I must not guess. Guessing is the mind-borer. Guessing is the little-nap that brings temporary self-deception. I will face my guesses. I will permit them to pass over me and through me. And when they have gone past I will turn the inner eye to see their path. But because I am aphantasic, I will see nothing. Only narration remains.
Trump's not electable. He's getting the Republican nomination because a majority of Republicans will accept him. A majority of independents won't; and a majority of democrats won't. There's no way he can get around that.
I don't want to be needing to even convert numbers to strings and back
If that's a comment about cpu cycle efficiency, yes, there's something to consider there. Definitely a hit during transfer. However, Python is so much faster than javascript, likely it doesn't actually have a serious impact.
If it's about coding work for you, no. That's all taken care of by json. Two lines in the Python script (one for incoming data, one for outgoing), and two lines in the Javascript, same thing. Also, not ugly, codewise. Very simple; very clean. If you're thinking it makes for ugly code, you didn't understand what I was describing. Probably my fault.
I run the Python app on the server side; the only reason javascript runs on the client side from my POV is because there's no other way it will run, and there is no alternative technology that will not require reloads and subsequent browser destruction and re-construction of the page, which is extremely disruptive to the visitor as compared to the minimal amount of rendering changes possible.
The way I see it, presuming you can use the visitor's computing resources beyond what you actually require to operate is abusive behavior. So the less of that there is, the better the web page is.
As for latency, that's really not a serious concern. My web pages are so much faster than most other people's because they don't go out to other web sites and make new connections that you'd be hard-pressed to show than anything written this way is even taking 1/10th of the time to run as the average web page these days. They're also much lighter -- I can get my content to you in a fraction of the time, quite aside from latency. Just a few packets, and you have my web pages. No video, only carefully optimized images.
As for running offline, no. These are web pages. Not applications. I don't write applications on web pages. It can be done, obviously, but I would not do so. The browser is too heavyweight an environmental wrapper. Not to mention that some of them (looking at you, Firefox) are such profligate memory losers and wasters quite aside from anything actually required for functionality that they should be entirely killed regularly in order to get system memory back. So I stick with c++ for applications. Applications of mine (like this one weigh in at less than some web pages, never mind the browser's requirements.
Do you really want to set your programming limits by what slashcode does? Based on performance -- or lack thereof, I should say -- running screaming the other way seems like the correct choice to me. Venues that actually consider code to be a likely part of posts (github, basically anywhere that uses markdown properly, wordpress, etc.) handle pasted whitespace consistently and in a way that can be dealt with easily enough, even if a filter or two is needed (like converting tabs to spaces, and adding four spaces up front for markdown). Slashdot's formatting tools are, to be kind, minimal. And somewhat borken at that.
I presume my account is set the more compatible way; I just used <code></code> to write the GP. Worked well enough. Not too fond of the 8-char indent it created on this end (I prefer 4) but still, it shows exactly why { and } tell the compiler or interpreter things that they can efficiently hide from the programmer.
I'm a c programmer; I have written a very large number of lines of c. And c++. I still write large applications from scratch in c++. Like this one. But I indent very carefully, and not in the K&R style either, which I also consider borken specifically because it also obfuscates visual cues. I even published some dead-tree magazine articles on specific problems with K&R style authoing in dedicated programming rags, back in the day. Way back.:)
Shebang lines like that didn't work on Windows from 3.0 through 3.2.
I avoid Windows. This provides another reason why. Sometimes I forget Windows is even out there. Those are good times.:)
node-sqlite3
Not really what I meant. Sure, you can add OPC to Javascript. Python's Sqlite support is standard. I prefer to use that if at all possible. Also prefer Python to javascript, but inasmuch as I have to use Javascript in web pages to get that level of interactive capability, this is the way I choose to go about it -- write the parts that have to be Javascript in js, and the rest in Python. Passing stuff back and forth in JSON is just about painless.
In any case, the technique is generally applicable to anything as long as you aren't dealing with Windows. In the case of a web server, I think *nix is a better choice anyway. For quite a few reasons.
The called Python script can return a json result, which you can in one step parse out into a local python object such as a dictionary, etc.
You can use this to call python3 from python2, the other way around, or, slightly differently written because Javascript, as a way to call python from Javascript. And I suspect in a lot of other environments as well.
I do it all the time in Javascript because Python has Sqlite support and javascript does not; so I just build the query in Javascript, shoot it to python to get it handled, and take the results back across into Javascript as json.
I wrote that all off the top of my head, so you might find a few errors in it, but that's the general idea.
Structured whitespace delineates code blocks in a much more visually obvious manner. This, in turn, makes understanding what you're looking at much easier. Such understanding aids in writing, maintaining, and altering code. Even more so when it is otherPeoplesCode.
Here's one problem: we -- individuals -- have limited time. The more efficiently it is used, which is to say, the less time we spend waiting on things to complete, the better off we are. Here's another problem: Some tasks are not fast enough. Here's another problem: computers are no longer getting faster at the same rate.
There are many classes of tasks that take significant amounts of time to complete. These are the ones that are a good case for higher speed languages. There are also many classes of tasks that execute in an environment that also executes other important tasks, and the more time available for the other tasks there is, the more gets done there. So 100ms as opposed to 1ms does matter to such a machine at large, though it would not matter on a machine dedicated to you alone where that is all you are doing.
Btw, if the speed is not ok, why aren't you writing in assembler?
Generally speaking, because the machines out there are not uniform in terms of CPUs. Otherwise, I'm quite good at writing in assembler, and if the target is a dedicated system where the hardware is known and the roadmap ensures that this will not change for some reason, I'm perfectly willing to do it. Particularly if not using assembler means taxing (or exceeding) the resources of the machine or the patience of the user.
But if the entire program has to be rewritten because the hardware is different -- that's sufficient reason not to write in assembler. However, c is an exxcellent fit in such cases; it's very low level and it provides the ability to obviate the hardware differences as to functionality.
...before too much longer, a decade or two most likely, the vast majority of the vehicles on the road will be electric anyway. Technology has a way of rendering these issues moot rather thoroughly. This is one we can see coming well in advance.
The driving-to-pollution coupling will be at the power plants, not at the vehicle. It'll be much easier to control as a direct result. And of course, far more efficient in the first place.
why didn't you listen to 'us' and fix the spaces thing?
...because it isn't broken. It's your coding style that's broken. Consistent use of structured whitespace is a huge benefit to authoring, and to understanding other people's code. As opposed to any random sequence of characters some individual decide suits them personally.
There's probably working, and there's actually working. When you have a complex system that a business actually depends on, running 2to3 absolutely requires that everything be re-tested. The larger the system is -- and that can mean interactions with libraries, databases, other languages, etc. -- the larger that testing job is, and it gets larger in a nonlinear fashion with the amount of code as interactions multiply.
However, Python 2.x isn't going to go anywhere. If you have a substantial system or systems written in it, and it's doing what it supposed to be doing, there's actually no reason to move it over. If you want to, you can write new stuff in 3.x; no reason they both can't exist on the same machine(s), either. Either one can call the other. Nothing to it.
Personally, so far at least, I have no specific need for 3.x, and so haven't bothered with it for anything serious, but I'm not against using it if some reason arises that makes it more useful than 2.x. I can't say I really object to 2.x becoming stable because development is going towards 3.x, either. Again, it reduces the need to re-test, and it keeps the unit testing mechanisms stable as well.
And you're wrong that the current situation is akin to throwing kids on the freeway with no driving education and hoping for the best. It's worse than that - since kids have easy access to internet porn (and will likely continue to do so regardless of any laws to the contrary) it's more akin to setting kids loose on the highway who have never even ridden in a car before, after watching lots of completely unrealistic high-speed Hollywood racing scenes giving them completely unrealistic ideas of what good driving entails.
Here's the thing: Kids have access to those things, yes. while adults around them tell them those things are not okay. But they are.
That creates very confused people. People without skills; people without confidence; people who cannot be open with one another.
Kids see their parents driving too, and movies of people driving. Is that enough to let them loose of the bloody freeway?
Of course it isn't. All arguments saying "porn is bad" are directly equivalent to mashing "censorship is good" up with "I know what's best for you" and "sex is shameful" to create an unholy amalgam of shame, incompetence, impaired communications, and top-down control structures any dictator would be proud to call their own. Or religion. But I repeat myself.
No, it'll read "had constitution it was never able to live up to, was bought out by special interests and complicit media, turned into oligarchy, hey, how about those Kardashians?"
Not to put too fine a point on it, but an economy driven by automation where the people receive enough of the work product (either directly or as currency) to survive is neither communism or socialism. It's a mode that has yet to be tried.
Consequently, most of the posts above (I've not read the ones below yet) are completely missing the point.
If you want to argue this -- either way -- you have to start from the premise that jobs simply will not be available.
Then: What should be done, and how should it work, or, what should not be done, and why not?
(Plus, we're replacing a Democrat with a Republican, so there's that.)
The Republicans have exchanged ideologies with the Democrats since then, so while this replaced a Democrat in name, what it actually did was emplace a person with something more related to current Republican ideology with a person holding something more related to current Democrat ideology.
Funny, could have sworn I saw women in some porn somewhere. Must have been hallucinating.
More seriously, condoms are also made, by and large, for men. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Means its a thing men find useful, that's all. The sexes are different. Arguing from a POV that presumes they aren't is bankrupt right out of the gate.
competes to be as titillating as possible to secure as much of the market as possible, and so it inevitably portrays a very lopsided picture.
No, and so it inevitably portrays a very titillating picture. Which fact is, at the very least, informative, interesting, and useful. Your idea of "lopsided" is, again, something is valid for you. You have no way whatsoever to determine if that is lopsided for consenting parties of which you are not part.
Go ahead and watch a bunch of it at random, with careful attention to the actors faces - they're rarely good actors after all, and their faces tend to expose their actual feelings if you're not focused on other things. The men are generally enjoying themselves, the women, considerably less frequently.
Commercial porn is not made, generally speaking, for the enjoyment of the actors. Porn is made for the enjoyment of the viewers. From the actor's POV, porn is made for actors to earn money. Whether they actually enjoy it is irrelevant; working at McDonalds can be very unpleasant for some. But they aren't there because they thought it would be enjoyable. They are there because they wanted to earn $. McDonalds is there for the enjoyment of the consumer. This should sound both familiar to you, and provide a sound basis for generalization that resolves your confusion on the matter. One more thing: Porn is made cheaply (like McDonalds food) because it is a highly competitive environment with very short time value. The quality of acting one can derive from the pay scales available there is inevitably less than that one can demand from an actor in a more mainstream (and significantly better remunerated) production. Lastly, you are completely ignoring the phenomenon of "amateur porn." Here, generally speaking, no one is acting. Everyone is most definitely enjoying themselves. The quality tends to be much poorer because there is less (sometimes no) money involved and so you don't get such things as decent lighting, well thought out camera angles, and highly attractive and/or interestingly endowed actors.
And if a professional with lots of experience is expressing discomfort or distaste, it's a fair bet that it's not something the average woman is really going to enjoy.
It's a bet you would lose handily. The actors are there because they are being paid. They are engaging with partners in an externally guided, predefined manner. This is not the case for informed, consensual sex between partners who have chosen each other for the explicit purpose of engaging in such activities.
it's probably not a good baseline to educate children who have no broader experience to draw upon.
And you are saying it is better to throw them into a situation without any idea what the range, scope, risks, and rewards are? Is that how you would teach driver's ed? "No, kids, you can't learn about that, you have to figure it out on your own. Okay, here we are on the freeway, here's the wheel, have fun!" That is in fact pretty much what the sum of US sex ed and parental input amounts to. The results are widespread STDs, enormous numbers of unwanted pregnancies, abortions consequent to those unwanted pregnancies, unwanted children raised further consequent to not getting abortions, hugely blinkered understanding of the wide range of positive (by which I mean, consensually enjoyable) sexual play and sensation -- which is just another way to say "not informed", and so a direct pointer to t
Also, look. At -40C, it's actually -40F. Isn't that cute? Celsius trying to be reasonable, and all. Sorry, Celsius. Too low, too late. Back across the pond with you.
That is NOT something that watching random internet porn is going to teach to young adults.
What you have done here is express a personal opinion (possibly) valid for your own state of mind. You have in no way established that this is the case for anyone else. You are neither a mind or reader or any kind of definitive authority on what is agreeable and enjoyable between consenting parties when one of the parties is not you.
Slashdot Mirror
An African sticker, or a European sticker?
I gesserit's true.
I must not guess.
Guessing is the mind-borer.
Guessing is the little-nap that brings temporary self-deception.
I will face my guesses.
I will permit them to pass over me and through me.
And when they have gone past I will turn the inner eye to see their path.
But because I am aphantasic, I will see nothing.
Only narration remains.
Trump's not electable. He's getting the Republican nomination because a majority of Republicans will accept him. A majority of independents won't; and a majority of democrats won't. There's no way he can get around that.
Answered above
If that's a comment about cpu cycle efficiency, yes, there's something to consider there. Definitely a hit during transfer. However, Python is so much faster than javascript, likely it doesn't actually have a serious impact.
If it's about coding work for you, no. That's all taken care of by json. Two lines in the Python script (one for incoming data, one for outgoing), and two lines in the Javascript, same thing. Also, not ugly, codewise. Very simple; very clean. If you're thinking it makes for ugly code, you didn't understand what I was describing. Probably my fault.
Anyway, I was asked, I answered. There ya go. :)
I run the Python app on the server side; the only reason javascript runs on the client side from my POV is because there's no other way it will run, and there is no alternative technology that will not require reloads and subsequent browser destruction and re-construction of the page, which is extremely disruptive to the visitor as compared to the minimal amount of rendering changes possible.
The way I see it, presuming you can use the visitor's computing resources beyond what you actually require to operate is abusive behavior. So the less of that there is, the better the web page is.
As for latency, that's really not a serious concern. My web pages are so much faster than most other people's because they don't go out to other web sites and make new connections that you'd be hard-pressed to show than anything written this way is even taking 1/10th of the time to run as the average web page these days. They're also much lighter -- I can get my content to you in a fraction of the time, quite aside from latency. Just a few packets, and you have my web pages. No video, only carefully optimized images.
As for running offline, no. These are web pages. Not applications. I don't write applications on web pages. It can be done, obviously, but I would not do so. The browser is too heavyweight an environmental wrapper. Not to mention that some of them (looking at you, Firefox) are such profligate memory losers and wasters quite aside from anything actually required for functionality that they should be entirely killed regularly in order to get system memory back. So I stick with c++ for applications. Applications of mine (like this one weigh in at less than some web pages, never mind the browser's requirements.
I'm very comfortable with this. YMMV, obviously.
Do you really want to set your programming limits by what slashcode does? Based on performance -- or lack thereof, I should say -- running screaming the other way seems like the correct choice to me. Venues that actually consider code to be a likely part of posts (github, basically anywhere that uses markdown properly, wordpress, etc.) handle pasted whitespace consistently and in a way that can be dealt with easily enough, even if a filter or two is needed (like converting tabs to spaces, and adding four spaces up front for markdown). Slashdot's formatting tools are, to be kind, minimal. And somewhat borken at that.
I presume my account is set the more compatible way; I just used <code></code> to write the GP. Worked well enough. Not too fond of the 8-char indent it created on this end (I prefer 4) but still, it shows exactly why { and } tell the compiler or interpreter things that they can efficiently hide from the programmer.
I'm a c programmer; I have written a very large number of lines of c. And c++. I still write large applications from scratch in c++. Like this one. But I indent very carefully, and not in the K&R style either, which I also consider borken specifically because it also obfuscates visual cues. I even published some dead-tree magazine articles on specific problems with K&R style authoing in dedicated programming rags, back in the day. Way back. :)
Thanks for your reply.
I avoid Windows. This provides another reason why. Sometimes I forget Windows is even out there. Those are good times. :)
Not really what I meant. Sure, you can add OPC to Javascript. Python's Sqlite support is standard. I prefer to use that if at all possible. Also prefer Python to javascript, but inasmuch as I have to use Javascript in web pages to get that level of interactive capability, this is the way I choose to go about it -- write the parts that have to be Javascript in js, and the rest in Python. Passing stuff back and forth in JSON is just about painless.
In any case, the technique is generally applicable to anything as long as you aren't dealing with Windows. In the case of a web server, I think *nix is a better choice anyway. For quite a few reasons.
A python script can control what executes it with the shebang line at the top:
#!/usr/bin/python2
So it follows that a script can also have:
#!/usr/bin/python3
at the top.
so:
#!/usr/bin/python2
import subprocess
import json
subprocess.Popen(["pythonScript", "/path"], stdout=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True)(result, err) = proc.communicate()
The called Python script can return a json result, which you can in one step parse out into a local python object such as a dictionary, etc.
You can use this to call python3 from python2, the other way around, or, slightly differently written because Javascript, as a way to call python from Javascript. And I suspect in a lot of other environments as well.
I do it all the time in Javascript because Python has Sqlite support and javascript does not; so I just build the query in Javascript, shoot it to python to get it handled, and take the results back across into Javascript as json.
I wrote that all off the top of my head, so you might find a few errors in it, but that's the general idea.
It's not about "a space", it's about levels of indentation.
The answer is basically that braces can match at different places on different lines and be perfectly valid; and many people write code just that way.
if condition
doThis
if otherCondition
doThisToo
else
humAFewBars
scratchItch
else
doThat
is clearer than:
if condition { doThis ifOtherCondition { doThisToo }
else { humAFewBars scratchItch }} else { doThat }
Structured whitespace delineates code blocks in a much more visually obvious manner. This, in turn, makes understanding what you're looking at much easier. Such understanding aids in writing, maintaining, and altering code. Even more so when it is otherPeoplesCode.
Here's one problem: we -- individuals -- have limited time. The more efficiently it is used, which is to say, the less time we spend waiting on things to complete, the better off we are. Here's another problem: Some tasks are not fast enough. Here's another problem: computers are no longer getting faster at the same rate.
There are many classes of tasks that take significant amounts of time to complete. These are the ones that are a good case for higher speed languages. There are also many classes of tasks that execute in an environment that also executes other important tasks, and the more time available for the other tasks there is, the more gets done there. So 100ms as opposed to 1ms does matter to such a machine at large, though it would not matter on a machine dedicated to you alone where that is all you are doing.
Generally speaking, because the machines out there are not uniform in terms of CPUs. Otherwise, I'm quite good at writing in assembler, and if the target is a dedicated system where the hardware is known and the roadmap ensures that this will not change for some reason, I'm perfectly willing to do it. Particularly if not using assembler means taxing (or exceeding) the resources of the machine or the patience of the user.
But if the entire program has to be rewritten because the hardware is different -- that's sufficient reason not to write in assembler. However, c is an exxcellent fit in such cases; it's very low level and it provides the ability to obviate the hardware differences as to functionality.
...before too much longer, a decade or two most likely, the vast majority of the vehicles on the road will be electric anyway. Technology has a way of rendering these issues moot rather thoroughly. This is one we can see coming well in advance.
The driving-to-pollution coupling will be at the power plants, not at the vehicle. It'll be much easier to control as a direct result. And of course, far more efficient in the first place.
In computer science, abstraction means your code runs slower.
As long as that's okay, then yes, you're right. Otherwise, you're completely wrong.
There's probably working, and there's actually working. When you have a complex system that a business actually depends on, running 2to3 absolutely requires that everything be re-tested. The larger the system is -- and that can mean interactions with libraries, databases, other languages, etc. -- the larger that testing job is, and it gets larger in a nonlinear fashion with the amount of code as interactions multiply.
However, Python 2.x isn't going to go anywhere. If you have a substantial system or systems written in it, and it's doing what it supposed to be doing, there's actually no reason to move it over. If you want to, you can write new stuff in 3.x; no reason they both can't exist on the same machine(s), either. Either one can call the other. Nothing to it.
Personally, so far at least, I have no specific need for 3.x, and so haven't bothered with it for anything serious, but I'm not against using it if some reason arises that makes it more useful than 2.x. I can't say I really object to 2.x becoming stable because development is going towards 3.x, either. Again, it reduces the need to re-test, and it keeps the unit testing mechanisms stable as well.
Here's the thing: Kids have access to those things, yes. while adults around them tell them those things are not okay. But they are.
That creates very confused people. People without skills; people without confidence; people who cannot be open with one another.
Kids see their parents driving too, and movies of people driving. Is that enough to let them loose of the bloody freeway?
Of course it isn't. All arguments saying "porn is bad" are directly equivalent to mashing "censorship is good" up with "I know what's best for you" and "sex is shameful" to create an unholy amalgam of shame, incompetence, impaired communications, and top-down control structures any dictator would be proud to call their own. Or religion. But I repeat myself.
No, it'll read "had constitution it was never able to live up to, was bought out by special interests and complicit media, turned into oligarchy, hey, how about those Kardashians?"
The entire justification for metric is that things are easier to understand using 0-100. And they are.
That's why Fahrenheit is a far better scale for humans.
There's no way around it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but an economy driven by automation where the people receive enough of the work product (either directly or as currency) to survive is neither communism or socialism. It's a mode that has yet to be tried.
Consequently, most of the posts above (I've not read the ones below yet) are completely missing the point.
If you want to argue this -- either way -- you have to start from the premise that jobs simply will not be available.
Then: What should be done, and how should it work, or, what should not be done, and why not?
I often wish we'd gone in the direction some of the Bahamanian currency did.
Oh well.
The Republicans have exchanged ideologies with the Democrats since then, so while this replaced a Democrat in name, what it actually did was emplace a person with something more related to current Republican ideology with a person holding something more related to current Democrat ideology.
History is full of funny gotchas like that. :)
You're entitled to your own opinion, certainly. But you are very, very wrong.
Funny, could have sworn I saw women in some porn somewhere. Must have been hallucinating.
More seriously, condoms are also made, by and large, for men. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Means its a thing men find useful, that's all. The sexes are different. Arguing from a POV that presumes they aren't is bankrupt right out of the gate.
No, and so it inevitably portrays a very titillating picture. Which fact is, at the very least, informative, interesting, and useful. Your idea of "lopsided" is, again, something is valid for you. You have no way whatsoever to determine if that is lopsided for consenting parties of which you are not part.
Commercial porn is not made, generally speaking, for the enjoyment of the actors. Porn is made for the enjoyment of the viewers. From the actor's POV, porn is made for actors to earn money. Whether they actually enjoy it is irrelevant; working at McDonalds can be very unpleasant for some. But they aren't there because they thought it would be enjoyable. They are there because they wanted to earn $. McDonalds is there for the enjoyment of the consumer. This should sound both familiar to you, and provide a sound basis for generalization that resolves your confusion on the matter. One more thing: Porn is made cheaply (like McDonalds food) because it is a highly competitive environment with very short time value. The quality of acting one can derive from the pay scales available there is inevitably less than that one can demand from an actor in a more mainstream (and significantly better remunerated) production. Lastly, you are completely ignoring the phenomenon of "amateur porn." Here, generally speaking, no one is acting. Everyone is most definitely enjoying themselves. The quality tends to be much poorer because there is less (sometimes no) money involved and so you don't get such things as decent lighting, well thought out camera angles, and highly attractive and/or interestingly endowed actors.
It's a bet you would lose handily. The actors are there because they are being paid. They are engaging with partners in an externally guided, predefined manner. This is not the case for informed, consensual sex between partners who have chosen each other for the explicit purpose of engaging in such activities.
And you are saying it is better to throw them into a situation without any idea what the range, scope, risks, and rewards are? Is that how you would teach driver's ed? "No, kids, you can't learn about that, you have to figure it out on your own. Okay, here we are on the freeway, here's the wheel, have fun!" That is in fact pretty much what the sum of US sex ed and parental input amounts to. The results are widespread STDs, enormous numbers of unwanted pregnancies, abortions consequent to those unwanted pregnancies, unwanted children raised further consequent to not getting abortions, hugely blinkered understanding of the wide range of positive (by which I mean, consensually enjoyable) sexual play and sensation -- which is just another way to say "not informed", and so a direct pointer to t
Why Fahrenheit is For People. And cats.
Celsius 0:Cold 25:Warm 50:Dead 75:Dead 100:Dead
Fahrenheit 0:Really Cold 25:Cold 50:Meh 75:Warm 100:Really Hot
Kelvin 0:Dead 25:Dead 50:Dead 75:Dead 100:Dead
Rankine 0:Dead 25:Dead 50:Dead 75:Dead 100:Dead
Réaumur 0:Cold 25:Hot 50:Dead 75:Dead 100:Dead
Also, look. At -40C, it's actually -40F. Isn't that cute? Celsius trying to be reasonable, and all. Sorry, Celsius. Too low, too late. Back across the pond with you.
What you have done here is express a personal opinion (possibly) valid for your own state of mind. You have in no way established that this is the case for anyone else. You are neither a mind or reader or any kind of definitive authority on what is agreeable and enjoyable between consenting parties when one of the parties is not you.