You seem to be getting upset over this issue, stonecypher. That was quite a tirade you had there, complete with two invocations of your deity and several attempts to insult me. I suspect that such amounts of stress over trivial matters is detrimental to your blood pressure, health and general well-being, but I do appreciate you making these sacrifices just to provide me with a moderate amount of entertainment.
There isn't a single definition there which doesn't require the ostensibly obsequious person to be bowing to another person's will.
Broken down by links: #1: Adj. 1. obsequious - attempting to win favor from influential people by flattery #2: Pejorative sense of "fawning, sycophantic" had emerged by 1599 [sycophant n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.] #3: Adj. 1. obsequious - attempting to win favor from influential people by flattery #4: obsequious adj 1: attempting to win favor from influential people by flattery [syn: bootlicking, fawning, sycophantic, toadyish]
I'm a behavioral scientist. An experimentalist. When working with behaving subjects one of the things that's harder than anything else is to understand the experiment that you performed.
I am a parent. I wouldn't know anything about working with behaving subjects. Misbehaving ones, on the other hand...
With the nutcase Ahmadinejad going full speed ahead with a nuclear arms program - and Obama talking about "multilateralism" rather than kicking his ass back to the Stone Age?
How would you suggest one would legally prove maturity?
I would suggest a similar procedure that is used to determine whether a person is fit to stand trial. Some sort of a psychological evaluation.
18 is not a magic number; it's a reasonable age to assume one is capable of making adult decisions.
I respectfully disagree. If it was a generally accepted number based on scientifically valid research, there would not be such a broad variance among different jurisdictions. The age of majority varies between 9 and 25, age of criminal responsibility between 6 and 18, age of consent between 12 and 21.
And yet, historically men would get away with wife-beating and child abuse. We've come a long way, let's come still further. Tradition is never itself sufficient justification for a thing any more than the ability to do it. I'm not too impressed with Judaism, or any organized religion with which I am at all familiar.
I fail to see how your strawman is relevant to the issue I raised. I pointed out that historically, 13yo were able (and often expected) to assume responsibilities of adults. The fact that it is not the case today is not necessarily good progress. Equating that with child abuse and wife beatings is just silly.
I'm fairly certain most kids learn about sex well before they're physically mature enough to have it; I know I did. Understanding it and being able to make the decision to do it are very different. If you would let your 13 year-old children have sex with their peers, let alone adults, then you are the monster, you idiot.
So according to you, Spain and Argentina are countries of monsters (age of consent is 13), Not to mention Canada (which allows 12 years old to have sex with their peers).
Let me assume that, in spite of resorting to ad hominem, you are capable of reasonable discussion of complex and emotionally loaded topics.
The real problem is not sexual relations and age, it is exploitative relations (sexual or otherwise), which should be illegal at any age.
I agree that most modern 13yo lack the necessary emotional maturity and understanding and therefore an adult entering into sexual relations with them will be, ipso facto, exploiting them. However, that is a consequence of how society treats and shelters young people and not of their age per se.
So firstly, I suggest that, regardless of the law in your jurisdiction, you spend the time and effort to educate your children to the point where they are able to to give (or, more likely, withhold) their informed consent. It will be much better for them if they choose to avoid sex until they are ready for any consequences that may arise instead of being held back by an arbitrary number set by the legislation.
And secondly (and I'm going to get a lot of heat for that), I believe that a cookie-cutter approach is not suitable and instead of a hard-coded age, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, should the minor in question prove to be mature enough to make these decisions. After all, assuming that all people automagically gain insight and wisdom precisely on their 18th birthday (or a different one, based on their geographical location) is just silly.
Even if you were right, what is the intent of pointing it out? Are you trying to omit fact and rational thought by looking down upon his opinion just because he is, again assuming, under the age of 25?
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
I'm making an assumption that by that definition you'd still be considered a child.
I don't think it's worse, but I do think that having sex with a 13 year old is both predatory and pathetic, if you're a [physically] grown adult anyway. The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.
And yet, historically people of that age were not considered children. For example, in Judaism, males become entirely culpable and responsible for following Jewish law once they reach the age of 13, and females once they reach the age of 12.
You, sir, are either trolling or have just arrived on this planet. For the sake of the discussion I'll assume the second option, but please be advised that my arguments are homo-centric and only pertain to Terra.
I see no reason for a Civilized society to require guns.
Please give me a real-world example of what you consider "a Civilized society".
What is freedom?? Is it being free to do anything you wish??Cut that tree down??Forcibly Mate with that Woman because hey she looked good??Bear Arms??
Some say that freedom is the right to do anything you wish as long as you don't infringe on others' rights to do the same. However, it is a problematic definition. It helps if you view "freedom" not as a state but as a process that tries to maximize a weighted average of rights.
Regarding your example: As long as you have a right to bear a penis you'll have the ability to "Forcibly Mate with that Woman". Unless the government installs a microchip which only allows you to achieve erection when copulating with a pre-approved mate but that, you must agree, can hardly be called "freedom", even by you.
Or is freedom something that enables you to be free of Fear?Of walking down that street?Of someone breaking into your home ??Of being able to walk down the street / park / Shop / School??
A free society, "civilized" or otherwise, can never guarantee your safety. It can impose undesirable consequences for those that compromise it, but that involves a post-factum action that will not help you much if someone is willing to overlook them.
Therefore, a free society must not take away your ability to defend yourself and others from the perils that you mentioned.
If your definition of Freedom is the second one;then we require a society with rules.The rule can be a small family rule that i come home before 11 PM and we keep each other informed when leaving house??It can be community based such as not leaving garbage strewn around. It can be more significant such as laws outlawing violence against another person. Whenever a number of organisms come together they need to follow a set of rules.sometimes they are simple and are understood easily.Sometimes they are complex and need to be codified.
We currently have such rules in (almost) every country on this planet. Most (all?) have codexes so large and convoluted that no single person can know and understand them all, even if they devote their entire lifetime to the process of studying them. Yet I challenge you to provide one example of a 100% crime-free community that can scale to a reasonable size.
Disclaimer: Posting from Canada, which I consider not to be "free" in an absolute sense but "free-er" than most alternatives.
# Server-side Sieve filtering/sorting # File storage, optionally Web-accessible (I use this to serve up a simple, static-only Web site) # Various authentication options (reduced-access password, one-time logins, passwords via SMS, etc.) # Teh Google is not reading your mail, so you can put your tin-foil hat away:-)
# Friendly and knowledgeable support by real live technical people. That alone is, IMHO, worth the price of admission.
I used (still use) various free email providers. I also had a free FM account. Currently I use a *paid* FM account for 95% of my email needs and also use it to manage the DNS entries for my domain.
Maybe Google try not to be evil but FM work really hard to be good.
This is one where I believe that no amount of logic and reasonable precedent will matter. The court will simply not invalidate the basis of an existing industry and it has nothing to do with corruption. No quantity of shine can alter the fundamental nature of this complaint. It won't happen, don't get excited.
I'll take it one step forward and assert that any change that intends to shift the current balance of power between the "haves" and the "have nots" toward the letter will either never happen or will happen in such a way that it will achieve the opposite result.
The security theater is not the only one we have. There's also the democracy theater, the justice theater, etc. You name it...
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be getting upset over this issue, stonecypher. That was quite a tirade you had there, complete with two invocations of your deity and several attempts to insult me. I suspect that such amounts of stress over trivial matters is detrimental to your blood pressure, health and general well-being, but I do appreciate you making these sacrifices just to provide me with a moderate amount of entertainment.
Broken down by links:
#1: Adj. 1. obsequious - attempting to win favor from influential people by flattery
#2: Pejorative sense of "fawning, sycophantic" had emerged by 1599 [sycophant n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.]
#3: Adj. 1. obsequious - attempting to win favor from influential people by flattery
#4: obsequious adj 1: attempting to win favor from influential people by flattery [syn: bootlicking, fawning, sycophantic, toadyish]
I am a parent. I wouldn't know anything about working with behaving subjects. Misbehaving ones, on the other hand...
Please name the country.
Dictionary disagrees, both are correct:
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Obsequious
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsequious
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obsequious
http://www.dictionary.net/obsequious
John Crichton, is that you?
Having written and maintained parts of that code, I can attest that at least for some online gambling applications that is definitely not the case.
I'd love to get it and the other MSR Cambridge tools as Paint.NET plug-ins.
Should have said "the Republicans". Mea culpa.
How intimately familiar should I be with the constitution of every foreign (for me) country?
... collateral damages be damned.
Ousting GWB.
I would suggest a similar procedure that is used to determine whether a person is fit to stand trial. Some sort of a psychological evaluation.
I respectfully disagree. If it was a generally accepted number based on scientifically valid research, there would not be such a broad variance among different jurisdictions. The age of majority varies between 9 and 25, age of criminal responsibility between 6 and 18, age of consent between 12 and 21.
I fail to see how your strawman is relevant to the issue I raised. I pointed out that historically, 13yo were able (and often expected) to assume responsibilities of adults. The fact that it is not the case today is not necessarily good progress. Equating that with child abuse and wife beatings is just silly.
>> I'm 35 and an adult no matter how you look at, sexual maturity (14), legal maturity (18), or mental maturity (25).
I'm considering your suggestion that:
>> I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
According to it, you can only claim adulthood if you are female.
Not to mention that your figure of 15 is off:
Less than 10% of U.S. girls start to menstruate before 11 years of age, and 90% of all US girls are menstruating by 13.75 years of age, with a median age of 12.43 years.
So according to you, Spain and Argentina are countries of monsters (age of consent is 13), Not to mention Canada (which allows 12 years old to have sex with their peers).
Let me assume that, in spite of resorting to ad hominem, you are capable of reasonable discussion of complex and emotionally loaded topics.
The real problem is not sexual relations and age, it is exploitative relations (sexual or otherwise), which should be illegal at any age.
I agree that most modern 13yo lack the necessary emotional maturity and understanding and therefore an adult entering into sexual relations with them will be, ipso facto, exploiting them. However, that is a consequence of how society treats and shelters young people and not of their age per se.
So firstly, I suggest that, regardless of the law in your jurisdiction, you spend the time and effort to educate your children to the point where they are able to to give (or, more likely, withhold) their informed consent. It will be much better for them if they choose to avoid sex until they are ready for any consequences that may arise instead of being held back by an arbitrary number set by the legislation.
And secondly (and I'm going to get a lot of heat for that), I believe that a cookie-cutter approach is not suitable and instead of a hard-coded age, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, should the minor in question prove to be mature enough to make these decisions. After all, assuming that all people automagically gain insight and wisdom precisely on their 18th birthday (or a different one, based on their geographical location) is just silly.
No, I am assuming that he is male.
I'm making an assumption that by that definition you'd still be considered a child.
And yet, historically people of that age were not considered children. For example, in Judaism, males become entirely culpable and responsible for following Jewish law once they reach the age of 13, and females once they reach the age of 12.
The current purpose of the patent system is to create artificial barriers to entry.
You, sir, are either trolling or have just arrived on this planet.
For the sake of the discussion I'll assume the second option, but please be advised that my arguments are homo-centric and only pertain to Terra.
I see no reason for a Civilized society to require guns.
Please give me a real-world example of what you consider "a Civilized society".
What is freedom?? Is it being free to do anything you wish??Cut that tree down??Forcibly Mate with that Woman because hey she looked good??Bear Arms??
Some say that freedom is the right to do anything you wish as long as you don't infringe on others' rights to do the same. However, it is a problematic definition. It helps if you view "freedom" not as a state but as a process that tries to maximize a weighted average of rights.
Regarding your example: As long as you have a right to bear a penis you'll have the ability to "Forcibly Mate with that Woman". Unless the government installs a microchip which only allows you to achieve erection when copulating with a pre-approved mate but that, you must agree, can hardly be called "freedom", even by you.
Or is freedom something that enables you to be free of Fear?Of walking down that street?Of someone breaking into your home ??Of being able to walk down the street / park / Shop / School??
A free society, "civilized" or otherwise, can never guarantee your safety. It can impose undesirable consequences for those that compromise it, but that involves a post-factum action that will not help you much if someone is willing to overlook them.
Therefore, a free society must not take away your ability to defend yourself and others from the perils that you mentioned.
If your definition of Freedom is the second one;then we require a society with rules.The rule can be a small family rule that i come home before 11 PM and we keep each other informed when leaving house??It can be community based such as not leaving garbage strewn around. It can be more significant such as laws outlawing violence against another person. Whenever a number of organisms come together they need to follow a set of rules.sometimes they are simple and are understood easily.Sometimes they are complex and need to be codified.
We currently have such rules in (almost) every country on this planet. Most (all?) have codexes so large and convoluted that no single person can know and understand them all, even if they devote their entire lifetime to the process of studying them. Yet I challenge you to provide one example of a 100% crime-free community that can scale to a reasonable size.
Disclaimer: Posting from Canada, which I consider not to be "free" in an absolute sense but "free-er" than most alternatives.
Ouch.
Only if you consider trust to be a Boolean flag.
Are there plans for Tomato to support 802.11n routers?
# Friendly and knowledgeable support by real live technical people.
That alone is, IMHO, worth the price of admission.
I used (still use) various free email providers. I also had a free FM account.
Currently I use a *paid* FM account for 95% of my email needs and also use it to manage the DNS entries for my domain.
Maybe Google try not to be evil but FM work really hard to be good.
I'll take it one step forward and assert that any change that intends to shift the current balance of power between the "haves" and the "have nots" toward the letter will either never happen or will happen in such a way that it will achieve the opposite result.
The security theater is not the only one we have.
There's also the democracy theater, the justice theater, etc. You name it...