No. Michaelangelo's David is art celebrating the beauty of God's creation, Debbie Does Dallas is just immoral smut designed to appeal to the pruriant tastes of sad lonely men. There can be no artistic merit in films made with exploitation and abuse.
Director D obtains goatse.cx style pictures of actress A1 and actor A2. D blackmails A1 and A2 into doing his next film F. Film F is widely acclaimed as the finest peice of cinema ever made, and even the public love it. All agree that it is a fantastic piece of art. When details of the blackmailing emerge, all are shocked. However, all agree that the artistic merits of the film are unchanged. All apart from Jon Erikson that is, who holds that because of the blackmail, the quality of the film is now lower, and the film is now cr4p.
How is sodomy a natural act? Given that the sole purpose of sex is for procreation (in both a Biblical and biological sense no less), how is sodomy a "natural act"? It cannot cause conception, is extremely dangerous for the person on the receiving end and causes pain. This is not a "natural act" now is it?
So many faults, so little time:
1. Sodomy is a natural act because it occurs "naturally". For example, most mammals will happily bugger each other. They don't do it because they're too stupid to find the right hole (well, some of them might), they do it because they have a "natural" desire to fqck things (normally other creatures of the same species).
2. Sodomy is not "extremely dangerous" as long as you have an modicum of common sense.
3. Sodomy is not always painful. Lots of people actually like it. Gosh! isn't it an awful world outside!
Given that pornography is designed to help men spill their seed, and that any man with a wife won't have any need to debase themselves in such a way, it therefore follows that pornography is for people who are unable to find themselves a wife.
What a small mind you must have. Perhaps some people like both? Perhaps some people have wives that whilst loving the man, are unwilling or unable to have sex with them (for example after abuse, rape or physical disability)? Perhaps the couple are physically seperated for a period of time? Perhaps the man doesn't have bizarre hangups about it? Perhaps his wife likes it? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
The point is that your premise, that any married man can get as much sexual gratification from his wife as he needs and therefore doesn't need porn is both wrong, and (ironically) disrespectful to women.
Onanism is quite obviously a tool designed by the Devil to turn one's thoughts away from salvation towards more earthly pleasures.
[You get +1 troll point] If I never think of salvation when I'm having sex, does that mean that "obviously" sex must be a tool of the devil designed to turn my thoughts away from salvation? In fact I hardly ever think about salvation, so obviously almost everything is designed by the devil (he should have patented some of it).
Bzzt! Wrong! The porn industry by definition exploits women
I'm wrong;-) How does gay (male) porn exploit women? It doesn't, your statement is (again) false. You might be under the impression that all pornography is of the "18 blokes+ 1 little girl all-out gangbang" type, but you're (fortunately) wrong.
If I was offered $1 million for playgirl style photos of myself, I might or might not do it, but I certainly don't think I'd feel "exploited" if I did. Why do you think women are any different? Perhaps the answer is in this comment "from exploiting women's naivety and greed all the way up to the use of force and drugs to ensure cooperation" You seem incapable of seeing the fact that women, as well as men have minds of their own. Some people will have sex in front of a camera for money. They might be greedy, or they might not share your particular moral code. Being different to you isn't the same as being abused.
This such a straw man: If they have abusive boyfriends, they need to be offered to chance to get away and escape the abuse - just like all the abused women not involved in the porn industry! The fact that they're abused is the crime.
If they have a habit, they need the chance to get rehab. If they weren't doing porn for a fix do you think they'd just quit "cold turkey"? Of course not.
Taking advantage of people in need isn't limited to the porn industry you know.
Some might think that his bio itself is a troll. After all, if you're not happy with all the liberals in the states, why on earth would you move to the UK? Surely Iran would be much better (I guess it's just a shame there aren't waco fundy christian states to move to).
Regarding the post, I think it's clearly a troll becasuse he states pornography is used for "the gratification of men unable to find themselves a loving wife." implies that anyone "using" porn is unable to find a "loving wife". Given the widespread "usage" of porn, that's clearly flamebait IMO. Also "pornography is nothing more than a perversion of His [gods] vision for us". Stating such contentious beliefs (porn not used by men with a loving partner, the existance of god) as facts can only be a troll; anyone else would have put "I beleive", "IMHO", or somthing else along those lines in there.
As far as exploitation of women in porn goes, I wish people would realise that there are two issues here: exploitation AND porn:
Some people drive too fast in their cars. The cars aren't wrong, it's people driving too fast.
Some people steal because they want to be rich. It isn't wanting to be rich that's wrong, it's stealing.
Some women are exploited in the porn industry. It's not porn that's wrong, it's the people who exploit women.
The robots are so powerful, a full-sized man could not push the American champion out of the ring (this was Martin Sargent, a bit skinny, but still a full-sized man). This is achieved (at least in this particular robot) through the use of a vacuum pump, which sucks the...
I got that far and had the most vivid image of the human not leaving the ring because the robot had a suction device attatched to the guy's, erm,...
The issue of the Falklands is completely different. The islands are an overseas territory of the UK, and such are part of the UK. Invading the falkland islands *is* invading the UK - thus the response was not "protecting their interests" but rather protecting their country/citizens.
Of course, Maggie wouldn't had gone to war[0] if it'd been China invading and not poor old Argentina, and part of the response (modulo getting reelected) surely was due to the interest in possible oil reserves, but even so, the relationship between the islands and the UK is completely different to that of say grenade/panama to the US.
0.02,
Mike.
[0] IIRC, technically there was no war but only a "conflict"
>/Ipso facto/ my Eizo weighs 38kg, and the Nokia about the same.
Get this: I have a Sony W900 (24" widescreen) but old style CRT:-). It's 50Kg, and almost killed us (the delivery guy plus myself) getting it up 3 flights of steps.
Anyway, like you say, these monitors are *deep*, when we get it to my front door I find that there was less than 1cm space spare to get the enormous box through the door - I almost had to unpack the damn thing outside!
I was so intrigued by your "Even simple dropdown lists will not scale beyond several hundred items before becoming unusable speedwise." comment, that I just created a drop down list (JComboBox) with 5000 (five *thousand*) entries - there were absolutely no problems at all. This was with stock 1.3.0 on NT4 on a P2-350 with 192M.
Then I created one with 50000 (fifty thousand!) entries - this took a while to create the 50000 objects to put in the list, but as far as using it is concerned - it was just as fast.
Whatever problems you're having with this stuff, well, I'm not sure it's all down to Java...
You're confusing terms. Commonly: heavy==slow,large. light==fast,small. However, in terms of Java GUI components, heavyweight components are native (a la AWT), whilst lightweight components are rendered entriely by Java.
Thus, Swing, consisting of "lightweight" components layered on top of "heavyweight" components (native windows), is actually heavier than AWT, because swing is larger and slower.
When swing is a little lighter, better documented and more functional, I will think it rocks too:-)
CC is an OK book (IMO). However, I suspect the actual reason why you aren't reiterating any of his points is that they don't contradict what I've said. A deubgger is a last resort. Everytime I end up having to use it, I always ask myself - why? Why didn't this get caught earlier?...
This wasn't even fresh when I was taught it all those years ago at school;-)
Anyway, here's a quote from a book perhaps you might like to read: The Practice of Prgramming, Kernighan & Pike: "Debugging is hard and can take long and unpredictable amounts of time, so the goal is to avoid having to do much of it.[...] An ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure."
> You rarely need a debugger? Well in that case I wouldn't offer you a job as a programmer
Thats good - because I wouldn't take it - especially if you only hire coders who code so badly that they need to use a debugger a lot:-)
> It should be mandated by LAW that every programmer steps through their own code at least once. If you don't do that you have no clue what your program really does. You're doing programming by coincidence.
On the contrary. If you're just coding - and saying "ooh, it seems to be doing the right thing", you dont know jack. What you *should* be doing is a design, and then coding from it with test cases. If you need safety, you should generate a proof for the design and then derive the code automatically.
Needing to use a debugger frequently is a sign that something serious is wrong with your habits.
> Java is simply unusable on the desktop
No. Badly written Java is unusable on the desktop, especially if it uses Swing. Swing is definately a pig. OTOH I run JBuilder every day on a P2-350: it's very usable.
Debuggers: Check out visual age, it is meant to be excellent. However, having used both VC and JBuilder, I don't find any limitations in the java debugger. Why? Because I spend much less time using it. In fact I rarely need it at all.
Image: I don't see that as a problem at all, and I doubt this you can back up this line: "Hence java programs usually exhibit very low quality compared to C++ based software." with anything other than "in my experience". It's rather FUDish.
I guess if you're used to seeing so many low quality unusable Java programs maybe you should start to mix with better programmers;-)
0.02, Mike
That's rather the point. Modulo GUI, java is rather fast nowadays [0]. Swing OTOH, is a bit of a bloaty pig, layering far too much code on top of the underlying (native) GUI.
ObFacts: the nightmare corel project was a long time ago in terms of java speed & functionality.
Mike.
[0] Relative to FORTRAN & C, not just relative to "old java"
> The fact that you dislike of their advertising methods does not mean they are doomed to fail!
Indeed, it is the fact that their advertising is cr4p that dooms them to failure. The fact that *I* don't like it only reduces their potential sales by 1.
Of course, they have far larger problems than "Mr Cheezy" on the web page...
I can't believe they actually have a picture of that man both holding his thumb up *and* pointing at you whilst holding up the crappy product. I just imagine the cartoon version:
SuperAdvertMan: Prepare to die "dataplay", all purchasers worship me for my advertising powers...
Dataplay: Aha! But we have (flourish)... (fanfare) THIS! Meet thy nemisis - HideousGeekParodyMan!
SuperAdvertMan: (bursts out laughing) But nobody will buy products associated with *that*
Dataplay: oops...
HideousGeekParodyMan: (grinning inanely) buy this kids! It's got like different coloured stuff on it!
I hate the it all already...
0.02,
Mike.
Re:Spiderman new arch enemy
on
Spidergoats
·
· Score: 2
Yeah (with reference to the FP), I'm sure the issue entitled:
"Spiderman vs. spidergoatse.cx"
Will both give the illustrators nightmares, and become and instant collectors issue;-)
When I recently looked at the broadband offerings from Telia (Swedish national provider), I was surprised to see that on the "What kind of stuff can I do with broadband" page that they have to convince people they need ADSL/cable, they actually had a link to V/IP software. I thought that was pretty cool.
Of course, your point being that once a substantional percentage of users start using V/IP then they not not feel so generous still stands...
> The common language runtime WILL however be ported to various other platforms.
Will this be "ported" in typical Microsoft style though? For example:
NT 3.5: The much hyped POSIX subsystem. However, could you mix and match POSIX and native Win32 calls? No. Thus making the POSIX system useless but for the most bare porting efforts.
IE: Available for UNIX. Yeah, in a hideous cludge that consisted on bundling most of windows with the application.
Win2k: Kerberos, discussed to death on/. already
Etc...
I thought.NET sounded really cool until I found out two things:
Firstly that it isn't a case of using *any* language, it's a subset of available languages, including C# (bastadised C) and Eiffel# (or whatever they've called it, equally bastadised to fit.NET).
Secondly, crossplatformness. I like Java because it contains libraries for the kitchen sink - collections, networking TCP/UDP, GUI, and then audio/video (JMF), high level 3D (Java3D)... I get all this crossplatform. When I heard about "Winforms" - that the GUI code isn't included in the "portable".NET, I completely lost interest.
If I want portable without libraries, I have C - and then I can add portable libraries for the things I need. People have been doing this for decades.
It's pretty standard P2P overall, but has two great features already:
1. Files are checksummed and downloads are done in parallel, getting bits from as many other hosts have the file.
2. The thing I really liked about scour: you could look at other peoples shares, which was great (with scour) as you'd find pthat people who had 'X' that you just did a search on, were likely to have related Y and Z.
It's still beta, but there's over 600 people on at the moment, and a lot of sharing.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Michaelangelo's David is art celebrating the beauty of God's creation, Debbie Does Dallas is just immoral smut designed to appeal to the pruriant tastes of sad lonely men. There can be no artistic merit in films made with exploitation and abuse.
Director D obtains goatse.cx style pictures of actress A1 and actor A2. D blackmails A1 and A2 into doing his next film F. Film F is widely acclaimed as the finest peice of cinema ever made, and even the public love it. All agree that it is a fantastic piece of art. When details of the blackmailing emerge, all are shocked. However, all agree that the artistic merits of the film are unchanged. All apart from Jon Erikson that is, who holds that because of the blackmail, the quality of the film is now lower, and the film is now cr4p.
Move over logic, here comes the revisionism!
How is sodomy a natural act? Given that the sole purpose of sex is for procreation (in both a Biblical and biological sense no less), how is sodomy a "natural act"? It cannot cause conception, is extremely dangerous for the person on the receiving end and causes pain. This is not a "natural act" now is it?
So many faults, so little time:
1. Sodomy is a natural act because it occurs "naturally". For example, most mammals will happily bugger each other. They don't do it because they're too stupid to find the right hole (well, some of them might), they do it because they have a "natural" desire to fqck things (normally other creatures of the same species).
2. Sodomy is not "extremely dangerous" as long as you have an modicum of common sense.
3. Sodomy is not always painful. Lots of people actually like it. Gosh! isn't it an awful world outside!
Any more fundy illusions you want shattered?
Given that pornography is designed to help men spill their seed, and that any man with a wife won't have any need to debase themselves in such a way, it therefore follows that pornography is for people who are unable to find themselves a wife.
;-) How does gay (male) porn exploit women? It doesn't, your statement is (again) false. You might be under the impression that all pornography is of the "18 blokes+ 1 little girl all-out gangbang" type, but you're (fortunately) wrong.
What a small mind you must have. Perhaps some people like both? Perhaps some people have wives that whilst loving the man, are unwilling or unable to have sex with them (for example after abuse, rape or physical disability)? Perhaps the couple are physically seperated for a period of time? Perhaps the man doesn't have bizarre hangups about it? Perhaps his wife likes it? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
The point is that your premise, that any married man can get as much sexual gratification from his wife as he needs and therefore doesn't need porn is both wrong, and (ironically) disrespectful to women.
Onanism is quite obviously a tool designed by the Devil to turn one's thoughts away from salvation towards more earthly pleasures.
[You get +1 troll point] If I never think of salvation when I'm having sex, does that mean that "obviously" sex must be a tool of the devil designed to turn my thoughts away from salvation? In fact I hardly ever think about salvation, so obviously almost everything is designed by the devil (he should have patented some of it).
Bzzt! Wrong! The porn industry by definition exploits women
I'm wrong
If I was offered $1 million for playgirl style photos of myself, I might or might not do it, but I certainly don't think I'd feel "exploited" if I did. Why do you think women are any different? Perhaps the answer is in this comment "from exploiting women's naivety and greed all the way up to the use of force and drugs to ensure cooperation" You seem incapable of seeing the fact that women, as well as men have minds of their own. Some people will have sex in front of a camera for money. They might be greedy, or they might not share your particular moral code. Being different to you isn't the same as being abused.
This such a straw man: If they have abusive boyfriends, they need to be offered to chance to get away and escape the abuse - just like all the abused women not involved in the porn industry! The fact that they're abused is the crime.
If they have a habit, they need the chance to get rehab. If they weren't doing porn for a fix do you think they'd just quit "cold turkey"? Of course not.
Taking advantage of people in need isn't limited to the porn industry you know.
Some might think that his bio itself is a troll. After all, if you're not happy with all the liberals in the states, why on earth would you move to the UK? Surely Iran would be much better (I guess it's just a shame there aren't waco fundy christian states to move to).
Regarding the post, I think it's clearly a troll becasuse he states pornography is used for "the gratification of men unable to find themselves a loving wife." implies that anyone "using" porn is unable to find a "loving wife". Given the widespread "usage" of porn, that's clearly flamebait IMO. Also "pornography is nothing more than a perversion of His [gods] vision for us". Stating such contentious beliefs (porn not used by men with a loving partner, the existance of god) as facts can only be a troll; anyone else would have put "I beleive", "IMHO", or somthing else along those lines in there.
As far as exploitation of women in porn goes, I wish people would realise that there are two issues here: exploitation AND porn:
Some people drive too fast in their cars. The cars aren't wrong, it's people driving too fast.
Some people steal because they want to be rich. It isn't wanting to be rich that's wrong, it's stealing.
Some women are exploited in the porn industry. It's not porn that's wrong, it's the people who exploit women.
0.02
The robots are so powerful, a full-sized man could not push the American champion out of the ring (this was Martin Sargent, a bit skinny, but still a full-sized man). This is achieved (at least in this particular robot) through the use of a vacuum pump, which sucks the...
...
I got that far and had the most vivid image of the human not leaving the ring because the robot had a suction device attatched to the guy's, erm,
Ah, nevermind...
The issue of the Falklands is completely different. The islands are an overseas territory of the UK, and such are part of the UK. Invading the falkland islands *is* invading the UK - thus the response was not "protecting their interests" but rather protecting their country/citizens.
Of course, Maggie wouldn't had gone to war[0] if it'd been China invading and not poor old Argentina, and part of the response (modulo getting reelected) surely was due to the interest in possible oil reserves, but even so, the relationship between the islands and the UK is completely different to that of say grenade/panama to the US.
0.02,
Mike.
[0] IIRC, technically there was no war but only a "conflict"
> Oh - what's this "delivery guy" nonsense?
:-)
Yeah I'm such a wimp - I couldn't manage to carry the monitor 300km from the distributers to my flat, so I got a guy with a car to do it for me
Mike.
> /Ipso facto/ my Eizo weighs 38kg, and the Nokia about the same.
:-). It's 50Kg, and almost killed us (the delivery guy plus myself) getting it up 3 flights of steps.
Get this: I have a Sony W900 (24" widescreen) but old style CRT
Anyway, like you say, these monitors are *deep*, when we get it to my front door I find that there was less than 1cm space spare to get the enormous box through the door - I almost had to unpack the damn thing outside!
Mike
I was so intrigued by your "Even simple dropdown lists will not scale beyond several hundred items before becoming unusable speedwise." comment, that I just created a drop down list (JComboBox) with 5000 (five *thousand*) entries - there were absolutely no problems at all. This was with stock 1.3.0 on NT4 on a P2-350 with 192M.
Then I created one with 50000 (fifty thousand!) entries - this took a while to create the 50000 objects to put in the list, but as far as using it is concerned - it was just as fast.
Whatever problems you're having with this stuff, well, I'm not sure it's all down to Java...
Mike.
> Umh, Swing is a lightweight GUI.
:-)
You're confusing terms. Commonly: heavy==slow,large. light==fast,small. However, in terms of Java GUI components, heavyweight components are native (a la AWT), whilst lightweight components are rendered entriely by Java.
Thus, Swing, consisting of "lightweight" components layered on top of "heavyweight" components (native windows), is actually heavier than AWT, because swing is larger and slower.
When swing is a little lighter, better documented and more functional, I will think it rocks too
Mike.
CC is an OK book (IMO). However, I suspect the actual reason why you aren't reiterating any of his points is that they don't contradict what I've said. A deubgger is a last resort. Everytime I end up having to use it, I always ask myself - why? Why didn't this get caught earlier?...
;-)
:-)
This wasn't even fresh when I was taught it all those years ago at school
Anyway, here's a quote from a book perhaps you might like to read: The Practice of Prgramming, Kernighan & Pike: "Debugging is hard and can take long and unpredictable amounts of time, so the goal is to avoid having to do much of it.[...] An ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure."
I couldn't agree more
Mike.
> You rarely need a debugger? Well in that case I wouldn't offer you a job as a programmer
:-)
Thats good - because I wouldn't take it - especially if you only hire coders who code so badly that they need to use a debugger a lot
> It should be mandated by LAW that every programmer steps through their own code at least once. If you don't do that you have no clue what your program really does. You're doing programming by coincidence.
On the contrary. If you're just coding - and saying "ooh, it seems to be doing the right thing", you dont know jack. What you *should* be doing is a design, and then coding from it with test cases. If you need safety, you should generate a proof for the design and then derive the code automatically.
Needing to use a debugger frequently is a sign that something serious is wrong with your habits.
Mike.
Just to correct a few points:
;-)
> Java is simply unusable on the desktop
No. Badly written Java is unusable on the desktop, especially if it uses Swing. Swing is definately a pig. OTOH I run JBuilder every day on a P2-350: it's very usable.
Debuggers: Check out visual age, it is meant to be excellent. However, having used both VC and JBuilder, I don't find any limitations in the java debugger. Why? Because I spend much less time using it. In fact I rarely need it at all.
Image: I don't see that as a problem at all, and I doubt this you can back up this line: "Hence java programs usually exhibit very low quality compared to C++ based software." with anything other than "in my experience". It's rather FUDish.
I guess if you're used to seeing so many low quality unusable Java programs maybe you should start to mix with better programmers
0.02, Mike
The same idea is already underway for GNOME
Mike.
> Java is awful for gui applications...
That's rather the point. Modulo GUI, java is rather fast nowadays [0]. Swing OTOH, is a bit of a bloaty pig, layering far too much code on top of the underlying (native) GUI.
ObFacts: the nightmare corel project was a long time ago in terms of java speed & functionality.
Mike.
[0] Relative to FORTRAN & C, not just relative to "old java"
Use jikes from IBM. It is fast fast fast.
Mike.
> The fact that you dislike of their advertising methods does not mean they are doomed to fail!
Indeed, it is the fact that their advertising is cr4p that dooms them to failure. The fact that *I* don't like it only reduces their potential sales by 1.
Of course, they have far larger problems than "Mr Cheezy" on the web page...
Mike.
Their web site.
... (fanfare) THIS! Meet thy nemisis - HideousGeekParodyMan!
I can't believe they actually have a picture of that man both holding his thumb up *and* pointing at you whilst holding up the crappy product. I just imagine the cartoon version:
SuperAdvertMan: Prepare to die "dataplay", all purchasers worship me for my advertising powers...
Dataplay: Aha! But we have (flourish)
SuperAdvertMan: (bursts out laughing) But nobody will buy products associated with *that*
Dataplay: oops...
HideousGeekParodyMan: (grinning inanely) buy this kids! It's got like different coloured stuff on it!
I hate the it all already...
0.02,
Mike.
Yeah (with reference to the FP), I'm sure the issue entitled:
;-)
"Spiderman vs. spidergoatse.cx"
Will both give the illustrators nightmares, and become and instant collectors issue
0.02,
Mike.
When I recently looked at the broadband offerings from Telia (Swedish national provider), I was surprised to see that on the "What kind of stuff can I do with broadband" page that they have to convince people they need ADSL/cable, they actually had a link to V/IP software. I thought that was pretty cool.
Of course, your point being that once a substantional percentage of users start using V/IP then they not not feel so generous still stands...
Mike.
> The common language runtime WILL however be ported to various other platforms.
/. already
.NET sounded really cool until I found out two things:
.NET).
.NET, I completely lost interest.
Will this be "ported" in typical Microsoft style though? For example:
NT 3.5: The much hyped POSIX subsystem. However, could you mix and match POSIX and native Win32 calls? No. Thus making the POSIX system useless but for the most bare porting efforts.
IE: Available for UNIX. Yeah, in a hideous cludge that consisted on bundling most of windows with the application.
Win2k: Kerberos, discussed to death on
Etc...
I thought
Firstly that it isn't a case of using *any* language, it's a subset of available languages, including C# (bastadised C) and Eiffel# (or whatever they've called it, equally bastadised to fit
Secondly, crossplatformness. I like Java because it contains libraries for the kitchen sink - collections, networking TCP/UDP, GUI, and then audio/video (JMF), high level 3D (Java3D)... I get all this crossplatform. When I heard about "Winforms" - that the GUI code isn't included in the "portable"
If I want portable without libraries, I have C - and then I can add portable libraries for the things I need. People have been doing this for decades.
0.02,
Mike
An alternative, much like the old scour:
http://www.edonkey2000.com
It's pretty standard P2P overall, but has two great features already:
1. Files are checksummed and downloads are done in parallel, getting bits from as many other hosts have the file.
2. The thing I really liked about scour: you could look at other peoples shares, which was great (with scour) as you'd find pthat people who had 'X' that you just did a search on, were likely to have related Y and Z.
It's still beta, but there's over 600 people on at the moment, and a lot of sharing.
0.02,
Mike.
> What do they need to meet for? that's what IRC is for.
And all this time I thought it was for downloading warez and pr0n.
Oops, did I say that out loud?
:q!
^Z
quit
agh!!!
Oops! My mistake.
best wishes,
Mike.