Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Forever young?
Shirley Temple 7%
Elizabeth Taylor 1%
Natalie Portman 23%
Christina Ricci 5%
Jon Bonet Ramsey 7%
Britney Speares 5%
Chelsea Clinton 3%
Drew Barrymore 4%
Lisa Simpson 40%
Lisa Bonet 4%

Votes: 99

 No, you STILL can't look at Kate or Ashley, and if you do you are a filthy pervert.

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
May 15, 2002
As I gazed at Kate's naked back on the magazine cover, the unmistakable outline of her newly cyborg-enhanced breast clearly visible in space between her arm and thigh, I considered the dangerous implications of the pimp-like headline "Kate Olsen is all grown up now!"

"...And she wants to sell some sex appeal" is the rest of the sentence, I suppose. But if you have any sense of human decency, you will not allow your eyes to caress her soft and taut parts of her cleverly-presented young body with anything but pure Platonic care for her welfare as a child. To see her now as a woman, I don't care how old she actually is, is without a doubt the moral equivalent of enjoying child porn, and would therefore make you a sexual criminal deserving whatever controls society must put upon you to keep you from destroying one more innocent child. As soon as, in your mind, you take her out of the "off limits" category, you have become a child rapist of the worst kind, and you ought to know it.


More stories about Censorship
The cultural and economic benefits of smoking
Open Letter to Channel 4: Brass Eye Was Unacceptable
We're back!
In Praise of Censorware
Review: The Spitfire Tour at EWU Nov. 20
We Licke Icke
Remember. Do not eat today.
A Brief Explanation of the Adequacy Comment Ratings System

More stories by

Enough already! Ban programming.
Kill Yr Idols: God
Monsters Incorporated: Film Review and Merchandise Buyer's Guide.
Review: The Spitfire Tour at EWU Nov. 20
Are you Adequate?
Tolkien, autism, and geeks: peas in a pod.
The End of Hacking: A Holiday Un-Buyer's Guide
Foreigner hacker indicted for stealing US films.
Remember. Do not eat today.
Caffeinated mints, and getting into the body you desire.
It's time to surrender.
Teenage problems, teenage solutions.
Katie Olsen The latest craze in child exploitation by men filled with unmitigated evil is to skirt the letter of the law, while defiling its spirit, by photographing young girls fully clothed, yet unmistakably sexualized. This question has been answered in pedantic detail elsewhere. Suffice it to say that all adults of even the most minimal moral character know porn when they see it, and the absence of literal nudity does nothing to change the fact that child sexual exploitation is child sexual exploitation. Anyone who has a big problem understanding that should very seriously think about suicide, considering the alternative will be living with the guilt of raping a 6 or 7 year old girl some day. I'd rather be dead, I know that.

So how does this relate to Kate, now 18 years old?

The unalterable fact about her and her adorable (I said adorable, not pretty, not sexy) twin sister Ashley, is that they are both forever writ into the American national consciousness as children. They are "those cute kids from that one TV show." That's who they are in everyone's mind, and this universal typcasting is as much a fact as is the fact that men buy videos of prancing clothed five-year-olds to get their sexual jollies, the fuckers, and for no other reason.

This means that when you get your sexual jump charge from a Kate photo, you are, in your mind getting off from oogling a child's body. You know damn well you feel like you are getting away with something, don't you? You goddamn freak, you sicko. Who do you think you're fooling, anyway? is on to you, you child molester. The jig is up, so get off that downward path while you still can -- and don't think you can check out the uglier sister, either, freako. She's a kid too, and always will be, in your heart of hearts. They're both kids and you know it.

God help you if you ever have a daughter, that's all I have to say.


Oh ghod elenchos... (none / 0) (#16)
by tkatchev on Wed May 15th, 2002 at 11:03:29 PM PST are such a leftist.

Peace and much love...

How much American TV do you watch in Russia? (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 15th, 2002 at 11:18:03 PM PST
Are Mary, Kate and Ashley embeded into the national consiousness over there as well?

It's funny for me of them as almost adult. I really can't... The last time I watched that show must have been nearly 8 years ago. It was probably reruns at that point.

Then a couple months ago, I was using someone's bathroom and they had a huge poster of the Olsen twins hanging behind the toilette bowl. They watch you, silently judging as you pee.

Apparently the twins have a line of clothing that they promote these days.


No. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by tkatchev on Wed May 15th, 2002 at 11:33:51 PM PST
Who the heck are "Mary, Kate and Asheley" and why the heck should I care?

Peace and much love...

They've got their own magazine, (none / 0) (#19)
by majubma on Wed May 15th, 2002 at 11:45:55 PM PST
and since they're apparently not ingrained into your national consciousness as precocious 5-year-olds, it ought to be fine to ogle their pictures in said magazine.

If you ever feel the need, that is.

-- All information wants to be free, especially information about what you do in the privacy of your own home.

More to the point, (none / 0) (#27)
by because it isnt on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 03:05:29 AM PST
why are they called "twins" if there's three of them? Surely, "the Olsen triplets" or even "Olsen sisters" would be better? -- because it isn't

Correction (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 10:03:51 AM PST
"Who the heck are "Mary, Kate and Asheley" and why the heck should I care"

Its "Mary-Kate" and "Asheley", so they are twins. Why would anyone look at naked picture of them.....<shudder>.....They are spoiled brats, why can't there popularity die off already. "Full House" was ok, but Specials, Movies, 2 TV Series, toys, video games, and a cartoon series!? GOD, I HATE THEM!!


Hello (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 10:50:29 AM PST
Please get an account, so that when I see your name at the top of messages, I can ignore them before reading the message.


They don't have American TV there. (none / 0) (#28)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 04:48:50 AM PST
So when they want to numb their mind, they have to resort to vodka.

Or.... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Prof Jefferson Arthur C Kensington on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 10:32:25 AM PST
Do they resort to vodka to escape your american tv shows that are force fed to them?
"Random numbers are not really random, they're just numbers."
- Jefferson A. C. Kensington, 1993, "Lectures on Applied Mathematics".

Er no. (none / 0) (#37)
by tkatchev on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 10:33:46 AM PST
Actually, we have our own TV here that can compete on par with American TV as far as stupidity goes.

Peace and much love...

No Olsen Twin on that cover, dipshit (2.33 / 3) (#20)
by detikon on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 12:59:37 AM PST
Elenchos are you half retarded or what? Niether Mary-Kate or Ashley Olsen is on that cover. Hell, it even has printed "Katie Holmes". She's one of those girls on that faggot show "Dawson's Creek" on the WB (an ex-girlfriend's little sister used to watch it). Got it? Katie Holmes! She like twenty-something! She could pose in Playboy if she wanted to.

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are 16 according to Entertainment Tonight or Access Hollywood or some shit like that. Before you start laughing my cable was knocked out because of a neighbor's tree so I was forced to watch local crap if I wanted to watch tv at all. In case you haven't noticed the age of consent in many states is 16 if the other party is older up to the age of 18. If the other party is older than 18 (ie 21 or 22) then the age of consent becomes 18.

Personally I wish they would die in a freak accident with the rest of the Full House jackoffs. If you can't tell the difference between Katie Holmes and Mary-Kate Olsen I'll make it simple. Katie Holmes is brunette and the Olsen twins are blonde.

One last note. Yes child pornography is bad.

Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

That's not a bad idea... (none / 0) (#25)
by gordonjcp on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 02:41:57 AM PST
In case you haven't noticed the age of consent in many states is 16 if the other party is older up to the age of 18. If the other party is older than 18 (ie 21 or 22) then the age of consent becomes 18.
So, basically what you've got there is a legal mechanism which allows randy teenagers to be carnally experimental *legally*, without allowing cradle-snatching. In other words, up to a point, both parties have to be within a couple of years of each other?
Not bad at all... In Europe the age of consent is pretty consistently 16, though. which is simpler.

For more on this, take a look here... (none / 0) (#35)
by Prof Jefferson Arthur C Kensington on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 10:26:25 AM PST
A massive wave of STDs break out amoung teens in Georgia...

Parents are worried and an investigation begins...

Results of the investigation: Teens are having gang bangs and orgies...
"Random numbers are not really random, they're just numbers."
- Jefferson A. C. Kensington, 1993, "Lectures on Applied Mathematics".

Really? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 22nd, 2002 at 05:31:27 PM PST
Teens are having gang bangs and orgies...

You say this like it's a bad thing.

You sure do know a lot about the Olsen Twins... (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 02:48:55 AM PST
I notice you have memorized their ages and hair color, and use the terms "Full House" and "jackoff" in the same phrase. Perhaps you should seek professional help.

In any case, a simple google search shows that Kate Olsen is now posing for topless photos. Whatever her age, it is obvious Kate Olsen is marketing a sexualized version of her "sweet little girl" persona in a naked attempt to rake in as much money as possible from the closet pedophile market. This type of morally irresponsible behavior makes me wonder if European-type censorship laws might in fact be needed here in the US.

That not here either (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 09:33:23 AM PST
First off I believe it's Mary-Kate. Is it that hard to figure out? Shit you can't walk into a video store without someone talking about some video starring the Olsen twins. Yesterday I saw another video starring one of the other cast memebers. I think it was that Joey guy.

As for the link to the photo. That's that thin ass chick with the eating disorder (looks like it so I'm assuming) that has been doing all the Calvin Kline commercials for years. She's probably in her thirties now.

Correction to your post (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 12:07:17 AM PST
You do realize that picture is of KATE MOSS not Kate Olsen

child porn sites are hosted on lunix servers (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 06:49:39 AM PST
It's not because MS software is expensive, it's because lollipops arent free. (I suppose you're now going to tell me that Lunix doesnt exploit children, people exploit children? Maybe you should grep for the number of occurrences of 'kill', 'parent' and 'child' in /usr/src/sys/lunix. You people are sick!)

Corrections: (none / 0) (#30)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 07:41:44 AM PST
a) /usr/src/linux

b) You can't grep Windows sources only because you can't get them. I am pretty sure you could find many such examples there as well, though maybe deceptively hidden behind different terminology.

c) Bill Gates himself likes to give speeches to schoolchildren. Either he is a closet pedophile himself, or maybe only the kids are still naive enough to believe him.

Actually... (none / 0) (#34)
by Prof Jefferson Arthur C Kensington on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 10:22:49 AM PST
The Anonymous Reader is right in calling it "Lunix" even though he got the directory wrong. "Linux" as you and I know it to be is not the same thing as the ensemble that is being used to host those pedophile sites.

I know this is shocking but studies have proven that it is not "Linux" as we know it to be - a kernel upon which the GNU toolkits are applied, thusly, the correct name of the whole 'shebang' is GNU/Linux. The systems, as you can plainly see doing a Netcraft check on porn sites such as "" and "" is, in essence, "Lunix", a deviation of the whole GNU/Linux principal. They use proprietary tools from corporations that have as a primary goal the destruction of the GPL - they charge you, in some cases, "per use" fees and, in no way whatsoever give back to the commonwealth of programers.

Finally, I am frankly shocked by your assumption that billg is a closet pedophile, although he is not a person that I can relate to, he has never been formally acused of fondeling any small boy or girl in any manner in which they saw as abusive.
"Random numbers are not really random, they're just numbers."
- Jefferson A. C. Kensington, 1993, "Lectures on Applied Mathematics".

So what you are saying... (none / 0) (#39)
by detikon on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 10:53:45 AM PST
...LUnix is proprietary? It doesn't sound like it here:

"Lunix is a new free unix-type operating system for C64, C128, 6502 and other 8 bit CPU platforms with very limited hardware-- like 64K RAM."

Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Enough technical talk, you pervert. (none / 0) (#41)
by because it isnt on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 11:26:56 AM PST
t detikon can we get back to discussing paedophillia and little girls pls. -- because it isn't

Free, as in beer... (none / 0) (#42)
by Prof Jefferson Arthur C Kensington on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 12:36:11 PM PST
But is it free, as in speach?

Having access to the source code is not enough you know.
"Random numbers are not really random, they're just numbers."
- Jefferson A. C. Kensington, 1993, "Lectures on Applied Mathematics".

Source code access... (none / 0) (#44)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 01:22:25 PM PST all you need for all the practical purposes.

The rest are uninteresting legalities, best left for those who care.

If all the energy spent on bickering over legal minutiae would be spent on testing and debugging instead, the world would be better place. Maybe we should begin with a pogrom on lawyers.

Alright, but... (none / 0) (#57)
by Prof Jefferson Arthur C Kensington on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 09:43:52 AM PST
If you do take into account "free beer" x "free speach" (as I do), they are very different. I respect your opinion in itself but you must agree that, in the same manner that GPL is different than BSD, "Free Speach" x "Free Beer" are different.
"Random numbers are not really random, they're just numbers."
- Jefferson A. C. Kensington, 1993, "Lectures on Applied Mathematics".

Yes, but... (none / 0) (#58)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 09:50:12 AM PST
...that's irrelevant for the code performance itself, which is what at the end ultimately matters.

Why run Lunix, then? (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 12:39:44 PM PST
It's less performant than XP because (a) it's badly written[1]; (b) it's compiled by the GNU compiler.

[1] I dont mean the thousands of results for grep "fuck"; but I was shocked to learn how many foul-mouthed children have access to the official code base. s/children/programmers is my advice if you expect this Lunix thing to amount to anything. LOL

The GNU compiler. (none / 0) (#68)
by tkatchev on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 01:00:07 PM PST
The GNU compiler is very, very cool if you need portability to obscure platforms. (Actually, this is very important nowadays, with the proliferation of weird architectures like MIPS and EPOC.)

Peace and much love...

GNU compiler (none / 0) (#76)
by DG on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 11:21:16 PM PST
I figure you know about this tkatchev others might not, but the reason it's slower than say.. vc++ or one of those, is it isn't optimized for x86. If it was it would be really fast it just needs to be platform independent or it wouldn't be as popular. I like that it can compile on diffrent chips. I know what MIPS is but what is EPOC? A lot of handheld devices are made using MIPS chips, not as popular as they once where but people still use them in servers as well. The
fact is Intel is making it posible to compile everything with their linux based compiler that should speed everything up. I can't wait to test it
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

EPOC. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by tkatchev on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 12:06:27 AM PST
Actually, MIPS is also very popular in the game console world, seeing as it is the chip that the PSX and the PS2 are based on. (AFAIK, I think the compiler Sony uses is heavily based on gcc.)

EPOC is another RISC chip that is very popular for handhelds -- Psion, etc. use it.

Peace and much love...

EPOC is not a risc chip (none / 0) (#81)
by dmg on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 07:49:31 AM PST
It is an operating system. The Nokia 9210 uses it, as does the Psion Revo and Series3/5

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

You're probably right. (none / 0) (#85)
by tkatchev on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 11:12:44 AM PST
I wouldn't know. I've never programmed either EPOC or whatever chip it uses. (Arm? Don't know.)

MIPS, on the other hand, I've had some real hands-on experience with. (Not whatever they teach for undergrad CS, mind you, but real paid-for work.)

Peace and much love...

compatibility is not really an issue (none / 0) (#79)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 03:37:24 AM PST
compatibility with MIPS doesnt mean much if the compiler is emitting x86 instructions, obviously. gcc generates the same intermediate code for MIPS as it does for intel; it's the intermediate to native pass that does badly compared to intel's or MS's compilers. You can change the back end responsible for that pass without breaking "compatibility".

Close! (none / 0) (#83)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 10:02:41 AM PST
You're almost there, but you still don't know why absolutely targetted compilers are better than generalised ones.

There is nothing wrong with gcc's IA32 code generator. It has as many peephole optimisations as other compilers. There are some less-developed generators in the GCC, but the 80x86 target is not one of them.

What the problem is, is that the intermediate code optimiser is generalised. While GCC has a huge number of very good optimisations here (moreso than many lesser compilers), they're all generalised. GCC's optimiser is generally designed for chips with a large number of general purpose registers. On 80x86, this isn't true - there are very few GPRs compared to 680x0, MIPS, PowerPC, SPARC or basically any other architecture. So inevitably more data has to be fetched and stored than strictly necessary.

Now, for a good IA32 C compiler, you want VectorC. Don't use VC++ unless you're writing business applications.

they arent better, they're easier to write better (none / 0) (#87)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 01:54:00 PM PST
Here's the fly in your ointment: C is a "generalized" intermediate language which the intel compiler translates better than gnu translates their "generalized" intermediate language. I could be wrong; how much information is lost during the source -> intermediate stage?

It's not about information loss. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by tkatchev on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 02:32:46 PM PST
The point is that if you optimize some sort of intermediate abstract assembler, your code will be optimized for that abstract intermediate architecture. (Duh.)

So, if you're writing a one-architecture compiler, then you can optimize straight to whatever architecture your backend outputs.

You can, theoretically, have a second optimization pass in the conversion between intermediate and backend representations, but, personally, I think that it kind of dumb. Not only does it place a great burden on the backend writer, it is also a very dangerous bottleneck where things could go wrong.

Basically, it's not worth it. Higly optimizing compilers are not really used in the "real world", anyways, since "real world" bottlenecks are not in the computational resources. (Unless you are writing some sort of insane computational math, but in that case you can just use whatever arcane Fortran compiler those people use.)

Peace and much love...

FORTRAN, ladies, FORTRAN (none / 0) (#91)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 03:59:54 PM PST
Blindingly fast optimizing compilers are spelt with seven letters, not one. Of course, only engineers and scientists can cope with its enlightened syntax. Lesser men, such as the software pseudo-scientists are forced to rely on less evolved semantics, which lead to haphazard optimization at best.

Duh, (none / 0) (#92)
by because it isnt on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 09:12:44 PM PST
Fortran is only used these days by numerical scientists. Hence the focus on numerical optimisation. Your Monte Carlo simulation will be blindingly fast. Your realtime 3D engine will not be. Nor will your word-processor, your operating system or your Fortran compiler.

Fortran itself is very easy to understand, but rather annoying to write programs in, because of all the old-timers who stick with the fixed column format. They've bolted on free-form coding in recent years, and I hear you can even do recursion these days! Mmm, local variables, feel the innovation. -- because it isn't

Foul-mouthed programmers (none / 0) (#69)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 01:12:50 PM PST
are fairly common thing.

If you stare to the same code for third week, and don't yield to the temptation to use the terminology that the situation deserves, you belong to a zen monk temple, not to IT.

if you stare at the same code for a week... (none / 0) (#75)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 10:35:47 PM PST
you dont know what you're doing. What is the non-l33t non-infantile purpose for swearing with the keyboard instead of at the screen or the cat?

Anyway, fuck is Lunix hella slow. Damn! Not again. I knew I should have installed the latest Lunix BackSpaceKey driver before posting this comment.

Re: (none / 0) (#82)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 07:59:52 AM PST
It depends on the size and complexity of the code. I had programs amounting to tens of thousands lines of code, on whose I was working for months.

If you find something seriously brain-damaged (usually hardware, or anything other you can't correct directly and have to work around it), it is only natural to write it down in the code of a comment. I prefer when something really fucked up is commented as so.

If you have problems with backspace, check your terminal client setting. You will find the error is located between the chair and the keyboard.

Derogatory comments are a sign of immaturity (none / 0) (#86)
by walwyn on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 01:26:11 PM PST
For every time someone adds a derogatory comment on someone elses code I could go through their code and add at least 2 similar to their own code.

If something is seriously damaged it isn't fixed by adding:

// This is stupid because ...

to do so is immature and unprofessional.

If something is damaged... (none / 0) (#88)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 02:06:27 PM PST
...and all you can do is to figure out a workaround, it well deserves an appropriate comment in the code.

To quote:
arch/i386/kernel/mtrr.c: Some BIOS's are fucked and don't set all MTRRs the same!
drivers/ide/cmd640.c: These chips are basically fucked by design, and getting this driver to work on every motherboard design that uses this screwed chip seems bloody well impossible. However, we're still trying.

What would *you* say in the code if you'd have to deal with a brain-damaged chip, firmware, or API? Or are you one of the rare few coders with the patience of a zen monk?

The air is frequently blue (none / 0) (#90)
by walwyn on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 02:44:45 PM PST
around my desk. The person that originally setup my MKS login shell set the prompt to 'Grumpy', and 4 years on I still can't be arsed to change it.

The times I've added comments like those you quote are few, and subseqent software updates, or API changes have probably rendered them incorrect. They serve now only as an excuse as to why the code I wrote at the time is cumbersome, i.e., a version of printf on one system using a 16 byte buffer to format a double.

Then again I rarely work with 3rd party API's as we wrap most external interfaces in our own API's. So, for example, there are few direct calls to printf or its equivalent here, and our code intergration scripts flag up warnings against any usage.

You damned g**ks! (none / 0) (#93)
by First Incision on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 10:37:32 PM PST
Elenchos writes a thought-provoking article about pedophillic titillation in the mainstream American press, and all you can talk about is Linux, Fortran, and API's?
Please, at least <i>try</I> to think about something other than programming, if just for a day.
If you really are not capable of adding some switching stations to your one-track minds, please hold your discussions in relevant forum.
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Dude, (none / 0) (#94)
by because it isnt on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 10:54:45 PM PST
Linux is more erotic than the Olsen Twins. (Note: Linux is not erotic.)

Besides, people aren't really paedophiles if their paedophillia can be defined by an exact date. That sounds like the old 'pick an arbitrary age' rule for making things legal. So I must be 15 to drive a car... no, wait, 17 to drive a car and 16 to have sex... no, 14 to have sex and 21 to drink beer... no, 18 to drink beer and 16 to smoke pot. Who cares! It's not like the people actually affected by these laws get a vote! Ha ha! -- because it isn't

Pedophilia is defined by your mental image. (none / 0) (#96)
by elenchos on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 01:12:37 PM PST
Kate and Ashley Holmsen are children in everyone's minds. This is what makes those who drool upon them sick, criminal freaks. I think having arbitrary cutoffs is unrealistic. For example, a drivers license or a license to purchase alcohol or marijana should be given to anyone over the age of 22 (obviously you don't want any babies) who can pass a basic life competency test. Permission to use the Internet should work the same.

As far as comments, I disallow them. If your code is so poor that it requres comments to explain it, you need to extract methods, change variable names, and perhaps just give up. So many of these Lunix hackers think they can program but all they write is unreadable noise. Merely getting it to appear to funciton correctly is not enough if you want to get paid to write code, or have anyone in the business of making money use your code.

These problems, too, would disappear with proper testing and licensing.

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

You damned perverts! (none / 0) (#95)
by walwyn on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 01:07:53 PM PST
The article is only thought provoking if you:

a) Know who these "Olsen Twins" are.
b) Have lusted after them.

Lunix NG is GPLed. (none / 0) (#59)
by because it isnt on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 09:51:58 AM PST
it says here -- because it isn't

counter-correction (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 02:59:36 PM PST
a) /usr/src/linux

Wrong, I'm using distro #547982-B.

Counter-countercorrection and a hint (none / 0) (#47)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 04:01:48 PM PST
Your distro is apparently very very old.

Still, there is a comfortable solution. Ever heard about symbolic links?

It is you who is mistaken (none / 0) (#53)
by gNinja on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 12:06:09 AM PST
I generally do not care what computer illiterates think, but this is and people rely on the information they find here so I can't let you spread ignorant lies.

The original /usr/src/sys/lunix is a correct location for the kernel source repository. In the word of your own Linus El Torvaltos: "I don't know why the symlink business keeps on living on, like a bad zombie. Pretty much every distribution still has that broken symlink, and people still remember that the linux sources should go into "/usr/src/linux" even though that hasn't been true in a _loong_ time."

Every day I have at least one Lunix Loser come in and ask me to hire him. I'm a nice guy and I give them a chance to show me they know something worthwhile. You know what I find? Not one of them has the first clue about programming. They all think they're amazing because they can install RedHat or compile the kernel.

I seriously don't know what to say to these kids... I mean, what the heck is wrong with these retards? Lunix is fun as a hobby and all that, but at work we want to hire real programmers and we want them to program for the operating system with the most users. It's not that complicated folks.

Any non-retarded person can figure it out.

Oh... really? (none / 0) (#54)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 05:24:02 AM PST
I read your link. /usr/src/linux is mentioned there as valid location. What the link really talks about is the problem with header files version relative to kernel which should be relative to what glibc is compiled against - outside of the scope of this discussion. (Though I hadn't knew this. Thanks.) Still, it is clear that if you need one file or directory in two locations, a symlink is an unbeatable solution.

Linus is maybe right, but there is still way too many patches (ie, FreeS/WAN) that for their correct function want the sources to be in /usr/src/linux. So... *shrug*

The availability of good IT people is atrocious. The world is polluted with economists and lawyers and all that, but when you want a decent admin - regardless of platform - you have to either search for long time, or to get what's available and raise him yourself. (According to a friend, electronics R&D is in the same situation.) We have our server infrastructure running Linux, all our custom software runs on it, and our IT is seriously understaffed. Decent programmers and admins *aren't* available. So I still have to do the work of 3+ people.

It often happens that we ask a job candidate if he knows Linux. He says yes, of course. Then we sit him in front of the terminal, and he stares at the command prompt and is clueless; sorry, no X on servers. Guess if he gets the job.

The world is full of GUI monkeys, but to find someone who really knows what the machine does is apparently a futile quest...

Is this one of those trolls? (none / 0) (#61)
by gNinja on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 10:02:09 AM PST
No one could possibly be as stupid as you pretend to be. Trolling is strictly forbiden on

According the tkatchev, PotatoError fooled me into thinking he was boring, stupid and inane. I do not wish to be fooled again. The only solution, as I see it, is to ban you from posting to That solves the problem of stupid posts whether they are faked or not.

Silencing the dissent by force... (none / 0) (#64)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 11:50:53 AM PST what marks the totalitarian style of maintaining power.

Marginalizing the dissenting voices up to the point of being practically silenced is the style of maintaining power structures in so-called democracies.

What's the local definition of "trolling"? Can it by chance be "speaking against the Party line"?

You don't like what I am saying. Maybe because it goes against your beliefs. Why it should be a reason to silence me?

you have just described (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 12:42:24 PM PST
the Lunix development model. All hail czar Linyos Torvaldscholya!

If you don't like it... (1.00 / 1) (#70)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 01:18:00 PM PST
...release your own patches. You wouldn't be the first nor the last one.

And that is good.

how is it good? (none / 0) (#72)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 06:34:47 PM PST
my patches arent going to be integrated into Lunix, they're going to be integrated in MyOS. Arent you the tool that took exception to /usr/src/lunix because it wasnt lunix? You have no argument here; the bazaar is a Linyos' garage sale.

If it bothers you so much... (none / 0) (#73)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 06:46:12 PM PST
...make your own distro of prepatched kernel sources. Nut patches themselves are usually a better choice as they take less time to download.

So you don't get your code in the official distro. Oh, what's the deal? If someone will like or need the code, they will get your patches, modify the kernel, and have your code in it from then. Still *far* better than not being able to do any changes in the kernel at all.

you continue to resist the point (none / 0) (#74)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 10:23:23 PM PST
and it doesnt bother me, it bothers you.

Your point isn't. (none / 0) (#84)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 10:52:34 AM PST
If you don't like your work isn't admitted to Linus' booth, make your own booth next to his one. Nobody will chase you around.

What you don't like on that?

The cathedral model doesn't offer good alternatives to bitching. The bazaar model does.

Politics and Web Discusion (5.00 / 2) (#78)
by gNinja on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 12:42:21 AM PST
I'm not sure why geeks insist on seeing life as a political allegory. I suspect that the one to one mapping allegories have to real events and situations appeals to their autistic minds. However, as I am not a geek and do not suffer from autism, I do not care for the form myself.

Probably it is due to my love of nature, but if I were to choose a metaphor to describe this situation, I would pick, "culling the herd."

Herd? (none / 0) (#80)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 06:24:58 AM PST
I don't see the analogy here. Maybe because it is a bit difficult to attend the Cowboy 101 in the center of a city?

not so. (none / 0) (#62)
by nathan on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 10:59:04 AM PST
It's a lucky man who has a good lawyer or a good economist - just as it's a lucky software firm that has a good programmer. Good eceonomists are exceedingly hard to come by, wouldn't you say, Mrs. Attics?

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

"eceonomist"? (none / 0) (#67)
by tkatchev on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 12:56:28 PM PST
How unaesthetic.

Peace and much love...

Yes. (none / 0) (#101)
by hauntedattics on Tue May 21st, 2002 at 01:48:21 PM PST
Good economists are few and far between. What I wouldn't give to have an economist that I can call up when I need that perspective on a client company's business problems...

Oh wait, I already do. Never mind.

*self-satisfied hair flip*

Your distro is non-compliant, citizen! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by because it isnt on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 04:06:40 PM PST
Do your duty to your country, and report the authors of this distro to the Ministry of Freedom. Their failure to respect section 4.12 of the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard version 2.2 is an attack on the values of liberty and justice that we all hold dear.

If the Linux kernel source is anywhere other than /usr/src/linux, then the terrorists have won. -- because it isn't

Full House was a decent, wholesome show (none / 0) (#31)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 09:21:13 AM PST
though it did tend to whitewash that Babylon by the Bay, San Francisco. I don't recall ever seeing any episodes involving the homosexuals, pagans and drug addicts that tend to make up the majority of the population of that city, though the inevitable lessons (AIDS, Hell and fatal LSD overdoses) would have been awful intense for a G-rated show.

A. Rightmann

There was a homo on that show (none / 0) (#49)
by Narcissus on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 08:37:44 PM PST
his name was Bob Sagget/Faggot. Don't deny it he was gay.

Ok, who picked the flower???

no he's not gay. (none / 0) (#52)
by detikon on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 10:23:10 PM PST
Sagget isn't gay but he has admitted to being a huge porn freak.


Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

You'd love Holland... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by MessiahWWKD on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 11:17:40 AM PST
The age of consent if 12 over there you fucking pedophilic piece of shit.
Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

If you wanna stay in the U.S. (none / 0) (#51)
by detikon on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 10:21:39 PM PST
The age of consent in Hawaii is 14.

All sexual predators should be shot in the fucking crotch.

Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

i'm not oogling anyone *in my mind* (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 01:02:24 AM PST
I married a 19 year old when I was 35. I suppose I should be distressed over my salvation but at the time my thinking went "c'mon, how bad can hell be?"

Why so defensive? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by elenchos on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 01:46:08 AM PST
Nothing in my article referred to marrying 19 year olds. It's legal and basically moral. Stylistically, one wonders what it is that you fear from women your own age that you sought out one whom you could easily dominate, but that's not the subject here at all.

What nerve have I struck here? Is it a daughter? Little sister? Do you buy copies of kateandashley for the pictures? What's bugging you here, pal?

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

it's more a metaphysical torment than a moral 1 (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 02:19:29 AM PST
What nerve have I struck here?


You are a sick little boy (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 01:19:00 AM PST
Have you considered professional help, Los Nachos?

Platoinc? Do you mean to say Plato, Inc.?

Stop looking at girlie magazines and lusting after the little girls on television. Work harder at the maturation process.

Anakin Skywalker, "all grown up" (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by First Incision on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 12:36:28 PM PST
I think a more troubling example of this pseudo-pedophillia trend is the new Star Wars movie.

In a reversal of gender roles, the 20-something Amidala pursues the hot, young, teenage, "all grown up now," "barely legal" Anakin Skywalker. In Amidala's perverted mind, Anakin is still that cute little toddler.

I think Natalie Portman's brilliant portrayal of a decadent sexual predator is further evidence of her unlimited acting skills.
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Your analysis of the new Star Wars movie... (none / 0) (#55)
by hauntedattics on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 06:49:12 AM PST
is spot on. You can add an interesting pseudo-S&M wrinkle when you remember that in Episode I, Anakin was hardly a "cute little toddler" but an annoying little nine-year-old whom everyone secretly wanted to slap upside the head.

I agree (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 09:55:01 AM PST
Anakin was half the reason I hated Episode 1, the other was Jar Jar


Young Anakin (none / 0) (#71)
by First Incision on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 01:20:18 PM PST
I like him. I was expecting him to be all cute and innocent, but he was kind of a little smartass. It would make sense that the future Darth Vader would be a jerk, even from the beginning.
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Brilliant! (none / 0) (#56)
by Prof Jefferson Arthur C Kensington on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 09:41:52 AM PST
I sense pure genius in your post, congratulations on making such an outstanding, correct and shocking revelation!
"Random numbers are not really random, they're just numbers."
- Jefferson A. C. Kensington, 1993, "Lectures on Applied Mathematics".

Ironical.... (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 04:00:26 PM PST
that it appears to be the Olsen Twins in the "cinema" icon.

Even worse... (none / 0) (#50)
by clevershark on Thu May 16th, 2002 at 09:15:17 PM PST
Doesn't she play opposite James Van Der Beek in Dawson's Creek? And isn't he at least 30?

At least in 90210 they were ALL old...

4-th dimensional questions (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 11:14:49 AM PST
are significantly raised in this article. Specifically, does attraction to females of 18+ age exist because they remind one of what the USED to be (i.e. prepubescent girls) or, (heavens forfend) does attraction to prepubescent girls exist because of what they WILL BECOME (i.e. women) ??

I submit the possibility that attraction is to the entire 4-dimensional person, and that it may attach at any point of any dimension. This suggests that "breast men" are equivalent to pedophiles, and that we all are damned.

Dumb Writer. Dumb. (none / 0) (#97)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon May 20th, 2002 at 10:40:59 AM PST
Ok, I really don't get this article.
Not only is it a piece of junk to begin with, but the whole article is false. It is based on the "Kate" being on the cover of that magazine, while the "Kate" is actually Katie Holmes who has already done frontal nudity in a film that she did a year or so ago. Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are two totally different people who are not even remotely related to Katie Homles. Before you write an artile calling people pedophiles, research the person you're doing the article on, and get your facts straight!

What??? (none / 0) (#107)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 06:07:40 PM PST
<i>while the "Kate" is actually Katie Holmes who has already done frontal nudity in a film that she did a year or so ago.</i>
You will tell me what film this is.

The Gift. (none / 0) (#109)
by because it isnt on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 09:38:27 AM PST
IMDb link, CNDb link. -- because it isn't

elenchos.... (none / 0) (#98)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon May 20th, 2002 at 01:46:51 PM PST
.... you were abused as a child weren't you.

Or are you just jealous that you will never get to meet katie holmes or kate olsen or ashley olsen or whoever the hell you were talking about (you did seem in a confused state of mind, perhaps wrestling with your own inner desires?)

elenchos... (none / 0) (#100)
by tkatchev on Tue May 21st, 2002 at 11:11:59 AM PST a child, my dear.

There was a post where he admitted that he's 16 years old, though I don't remember where, and I'm too lazy to look for it.


Peace and much love...

you're panties are showing (none / 0) (#102)
by innominate on Tue May 21st, 2002 at 02:18:01 PM PST
This is a prime example of someone pointing out his own flaw of character as if it is detrimental to the overall complexion of this place called Earth that is actually Hell.
Way to go, Elenchos, for letting everyone see your inner thoughts, and desires.
And to point out real ignorance, I, for one, will take any and all experiences so I can say 'I did that' after I am dead, as opposed to regrets. If that equals raping 6 or 7 year old girls in your mind, that is fine, because as I read your little mind spew, I am of the opinion that we were all little boys and girls at one time, and you are blaming all of us for being who we are.
Enjoy Hell, Elenchos, because your Hell just gets worse every day, while my Heaven becomes more and more responsible and easy. Toodles

C S Lew15 0wnz j00! n/t (none / 0) (#103)
by nathan on Tue May 21st, 2002 at 02:23:57 PM PST

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

So, according to your post... (none / 0) (#104)
by hauntedattics on Wed May 22nd, 2002 at 06:04:32 AM PST
raping 6- or 7-year-old girls is OK, because it's all part of your noble quest to experience everything in life, so as not to die with any regrets? And you shouldn't blame any of the folks who do rape 6- or 7-year-old girls because that's just blaming them for being who they are?

That is NOT Katie OLSEN MORON. (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 08:51:12 AM PST
That is KATIE HOLMES, get it straight fool !

Ignore the distractions. (none / 0) (#110)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 06:12:24 PM PST
The recent demonization of child pornography is simply a ruse by those of low character to somehow legitimize "non-child" pornography. Somehow people, I doubt that our Lord is particularly overjoyed with the exploitation of any of his children, including those legally considered "adult".

I might also request that if such visual material as the above must appear on for reasons directly related to the content of the associated story, some moderate censoring could be undertaken. It seems to me that two intelligently placed black boxes could have been used to obscure all ungodly parts of the above magazine cover without detracting from its effectiveness.

Keep up the good work though, this is an excellent analysis of a very real social problem.

i'm confused... (none / 0) (#111)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 29th, 2002 at 09:34:30 AM PST
could you explain what parts of the magazine cover are "ungodly"? the english text? the upc? or the bare back of the girl? if it's the girl, please explain how one of "gods' creatures" bodies, partially exposed, be considered offensive?

No problem. (none / 0) (#112)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 29th, 2002 at 04:14:11 PM PST
It's a logical extension of the commandment against adultery. Clearly God does not condone sexual pleasure being obtained outside the context of His sanctioned marriages. This is what makes pornography and other intentionally titilating material unacceptable.

Obviously the bodies of God's creatures are not in themselves offensive. However using an image of one to interact with our culture in order to produce ungodly reactions and emotions most certainly is.

Yo, what was offensive (none / 0) (#115)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 01:41:22 AM PST
Hey, were do the black boxes go? I can't find any place where they go. Maybe they go over your keyboard so stupid people like you will quit writting these dammed stories up. Seemings how 99% of them are lies.

Note to the rest of the site: this place needs to do research, cause almost all of this is bullshit.

Child porn is bad.

hahaha (none / 0) (#113)
by Omega9 on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 11:03:28 PM PST

Sir, (none / 0) (#114)
by elenchos on Mon Jun 10th, 2002 at 11:01:02 AM PST
Your ideas intrigue me. I wish to subscribe to your news-letter.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to