As I recall, it was her comments about sex and masturbation that lost her the job. The same people censoring the current Surgeon General were so shocked and offended that someone would suggest masturbation is a healthy activity for youth that they made such a big deal out of it. So Clinton made a political decision to minimize the damage and have her resign.
Because those on hormone therepy either already have a reversed sexual preference,
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that hormone therapy is used to "treat" homosexuality? If so, I would love to see a reference to a study that shows evidence of some effect other than increased rates of depression, suicide, mania, and/or violent behavior.
are taking more of their gender's predominent hormone,
If they are taking more of their primary sex hormone (say an athlete on anabolic steroids, shouldn't that cause an imbalance which, as you say, causes changes in sexual preference?
or have the levels of hormone carefully regulated.
If those levels are being carefully regulated (by a physician trying to restore the normal balance), it would be treating an imbalance -- a state change causing a change in sexual preference if hormone balance has a direct link to sexual attraction.
If you have urges that conflict with what you have always desired you aren't going to jump on a table and start dancing and singing showtunes.
Indeed, which is why there are plenty of homosexual men and women who lead perfectly normal heterosexual lives. You can bet that if what you say is true and they could simply alter their testosterone levels to make all those gay feelings that make it harder to live the lives they've chosen go away, they'd be all over it.
No, I'm saying that SOME straight men are just gushing out torrents of testosterone. I know it is easier to debate if you take every comment I made about people and attempt to turn it into some sort of blanket statement. Unfortunately for you, I don't generally use any blanket statements and even when I use phrasing to a blanket effect it is usually a slip and not what I meant. We live in a complex world, there are exceptions to everything. There are billions of people, exceptions could include millions.
Good, I'm glad to hear it. Perhaps I was just reading too much into that statement but in a post filled with negative views on homosexuality along with claims that gay men have an abnormal testosterone balance, perhaps you can also see how someone else might have seen a strong implication in the statement "Many straight men have an excess of testosterone"? That is, the implication that only straight men produce excess testosterone and gay men have some other testosterone imbalance (as in, too little)?
You can claim that homosexuality is a choice and I would agree that it is possible to choose it. However, a homosexual can usually be spotted on the subway wearing a formal business suit. It isn't about simply physical size, there are plenty of skinny straight guys and there are bulky gay guys. Even a homosexual won't dispute that, its called gaydar. It isn't a perfect system, you will have false positives but there is a distinction that can be detected without concious consideration. There is something physical and innate that most homosexuals are born with. If you would claim that it isn't a hormonal imbalance that makes homosexuals feminine and attracted to men; so be it. I'm not married to the theory. I'm open to other possibilities.
I would make no such claim, as it is my opinion that homosexuality generally is not a choice. I see sexuality as two sliding scales of sexual orientation and sexual preference. Orientation is simply the product of your genes, evironment, whatever else that forms the basis of your sexual desires. Preference is what you choose, although if you pick a point too far from your orientation, it's likely going to cause significant problems that make it an unhealthy choice. As far as "gaydar" goes, it could be attributed to the fact that homosexuals produce different odors than heterosexuals (i.e. pheromones). It seems to me though that while humans may have some response to pheromones, it's not significant enough to make
Our sex drives are powered entirely by hormones (mainly testosterone and estrogen). Therefore any hormone combination that does not lead to desiring the opposite sex is an imbalance.
Yes, hormones play a strong part in our sex drives. That is, our desire to experience sexual gratification. That has nothing to do with the object of attraction and arousal though. Unless of course you're suggesting that tweaking hormone levels will cause any human being to experience any number of paraphilias? If sexual orientation is a pure function of hormonal balance, why do people undergoing hormone therapy not exhibit wild changes in sexual preference and why do adolescents not vary their preferences from one day to the next? The reason you don't see this is that hormones are relatively simple chemical messengers (although there is no doubt they have very complex effects). Testosterone is not coded with a little message that says "Oh God, I want to fuck a vagina!" nor is estrogen coded with one that says "Oh why is there no penis inside of me!?" Hormones are much more like electrical switches: as long as the circuit is closed (the hormone is present at the receptor), some action occurs. And there lies the problem with your argument. It's not a hormone balance that affects sexual desire (or at least not in the manner you describe). In fact, it's testosterone in both men and women that drives the libido. Sexual attraction is purely in your head.
There is nothing bad about having a hormonal imbalance, everyone spends their teenage and adolescence in a state of hormonal imbalance and females are constantly in a state or hormonal imbalance from the time they are 12 until they complete menopause.
Well, typically a hormonal imbalance actually is "bad" in the sense that it changes the normal functioning of the body. An abnormally high level of testosterone will increase muscle growth but also have other consequences like increased aggression.
Many straight men have an excess of testoterone with shrunken testicles and bald heads.
Many gay men also have bald heads. Androgenic alopecia (male pattern baldness) is caused by prolonged exposure to dihydrotestosterone in those at risk for the condition (which includes some women). You seem to be trying to imply again that straight men are just gushing out torrents of testosterone that clearly make them big burly masculine men, not at all like those wussy queers. Of course this is not the case, and taking your reasoning earlier (that homosexuality is an undesirable trait in terms of reproduction, caused by a hormonal imbalance) we can see that these hyper masculine straight men you speak of would actually be less desirable in terms of reproduction because excessive levels of testosterone cause testicular atrophy. In other words, your balls are tiny because you're producing very little sperm which make up the bulk of testicular mass.
Perhaps you don't like the idea because while it is something homosexuals are born with, it would make them 'abnormal'.
I'm pretty sure the opposite is true. Homosexuals and those who agree with them are pushing to show that homosexuality is something you're born with, abnormality be damned. It's not so bad being abnormal when people are alright with it, which is more likely to be true if it is genetic (I don't recall abnormally tall basketball players being condemned as a crime against God).
Straight guys couldn't tell you which guy is supposed to be attractive. We have no clue, because we aren't even slightly attracted.
I'm going to call bullshit here too. I would posit that it is our society that has told men that they are not allowed to find other men attractive, because that is homosexuality with no shades of gray. It's possible that many men, perhaps including you, have internalized that message to the extent that they truly cannot find any man attr
Wow, that we frown upon the Colosseum today does **NOT** change the fact that we as humans have an affinity for violence.
Seriously, did you even read the post you were responding to? Never did he say that kids going to the Colosseum was a good thing. All he did was point out that humans (which includes children) have been seeking out, participating in, and playing about violence for a very long time. The point was that we have always sought such diversions, long before video games came into being and thus, it is unfair and just plain stupid to place any special blame on them for exposing children to violence and/or encouraging such acts. The second point (which you also ignored) was that trying to censor all forms of violence is foolhardy at best. The important thing is to have a parent/guardian/role model around to guide the development of the child.
It's worse. There are some people who think it is our right, almost our responsibility to waste and pollute. My friend's grandfather has quite literally said in a response against spending money on alternate fuel research: "God put oil on the Earth for us to burn so I don't see what the big deal is." Even if there is a God, and even if He did create oil intentionally, and even if He did do so with the intention that we would eventually burn it, last I checked we were still the stewards of this little blue sphere and should at least make a half-assed effort to keep it that way... but this is lost on some people.
Recently there was a lot of attention for an appeal case of a woman who was fined for putting a plastic bread bag in a public bin after feeding ducks with stale bread.
That seems a bit excessive to me... why not just give her a warning and perhaps suggest that next time she bring her bread in a re-usable bag? Regardless of random draconian enforcement that I really despise, I like the system you described for separating waste and I imagine (or hope) that they've made it fairly easy for the average person to implement.
It still surprises me when I hear about people that live here in the US and are too damn lazy to take an extra second (if that) to sort their garbage. I live in Nashville and they stopped collecting glass recyclables because they use semi-automated trucks that were causing glass to not reach the hold of the truck and causing a big mess. So in addition to having one bin for regular trash (mostly organic waste and non-recyclable plastics) and another for my recyclables, I bought a third bin which I keep in a separate closet for glass. On the infrequent occasion I have piece of glass to dispose of, I simply walk the extra 5 feet and put it there. The other two bins are right next to each other so it takes no extra effort to sort the trash other than the split-second thought process of "which bin does this go in?" It's hardly an inconvenience for me to take the glass bin to a glass pickup bin or center, but some people can't be bothered to put all their recyclables (some places still do everything, including glass, in one bin) in one and the rest in another? It's just absurd to me and it seems to borderline on blatant animosity towards a simple effort to not destroy our planet quite so quickly.
Maybe I need to move to Europe for a while and see if their brand of idiot is more tolerable.
Wait, are you saying you don't listen to everything the RIAA cranks out? I'll let them know... I'm sure they'd love to talk to you about this loss of "potential profits."
I hate to be picky but anyone who was upset by the Hot Coffee "scandal" made themselves look bad, not Rockstar. Last I checked, no one has reason to be angry at the construction company that creates a building because they provided a surface for graffiti.
The Internet is not equivalent to other communications media. This is, in part, what makes it such a great place to have true freedom of expression - exactly why speech is so often vehemently protected on the Internet as opposed to other places, like a billboard. The fact is, messages and images posted on the Internet are much less likely to be unintentionally viewed; you generally have to go looking for the offending content making most complaints, in my opinion, irrelevant and serving an ulterior motive. Contrast that with a very public structure like a billboard that obstructs a significant portion of my vision, greatly increasing the chances I will absorb that information whether I intended to or not. The only possible real comparison is the gigantic banner ads plastered over so many websites. Even those, despicable as they are, I would have a hard time finding justification for censor because Internet marketers generally do their best to only reach their target audience.
That qualifies as AO now? I'm not saying it's a bright and happy video with koala bears dancing in a flower patch but... seriously? Everything I saw in there was pretty tame in my opinion, and well in line with other games rated M.
You might want to read the summary, or even the title. From what our fine/. editors have implied, you won't be getting your MythTV feeds free either.
If you honestly believe that one free service becoming unavailable is going to stop the FOSS community... have I mentioned I'm in the bridge business?
TCO indeed...when you figure in TCO for TiVo, you are taking into account the risk you take in your reliance on a paid service that you have absolutely no control over, right? Because that's kind of necessary.
Fixed. Newsflash: just because something is paid for does not mean it's better than something free. Honestly, I would rather go with an "unreliable" free (particularly, open) service than a paid one any day. At some point TiVo may close up shop (for whatever reason) at which point you have a useless set-top box. If the developers of MythTV stop one day, someone else will take over. If the providers of a third-party TV listing service discontinue that service, the community will find/create a better alternative. Try the same with a proprietary system that's locked up all nice and tight so that no one will ever have access to it.
Well, most of the ideals in most democratic constitutions and the UN go back to the French revolution. But that's beside the point.
Well, the French Revolution might not be the best example since they actually did actually use our Declaration of Independence as a model for their own:
Looking to the Declaration of Independence of the United States for a model, on 26 August 1789, the Assembly published the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
However, I agree (and I did mention that the ideals of founding of the US was in part inspired by other events and cultures in history) that it is beside the point:)
So the question is, do we get to dictate what inappropriate implies for a different nation ?
Well, when it comes to Human Rights, I am an absolute idealist. I understand that the world is not a rose-filled wonderland, and that human rights abuses far worse than the ones we are discussing are taking place right now. However, you'll never convince me that it is acceptable for any country to oppress their people and their intrinsic human rights for any reason.
So, we don't really get to dictate China's implementation because unless the rest of the world is going to back us up and go all the way, we have no method of coercing them into compliance. Nevertheless, I do think it is well within the rights of any human being to declare a nation's policies to be immoral or inappropriate, particularly when said policies violate human rights.
Would the Chinese be right to then tell us to mind our own business and clean up Guantanamo first ?
It would certainly be within their rights to say so and while the saying "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" certainly applies to us, it's clearly more applicable to China (if they were to start judging other nations). You are absolutely right though, that we are no paragons of the defense of freedom. However, I still live in a country where I can tell the entire world that I think the leadership of my country are pigs and they disgust me and not be worried about being... "forcibly censored" shall we say?
Also, isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that American laws are the moral optimum ?
Probably, although it wouldn't be a bad position to start from seeing as how the success of our system as at least inspired (and been inspired) by others throughout the world and history. Fortunately we don't have to worry about whether they are American ideals or not because they are also the ideals of the United Nations (which includes China). I suggest you read through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You'll find many similarities to those rights we hold in our own Bill of Rights, but more importantly, it outlines the basic rights that members of all races, nationalities, etc. in the United Nations have agreed upon to be the most important because "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."
While the AC was somewhat trollish, I'm inclined to call you one as well.
Can you please cite any policy from ANY company ANYWHERE that says "baby-fucking is ok since it increases shareholder value"?
Can you please cite where the AC claimed there was ANY company ANYWHERE that has such a policy?
When you take someone's point and extend it by "lets just go all the way and see" you've basically lost the arguement
Not at all, especially in this context. The AC was replying to someone who suggested that shareholders shouldn't care about anything but company value. He was pointing out that people are people first, money grubbers second. He used the extreme example of "baby fucking" to illustrate the fact that most people do hold some ideals higher than money and so they do indeed care about something other than company value.
Speaking of people being people first reminds me of that silly old document entitled Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's full of all sorts of nice stuff like Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
And Article 30:
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
I'm not implying that Yahoo is out to destroy human rights but the kind of censorship that they are engaging in with China clearly violates the spirit of our own Constitution as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which all members of the United Nations (which includes the US and China; both permanent security council members) have agreed apply to all human beings.
In any case, the AC was simply pointing out that people can and do seek a higher moral purpose than acquisition of wealth. So there is indeed a "free speech option here:" Yahoo could simply not participate in censoring the Internet. It obviously would not be the best financial decision, but I doubt anyone who enjoys the liberties of living in a modern free society would question it's morality.
Cute, but it's not the same thing as the submitter is commenting about. If you're on the phone with someone who is being difficult (something I'm sure we've all had to deal with), there really is little you can do besides ask to speak with their superior and hope they comply. There is nothing you can do but call back later, hoping to get someone else or to talk with the receptionist's boss and report the treatment you received.
If you stop your thought process there, I can see how you might confuse the two examples as being the same. In both cases, there is little you can do to get your message through immediately (other than pay the price). However, in the receptionist example, I already pointed out the solution: call back later when the asshole receptionist is not there or report him/her, likely getting them fired so you never have to deal with them again. Any future receptionist is unlikely to attempt the same thing.
That's really the heart of the matter: getting a receptionist like the one you describe is a random, chaotic occurrence. Being forced to pay money for every email you send through an ISP is an institutionalized occurrence; it will happen every single time you attempt to communicate with the recipient over that medium. The reason that is a bigger issue than the receptionist, while the immediate effect is the same, is that it is much harder to remedy an institutionalized behavior. The receptionist can be fired and all future communications to that office are no longer burdened with payola. You can call the ISP and complain about the fact that your message is not getting through, but all you'll receive in reply is a canned message explaining about the burden of providing secure communications for their customers that they have so selflessly taken upon themselves and likely insinuating that you may be a spammer because you are unwilling to pay the fee. Alternatively you can call the doctor/lawyer and request they change their service provider because of the situation you experienced. They may even sympathize with you and want to rectify the situation, but simply may not be able to. Switching providers could be a significant expense in time, expertise, and fees, that they may be unwilling or unable to spend. In addition it may be altogether impossible given the limited availability of choice in ISPs (i.e. many places only have the possibility of service from one or two major providers - the ones likely to be using Goodmail).
Like it or not, ISPs institutionalizing a payola scheme is not a trivial matter. It has the potential to seriously hinder the way people use the Internet and has more sinister implications as well - if you seriously believe that they will keep the cost at some fraction of a cent and never increase it, well I can only hope you're one of the few who has the wool over their eyes.
Here's something we're not "making up as we go:" radiocarbon dating. Something the young earth creationists like to jump on is that it's "only" accurate up to ~60,000 years. That is true, but aren't they claiming the earth is only ~6,000 years old? We can date man made things back to a time before the Earth was created... which makes no sense if you assume man was created on Earth (and I certainly don't see these people suggesting that we're the product of a curious alien entity experimenting with creating life). People are trying to show that the grand canyon could have been created in hours? Alright, well I'm sure they could also try to show that the sky could be blue because someone got up there and painted it instead of being due simply to Raleigh scattering.
So they might be trying to prove their theory (anyone else think it's funny that they seem to feel the need to prove their beliefs to others using the same methods used by those they claim to hate for using methods that confuse and lead people astray from the clear truth of the Almighty?) but that doesn't shield them from comments or even ridicule from the outside. Scientists even ridicule other scientists when they come up with harebrained ideas. In the case of the young earth creationists, I have to agree with those that mock them and their attempts. These people are trying to prove a "theory" that takes more than a few liberties with the truth and is based on a premise that is demonstrably false.
Of course, I'm sure in response to evidence that the planet is older than 6,000 years they'll simply say God sucked out enough carbon-14 (whether as part of the creation process or to purposefully throw us off - by the way, why does anyone want to believe in a God that purposefully deludes us in an attempt to keep us ignorant?) to make it seem like things are much older than they are. There is the problem we evil science lovers have with these God issues. We could have a mountain of evidence and even God himself come down and tell them they're all morons, and they would still not believe and call our presentation of God a hoax (humorously, they'd probably say it was some trick of the devil trying to condemn them to Hell for believing in science). Part of the scientific process is peer review which includes others smacking you and your beliefs down when they clearly prove you are wrong. How can that process function when you can have a "God" response to every counterclaim?
Could you elaborate? I've been planning to rebuild my MythTV box for a long time now (I've been lazy) and this seemed like it would be the perfect replacement. What exactly about the presentation is misleading? The video seems to just be showing the actual features of the system so, unless you're saying it's all doctored, I don't understand what could be misleading. I'm willing to listen though.
As an aside, is it really necessary to rag on the narrator? Sure he's a bit cheeky and not a professional speaker, but he's not that bad. At least he has a fairly natural manner of speaking; it's not monotone nor is it offensive as some professional marketing presenters. The whole thing seems to me to fit quite well with the general "feel" of Linux: well thought out but perhaps lacking some of the "professional" flair that some people seem to judge quality by. In any case, I don't see how the narrator for a video describing the features of LinuxMCE is relevant to the truthfulness of the material. Just my two cents.
I don't speak much Spanish and I'm still not sure about carajo, but I did remember hearing "coño" as vagina (which would seem to make sense as the word appears to derive from the Latin cunnus) so I decided to look it up. Sure enough, the wikipedia article on Latin profanity also suggests the same:
Cunnus is preserved in almost every Romance language: e.g. French con, Catalan cony, Spanish coño, Portuguese cona. In Portuguese it has been transferred to the feminine gender; the form cunna is also attested in Pompeian graffiti and in some late Latin texts.
Since you got that one wrong, I'm just going to assume you are mistaken about carajo as well.
Way to completely ignore what lessthan said (I'm not sure if this has a technical name so I'll just call it argumentum ad "lalala I'm not listening!"). As he pointed out, it's usually best to avoid name calling simply because it obfuscates the real argument. lessthan tried to explain to you that Kierthos did not commit argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy that goes something like this:
Person A makes argument B.
Person A has some undesirable quality C.
Argument B is false, because of quality C of person A.
While I've always been well complemented on my reading comprehension ability, I certainly could be wrong about what Kierthos said. Perhaps you'd like to show me where he said your argument was wrong because of any one of your traits? He simply suggested that if you "...took a really healthy dump and got rid of that hippie liberal crap, you'd realize [the truth of his argument]" (whether it's true or not; my purpose in this post is not to argue for or against that, only to correct your notions of this particular logical fallacy). As I said before, this obfuscates the real argument as we have seen already since you immediately focused in on his personal attack (a quite natural response, of course) and thus, is best avoided.
His real argument is that mild corporal punishment does have beneficial qualities as a method of discipline and he supports his claim with a personal anecdote. It would be well within your rights to ignore his argument altogether simply because his sole personal anecdote cannot prove his argument, only disprove the counter-argument that corporal never works.
In the future, I would suggest realizing that people usually add in personal attacks when they are angry (or frustrated with their opponent in a debate for not agreeing with them) and instead of becoming defensive and screaming ad hominem, use it to go on a counter offensive (unless of course it truly is an ad hominem argument, in which case you should decimate their argument). At the very least, a passionate argument might convince your audience or even your opponent. After all, anger and passion have won (and started) more conflicts than truth and logic ever have anyway.
That attitude shows itself all the time in MMORPG development. The developers say something to the effect of "well we're still working on fixing a few bugs but our art/content department has pushed out some new stuff to keep you busy in the meantime." Cue hundreds of raving idiots screaming about how they should be fixing bugs instead of wasting man power on content. The concept that the programmers and artists/writers are separate entities and do not share skill sets is entirely beyond these people. The artists could not be fixing bugs, just as the research funds for DARPA would not have gone to troop issues.
In theory, this is correct. While it is true that laws passed by Congress are the supreme law of the land, it's hard to justify them when they are clearly unconstitutional.
I don't see how REAL ID is any different that the federal government forbidding states from printing their own currency.
To see the difference, you need to look at Article I, Section 8 as well as Amendment X.
From Article I, Section 8:
"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;"
Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So there we have it. The Constitution specifically grants Congress the authority to pass laws necessary and proper to execute the powers listed in Article I, Section 8.
Amendment X says that the federal government only gets those powers specifically listed in the Constitution. All other powers, both the ones we can think of and those we haven't yet imagined, go to the states or to the people. Therefore, when Congress passes legislation that is not directly related to the execution of authorities granted to it, those laws are unconstitutional.
I realize that this is not how our government actually works, only that this is how it was created to work. It has turned out this way because we as the people of the United States have not lived up to our responsibility to be the final and ultimate check on the powers of government. It seems bizarre to me that we elect someone to represent our best interests and then when they stab us in the back, so many people don't even care.
This is what most people are complaining about I think. We've almost come to expect to be let down by our representatives so it's no surprise when it happens and it's simply easier to accept the betrayal than it is to confront the betrayer. However, instead of ousting our representatives for childish reasons like their sexual orientation, why don't we instead demand their resignation when they deliberately act against our interests? Maybe if we did that enough it would send a clear message to career politicians that if they keep screwing up, their career is over.
Kudos to the Montana Legislature and Governor Brian Schweitzer for having the balls to boldly say "no" to this example of the federal government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
Of course it's very unlikely that you'll need to use your weapon at the family dinner table. However, you might need to use it if someone picks dinner time as the time to break in. Or perhaps you get mugged on the way to dinner?
You could come up with a million different scenarios where you might need to use your weapon, even when proceeding with the most innocuous tasks. The point the AC was making is that you should carry everywhere. Not because you think you'll need it, but because you never know when you might. Take driving as an analogy. Do you only put on your seatbelt when you think you're entering a dangerous stretch of highway? No, you keep it on all the time because it's no inconvenience and dramatically raises your chance of surviving a collision. Same with a gun; carrying it around is only a minor inconvenience but could save your life and the lives of countless other in a situation like the one at Virginia Tech.
I don't get the fuss about pre-installed linux. Isn't it enough that OEMs will ship a PC with no OS installed? There's just too many flavors and dickitry and infighting in the linux world, and I guarantee what Dell pre-installed on their boxes wouldn't be "the linux I want". Maybe it'll have KDE, and I want gnome, maybe it'll have gnome and I want fwvm, etc.
This is true, but you forget that there are many people that would not be quite so picky. Many existing Linux users would likely be happy with an OEM OS install, especially if it was a popular distribution like Ubuntu or RedHat.
I think that the real issue is that if a major OEM like Dell started offering pre-installed Linux that Just Works(tm) right out of the box, it would be a huge boost for Linux as a desktop platform. If Dell could offer a computer with Linux for less than a computer with Windows (should be possible once you remove OS licensing costs, and costs for extra but common add-on software like Office), people would be more likely to go with the Linux box - especially if their wiz-kid son/friend/nephew/neighbor/random-dude-on-the-stre et said Linux was better than Windows. I think we can all agree that a well configured Linux install with Firefox and/or Thunderbird, Open Office, and a printer driver is probably more than sufficient for the average person who just wants to surf the web, check email, and print some photos.
While I agree with eating more "organic" products, if for no other reason than they are often higher quality, better tasting foods, I find it doubtful that the hormones injected into livestock have any significant direct effect on their predators (namely, humans). Hormones are highly specialized chemical signals that activate receptors on specific cells to produce a particular response. The structure of the hormone is often the determining factor of the response cycle (e.g. estrogen and testosterone differ only in the functional groups attached to the ring yet have radically different effects in the body). The digestive acid secreted in your stomach has a tendency to denature (i.e. destroy or alter the chemical structure) proteins - in fact that's the idea: break down the chemicals so they can be absorbed by the body. So, even if the hormones made it through the stomach and duodenum and even if they were able to be absorbed by the small intestine, the smallest change to its structure would likely cause it to cease to function normally.
Now, that's not to say they have no effect at all, especially since cattle are typically injected with a whole cocktail of hormones and antibiotics - at least one is bound to make it through into the human circulatory system. But given the digestive processes already mentioned and FDA approved safe levels of hormone in animal tissue, I doubt they are a major factor in obesity. At the very least, to my knowledge, there has been no study confirming a strong link between digested animal hormones and physiological effects in humans.
Other than that, I think you're right on. People need to stop making up excuses for not eating well or not exercising.
Slashdot Mirror
As I recall, it was her comments about sex and masturbation that lost her the job. The same people censoring the current Surgeon General were so shocked and offended that someone would suggest masturbation is a healthy activity for youth that they made such a big deal out of it. So Clinton made a political decision to minimize the damage and have her resign.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that hormone therapy is used to "treat" homosexuality? If so, I would love to see a reference to a study that shows evidence of some effect other than increased rates of depression, suicide, mania, and/or violent behavior.
If they are taking more of their primary sex hormone (say an athlete on anabolic steroids, shouldn't that cause an imbalance which, as you say, causes changes in sexual preference?
If those levels are being carefully regulated (by a physician trying to restore the normal balance), it would be treating an imbalance -- a state change causing a change in sexual preference if hormone balance has a direct link to sexual attraction.
Indeed, which is why there are plenty of homosexual men and women who lead perfectly normal heterosexual lives. You can bet that if what you say is true and they could simply alter their testosterone levels to make all those gay feelings that make it harder to live the lives they've chosen go away, they'd be all over it.
Good, I'm glad to hear it. Perhaps I was just reading too much into that statement but in a post filled with negative views on homosexuality along with claims that gay men have an abnormal testosterone balance, perhaps you can also see how someone else might have seen a strong implication in the statement "Many straight men have an excess of testosterone"? That is, the implication that only straight men produce excess testosterone and gay men have some other testosterone imbalance (as in, too little)?
I would make no such claim, as it is my opinion that homosexuality generally is not a choice. I see sexuality as two sliding scales of sexual orientation and sexual preference. Orientation is simply the product of your genes, evironment, whatever else that forms the basis of your sexual desires. Preference is what you choose, although if you pick a point too far from your orientation, it's likely going to cause significant problems that make it an unhealthy choice. As far as "gaydar" goes, it could be attributed to the fact that homosexuals produce different odors than heterosexuals (i.e. pheromones). It seems to me though that while humans may have some response to pheromones, it's not significant enough to make
Yes, hormones play a strong part in our sex drives. That is, our desire to experience sexual gratification. That has nothing to do with the object of attraction and arousal though. Unless of course you're suggesting that tweaking hormone levels will cause any human being to experience any number of paraphilias? If sexual orientation is a pure function of hormonal balance, why do people undergoing hormone therapy not exhibit wild changes in sexual preference and why do adolescents not vary their preferences from one day to the next? The reason you don't see this is that hormones are relatively simple chemical messengers (although there is no doubt they have very complex effects). Testosterone is not coded with a little message that says "Oh God, I want to fuck a vagina!" nor is estrogen coded with one that says "Oh why is there no penis inside of me!?" Hormones are much more like electrical switches: as long as the circuit is closed (the hormone is present at the receptor), some action occurs. And there lies the problem with your argument. It's not a hormone balance that affects sexual desire (or at least not in the manner you describe). In fact, it's testosterone in both men and women that drives the libido. Sexual attraction is purely in your head.
Well, typically a hormonal imbalance actually is "bad" in the sense that it changes the normal functioning of the body. An abnormally high level of testosterone will increase muscle growth but also have other consequences like increased aggression.
Many gay men also have bald heads. Androgenic alopecia (male pattern baldness) is caused by prolonged exposure to dihydrotestosterone in those at risk for the condition (which includes some women). You seem to be trying to imply again that straight men are just gushing out torrents of testosterone that clearly make them big burly masculine men, not at all like those wussy queers. Of course this is not the case, and taking your reasoning earlier (that homosexuality is an undesirable trait in terms of reproduction, caused by a hormonal imbalance) we can see that these hyper masculine straight men you speak of would actually be less desirable in terms of reproduction because excessive levels of testosterone cause testicular atrophy. In other words, your balls are tiny because you're producing very little sperm which make up the bulk of testicular mass.
I'm pretty sure the opposite is true. Homosexuals and those who agree with them are pushing to show that homosexuality is something you're born with, abnormality be damned. It's not so bad being abnormal when people are alright with it, which is more likely to be true if it is genetic (I don't recall abnormally tall basketball players being condemned as a crime against God).
I'm going to call bullshit here too. I would posit that it is our society that has told men that they are not allowed to find other men attractive, because that is homosexuality with no shades of gray. It's possible that many men, perhaps including you, have internalized that message to the extent that they truly cannot find any man attr
Wow, that we frown upon the Colosseum today does **NOT** change the fact that we as humans have an affinity for violence.
Seriously, did you even read the post you were responding to? Never did he say that kids going to the Colosseum was a good thing. All he did was point out that humans (which includes children) have been seeking out, participating in, and playing about violence for a very long time. The point was that we have always sought such diversions, long before video games came into being and thus, it is unfair and just plain stupid to place any special blame on them for exposing children to violence and/or encouraging such acts. The second point (which you also ignored) was that trying to censor all forms of violence is foolhardy at best. The important thing is to have a parent/guardian/role model around to guide the development of the child.
Anti-government speech?
It's worse. There are some people who think it is our right, almost our responsibility to waste and pollute. My friend's grandfather has quite literally said in a response against spending money on alternate fuel research: "God put oil on the Earth for us to burn so I don't see what the big deal is." Even if there is a God, and even if He did create oil intentionally, and even if He did do so with the intention that we would eventually burn it, last I checked we were still the stewards of this little blue sphere and should at least make a half-assed effort to keep it that way... but this is lost on some people.
It still surprises me when I hear about people that live here in the US and are too damn lazy to take an extra second (if that) to sort their garbage. I live in Nashville and they stopped collecting glass recyclables because they use semi-automated trucks that were causing glass to not reach the hold of the truck and causing a big mess. So in addition to having one bin for regular trash (mostly organic waste and non-recyclable plastics) and another for my recyclables, I bought a third bin which I keep in a separate closet for glass. On the infrequent occasion I have piece of glass to dispose of, I simply walk the extra 5 feet and put it there. The other two bins are right next to each other so it takes no extra effort to sort the trash other than the split-second thought process of "which bin does this go in?" It's hardly an inconvenience for me to take the glass bin to a glass pickup bin or center, but some people can't be bothered to put all their recyclables (some places still do everything, including glass, in one bin) in one and the rest in another? It's just absurd to me and it seems to borderline on blatant animosity towards a simple effort to not destroy our planet quite so quickly.
Maybe I need to move to Europe for a while and see if their brand of idiot is more tolerable.
Wait, are you saying you don't listen to everything the RIAA cranks out? I'll let them know... I'm sure they'd love to talk to you about this loss of "potential profits."
I hate to be picky but anyone who was upset by the Hot Coffee "scandal" made themselves look bad, not Rockstar. Last I checked, no one has reason to be angry at the construction company that creates a building because they provided a surface for graffiti.
The Internet is not equivalent to other communications media. This is, in part, what makes it such a great place to have true freedom of expression - exactly why speech is so often vehemently protected on the Internet as opposed to other places, like a billboard. The fact is, messages and images posted on the Internet are much less likely to be unintentionally viewed; you generally have to go looking for the offending content making most complaints, in my opinion, irrelevant and serving an ulterior motive. Contrast that with a very public structure like a billboard that obstructs a significant portion of my vision, greatly increasing the chances I will absorb that information whether I intended to or not. The only possible real comparison is the gigantic banner ads plastered over so many websites. Even those, despicable as they are, I would have a hard time finding justification for censor because Internet marketers generally do their best to only reach their target audience.
That qualifies as AO now? I'm not saying it's a bright and happy video with koala bears dancing in a flower patch but... seriously? Everything I saw in there was pretty tame in my opinion, and well in line with other games rated M.
So, we don't really get to dictate China's implementation because unless the rest of the world is going to back us up and go all the way, we have no method of coercing them into compliance. Nevertheless, I do think it is well within the rights of any human being to declare a nation's policies to be immoral or inappropriate, particularly when said policies violate human rights. It would certainly be within their rights to say so and while the saying "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" certainly applies to us, it's clearly more applicable to China (if they were to start judging other nations). You are absolutely right though, that we are no paragons of the defense of freedom. However, I still live in a country where I can tell the entire world that I think the leadership of my country are pigs and they disgust me and not be worried about being... "forcibly censored" shall we say?
Speaking of people being people first reminds me of that silly old document entitled Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's full of all sorts of nice stuff like Article 19: And Article 30: I'm not implying that Yahoo is out to destroy human rights but the kind of censorship that they are engaging in with China clearly violates the spirit of our own Constitution as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which all members of the United Nations (which includes the US and China; both permanent security council members) have agreed apply to all human beings.
In any case, the AC was simply pointing out that people can and do seek a higher moral purpose than acquisition of wealth. So there is indeed a "free speech option here:" Yahoo could simply not participate in censoring the Internet. It obviously would not be the best financial decision, but I doubt anyone who enjoys the liberties of living in a modern free society would question it's morality.
Cute, but it's not the same thing as the submitter is commenting about. If you're on the phone with someone who is being difficult (something I'm sure we've all had to deal with), there really is little you can do besides ask to speak with their superior and hope they comply. There is nothing you can do but call back later, hoping to get someone else or to talk with the receptionist's boss and report the treatment you received.
If you stop your thought process there, I can see how you might confuse the two examples as being the same. In both cases, there is little you can do to get your message through immediately (other than pay the price). However, in the receptionist example, I already pointed out the solution: call back later when the asshole receptionist is not there or report him/her, likely getting them fired so you never have to deal with them again. Any future receptionist is unlikely to attempt the same thing.
That's really the heart of the matter: getting a receptionist like the one you describe is a random, chaotic occurrence. Being forced to pay money for every email you send through an ISP is an institutionalized occurrence; it will happen every single time you attempt to communicate with the recipient over that medium. The reason that is a bigger issue than the receptionist, while the immediate effect is the same, is that it is much harder to remedy an institutionalized behavior. The receptionist can be fired and all future communications to that office are no longer burdened with payola. You can call the ISP and complain about the fact that your message is not getting through, but all you'll receive in reply is a canned message explaining about the burden of providing secure communications for their customers that they have so selflessly taken upon themselves and likely insinuating that you may be a spammer because you are unwilling to pay the fee. Alternatively you can call the doctor/lawyer and request they change their service provider because of the situation you experienced. They may even sympathize with you and want to rectify the situation, but simply may not be able to. Switching providers could be a significant expense in time, expertise, and fees, that they may be unwilling or unable to spend. In addition it may be altogether impossible given the limited availability of choice in ISPs (i.e. many places only have the possibility of service from one or two major providers - the ones likely to be using Goodmail).
Like it or not, ISPs institutionalizing a payola scheme is not a trivial matter. It has the potential to seriously hinder the way people use the Internet and has more sinister implications as well - if you seriously believe that they will keep the cost at some fraction of a cent and never increase it, well I can only hope you're one of the few who has the wool over their eyes.
Here's something we're not "making up as we go:" radiocarbon dating. Something the young earth creationists like to jump on is that it's "only" accurate up to ~60,000 years. That is true, but aren't they claiming the earth is only ~6,000 years old? We can date man made things back to a time before the Earth was created... which makes no sense if you assume man was created on Earth (and I certainly don't see these people suggesting that we're the product of a curious alien entity experimenting with creating life). People are trying to show that the grand canyon could have been created in hours? Alright, well I'm sure they could also try to show that the sky could be blue because someone got up there and painted it instead of being due simply to Raleigh scattering.
So they might be trying to prove their theory (anyone else think it's funny that they seem to feel the need to prove their beliefs to others using the same methods used by those they claim to hate for using methods that confuse and lead people astray from the clear truth of the Almighty?) but that doesn't shield them from comments or even ridicule from the outside. Scientists even ridicule other scientists when they come up with harebrained ideas. In the case of the young earth creationists, I have to agree with those that mock them and their attempts. These people are trying to prove a "theory" that takes more than a few liberties with the truth and is based on a premise that is demonstrably false.
Of course, I'm sure in response to evidence that the planet is older than 6,000 years they'll simply say God sucked out enough carbon-14 (whether as part of the creation process or to purposefully throw us off - by the way, why does anyone want to believe in a God that purposefully deludes us in an attempt to keep us ignorant?) to make it seem like things are much older than they are. There is the problem we evil science lovers have with these God issues. We could have a mountain of evidence and even God himself come down and tell them they're all morons, and they would still not believe and call our presentation of God a hoax (humorously, they'd probably say it was some trick of the devil trying to condemn them to Hell for believing in science). Part of the scientific process is peer review which includes others smacking you and your beliefs down when they clearly prove you are wrong. How can that process function when you can have a "God" response to every counterclaim?
Could you elaborate? I've been planning to rebuild my MythTV box for a long time now (I've been lazy) and this seemed like it would be the perfect replacement. What exactly about the presentation is misleading? The video seems to just be showing the actual features of the system so, unless you're saying it's all doctored, I don't understand what could be misleading. I'm willing to listen though.
As an aside, is it really necessary to rag on the narrator? Sure he's a bit cheeky and not a professional speaker, but he's not that bad. At least he has a fairly natural manner of speaking; it's not monotone nor is it offensive as some professional marketing presenters. The whole thing seems to me to fit quite well with the general "feel" of Linux: well thought out but perhaps lacking some of the "professional" flair that some people seem to judge quality by. In any case, I don't see how the narrator for a video describing the features of LinuxMCE is relevant to the truthfulness of the material. Just my two cents.
- Person A makes argument B.
- Person A has some undesirable quality C.
- Argument B is false, because of quality C of person A.
While I've always been well complemented on my reading comprehension ability, I certainly could be wrong about what Kierthos said. Perhaps you'd like to show me where he said your argument was wrong because of any one of your traits? He simply suggested that if you "...took a really healthy dump and got rid of that hippie liberal crap, you'd realize [the truth of his argument]" (whether it's true or not; my purpose in this post is not to argue for or against that, only to correct your notions of this particular logical fallacy). As I said before, this obfuscates the real argument as we have seen already since you immediately focused in on his personal attack (a quite natural response, of course) and thus, is best avoided.His real argument is that mild corporal punishment does have beneficial qualities as a method of discipline and he supports his claim with a personal anecdote. It would be well within your rights to ignore his argument altogether simply because his sole personal anecdote cannot prove his argument, only disprove the counter-argument that corporal never works.
In the future, I would suggest realizing that people usually add in personal attacks when they are angry (or frustrated with their opponent in a debate for not agreeing with them) and instead of becoming defensive and screaming ad hominem, use it to go on a counter offensive (unless of course it truly is an ad hominem argument, in which case you should decimate their argument). At the very least, a passionate argument might convince your audience or even your opponent. After all, anger and passion have won (and started) more conflicts than truth and logic ever have anyway.
That attitude shows itself all the time in MMORPG development. The developers say something to the effect of "well we're still working on fixing a few bugs but our art/content department has pushed out some new stuff to keep you busy in the meantime." Cue hundreds of raving idiots screaming about how they should be fixing bugs instead of wasting man power on content. The concept that the programmers and artists/writers are separate entities and do not share skill sets is entirely beyond these people. The artists could not be fixing bugs, just as the research funds for DARPA would not have gone to troop issues.
From Article I, Section 8:
"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;"
Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So there we have it. The Constitution specifically grants Congress the authority to pass laws necessary and proper to execute the powers listed in Article I, Section 8.
Amendment X says that the federal government only gets those powers specifically listed in the Constitution. All other powers, both the ones we can think of and those we haven't yet imagined, go to the states or to the people. Therefore, when Congress passes legislation that is not directly related to the execution of authorities granted to it, those laws are unconstitutional.
I realize that this is not how our government actually works, only that this is how it was created to work. It has turned out this way because we as the people of the United States have not lived up to our responsibility to be the final and ultimate check on the powers of government. It seems bizarre to me that we elect someone to represent our best interests and then when they stab us in the back, so many people don't even care.
This is what most people are complaining about I think. We've almost come to expect to be let down by our representatives so it's no surprise when it happens and it's simply easier to accept the betrayal than it is to confront the betrayer. However, instead of ousting our representatives for childish reasons like their sexual orientation, why don't we instead demand their resignation when they deliberately act against our interests? Maybe if we did that enough it would send a clear message to career politicians that if they keep screwing up, their career is over.
Kudos to the Montana Legislature and Governor Brian Schweitzer for having the balls to boldly say "no" to this example of the federal government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
Of course it's very unlikely that you'll need to use your weapon at the family dinner table. However, you might need to use it if someone picks dinner time as the time to break in. Or perhaps you get mugged on the way to dinner?
You could come up with a million different scenarios where you might need to use your weapon, even when proceeding with the most innocuous tasks. The point the AC was making is that you should carry everywhere. Not because you think you'll need it, but because you never know when you might. Take driving as an analogy. Do you only put on your seatbelt when you think you're entering a dangerous stretch of highway? No, you keep it on all the time because it's no inconvenience and dramatically raises your chance of surviving a collision. Same with a gun; carrying it around is only a minor inconvenience but could save your life and the lives of countless other in a situation like the one at Virginia Tech.
I think that the real issue is that if a major OEM like Dell started offering pre-installed Linux that Just Works(tm) right out of the box, it would be a huge boost for Linux as a desktop platform. If Dell could offer a computer with Linux for less than a computer with Windows (should be possible once you remove OS licensing costs, and costs for extra but common add-on software like Office), people would be more likely to go with the Linux box - especially if their wiz-kid son/friend/nephew/neighbor/random-dude-on-the-str
While I agree with eating more "organic" products, if for no other reason than they are often higher quality, better tasting foods, I find it doubtful that the hormones injected into livestock have any significant direct effect on their predators (namely, humans). Hormones are highly specialized chemical signals that activate receptors on specific cells to produce a particular response. The structure of the hormone is often the determining factor of the response cycle (e.g. estrogen and testosterone differ only in the functional groups attached to the ring yet have radically different effects in the body). The digestive acid secreted in your stomach has a tendency to denature (i.e. destroy or alter the chemical structure) proteins - in fact that's the idea: break down the chemicals so they can be absorbed by the body. So, even if the hormones made it through the stomach and duodenum and even if they were able to be absorbed by the small intestine, the smallest change to its structure would likely cause it to cease to function normally.
Now, that's not to say they have no effect at all, especially since cattle are typically injected with a whole cocktail of hormones and antibiotics - at least one is bound to make it through into the human circulatory system. But given the digestive processes already mentioned and FDA approved safe levels of hormone in animal tissue, I doubt they are a major factor in obesity. At the very least, to my knowledge, there has been no study confirming a strong link between digested animal hormones and physiological effects in humans.
Other than that, I think you're right on. People need to stop making up excuses for not eating well or not exercising.