is information about hardware interfaces in NetBSD enough to reverse-engineer most of the O2 machine so it could run IRIX natively?
If so, it would be very cool to make a clone of old SGI workstations like O2, but with faster CPU, better OpenGL pipeline, more RAM, USB ports, solid state drives while still being able to run software like original IRIX, Maya, Photoshop, etc. Wouldn't be too bad for the design of the case to stay the same:)
what part of 10 year old equipment didn't you understand? What part of Win NT and win 2K makes you think the hardware can even run anything newer?
At that time your looking at Red Hat 5. think about it. linux wasn't ready back then for mission critical stuff.
At best they could have gone with OS/2 warp.
Most devices that physically touch you and control something which can harm a person are coded in hardware, not windows, and have hardware in place to prevent such a thing from harming someone.
Oh, you must be new here. Have you ever heard of a silly little thing called Therac-25? Here's a summary from Wikipedia:
The Therac-25 was a radiation therapy machine produced by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) after the Therac-6 and Therac-20 units (the earlier units had been produced in partnership with CGR of France). It was involved with at least six accidents between 1985 and 1987, in which patients were given massive overdoses of radiation, approximately 100 times the intended dose. Three of the six patients died as a direct consequence. These accidents highlighted the dangers of software control of safety-critical systems, and they have become a standard case study in health informatics.
Apparently, some bonehead decided that the hardware lock is too expensive since it can be implemented in software - and removed the physical hardware circuit. So, you never know what those machines can and can't do:)
...you must live in perpetual fear. Whenever you're starting to focus on the reality of life, new fear WILL be injected into it to distract you. This is how the natural order sustains itself.
Funny, though, hearing this from Anonymous Coward:D
i assume you are not up to date, showing me "news" of 1999.
read this
Yes, I know all about it, but it has nothing to do with NATO intervention that stopped slaughter of Kosovars by Serbs - what your link is talking about is a different conflict, and it's between Albanians and Macedonians, not between Albanians and Serbs.
My link was posted in direct response to your writing that it was a bad idea for NATO to attack serbian forces. It was a right decision, altough it was a bit late. NATO should have intervened if not in 1990./1991., then in 1992. against Serbia, Bosnian Serbs, and, back then, against Monte Negro. A lot of lives would have been spared and a lot of damage would have been prevented. This way Serbia still has 40% of people voting for a party that talks about Great Serbia and almost 100% of people that are, to use a common phrase here on Slashdot, living in a reality distorsion field of incredible propaganda.
It seems to me that the threat of the US and Britain to the west helped the Russians on the eastern front considerably and vice versa. The Russians didn't even get Leningrad back until the US was fighting in North Africa, so I don't think you can say that it sat out until Russia had the war won, and I don't think several years of war count as "[going] in to steal the laurels". So, while you are absolutely in the wrong with respect to WWII, I will say that Russia did much more of the legwork than you'd think from American culture. There's no way to tell what would have happened if one or the other were to have stayed out of the war, but I'd say it's fairly safe to say that they both played their roles.
Let's not forget the battle of Kursk (lso known as the greatest tank battle of all times)which was probably the most definitive battle of the World War II. It was the battle that destroyed the Germans' offensive force. Russians lost a lot, but looking at the big picture it's what pretty much won the war.
Also, the battle was the first time a predecessor of one of these got used. The morale in war plays a big part of it, so imagine witnessing the result of hundred of them for the first time in history - from the other side.
For those not up to date, Serbs had been systematically and brutally oppressing people in Kosovo for almost a century. Well, if "oppressing" is what you would call what Israelis do to Palestinians. It's more or less the same thing. Serbia had the same kind of regard to Kosovo, and even took the money from other federal states (Slovenia and Croatia) for development of Kosovo and kept the money for themselves.
Remember what finally ended the war in Bosnia? Not Euro-diplomacy but good old American FA-18's bombing the shit out of the Serbs until they cried "uncle".
Actually, the war in Bosnia stopped because of combined forces of Croatia's army and ABIH in Operation Storm.
While we're at it, BiH is still a volatile area because U.S. insisted on halting the operation when Bosnian Serbs were totally militarily destroyed. This way Bosnian Serbs got 51% of ethnically cleansed territory (no Croats or Bosnians; refugees can't get back to their homes because of still present threat to their lives and nonexistent protection because the policemen are people that drove them away and/or killed them in the first place).
Not only that, they openly threat with "referendum" (picture it this way; I and three of my friends invade your house, kick you out and vote on declaration that states the house is ours) to secede from BiH which would instantly start another multinational war in the Balkans.
If doctors were making insane amounts of money then more people would become doctors, which means more competition and lower prices. So, medical doctors would not necessarily be the richest people in the world by any stretch of the imagination.
Ah, but who teaches the doctors? The doctors do! If they didn't want competition they wouldn't create it. They would take an apprentice to step into their shoes when they retire and that's it.
At least you've only got access to Flash for all the users on the machine -- better than TheRaven's suggestion of using 'nobody', in which case, you hack one user, you've got access to Flash, Java, and every other plugin, plus quite possibly a dozen other services written by similarly lazy programmers.
I'm just saying, if you start "solving" problems this way you aren't solving any. This has to be thought through.
But at the very least, I beg you, create a flash-plugin user, and a java-plugin user, etc. Please, please don't just use nobody. It's like people who programmatically look for a tag called 'foo:bar', instead of bothering to learn how XML namespaces actually work -- you're so close to understanding it, don't stop now!
So, what, you hack one user, you've hacked all users on the machine? Brilliant.
Why homosexuals though? Do we need to research interracial couples before we allow them to adopt? How about interfaith couples? Midgets? Mimes? You're specifically worried about one group, and honestly, it really does say far more about you than it does the actual issue. There is no good reason to require this "research". The most likely difficulties that a child would encounter are socially induced, and quite frankly, disallowing adoption for that reason opens the argument to disallowing adoption to mixed-race couples in, for instance, in some parts of the American south.
Are you saying that being in an interracial marriage somehow redefines "man and woman"? Look, there wouldn't be a reason for this type of research if there weren't already some other studies that hint there are reasons. I've mentioned those things before (dependency on woman's smells and voice and other things). I'm not looking at it from "eeew, gays!" perspective and I would like for you to stop implicating I'm a gay basher ("it really does say far more about you than it does the actual issue") or something like it.
Not the point. You said you weren't treating the two groups differently, and I pointed out that you absolutely are. Perhaps this is a language issue (now that I know English isn't your first), but the fact remains that you're treating them differently, which is discrimination, plain and simple.
No, no, I never said I am treating two groups the same, because I don't. I've mentioned two groups - can adopt and can't adopt - and placed gays (for the time being) in the second group because I am not willing to gamble this way with children. Discriminative? Well, yes. With bad intentions, because of spite or fear or whatever gay activist like to label people? Sorry, but no.
No. Currently gay marriage is not legal in the vast majority of the United States. Emotion doesn't play into this part of it. The law doesn't allow you to do it, and therefore proponents want it legalized. Further, in certain places here the law has been changed to define marriage as one man and one woman, for the express reason of excluding homosexuals.
You misunderstood me, the original remark was said because of the way the statement was written, not because I object the validity of the end result it states.You could say I objected at style.
Discrimination is unacceptable. Separate but equal is unacceptable. Perhaps in your country the context is different, but in the United States rights belong to the people, not the State unless otherwise specified. There is no over-riding state interest in blocking homosexuals from marrying, therefore it should not be involved.
So, basically, you're saying it's all or nothing? Sounds like you got what you wished for. As far as I understand it, you are part of the state. The whole volume of people of those states that voted are the State. So the People/State said they do not see it your way. It's not as if not everyone counts and people were being stopped from giving their vote. By asking too much in haste you lost. And, if I understand correctly, this isn't the first time something like this was voted for. You are either going to have to get your way in baby steps or you are going to have to accept the current state. Too bad you're so rigid and do not wish to compromise today because you're losing tomorrow's battle.
Fair enough. In that case, I would have to argue that they are getting a bad representation by their activists.
I don't understand what you're saying here. The folks from the childfree "movement" are getting exactly what they want, they don't want children and they don't want to be bothered by those who do. Seems pretty clear to me.
But they are ending in the same pile as other that aren't from the childfree movement. They could make the compromise I've suggested earlier and I'm pretty sure that
Well now this is convenient to your point, since in fields such as psychology and sociology "it may be" is pretty much as good as it gets.
I am aware that psychology is not an exact science, but the point is that the research we are talking about wasn't part of the research. That's why I said it was guesswork. It was a single study with very narrow scope and we should not use it to draw this kind of conclusions from it. I have said it before, this is a great question and should be researched more.
I'm not singling them out, I'm categorizing them and in that other category (of two) they are definitely not singled out.
Oh come on. You said: "And gays should not be singled out, I agree. They should join a group of singles who also shouldn't be able to adopt". You want to treat a couple as if they're not a couple because they're gay. Do you really not understand this? Couple == couple. Single == single. Couple != single. You absolutely and unarguably are applying different rules to couples based on sexual orientation.
I thought it is apparent from the context of my posts, they should not be allowed to adopt right now without valid research. I'm not saying I'd ban such adoptions forever and banning even talking about it. Just until the research is made - of course, if the research comes with a objective conclusion that says it's okay for the children.
Cop out. An infant isn't scarred by placing it with a different set of parents at birth, it doesn't know the difference. You're avoiding the question. If it's so damaging in your opinion, why wouldn't you "rescue" this child from it's "unfit" parents. Is it because you even you can see the massive flaws in your argument?
You are correct, as far as I know, infants don't get permanently affected by changing a set of heterosexual parents. But I do know they are affected if they are missing both-sex components. Not to restrict ourselves to same-sex parents, the same effect can be seen in children with single parents and children from families where one parent is rarely at home. As far as I can see it, there are lots of butterfly effects on work here.
It's all about delivery. Too bad you fail to see such attempts to manipulate.
I still say you're being pedantic. What exactly is the difference between something that is illegal and something that you have no way of legally accomplishing?
Result related? There isn't. But I don't think it is okay for people to try to inject some sort of guilt-play. Sure, I understand the topic is quite emotional for a lot of people but I don't think it will help here at all.
Okay, so if we photocopy all the rules regarding marriage, and replace the word "marriage" with the word "buki-buki" you'd be okay with it? Is this really because you don't want someone to use a specific word for the same thing?
I have explained it before, "marriage" is a term that covers a bit wider "territory" here, but if gay activists would agree to shrink some of that "territory" and called the resulting contract "buki-buki" I would vote for it in my country. In a blink of an eye. Because I really believe gay couples that have committed themselves to each other should have some legal safeties.
Hardly. There are millions of heterosexual couples in the United States that do not have or want children. Google around for "childfree", you'll find plenty of sites dedicated to arguing this exact point. Marriage and childbearing are having less and less to do with each other as time goes on.
Fair enough. In that case, I would have to argue that they are getting a bad representation by their activists.
Gay marriage supporters aren't trying to change the definition of marriage either. They want to change who's qualified to enter into it. When blacks w
Same Research suggest lesbian relationships are far more stable than either Gay or Straight marriages, so by your logic, we should be promoting only lesbian adoption...
No, that's not my logic, but it would be more likely that I would be more favorable to adoptions by lesbians if some things turn out okay after thorough research.
Oh, and by the way, haven't you heard? It's not nice to put words in other people's mouth.
If you compare the results of children who never get adopted, vs. kids who were adopted by Gay parents, I think you'll find the kids with Gay parents turn out a 1000% better.
Well, show me the study. No study? No adoptions. As I've said, it's not about gays, the adoption thing is about children. Get mad if you wish, but never lose sight of what is really important. It will make you a better parent some day.
The authors cited that this may be due to same-sex couples "non- involvement in joint parenthood", "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions" as well as differing motivations for getting married. Soooo, you're arguing that children will be negatively affected by the divorce rate, when the divorce rate actually seems attributable to the lack of children.
I think you are reading what you wish to read. Let me help you: "it may be". So, this means they are guessing or trying not to get crucified by activists. This actually could be true but the study doesn't say anything about lack of children generating infidelity. On the other hand, I could see how biological drive to reproduce could push someone unconsciously to cheat because of lack of offspring with current partner, but catch-22 here is no same-sex relation ends with offspring unless adoption takes place. Hmm, interesting... I guess there is at least one prize-winning scientific paper sketch here:)
You're not going to single out homosexual couples, you're just going to treat them differently than heterosexual couples.
I'm not singling them out, I'm categorizing them and in that other category (of two) they are definitely not singled out. And, BTW, are you seriously suggesting they aren't different than heterosexual couples? Really? Wow, that's some self-delusion.
You're letting them bypass this annoying step by just assuming that if the couple is gay they're clearly unstable.
The research says so. Is there other objective research that says it's safe or is there thousands of years of experience in something like this?
Also, lets take a look about your comment on single parent families. From answers.com on the topic: "One out of every two children in the United States will live in a single-parent family at some time before they reach age 18. According the United States Census Bureau, in 2002 about 20 million children lived in a household with only their mother or their father. This is more than one-fourth of all children in the United States." So, guess all those kids were doomed and living by eating out of garbage cans, eh?
Yes, I would also argue that U.S. society has almost completely failed in this respect on that scale. Most of those children are probably poorly educated, have a lot of problems in their relationships because of that etc, etc. But let's also not forget, those single-parent families are biological families. The state should intervene in cases of serious neglect or poor conditions but the state is not giving that children away. To whom are children given for adoption should be carefully considered because the society is responsible for that children. So that's why the society votes to decide.
No, it's not about the children. Being married does not confer an automatic right to adopt, and I rather doubt the majority of these couples would be trying to. Believe it or not, there are other reasons to get married than to have/adopt kids. They're largely the same reasons that childless hetrosexual couples marry.
I know there are other reasons but then I wouldn't call that institution marriage. Those other situations could be pretty much governed by a contract or two between two parties. And, of course, some gay couples would try to grab the whole hand if given a finger so this way it's nipped at the bud.
Enough about the children already. If a spouse dies, there are automatic rights of survivorship, inheritance and so on. There are issues surrounding power of attorney if a spouse becomes incapacitated. There are benefits conferred to a spouse such as medical coverage. It goes on and on and on, and none of them have anything to do with children. Yes, a large number of them can be covered by private contracts, or, they can all be covered by an institution we alread
While America is not Sweden, I did a Google search as you suggested, and you may be right about the infidelity rates.
Please, don't presume I am suggesting there is increased rate of infidelity, I am just stating that there is a research on this topic and that is their conclusion. I have mentioned it because, unfortunately, it is the only such research I have seen, so if I happened to be in a position to vote on gay marriages and I saw gay marriage as one of two steps to get gay adoption approved legally I would vote nay.
But I disagree that marriage is only about the children.
Depends on who you ask. It is true that there are other points that should be addressed, and you have named some of them. However, since those other things are more bureaucratic in nature I would name that institution differently, it would most definitely not be named "marriage".
Straight married couples also break up or have financial difficulties.
Of course they do, it would be silly to claim otherwise. But, since we've got that before mentioned research, people can claim that there is considerable chance of breaking up and because of that hurting the child.
And even if gay couples break up more often than straight couples, well, it's still better for the child to be adopted by a gay couple than to grow up in foster homes and get thrown to the wolves at 18.
Well, that is also debatable. That is why I suggested organizing a broad range objective research. There are other things that are not favorable to same-sex parents in this case; if the child is young enough it biologically expects to have a mother nearby. There are things like smells and color of the voice that directly affects baby's psyche (also, women educators have greater success than men because brains work more to comprehend their voices and the voices are processed in different parts of the brain) in some periods of development and numerous other examples. I strongly suggest to people that are interested in this debate to look it up.
I have not commented on other parts of your well written text because I agree with them.
As I've said, the research I've read say otherwise (I'm unaware of like research that contradicts these results); I don't have a link right now, but you could try googling a bit. The research was conducted in Sweden and the conclusion is that gay marriages have 50% more chance of ending in divorce than heterosexual marriages.
And gays should not be singled out, I agree. They should join a group of singles who also shouldn't be able to adopt (again, children need two parents, it's too much for a single parent), financially unstable (we don't want adopted kids to eat out of a garbage can, or steal because they don't have food...), drug abusers etc, etc.
Let's keep in mind, it's not about homosexuals, it's about children. We want a safe and stable home for them. If someone is too impatient for research to be carefully done and is willing (and is, apparently, very aggressive about it) to gamble with children's fate then he/she/they is extremely selfish and because of that unfit to be a parent/parents.
Here's how I'd handle the situation; get in touch with institutes that usually do sociological and medical research in countries gay adoptions are allowed and fund them (separately, without each other knowing about it) to find out the impact on children, what's best and worst case scenarios, with a wide range of things to monitor. If the objectively attained results are favorable present them to the people and governments in non-aggressive way and let them vote about it. Sure, it takes a lot of time, but keep in mind - it's about the children.
And of course, concern for children is no justification for outlawing marriages if the couple isn't planning children in the first place.
As far as I can see, gay marriages aren't outlawed because that would imply they were legal before. So, they aren't outlawed, they are not legalized.
Gays already have a right to marry people of different sex. They also have a right to write contracts that would regulate what state automatically does for marriage licenses. This whole "marriage" thing for gays is really about some inner sense of belonging and outside acceptance, and for the rest it is about building protection for possible children. Even if a heterosexual couple don't want kids but want to be married there is always a chance they'd reconsider. If the couple is infertile then it's of no concern because that's a rare border case which changes pretty much nothing and in some cases it could be cured. On the other hand, infertility in gay couples is not a border case but a rule.
That doesn't mean that people against gay marriage are homophobic, any more than it makes people who voted for Obama misogynists and ageists.
Since there's no rational argument to support those positions, it kind of does mean that. Some of them reacting to a "yuck" factor. They think that homosexual behavior is gross, and they think that they will somehow prevent it by stigmatizing it.
This debate is oriented wrong - it's not about homosexuals, it's about children. Do they get a stable home? Some research says that because of their promiscuity gay people tend to "get around" more and it causes gay marriages to split. The process of splitting families is very traumatic for children, especially if they are young.
If homosexual people are willing to gamble with health and happiness of children (increasing the odds of screwing up kids because of divorces, and we're not even talking about other possible factors people tend to think of) then they are unfit to be parents by default.
Of course, I could be wrong but on the other hand, how do you conduct such surveys without posibility of screwing up kids? It seems like a lose-lose situation for people in places where there are bans for adopting in these situations. Fortunately for them, there are places where such surveys could be done but unfortunately for them I hear the results are not promising.
In other words, be patient and try to objectively collect information that can help resolve this problem once and for all. Most of all, be civilized if results don't go your way. It's okay to be sad.
The blue e is "the internet" for them. For once and for all.
This is should be a very lousy argument in the 21. century. People should be educated how to use computers and Internet services enough not to mix "the blue e" and "the Tnternet", they should know what a file, what a directory and what an operating system is and why they need it. The problem is people don't know essentials that could be learned in one afternoon. We're not talking about high-energy particle physics here, for goodness sakes!
Here's my proposal: with every computer sold distribute a booklet that explains those topics (what's what, basics of how to use a GUI, basics of how to handle file system objects, basics of using internet services, basics of computer security, best practices) which would be of at least the same quality as those booklets that were distributed along with computers of early 1990s. Optionally, quiz the user with 15 questions for basic usage when the user logs in for the first time (and deny access until he gets all 15 right), and do the same when he/she attempts to connect to the Internet. That should solve a lot of bad things and drastically increase starting knowledge of a pc/internet newbie.
Having a real OS might shave off a few fps, but it allows you to set up your hardware just the once, and have it work in all of your software.
Oh, yes, I see your point. If only there were some way of knowing which stuff is connected and how it's set up... if only there were something like config files (c:\config.sys , c:\autoexec.bat or let's do an MS style inovation and add c:\hwconf.bat) and environment variables (BLASTER=A220I5D2) for apps that need this info:)
I know, let's build a GUI just for this specific thing, and let's add registry, maybe a few default apps... we'll call it... windows 3.11:)
We pulled our kids out of school because we were so disgusted with the "tall poppies" attitude to academic achievement. I.e, the idea that the flowers that stand taller in the flower bed need to be pruned to keep them in line...
It sounds eerily familiar... can you say communism?
My question to you: what kind of machine would you put together that would search for microscopic life forms that are of a type we have yet to imagine?
Just throw in exchangeable ROM (not EE or UV erasable) chips in something like a very simple low-tech computer with a simple RS-232 serial port and use separate paper teleprinter/teletype.
Electronics should be very low-tech and simple and mechanical teleprinter would be very easily fixed if broken while underground.
That should be basic to more complex machinery placed under a simple computer and it's mechanical I/O . Make everything redundant, with self-checks etc, etc, etc.
Perhaps it would be a good thing to add a simple AM radio-modem (creating one with simple TTL7400 and some RLC circuitry is
trivial).
Of course, I'm assuming people will understand things like today's locally spoken/written languange, latin alphabet and ascii-art:)
Slashdot Mirror
is information about hardware interfaces in NetBSD enough to reverse-engineer most of the O2 machine so it could run IRIX natively?
:)
If so, it would be very cool to make a clone of old SGI workstations like O2, but with faster CPU, better OpenGL pipeline, more RAM, USB ports, solid state drives while still being able to run software like original IRIX, Maya, Photoshop, etc. Wouldn't be too bad for the design of the case to stay the same
what part of 10 year old equipment didn't you understand? What part of Win NT and win 2K makes you think the hardware can even run anything newer? At that time your looking at Red Hat 5. think about it. linux wasn't ready back then for mission critical stuff. At best they could have gone with OS/2 warp.
They could have gone with Solaris ;)
Most devices that physically touch you and control something which can harm a person are coded in hardware, not windows, and have hardware in place to prevent such a thing from harming someone.
Oh, you must be new here. Have you ever heard of a silly little thing called Therac-25? Here's a summary from Wikipedia:
The Therac-25 was a radiation therapy machine produced by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) after the Therac-6 and Therac-20 units (the earlier units had been produced in partnership with CGR of France). It was involved with at least six accidents between 1985 and 1987, in which patients were given massive overdoses of radiation, approximately 100 times the intended dose. Three of the six patients died as a direct consequence. These accidents highlighted the dangers of software control of safety-critical systems, and they have become a standard case study in health informatics.
Apparently, some bonehead decided that the hardware lock is too expensive since it can be implemented in software - and removed the physical hardware circuit. So, you never know what those machines can and can't do :)
Why are you all rambling here? Start writing code, slackers! :)
...you must live in perpetual fear. Whenever you're starting to focus on the reality of life, new fear WILL be injected into it to distract you. This is how the natural order sustains itself.
Funny, though, hearing this from Anonymous Coward :D
i assume you are not up to date, showing me "news" of 1999. read this
Yes, I know all about it, but it has nothing to do with NATO intervention that stopped slaughter of Kosovars by Serbs - what your link is talking about is a different conflict, and it's between Albanians and Macedonians, not between Albanians and Serbs.
My link was posted in direct response to your writing that it was a bad idea for NATO to attack serbian forces. It was a right decision, altough it was a bit late. NATO should have intervened if not in 1990./1991., then in 1992. against Serbia, Bosnian Serbs, and, back then, against Monte Negro. A lot of lives would have been spared and a lot of damage would have been prevented. This way Serbia still has 40% of people voting for a party that talks about Great Serbia and almost 100% of people that are, to use a common phrase here on Slashdot, living in a reality distorsion field of incredible propaganda.
It seems to me that the threat of the US and Britain to the west helped the Russians on the eastern front considerably and vice versa. The Russians didn't even get Leningrad back until the US was fighting in North Africa, so I don't think you can say that it sat out until Russia had the war won, and I don't think several years of war count as "[going] in to steal the laurels". So, while you are absolutely in the wrong with respect to WWII, I will say that Russia did much more of the legwork than you'd think from American culture. There's no way to tell what would have happened if one or the other were to have stayed out of the war, but I'd say it's fairly safe to say that they both played their roles.
Let's not forget the battle of Kursk (lso known as the greatest tank battle of all times)which was probably the most definitive battle of the World War II. It was the battle that destroyed the Germans' offensive force. Russians lost a lot, but looking at the big picture it's what pretty much won the war.
Also, the battle was the first time a predecessor of one of these got used. The morale in war plays a big part of it, so imagine witnessing the result of hundred of them for the first time in history - from the other side.
second, thanks to your intervention in yugoslavia, albanian cutthroats have murdered lots of serbs and tried to invade macedonia.
Right.
For those not up to date, Serbs had been systematically and brutally oppressing people in Kosovo for almost a century. Well, if "oppressing" is what you would call what Israelis do to Palestinians. It's more or less the same thing. Serbia had the same kind of regard to Kosovo, and even took the money from other federal states (Slovenia and Croatia) for development of Kosovo and kept the money for themselves.
Remember what finally ended the war in Bosnia? Not Euro-diplomacy but good old American FA-18's bombing the shit out of the Serbs until they cried "uncle".
Actually, the war in Bosnia stopped because of combined forces of Croatia's army and ABIH in Operation Storm.
While we're at it, BiH is still a volatile area because U.S. insisted on halting the operation when Bosnian Serbs were totally militarily destroyed. This way Bosnian Serbs got 51% of ethnically cleansed territory (no Croats or Bosnians; refugees can't get back to their homes because of still present threat to their lives and nonexistent protection because the policemen are people that drove them away and/or killed them in the first place).
Not only that, they openly threat with "referendum" (picture it this way; I and three of my friends invade your house, kick you out and vote on declaration that states the house is ours) to secede from BiH which would instantly start another multinational war in the Balkans.
If doctors were making insane amounts of money then more people would become doctors, which means more competition and lower prices. So, medical doctors would not necessarily be the richest people in the world by any stretch of the imagination.
Ah, but who teaches the doctors? The doctors do! If they didn't want competition they wouldn't create it. They would take an apprentice to step into their shoes when they retire and that's it.
At least you've only got access to Flash for all the users on the machine -- better than TheRaven's suggestion of using 'nobody', in which case, you hack one user, you've got access to Flash, Java, and every other plugin, plus quite possibly a dozen other services written by similarly lazy programmers.
I'm just saying, if you start "solving" problems this way you aren't solving any. This has to be thought through.
But at the very least, I beg you, create a flash-plugin user, and a java-plugin user, etc. Please, please don't just use nobody. It's like people who programmatically look for a tag called 'foo:bar', instead of bothering to learn how XML namespaces actually work -- you're so close to understanding it, don't stop now!
So, what, you hack one user, you've hacked all users on the machine? Brilliant.
Why homosexuals though? Do we need to research interracial couples before we allow them to adopt? How about interfaith couples? Midgets? Mimes? You're specifically worried about one group, and honestly, it really does say far more about you than it does the actual issue. There is no good reason to require this "research". The most likely difficulties that a child would encounter are socially induced, and quite frankly, disallowing adoption for that reason opens the argument to disallowing adoption to mixed-race couples in, for instance, in some parts of the American south.
Are you saying that being in an interracial marriage somehow redefines "man and woman"? Look, there wouldn't be a reason for this type of research if there weren't already some other studies that hint there are reasons. I've mentioned those things before (dependency on woman's smells and voice and other things). I'm not looking at it from "eeew, gays!" perspective and I would like for you to stop implicating I'm a gay basher ("it really does say far more about you than it does the actual issue") or something like it.
Not the point. You said you weren't treating the two groups differently, and I pointed out that you absolutely are. Perhaps this is a language issue (now that I know English isn't your first), but the fact remains that you're treating them differently, which is discrimination, plain and simple.
No, no, I never said I am treating two groups the same, because I don't. I've mentioned two groups - can adopt and can't adopt - and placed gays (for the time being) in the second group because I am not willing to gamble this way with children. Discriminative? Well, yes. With bad intentions, because of spite or fear or whatever gay activist like to label people? Sorry, but no.
No. Currently gay marriage is not legal in the vast majority of the United States. Emotion doesn't play into this part of it. The law doesn't allow you to do it, and therefore proponents want it legalized. Further, in certain places here the law has been changed to define marriage as one man and one woman, for the express reason of excluding homosexuals.
You misunderstood me, the original remark was said because of the way the statement was written, not because I object the validity of the end result it states.You could say I objected at style.
Discrimination is unacceptable. Separate but equal is unacceptable. Perhaps in your country the context is different, but in the United States rights belong to the people, not the State unless otherwise specified. There is no over-riding state interest in blocking homosexuals from marrying, therefore it should not be involved.
So, basically, you're saying it's all or nothing? Sounds like you got what you wished for. As far as I understand it, you are part of the state. The whole volume of people of those states that voted are the State. So the People/State said they do not see it your way. It's not as if not everyone counts and people were being stopped from giving their vote. By asking too much in haste you lost. And, if I understand correctly, this isn't the first time something like this was voted for. You are either going to have to get your way in baby steps or you are going to have to accept the current state. Too bad you're so rigid and do not wish to compromise today because you're losing tomorrow's battle.
Fair enough. In that case, I would have to argue that they are getting a bad representation by their activists.
I don't understand what you're saying here. The folks from the childfree "movement" are getting exactly what they want, they don't want children and they don't want to be bothered by those who do. Seems pretty clear to me.
But they are ending in the same pile as other that aren't from the childfree movement. They could make the compromise I've suggested earlier and I'm pretty sure that
Well now this is convenient to your point, since in fields such as psychology and sociology "it may be" is pretty much as good as it gets.
I am aware that psychology is not an exact science, but the point is that the research we are talking about wasn't part of the research. That's why I said it was guesswork. It was a single study with very narrow scope and we should not use it to draw this kind of conclusions from it. I have said it before, this is a great question and should be researched more.
I'm not singling them out, I'm categorizing them and in that other category (of two) they are definitely not singled out.
Oh come on. You said: "And gays should not be singled out, I agree. They should join a group of singles who also shouldn't be able to adopt". You want to treat a couple as if they're not a couple because they're gay. Do you really not understand this? Couple == couple. Single == single. Couple != single. You absolutely and unarguably are applying different rules to couples based on sexual orientation.
I thought it is apparent from the context of my posts, they should not be allowed to adopt right now without valid research. I'm not saying I'd ban such adoptions forever and banning even talking about it. Just until the research is made - of course, if the research comes with a objective conclusion that says it's okay for the children.
Cop out. An infant isn't scarred by placing it with a different set of parents at birth, it doesn't know the difference. You're avoiding the question. If it's so damaging in your opinion, why wouldn't you "rescue" this child from it's "unfit" parents. Is it because you even you can see the massive flaws in your argument?
You are correct, as far as I know, infants don't get permanently affected by changing a set of heterosexual parents. But I do know they are affected if they are missing both-sex components. Not to restrict ourselves to same-sex parents, the same effect can be seen in children with single parents and children from families where one parent is rarely at home. As far as I can see it, there are lots of butterfly effects on work here.
It's all about delivery. Too bad you fail to see such attempts to manipulate.
I still say you're being pedantic. What exactly is the difference between something that is illegal and something that you have no way of legally accomplishing?
Result related? There isn't. But I don't think it is okay for people to try to inject some sort of guilt-play. Sure, I understand the topic is quite emotional for a lot of people but I don't think it will help here at all.
Okay, so if we photocopy all the rules regarding marriage, and replace the word "marriage" with the word "buki-buki" you'd be okay with it? Is this really because you don't want someone to use a specific word for the same thing?
I have explained it before, "marriage" is a term that covers a bit wider "territory" here, but if gay activists would agree to shrink some of that "territory" and called the resulting contract "buki-buki" I would vote for it in my country. In a blink of an eye. Because I really believe gay couples that have committed themselves to each other should have some legal safeties.
Hardly. There are millions of heterosexual couples in the United States that do not have or want children. Google around for "childfree", you'll find plenty of sites dedicated to arguing this exact point. Marriage and childbearing are having less and less to do with each other as time goes on.
Fair enough. In that case, I would have to argue that they are getting a bad representation by their activists.
Gay marriage supporters aren't trying to change the definition of marriage either. They want to change who's qualified to enter into it. When blacks w
Same Research suggest lesbian relationships are far more stable than either Gay or Straight marriages, so by your logic, we should be promoting only lesbian adoption...
No, that's not my logic, but it would be more likely that I would be more favorable to adoptions by lesbians if some things turn out okay after thorough research.
Oh, and by the way, haven't you heard? It's not nice to put words in other people's mouth.
If you compare the results of children who never get adopted, vs. kids who were adopted by Gay parents, I think you'll find the kids with Gay parents turn out a 1000% better.
Well, show me the study. No study? No adoptions. As I've said, it's not about gays, the adoption thing is about children. Get mad if you wish, but never lose sight of what is really important. It will make you a better parent some day.
The authors cited that this may be due to same-sex couples "non- involvement in joint parenthood", "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions" as well as differing motivations for getting married. Soooo, you're arguing that children will be negatively affected by the divorce rate, when the divorce rate actually seems attributable to the lack of children.
I think you are reading what you wish to read. Let me help you: "it may be". So, this means they are guessing or trying not to get crucified by activists. This actually could be true but the study doesn't say anything about lack of children generating infidelity. On the other hand, I could see how biological drive to reproduce could push someone unconsciously to cheat because of lack of offspring with current partner, but catch-22 here is no same-sex relation ends with offspring unless adoption takes place. Hmm, interesting... I guess there is at least one prize-winning scientific paper sketch here :)
You're not going to single out homosexual couples, you're just going to treat them differently than heterosexual couples.
I'm not singling them out, I'm categorizing them and in that other category (of two) they are definitely not singled out. And, BTW, are you seriously suggesting they aren't different than heterosexual couples? Really? Wow, that's some self-delusion.
You're letting them bypass this annoying step by just assuming that if the couple is gay they're clearly unstable.
The research says so. Is there other objective research that says it's safe or is there thousands of years of experience in something like this?
Also, lets take a look about your comment on single parent families. From answers.com on the topic: "One out of every two children in the United States will live in a single-parent family at some time before they reach age 18. According the United States Census Bureau, in 2002 about 20 million children lived in a household with only their mother or their father. This is more than one-fourth of all children in the United States." So, guess all those kids were doomed and living by eating out of garbage cans, eh?
Yes, I would also argue that U.S. society has almost completely failed in this respect on that scale. Most of those children are probably poorly educated, have a lot of problems in their relationships because of that etc, etc. But let's also not forget, those single-parent families are biological families. The state should intervene in cases of serious neglect or poor conditions but the state is not giving that children away. To whom are children given for adoption should be carefully considered because the society is responsible for that children. So that's why the society votes to decide.
No, it's not about the children. Being married does not confer an automatic right to adopt, and I rather doubt the majority of these couples would be trying to. Believe it or not, there are other reasons to get married than to have/adopt kids. They're largely the same reasons that childless hetrosexual couples marry.
I know there are other reasons but then I wouldn't call that institution marriage. Those other situations could be pretty much governed by a contract or two between two parties. And, of course, some gay couples would try to grab the whole hand if given a finger so this way it's nipped at the bud.
Enough about the children already. If a spouse dies, there are automatic rights of survivorship, inheritance and so on. There are issues surrounding power of attorney if a spouse becomes incapacitated. There are benefits conferred to a spouse such as medical coverage. It goes on and on and on, and none of them have anything to do with children. Yes, a large number of them can be covered by private contracts, or, they can all be covered by an institution we alread
While America is not Sweden, I did a Google search as you suggested, and you may be right about the infidelity rates.
Please, don't presume I am suggesting there is increased rate of infidelity, I am just stating that there is a research on this topic and that is their conclusion. I have mentioned it because, unfortunately, it is the only such research I have seen, so if I happened to be in a position to vote on gay marriages and I saw gay marriage as one of two steps to get gay adoption approved legally I would vote nay.
But I disagree that marriage is only about the children.
Depends on who you ask. It is true that there are other points that should be addressed, and you have named some of them. However, since those other things are more bureaucratic in nature I would name that institution differently, it would most definitely not be named "marriage".
Straight married couples also break up or have financial difficulties.
Of course they do, it would be silly to claim otherwise. But, since we've got that before mentioned research, people can claim that there is considerable chance of breaking up and because of that hurting the child.
And even if gay couples break up more often than straight couples, well, it's still better for the child to be adopted by a gay couple than to grow up in foster homes and get thrown to the wolves at 18.
Well, that is also debatable. That is why I suggested organizing a broad range objective research. There are other things that are not favorable to same-sex parents in this case; if the child is young enough it biologically expects to have a mother nearby. There are things like smells and color of the voice that directly affects baby's psyche (also, women educators have greater success than men because brains work more to comprehend their voices and the voices are processed in different parts of the brain) in some periods of development and numerous other examples. I strongly suggest to people that are interested in this debate to look it up.
I have not commented on other parts of your well written text because I agree with them.
And gays should not be singled out, I agree. They should join a group of singles who also shouldn't be able to adopt (again, children need two parents, it's too much for a single parent), financially unstable (we don't want adopted kids to eat out of a garbage can, or steal because they don't have food...), drug abusers etc, etc.
Let's keep in mind, it's not about homosexuals, it's about children. We want a safe and stable home for them. If someone is too impatient for research to be carefully done and is willing (and is, apparently, very aggressive about it) to gamble with children's fate then he/she/they is extremely selfish and because of that unfit to be a parent/parents.
Here's how I'd handle the situation; get in touch with institutes that usually do sociological and medical research in countries gay adoptions are allowed and fund them (separately, without each other knowing about it) to find out the impact on children, what's best and worst case scenarios, with a wide range of things to monitor. If the objectively attained results are favorable present them to the people and governments in non-aggressive way and let them vote about it. Sure, it takes a lot of time, but keep in mind - it's about the children.
And of course, concern for children is no justification for outlawing marriages if the couple isn't planning children in the first place.
As far as I can see, gay marriages aren't outlawed because that would imply they were legal before. So, they aren't outlawed, they are not legalized.
Gays already have a right to marry people of different sex. They also have a right to write contracts that would regulate what state automatically does for marriage licenses. This whole "marriage" thing for gays is really about some inner sense of belonging and outside acceptance, and for the rest it is about building protection for possible children. Even if a heterosexual couple don't want kids but want to be married there is always a chance they'd reconsider. If the couple is infertile then it's of no concern because that's a rare border case which changes pretty much nothing and in some cases it could be cured. On the other hand, infertility in gay couples is not a border case but a rule.
That doesn't mean that people against gay marriage are homophobic, any more than it makes people who voted for Obama misogynists and ageists.
Since there's no rational argument to support those positions, it kind of does mean that. Some of them reacting to a "yuck" factor. They think that homosexual behavior is gross, and they think that they will somehow prevent it by stigmatizing it.
This debate is oriented wrong - it's not about homosexuals, it's about children. Do they get a stable home? Some research says that because of their promiscuity gay people tend to "get around" more and it causes gay marriages to split. The process of splitting families is very traumatic for children, especially if they are young.
If homosexual people are willing to gamble with health and happiness of children (increasing the odds of screwing up kids because of divorces, and we're not even talking about other possible factors people tend to think of) then they are unfit to be parents by default.
Of course, I could be wrong but on the other hand, how do you conduct such surveys without posibility of screwing up kids? It seems like a lose-lose situation for people in places where there are bans for adopting in these situations. Fortunately for them, there are places where such surveys could be done but unfortunately for them I hear the results are not promising.
In other words, be patient and try to objectively collect information that can help resolve this problem once and for all. Most of all, be civilized if results don't go your way. It's okay to be sad.
The blue e is "the internet" for them. For once and for all.
This is should be a very lousy argument in the 21. century. People should be educated how to use computers and Internet services enough not to mix "the blue e" and "the Tnternet", they should know what a file, what a directory and what an operating system is and why they need it. The problem is people don't know essentials that could be learned in one afternoon. We're not talking about high-energy particle physics here, for goodness sakes!
Here's my proposal: with every computer sold distribute a booklet that explains those topics (what's what, basics of how to use a GUI, basics of how to handle file system objects, basics of using internet services, basics of computer security, best practices) which would be of at least the same quality as those booklets that were distributed along with computers of early 1990s. Optionally, quiz the user with 15 questions for basic usage when the user logs in for the first time (and deny access until he gets all 15 right), and do the same when he/she attempts to connect to the Internet. That should solve a lot of bad things and drastically increase starting knowledge of a pc/internet newbie.
Having a real OS might shave off a few fps, but it allows you to set up your hardware just the once, and have it work in all of your software.
:)
I know, let's build a GUI just for this specific thing, and let's add registry, maybe a few default apps... we'll call it... windows 3.11 :)
Oh, yes, I see your point. If only there were some way of knowing which stuff is connected and how it's set up... if only there were something like config files (c:\config.sys , c:\autoexec.bat or let's do an MS style inovation and add c:\hwconf.bat) and environment variables (BLASTER=A220I5D2) for apps that need this info
We pulled our kids out of school because we were so disgusted with the "tall poppies" attitude to academic achievement. I.e, the idea that the flowers that stand taller in the flower bed need to be pruned to keep them in line...
It sounds eerily familiar... can you say communism?
Blinkenlights.
Yeah, kids fall for that big time.
My question to you: what kind of machine would you put together that would search for microscopic life forms that are of a type we have yet to imagine?
:D
Duh, microscope.
Just throw in exchangeable ROM (not EE or UV erasable) chips in something like a very simple low-tech computer with a simple RS-232 serial port and use separate paper teleprinter/teletype.
:)
Electronics should be very low-tech and simple and mechanical teleprinter would be very easily fixed if broken while underground.
That should be basic to more complex machinery placed under a simple computer and it's mechanical I/O . Make everything redundant, with self-checks etc, etc, etc.
Perhaps it would be a good thing to add a simple AM radio-modem (creating one with simple TTL7400 and some RLC circuitry is trivial).
Of course, I'm assuming people will understand things like today's locally spoken/written languange, latin alphabet and ascii-art