I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school for 8 years with nuns, the whole bit. They don't teach you this stuff. They don't teach real science. They don't teach you anything about other religions, or that there even are other religions.
That may have been the case when you went to school, but it's certainly changed. I also went to Catholic schools, and we were taught evolution in biology class, but not creationism. We learned that in our religion classes, but as an analogy. In fact, my senior religion class covered all the scientific inaccuracies with the Genesis account.
We also did learn about other religions, and where they differed from Catholic doctrine. It did still have a definite bias towards the Catholic way being better than the others, but they were even up front about that bias.
Of course, this is only representative of two Catholic high schools (my sisters went to a different school, and were taught the same stuff). It may be different elsewhere.
Yes, I was surprised to see my representative vote against this. He claims Republican, but he's a pure neo-con. I'm sending a thank you note, and anyone else who's against this bill should do the same.
I was also absolutely shocked to see the total breakdown of the vote. I was expecting almost straight party lines.
... I mumble something about being a Libertarian and change the subject.
Don't be afraid to admit it! There are tons of us out there, and you'd especially be surprised how many people have told me they're leaning Libertarian now, after being a life-long Republican. Plus, our candidate, Bob Barr, has been speaking out against this bailout crap all along.
Go ahead and say it with me: My name's ____, and I'm proud to be a Libertarian.
Disclaimer: I am a member of the Executive Committee for my state's Libertarian Party.
It has been accepted (**) Catholic doctrine for at least fifty years.
-- snip --
(**) It is officially permitted but not required.
Can someone PLEASE point me to some documentation on this? I've always heard it, but I want something official I can print out and show to a few family members.
Here in KY, there are an insanely high number of people who literally want gambling illegal for religious reasons. It's what the last Republican governor ran on for re-election. Luckily he was beaten, because he was a sleazy idiot. But he was beaten by another sleazy idiot, so it's just a case of same shit different dog.
Wait, this is a political discussion. I guess you can mark me redundant.
3. Gambling is still linked to crime in many people's minds. Kind of like how marijauna is a gateway drug, gambling leads to all kind of bad things. Las Vegas is still perceived as a place run by crime behind the scenes by these people.
The sad part is, gambling was a major issue in the last gubernatorial election here. And the idiotic governor who pulled this bullshit was running on a platform of legalizing some gambling to fund universal health care for kids. The GOP ran ads claiming that gambling is immoral, and leads to increases in abortion rates (no, I'm not joking, they seriously tried to promote that idea).
I like in Kentucky, and I'm heavily involved in politics here, so I think I can answer that question with some authority:
Gambling makes the baby Jesus cry.
You may notice that I made no attempt to disclaim that answer as sarcasm. That's because it's not. People here literally want to stop gambling because it's supposedly immoral.
To the rest of the world: I'm sorry for our idiotic governor. I promise to help stop his re-election in 2011.
You removed the important word: INFORMED. A child is not mature enough to fully understand the implications of letting uncle bud touch them in their "bathing suit places" and taking pictures of it. Therefore, children cannot give informed consent.
If my girlfriend and I make a fantasy rape video in the privacy of our own home, and then I share it on the internet, the privacy of our bedroom activities has been violated. But if both of us knew full well that it would be shared before it was shared, and agreed to it, then we gave our informed consent. It still violates an essential liberty, but it wasn't through force so I have no problem with it.
As for politicians' privacy vs. whistleblowers' free speech, that's an interesting point. My first reaction would be that by voluntarily entering the public spotlight (entering politics), politicians give their informed consent to the privacy violation.
I've actually seen some discussion on Freenet of how to disguise the traffic as well. They seemed to be onto something, but it will take a lot of work and a pretty good stroke of luck.
Yes, 0.7 does have an opennet, but apparently it doesn't connect to anywhere near as many nodes as with 0.5. If I'm understanding the parent correctly, his assertion is that an attacker would need to compromise quite a few more of your immediate neighbor nodes to do a worthwhile statistical analysis against you. Which, if everything he said in his post is true (I don't know anything about 0.5, so I can't evaluate) then he is correct.
I can evaluate one of his claims though. He states that 0.7 has difficulties with messaging. The only problems I'm aware of is some idiot keeps spamming every board he can find on Frost. I don't know any reason why that couldn't happen on 0.5, but apparently it's not happening.
So, is opennet the main concern that the 0.5 community has with 0.7, or are there concern about darknet as well? And I'm not asking about the questions about the standard darknet reference exchange method on Frost. I've heard those religious wars plenty of times, and understand the implications.
I can appreciate what you're saying, but continuing to share those photos is violating the privacy (an essential liberty) of those children without their informed consent. It certainly does pale in comparison with actually creating the photos, but I still consider it a violation of an essential liberty through force.
I tried it in 2001 or 2002, and remember how slow it was. I've also tried the 0.7 release candidate, and it's a vast improvement. Much more useful, plus it has an nntp-over-freenet implementation, called FMS.
The purpose of the map is to demonstrate sexual networks. In the case of a virgin, there is no sexual network. The full article is available at http://faculty.washington.edu/stovel/chains.pdf, she does have maps and discussion that take time into account.
As far as the big loop, I think it's less promiscuous than it seems as first. If you look closely, there are a lot of two partner people, and most of the branches are formed by someone with three. Considering this is an 18 month study in a high school, it's not unheard of for them to have two or three somewhat long term relationships, especially if one ended right at the beginning of the study.
I see what you mean about the ratio of males to females among multiple partners. The most I could find was a male with nine partners, but the next five highest I see are all females.
And the two Y shaped pairs and the V shaped pair (bottom right) are mirrors of each other with respect to gender.
I'd love to get the raw data, but all I've found so far is that the article appeared in the American Journal of Sociology, 110(1):44-99. It won an American Journal of Sociology Roger Gould Prize for Best Article.
I looked through this pretty closely (it's amazing what boredom will do:). I could only find one same-sex encounter, and it wasn't in the largest group. It's in the second to the right structure along the top. Right in the middle of that group there's a triangle with a female-female encounter. I wonder if that triangle was three separate incidents, or one very lucky guy:D
Anyone see anything else interesting? What's the highest number of partners for one individual?
Extra note: I just went and looked again before hitting submit, and I did find two male-male encounters. I'll leave finding them as an exercise for the reader.
I'm 41 and at most games I've play online, and they are many, I totally own the 13 year olds. I'm sure your mother would be proud. ... as she yells down the basement stairs to tell you that it's time for dinner.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't wait for that to take off. If I had the money I'd push it along.
Well, I could certainly see it causing some people to freak out and think it's a terrorist attack.
... I'd still rather not spend my last days in a riot. At least not one that I wasn't responsible for starting.
Easy solution: when they announce that the world's gonna end, start the riot yourself.
I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school for 8 years with nuns, the whole bit. They don't teach you this stuff. They don't teach real science. They don't teach you anything about other religions, or that there even are other religions.
That may have been the case when you went to school, but it's certainly changed. I also went to Catholic schools, and we were taught evolution in biology class, but not creationism. We learned that in our religion classes, but as an analogy. In fact, my senior religion class covered all the scientific inaccuracies with the Genesis account.
We also did learn about other religions, and where they differed from Catholic doctrine. It did still have a definite bias towards the Catholic way being better than the others, but they were even up front about that bias.
Of course, this is only representative of two Catholic high schools (my sisters went to a different school, and were taught the same stuff). It may be different elsewhere.
Libertarians: gun toting economists on drugs.
Yes, I was surprised to see my representative vote against this. He claims Republican, but he's a pure neo-con. I'm sending a thank you note, and anyone else who's against this bill should do the same. I was also absolutely shocked to see the total breakdown of the vote. I was expecting almost straight party lines.
... I mumble something about being a Libertarian and change the subject.
Don't be afraid to admit it! There are tons of us out there, and you'd especially be surprised how many people have told me they're leaning Libertarian now, after being a life-long Republican. Plus, our candidate, Bob Barr, has been speaking out against this bailout crap all along.
Go ahead and say it with me: My name's ____, and I'm proud to be a Libertarian.
Disclaimer: I am a member of the Executive Committee for my state's Libertarian Party.
It has been accepted (**) Catholic doctrine for at least fifty years.
-- snip --
(**) It is officially permitted but not required.
Can someone PLEASE point me to some documentation on this? I've always heard it, but I want something official I can print out and show to a few family members.
Nothing in the world would make me laugh harder than that.
Here in KY, there are an insanely high number of people who literally want gambling illegal for religious reasons. It's what the last Republican governor ran on for re-election. Luckily he was beaten, because he was a sleazy idiot. But he was beaten by another sleazy idiot, so it's just a case of same shit different dog. Wait, this is a political discussion. I guess you can mark me redundant.
3. Gambling is still linked to crime in many people's minds. Kind of like how marijauna is a gateway drug, gambling leads to all kind of bad things. Las Vegas is still perceived as a place run by crime behind the scenes by these people.
The sad part is, gambling was a major issue in the last gubernatorial election here. And the idiotic governor who pulled this bullshit was running on a platform of legalizing some gambling to fund universal health care for kids. The GOP ran ads claiming that gambling is immoral, and leads to increases in abortion rates (no, I'm not joking, they seriously tried to promote that idea).
I like in Kentucky, and I'm heavily involved in politics here, so I think I can answer that question with some authority:
Gambling makes the baby Jesus cry.
You may notice that I made no attempt to disclaim that answer as sarcasm. That's because it's not. People here literally want to stop gambling because it's supposedly immoral.
To the rest of the world: I'm sorry for our idiotic governor. I promise to help stop his re-election in 2011.
Apparently going vegetarian makes you repeat yourself.
You removed the important word: INFORMED. A child is not mature enough to fully understand the implications of letting uncle bud touch them in their "bathing suit places" and taking pictures of it. Therefore, children cannot give informed consent.
If my girlfriend and I make a fantasy rape video in the privacy of our own home, and then I share it on the internet, the privacy of our bedroom activities has been violated. But if both of us knew full well that it would be shared before it was shared, and agreed to it, then we gave our informed consent. It still violates an essential liberty, but it wasn't through force so I have no problem with it.
As for politicians' privacy vs. whistleblowers' free speech, that's an interesting point. My first reaction would be that by voluntarily entering the public spotlight (entering politics), politicians give their informed consent to the privacy violation.
I've actually seen some discussion on Freenet of how to disguise the traffic as well. They seemed to be onto something, but it will take a lot of work and a pretty good stroke of luck.
Yes, 0.7 does have an opennet, but apparently it doesn't connect to anywhere near as many nodes as with 0.5. If I'm understanding the parent correctly, his assertion is that an attacker would need to compromise quite a few more of your immediate neighbor nodes to do a worthwhile statistical analysis against you. Which, if everything he said in his post is true (I don't know anything about 0.5, so I can't evaluate) then he is correct.
I can evaluate one of his claims though. He states that 0.7 has difficulties with messaging. The only problems I'm aware of is some idiot keeps spamming every board he can find on Frost. I don't know any reason why that couldn't happen on 0.5, but apparently it's not happening.
So, is opennet the main concern that the 0.5 community has with 0.7, or are there concern about darknet as well? And I'm not asking about the questions about the standard darknet reference exchange method on Frost. I've heard those religious wars plenty of times, and understand the implications.
Has the freenet 0.5 community established a website somewhere? I'd like to look into it. Thanks.
I can appreciate what you're saying, but continuing to share those photos is violating the privacy (an essential liberty) of those children without their informed consent. It certainly does pale in comparison with actually creating the photos, but I still consider it a violation of an essential liberty through force.
I tried it in 2001 or 2002, and remember how slow it was. I've also tried the 0.7 release candidate, and it's a vast improvement. Much more useful, plus it has an nntp-over-freenet implementation, called FMS.
The purpose of the map is to demonstrate sexual networks. In the case of a virgin, there is no sexual network. The full article is available at http://faculty.washington.edu/stovel/chains.pdf, she does have maps and discussion that take time into account.
Bad form, I know, but I had to add this.
I found the article. http://faculty.washington.edu/stovel/chains.pdf. Still no raw data though.
As far as the big loop, I think it's less promiscuous than it seems as first. If you look closely, there are a lot of two partner people, and most of the branches are formed by someone with three. Considering this is an 18 month study in a high school, it's not unheard of for them to have two or three somewhat long term relationships, especially if one ended right at the beginning of the study.
I see what you mean about the ratio of males to females among multiple partners. The most I could find was a male with nine partners, but the next five highest I see are all females.
And the two Y shaped pairs and the V shaped pair (bottom right) are mirrors of each other with respect to gender.
I'd love to get the raw data, but all I've found so far is that the article appeared in the American Journal of Sociology, 110(1):44-99. It won an American Journal of Sociology Roger Gould Prize for Best Article.
I looked through this pretty closely (it's amazing what boredom will do :). I could only find one same-sex encounter, and it wasn't in the largest group. It's in the second to the right structure along the top. Right in the middle of that group there's a triangle with a female-female encounter. I wonder if that triangle was three separate incidents, or one very lucky guy :D
Anyone see anything else interesting? What's the highest number of partners for one individual?
Extra note: I just went and looked again before hitting submit, and I did find two male-male encounters. I'll leave finding them as an exercise for the reader.