So knowing about OS X hacks is cooler than having used Macs for 20 years? Hmm.. and I've never really 'switched' from Macs, since I was never really primarily a Mac fanboy, I've used them alongside my Amigas and PCs occasionally though. I still prefer Macs to PCs, but you seem like a bandwagon jumper to me.
Yep I can imagine bands who want to be promoted waiving the charges or even paying the stations to play their stuff.. it's a very sad way to be going. I thought that radio stations already paid a fee to be able to play anything they wanted - maybe that's different here in the UK too though. Or maybe you are allowed to play anything you want as long as you have a legal broadcast license?
I'd recommend getting an MP3 player =p if I ever buy a replacement stereo for my car I'm going to get one that has built in flash memory or can use USB mass storage.. at the moment I'm content with my 6 disc changer (and one in the head unit) whenever I can't find anything decent on the radio, though I haven't actually changed the discs since I got the car 4 months ago! I did buy a small FM transmitter for my MP3 player but the quality was appalling.. built in media players will probably become commonplace in cars the '10s (assuming we have something to fuel the cars:P )
I think that sounds kinda cool actually, sounds like the sort of place where you find fantastic mythological creatures, and people carrying kickass swords that are 3 times their size..
I think you didn't RTFA.. though you aren't missing much. It vaguely states a method of compressing information together without having any reasonable way to uncompress it again. That's what they need to work out before this will be useful. And the fact that he says things like "the startling truth" before stating things that aren't at all startling makes him sound like either an idiot or a salesman..
You get Jimi Hendrix on the radio? I don't know if I've ever heard him on radio in the UK:P You can't say that he has no talent or art to him, but anything gets boring if you overplay it..
sure, doctors maybe hand out medicine too readily these days as an easy substitute for counselling and other ways of dealing with problems. I'm on meds for depression rather than ADHD though. Also after coming off my meds before I had a 2 month episode where I had symptoms in line with OCD, which I realise now I've always exhibited in a really mild way, but during those 2 months it was pretty hellish. I'm on different meds now, I'm hoping that they won't have the same side effects once I come off them. A couple of wikipedia articles I read mentioned that the original drug I was on has elements that actually make depression worse, and the new one I'm on is the same drug, with those elements removed.. so I'm thinking that the part of the drug that was responsible for making depression worse was to blame for the OCD episode.. I did come off the pills a bit abruptly too, it was stupid of me (a friend had done the same thing and just was a bit cranky for a couple of weeks, but he was on different meds, and his 'depression' was actually caused by a vitamin deficiency after having part of his bowel removed..)
What is 'Clarus' then, oh wise and learned Mac user..? Nothing turns up on google apart from a greek god. Claris, on the other hand used to make a productivity suite for Macs, and I used to use it to do my schoolwork..
Sweet! You mean Need For Speed: Carbon is out on Linux and OS X too!? Not just ALL the consoles and JUST Windows on the desktop? Sweet, that means I can finally wipe Windows!
Do you mean Claris?;) And my Mac Classic was beige.. bandwagon jumpers are the ones that only started using Macs when they were funky colours.. I stopped liking Apple so much when they brought out the iPod and concentrated on that, but it's good that it made them some cash to get a bit more into the mainstream with their computers. I decided to get a Macbook Pro as my main work machine to indulge in a bit of nostalgia (though unfortunately there no longer appears to be even emulated support for 680x0 processors in the OS:[ ). Also nice to be able to browse the net without worrying about spyware (beyond cookies).
As someone who's taken meds for depression I'd agree that I did actually feel kind of 'blunt' mentally while taking them. I was still able to work properly, and probably actually more effectively than when I was just depressed, but I couldn't help feeling kind of stupid. Maybe that was just because I knew I was having to take drugs to make myself 'normal' rather than because it was actually making me stupid. I went off them for a year but now am back on them again (only a mild dose but the doctor was talking about increasing them). It's back to feeling sick in the mornings, and if the dosage is increased it's probably back to feeling dumb! The sad thing is that I decided to go back on them because I knew my depression was hurting my relationship with my girlfriend, then we split up 2 weeks after I started on the meds, so I now regret coming them in the first place! I'm just going to have to stick with it for others benefits (sure I may be smarter without them, but as a side effect of that, I also overthink things and end up paranoid that some unlikely explanation for someone's actions could be true, etc). Since starting back on a mild dosage of meds my attitude and outlook has generally improved, but that could also be because I've split up with my girlfriend and so no longer have the stress from arguing all the time (I broke out in rashes because of it, they're almost gone now though..).
This is true.. a lot of the laptops the Subsea dept have been buying turn out to only have 512MB of RAM, meaning that they're pathetically slow even with Core 2 processors, not helped at all by the stuff that HP/Dell preload on there! Thankfully my machine has 2GB of RAM to go with its dual cores - though as my job mainly involves network admin I think I probably have lower essential hardware requirements than all of my users! It's funny how people that don't know about computers (or people with way too much money/little sense) always want the latest, shiniest hardware. While I do tend to build my computers to a decent specification, I know that it's not worth going all out with an x800 series GeForce, or an FX Athlon (just using examples from when I last had to rebuild my desktop PC, which was probably 4 years ago now.. the PSU has fried on it and there's no point rebuilding it while I have my Macbook Pro from work!), I made do with parts that were admittedly from the latest generation, but not top of the line (think the processor was an Athlon64 3000+, graphics were GeForce 6600GT OC, 1GB of RAM). Users at work judge how good their computer is by how new the case looks. I've used the same case for my desktop since 2001!
Also your computer tends to be doing quite a lot in the background (especially with lots of 3rd party crapware/virus scanners/firewalls loaded onto it) rather than just running whatever app you currently want to be using. It's nice to be able to experience the full potential of one core in the app that you do want to use while leaving another core to handle background services, though I don't know if Windows automatically organises processor time to do that kind of thing, and I've never tried splitting my tasks over my 2 cores manually. I guess my system is nippier than my old single core one, though the thing is that you tend not to notice stuff that *isn't* there (ever got a shiny new graphics card and just been like "oh.. everything's the same but without the slowdowns!".. can be kinda anticlimactic!)
"If someone is ignorant, teach them, otherwise you are just promoting the situation.
I've tried, but you have a militant death grip on your ignorance.
You can't stop trying to claim that you know how to run everybody in the world's lives better than they do themselves.
That's idiotic beyond belief and a sure sign of a diseased mind."
I can claim anything I want. I just said it's a bad idea in the long run, and that's because it has much more potential for bad situations arising. It would be nice in the short term, but having a long term polyamorous relationship *sounds* like a bad idea, and nobody has said anything otherwise so far. People are allowed to form opinions and hypothesis before they learn more about something. I am open to learning more about it. You are being an ass who thinks that people have to experience something before forming an opinion on it. From your vigilante attitude then it's safe to say that you are american, and that you support the invasion of Iraq (maybe that's not the case, but it seems *likely*, which is how I form my opinions). It is unlikely that you have lived in Iraq, or that you have ever been a dictator, so who are you to form any kind of opinion for or against the invasion of Iraq. Similarly, how can you be allowed to vote for who you think should be President, if you've never been president yourself? How can you live each day if you've not already lived it, surely it would be too much for you to have to *think* about anything and deduce what the best course of action could possibly be? You picked up on some offhand comments I made while on a short browse of/. and expect me to go live a polyamorous lifestyle before I'm allowed to post any comments about it.
"Thanks for nothing shithead."
No problem, Mr Troll. You started off sounding like a reasonable person, it's funny to watch your 'reason' descend into "I'm better than you and I want to stop you from expressing your opinions on a subject I know nothing about". You are *not* helping if you are not willing to educate what you regard as ignorant people, you're just creating potential for arguments and negative attitudes towards yourself. I may try to clarify what I'm saying further in future though because obviously some people just don't take things in context.
"The traditional idea is that the woman is the man's slave and can be beaten or killed at will."
"You really are a deeply stupid person, aren't you."
Hmm.. I don't think I need to say any more. I said a few things which I still stand by, I didn't explain the context very well, at least to people who don't take things in context (like you f'rinstance), because you started going on about polygamy rather than polyamoury, which seems to be a 'postmodern' type of thing. Since this is/. I don't mind posting my random opinions, and they do seem to hold more value than yours, because you don't sound like you know what you're talking about either. Women are traditionally the subservient side of a relationship sure, but the 'idea' is not to just beat and kill them, the 'idea' in a relationship is to benefit each other. Just because wives/servants come under a man's property (something you think is the only way to be able to solve disagreements and so on), doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any love. You sound a bit bitter about the whole thing.
It's 12:35AM, I'm waiting for a server to reboot, and again I'm thinking about all of this, may as well post. First of all I don't even see how I'm being 'judgemental' here, but you'd think you'd like me using my judgement by the sounds of things. I can't even say that having multiple wives is morally wrong, as you pointed out that Jewish kings did that kind of thing, but I think they were rebuked for it anyway. Okay.. since you either haven't thought of these things, or have just been trying to kick dirt in my face for fun:
These are going to assume that you actually *want* to keep a relationship with someone, rather than just dump them at the first sign of problems, which I consider shallow. It seems like this form of relationships is tailor made for being able to just do whatever makes you happy in the short term, but lets assume not.
Firstly, ammunition for arguments. You and one of your partners is arguing. You will be tempted just to go off and see another partner who you are on good terms with. Sometimes this could be good as you will be able to come back later after having cooled off and apologised. On the other hand, if you are seen to be leaving for another partner at the first sign of trouble then the original partner will be even more pissed and possibly jealous. Unless they don't care, in which case I would again say that is shallow. You may choose to call it 'mature' though. I don't see the reason that both people would try and work through major issues if they have all these other partners anyway - if they're that bothered about making things work with each other, why do they have other partners? You could say that's judgemental *shrug*. Some people in poly relationships *will* be shallow people, others may try hard for all of their poly partners. Most 'committed' type people will be committed to one person though, leaving people from the in the middle to the shallow end of the scale being mostly in this type of relationship. No, I don't have facts to back this up - I'm simply using logic and reason, I don't care what you think about my powers of reasoning, I know they work fine from experience, and you don't know me at all.
Another thing, more people in a relationship means you have less time for each person. Maybe it wasn't you that said closeness in a relationship is not a direct function of time. Maybe so, but it definitely involves time. Spending time one to one with a person is the easiest way to get to know them. In a crazy example, if you had 10,000 partners (not including their partners), it would be impossible to get to know each one. On a more normal level, 2 partners is fine, 3 is still okay but starting to get more awkward to please everyone, and you are bound to leave someone feeling 'left out', if they care. I am being pretty simplistic here, one possible reason for poly relationships could be that one person fulfils you intellectually, one emotionally, one sexually and so on, but relationships are better if they involve more than one of these things, and women will tend to be less interested in the sexual side of things and more interested in being emotionally fulfilled and cherished (there are exceptions of course, but in general this is true). When you start taking into account all your partners partners then you have a lot of potential for personality clashes, arguments, jealousy, fights, whatever. It's more complicated, it's *more* likely to cause pain, and it is in my opinion aye baaaaad idea. Sure it will be fun, and it could work great for some people, but these people wouldn't tend to be looking for lifelong companionship, in my opinion. What happens if one person moves away? Do they go with them? Do they just sever the tie? It's all very complicated, and *more* likely to be hurtful. Get it yet? FFS I have to spell everything out for you and you still think that just because I haven't been seeing people simultaneously that I don't have the capacity to 'judge' whether this is a good idea in the first place. Not to mention the biological reasons that were shown in that article I li
I did realise later that you could be the person who said you don't take part in this lifestyle. That also makes you opinions pretty worthless by your reasoning, because you don't really know that it 'works'. I've been thinking about it all (as usual), and it just makes a joke of the traditional idea of love. I can't imagine wanting to have other relationships if I really loved someone, in fact I largely tend to stop finding other people attractive when I'm in 'love' with someone.
u suggesting that lawyers and judges should spend a few years being a criminal before they're allowed to become lawyers? Bit of an extreme example, but I don't have to be a 'poly for a few years' to decide whether or not it would work. I have flaws, as do anyone, and I still consider myself to have my integrity. You don't have to know facts to have an opinion, though yes you have to know them to have what you would consider a 'valid' one. I keep on talking because when people get all abusive in their attitude like you are doing then it pisses me off and I feel I have to justify my position. Because there are reasons for me having them. I gave the reasons but you still don't think they are valid, so you just are incapable of using your mental functions to draw conclusions without experiencing everything firsthand it appears, so somehow I don't think I'm the one that's immature.. (yes it was immature to say that too, I'm having too much fun here, maybe I really am turning into a troll). This is Slashdot, most people here spout their opinions without knowing anything about the subject, at least I listen to other opinions and try to take them on board. You don't seem to know anything about polys yourself cuz you haven't actually said anything other than people can be 'happy' in that lifestyle. People can be happy for a short while being promiscuous, but I've never heard of that lifestyle ultimately making people happy, because it doesn't have any permanency. Keep slagging me off for being an ignorant cretin all you want I guess, I am entitled to my opinion, and I am considering things that you don't seem to understand, you just like being some kind of vigilante thought police o_0 I don't want to STFU about it because I have been learning from other people, but you can't seem to get over yourself and do something to improve the situation rather than just complain about it? If someone is ignorant, teach them, otherwise you are just promoting the situation. There will be plenty of things in life which you think you have a valid opinion on, but you'd find out that you were completely wrong if you learned about them *shakes head*, you just won't know what they are until someone points it out. And still, to me, and to *all* of the people I know, Christian and non Christian, and anyone else brought up with traditional ideas of relationships (which I get you're pointing out is just a society thing), this really isn't something that would make them 'happy'. Plenty of people would joke about it but in the end they just want one person to love. Taking the permanent companionate love element out of a romantic relationship means it becomes pretty much all just about sex and having fun together when things are good, and giving up when things go bad *shrug* if people want that then good for them.
Hmm. So I make some logical points and you ignore them. Like not being able to be there for someone if you have multiple relationships that you need to commit to. And you call me 'dishonest'. I always try to be as honest as I can, that's why I'm in this mess with you, because I say what I think. I said I never studied history, that doesn't mean I "dont know shit" about it, it just means that I found geography more interesting and we only had 2 of the courses at college. You'll probably be happy to hear that I'm a Christian because no doubt you'll want to slag me off for that too, engaging yet again in more hypocrisy of pretending that you play to the rules of all the Political Correctness bullshit about being tolerant of others, yet in reality you're still trying to get me to conform to your point of view (without actually reasoning). People have also had monogamous marriages for thousands of years too, your points about polygamy seem pretty dumb unless there are polygamous marriages with many males and many females (there maybe are, I don't know, but I've never heard of them, doesn't mean tey don't exist). Why should I keep it to myself? You probably would proclaim loudly some PC 'free speech' bullshit if someone tried to say that to you. You're also saying that my morals 'dont work'. You, my good asshat, are a hypocrite...
I am quite open minded, even though I do have my own beliefs. As a Christian I believe I should love people even if I don't agree with them. And as a Christian I know a fair bit about ancient history as I've read through the old testament a coupla times and heard loads of sermons (which obviously talk about history from a Christian bias so you probably won't consider any of what I 'know' as valid anyway). I gave you reasons for why I thnk what I do and you're like "so what" and stuff rather than trying any of the logic you thought was so important when you thought that I was too stupid to be able to understand logic. I've been programming for over a decade, my logic is pretty damn good thanks very much.. POLYGAMY IS OBVIOUSLY MORE COMPLEX THAN MONOGAMY BECAUSE OF MORE PARTS. MORE COMPLEX SYSTEMS ARE LESS RELIABLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE CHANCE OF FAILING. What is so illogical about that? I know that polyamory works for some people, but those people have different goals in life than me. I'm sorry that you find it so offensive that I dared to give my opinion and try to explain it even though I "don't know anything about it", though I don't know how you expect me to without informing me, and I don't see how people are ever meant to grow if they don't try to explore areas that they don't know about. Everyone is a noob at something. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time trying to convince you that I have a valid opinion, I guess it's because I'm insecure and defensive as I mentioned before, and as you obviously are *shrug*. Calling me dishonest is one of the worst things anyone could do to me anyway, because as I've said I always try to be honest. None of what I've said so far is 'dishonest' because I believe it. It's possible to believe the wrong things, but as long as you believe what you say you're being honest. *sigh*
"By definition you're going to be with different people at different times and will find it more difficult to support any one of your partners emotionally. That's just a fact."
If you don't see that's a fact, then you don't really understand what it is to support someone. That's probably why you want these relationships, so that you have less responsibility. I'm just saying that derogitarily cuz you've been pissing me off, and so I now think of you as selfish, pathetic and shallow, and I'd like to hear you say how having multiple relationships actually enables you to give more to other people to convince me otherwise, because otherwise you're just doing it all for yourself, and relationships work better if you try to give as well as receive.
*sigh* I guess I should clarify everything for you should I? "I don't think this kind of thing will have been going on for a long time" that was meaning in recent history. In western civilisation. It will still occur in eastern cultures, though it will not be 'polyamoury' either, it will be polygamy. I've got time to go through all your derogatory remarks just now, so I'll go read that comment I didn't have time to the other day, since I'm getting pretty offended at the way you're acting, though I know I'm 'ignorant' of polyamory, but what do you want me to do if you don't explain more? Go to swingers.com? There hardly seems to be a set of rules either, it sounds like it can vary from married people deciding they want other partners (presumably because their marriage sucks, and they were idiots to get married in the first place), to a bunch of friends who want to have sex anytime they feel like it. I don't care if I'm sounding immature here, I can be immature at times, and you have been trollish by saying that I'm trying to convince other people this is a bad idea. I'm saying it *sounds* like a bad idea, and it sounds like it will be bad for anyone in the long run, you've got around that by saying that all relationships hurt. Congratulations. Using your strange example of Solomon, I seriously doubt that there wasn't a lot of jealousy and pain among all his women. Also in older cultures guys used to take on more wives if their first wife couldn't bear children (or they'd use their maids), and that's hardly going to foster a happy relationship between the women either. It's totally different to the situation that other people seem to be describing of them and a bunch of friends agreeing to have multiple romantic relationships. It sounds more like the roman/greek empires where people just gave into their greed and lust in sexual and gastronomical orgies, though they also didn't think anything of paedophilia, or watching lions eat people for fun. I have been using my own knowledge of the world, which may be more limited than yours with regards to sexual and other romantic relationships, but the way you're trying to convince me to learn more about it really isn't helping, if anything it's just making me think you're a twat.
I get your point, but I don't think you have any right to complain about being 'judgemental'. My opinion entitles me to think it's bad for others too, you seem to be very offended that I think your way of life will cause you problems. If you're so sure then why are you getting up tight about it? You are trolling, because I've not tried to get you to change, I just explained why Iiiiiii think it wouldn't work, of course for people less jealous than me, it seems it could. Or possibly the way you're acting on/. shows why you need multiple relationships you do seem kind of insecure (overly defensive). I'm insecure too but I admit it and I can't readily change it. I still don't care about being overly ignorant of your way of life, because I really don't want to treat people like you. Sorry if there's any mistakes in this post, wrote it on me phone. I understand ur point fully, but you need2stop accusing and making snap judgements yourself, and understand if u want2say that other people can think what they want 'as long as it doesn't affect you' or whatever, then it doesn't mean that you complain about them being ignorant just because they don't agree with you or don't think something will really work. I have a different definition of what 'work'ing means in this case, that is the problem. Now, go take out your insecurities on someone who else. The captcha is 'bulled', how appropriate..
"You are trying to claim that just because you find a certain lifestyle to be fine for you that therefore everyone in the world should live that way and that their lifestyle choices are *wrong*."
When did I ever say that? I can't even be bothered to read the rest of your comment, I'm at work and I have stuff I need to do in the next 45 minutes. You are sitting there trying to criticize and belittle my *opinion* while claiming that I am wrong to hold that opinion, and that I'm trying to force it onto you. I am not trying to force it onto you, I've simply been trying to explain why I hold the opinion I do. Even if it's due to 'ignorance', I find it hard to believe that you aren't ignorant of a few of the facts yourself. If you want some slightly more jocular evidence as to why this type of relationship is bad for you, go here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/10/special_ru mpy_terrible_price/ . Now please kindly stop trying to troll me.
Solomon was a king, not really the best comparison to a the modern IT (or whatever) worker. It was quite common for leaders especially to have multiple wives and concubines in those days. I would point out that that was one male with many females rather than the type of polyamory we seem to be discussing here.. and the orgies in Greek and Roman times were just for sex rather than companionship, which again is different. Maybe there was more to it though, I never studied history (cue "you're so ignorant" comment).
Was thinking more about this last night in relation to how polyamory has more potential for pain and hurt; what kind of legal ramifications would it involve if you were married (sounds totally against the point of polyamoury to me, but someone here mentioned that they were married and do this, maybe it was you, can't remember) but in a polyamorous relationship, and got divorced? What happens if you have kids? As long as your other girlfriends/boyfriends are good to the kids and are there for them then that could be okay. By definition you're going to be with different people at different times and will find it more difficult to support any one of your partners emotionally. That's just a fact. It's maybe not likely that they'll both experience a personal crisis at exactly the same time, and you could say that they will have others to support them due to the nature of this relationship. But then that's why I say these relationships are more 'shallow'. You can't rely on someone 100%. It's easy to have happy relationships if you are never getting too close. If you're not expecting someone to be there for you, then you won't be sad when they're not there. You may personally see that as a positive point, but I don't, so it's all just down to preference again. I don't see it as a positive because I think trust is a big part of a relationship, and trust seems to be something that a couple of/.ers have managed to make a non-issue by engaging in these relationships. They like how they no longer have any secrets from their friends. Guess what? I can be honest with my friends without having to have all of us having open relationships! I was committed to my girlfriend, I was honest with her if I felt we were having problems. I didn't feel I wanted someone else to make up for her lack of interest in the physical aspects relationships. Maybe that's a situation where it would have been good to be engaged in polyamoury of course, because you can't magically make someone interested in sex if they're not wired that way:P
Thanks, I don't like being told that I don't think about things, because my problem tends to be that I *overthink* everything. I was trying to use sexual things as a shortcut to intimacy in my last relationship, where my girlfriend had told me that she wanted to marry me, but wasn't 'ready'. I was expecting getting more physical to make her feel more comfortable, but I think the opposite became true, because as a person she genuinely isn't interested in sexual things, she was hardly even interested in kissing! She'd always planned to live alone 'until she met me', but in the end I always felt when she talked about the future that she was going to be alone, and there were just a whole lot of weird things about her that I won't go into.. heh:S
The idea of having to do everything again is a scary one, my gf and I were contemplating splitting up as it seemed the best thing to do, but after being together for 2 years I just suddenly realise how much I was taking her for granted and started to see positives instead of negatives, but it was unfortunately too late for that. I still think fondly of her and keep having to remind myself that our personalities just didn't work together. She is now contemplating not ever speaking to any of her friends again (not really because of what happened with us, but I'm sure that had an influence), and is starting off doing that with all her 'complicated' relationships, of which I am one. You could say we're on 'good terms' but she doesn't want to speak to me. Very strange girl, which has probably messed up my own views on relationships.. I was thinking that it was me that was causing the problems in the relationship until I realised how much of an effect her not being interested in physical things (or anything actually.. can you imagine someone not being interested in a Wii? Even all my non geeky family and friends loved it, but my gf was pretty apathetic.. a lot of the things I tried to do with her ended up falling flat on their face) was having. Anyway enough about me, I am introspective as you say, the problem is that I don't just keep it all inside, I end up selfishly telling people.
I still think it's unfair to add beating into the equation. You can have beatings in any relationship, it shouldn't be a factor in deciding how any type of relationship is superior to others in any way. I was thinking about all this stuff last night and there would be benefits to polyamoury, and it probably is all just down to personal preference. For me I love having one person that I share something 'special' with, I'd probably be too jealous to be able to have successful polyamorous relationships. Though agreeing to have open relationships would take the jealousy factor out of it to an extent, but it also seems that there would by definition have to be less commitment and trust, because you can't always rely on the other person to be there for you? I'm the sort of person that needs security and attention. It takes a while for me to actually feel secure, but I achieved it with my last gf. I was totally shocked when things ended, I was naively thinking that we were actually still going to get married someday even if I didn't see that day coming anytime soon.
Slashdot Mirror
So knowing about OS X hacks is cooler than having used Macs for 20 years? Hmm.. and I've never really 'switched' from Macs, since I was never really primarily a Mac fanboy, I've used them alongside my Amigas and PCs occasionally though. I still prefer Macs to PCs, but you seem like a bandwagon jumper to me.
Yep I can imagine bands who want to be promoted waiving the charges or even paying the stations to play their stuff.. it's a very sad way to be going. I thought that radio stations already paid a fee to be able to play anything they wanted - maybe that's different here in the UK too though. Or maybe you are allowed to play anything you want as long as you have a legal broadcast license?
:P )
I'd recommend getting an MP3 player =p if I ever buy a replacement stereo for my car I'm going to get one that has built in flash memory or can use USB mass storage.. at the moment I'm content with my 6 disc changer (and one in the head unit) whenever I can't find anything decent on the radio, though I haven't actually changed the discs since I got the car 4 months ago! I did buy a small FM transmitter for my MP3 player but the quality was appalling.. built in media players will probably become commonplace in cars the '10s (assuming we have something to fuel the cars
I think that sounds kinda cool actually, sounds like the sort of place where you find fantastic mythological creatures, and people carrying kickass swords that are 3 times their size..
I think you didn't RTFA.. though you aren't missing much. It vaguely states a method of compressing information together without having any reasonable way to uncompress it again. That's what they need to work out before this will be useful. And the fact that he says things like "the startling truth" before stating things that aren't at all startling makes him sound like either an idiot or a salesman..
You get Jimi Hendrix on the radio? I don't know if I've ever heard him on radio in the UK :P You can't say that he has no talent or art to him, but anything gets boring if you overplay it..
Haha http://macslash.org/comments.pl?sid=6626&cid=11708 5 . Hypocritical bandwagon jumpers!!! Very sad :P
sure, doctors maybe hand out medicine too readily these days as an easy substitute for counselling and other ways of dealing with problems. I'm on meds for depression rather than ADHD though. Also after coming off my meds before I had a 2 month episode where I had symptoms in line with OCD, which I realise now I've always exhibited in a really mild way, but during those 2 months it was pretty hellish. I'm on different meds now, I'm hoping that they won't have the same side effects once I come off them. A couple of wikipedia articles I read mentioned that the original drug I was on has elements that actually make depression worse, and the new one I'm on is the same drug, with those elements removed.. so I'm thinking that the part of the drug that was responsible for making depression worse was to blame for the OCD episode.. I did come off the pills a bit abruptly too, it was stupid of me (a friend had done the same thing and just was a bit cranky for a couple of weeks, but he was on different meds, and his 'depression' was actually caused by a vitamin deficiency after having part of his bowel removed..)
What is 'Clarus' then, oh wise and learned Mac user..? Nothing turns up on google apart from a greek god. Claris, on the other hand used to make a productivity suite for Macs, and I used to use it to do my schoolwork..
Sweet! You mean Need For Speed: Carbon is out on Linux and OS X too!? Not just ALL the consoles and JUST Windows on the desktop? Sweet, that means I can finally wipe Windows!
Do you mean Claris? ;) And my Mac Classic was beige.. bandwagon jumpers are the ones that only started using Macs when they were funky colours.. I stopped liking Apple so much when they brought out the iPod and concentrated on that, but it's good that it made them some cash to get a bit more into the mainstream with their computers. I decided to get a Macbook Pro as my main work machine to indulge in a bit of nostalgia (though unfortunately there no longer appears to be even emulated support for 680x0 processors in the OS :[ ). Also nice to be able to browse the net without worrying about spyware (beyond cookies).
As someone who's taken meds for depression I'd agree that I did actually feel kind of 'blunt' mentally while taking them. I was still able to work properly, and probably actually more effectively than when I was just depressed, but I couldn't help feeling kind of stupid. Maybe that was just because I knew I was having to take drugs to make myself 'normal' rather than because it was actually making me stupid. I went off them for a year but now am back on them again (only a mild dose but the doctor was talking about increasing them). It's back to feeling sick in the mornings, and if the dosage is increased it's probably back to feeling dumb! The sad thing is that I decided to go back on them because I knew my depression was hurting my relationship with my girlfriend, then we split up 2 weeks after I started on the meds, so I now regret coming them in the first place! I'm just going to have to stick with it for others benefits (sure I may be smarter without them, but as a side effect of that, I also overthink things and end up paranoid that some unlikely explanation for someone's actions could be true, etc). Since starting back on a mild dosage of meds my attitude and outlook has generally improved, but that could also be because I've split up with my girlfriend and so no longer have the stress from arguing all the time (I broke out in rashes because of it, they're almost gone now though..).
I'm guessing it may be his main password!
This is true.. a lot of the laptops the Subsea dept have been buying turn out to only have 512MB of RAM, meaning that they're pathetically slow even with Core 2 processors, not helped at all by the stuff that HP/Dell preload on there! Thankfully my machine has 2GB of RAM to go with its dual cores - though as my job mainly involves network admin I think I probably have lower essential hardware requirements than all of my users! It's funny how people that don't know about computers (or people with way too much money/little sense) always want the latest, shiniest hardware. While I do tend to build my computers to a decent specification, I know that it's not worth going all out with an x800 series GeForce, or an FX Athlon (just using examples from when I last had to rebuild my desktop PC, which was probably 4 years ago now.. the PSU has fried on it and there's no point rebuilding it while I have my Macbook Pro from work!), I made do with parts that were admittedly from the latest generation, but not top of the line (think the processor was an Athlon64 3000+, graphics were GeForce 6600GT OC, 1GB of RAM). Users at work judge how good their computer is by how new the case looks. I've used the same case for my desktop since 2001!
Also your computer tends to be doing quite a lot in the background (especially with lots of 3rd party crapware/virus scanners/firewalls loaded onto it) rather than just running whatever app you currently want to be using. It's nice to be able to experience the full potential of one core in the app that you do want to use while leaving another core to handle background services, though I don't know if Windows automatically organises processor time to do that kind of thing, and I've never tried splitting my tasks over my 2 cores manually. I guess my system is nippier than my old single core one, though the thing is that you tend not to notice stuff that *isn't* there (ever got a shiny new graphics card and just been like "oh.. everything's the same but without the slowdowns!" .. can be kinda anticlimactic!)
I'm guessing it's QE I, or she would have said "two is disappointed".
"If someone is ignorant, teach them, otherwise you are just promoting the situation. I've tried, but you have a militant death grip on your ignorance. You can't stop trying to claim that you know how to run everybody in the world's lives better than they do themselves. That's idiotic beyond belief and a sure sign of a diseased mind."
/. and expect me to go live a polyamorous lifestyle before I'm allowed to post any comments about it.
I can claim anything I want. I just said it's a bad idea in the long run, and that's because it has much more potential for bad situations arising. It would be nice in the short term, but having a long term polyamorous relationship *sounds* like a bad idea, and nobody has said anything otherwise so far. People are allowed to form opinions and hypothesis before they learn more about something. I am open to learning more about it. You are being an ass who thinks that people have to experience something before forming an opinion on it. From your vigilante attitude then it's safe to say that you are american, and that you support the invasion of Iraq (maybe that's not the case, but it seems *likely*, which is how I form my opinions). It is unlikely that you have lived in Iraq, or that you have ever been a dictator, so who are you to form any kind of opinion for or against the invasion of Iraq. Similarly, how can you be allowed to vote for who you think should be President, if you've never been president yourself? How can you live each day if you've not already lived it, surely it would be too much for you to have to *think* about anything and deduce what the best course of action could possibly be? You picked up on some offhand comments I made while on a short browse of
"Thanks for nothing shithead." No problem, Mr Troll. You started off sounding like a reasonable person, it's funny to watch your 'reason' descend into "I'm better than you and I want to stop you from expressing your opinions on a subject I know nothing about". You are *not* helping if you are not willing to educate what you regard as ignorant people, you're just creating potential for arguments and negative attitudes towards yourself. I may try to clarify what I'm saying further in future though because obviously some people just don't take things in context.
"The traditional idea is that the woman is the man's slave and can be beaten or killed at will."
/. I don't mind posting my random opinions, and they do seem to hold more value than yours, because you don't sound like you know what you're talking about either. Women are traditionally the subservient side of a relationship sure, but the 'idea' is not to just beat and kill them, the 'idea' in a relationship is to benefit each other. Just because wives/servants come under a man's property (something you think is the only way to be able to solve disagreements and so on), doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any love. You sound a bit bitter about the whole thing.
"You really are a deeply stupid person, aren't you."
Hmm.. I don't think I need to say any more. I said a few things which I still stand by, I didn't explain the context very well, at least to people who don't take things in context (like you f'rinstance), because you started going on about polygamy rather than polyamoury, which seems to be a 'postmodern' type of thing. Since this is
It's 12:35AM, I'm waiting for a server to reboot, and again I'm thinking about all of this, may as well post. First of all I don't even see how I'm being 'judgemental' here, but you'd think you'd like me using my judgement by the sounds of things. I can't even say that having multiple wives is morally wrong, as you pointed out that Jewish kings did that kind of thing, but I think they were rebuked for it anyway. Okay.. since you either haven't thought of these things, or have just been trying to kick dirt in my face for fun: These are going to assume that you actually *want* to keep a relationship with someone, rather than just dump them at the first sign of problems, which I consider shallow. It seems like this form of relationships is tailor made for being able to just do whatever makes you happy in the short term, but lets assume not. Firstly, ammunition for arguments. You and one of your partners is arguing. You will be tempted just to go off and see another partner who you are on good terms with. Sometimes this could be good as you will be able to come back later after having cooled off and apologised. On the other hand, if you are seen to be leaving for another partner at the first sign of trouble then the original partner will be even more pissed and possibly jealous. Unless they don't care, in which case I would again say that is shallow. You may choose to call it 'mature' though. I don't see the reason that both people would try and work through major issues if they have all these other partners anyway - if they're that bothered about making things work with each other, why do they have other partners? You could say that's judgemental *shrug*. Some people in poly relationships *will* be shallow people, others may try hard for all of their poly partners. Most 'committed' type people will be committed to one person though, leaving people from the in the middle to the shallow end of the scale being mostly in this type of relationship. No, I don't have facts to back this up - I'm simply using logic and reason, I don't care what you think about my powers of reasoning, I know they work fine from experience, and you don't know me at all. Another thing, more people in a relationship means you have less time for each person. Maybe it wasn't you that said closeness in a relationship is not a direct function of time. Maybe so, but it definitely involves time. Spending time one to one with a person is the easiest way to get to know them. In a crazy example, if you had 10,000 partners (not including their partners), it would be impossible to get to know each one. On a more normal level, 2 partners is fine, 3 is still okay but starting to get more awkward to please everyone, and you are bound to leave someone feeling 'left out', if they care. I am being pretty simplistic here, one possible reason for poly relationships could be that one person fulfils you intellectually, one emotionally, one sexually and so on, but relationships are better if they involve more than one of these things, and women will tend to be less interested in the sexual side of things and more interested in being emotionally fulfilled and cherished (there are exceptions of course, but in general this is true). When you start taking into account all your partners partners then you have a lot of potential for personality clashes, arguments, jealousy, fights, whatever. It's more complicated, it's *more* likely to cause pain, and it is in my opinion aye baaaaad idea. Sure it will be fun, and it could work great for some people, but these people wouldn't tend to be looking for lifelong companionship, in my opinion. What happens if one person moves away? Do they go with them? Do they just sever the tie? It's all very complicated, and *more* likely to be hurtful. Get it yet? FFS I have to spell everything out for you and you still think that just because I haven't been seeing people simultaneously that I don't have the capacity to 'judge' whether this is a good idea in the first place. Not to mention the biological reasons that were shown in that article I li
I did realise later that you could be the person who said you don't take part in this lifestyle. That also makes you opinions pretty worthless by your reasoning, because you don't really know that it 'works'. I've been thinking about it all (as usual), and it just makes a joke of the traditional idea of love. I can't imagine wanting to have other relationships if I really loved someone, in fact I largely tend to stop finding other people attractive when I'm in 'love' with someone.
u suggesting that lawyers and judges should spend a few years being a criminal before they're allowed to become lawyers? Bit of an extreme example, but I don't have to be a 'poly for a few years' to decide whether or not it would work. I have flaws, as do anyone, and I still consider myself to have my integrity. You don't have to know facts to have an opinion, though yes you have to know them to have what you would consider a 'valid' one. I keep on talking because when people get all abusive in their attitude like you are doing then it pisses me off and I feel I have to justify my position. Because there are reasons for me having them. I gave the reasons but you still don't think they are valid, so you just are incapable of using your mental functions to draw conclusions without experiencing everything firsthand it appears, so somehow I don't think I'm the one that's immature.. (yes it was immature to say that too, I'm having too much fun here, maybe I really am turning into a troll). This is Slashdot, most people here spout their opinions without knowing anything about the subject, at least I listen to other opinions and try to take them on board. You don't seem to know anything about polys yourself cuz you haven't actually said anything other than people can be 'happy' in that lifestyle. People can be happy for a short while being promiscuous, but I've never heard of that lifestyle ultimately making people happy, because it doesn't have any permanency. Keep slagging me off for being an ignorant cretin all you want I guess, I am entitled to my opinion, and I am considering things that you don't seem to understand, you just like being some kind of vigilante thought police o_0 I don't want to STFU about it because I have been learning from other people, but you can't seem to get over yourself and do something to improve the situation rather than just complain about it? If someone is ignorant, teach them, otherwise you are just promoting the situation. There will be plenty of things in life which you think you have a valid opinion on, but you'd find out that you were completely wrong if you learned about them *shakes head*, you just won't know what they are until someone points it out. And still, to me, and to *all* of the people I know, Christian and non Christian, and anyone else brought up with traditional ideas of relationships (which I get you're pointing out is just a society thing), this really isn't something that would make them 'happy'. Plenty of people would joke about it but in the end they just want one person to love. Taking the permanent companionate love element out of a romantic relationship means it becomes pretty much all just about sex and having fun together when things are good, and giving up when things go bad *shrug* if people want that then good for them.
Hmm. So I make some logical points and you ignore them. Like not being able to be there for someone if you have multiple relationships that you need to commit to. And you call me 'dishonest'. I always try to be as honest as I can, that's why I'm in this mess with you, because I say what I think. I said I never studied history, that doesn't mean I "dont know shit" about it, it just means that I found geography more interesting and we only had 2 of the courses at college. You'll probably be happy to hear that I'm a Christian because no doubt you'll want to slag me off for that too, engaging yet again in more hypocrisy of pretending that you play to the rules of all the Political Correctness bullshit about being tolerant of others, yet in reality you're still trying to get me to conform to your point of view (without actually reasoning). People have also had monogamous marriages for thousands of years too, your points about polygamy seem pretty dumb unless there are polygamous marriages with many males and many females (there maybe are, I don't know, but I've never heard of them, doesn't mean tey don't exist). Why should I keep it to myself? You probably would proclaim loudly some PC 'free speech' bullshit if someone tried to say that to you. You're also saying that my morals 'dont work'. You, my good asshat, are a hypocrite...
I am quite open minded, even though I do have my own beliefs. As a Christian I believe I should love people even if I don't agree with them. And as a Christian I know a fair bit about ancient history as I've read through the old testament a coupla times and heard loads of sermons (which obviously talk about history from a Christian bias so you probably won't consider any of what I 'know' as valid anyway). I gave you reasons for why I thnk what I do and you're like "so what" and stuff rather than trying any of the logic you thought was so important when you thought that I was too stupid to be able to understand logic. I've been programming for over a decade, my logic is pretty damn good thanks very much.. POLYGAMY IS OBVIOUSLY MORE COMPLEX THAN MONOGAMY BECAUSE OF MORE PARTS. MORE COMPLEX SYSTEMS ARE LESS RELIABLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE CHANCE OF FAILING. What is so illogical about that? I know that polyamory works for some people, but those people have different goals in life than me. I'm sorry that you find it so offensive that I dared to give my opinion and try to explain it even though I "don't know anything about it", though I don't know how you expect me to without informing me, and I don't see how people are ever meant to grow if they don't try to explore areas that they don't know about. Everyone is a noob at something. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time trying to convince you that I have a valid opinion, I guess it's because I'm insecure and defensive as I mentioned before, and as you obviously are *shrug*. Calling me dishonest is one of the worst things anyone could do to me anyway, because as I've said I always try to be honest. None of what I've said so far is 'dishonest' because I believe it. It's possible to believe the wrong things, but as long as you believe what you say you're being honest. *sigh*
"By definition you're going to be with different people at different times and will find it more difficult to support any one of your partners emotionally. That's just a fact."
If you don't see that's a fact, then you don't really understand what it is to support someone. That's probably why you want these relationships, so that you have less responsibility. I'm just saying that derogitarily cuz you've been pissing me off, and so I now think of you as selfish, pathetic and shallow, and I'd like to hear you say how having multiple relationships actually enables you to give more to other people to convince me otherwise, because otherwise you're just doing it all for yourself, and relationships work better if you try to give as well as receive.
*sigh* I guess I should clarify everything for you should I? "I don't think this kind of thing will have been going on for a long time" that was meaning in recent history. In western civilisation. It will still occur in eastern cultures, though it will not be 'polyamoury' either, it will be polygamy. I've got time to go through all your derogatory remarks just now, so I'll go read that comment I didn't have time to the other day, since I'm getting pretty offended at the way you're acting, though I know I'm 'ignorant' of polyamory, but what do you want me to do if you don't explain more? Go to swingers.com? There hardly seems to be a set of rules either, it sounds like it can vary from married people deciding they want other partners (presumably because their marriage sucks, and they were idiots to get married in the first place), to a bunch of friends who want to have sex anytime they feel like it. I don't care if I'm sounding immature here, I can be immature at times, and you have been trollish by saying that I'm trying to convince other people this is a bad idea. I'm saying it *sounds* like a bad idea, and it sounds like it will be bad for anyone in the long run, you've got around that by saying that all relationships hurt. Congratulations. Using your strange example of Solomon, I seriously doubt that there wasn't a lot of jealousy and pain among all his women. Also in older cultures guys used to take on more wives if their first wife couldn't bear children (or they'd use their maids), and that's hardly going to foster a happy relationship between the women either. It's totally different to the situation that other people seem to be describing of them and a bunch of friends agreeing to have multiple romantic relationships. It sounds more like the roman/greek empires where people just gave into their greed and lust in sexual and gastronomical orgies, though they also didn't think anything of paedophilia, or watching lions eat people for fun. I have been using my own knowledge of the world, which may be more limited than yours with regards to sexual and other romantic relationships, but the way you're trying to convince me to learn more about it really isn't helping, if anything it's just making me think you're a twat.
I get your point, but I don't think you have any right to complain about being 'judgemental'. My opinion entitles me to think it's bad for others too, you seem to be very offended that I think your way of life will cause you problems. If you're so sure then why are you getting up tight about it? You are trolling, because I've not tried to get you to change, I just explained why Iiiiiii think it wouldn't work, of course for people less jealous than me, it seems it could. Or possibly the way you're acting on /. shows why you need multiple relationships you do seem kind of insecure (overly defensive). I'm insecure too but I admit it and I can't readily change it. I still don't care about being overly ignorant of your way of life, because I really don't want to treat people like you. Sorry if there's any mistakes in this post, wrote it on me phone. I understand ur point fully, but you need2stop accusing and making snap judgements yourself, and understand if u want2say that other people can think what they want 'as long as it doesn't affect you' or whatever, then it doesn't mean that you complain about them being ignorant just because they don't agree with you or don't think something will really work. I have a different definition of what 'work'ing means in this case, that is the problem. Now, go take out your insecurities on someone who else. The captcha is 'bulled', how appropriate..
"You are trying to claim that just because you find a certain lifestyle to be fine for you that therefore everyone in the world should live that way and that their lifestyle choices are *wrong*."
u mpy_terrible_price/ . Now please kindly stop trying to troll me.
When did I ever say that? I can't even be bothered to read the rest of your comment, I'm at work and I have stuff I need to do in the next 45 minutes. You are sitting there trying to criticize and belittle my *opinion* while claiming that I am wrong to hold that opinion, and that I'm trying to force it onto you. I am not trying to force it onto you, I've simply been trying to explain why I hold the opinion I do. Even if it's due to 'ignorance', I find it hard to believe that you aren't ignorant of a few of the facts yourself. If you want some slightly more jocular evidence as to why this type of relationship is bad for you, go here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/10/special_r
Solomon was a king, not really the best comparison to a the modern IT (or whatever) worker. It was quite common for leaders especially to have multiple wives and concubines in those days. I would point out that that was one male with many females rather than the type of polyamory we seem to be discussing here.. and the orgies in Greek and Roman times were just for sex rather than companionship, which again is different. Maybe there was more to it though, I never studied history (cue "you're so ignorant" comment).
/.ers have managed to make a non-issue by engaging in these relationships. They like how they no longer have any secrets from their friends. Guess what? I can be honest with my friends without having to have all of us having open relationships! I was committed to my girlfriend, I was honest with her if I felt we were having problems. I didn't feel I wanted someone else to make up for her lack of interest in the physical aspects relationships. Maybe that's a situation where it would have been good to be engaged in polyamoury of course, because you can't magically make someone interested in sex if they're not wired that way :P
Was thinking more about this last night in relation to how polyamory has more potential for pain and hurt; what kind of legal ramifications would it involve if you were married (sounds totally against the point of polyamoury to me, but someone here mentioned that they were married and do this, maybe it was you, can't remember) but in a polyamorous relationship, and got divorced? What happens if you have kids? As long as your other girlfriends/boyfriends are good to the kids and are there for them then that could be okay. By definition you're going to be with different people at different times and will find it more difficult to support any one of your partners emotionally. That's just a fact. It's maybe not likely that they'll both experience a personal crisis at exactly the same time, and you could say that they will have others to support them due to the nature of this relationship. But then that's why I say these relationships are more 'shallow'. You can't rely on someone 100%. It's easy to have happy relationships if you are never getting too close. If you're not expecting someone to be there for you, then you won't be sad when they're not there. You may personally see that as a positive point, but I don't, so it's all just down to preference again. I don't see it as a positive because I think trust is a big part of a relationship, and trust seems to be something that a couple of
Thanks, I don't like being told that I don't think about things, because my problem tends to be that I *overthink* everything. I was trying to use sexual things as a shortcut to intimacy in my last relationship, where my girlfriend had told me that she wanted to marry me, but wasn't 'ready'. I was expecting getting more physical to make her feel more comfortable, but I think the opposite became true, because as a person she genuinely isn't interested in sexual things, she was hardly even interested in kissing! She'd always planned to live alone 'until she met me', but in the end I always felt when she talked about the future that she was going to be alone, and there were just a whole lot of weird things about her that I won't go into.. heh :S
The idea of having to do everything again is a scary one, my gf and I were contemplating splitting up as it seemed the best thing to do, but after being together for 2 years I just suddenly realise how much I was taking her for granted and started to see positives instead of negatives, but it was unfortunately too late for that. I still think fondly of her and keep having to remind myself that our personalities just didn't work together. She is now contemplating not ever speaking to any of her friends again (not really because of what happened with us, but I'm sure that had an influence), and is starting off doing that with all her 'complicated' relationships, of which I am one. You could say we're on 'good terms' but she doesn't want to speak to me. Very strange girl, which has probably messed up my own views on relationships.. I was thinking that it was me that was causing the problems in the relationship until I realised how much of an effect her not being interested in physical things (or anything actually.. can you imagine someone not being interested in a Wii? Even all my non geeky family and friends loved it, but my gf was pretty apathetic.. a lot of the things I tried to do with her ended up falling flat on their face) was having. Anyway enough about me, I am introspective as you say, the problem is that I don't just keep it all inside, I end up selfishly telling people.
I still think it's unfair to add beating into the equation. You can have beatings in any relationship, it shouldn't be a factor in deciding how any type of relationship is superior to others in any way. I was thinking about all this stuff last night and there would be benefits to polyamoury, and it probably is all just down to personal preference. For me I love having one person that I share something 'special' with, I'd probably be too jealous to be able to have successful polyamorous relationships. Though agreeing to have open relationships would take the jealousy factor out of it to an extent, but it also seems that there would by definition have to be less commitment and trust, because you can't always rely on the other person to be there for you? I'm the sort of person that needs security and attention. It takes a while for me to actually feel secure, but I achieved it with my last gf. I was totally shocked when things ended, I was naively thinking that we were actually still going to get married someday even if I didn't see that day coming anytime soon.