So I assume you have a problem with people that have had themselves sterilized getting married? If that's the only reason you don't think gay marriage should be legal, don't you think marriage where either the man or woman is sterile should be illegal as well?
And what about gay couples who adopt children? Aren't they providing a benefit to society, giving a stable home to children that would otherwise be brought up moved from foster home to foster home, if they're that lucky? Maybe we should allow gay marriage as long as they adopt.
Or maybe we should just kill all the children that don't have parents (abortion should obviously stay illegal, or we'll have women out there, deciding), or decide that it's illegal for homosexuals to adopt. Then we don't have to give fags the same financial benefits the rest of us enjoy, and that's really what this is all about, right?
The need to generate SQL is usually a sign of poor to terrible database design, but even so I know that MS SQL Server at least has identifier escaping functions, and I'd be surprised if any major DB didn't. The usual escaping vs parameters caveats apply, but much, much less so because a.) The SQL server itself is doing the escaping, which presumably is competent to escape its own identifiers, and b.) There are no character set changes to do things like change fancy quotes to ' on you.
Wouldn't be surprised at all. Every time I've had a piece of software pitched to me as "more than just an X", it means it's "not even an X, but it could be, someday!"
Man, we ain't suffering because of those assholes in the past. We're suffering because we are those assholes. If the problem was only in the past, we could drop those regulations today.
Yes. You have a single "perhaps" that's immediately followed by a "but" in a post that otherwise strongly takes the position that the immediate fix and what every western country is already doing is the wrong answer. Maybe it's not what you intended, but it looks to me like you're trying to take a position and then weasel out of anyone being able to call you on it. Your post that calls out the "perhaps" as if that somehow mitigates the rest of the post just reinforces that appearance.
If you want to take a different position, take the position first and then apply qualifiers. If you truly meant that immediately producing food via the quickest method possible is the correct answer, your post did not convey the intended meaning.
People are starving now. And every time you say "starving", you're actually saying "starving to death". Anyone you don't stop from starving will be dead long before they would have cared about whether what they did to not starve is sustainable. GM crops that they'll eventually be sued over? Do they feed more people than regular crops? Great! What the fuck ever, plant that shit! Africans have shown they love a little war. What could be better? You get to stop starving, and then you get to keep your warlords employed shooting people who are trying to sue you back into starvation instead of shooting their own countrymen!
And hey, since what we'recurrently doing is unsustainable, don't you think it's just a little hypocritical to ask a bunch of people who are starving to death to be fucking carbon-neutral for the good of the planet (i.e. us)?
I think it's hilarious that sustainability is any sort of concern. People are starving. You know what I'm not thinking about when I'm starving? 20 years from now. Next year. Tomorrow.
We didn't think about the future when we were industrializing our farmland, and we weren't starving. Why should we hold them to a higher standard? Fuck that. Get them to stop starving to death and then let's worry about the future. It may not even be the right decision, but you know it's the one you would make if you were in their shoes.
We did think of this before, though. I remember when I was setting up my first FreeBSD firewall around 2001, and I was annoyed that I couldn't figure out QoS well enough to mitigate it. I noticed that RTT went to shit when the link was saturated, did some quick googling, and read about it on another website, where it was already old news in an outdated HOWTO.
Honestly, the idea that this is some sort of amazing thing some guy noticed is silly--everybody noticed it, and the only exceptional thing is how exceptionally stupid the people who put those massive buffers in had to be if they didn't anticipate the issues. They probably did, and just didn't care because they were designing to a crappy metric, and then it became standard practice. The problems that would be caused should have been obvious to anybody who was designing network stuff, they were obvious to me, a kid who was just figuring out TCP, and they were obvious to whoever it was that was writing the HOWTO I read.
The Raspberry Pi organization and its distributors are based in the UK and manufacturing is done in China. But don't let facts get in the way of paranoid rants.
I'm no expert, but I know people, in large part because I make the effort to find out about them. Other than the risk of STDs, I don't think there's anything wrong with what prostitutes do. But, society thinks there's something wrong with it, strongly enough that even though any woman armed with a vagina, mouth, or ass that can fit a metric standard penis can be a prostitute, very, very few women are. It takes a whole lot of double-think to convince yourself that you're a normal member of society while rejecting one of its most basic tenets. Another core value is being trustworthy, but once you've broken one as serious as the first, what's swiping a wallet from "some asshole who's probably cheating on his wife anyway"? He shouldn't have been so stupid to think I'd actually come back with the coke.
I don't know what kind of classy endeavor your friends are involved in, but I don't care if they cater exclusively to Richard Gere, based on the well-established and by all accounts I've gathered, earned, reputation of sex workers, anyone who trusts them farther than they can throw them without knowing them for a long time is just as much of a fool as someone who refuses to believe they're not the average "escort" even after getting to know them as real people and seeing evidence to the contrary. Since I don't know them, and since people tend to be much more forgiving (and self-deceiving) when it comes to their friends, I'll stick to my generalization for now, and I don't think I'm wrong for doing so. I'll also stick to the generalization that for every rule there's an exception, and statistically, your friends aren't exceptions no matter what you call them.
In short, he should have seen it coming and he shouldn't get to write laws because *shock* a hooker couldn't be trusted with a secret.
Oh, sorry, yeah of course your friends are the clean, responsible hookers with hearts of gold that would never steal a guy's wallet and run out when he leaves them alone in the room while he's taking a shit. I'm sure they have a lot to offer society, and they just choose to act as a warm wet hole to multiple strangers every day for money because it's what they always wanted to do with their lives. I bet they're all geniuses, and none of them have drug problems to pay for or severe psychological issues.
Look, they're free to do what they want to do, but don't expect me to think of them as upstanding citizens without providing some sort of evidence. Everything I've ever seen and heard has shown me that the generalizations about them are true. Point me to one of their blogs where they speak like a rational human and don't say insane things, because I've gone seeking first-hand experience and read hooker blogs. I've talked to people about their experiences with hookers. I've asked them questions when they did ask/tells or AMAs on the internet. Guess what? They've all reinforced the stereotypes, often even while trying not to. So no, I'm not going to reject my entire lifetime of experience on your say-so.
Hookers are very well known for being even more untrustworthy than waitresses. Losing repeat business due to a lack of discretion? Please. You think a bunch of people thinking with their dicks aren't going to fool themselves into thinking it couldn't happen to them, especially when the hookers are telling them it couldn't happen to them?
I'm bringing patent trolls into it because it was the first example that came to mind of news we don't want to suppress. Feel free to substitute corrupt politicians or alien first contact, my agenda is that I believe any laws supporting suppression of news will be misused, full stop.
As for where I get off judging his sexual preferences, I absolutely assert my right to judge anyone, anything, anywhere, any way I want to, and you can go fuck yourself if you think you can stop me. I also believe I have no right to interfere in what two, or ten consenting adults choose to do. Notice the lack of "in the privacy of their own home". If they want to do it not in private, that's fine. But they should be prepared to accept the consequences. And group sex with strangers is implicitly non-private. And furthermore, I wasn't judging the guy, but you're an idiot if you think that S&M scenarios with five hookers is so normal that it shouldn't occasion comment. My post wasn't about whether it's moral, it was about it not being normal. Non-normal is by definition interesting, and interesting things are talked about.
The fact is, one of the participants in the act voluntarily released the information. Not private anymore. Choose your sex partners more wisely next time.
These laws sound like the worst thing ever until someone posts your credit record online, a nude picture of your daughter, or your copyrighted code that you worked on for ten years and hoped to sell to finance your retirement.
Then, suddenly, they sound great.
The UK has a point about protecting privacy. If any point of failure can overcome the Streisand effect, it's the search engines. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
That's exactly why these laws shouldn't exist. It's why the freedom of speech is explicitly called out in the US Bill of Rights--because it's such a clearly bad idea, but seems so reasonable when it's something you want to suppress. If I had my way, nobody would be allowed to talk about Justin Beiber or the cast of The Jersey Shore ever again. Luckily for them and their fans, I can't get my way.
A big part of being a good person is making it impossible to be otherwise when you would be tempted to do something immoral. We (used to) have checks and balances encoded in our laws that are probably very inconvenient at times, but they were added with the foresight that simple restraint wouldn't be enough when times get tough. It's human nature.
Another thing about human nature: I guaran-fucking-tee you, nothing can overcome the Streisand effect. It's practically a law of physics. It existed before the internet ever did, and will continue to exist for as long as people are interested in what other people are trying to hide. Bringing search engines into it will do nothing but whip people into an absolute frenzy to find out what's being hidden, and we'll just spawn or co-opt another communication channel. That news will get out.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect privacy when you're such a notable person engaging in such ridiculous acts. Even without the (untrue) Nazi thing, five hookers doing an S&M "standard prison scenario" is really, really weird. I know sexuality is a private thing, but this is off the wall and he involved hookers--women who have sex for money. You think they have barriers, or traditional notions of honorable behavior? Cripes. The reasonable expectation is that at some point, those hookers are going to screw you over. The reasonable expectation is that at some point, you will be caught.
All this guy is doing is trying to get a law in place that will make it look like he got a bum rap. He gets to play the martyr, and everybody else gets to deal with the consequences a law that will probably be used to suppress news of a patent troll or politician's scandal, so that celebrities can spend the ungodly sums of money they're given in whatever insane way they want without having to deal with the embarrassment of people knowing they pay money to screw disease-infested whores or snort $400,000 of cocaine in a weekend or just got their 14th DWI. Sorry, DUI. Celebrities don't get DWIs.
No, I think they get quite enough privileges, we don't need to give these assholes control of the internet too.
If you have a request like that in writing and belong to any sort of minority / protected group (non-white, gay, disabled, female), not getting the job is probably going to be more lucrative than getting it.
Yeah, I've got 5 separate names on Facebook that I can choose from. I had been putting up a new name every week or so, but at some point they added a restriction on the number of times you can change your name, and removed all but the last 5 aliases... none of which are my real name. That was on there, but they removed it. So, I couldn't comply with their policy now even if I wanted to (which I don't, I'd rather not have a Facebook account than be searchable).
SJ Games will always have a special place in my heart because they're the only publisher with the balls to make a real commitment to e-books. If I had a dollar for every book I didn't buy because I don't care for non-searchable dead trees, I'd be getting ripped off. Because I have twenty dollars for every book I didn't buy.
Heh, the best was when somebody had the monitor up against a wall, and you had a speaker magnet. Go into the room on the other side of the wall, wave the thing around, and then listen for whatever reaction people have when they think they just started having a flashback.
Or the high-pitched whine that was always in the background that drove me nuts.
Lots of people can't hear this, even when they're kids. I remember this clearly because it's the first double-blind test I ever did. I was the oldest at 13 or 14. The rest of my brothers and sisters didn't believe that my brother (next youngest, 11 or 12) and I could tell when the TV was on by sound. They'd watch a movie and turn the VCR off without turning the TV off, which made it go to a black screen, but that whine would permeate the whole house. I'd yell down from my room, "turn the TV off!" and they'd yell back up from the living room that it wasn't on. Exasperatedly, I'd go down, hit the button, and then stomp back up the stairs. No matter how many times I or my brother was right (every single time), they always thought we were guessing. They'd just be playing with dolls or whatever in the same room, and not hear the sound at all.
Finally, I challenged them to turn the TV on or off, and I'd pick correctly from another room no matter how many times they changed it. They kept trying for the better part of an hour, as they came up with plan after plan to foil whatever sorcery I was using to figure it out, but they just would not believe it was the sound. My mother even told me to reveal the trick I was using because it was upsetting my sisters (and her).
I guess your high-frequences go away when you get older, but at 32, with sometimes pretty strong tinnitus from too many concerts, I still hear it 100% of the time. It's not even that high-pitched, and hearing tests showed that at my best I had a pretty good range of frequencies, but nothing spectacular. To this day, I can't get rid of the niggling suspicion that everybody can hear it, they just are somehow incapable of paying attention to it.
Slashdot Mirror
The real "good" ending, rainbow explosions!
So I assume you have a problem with people that have had themselves sterilized getting married? If that's the only reason you don't think gay marriage should be legal, don't you think marriage where either the man or woman is sterile should be illegal as well?
And what about gay couples who adopt children? Aren't they providing a benefit to society, giving a stable home to children that would otherwise be brought up moved from foster home to foster home, if they're that lucky? Maybe we should allow gay marriage as long as they adopt.
Or maybe we should just kill all the children that don't have parents (abortion should obviously stay illegal, or we'll have women out there, deciding), or decide that it's illegal for homosexuals to adopt. Then we don't have to give fags the same financial benefits the rest of us enjoy, and that's really what this is all about, right?
Everybody knows us nerds are suckers for a pretty face with a bit of rouge.
The need to generate SQL is usually a sign of poor to terrible database design, but even so I know that MS SQL Server at least has identifier escaping functions, and I'd be surprised if any major DB didn't. The usual escaping vs parameters caveats apply, but much, much less so because a.) The SQL server itself is doing the escaping, which presumably is competent to escape its own identifiers, and b.) There are no character set changes to do things like change fancy quotes to ' on you.
Wouldn't be surprised at all. Every time I've had a piece of software pitched to me as "more than just an X", it means it's "not even an X, but it could be, someday!"
Were?
Man, we ain't suffering because of those assholes in the past. We're suffering because we are those assholes. If the problem was only in the past, we could drop those regulations today.
And who could forget, advanced teledildonics.
Yes. You have a single "perhaps" that's immediately followed by a "but" in a post that otherwise strongly takes the position that the immediate fix and what every western country is already doing is the wrong answer. Maybe it's not what you intended, but it looks to me like you're trying to take a position and then weasel out of anyone being able to call you on it. Your post that calls out the "perhaps" as if that somehow mitigates the rest of the post just reinforces that appearance.
If you want to take a different position, take the position first and then apply qualifiers. If you truly meant that immediately producing food via the quickest method possible is the correct answer, your post did not convey the intended meaning.
Great! We'll all starve together then.
People are starving now. And every time you say "starving", you're actually saying "starving to death". Anyone you don't stop from starving will be dead long before they would have cared about whether what they did to not starve is sustainable. GM crops that they'll eventually be sued over? Do they feed more people than regular crops? Great! What the fuck ever, plant that shit! Africans have shown they love a little war. What could be better? You get to stop starving, and then you get to keep your warlords employed shooting people who are trying to sue you back into starvation instead of shooting their own countrymen!
And hey, since what we're currently doing is unsustainable, don't you think it's just a little hypocritical to ask a bunch of people who are starving to death to be fucking carbon-neutral for the good of the planet (i.e. us)?
I think it's hilarious that sustainability is any sort of concern. People are starving. You know what I'm not thinking about when I'm starving? 20 years from now. Next year. Tomorrow.
We didn't think about the future when we were industrializing our farmland, and we weren't starving. Why should we hold them to a higher standard? Fuck that. Get them to stop starving to death and then let's worry about the future. It may not even be the right decision, but you know it's the one you would make if you were in their shoes.
Using any number of operating systems, try to total 5% of the market share with operating systems that don't support IPSec.
We did think of this before, though. I remember when I was setting up my first FreeBSD firewall around 2001, and I was annoyed that I couldn't figure out QoS well enough to mitigate it. I noticed that RTT went to shit when the link was saturated, did some quick googling, and read about it on another website, where it was already old news in an outdated HOWTO.
Honestly, the idea that this is some sort of amazing thing some guy noticed is silly--everybody noticed it, and the only exceptional thing is how exceptionally stupid the people who put those massive buffers in had to be if they didn't anticipate the issues. They probably did, and just didn't care because they were designing to a crappy metric, and then it became standard practice. The problems that would be caused should have been obvious to anybody who was designing network stuff, they were obvious to me, a kid who was just figuring out TCP, and they were obvious to whoever it was that was writing the HOWTO I read.
The Raspberry Pi organization and its distributors are based in the UK and manufacturing is done in China. But don't let facts get in the way of paranoid rants.
I'm no expert, but I know people, in large part because I make the effort to find out about them. Other than the risk of STDs, I don't think there's anything wrong with what prostitutes do. But, society thinks there's something wrong with it, strongly enough that even though any woman armed with a vagina, mouth, or ass that can fit a metric standard penis can be a prostitute, very, very few women are. It takes a whole lot of double-think to convince yourself that you're a normal member of society while rejecting one of its most basic tenets. Another core value is being trustworthy, but once you've broken one as serious as the first, what's swiping a wallet from "some asshole who's probably cheating on his wife anyway"? He shouldn't have been so stupid to think I'd actually come back with the coke.
I don't know what kind of classy endeavor your friends are involved in, but I don't care if they cater exclusively to Richard Gere, based on the well-established and by all accounts I've gathered, earned, reputation of sex workers, anyone who trusts them farther than they can throw them without knowing them for a long time is just as much of a fool as someone who refuses to believe they're not the average "escort" even after getting to know them as real people and seeing evidence to the contrary. Since I don't know them, and since people tend to be much more forgiving (and self-deceiving) when it comes to their friends, I'll stick to my generalization for now, and I don't think I'm wrong for doing so. I'll also stick to the generalization that for every rule there's an exception, and statistically, your friends aren't exceptions no matter what you call them.
In short, he should have seen it coming and he shouldn't get to write laws because *shock* a hooker couldn't be trusted with a secret.
Oh, sorry, yeah of course your friends are the clean, responsible hookers with hearts of gold that would never steal a guy's wallet and run out when he leaves them alone in the room while he's taking a shit. I'm sure they have a lot to offer society, and they just choose to act as a warm wet hole to multiple strangers every day for money because it's what they always wanted to do with their lives. I bet they're all geniuses, and none of them have drug problems to pay for or severe psychological issues.
Look, they're free to do what they want to do, but don't expect me to think of them as upstanding citizens without providing some sort of evidence. Everything I've ever seen and heard has shown me that the generalizations about them are true. Point me to one of their blogs where they speak like a rational human and don't say insane things, because I've gone seeking first-hand experience and read hooker blogs. I've talked to people about their experiences with hookers. I've asked them questions when they did ask/tells or AMAs on the internet. Guess what? They've all reinforced the stereotypes, often even while trying not to. So no, I'm not going to reject my entire lifetime of experience on your say-so.
Hookers are very well known for being even more untrustworthy than waitresses. Losing repeat business due to a lack of discretion? Please. You think a bunch of people thinking with their dicks aren't going to fool themselves into thinking it couldn't happen to them, especially when the hookers are telling them it couldn't happen to them?
I'm bringing patent trolls into it because it was the first example that came to mind of news we don't want to suppress. Feel free to substitute corrupt politicians or alien first contact, my agenda is that I believe any laws supporting suppression of news will be misused, full stop.
As for where I get off judging his sexual preferences, I absolutely assert my right to judge anyone, anything, anywhere, any way I want to, and you can go fuck yourself if you think you can stop me. I also believe I have no right to interfere in what two, or ten consenting adults choose to do. Notice the lack of "in the privacy of their own home". If they want to do it not in private, that's fine. But they should be prepared to accept the consequences. And group sex with strangers is implicitly non-private. And furthermore, I wasn't judging the guy, but you're an idiot if you think that S&M scenarios with five hookers is so normal that it shouldn't occasion comment. My post wasn't about whether it's moral, it was about it not being normal. Non-normal is by definition interesting, and interesting things are talked about.
The fact is, one of the participants in the act voluntarily released the information. Not private anymore. Choose your sex partners more wisely next time.
These laws sound like the worst thing ever until someone posts your credit record online, a nude picture of your daughter, or your copyrighted code that you worked on for ten years and hoped to sell to finance your retirement.
Then, suddenly, they sound great.
The UK has a point about protecting privacy. If any point of failure can overcome the Streisand effect, it's the search engines. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
That's exactly why these laws shouldn't exist. It's why the freedom of speech is explicitly called out in the US Bill of Rights--because it's such a clearly bad idea, but seems so reasonable when it's something you want to suppress. If I had my way, nobody would be allowed to talk about Justin Beiber or the cast of The Jersey Shore ever again. Luckily for them and their fans, I can't get my way.
A big part of being a good person is making it impossible to be otherwise when you would be tempted to do something immoral. We (used to) have checks and balances encoded in our laws that are probably very inconvenient at times, but they were added with the foresight that simple restraint wouldn't be enough when times get tough. It's human nature.
Another thing about human nature: I guaran-fucking-tee you, nothing can overcome the Streisand effect. It's practically a law of physics. It existed before the internet ever did, and will continue to exist for as long as people are interested in what other people are trying to hide. Bringing search engines into it will do nothing but whip people into an absolute frenzy to find out what's being hidden, and we'll just spawn or co-opt another communication channel. That news will get out.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect privacy when you're such a notable person engaging in such ridiculous acts. Even without the (untrue) Nazi thing, five hookers doing an S&M "standard prison scenario" is really, really weird. I know sexuality is a private thing, but this is off the wall and he involved hookers--women who have sex for money. You think they have barriers, or traditional notions of honorable behavior? Cripes. The reasonable expectation is that at some point, those hookers are going to screw you over. The reasonable expectation is that at some point, you will be caught.
All this guy is doing is trying to get a law in place that will make it look like he got a bum rap. He gets to play the martyr, and everybody else gets to deal with the consequences a law that will probably be used to suppress news of a patent troll or politician's scandal, so that celebrities can spend the ungodly sums of money they're given in whatever insane way they want without having to deal with the embarrassment of people knowing they pay money to screw disease-infested whores or snort $400,000 of cocaine in a weekend or just got their 14th DWI. Sorry, DUI. Celebrities don't get DWIs.
No, I think they get quite enough privileges, we don't need to give these assholes control of the internet too.
If you have a request like that in writing and belong to any sort of minority / protected group (non-white, gay, disabled, female), not getting the job is probably going to be more lucrative than getting it.
Yeah, I've got 5 separate names on Facebook that I can choose from. I had been putting up a new name every week or so, but at some point they added a restriction on the number of times you can change your name, and removed all but the last 5 aliases ... none of which are my real name. That was on there, but they removed it. So, I couldn't comply with their policy now even if I wanted to (which I don't, I'd rather not have a Facebook account than be searchable).
Just how many '70s have you been through? More importantly, do you need an apprentice? I'm up for dark rituals.
Welp, there goes the down payment on my new car!
SJ Games will always have a special place in my heart because they're the only publisher with the balls to make a real commitment to e-books. If I had a dollar for every book I didn't buy because I don't care for non-searchable dead trees, I'd be getting ripped off. Because I have twenty dollars for every book I didn't buy.
Heh, the best was when somebody had the monitor up against a wall, and you had a speaker magnet. Go into the room on the other side of the wall, wave the thing around, and then listen for whatever reaction people have when they think they just started having a flashback.
Or the high-pitched whine that was always in the background that drove me nuts.
Lots of people can't hear this, even when they're kids. I remember this clearly because it's the first double-blind test I ever did. I was the oldest at 13 or 14. The rest of my brothers and sisters didn't believe that my brother (next youngest, 11 or 12) and I could tell when the TV was on by sound. They'd watch a movie and turn the VCR off without turning the TV off, which made it go to a black screen, but that whine would permeate the whole house. I'd yell down from my room, "turn the TV off!" and they'd yell back up from the living room that it wasn't on. Exasperatedly, I'd go down, hit the button, and then stomp back up the stairs. No matter how many times I or my brother was right (every single time), they always thought we were guessing. They'd just be playing with dolls or whatever in the same room, and not hear the sound at all.
Finally, I challenged them to turn the TV on or off, and I'd pick correctly from another room no matter how many times they changed it. They kept trying for the better part of an hour, as they came up with plan after plan to foil whatever sorcery I was using to figure it out, but they just would not believe it was the sound. My mother even told me to reveal the trick I was using because it was upsetting my sisters (and her).
I guess your high-frequences go away when you get older, but at 32, with sometimes pretty strong tinnitus from too many concerts, I still hear it 100% of the time. It's not even that high-pitched, and hearing tests showed that at my best I had a pretty good range of frequencies, but nothing spectacular. To this day, I can't get rid of the niggling suspicion that everybody can hear it, they just are somehow incapable of paying attention to it.