that's the most clever way I've heard to call someone old-fashioned, and also suggest someone's out-of-touch and maybe superficial.
I'm pretty sure he was just impying that the GP was James Bond or similar spy. It's all that I'd want in a phone... except make that 10'. Come to think of it, why do phones have to be plastic at all. Why can't someone just make them out of rubber. Hmmmm - I think I have my next DIY project.:D
What does this have to do with the issues I raised?
Do you think that child pornography is not a legitimate issue?
Just beucause there are GOOD uses of Tor does not mean there are VERY BAD uses of it. The Good does not negate the Bad.
That's a good point and a better reply to it than the one the parent got is that if your counter to something bad requires you to throw out something very good with it, then find a different counter. Terrorists abusing the technology that enables free speech? Don't block free speech, remove the causes of terrorism. It can only thrive in a sympathetic environment. Without that it just becomes isolated psychos.
This isn't a absolute argument, but it's worth keeping in mind. Similar arguments can be made for other things. There are multiple approaches to every problem - you focus on the best one.
Except in Spain where it is legal to download music and burn it to CD but not to sell it for profit. The reasoning is that the Spanish equivalent to the RIAA, in its greed forced a blank media levy onto CD-W and DVD-W to compensate themselves for loss of earnings. This is even applied to CDs ordered by civil agencies for data use.
I'm not sure where I'd be if I went to Spain, bought a hundred blank CDs and downloaded everything I could get my mits on before coming back to the UK, but I think I would have a good case.
Such funny comments, but for once I don't think anyone can top the MPAA themselves:
"There is no better example of how theft dims the magic of the movies for everyone
So moving, the magic is dimming, it brings a tear to my eye it really does.:_(
Re:I think it's nice...
on
Just a Phone?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Well, no offence taken here, (even though you put my "reasons" in quote marks), but just to show you that I'm not as daft as you think I am: excess friperies can interfere with the primary functions - ignoring the less responsive interface that comes with feature creep (e.g. anti-aliased fonts, for Bob's sake), things like colour screens can indeed reduce battery life.
Regarding the cost issues, for one, I use pay as you go here in the UK as I did some quite extensive calculations in a spreadsheet to work out what was the best deal for my usage. Consequently, I bought my phone outright instead of getting it "free" with a package. This does indeed make the difference between phones noticable. Personally I would like to see phones getting cheaper and more reliable rather than more gimicks.
More than anything, I just get angry when choice is taken away from me. I can just about still find a basic phone but it's getting harder. You can't get them in the phone shops around here. I don't like the fashion side of the mobile phone industry. To me it's quite offensive when I see an Ad. over here that shows people slinking away in shame because they have an older model. I realize that this has now gone beyond the scope of what you were saying, but that's okay - this last paragraph is a general rant, not a reply to you.
-H.
Re:I think it's nice...
on
Just a Phone?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I'm not a kid anymore, but I'm still in my twenties, thankyouverymuch, I'm about as IT literate as they come, and I still want a simple phone. My reasoning is as follows:
If I want to do something I want to do it properly, e.g take a picture, then I'll use a proper camera, writing / reading emails, then I'll do it on something with a decent screen, keyboard and a good choice of fonts.
If I work at a place where cameras are restricted (as I have done) then I don't want to have to leave my phone outside because it has a crappy camera built into it.
I have a general aversion to piling multiple gadgets into one device because it screws the upgrade cycle. Likewise for if one of the gadgets breaks, I don't want to lose everything
These additional features can impair the primary function I care about, e.g. using battery life.
I don't like being forced to pay for things I don't want
I currently have an old Siemans phone. It has WAP and that's it for unused features. It's been kicked around an airport, dropped down a loo and is currently held together with sellotape. It still works and I'm still happy with it.
All I really want in a phone is good transmission, txting, a mighty battery life and the ability to throw it at a wall and still have it work. Nothing to do with age of inability - just awareness of my actual needs.
"People think that video games influence children. Ha! If that were true then my generation would be spending all its time in darkened rooms, swallowing pills and listening to repetitive music!"
That's outside of my experience, but I did concede that some people would choose it. I think it's telling that neither stuck with it, but as you say, it's not a statistically significant sample. I'm surprised you met two such women though.
I think a grey area could work but there have to be programs to help those people who want it.
An area that probably can't be left grey is profiting from someone else's prostitution. Barnardos was working on getting such legislation passed here in the UK a few years ago, though I don't know if they've succeeded yet. Someone involved in prostitution should be able to get the law to help them to get rid of someone who makes them prostitute themselves for their own gain. In practice this is very difficult, but there is scope for improvement.
Regarding advertising: I hadn't even thought of that. I don't even want to think about how horrible that would be, but yes - decriminalisation will result in brothels. Very unpleasant but safer for the workers.
I've liked what you've written on this subject here. Calmer than I've been.
What you were talking about above is respect for oneself. In common with the other areas of "prostituting" ourselves that you talked about, real prostitution can cost you your respect for yourself. Who we chose as our partner, who we would have children with really, is an important thing. Giving that up for money or whatever hurts us. It's not the only way we can lose our self-respect, but its one way. Once you've given that up, you have hurt yourself, usually for life.
I'm glad Dorothy was around for as long as she was. She was a stubborn cow:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
If you're right that no one would choose prostitution as a career, then why would it matter if it was legalized?
This suggests that you think I was arguing against legalisation. If so you didn't read my post. Please read it before deciding what I'm saying.
Nor was I talking about prohibiting prostitution. I was exaplaining how destructive it is for the prostitute.
I agree that many women would have problems with having a personal relationship while also selling sex... there are other women who would have no problem with it.
Actually, the moment I posted that I regretted it. Big fan of Ms. Parker though I am, there's a time and a place. Guess I was just blowing off steam after writing a string of long and very emotional posts.
We're talking at cross-purposes so there's no disagreement - just misunderstanding. I fully agree that if sex for sale caused a betrayal then there was something wrong to begin with. I was a little harsh in implying that men will always cheat given the opportunity.
What I was trying to do was determine why prostitutes were held in contempt and I disagreed with the original poster that it was because men didn't want women to be rich and independent. I think a lot of the cultural dislike of prostitutes was enforced by women. Women with boyfriends don't like women without. That's not true of course, but do you see what I'm getting at? Prostitutes are the ultimate "single" women.
Anyway, regardless of the merits of that argument, I really don't see liberal prostitution as a means of undermining male patriarchy as the original poster said. I can see what she's getting at in that it's a woman's freedom to choose that is denied in atrong patriarchy, but the misconception is that the prostitute is making free choices. Other than some dabbling university students with escort agencies, there is no choice.
I'm certainly not saying prostitution is bad because it provides easy sex for men (might stop them invading other countries all the time). I believe that it was considered bad because of this, and was often considered bad because of this, by women.
I think prostitution is bad because it hurts the prostitute herself. Keeping prostitution criminalized makes things worse, I think, but legalizing it doesn't make it lovely and fluffy.
I get really pissed off when people hear what they choose to hear rather than what I am saying. It shows they have already made up their mind about who you are and think they can classify your arguments without actually having to listen.
Based on your comment that women who want money should marry a rich man,
I never said this. I think marrying someone for money is a very bad thing. I would not allow wealth to be a factor in who I chose to spend my life with. I was comparing this behaviour to prostitution, not advocating it. I pointed out that for women who want to use sex to get money from a man, the route is marriage, not prostitution. That is very clear in my post and it was a response to a previous poster that suggested prostitution would be a source of wealth if legalized. In my strong opinion it would not be.
Your argument is based on the context of a highly intolerant patriarchal society, and culturally-ingrained views about the proper role of a woman.
No it is not. I was very careful to argue the case from first principles. I would like you to re-read my post and let me know exactly what in it was based on a "highly intolerant patriarchal culture."
the woman surrenders her independance as well as her body, which is the key distinguishing factor that makes the practice acceptable in a traditionally patriarchal society.
This is an interesting point, but it is a corollary of what I was saying, which again makes me think you didn't read my post. We are in agreement on this: a woman faithful to her husband is not a threat to other women's relationships - she no longer has that indepenence and, as I said at the start of my previous post - no longer has the freedom to undermine a man's status by choosing a different partner. You have repeated what I said as if you think it counters me saying it in the first place.
I don't know much about the Geishas, but I hope you are not holding up historical japan as an example of a non-highly intolerant, non-patriarchal culture. If anything, it is more so. A British girl of the same time period would give her husband Hell for visiting a prostitute. I would expect the Geisha role was more similar to more expensive "escorts." If you think that legalising prostitution would catapult streetwalkers to this sort of level of fees then you are really misguided. Even if it did, the work is still destructive to your self-respect and ability to form a relationship.
I have really disliked being as misunderstood in what I wrote as I have been by you, AC. Please re-read my post and re-consider what you think I'm saying and do not assume that I'm parroting some cultural line that I've been brought up with. Everything I say, I can argue logically and I believe I've demonstrated that.
Actually, now I've gone and done it too. It wasn't the Dean that would have lost his job, it was the lecturer's immediate boss and and his masters colleagues that would have gone. It was the dean that told the lecturers boss to get rid of him.
As to why the Dean buckled under, I'm likewise a little confused by that, but I'm assured that the threat of major auditing and investigation and strings being pulled regarding funding were more than enough to threaten him with. From what the spanish guy around here, their equivalent of the RIAA is very powerful.
Regardless, if their intention was to stop him demonstrating the legality of P2P networks, then it's backfired quite spectacularly. Good!:D
I've just put you on my friends list so that I can notice future posts by you. People who apologise and admit their wrong tend to learn at a greatly increased speed and thus are more likely to post something worth hearing.
So when I go across to Spain from the UK and I happen to download a tonne of music and burn it off on CDs that I bought there... and then I bring it home - I think you can see where I'm going with this. Anyone got a view on this? I'm an EU citizen and I've broken no laws in Spain or the UK that I see.
You seem to be under the impression that P2P software is illegal. It is not. The teacher was giving a demonstration of and a lecture on the legality of P2P networks. It was this subject that meant his lecture was prevented three times.
I agree it would be good to read a response from the University, hopefully we will get one. However, you should have at least read his story - he wasn't endorsing illegal activity - he was presenting an argument that P2P networking was legal (and he is right, actually).
If we take his story at face value, he resigned rather than face the various nasty things a hostile dean could do to his life.
It's probably bad form to point this out, but the above shows pretty clearly that you haven't actually read the story. He didn't resign because he was threatened. He said that he resigned because his dean and his department were threatened. I believe he says that it was pretty clear that his boss would lose his job if he stayed there doing what he was doing.
Slashdot Mirror
what exactly is it that you want to be 10' and made of rubber?
Sorry - meant 10".
that's the most clever way I've heard to call someone old-fashioned, and also suggest someone's out-of-touch and maybe superficial.
I'm pretty sure he was just impying that the GP was James Bond or similar spy. It's all that I'd want in a phone... except make that 10'. Come to think of it, why do phones have to be plastic at all. Why can't someone just make them out of rubber. Hmmmm - I think I have my next DIY project.
What does this have to do with the issues I raised?
Do you think that child pornography is not a legitimate issue?
Just beucause there are GOOD uses of Tor does not mean there are VERY BAD uses of it. The Good does not negate the Bad.
That's a good point and a better reply to it than the one the parent got is that if your counter to something bad requires you to throw out something very good with it, then find a different counter. Terrorists abusing the technology that enables free speech? Don't block free speech, remove the causes of terrorism. It can only thrive in a sympathetic environment. Without that it just becomes isolated psychos.
This isn't a absolute argument, but it's worth keeping in mind. Similar arguments can be made for other things. There are multiple approaches to every problem - you focus on the best one.
If it's in the SW then I know it. Nice to be treated like an adult there.
So Bittorent is the source of all evil for MPAA now? Because it was used to distribute Episode 3?
If Episode III is as bad as the two before it, then I think that's a pretty good case for Evil.
Except in Spain where it is legal to download music and burn it to CD but not to sell it for profit. The reasoning is that the Spanish equivalent to the RIAA, in its greed forced a blank media levy onto CD-W and DVD-W to compensate themselves for loss of earnings. This is even applied to CDs ordered by civil agencies for data use.
I'm not sure where I'd be if I went to Spain, bought a hundred blank CDs and downloaded everything I could get my mits on before coming back to the UK, but I think I would have a good case.
I believe Canada has something similar.
Such funny comments, but for once I don't think anyone can top the MPAA themselves: So moving, the magic is dimming, it brings a tear to my eye it really does.
Well, no offence taken here, (even though you put my "reasons" in quote marks), but just to show you that I'm not as daft as you think I am: excess friperies can interfere with the primary functions - ignoring the less responsive interface that comes with feature creep (e.g. anti-aliased fonts, for Bob's sake), things like colour screens can indeed reduce battery life.
Regarding the cost issues, for one, I use pay as you go here in the UK as I did some quite extensive calculations in a spreadsheet to work out what was the best deal for my usage. Consequently, I bought my phone outright instead of getting it "free" with a package. This does indeed make the difference between phones noticable. Personally I would like to see phones getting cheaper and more reliable rather than more gimicks.
More than anything, I just get angry when choice is taken away from me. I can just about still find a basic phone but it's getting harder. You can't get them in the phone shops around here. I don't like the fashion side of the mobile phone industry. To me it's quite offensive when I see an Ad. over here that shows people slinking away in shame because they have an older model. I realize that this has now gone beyond the scope of what you were saying, but that's okay - this last paragraph is a general rant, not a reply to you.
-H.
I'm not a kid anymore, but I'm still in my twenties, thankyouverymuch, I'm about as IT literate as they come, and I still want a simple phone. My reasoning is as follows:
I currently have an old Siemans phone. It has WAP and that's it for unused features. It's been kicked around an airport, dropped down a loo and is currently held together with sellotape. It still works and I'm still happy with it.
All I really want in a phone is good transmission, txting, a mighty battery life and the ability to throw it at a wall and still have it work. Nothing to do with age of inability - just awareness of my actual needs.
That's outside of my experience, but I did concede that some people would choose it. I think it's telling that neither stuck with it, but as you say, it's not a statistically significant sample. I'm surprised you met two such women though.
Interesting.
I think a grey area could work but there have to be programs to help those people who want it.
An area that probably can't be left grey is profiting from someone else's prostitution. Barnardos was working on getting such legislation passed here in the UK a few years ago, though I don't know if they've succeeded yet. Someone involved in prostitution should be able to get the law to help them to get rid of someone who makes them prostitute themselves for their own gain. In practice this is very difficult, but there is scope for improvement.
Regarding advertising: I hadn't even thought of that. I don't even want to think about how horrible that would be, but yes - decriminalisation will result in brothels. Very unpleasant but safer for the workers.
And yes, we'll talk about it regardless of whether or not we've known any prostitutes personally -- because that's irrelevant.
Fine, go ahead then. I'm sure we will all benefit from your insight.
Thank you.
I've liked what you've written on this subject here. Calmer than I've been.
What you were talking about above is respect for oneself. In common with the other areas of "prostituting" ourselves that you talked about, real prostitution can cost you your respect for yourself. Who we chose as our partner, who we would have children with really, is an important thing. Giving that up for money or whatever hurts us. It's not the only way we can lose our self-respect, but its one way. Once you've given that up, you have hurt yourself, usually for life.
I'm glad Dorothy was around for as long as she was. She was a stubborn cow:
Now which way was the topic again?
If you're right that no one would choose prostitution as a career, then why would it matter if it was legalized?
This suggests that you think I was arguing against legalisation. If so you didn't read my post. Please read it before deciding what I'm saying.
Nor was I talking about prohibiting prostitution. I was exaplaining how destructive it is for the prostitute.
I agree that many women would have problems with having a personal relationship while also selling sex
Do you know any?
Actually, the moment I posted that I regretted it. Big fan of Ms. Parker though I am, there's a time and a place. Guess I was just blowing off steam after writing a string of long and very emotional posts.
Sorry.
"When you see what some girls marry, you realize how much they must hate to work for a living."
Dorothy Parker - always a quote for every occasion.
We're talking at cross-purposes so there's no disagreement - just misunderstanding. I fully agree that if sex for sale caused a betrayal then there was something wrong to begin with. I was a little harsh in implying that men will always cheat given the opportunity.
What I was trying to do was determine why prostitutes were held in contempt and I disagreed with the original poster that it was because men didn't want women to be rich and independent. I think a lot of the cultural dislike of prostitutes was enforced by women. Women with boyfriends don't like women without. That's not true of course, but do you see what I'm getting at? Prostitutes are the ultimate "single" women.
Anyway, regardless of the merits of that argument, I really don't see liberal prostitution as a means of undermining male patriarchy as the original poster said. I can see what she's getting at in that it's a woman's freedom to choose that is denied in atrong patriarchy, but the misconception is that the prostitute is making free choices. Other than some dabbling university students with escort agencies, there is no choice.
I'm certainly not saying prostitution is bad because it provides easy sex for men (might stop them invading other countries all the time). I believe that it was considered bad because of this, and was often considered bad because of this, by women.
I think prostitution is bad because it hurts the prostitute herself. Keeping prostitution criminalized makes things worse, I think, but legalizing it doesn't make it lovely and fluffy.
I get really pissed off when people hear what they choose to hear rather than what I am saying. It shows they have already made up their mind about who you are and think they can classify your arguments without actually having to listen.
Based on your comment that women who want money should marry a rich man,
I never said this. I think marrying someone for money is a very bad thing. I would not allow wealth to be a factor in who I chose to spend my life with. I was comparing this behaviour to prostitution, not advocating it. I pointed out that for women who want to use sex to get money from a man, the route is marriage, not prostitution. That is very clear in my post and it was a response to a previous poster that suggested prostitution would be a source of wealth if legalized. In my strong opinion it would not be.
Your argument is based on the context of a highly intolerant patriarchal society, and culturally-ingrained views about the proper role of a woman.
No it is not. I was very careful to argue the case from first principles. I would like you to re-read my post and let me know exactly what in it was based on a "highly intolerant patriarchal culture."
the woman surrenders her independance as well as her body, which is the key distinguishing factor that makes the practice acceptable in a traditionally patriarchal society.
This is an interesting point, but it is a corollary of what I was saying, which again makes me think you didn't read my post. We are in agreement on this: a woman faithful to her husband is not a threat to other women's relationships - she no longer has that indepenence and, as I said at the start of my previous post - no longer has the freedom to undermine a man's status by choosing a different partner. You have repeated what I said as if you think it counters me saying it in the first place.
I don't know much about the Geishas, but I hope you are not holding up historical japan as an example of a non-highly intolerant, non-patriarchal culture. If anything, it is more so. A British girl of the same time period would give her husband Hell for visiting a prostitute. I would expect the Geisha role was more similar to more expensive "escorts." If you think that legalising prostitution would catapult streetwalkers to this sort of level of fees then you are really misguided. Even if it did, the work is still destructive to your self-respect and ability to form a relationship.
I have really disliked being as misunderstood in what I wrote as I have been by you, AC. Please re-read my post and re-consider what you think I'm saying and do not assume that I'm parroting some cultural line that I've been brought up with. Everything I say, I can argue logically and I believe I've demonstrated that.
Actually, now I've gone and done it too. It wasn't the Dean that would have lost his job, it was the lecturer's immediate boss and and his masters colleagues that would have gone. It was the dean that told the lecturers boss to get rid of him.
As to why the Dean buckled under, I'm likewise a little confused by that, but I'm assured that the threat of major auditing and investigation and strings being pulled regarding funding were more than enough to threaten him with. From what the spanish guy around here, their equivalent of the RIAA is very powerful.
Regardless, if their intention was to stop him demonstrating the legality of P2P networks, then it's backfired quite spectacularly. Good!
*snort*
I've just put you on my friends list so that I can notice future posts by you. People who apologise and admit their wrong tend to learn at a greatly increased speed and thus are more likely to post something worth hearing.
That said, lovely username you have there.
So when I go across to Spain from the UK and I happen to download a tonne of music and burn it off on CDs that I bought there... and then I bring it home - I think you can see where I'm going with this. Anyone got a view on this? I'm an EU citizen and I've broken no laws in Spain or the UK that I see.
You seem to be under the impression that P2P software is illegal. It is not. The teacher was giving a demonstration of and a lecture on the legality of P2P networks. It was this subject that meant his lecture was prevented three times.
I agree it would be good to read a response from the University, hopefully we will get one. However, you should have at least read his story - he wasn't endorsing illegal activity - he was presenting an argument that P2P networking was legal (and he is right, actually).
If we take his story at face value, he resigned rather than face the various nasty things a hostile dean could do to his life.
It's probably bad form to point this out, but the above shows pretty clearly that you haven't actually read the story. He didn't resign because he was threatened. He said that he resigned because his dean and his department were threatened. I believe he says that it was pretty clear that his boss would lose his job if he stayed there doing what he was doing.