME" (shit, i forgot the $ and the \n).
Growth Potential:
One doesn't need to "learn" what an object is (~everything~ is an object in Mathematica). In the beginner's life, most things, except emotions, have probably been thought of as objects. Move this graph here. Make this graph red. Make this picture of grandma that i scanned in psychadelic colored.
Easy to use:
Very easy to use Mathematica
Plot[ Cos[x], {x,-Pi, Pi}] --- mathematica
vs.
program plot_for_me
real, parameter
integer, parameter
integer x
real
allocate(xpoints(npoints))
do x=1,npoints
xpoints(x) = cos( whateverthehellitis )
end do
call plot(xpoints) -- if you are lucky, and your plot
routine doesn't require other parameters
stop
end program plot_for_me
I mean, come on! I want to teach my ten year old how to program! Perl, python and their ilk are a more pleasant mix of the two.
Flexibility:
The above example doesn't tell the whole story: Mathematica, too, has a fullblown C-like syntax available. Object-oriented and procedural programming are both welcome. Then let the learner fall in to their own natural way of setting up and solving problems with a computer.
BTW, it might be slow, but one should have the mindset that you ~can~ ~do~ ~it~ with Mathematica.
Real World Applicability:
Mathematica is a tool that is available on all platforms. There are excellent student discounts available, both K-12 and college. If the learner goes to college, Mathematica will be there. There is a copy in nearly every physical sciences computer laboratory.
In conclusion, we should not automatically think of programming as being necessarily being "do loops" and "inheritance." All learners comes from the same background: they do not know how to program. I say you teach something that meets the above criteria, plot some cool pictures along the way, and let the student decide how much he wants to immerse himself into the nitty-gritty of telling a computer what to do. The learner might fall in love with it, or might realize that it's not for him.
High-level language, lots of functionality, and the ability to express yourself in many ways. Mathematica fits the bill, as might other math suites.