Hmm, I don't know about evolution of the human species in space. Evolution requires natural selection, and natural selection isn't very likely to happen if you have physicians with the ability to treat the space related disorders (which you probably would if you're planning a large scale emigration from earth), resulting in those people still procreating, hence no natural selection.
1. The language discussed is Objective C, not C. 2. If no one programs in languages like C, you can say goodbye to modern computing. There's no way you're going to program an operating system in Python.
It doesn't affect SSDs, no. I believe the problem was too agressive power saving on mechanical drives, leading to the drive head parking too frequenly. Not that I know if it really affects HDDs either, though, none of my laptops have ever been affected.
Because it requires both; it's a logical and: create the child and raise it in a healthy environment. Heterosexual couples can do both. And, more to the point, they are the only couple capable of reproducing, absent means available to single persons at prohibitively high cost.
Okay, taking your argument at face value I would assume you're also in favor of revoking the marriage license of a married couple who has not reproduced within a set number of years of getting married? Also, of course, any couple that would give up their child for adoption for whatever reason will lose their marriage license. And of course be required to pay back to the state any taxes lost because of this illegitimate marriage? Obviously, there would also have to be a fertility test in order to get the marriage license, and if one of the parties can not conceive children, they will of course be denied a marriage license? If you do not support the above, I can only conclude that you are a hypocrite, using the argument that marriage should exist only to encourage procreation to exclude gays from the institution of marriage for whatever other reason you may have.
Civil unions cannot file with the IRS as "Married, filing jointly", including a raft of deductions available to married couples unless their state recognizes gay marriages. You're incorrect on their equivalence for tax burden to the government and society as a whole.
I was speaking of local conditions here in Sweden, where civil unions do confer all the rights of marriage except the term "marriage". However, I can only assume that civil unions are valid for filing jointly for state and local taxes in the US states that have them?
So, then, if we're talking about marriage and spousal rights for adoptive parents in a gay couple, that I can understand. But we're not. We're talking about a blanket extension for a group that is categorically unable to reproduce.
You don't actually address the issue though. From your post:
Marriage is a family structure that grows the population and, this is important for the government, creates future citizens of the country in the most healthy way we have in widescale practice.
You state create specifically, but you also bring up "in a healthy way". If two straight parents created a child, but have no means of, or don't want to raise this child in a "healthy" manner, and a gay couple steps in to raise the child in a "healthy" manner, then why would that couple not deserve the rights, benefits, and protections as a couple that the couple who had the child, but gave it up, have?
Because, as I pointed out, these rights have no tax cost. Who can visit a patient in a hospital doesn't require filing with the IRS, or otherwise represent a cost absorbed by society. Where I draw the line is the cost to society of marriage for spousal rights. Where there is no cost -- civil unions -- I'm fine.
Civil unions, at least here (gay marriage should become legal this year if the parties can stop bickering, they all support it, except for the small christian democrats, who unfortunately are part of the government coalition), confer all the rights and benefits of marriage, except the name "marriage". There is no additional cost of marriage.
Finally, I hope you note a non-homophobic, non-religious argument against universal gay marriage. You may not agree with it (and I respect your right to disagree. I think reasonable minds can differ on this topic) but I hope you realize that someone who doesn't agree with you doesn't have to be a bigot or religious fundamentalist.
Homophopic, that's debatable. But in any case, your argument is certainly the argument of a cold-hearted penny-pusher.
Would you make the same argument regarding racism? If one state discriminates against blacks, won't allow them into certain/any schools, won't allow them to marry each other and/or people of other races, would you then tell those people to move to a state which has more "like minded" people? What if no such state exists? What if moving is not a possibility due to economy, family obligations, etc? Should they just buckle down and accept the discrimination?
Gay couples may not be able to reproduce on their own, but as you noted, and do not object to, they can adopt. Is this adoption not beneficial to society? If the child has been abandoned by its biological parents, don't the gay couple adopting that child provide a service to society as beneficial as that of couples having and raising children on their own? Is it then not only right that this couple receive the very same rights and benefits as other couples raising children?
Also, with your argument, why would you support civil unions for these gay, supposedly childless couples, which confers mostly the same rights, except the name "marriage", or things like visitation rights in hospital stays outside of the territory where that civil union is recognized?
All of those are capitalistic, some may have a more regulated form of capitalism, but it's still capitalism... And you didn't mention any capitalistic countries without poverty..
A myth? We can clearly see the effects of this unfair distribution of wealth in the poverty that exists across the world, are you denying this poverty? Is poverty a myth?
And capitalism == a few, privileged (usually with inherited wealth) individuals unfairly using the masses to create massive wealth for themselves while leaving others impoverished.
Ownership, but not regulation, regulation is not part of socialism, that would be a part of the capitalistic system that requires it. This move is regulation of a capitalistic system, doesn't really have much to do with socialism, other than the fact that many socialists generally would be in favor of regulation of capitalistic markets as long as they exist to try to reign in the destructive powers of large corporations. Socialism is foremost about distribution of wealth and to create a society where everyone has equal opportunity in life, regardless of where they were born or who their parents were.
Perhaps, from a US perspective at least, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with this.. Now can you please define socialism to set this poor socialist Swede straight?
As an agnostic, can you give one, single reason WHY not to allow gay marriage? How does it affect YOU? Why do you want to deny someone a right you enjoy because they happen to love a person of his/her own gender? What possible reason could there be if not religious, or just plain homophobic?
None of those are choices you make in life. I did not choose to be born in Sweden, and cannot really do anything about it, a gay man did not choose to become gay, and cannot do anything about it. A religious fundamentalist chose to become one, and can do something about it, just like a racist chose to become one, and can do something about it.
They may have been brainwashed as children or whatever, but that's really not an excuse for any kind of intelligent person to let such nonsense influence what rights other people should or should not have.
Anyone who bases their views of political issues such as gay marriage on faith are, by my definition at least, religious fundamentalists, incapable of independent thought. Not being capable of independent thought goes hand in hand with lack of intelligence.
Really, what do you have against gay marriage? Is it hurting you in some mysterious way? Is "god" going to punish you if you don't stop it? Does it affect your own (eventual) marriage in some way? (if it does, you should probably get a divorce anyways btw)
Marriage is not a religious institution, the church coopted marriage, which was originally various more or less formal commitment ceremonies between lovers, or simply a contract between families. The churches and their religious minions are ignoring thousands of years of history prior to church marriages when they say only churches can marry people. Until the middle ages, the Christian church had nothing to do with marriages whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History
A reasonable model of health insurance would deal with catastrophic costs only, say in excess of $10,000 per hospital stay as indicated by these data.
And what happens to those who cannot afford $10,000. Do they deserve to die because they were too stupid or too poor to save up $10,000? And what if you had saved $10,000, broke your leg and used those $10,000? Now you don't have the $10,000 you need to survive a serious illness for instance.
Technologists always want that video phone, and the market continually says "no thanks, voice is good enough". In fact, it's gone backwards a bit, with text messaging being rather popular.
Wireless video phones are widely available today and have been for years, even my (pretty cheap) phone has that feature. I've never seen anyone use it though, and I've never used it myself. It seemed like a really cool idea when seen in SciFi movies/tv shows, but in reality it's just isn't all that necessary to see the person you're speaking to, especially when on the move as you are with your cellphone.
The program doesn't include tourists and students because that's included in another program, and has been for several years now. I know this because I was a student in the US for a period of 6 months in 2005 and was required to surrender my fingerprints to enter the country.
The BIOS password is stored in CMOS. All you have to do to clear CMOS settings (including any password) is to remove the CMOS battery for a few seconds.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what happens when you proofread *after* you post. ;)
I believe the lack of an edit button is intentional..
Hmm, I don't know about evolution of the human species in space. Evolution requires natural selection, and natural selection isn't very likely to happen if you have physicians with the ability to treat the space related disorders (which you probably would if you're planning a large scale emigration from earth), resulting in those people still procreating, hence no natural selection.
1. The language discussed is Objective C, not C.
2. If no one programs in languages like C, you can say goodbye to modern computing. There's no way you're going to program an operating system in Python.
It doesn't affect SSDs, no. I believe the problem was too agressive power saving on mechanical drives, leading to the drive head parking too frequenly.
Not that I know if it really affects HDDs either, though, none of my laptops have ever been affected.
Note the PPC, PowerPC.
Isn't that sort of the point of closing gitmo? To try them in a court of law, as opposed to hold them illegally and indefinitely without trial?
Because it requires both; it's a logical and: create the child and raise it in a healthy environment. Heterosexual couples can do both. And, more to the point, they are the only couple capable of reproducing, absent means available to single persons at prohibitively high cost.
Okay, taking your argument at face value I would assume you're also in favor of revoking the marriage license of a married couple who has not reproduced within a set number of years of getting married? Also, of course, any couple that would give up their child for adoption for whatever reason will lose their marriage license. And of course be required to pay back to the state any taxes lost because of this illegitimate marriage? Obviously, there would also have to be a fertility test in order to get the marriage license, and if one of the parties can not conceive children, they will of course be denied a marriage license?
If you do not support the above, I can only conclude that you are a hypocrite, using the argument that marriage should exist only to encourage procreation to exclude gays from the institution of marriage for whatever other reason you may have.
Civil unions cannot file with the IRS as "Married, filing jointly", including a raft of deductions available to married couples unless their state recognizes gay marriages. You're incorrect on their equivalence for tax burden to the government and society as a whole.
I was speaking of local conditions here in Sweden, where civil unions do confer all the rights of marriage except the term "marriage".
However, I can only assume that civil unions are valid for filing jointly for state and local taxes in the US states that have them?
So, then, if we're talking about marriage and spousal rights for adoptive parents in a gay couple, that I can understand. But we're not. We're talking about a blanket extension for a group that is categorically unable to reproduce.
You don't actually address the issue though.
From your post:
Marriage is a family structure that grows the population and, this is important for the government, creates future citizens of the country in the most healthy way we have in widescale practice.
You state create specifically, but you also bring up "in a healthy way". If two straight parents created a child, but have no means of, or don't want to raise this child in a "healthy" manner, and a gay couple steps in to raise the child in a "healthy" manner, then why would that couple not deserve the rights, benefits, and protections as a couple that the couple who had the child, but gave it up, have?
Because, as I pointed out, these rights have no tax cost. Who can visit a patient in a hospital doesn't require filing with the IRS, or otherwise represent a cost absorbed by society. Where I draw the line is the cost to society of marriage for spousal rights. Where there is no cost -- civil unions -- I'm fine.
Civil unions, at least here (gay marriage should become legal this year if the parties can stop bickering, they all support it, except for the small christian democrats, who unfortunately are part of the government coalition), confer all the rights and benefits of marriage, except the name "marriage". There is no additional cost of marriage.
Finally, I hope you note a non-homophobic, non-religious argument against universal gay marriage. You may not agree with it (and I respect your right to disagree. I think reasonable minds can differ on this topic) but I hope you realize that someone who doesn't agree with you doesn't have to be a bigot or religious fundamentalist.
Homophopic, that's debatable. But in any case, your argument is certainly the argument of a cold-hearted penny-pusher.
Would you make the same argument regarding racism? If one state discriminates against blacks, won't allow them into certain/any schools, won't allow them to marry each other and/or people of other races, would you then tell those people to move to a state which has more "like minded" people? What if no such state exists? What if moving is not a possibility due to economy, family obligations, etc? Should they just buckle down and accept the discrimination?
Gay couples may not be able to reproduce on their own, but as you noted, and do not object to, they can adopt. Is this adoption not beneficial to society? If the child has been abandoned by its biological parents, don't the gay couple adopting that child provide a service to society as beneficial as that of couples having and raising children on their own? Is it then not only right that this couple receive the very same rights and benefits as other couples raising children?
Also, with your argument, why would you support civil unions for these gay, supposedly childless couples, which confers mostly the same rights, except the name "marriage", or things like visitation rights in hospital stays outside of the territory where that civil union is recognized?
All of those are capitalistic, some may have a more regulated form of capitalism, but it's still capitalism...
And you didn't mention any capitalistic countries without poverty..
Oh? Can you specify which countries do not use the capitalistic system? And which capitalistic countries poverty does not exist in?
A myth? We can clearly see the effects of this unfair distribution of wealth in the poverty that exists across the world, are you denying this poverty? Is poverty a myth?
And capitalism == a few, privileged (usually with inherited wealth) individuals unfairly using the masses to create massive wealth for themselves while leaving others impoverished.
Ownership, but not regulation, regulation is not part of socialism, that would be a part of the capitalistic system that requires it. This move is regulation of a capitalistic system, doesn't really have much to do with socialism, other than the fact that many socialists generally would be in favor of regulation of capitalistic markets as long as they exist to try to reign in the destructive powers of large corporations.
Socialism is foremost about distribution of wealth and to create a society where everyone has equal opportunity in life, regardless of where they were born or who their parents were.
The EU is simply socialist.
Perhaps, from a US perspective at least, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with this..
Now can you please define socialism to set this poor socialist Swede straight?
As an agnostic, can you give one, single reason WHY not to allow gay marriage? How does it affect YOU? Why do you want to deny someone a right you enjoy because they happen to love a person of his/her own gender? What possible reason could there be if not religious, or just plain homophobic?
None of those are choices you make in life. I did not choose to be born in Sweden, and cannot really do anything about it, a gay man did not choose to become gay, and cannot do anything about it. A religious fundamentalist chose to become one, and can do something about it, just like a racist chose to become one, and can do something about it.
They may have been brainwashed as children or whatever, but that's really not an excuse for any kind of intelligent person to let such nonsense influence what rights other people should or should not have.
Anyone who bases their views of political issues such as gay marriage on faith are, by my definition at least, religious fundamentalists, incapable of independent thought. Not being capable of independent thought goes hand in hand with lack of intelligence.
Really, what do you have against gay marriage? Is it hurting you in some mysterious way? Is "god" going to punish you if you don't stop it? Does it affect your own (eventual) marriage in some way? (if it does, you should probably get a divorce anyways btw)
BTW, modding down and replying as an ac i see...
Marriage is not a religious institution, the church coopted marriage, which was originally various more or less formal commitment ceremonies between lovers, or simply a contract between families. The churches and their religious minions are ignoring thousands of years of history prior to church marriages when they say only churches can marry people.
Until the middle ages, the Christian church had nothing to do with marriages whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History
Those people are religious fundamentalists, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
A reasonable model of health insurance would deal with catastrophic costs only, say in excess of $10,000 per hospital stay as indicated by these data.
And what happens to those who cannot afford $10,000. Do they deserve to die because they were too stupid or too poor to save up $10,000?
And what if you had saved $10,000, broke your leg and used those $10,000? Now you don't have the $10,000 you need to survive a serious illness for instance.
Technologists always want that video phone, and the market continually says "no thanks, voice is good enough". In fact, it's gone backwards a bit, with text messaging being rather popular.
Wireless video phones are widely available today and have been for years, even my (pretty cheap) phone has that feature. I've never seen anyone use it though, and I've never used it myself. It seemed like a really cool idea when seen in SciFi movies/tv shows, but in reality it's just isn't all that necessary to see the person you're speaking to, especially when on the move as you are with your cellphone.
The program doesn't include tourists and students because that's included in another program, and has been for several years now.
I know this because I was a student in the US for a period of 6 months in 2005 and was required to surrender my fingerprints to enter the country.
The BIOS password is stored in CMOS. All you have to do to clear CMOS settings (including any password) is to remove the CMOS battery for a few seconds.