I don't see what the big deal is. There's a demand for it apparently, the manager of the swimming pool is able to charge a premium entrance fee and everyone's happy. Since when is capitalism a sin? It's not like these are general rules that apply at all times. Seniors have special senior hours, I don't see anyone protesting that?

I was born and raised non-religious. It wasn't a choice or an accomplishment and I could easily have been raised as a Christian and ended up with different opinions as a result. There's hardly a choice involved, it's mostly indoctrination (I don't consider faith -internal- and religion -external- to be the same thing, nor do I believe religion leads to faith or faith cannot happen without religion). Makes you wonder what objectivity really is, a prime example is how a minority of Christians actively and a majority passively continue to discriminate against gay people in much the same way as the muslims are perceived to discriminate women. Western muslim women don't seem to mind an awful lot, so why should we? As long as it is within the law, let them have their cake and eat it too, as long as no one, including christians, eats mine.

Let's just have a special swimming hour for pro-christians as well, charge them a premium and have them come up with their own dressing code and let's be done with it.

So you're just one of those blokes with low reading comprehension, which greatly diminishes my brief elation at being called a patriot.

Touché

Personally I have little patience for women complaining about equality. It seems these days equality in their eyes means having more rights than men. Thank God it is only a small percentage of women.

I think it is wrong to discriminate against women. But that goes both ways. Imagine two candidates for a job, one is a man and one is a woman. They have the same impressive qualifications. Modern society seems to dictate that one hires the woman. In fact, even if she comes slightly short. Why? That also is discrimination, I reject any justifications for it. Discrimination is morally wrong: positive discrimination enforced by law or society is equally wrong.

"There are not enough female managers" = "they are discriminating agains us!!" Really? I disagree. A woman who stands her ground can make it to the top. And I would like to believe that most companies these days will let her, no problem. Of course, there can be no discrimination: that woman would have to make the same sacrifices that a man would have to make if he wanted to make it to the top. Very long hours. No weekends. Work always comes first. Would you like to have children? That's great. But work comes first. You won't see much of them in those early years and you will have to depend on your partner to do most of the parenting. It will be a horrible strain on your relationship. But you chose your career, so live with it. Your job is your life and everything else must take a back seat. If you don't want to make that sacrifice, you won't make it to the top. There's no discrimination involved, it is all choices, priorities. There is no such thing as a part-time SEO, there is not even such a thing as a full-time (only 40 hours) SEO.

Women tend to have a stronger bond with their children, mothers and fathers play a very different role. Women usually prefer to work part-time so they can spend more time with their children. Most employers allow this. In fact, talk about inequality: most young fathers would love to spend more time with their kids as well, but this is still frowned upon. And men who can and actually do go that route, find that their full-time working colleagues, male & female, have more opportunities to get ahead. I wonder whether they are discriminating against men as well, or perhaps... I don't know, maybe we've got cause and effect ALL WRONG?!

I could also explain why men and women don't earn the same amount of money for the same full time job. It has a lot to do with butt kissing, single mindedly focussing on one's career and taking initiative. I think you get the idea: again, it has nothing to do with discrimination but more with differences between sexes. Let's make no mistake about it: equal opportunity regardless of sex, but both sexes are definitely not the same... if we were, why would we men even bother with women? Thank God we are different.

This idiotic notion has also lead to things like promotional programs to get young girls interested in IT, chemistry and such. It is well known that male and female brains are wired in different ways and men tend to be better at these jobs. It's not that women are discriminated against and not allowed to succeed in these professions: few simply chose this route, because they are not interested in/wired for it. No one seems to care why teachers and day care people are predominantly women while that is exactly the same thing. Perhaps men are being discriminated against? Or something completely different: the army. It is wrong to exclude women from the army. But is it not also wrong to discriminate against men by not applying the same standards to the women? If they cannot meet the same physical standards as the men, then they picked the wrong profession and it could lead to dangerous situations in combat if we simply lowered the standards to acommodate them (read: prevent claims of discrimination against women). Sure, men are usually physically stronger but that is biology, not discrimination (blame God).

That is one cute ball of fur!

Is he related to the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Harsh as it may sound, I agree with you pbsaurus. We've come a long way, but there's a limit to how far one should go to prevent basic human evolution

I also agree with you Demo. We are not all equal, the biggest challenge to all drivers is not how to drive but how to spot and avoid all those idiots who cannot -while completely undistracted- keep their car properly on the road and deal with traffic. Therefore if you outlaw all distractions (including radio, phones, passengers, GPS) you will still have 90% of all accidents happening.

Same thing with seatbelts. I wear them religiously because I value the safety it provides me. They should be strongly recommended, but in the end, why is there a law that makes it mandatory to wear them? Who am I to stop someone from crashing through the windshield if they so desire to take that risk? Drugs too, why are there laws that prevent you from hurting yourself? As long as you don't hurt anyone else, please help evolution along

I thought hubs were completely extinct, can you still buy them? That's what I was referring to, most people I know who refer to their hub mean their switch. Not sure how they became mixed up.

When you say hub you probably just mean switch right? Those babies are brilliant.

Anyway, glad you got things resolved.

Little tip: SSID broadcasting off and MAC filtering belongs in the obscurity corner, not in the security one. You are merely making things more of a hasle for yourself. Here, take this as a starting point if you are interested:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=454

I hail from the land of rules and regulations... and I say enough is enough. I would immediately have hygenic concerns about such a device and I think it would be cumbersome, but apart from that: I never drink. Ever. So why should I be punished for the rest of my life by having such an awful mandatory device in my car? It's a bit like a copy protection: you harm the good people, the bad ones will consider it a fun challenge to bypass the system. It doesn't solve the problem at all.

I know I don't offer a real solution to the problem either, but I am so fed up with easy fixes that do not solve the real issue but address merely some of its concequences. Lawmakers in my country do this all freaking day and if any one person would even know all the rules, his head would pop clear off. Most of them shouldn't even need to be a rule, they are so obvious they could all be swept under the basic rule "don't be an irresponsible arsehole". It all boils down to this: take your own freaking responsibility. Teach people how to do that, give them a much broader framework of rules (without all the braindead detailed little rules) and train people from a very young age by exposing them to various scenarios, teaching them how to work responsibly within the framework laid down. Not rules, but insight, meaning, experience, actual working human braincells...

Such a device for offenders only, don't see that happening either. You could just swap cars any time. The least they could do if you get caught drunk driving (apart from prison time for manslaughter if you killed someone... obviously) is suspend your license for many, many years (which would seriously ruin your modern life). Up the stakes a little, enough maybe to finally kick-start those few remaining brain cells and grow the ^$#@ up.

Oh God, Hanson? 
Have they turned into proper rock stars by now, snorting all kinds of stuff and drinking themselves senseless? mmmmmm.... buuuuuuurp. That's cute though

Welcome!

I still can't get my mind wrapped around how the youngsters can be born in 1990+, having skipped the 80s completely and still be a young adult. The math of that, I find that difficult. It is the first signs of dementia when I still see my baby cousin while looking at her, now that she's actually a young adult woman with *gasp* breasts and curves and all that? Am I talking out loud again?

Anyway, Transformers obviously. So many of their adventures played exclusively in my head, with the collectable figures and a huge poster I had in my room. They would often fight with other icons such as my Airwolf helictoper and my Knight Rider mini-cars. I even did special effects by seriously demolishing some of those mini-cars and pretending they had been in 'a crash'. They had been afterall

Does anyone remember M.A.S.K.? It is a distant memory now but I remember having a huge red car with fly doors and action figures of that show. Good times.

Welcome, hope you get back on your geek feet soon
Love your avatar, there's a dozen all nighters 'well' spent hehe!