Pretty much. In this case, it's doubtful Wayland is at critical bodies and so adding the programming resources from Mir onto Wayland would produce a product with better quality and a richer feature set in a shorter time. That's how you make projects successful; in this case, of course, projects have a much more flexible budget of "anyone who has time and desire"--with the double-edge that budgeted resources aren't assigned by a higher power, but rather volunteered.
Canonical has volunteers in a pool which are budgeted across multiple projects, and so budgeting these resources to take advantage of an existing project's resources gives more ROI than building and maintaining their own. This is more traditional budgeting, and means that Canonical actually has decision making power over budgets: they don't just start doing something and hope people join in, but rather they influence how resources they already possess are spent. In this case it's not entirely traditional: many resources are volunteer, and there is a probability that more volunteers will appear or some will leave; but they do have some influence to direct resources at efforts.
They are using that influence inefficiently. It's the same as if a person decided to get a car, and so bought metal and fuel and made fire and machined all the parts for a $30,000 Ford Mustang, spending $350,000 in the process. They may say: "I wanted a larger engine". They may say many things. In the end, however, if their explanation is rational and utility--if it is that a Ford Mustang is lacking in some way, rather than that they would like the experience of building such a thing or that they just "want to"--then the judgment of their decision stems from three objective assessments. The first: is the Ford Mustang essentially lacking in that way? The second: Is this important? And the final: Can we more effectively correct this deficiency in any other way--by finding a better car, by modifying a Ford Mustang, or by convincing Ford to change next year's model?
There are two criticisms here. Canonical asserts that Wayland is inadequate, hence Mir; criticism comes in the form that it would be more efficient and effective for Canonical to devote the resources spent on Mir instead to improve Wayland. The second: we assume Canonical behaves in an irrational manner or to other rational considerations (such as vendor lock-in to Mir, some future ability to implement DRM, etc.), which we criticize directly.
I see stuff online that says normally an SSID is broadcast every 10mS or 100mS (10mS seems low to me). 10 packets per second isn't really a lot, although maybe once every 1 second would be less stupid. I mean when you open a directory in a file browser, it can populate with files for 2-3 seconds if it's large--your photos directory maybe. Why do we need advertisement 10 times per second?
Aside from that, idle access points--even at 100mS between SSID advertisements--don't seem like they'd degrade network too much. In-use access points will, but then we're back to not letting other people use Wifi because you want to use WIfi.
You sound rich. Are you also trying to stop fracking because the water tower they want to put up looks ugly?
You're complaining that people may want to use Wifi, and this is a problem because you want to use Wifi, and we should exclude everyone else from using Wifi anywhere near you because it makes it harder for you to use Wifi.
You're using a ludicrous argument to try to wedge an on-principle enforcement into a world you don't like. If someone actually stole a penny from you per year, you wouldn't really care. If they reached into your coat pocket to take a penny, you would be very upset about the invasion of personal space, and might scream something useless about stealing when all you really care about is people groping around in your pockets.
Well Comcast owns the line and the modem. They lease you service with a specific SLA. As long as that SLA is in place--as long as the bandwidth you pay for is available when you try to use it--they're completely within their rights to lease additional on that line, and to use their equipment to provide access as long as they don't allow for unagreed intrusion into your property. So nobody's coming inside your house to plug in a CAT6 cable; and they're not connecting up to your private network, either; therefor, there's nothing of note happening here.
Well then they have reasonable doubt. It's suddenly like if they say: Someone at Panera was trafficking child pornography; you were at Panera; therefor you must come with us.
Comcast runs a line to your house. It's their line. They let you use a certain amount of bandwidth on it. It's still their line, and their equipment--you get a Wifi access point from them, it's theirs. So Comcast decides that your packets get priority; but vacant space goes to a hot spot.
The summary above is loaded, too: Comcast is not relying on homeowners' property or electricity to run Wifi hotspots. You're powering the device already, and they own it, and they own the line it's connected to. A powered-up hotspot will eat some wattage (like 30 watts), while a powered-up hotspot with a connection to it will eat some more (like 0.05 watts more)--they might actually cost you a penny or two more per year on a busy hotspot that you're renting. Complaining that someone is potentially stealing a penny from you every year is ludicrous; it's not enough for you to realistically care about the money, and only gets used as an excuse to attack something on principle.
Problem here is that the "principle" is that Comcast is using their equipment (Wifi hotspot they supply you) on their line (Internet line you lease bandwidth from) to supply service to others. The equipment happens to physically reside in your house, so many people respond to this as if Comcast is trespassing by forcefully installing their equipment for their business activity into their house.
Perhaps Comcast could take advantage of IPv6 here. Then you couldn't complain that it came from the same IP as everything else.
The varying lifetime is less important than people think. If you have a 300 mile range electric vehicle battery that can handle 1,000 charges and you replace it with a 3,000 mile range battery that can handle 100 charges, you can still go 300,000 miles. It just turns out you can go 3000 miles in one trip.
And then there's dogs, which work extremely well with humans and actively want human companionship. Even wild wolves don't pose much danger to humans, often coming close without hostility; and wild foxes will sometimes play with people.
I knew a girl who was very skinny... she became vegetarian and almost died. She resorted to eating only fish and vegetables because vegetarian diet would kill her. That happened over years of research, support groups, health spa meetings, general fraternization with vegetarians and vegans everywhere.
Me, I didn't bother. My immune system fails and I start getting open wounds and sores out of nowhere if I stop eating meat--after two weeks! So fuck that.
You will want a lot of backed-off stuff to teach historical-to-modern flow.
Historically, CGI and SQL were used. Some files on disk stuff, executable programs, etc. Executable programs gave way to scripts like Perl and PHP.
In modern times, raw SQL has been transformed into stuff like Python SQLAlchemy. CGI, being too slow--it takes longer to load/unload the interpreter (or even a C executable) than it does to execute the work--has given way to FastCGI, and then WSGI. Straight markup and scripting has given way to frameworks such as CherryPy, Django, and Flask, combined with templating like Mako, used to create content management systems for front-end people.
Even the SQL back-end, now through SQLAlchemy and other ORM, has given way to solution-based storage: if your data is document-oriented (XML, YAML, JSON type), it's stored in a Document Storage Database like MongoDB, Couchbase, or such. If we call SQL tables indexed CSV files, we can call Document collections indexed JSON (and call JSON a thing "similar to" XML or YAML). Graph databases connect objects to other objects, which become relevant with applications like Facebook. And some applications even mix modes: an _id ObjectId index in MongoDB may provide the 'vid_id' column on a certain table in PostgreSQL, allowing data which conforms exceptionally poorly to certain models to mingle with data which conforms exceptionally poorly to other models by using both models and storing the different buckets of the data in different places.
That shows them a handful of tools; it shows them that the tools change; and it shows them that some tools are legacy, others have been marginalized. SQL is marginalized: document storage databases make much more sense for most modern applications, and eventually will likely displace anywhere from 10% to 80% of SQL-backed storage, but will remain the incorrect answer for a significant set of applications which should (and hopefully will) remain on SQL. XML has been replaced: modern APIs use JSON rather than XML/SOAP, and on-disk storage has severe problems with large concurrent volatile data sets. Languages come and go; CGI is dead in favor of application servers such as those which communicate over WSGI.
By all means, put practical skill into modern languages and methods. Java, suck as it is, is still relevant. Python is still up-and-coming but is a fantastic language for modern Web programming. C# and VB.Net both get a lot of use in Windows-based hosting, opinions on that abound. Don't spend a lot of time making sure students are strongly familiar with how to set up C applications with CGI and Apache; that's not a useful skill. Do spend time using MySQL, PostgreSQL, and MS SQL Server, as well as MongoDB and other document stores--both programming and doing the actual data modeling--along with other, less-relevant new technologies (document storage is a big one because it conforms to most complex data; node based databases conform to a specific model useful for AI and for social networking or other object-associative tasks).
Ducks are not as social as human beings. Humans depend on society for survival; rape decreases survival overall, while ducks benefit overall from rape.
Your assumption of conditioning versus instinct is nonsense. Conditioning stems from instinct: instinctive needs being met or harmed provides conditioning, among other things. People instinctively have a desire to live, which is why they will kill to take things they want/need, and will kill in self defense if conditioned largely not to kill. When this desire is threatened, people run away: a raging killer--human or a wild bengal tiger--will get people to either kill it or run far away.
A society will eventually provide protection for a people: running away takes energy and thus decreases survival (requires more food), thus a society will seek to reduce the amount of threats. That's why we've been conditioned to not like wild animals--because wild animals are dangerous, and it was easier to clean them away from society, and now we are more conditioned to react even more sensitively to the threat of wild animals. Originally, we instinctively did not want to be eaten by wolves or diseased to death by rats, and so we made efforts to reduce these problems which were real and undesirable but not terrifying and unknown.
Similarly, murderers and rapists bring harm and produce a fear reaction. The free flow of murder and rape without consequence produces fear in individuals: it makes them afraid to participate in society. Thus society develops a majority driver that murder and rape are wrong, and it becomes imperative to prevent or punish these acts.
You will notice that every society develops a common theme: anything that threatens the stronger members of society is wrong. A totalitarian, centrally-dominated society run by a small group who oppress a large group will enforce few rules about murder, rape, and theft if they do not impact the ruling class--but will strongly enforce protection of the ruling class. A male-dominated society where women are treated as property will allow for rape of women more often, except as it damages the reputation of a family or the value of selling off daughters as wives or whatever. Egalitarian societies ("Equalitarian" is apparently not a word) provide protections for all classes: the US has allowed for the murder of blacks, the beating of women, and the disenfranchising of homosexuals throughout its history; over time, the US has come to treat these groups as equals, and moved to protect their rights.
You will notice as well that major uprisings occur when the majority society or a significant group finds the rules of society unpalatable. For example: the French wee treated with little concern, trodden on, occasionally murdered, not given a strong police force to their benefit, and taxed out of existence. This suited the Bourgeois ruling class, who had no imperative to protect the peasantry since only the Bourgeois made the rules and sensed no threat from the peasantry: a firm hand would keep them in line, of course. Well, it didn't. They got together, murdered the Bourgeois out of existence, and formed a new society in main attempt to attain safety for themselves.
Other rules come mainly from conditioned values. It's wrong everywhere to murder peoples' children: society will eventually get sick of this and band together to kill you. But there are many tribal societies today in which it is considered a rite of passage for 11 year old boys to perform fellatio and swallow semen to attain manhood. There were ancient Greek and Roman societies in which sex with young teens or children was considered normal, healthy, and desirable. These acts did not distress the parents because they held no Puritan values; in fact, Phoenician values suggest that life is for pleasure and play, and so sexual behavior with a 13 year old girl is considered healthy and good for the child. Modern societies follow a value system in which this is considered damaging--at least to the passing of
Liquid helium will. Nitrogen maybe not. Liquid helium is superfluid and any crack too small for oxygen but large enough for helium to penetrate will act as an intake.
Let's submit random facts to round out the discussion. You claim there's some evolutionary/biological/inherent construct here.
People form familial attachments to those who raise them. If raised with a foster family, they bond to them as family. The bonding is oxytocsin based, similar to strong frendships or long relationships.
Incest is not rejected due to genetics; rather, sexual attraction is typically mitigated by continuous long-term contact, especially from a developmental age. That is to say: it's not that you don't want to bone her because she's your sister; it's that you've lived with her your whole life. Foster step sister does the same thing: it's okay 'cause you're not really related, but... the urge just isn't there. Unless you're weird. But hey, without deviants there is no normal right?
These things raise some odd implications. Family has no basis in the physical, real world, for example: it's an internalized emotional construct, and is handled differently in various cultures--Asian cultures handle family ties much more strongly, while communal cultures often have very little difference in the social bonding between family and between others of the tribe or community. Modern Western culture has begun to externalize ancestral family entirely: people move out of their parents house and get AWAY, with little day to day care about their parents.
There have been no overt studies on the phenomena of long-term interaction killing sex drive in relation to marriage and other long-term sexual relationships. It is, however, well-studied and accepted that people have different levels of sexual need--that is, some people are highly sexual (screw daily!), others have a lower libido (once a week or a few times a month)--and that these sexual needs are critical to maintaining a relationship. Unless you can keep up, you can't have a relationship with a nymphomaniac. If you have a medium-high sex drive and your partner is medium-low, your relationship may have issues--depending on the gap. Likewise, it's well-known that relationships decay when sexual behavior tapers off; and that this often leads to extrarelational sex as either a maintenance strategy or as a precursor to ending the current relationship.
Wall of text that comes down to: the same biological mechanism that makes incest not very attractive to most also makes long-term relationships difficult to maintain, and thus puts strain on the very concept of the nuclear family. Jealousy seems to have evolved as a mechanism to bond, not allow others to impregnate the female you've bonded to, make babies, and then... well, the cycle repeats, after this mate becomes boring and you each find a new one. The female explanation is that not allowing a man to have sex with many women eliminates the need for sperm competition, i.e. some animals shoot HUGE amounts of semen with a LOT more sperm, as this improves the chances of impregnation--and when you have 5 other males coming to get in line, the guy with a big load has a significant likelihood of being the father of anything reared from this.
Family is a cultural thing. Westerners do not care much for extended family, and in fact we are openly hostile much of the time (mother-in-law, annoying aunts, etc.); some eastern traditions care greatly for extended family. Western culture is evolving to a point where we immediately reject our families even while still living with them, and then move out and even far away from our parents. Religious people might quote something from the bible about doing that, it's probably in there.
Why would you want to be a serial murderer? Because you don't feel the way I do about killing some innocent women with your bare hands? Welp, that explains everything, yep.
Family is nothing. It's an invented construct. There's this idea that if your parents mistreat you, they're actively harmful, they're so stupid that your life would have been better if you ran away from home when you were 6 and joined the circus, well... they're still your parents, abusive, exploitative, or incompetent as they are. Well, that's stupid, and I can only assume most people are stupid.
For god's sake WHY? They are a limitation. I hardly recognize that OTHER people have parents because ancestral lineage is not an immediate obvious quality in people: I understand that there is a person here, not a thing that is to be judged by other persons which were present for part of this person's life. A person to me is entirely isolate from their family, and their family is as relevant as some slant eyed oriental hottie in Japan.
Many species engage in rape as a reproductive strategy. Ducks for example. The essential hunting, restraining, and forcible penetration strategy is common across various species.
I have the actual answer for why rape is wrong because I've been able to correctly define right and wrong. This requires some explanation, but the final result will be apparent.
People seek security. In the absence of society, people are individuals with numerous natural threats from wild animals, the weather, starvation, and the like. People form society as protection from these things. If the society fails to create security--if it creates an unsafe scenario--people will again form society: revolution.
This expands into a long-winded discussion that simply comes across as thus: things are wrong when individuals are threatened by having no protection against them. You have protection against being put in jail: Don't commit crimes. Tyrannical government making illegal things which every person naturally and instinctively feels compulsion for and which does not threaten others is, thus, wrong: the society becomes threatening. Rape is wrong because the fear of being raped is a thing that people will constantly seek to escape until they form a society with rules and enforcement mechanisms to prevent rape. Murder, theft, and so on. Starvation brings crime, and thus society seeks to eliminate starvation; but wealth redistribution is also a threat to society, until there is so much wealth that almost all persons have all which they desire (Star Trek economics: post-scarcity means money is effectively meaningless because there is so much of everything including labor that all things are cheap and there is more money than purchasing demand).
Incest and bestiality are considered wrong because a group of people--a large group of people, but initially just certain puritans--believe it is immoral, and they also believe that immorality somehow threatens them. These people want control over society, and want society to not expose them to things which will not harm them but which will upset their world view; however, if society accepts those things, then in short decades most of those in society will no longer feel threatened by them. That is the difference between "immoral" and "wrong": if society allows brutal, violent rape, then in decades or centuries people still are terrified that they may at any moment be violently raped, thus society must and will change this.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much. In this case, it's doubtful Wayland is at critical bodies and so adding the programming resources from Mir onto Wayland would produce a product with better quality and a richer feature set in a shorter time. That's how you make projects successful; in this case, of course, projects have a much more flexible budget of "anyone who has time and desire"--with the double-edge that budgeted resources aren't assigned by a higher power, but rather volunteered.
Canonical has volunteers in a pool which are budgeted across multiple projects, and so budgeting these resources to take advantage of an existing project's resources gives more ROI than building and maintaining their own. This is more traditional budgeting, and means that Canonical actually has decision making power over budgets: they don't just start doing something and hope people join in, but rather they influence how resources they already possess are spent. In this case it's not entirely traditional: many resources are volunteer, and there is a probability that more volunteers will appear or some will leave; but they do have some influence to direct resources at efforts.
They are using that influence inefficiently. It's the same as if a person decided to get a car, and so bought metal and fuel and made fire and machined all the parts for a $30,000 Ford Mustang, spending $350,000 in the process. They may say: "I wanted a larger engine". They may say many things. In the end, however, if their explanation is rational and utility--if it is that a Ford Mustang is lacking in some way, rather than that they would like the experience of building such a thing or that they just "want to"--then the judgment of their decision stems from three objective assessments. The first: is the Ford Mustang essentially lacking in that way? The second: Is this important? And the final: Can we more effectively correct this deficiency in any other way--by finding a better car, by modifying a Ford Mustang, or by convincing Ford to change next year's model?
There are two criticisms here. Canonical asserts that Wayland is inadequate, hence Mir; criticism comes in the form that it would be more efficient and effective for Canonical to devote the resources spent on Mir instead to improve Wayland. The second: we assume Canonical behaves in an irrational manner or to other rational considerations (such as vendor lock-in to Mir, some future ability to implement DRM, etc.), which we criticize directly.
I see stuff online that says normally an SSID is broadcast every 10mS or 100mS (10mS seems low to me). 10 packets per second isn't really a lot, although maybe once every 1 second would be less stupid. I mean when you open a directory in a file browser, it can populate with files for 2-3 seconds if it's large--your photos directory maybe. Why do we need advertisement 10 times per second?
Aside from that, idle access points--even at 100mS between SSID advertisements--don't seem like they'd degrade network too much. In-use access points will, but then we're back to not letting other people use Wifi because you want to use WIfi.
They mistyped NIHere.
Zip-Car.
You sound rich. Are you also trying to stop fracking because the water tower they want to put up looks ugly?
You're complaining that people may want to use Wifi, and this is a problem because you want to use Wifi, and we should exclude everyone else from using Wifi anywhere near you because it makes it harder for you to use Wifi.
Yeah, the 1 cent per year.
You're using a ludicrous argument to try to wedge an on-principle enforcement into a world you don't like. If someone actually stole a penny from you per year, you wouldn't really care. If they reached into your coat pocket to take a penny, you would be very upset about the invasion of personal space, and might scream something useless about stealing when all you really care about is people groping around in your pockets.
Well Comcast owns the line and the modem. They lease you service with a specific SLA. As long as that SLA is in place--as long as the bandwidth you pay for is available when you try to use it--they're completely within their rights to lease additional on that line, and to use their equipment to provide access as long as they don't allow for unagreed intrusion into your property. So nobody's coming inside your house to plug in a CAT6 cable; and they're not connecting up to your private network, either; therefor, there's nothing of note happening here.
Yes. They'd be strikingly similar to the routing rules you get by attaching a network switch to a port on a router.
Well then they have reasonable doubt. It's suddenly like if they say: Someone at Panera was trafficking child pornography; you were at Panera; therefor you must come with us.
Comcast runs a line to your house. It's their line. They let you use a certain amount of bandwidth on it. It's still their line, and their equipment--you get a Wifi access point from them, it's theirs. So Comcast decides that your packets get priority; but vacant space goes to a hot spot.
The summary above is loaded, too: Comcast is not relying on homeowners' property or electricity to run Wifi hotspots. You're powering the device already, and they own it, and they own the line it's connected to. A powered-up hotspot will eat some wattage (like 30 watts), while a powered-up hotspot with a connection to it will eat some more (like 0.05 watts more)--they might actually cost you a penny or two more per year on a busy hotspot that you're renting. Complaining that someone is potentially stealing a penny from you every year is ludicrous; it's not enough for you to realistically care about the money, and only gets used as an excuse to attack something on principle.
Problem here is that the "principle" is that Comcast is using their equipment (Wifi hotspot they supply you) on their line (Internet line you lease bandwidth from) to supply service to others. The equipment happens to physically reside in your house, so many people respond to this as if Comcast is trespassing by forcefully installing their equipment for their business activity into their house.
Perhaps Comcast could take advantage of IPv6 here. Then you couldn't complain that it came from the same IP as everything else.
Read Tres Roeder's "A Sixth Sense for Project Management" and get back to me.
Yes, an elective to fill a slot in college with a useful personal development skill.
The varying lifetime is less important than people think. If you have a 300 mile range electric vehicle battery that can handle 1,000 charges and you replace it with a 3,000 mile range battery that can handle 100 charges, you can still go 300,000 miles. It just turns out you can go 3000 miles in one trip.
Are you the chick from my voice class a few years back?
And then there's dogs, which work extremely well with humans and actively want human companionship. Even wild wolves don't pose much danger to humans, often coming close without hostility; and wild foxes will sometimes play with people.
Chicken of the rail yard.
I knew a girl who was very skinny... she became vegetarian and almost died. She resorted to eating only fish and vegetables because vegetarian diet would kill her. That happened over years of research, support groups, health spa meetings, general fraternization with vegetarians and vegans everywhere.
Me, I didn't bother. My immune system fails and I start getting open wounds and sores out of nowhere if I stop eating meat--after two weeks! So fuck that.
You will want a lot of backed-off stuff to teach historical-to-modern flow.
Historically, CGI and SQL were used. Some files on disk stuff, executable programs, etc. Executable programs gave way to scripts like Perl and PHP.
In modern times, raw SQL has been transformed into stuff like Python SQLAlchemy. CGI, being too slow--it takes longer to load/unload the interpreter (or even a C executable) than it does to execute the work--has given way to FastCGI, and then WSGI. Straight markup and scripting has given way to frameworks such as CherryPy, Django, and Flask, combined with templating like Mako, used to create content management systems for front-end people.
Even the SQL back-end, now through SQLAlchemy and other ORM, has given way to solution-based storage: if your data is document-oriented (XML, YAML, JSON type), it's stored in a Document Storage Database like MongoDB, Couchbase, or such. If we call SQL tables indexed CSV files, we can call Document collections indexed JSON (and call JSON a thing "similar to" XML or YAML). Graph databases connect objects to other objects, which become relevant with applications like Facebook. And some applications even mix modes: an _id ObjectId index in MongoDB may provide the 'vid_id' column on a certain table in PostgreSQL, allowing data which conforms exceptionally poorly to certain models to mingle with data which conforms exceptionally poorly to other models by using both models and storing the different buckets of the data in different places.
That shows them a handful of tools; it shows them that the tools change; and it shows them that some tools are legacy, others have been marginalized. SQL is marginalized: document storage databases make much more sense for most modern applications, and eventually will likely displace anywhere from 10% to 80% of SQL-backed storage, but will remain the incorrect answer for a significant set of applications which should (and hopefully will) remain on SQL. XML has been replaced: modern APIs use JSON rather than XML/SOAP, and on-disk storage has severe problems with large concurrent volatile data sets. Languages come and go; CGI is dead in favor of application servers such as those which communicate over WSGI.
By all means, put practical skill into modern languages and methods. Java, suck as it is, is still relevant. Python is still up-and-coming but is a fantastic language for modern Web programming. C# and VB.Net both get a lot of use in Windows-based hosting, opinions on that abound. Don't spend a lot of time making sure students are strongly familiar with how to set up C applications with CGI and Apache; that's not a useful skill. Do spend time using MySQL, PostgreSQL, and MS SQL Server, as well as MongoDB and other document stores--both programming and doing the actual data modeling--along with other, less-relevant new technologies (document storage is a big one because it conforms to most complex data; node based databases conform to a specific model useful for AI and for social networking or other object-associative tasks).
Ducks are not as social as human beings. Humans depend on society for survival; rape decreases survival overall, while ducks benefit overall from rape.
Your assumption of conditioning versus instinct is nonsense. Conditioning stems from instinct: instinctive needs being met or harmed provides conditioning, among other things. People instinctively have a desire to live, which is why they will kill to take things they want/need, and will kill in self defense if conditioned largely not to kill. When this desire is threatened, people run away: a raging killer--human or a wild bengal tiger--will get people to either kill it or run far away.
A society will eventually provide protection for a people: running away takes energy and thus decreases survival (requires more food), thus a society will seek to reduce the amount of threats. That's why we've been conditioned to not like wild animals--because wild animals are dangerous, and it was easier to clean them away from society, and now we are more conditioned to react even more sensitively to the threat of wild animals. Originally, we instinctively did not want to be eaten by wolves or diseased to death by rats, and so we made efforts to reduce these problems which were real and undesirable but not terrifying and unknown.
Similarly, murderers and rapists bring harm and produce a fear reaction. The free flow of murder and rape without consequence produces fear in individuals: it makes them afraid to participate in society. Thus society develops a majority driver that murder and rape are wrong, and it becomes imperative to prevent or punish these acts.
You will notice that every society develops a common theme: anything that threatens the stronger members of society is wrong. A totalitarian, centrally-dominated society run by a small group who oppress a large group will enforce few rules about murder, rape, and theft if they do not impact the ruling class--but will strongly enforce protection of the ruling class. A male-dominated society where women are treated as property will allow for rape of women more often, except as it damages the reputation of a family or the value of selling off daughters as wives or whatever. Egalitarian societies ("Equalitarian" is apparently not a word) provide protections for all classes: the US has allowed for the murder of blacks, the beating of women, and the disenfranchising of homosexuals throughout its history; over time, the US has come to treat these groups as equals, and moved to protect their rights.
You will notice as well that major uprisings occur when the majority society or a significant group finds the rules of society unpalatable. For example: the French wee treated with little concern, trodden on, occasionally murdered, not given a strong police force to their benefit, and taxed out of existence. This suited the Bourgeois ruling class, who had no imperative to protect the peasantry since only the Bourgeois made the rules and sensed no threat from the peasantry: a firm hand would keep them in line, of course. Well, it didn't. They got together, murdered the Bourgeois out of existence, and formed a new society in main attempt to attain safety for themselves.
Other rules come mainly from conditioned values. It's wrong everywhere to murder peoples' children: society will eventually get sick of this and band together to kill you. But there are many tribal societies today in which it is considered a rite of passage for 11 year old boys to perform fellatio and swallow semen to attain manhood. There were ancient Greek and Roman societies in which sex with young teens or children was considered normal, healthy, and desirable. These acts did not distress the parents because they held no Puritan values; in fact, Phoenician values suggest that life is for pleasure and play, and so sexual behavior with a 13 year old girl is considered healthy and good for the child. Modern societies follow a value system in which this is considered damaging--at least to the passing of
Liquid helium will. Nitrogen maybe not. Liquid helium is superfluid and any crack too small for oxygen but large enough for helium to penetrate will act as an intake.
Let's submit random facts to round out the discussion. You claim there's some evolutionary/biological/inherent construct here.
People form familial attachments to those who raise them. If raised with a foster family, they bond to them as family. The bonding is oxytocsin based, similar to strong frendships or long relationships.
Incest is not rejected due to genetics; rather, sexual attraction is typically mitigated by continuous long-term contact, especially from a developmental age. That is to say: it's not that you don't want to bone her because she's your sister; it's that you've lived with her your whole life. Foster step sister does the same thing: it's okay 'cause you're not really related, but ... the urge just isn't there. Unless you're weird. But hey, without deviants there is no normal right?
These things raise some odd implications. Family has no basis in the physical, real world, for example: it's an internalized emotional construct, and is handled differently in various cultures--Asian cultures handle family ties much more strongly, while communal cultures often have very little difference in the social bonding between family and between others of the tribe or community. Modern Western culture has begun to externalize ancestral family entirely: people move out of their parents house and get AWAY, with little day to day care about their parents.
There have been no overt studies on the phenomena of long-term interaction killing sex drive in relation to marriage and other long-term sexual relationships. It is, however, well-studied and accepted that people have different levels of sexual need--that is, some people are highly sexual (screw daily!), others have a lower libido (once a week or a few times a month)--and that these sexual needs are critical to maintaining a relationship. Unless you can keep up, you can't have a relationship with a nymphomaniac. If you have a medium-high sex drive and your partner is medium-low, your relationship may have issues--depending on the gap. Likewise, it's well-known that relationships decay when sexual behavior tapers off; and that this often leads to extrarelational sex as either a maintenance strategy or as a precursor to ending the current relationship.
Wall of text that comes down to: the same biological mechanism that makes incest not very attractive to most also makes long-term relationships difficult to maintain, and thus puts strain on the very concept of the nuclear family. Jealousy seems to have evolved as a mechanism to bond, not allow others to impregnate the female you've bonded to, make babies, and then... well, the cycle repeats, after this mate becomes boring and you each find a new one. The female explanation is that not allowing a man to have sex with many women eliminates the need for sperm competition, i.e. some animals shoot HUGE amounts of semen with a LOT more sperm, as this improves the chances of impregnation--and when you have 5 other males coming to get in line, the guy with a big load has a significant likelihood of being the father of anything reared from this.
Family is a cultural thing. Westerners do not care much for extended family, and in fact we are openly hostile much of the time (mother-in-law, annoying aunts, etc.); some eastern traditions care greatly for extended family. Western culture is evolving to a point where we immediately reject our families even while still living with them, and then move out and even far away from our parents. Religious people might quote something from the bible about doing that, it's probably in there.
Yeah that's not going to happen fast enough in a slush of dry ice and liquid nitrogen. That's instant-freeze.
That's great.
Why would you want to be a serial murderer? Because you don't feel the way I do about killing some innocent women with your bare hands? Welp, that explains everything, yep.
Family is nothing. It's an invented construct. There's this idea that if your parents mistreat you, they're actively harmful, they're so stupid that your life would have been better if you ran away from home when you were 6 and joined the circus, well... they're still your parents, abusive, exploitative, or incompetent as they are. Well, that's stupid, and I can only assume most people are stupid.
For god's sake WHY? They are a limitation. I hardly recognize that OTHER people have parents because ancestral lineage is not an immediate obvious quality in people: I understand that there is a person here, not a thing that is to be judged by other persons which were present for part of this person's life. A person to me is entirely isolate from their family, and their family is as relevant as some slant eyed oriental hottie in Japan.
Your girlfriend's into that huh?
Then you burn the defective thing.
Many species engage in rape as a reproductive strategy. Ducks for example. The essential hunting, restraining, and forcible penetration strategy is common across various species.
I have the actual answer for why rape is wrong because I've been able to correctly define right and wrong. This requires some explanation, but the final result will be apparent.
People seek security. In the absence of society, people are individuals with numerous natural threats from wild animals, the weather, starvation, and the like. People form society as protection from these things. If the society fails to create security--if it creates an unsafe scenario--people will again form society: revolution.
This expands into a long-winded discussion that simply comes across as thus: things are wrong when individuals are threatened by having no protection against them. You have protection against being put in jail: Don't commit crimes. Tyrannical government making illegal things which every person naturally and instinctively feels compulsion for and which does not threaten others is, thus, wrong: the society becomes threatening. Rape is wrong because the fear of being raped is a thing that people will constantly seek to escape until they form a society with rules and enforcement mechanisms to prevent rape. Murder, theft, and so on. Starvation brings crime, and thus society seeks to eliminate starvation; but wealth redistribution is also a threat to society, until there is so much wealth that almost all persons have all which they desire (Star Trek economics: post-scarcity means money is effectively meaningless because there is so much of everything including labor that all things are cheap and there is more money than purchasing demand).
Incest and bestiality are considered wrong because a group of people--a large group of people, but initially just certain puritans--believe it is immoral, and they also believe that immorality somehow threatens them. These people want control over society, and want society to not expose them to things which will not harm them but which will upset their world view; however, if society accepts those things, then in short decades most of those in society will no longer feel threatened by them. That is the difference between "immoral" and "wrong": if society allows brutal, violent rape, then in decades or centuries people still are terrified that they may at any moment be violently raped, thus society must and will change this.