I'll give it a month or two to see how it goes, but if this results in more spam getting my inbox, I'm going to finally resort to switching to Gmail. I've got a gmail address, but I just like Yahoo's interface much more. The effectiveness of their spam blocker has always been one reason I like them - if that goes away, I'll go through the supreme pain in the ass that would be switching all my crap over to a new email address after using this one for at least a good six or seven years.
No it isn't. I mean, it might occasionally kill some bacteria just by accident (probably no more than a good scrub with water), but not the 99% or so that antibacterial soap is designed to kill. All soap does is bind to the hydrophobic end of a lipid, making it hydrophillic and thus allowing the lipid to be washed away with water.
Yes, if you let your hands or dishes sit around with a lot of grease on them all the time, you will probably eventually find that they have more harmful bacteria on them for one reason or another than if you'd washed them regularly with soap - but that doesn't mean that soap is antibacterial.
There's only the teeniest tiniest amount of lipids in saliva, so soap isn't very necessary with it, either. Now, if the person drinking out of the glass is sick, you probably want an antibacterial soap, but that's a special case - as is the case of small children, which no, I don't have. Under normal circumstances, I'm not too worried about getting a tiny trace of my saliva back in my mouth the next time I drink out of the glass.
Now, if I've had chapstick on, *then* I often need soap to get that off.
Well, I've always found it useful that I learned the basics about the structures of carbohydrates, lipids, etc. For instance, I know that there's no real point in using soap when cleaning out a glass of soda, since the sugar dissolves in water and has no hydrophobic end for the soap to have an effect on, unlike, say, a measuring cup that was used on oil. And I can laugh when I see oils and butters with "ZERO CARBS!!!" signs on them in the supermarket. Just in general, I think that a better understanding of these things would help a lot of people when it comes to nutrition. Like, why something with no calories will also by default have no fat or sugar, etc. Of course, this gets a little into biology as well.
Of course, you don't have the problem of criminals running 1,000 miles away (or more) from the crime scene and committing another crime - all within your country. It's hard to stay connected to the copper on the street in both Maine and Southern California (over 3100 miles apart).
That's not so funny - I've been on plenty of highways that were in various states of construction where there were multiple sets of lines - some leading into walls. It can be pretty nerve-wracking, hoping that everyone around you stays in the right lane.
In America, rural zoning tends to be much more isolationist - suburbs are islands to themselves - without a store in sight. It's quite depressing actually. It also leads to the "not being able to walk or bike anywhere" syndrome.
I agree on the depressing part. After living in the middle of Boston (well, Cambridge) for six years, I'm really dismayed to see how hard it is to find somewhere to live that's within walking distance of a grocery store anywhere else. When I got my current apartment, the main reason I chose it was proximity to a couple of malls - not really staples, but at least it's *something* to walk to.
I really worry about what I'll do in a few years when I start having kids. I don't want to raise them in the inner city, but I also don't want them to grow up with a totally car-dependent mindset like the one that's almost necessary if you live in most new subdivisions. I'm not sure if I'll be able to find a house with a nice yard that also has at least a few interesting or necessary things within walking distance. I've seen in a couple places recently that there's a bit of a "suburban sprawl backlash" going on, with developers creating more grids with corner stores, etc. I hope I can find one of those.
My argument is that pedphiles are going to have their urges whether or not real or drawn child porn exists.
Not all of them will be strong enough to completely ignore these urges, unless we come up with some way to medically help them, which we haven't yet. I'm not saying this is ok, it's just how it is.
If you exterminate ALL child porn, real or drawn, what's left for these people to act out their urges on? That's right, actual kids. I'm not saying that this would *excuse* them, but whether or not we're excusing them that's more real kids getting hurt. If we at allow them drawn/CG child porn, at least a few of the pedophiles will get their rocks off on that who might have resorted to more direct means if they had nothing else to turn to.
You're right, there's no way to keep every child from being harmed. But I think that minimizing it takes targeting the real child porn that harms real children, while allowing the pretend child porn that might actually protect some children.
So without demand, there would be no supply per market rules.
Yes yes, demand creates supply. You've done a very good job of illustrating this. But you still haven't said how having no supply (no child porn available) would have any affect on demand (no pedophiles wanting child porn). Does lack of child porn magically cure pedophiles?
I only briefly scanned your post, because it's long and seems to say the same thing over and over again. But here's my response:
Sexual relations with an entity that is unable to give informed consent are unethical, in my opinion. Although there may be a few precocious tykes, the vast majority of prepubescent children are unable to give informed consent, because they are not capable of fully understanding the consequences of sexual actions. Therefore, having sex with them is unethical. Now, I'm not going to argue that once a kid reaches 18 they're magically capable of this - there are plenty of 14/15-year-olds who know exactly what's up, and plenty of 20-year-olds who still can't quite comprehend the consequences. But for the purposes of law, you have to draw the line somewhere. Whether we've drawn it at the right age is an issue entirely up for debate.
Pedophiles have two choices: suppress their natural urges, or harm children and get in trouble. I doubt most of them have a real desire to harm children - it's just what happens if they act on their urges. Personally, if *I* had an urge that could only be satisfied in a way that harmed others, I would prefer to lose that urge and have it replaced with less-destructive urges than to have to constantly struggle with it and never be able to fully indulge it. And urges to hurt people aren't entirely foreign to me, though they are in no way sexual. But I do know that they're a symptom of mental illness, and I would rather be medicated and not have them than be forced to fight against them all the time. It's just better for everyone involved.
The reasoning behind computer-generated child porn is #1. It creates a demand...
Please explain to me how computer-generated child porn, in which no actual child is involved, creates demand. Are people not pedophiles until they've consumed some child porn? If nobody made child porn, would we have no pedophiles who want to look at it? Perhaps it fills a demand, but how could it create demand?
You choose to act upon impulses though.
Yes. And I would MUCH rather someone act upon their impulse by viewing pretend-child-porn that involves no actual children than by finding a real kid to fondle. Which would you prefer? Until we've found a way to "cure" pedophiles of what is basically a mental illness, I don't see any reason to make it illegal for them to soothe their impulses in ways that don't harm any real children.
Absolutely, although Link to the Past is my favorite, I've played it at least three or four times through. I'm not a big fan of 3D, I get lost too easily (just like in the real 3D world).
I was wondering the same thing. It's a fascinating case and all, but I remember learning about HM in my Intro to Psych class (8 years ago), and have since taught about him to middle school psych students.
You've got to be kidding. I live in Ann Arbor, and there has been ice and snow all over the place since late November/early December. Not constantly, but most days. I even have whiplash from falling on the ice the other day.
Maybe it's not global warming, but pollutants in the river that are keeping it from icing?
No, actually, they're not. Well, maybe they are in Utah - not living there, I don't know the laws too well, but judging from the success of the violent video game laws elsewhere I seriously doubt that they are. But if you'll show me a link to the law, I'll believe it.
In general, though, the movie industry is entirely self-regulated, and stores don't sell R-rated movies to minors because they don't want parents screaming at them (or worse, suing) for exposing their innocent wittle children to big bad movies and scarring them for life. But, y'know, a lot of places do it anyhow. Think about it: all over the place, you see signs saying exactly what date you have to have been born to buy alcohol or tobacco - have you EVER seen such a sign for R-rated movies?
Under the existing Utah statute the distribution or showing of pornography and explicit nudity to minors is a felony.
Add "inappropriate violence" to that, and most R-rated movies have become illegal to sell to minors. Not to mention movies shown on cable (or even network) TV. I'd like to see this pass just to see what a mess they make of it. (Though I'm sure if I lived in Utah I'd feel differently.)
I believe I included an out for Linux users, did I not? The OP sounded like they simply refuse to use iTunes, not that they are incapable of it. Two different things.
Neither Windows nor linux distributions preinstall iTunes
Really? My mom's Dell laptop and my brother's HP desktop both came with iTunes right on the desktop. I remember pointing it out to my mom and showing her how to rip CDs with it. And that was a year ago. Especially with HP's cobranding deal on iPods, now every HP computer comes with iTunes. (I think my mom's laptop had it b/c she bought it refurbished through somewhere, I'm not sure it was Dell's doing.) I think a lot more people get iTunes by default than you realize. And since it's there, they use it. Plus those 25 million or so iPod owners who download it if they don't already have it.
I think you're confusing "tuition" with "total cost". Tuition for good private schools is around $30-35,000 - and for some of the better public schools out-of-state, as well. If you go to a public school and are paying that much for in-state tuition - on TOP OF room, board, etc - well, you're getting screwed.
Total cost, when you figure in room, board, living expenses, textbooks, etc, is in the $40k range, but tuition hasn't made it up there yet.
Way to alienate those of us who refuse to own the trendy, overpriced iPod and/or use their iTunes software.
Except that you don't need to own an iPod, by any stretch of the imagination. So your actual statement is:
Way to alienate those of us who refuse to use their iTunes software.
Fair enough. Though I doubt they're too worried about alienating the 1% of people who somehow feel morally obligated to not download a free piece of software. Now, people who don't use Windows or OS X, and thus can't use iTunes, I can understand being annoyed. It would be nice if there were an option for those people.
Again, something i'd love to pay for,
But you don't have to pay for it - you just have to swallow your pride and download iTunes.
but because of it not being in a widespread distribution method
LOLZ! Perhaps you need to take a larger sample size than "in your head" before you pronounce iTunes to not be widespread.
i'll just download it free.
Just like the rest of us! Because, y'know, it's FREE on iTunes. Unless you made some bet with someone that you'd never download iTunes, and that's why you're so reticent.
Just stop whining and download iTunes already. Seriously.
I use Yahoo for many things every day - maps, email (yes, I like Yahoo's implementation of both of these better than Google's), weather, yellow pages, movie times, you name it. General searching? Never. They do plenty of other things (many of which could be thought of as very narrow search engines, like for movie times or weather), I can see why they don't want to put all their effort into competing with Google for the general search market. They're not giving up, they're just choosing to focus on other parts of their business.
I'm sorry but I think you people are just being cheap because you can.
Or perhaps because we have more important things to spend our money on?
I also won't spend $10 on a movie ticket, I buy my books paperback (when I don't get them from the library), and I buy generics at the grocery store whenever I can. So it's not like I'm throwing money around randomly and just refuse to spend it on games. I have more important things to spend it on - like doctor bills, a down payment on a house, student loans, etc. If I spent $50 on every video game I wanted, I wouldn't be able to afford these things, which are WAY higher on my priority list than video games. If I could only buy games for $50, guess what I'd do? I'd stop buying video games. Because I wouldn't be able to justify that in my monthly budget. I realize that some people do have that much money to throw around, or they don't have things like student loans and doctor bills and don't care about buying a house (though if you don't, you should - rent is throwing your money away), etc etc. If they want to spend $50 on a video game, good for them. We need some people to buy them new so that they'll wind up on the used shelf eventually, after all. But it's just not happening here.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll give it a month or two to see how it goes, but if this results in more spam getting my inbox, I'm going to finally resort to switching to Gmail. I've got a gmail address, but I just like Yahoo's interface much more. The effectiveness of their spam blocker has always been one reason I like them - if that goes away, I'll go through the supreme pain in the ass that would be switching all my crap over to a new email address after using this one for at least a good six or seven years.
Microsoft started making computers? Why haven't you submitted this story to /. yet?? That's major news!
I agree, that would suck. Why doesn't the school replace the mice?? Every school-based mac lab I've seen has nice logitech scroll wheel mice.
Yes, if you let your hands or dishes sit around with a lot of grease on them all the time, you will probably eventually find that they have more harmful bacteria on them for one reason or another than if you'd washed them regularly with soap - but that doesn't mean that soap is antibacterial.
Now, if I've had chapstick on, *then* I often need soap to get that off.
Well, I've always found it useful that I learned the basics about the structures of carbohydrates, lipids, etc. For instance, I know that there's no real point in using soap when cleaning out a glass of soda, since the sugar dissolves in water and has no hydrophobic end for the soap to have an effect on, unlike, say, a measuring cup that was used on oil. And I can laugh when I see oils and butters with "ZERO CARBS!!!" signs on them in the supermarket. Just in general, I think that a better understanding of these things would help a lot of people when it comes to nutrition. Like, why something with no calories will also by default have no fat or sugar, etc. Of course, this gets a little into biology as well.
Of course, you don't have the problem of criminals running 1,000 miles away (or more) from the crime scene and committing another crime - all within your country. It's hard to stay connected to the copper on the street in both Maine and Southern California (over 3100 miles apart).
That's not so funny - I've been on plenty of highways that were in various states of construction where there were multiple sets of lines - some leading into walls. It can be pretty nerve-wracking, hoping that everyone around you stays in the right lane.
I think the synergies will escalate dramatically.
made me throw up a little.
I agree on the depressing part. After living in the middle of Boston (well, Cambridge) for six years, I'm really dismayed to see how hard it is to find somewhere to live that's within walking distance of a grocery store anywhere else. When I got my current apartment, the main reason I chose it was proximity to a couple of malls - not really staples, but at least it's *something* to walk to.
I really worry about what I'll do in a few years when I start having kids. I don't want to raise them in the inner city, but I also don't want them to grow up with a totally car-dependent mindset like the one that's almost necessary if you live in most new subdivisions. I'm not sure if I'll be able to find a house with a nice yard that also has at least a few interesting or necessary things within walking distance. I've seen in a couple places recently that there's a bit of a "suburban sprawl backlash" going on, with developers creating more grids with corner stores, etc. I hope I can find one of those.
Not all of them will be strong enough to completely ignore these urges, unless we come up with some way to medically help them, which we haven't yet. I'm not saying this is ok, it's just how it is.
If you exterminate ALL child porn, real or drawn, what's left for these people to act out their urges on? That's right, actual kids. I'm not saying that this would *excuse* them, but whether or not we're excusing them that's more real kids getting hurt. If we at allow them drawn/CG child porn, at least a few of the pedophiles will get their rocks off on that who might have resorted to more direct means if they had nothing else to turn to.
You're right, there's no way to keep every child from being harmed. But I think that minimizing it takes targeting the real child porn that harms real children, while allowing the pretend child porn that might actually protect some children.
Yes yes, demand creates supply. You've done a very good job of illustrating this. But you still haven't said how having no supply (no child porn available) would have any affect on demand (no pedophiles wanting child porn). Does lack of child porn magically cure pedophiles?
Sexual relations with an entity that is unable to give informed consent are unethical, in my opinion. Although there may be a few precocious tykes, the vast majority of prepubescent children are unable to give informed consent, because they are not capable of fully understanding the consequences of sexual actions. Therefore, having sex with them is unethical. Now, I'm not going to argue that once a kid reaches 18 they're magically capable of this - there are plenty of 14/15-year-olds who know exactly what's up, and plenty of 20-year-olds who still can't quite comprehend the consequences. But for the purposes of law, you have to draw the line somewhere. Whether we've drawn it at the right age is an issue entirely up for debate.
Pedophiles have two choices: suppress their natural urges, or harm children and get in trouble. I doubt most of them have a real desire to harm children - it's just what happens if they act on their urges. Personally, if *I* had an urge that could only be satisfied in a way that harmed others, I would prefer to lose that urge and have it replaced with less-destructive urges than to have to constantly struggle with it and never be able to fully indulge it. And urges to hurt people aren't entirely foreign to me, though they are in no way sexual. But I do know that they're a symptom of mental illness, and I would rather be medicated and not have them than be forced to fight against them all the time. It's just better for everyone involved.
Please explain to me how computer-generated child porn, in which no actual child is involved, creates demand. Are people not pedophiles until they've consumed some child porn? If nobody made child porn, would we have no pedophiles who want to look at it? Perhaps it fills a demand, but how could it create demand?
You choose to act upon impulses though.
Yes. And I would MUCH rather someone act upon their impulse by viewing pretend-child-porn that involves no actual children than by finding a real kid to fondle. Which would you prefer? Until we've found a way to "cure" pedophiles of what is basically a mental illness, I don't see any reason to make it illegal for them to soothe their impulses in ways that don't harm any real children.
Absolutely, although Link to the Past is my favorite, I've played it at least three or four times through. I'm not a big fan of 3D, I get lost too easily (just like in the real 3D world).
Wow, that's odd. It's snowed several days this week here, although it's supposed to be in the 40s tomorrow and Saturday. Uh... Lake effect?
I was wondering the same thing. It's a fascinating case and all, but I remember learning about HM in my Intro to Psych class (8 years ago), and have since taught about him to middle school psych students.
Maybe it's not global warming, but pollutants in the river that are keeping it from icing?
In general, though, the movie industry is entirely self-regulated, and stores don't sell R-rated movies to minors because they don't want parents screaming at them (or worse, suing) for exposing their innocent wittle children to big bad movies and scarring them for life. But, y'know, a lot of places do it anyhow. Think about it: all over the place, you see signs saying exactly what date you have to have been born to buy alcohol or tobacco - have you EVER seen such a sign for R-rated movies?
Add "inappropriate violence" to that, and most R-rated movies have become illegal to sell to minors. Not to mention movies shown on cable (or even network) TV. I'd like to see this pass just to see what a mess they make of it. (Though I'm sure if I lived in Utah I'd feel differently.)
I believe I included an out for Linux users, did I not? The OP sounded like they simply refuse to use iTunes, not that they are incapable of it. Two different things.
Neither Windows nor linux distributions preinstall iTunes
Really? My mom's Dell laptop and my brother's HP desktop both came with iTunes right on the desktop. I remember pointing it out to my mom and showing her how to rip CDs with it. And that was a year ago. Especially with HP's cobranding deal on iPods, now every HP computer comes with iTunes. (I think my mom's laptop had it b/c she bought it refurbished through somewhere, I'm not sure it was Dell's doing.) I think a lot more people get iTunes by default than you realize. And since it's there, they use it. Plus those 25 million or so iPod owners who download it if they don't already have it.
Total cost, when you figure in room, board, living expenses, textbooks, etc, is in the $40k range, but tuition hasn't made it up there yet.
Except that you don't need to own an iPod, by any stretch of the imagination. So your actual statement is:
Way to alienate those of us who refuse to use their iTunes software.
Fair enough. Though I doubt they're too worried about alienating the 1% of people who somehow feel morally obligated to not download a free piece of software. Now, people who don't use Windows or OS X, and thus can't use iTunes, I can understand being annoyed. It would be nice if there were an option for those people.
Again, something i'd love to pay for,
But you don't have to pay for it - you just have to swallow your pride and download iTunes.
but because of it not being in a widespread distribution method
LOLZ! Perhaps you need to take a larger sample size than "in your head" before you pronounce iTunes to not be widespread.
i'll just download it free.
Just like the rest of us! Because, y'know, it's FREE on iTunes. Unless you made some bet with someone that you'd never download iTunes, and that's why you're so reticent.
Just stop whining and download iTunes already. Seriously.
I use Yahoo for many things every day - maps, email (yes, I like Yahoo's implementation of both of these better than Google's), weather, yellow pages, movie times, you name it. General searching? Never. They do plenty of other things (many of which could be thought of as very narrow search engines, like for movie times or weather), I can see why they don't want to put all their effort into competing with Google for the general search market. They're not giving up, they're just choosing to focus on other parts of their business.
Or perhaps because we have more important things to spend our money on?
I also won't spend $10 on a movie ticket, I buy my books paperback (when I don't get them from the library), and I buy generics at the grocery store whenever I can. So it's not like I'm throwing money around randomly and just refuse to spend it on games. I have more important things to spend it on - like doctor bills, a down payment on a house, student loans, etc. If I spent $50 on every video game I wanted, I wouldn't be able to afford these things, which are WAY higher on my priority list than video games. If I could only buy games for $50, guess what I'd do? I'd stop buying video games. Because I wouldn't be able to justify that in my monthly budget. I realize that some people do have that much money to throw around, or they don't have things like student loans and doctor bills and don't care about buying a house (though if you don't, you should - rent is throwing your money away), etc etc. If they want to spend $50 on a video game, good for them. We need some people to buy them new so that they'll wind up on the used shelf eventually, after all. But it's just not happening here.