We are talking about information that WILL become public, and in this case a specific date chosen and it wasnt even going to be that far in the future.
And given that the information wasn't sensitive in the first place, it shouldn't have been secret at all. As GP said, someone realized this and leaked it. I see no cause for concern here (from the "OMG LEAKS" perspective), I only see cause for concern about the TSA itself.
I disagree. Let's say they had kept secret the plan to require passengers to stay seated for the last hour of flight. Let's also assume a terrorist had planned an attack that requires getting out of his seat during the last hour of flight, and the planned attack was to occur on the first flight on which the new requirement was implemented.
The flight crew is surely going to tell the passengers the new rule before it comes into effect, so that they can use the toilet before the last hour of flight; worst case (from the terrorist's point of view) he puts his plan into motion with an hour and five minutes to go.
How does keeping this sort of thing secret beforehand increase security at all? Chances are very, very good that terrorists are going to know about any new rules almost immediately after they're implemented, negating any benefit gained by the secret implementation of those rules.
Do you have a counter-example where an airline security procedure must be kept secret before implementation in order for it to remain effective after implementation?
No - he can do it, he just ends up in jail as a result.
Sure, the consequences suck, but technically he can choose to do it. This is no different than me being free to go on a murder spree. The fact that doing something might get you thrown in jail (or killed) does not mean you aren't free to do it.
Of course, if we want to talk about political freedom (what the law allows) then no, Chinese citizens are not exactly "free", but U.S. citizens certainly are.
They don't prevent you... they just punish you if you do it.
Prevention implies that they anticipate your impending murder spree, and forcibly stop you from doing it. While that is possible in some cases (early warnings, etc), it's not generally possible.
I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic, but I know from personal experience that your attitude has a lot to do with how people perceive you (and I'm not just talking about how attractive you are).
I mostly meant that my parent post seemed to imply that "freedom" basically means "lack of consequences for any possible action", which I think is a silly definition.
I would define freedom as "the ability to choose your own actions", not as "the ability to do anything despite other people's actions".
In the case of a business loan, you're free to try to start a business; but sometimes our actions depend on other people's actions, and it's silly to say "they won't give me a loan" somehow makes me less free.
Continuing to believe that you're free (and act as if you were), while getting all the possible restraints and punishments from your oppressor, is a definite sign that you're crazy.
That's mostly true; but for the vast majority of the population - at least in the U.S. - virtually all of the things people do (believing they're free) are not things punishable by law, and even some of the things that are punishable (e.g. speeding) people do anyway because the punishment is not particularly severe.
No people are so hopelessly enslaved as those who truly believe they are free.
I'm not going to ask what you mean by "free"; I'll just say this: there is essentially no difference between believing you're free and actually being free. Your behavior doesn't change if you go from merely believing you're free to actually being free. (After all, if you believe you're free, you will behave as if you are actually free. In other words, it makes no difference.)
Furthermore, I'm not so sure; your own church [wikipedia.org] defines homosexuality as more than just participation in homosexual sex:
I think you're misreading the text you quoted - in fact, it specifically mentions that the church does not use the term "homosexual" to describe people with same-gender attractions, it uses the term "same-gender attraction".
The Wikipedia article was most likely not written by the LDS Church, so I would be careful with the context of those quotes, as the article writer likely has his or her own definition of "homosexual" which may not coincide with the LDS Church's usage. The Church's stance on homosexuality and same-gender marriage is best read here and here.
You seem receptive to the idea that homosexuality is a something you can at least be born with a predisposition to, but then go on to say that you can (and should) choose to not be that way.
That second half is the bit that's (of course) causing the most problems. If I can be direct, the trouble is that many religious people don't want to endorse something in law that they view as a sin, even only as indirectly as making it legal. (And, unfounded or not, there are fears regarding how that indirect endorsement would affect our children.)
You (the generic "you", referring to the LGBT movement) hear that and take offense, when (with perhaps some unfortunate exceptions) usually no offense is meant - we just don't want to endorse a lifestyle we view as a sin, and we want our children to clearly understand that we don't approve of it. (Hearing one message at school and the opposite at home can make for a confused child.)
To me, that's just as ridiculous as me saying that you might have been born heterosexual but should choose not to engage in your desires (due to overpopulation or whatever fanciful reason I might come up with).
I'm not asking anyone to stop living their sexual life how they want. As I said before, I don't much care what you do in your bedroom.
Homosexuals are still discriminated against for certain rights though
Well, one problem is that some of the things homosexuals are claiming are "rights" are actually privileges, not rights; adoption, for example, is not a right, but a privilege given to those couples that meet the criteria set by the adoption agency. If the adoption agency doesn't think homosexual couples can provide a sufficiently healthy environment to raise a child, well, that's unfortunate for such couples, but no rights have been lost.
it's just that perhaps my sarcasm was not the best way to illustrate mine
Sarcasm rarely comes across properly in internet-based discussions like this (which is why I specifically mentioned the facetiousness with which I made one of my comments)...
The explanation that gays want marriage rights because they want to enjoy the same rights heteros get satisfies the observations
But the issue is that gays don't actually gain any rights by marriage that they don't already have. There are some privileges, sure - tax credits meant to encourage having children, for example - but again those are not rights.
I realize that probably sounds arrogant, but if you're going to claim you're losing rights, you'd better show some rights that are getting lost, not just benefits.
(If you mention health insurance companies discriminating, well, that's already illegal in many/most places, so that sort of thing can be solved by enforcing existing law.)
Now, on top of all that, try to look at it from our point of view - "marriage" has a deep, special mea
perhaps should not be used as a demonstration of rational thought.
Ah, so you're another one of those muttonheads who thinks religious people are incapable of rational thought. I suppose you'll also tell me that I shouldn't vote unless I (somehow) vote without letting my religious views influence my vote. (Never mind that the founders of this country were quite religious, and never mind that their religion heavily influenced our entire system of government and the laws it upholds.)
You're the ones screaming about how restricting the use of those resources in favor of others is going to irreparably destroy the economy, remember?
There you go ignoring my earlier post. We're in favor of moving away from coal and oil. We just don't want to do it while liberals are refusing to let us build more nuclear plants. Are you still trying to deny that liberals have historically opposed nuclear plants, while conservatives have historically supported them? It's extremely well-known...
It's intellectually dishonest to suggest someone like Al Gore should be bicycling everywhere, yes.
Nobody suggested that Al Gore ride his bicycle across the Atlantic. In fact I specifically suggested that Al Gore merely take a regular airplane like everyone else. Then he wouldn't have to purchase "carbon offsets", and he could use his money to, I don't know, fund further research or something. If his schedule is really so cramped that he can't allocate an extra couple of hours to take a regular plane, then he's overscheduling himself.
A "valid" example would be a company trying to build [solar power in a desert, and being opposed by environmentalists]
If I were to announce tomorrow that I want to put up a large number of solar panels in the middle of the Sahara, I can guarantee a huge backlash from environmentalists saying "you can't do that, you'll ruin the Sahara's natural ecology." But don't take my word for it - read on. I have linked to examples of environmentalists opposing the very energy plans you say they support. And let me tell you, it was trivial to find them.
Evolution? Conservatives oppose it. Stem-cell research? Conservatives oppose it. CERN? Conservatives oppose it. AGW? Conservatives oppose it.
What? Don't be ridiculous. Conservatives are generally religious, sure, but very few conservatives try to get schools to stop teaching evolution in schools. Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive.
Conservatives generally only oppose stem-cell research using aborted fetuses. Research using stem cells from other sources (e.g. umbilical cord blood) is not opposed. You're conflating two issues.
I'm not sure what CERN has to do with anything. Are you saying conservatives oppose the LHC? I haven't really heard anyone in particular opposing it, other than small groups of scientists who are too unqualified to actually explain why they oppose it. This has nothing to do with our discussion; I'm not really sure why you brought it up.
AGW? Yeah, that's sort of what this argument is about:P
And you think we can't be the ones causing the problem? I'd love to see your logical thought process on that one.
I already mentioned why, but apparently you missed it. The earth has a natural temperature cycle, and we are in the natural warming-up phase of that cycle. Can you prove to me that the earth would not be warming up just as much without us?
You pretty much just said you agree with everything AGW folks want to do to prevent global warming, but you're not doing so because of global warming. If it came down to it, you'd see the world destroyed just so you wouldn't have to admit global warming exists.
Well right, but I'm talking specifically about having to purchase access to the source code, or rather, not having to purchase access to the source code (because it's open source).
depending on which definition [of homosexuality] you use
And therein lies a substantial portion of the confusion around this issue. Conservative Christian types (of the sort that oppose gay marriage) generally only refer to a person as "homosexual" if they participate in same-gender sexual activity; on the other hand, the pro-gay-marriage supporters refer to "homosexuality" as some ingrained, unchangeable genetic trait.
I'm going to get yelled at by half a dozen people for this, but here it is anyway: Let's assume there is some genetic predisposition to homosexuality in some people. The way conservative Christians look at it, it's like alcoholism - a person may be genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but they're not alcoholic unless they're drinking alcohol. Similarly, a person may be predisposed to homosexuality, but they're not homosexual unless they participate in such behavior. (Again, I'm not attempting to say "This is how it is", I'm merely trying to explain how conservative Christians look at the issue.)
I think you can see where the problem arises - we're saying "it's a choice", because a person predisposed to alcoholism can choose not to be alcoholic, and we view homosexuality in the same light - as something a person can choose not to participate in.
Of course, every time I try to explain this fundamental difference in definitions, people get sidetracked by my "predisposition to alcoholism" comparison, and they start yelling at me for calling gays alcoholics or somesuch nonsense. Please don't do that;) In any case, if you understand the fundamental difference in definitions of each side of the debate, then you can start having a rational discussion on the subject.
Umm, what? No boy or girl wants to move into "homosexual society," whatever that is.
That's exactly OSC's point. Read his sentence again - society will seize any hint of homosexuality in our children and nurture it, in the name of tolerance, and it will encourage our children to accept a desire they don't actually have (that is, to be homosexual).
Now before you go shouting "that's nonsense", just think about it for a minute. If homosexuality is viewed by society as normal and natural, then teachers in schools will be socially obliged to encourage such traits in students when they see them - just as they encourage creativity, athleticism, or any other natural trait - even romance. (School-organized dances, anyone?)
Futhermore, how can anyone possibly say that society encourages homosexuality?
Have you watched TV lately? Virtually every new TV show has a gay character, and they all go to great lengths to have every other character on the show be as accepting as possible of that gay person's lifestyle - and they go to great lengths to make the viewers accept the person's lifestyle as well. It's a very short jump from implicit acceptance to encouragement.
Now, that's only the media I'm talking about; there are a lot of people who have a strange compulsion to abuse homosexuals in a number of ways (physically, emotionally, etc). Homosexuals are not the only group targeted like this. (Mormons come to mind.) I certainly don't approve of such behavior. But don't be too quick to judge the majority based on a vocal minority.
However, there is plenty of evidence for a strong genetic component to homosexuality such as, oh I don't know, just about every mammalian species studied in any depth.
I'll simply refer you to my earlier comments regarding the difference in definitions in answer to this comment. We generally concede the possibility of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, but we don't agree that such a predisposition gives the person no choice in the matter.
He is so rabid in his hatred of homosexuality that he sees any concession towards the "gay society" as an attempt to pervent these wayward so
There is a balance between "maintain old versions forever" and "Firefox attitude of forcing you into changes you don't want to make."
Yeah - I think they struck that balance fairly. They only issue critical security fixes for Firefox 2. They don't force the upgrade through code. They don't pop up warnings saying "OMG UR FOXFIRE IS TEH OLD".
My point was, if there was sufficient demand out there for Firefox 2, someone would fork the codebase and continue developing it under some other name. That's how the open source community works.
It's not obnoxious to point out that it's silly to refuse to let the developers take their project in the direction they want to take it. You don't have to like it - use some other browser, if it's that important to you.
You can maintain only one version AND give everybody the UI they love, just make it an option.
... unless the two UIs have sufficiently different code, in which case you are asking them to maintain two essentially distinct versions, and of course maintaining two separate UIs can make UI-related bugs much more difficult to fix.
I'm not disagreeing with you that a lot of people like the old toolbar. But while it may be arrogant of the Firefox team to arbitrarily choose a new direction for their UI (though it is, you know, their project, so if anyone has a right to determine its course, it's them), it's at least equally arrogant of you to expect them to maintain two separate UIs just because some users happen to like the old one.
There is more than one way people could get the old behavior back. Maybe a plugin. Maybe a fork. But guess what - that's the beauty of the open source world. If you don't like the direction a project is taking, you have other options - nobody forces Firefox 2 users to use Firefox 3 (ceasing security updates is not "forcing people to upgrade", no matter which way you paint it). Nobody forces you to stay with Firefox at all.
If you don't like Firefox 3's awesomebar, there's nothing wrong with that. Switch to Opera, or Chrome, or Safari, or (shudder) IE, or any of the other dozen web browsers out there. It's not like there's a lack of choices when it comes to browsers.
I'll be honest - I didn't notice any significant UI changes between FF2 and FF3. I can't think of any behavior of the old toolbar which the new toolbar doesn't do. For my usage patterns, at least, the new toolbar works exactly like the old toolbar, but more... awesome. Maybe I'm atypical, but isn't it possible that the Firefox 3 devs think I'm typical? Isn't it possible that the Firefox 3 devs are catering to people with my usage patterns? Maybe they have some usage pattern data that they're basing their decisions on. I highly doubt it's just arbitrary.
That is, unfortunately, not a strong argument for Free Software as governments (and other large organizations) often can and do purchase access to proprietary source code.
The key word there is "purchase" - with open source software the source code is (by definition) free. If $ORGANIZATION mentions "we can purchase access to Office 2003's source code", the simple response is "why purchase something you can get for free?" (Obviously that won't always work, but it's a counter-argument, at least.)
You can't expect them to maintain old versions forever. Besides, you're always free to backport FF3's applicable security fixes to FF2 on your own, if you really want to keep using FF2 that much.
(I don't usually like "do it yourself" as a response to "it's missing a bugfix/feature/whatever", but in the case of no-longer-supported open source software I think it's acceptable.)
Slashdot Mirror
We are talking about information that WILL become public, and in this case a specific date chosen and it wasnt even going to be that far in the future.
And given that the information wasn't sensitive in the first place, it shouldn't have been secret at all. As GP said, someone realized this and leaked it. I see no cause for concern here (from the "OMG LEAKS" perspective), I only see cause for concern about the TSA itself.
I disagree. Let's say they had kept secret the plan to require passengers to stay seated for the last hour of flight. Let's also assume a terrorist had planned an attack that requires getting out of his seat during the last hour of flight, and the planned attack was to occur on the first flight on which the new requirement was implemented.
The flight crew is surely going to tell the passengers the new rule before it comes into effect, so that they can use the toilet before the last hour of flight; worst case (from the terrorist's point of view) he puts his plan into motion with an hour and five minutes to go.
How does keeping this sort of thing secret beforehand increase security at all? Chances are very, very good that terrorists are going to know about any new rules almost immediately after they're implemented, negating any benefit gained by the secret implementation of those rules.
Do you have a counter-example where an airline security procedure must be kept secret before implementation in order for it to remain effective after implementation?
it really comes down how fast the E.D. of Texas moves
It's impolite to point out others' personal problems like that. Also, I might be wrong, but I thought the problem with E.D. is that it didn't move...
In the sense I'm talking about, yes.
"Political freedom" is, of course, an entirely different beast.
No - he can do it, he just ends up in jail as a result.
Sure, the consequences suck, but technically he can choose to do it. This is no different than me being free to go on a murder spree. The fact that doing something might get you thrown in jail (or killed) does not mean you aren't free to do it.
Of course, if we want to talk about political freedom (what the law allows) then no, Chinese citizens are not exactly "free", but U.S. citizens certainly are.
They don't prevent you... they just punish you if you do it.
Prevention implies that they anticipate your impending murder spree, and forcibly stop you from doing it. While that is possible in some cases (early warnings, etc), it's not generally possible.
"Free" does not imply "immune to consequences".
This is true; however, my parent post was speaking of the U.S., and my comments should be taken in that context.
I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic, but I know from personal experience that your attitude has a lot to do with how people perceive you (and I'm not just talking about how attractive you are).
Consider the story of Johnny Lingo.
"Freedom" does not imply "lack of consequences".
I am quite free to choose to go on a murder spree in downtown Chicago. That does not mean I can choose to ignore the consequences of my actions.
That's true. I didn't say anything about consequences ;)
I mostly meant that my parent post seemed to imply that "freedom" basically means "lack of consequences for any possible action", which I think is a silly definition.
I would define freedom as "the ability to choose your own actions", not as "the ability to do anything despite other people's actions".
In the case of a business loan, you're free to try to start a business; but sometimes our actions depend on other people's actions, and it's silly to say "they won't give me a loan" somehow makes me less free.
We're not talking about China, we're talking about the U.S. - at least, that was my parent post's point.
Nobody in the U.S. can be legally imprisoned merely for speaking their mind.
Continuing to believe that you're free (and act as if you were), while getting all the possible restraints and punishments from your oppressor, is a definite sign that you're crazy.
That's mostly true; but for the vast majority of the population - at least in the U.S. - virtually all of the things people do (believing they're free) are not things punishable by law, and even some of the things that are punishable (e.g. speeding) people do anyway because the punishment is not particularly severe.
I don't think "not wanting to do X" means you're not free to do it. Quite the contrary - you are free to do it, you merely choose not to.
You don't have to jump off a bridge to prove you're free to jump off the bridge.
No people are so hopelessly enslaved as those who truly believe they are free.
I'm not going to ask what you mean by "free"; I'll just say this: there is essentially no difference between believing you're free and actually being free. Your behavior doesn't change if you go from merely believing you're free to actually being free. (After all, if you believe you're free, you will behave as if you are actually free. In other words, it makes no difference.)
Furthermore, I'm not so sure; your own church [wikipedia.org] defines homosexuality as more than just participation in homosexual sex:
I think you're misreading the text you quoted - in fact, it specifically mentions that the church does not use the term "homosexual" to describe people with same-gender attractions, it uses the term "same-gender attraction".
The Wikipedia article was most likely not written by the LDS Church, so I would be careful with the context of those quotes, as the article writer likely has his or her own definition of "homosexual" which may not coincide with the LDS Church's usage. The Church's stance on homosexuality and same-gender marriage is best read here and here.
You seem receptive to the idea that homosexuality is a something you can at least be born with a predisposition to, but then go on to say that you can (and should) choose to not be that way.
That second half is the bit that's (of course) causing the most problems. If I can be direct, the trouble is that many religious people don't want to endorse something in law that they view as a sin, even only as indirectly as making it legal. (And, unfounded or not, there are fears regarding how that indirect endorsement would affect our children.)
You (the generic "you", referring to the LGBT movement) hear that and take offense, when (with perhaps some unfortunate exceptions) usually no offense is meant - we just don't want to endorse a lifestyle we view as a sin, and we want our children to clearly understand that we don't approve of it. (Hearing one message at school and the opposite at home can make for a confused child.)
To me, that's just as ridiculous as me saying that you might have been born heterosexual but should choose not to engage in your desires (due to overpopulation or whatever fanciful reason I might come up with).
I'm not asking anyone to stop living their sexual life how they want. As I said before, I don't much care what you do in your bedroom.
Homosexuals are still discriminated against for certain rights though
Well, one problem is that some of the things homosexuals are claiming are "rights" are actually privileges, not rights; adoption, for example, is not a right, but a privilege given to those couples that meet the criteria set by the adoption agency. If the adoption agency doesn't think homosexual couples can provide a sufficiently healthy environment to raise a child, well, that's unfortunate for such couples, but no rights have been lost.
it's just that perhaps my sarcasm was not the best way to illustrate mine
Sarcasm rarely comes across properly in internet-based discussions like this (which is why I specifically mentioned the facetiousness with which I made one of my comments)...
The explanation that gays want marriage rights because they want to enjoy the same rights heteros get satisfies the observations
But the issue is that gays don't actually gain any rights by marriage that they don't already have. There are some privileges, sure - tax credits meant to encourage having children, for example - but again those are not rights.
I realize that probably sounds arrogant, but if you're going to claim you're losing rights, you'd better show some rights that are getting lost, not just benefits.
(If you mention health insurance companies discriminating, well, that's already illegal in many/most places, so that sort of thing can be solved by enforcing existing law.)
Now, on top of all that, try to look at it from our point of view - "marriage" has a deep, special mea
perhaps should not be used as a demonstration of rational thought.
Ah, so you're another one of those muttonheads who thinks religious people are incapable of rational thought. I suppose you'll also tell me that I shouldn't vote unless I (somehow) vote without letting my religious views influence my vote. (Never mind that the founders of this country were quite religious, and never mind that their religion heavily influenced our entire system of government and the laws it upholds.)
You're the ones screaming about how restricting the use of those resources in favor of others is going to irreparably destroy the economy, remember?
There you go ignoring my earlier post. We're in favor of moving away from coal and oil. We just don't want to do it while liberals are refusing to let us build more nuclear plants. Are you still trying to deny that liberals have historically opposed nuclear plants, while conservatives have historically supported them? It's extremely well-known...
It's intellectually dishonest to suggest someone like Al Gore should be bicycling everywhere, yes.
Nobody suggested that Al Gore ride his bicycle across the Atlantic. In fact I specifically suggested that Al Gore merely take a regular airplane like everyone else. Then he wouldn't have to purchase "carbon offsets", and he could use his money to, I don't know, fund further research or something. If his schedule is really so cramped that he can't allocate an extra couple of hours to take a regular plane, then he's overscheduling himself.
A "valid" example would be a company trying to build [solar power in a desert, and being opposed by environmentalists]
If I were to announce tomorrow that I want to put up a large number of solar panels in the middle of the Sahara, I can guarantee a huge backlash from environmentalists saying "you can't do that, you'll ruin the Sahara's natural ecology." But don't take my word for it - read on. I have linked to examples of environmentalists opposing the very energy plans you say they support. And let me tell you, it was trivial to find them.
Evolution? Conservatives oppose it. Stem-cell research? Conservatives oppose it. CERN? Conservatives oppose it. AGW? Conservatives oppose it.
What? Don't be ridiculous. Conservatives are generally religious, sure, but very few conservatives try to get schools to stop teaching evolution in schools. Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive.
Conservatives generally only oppose stem-cell research using aborted fetuses. Research using stem cells from other sources (e.g. umbilical cord blood) is not opposed. You're conflating two issues.
I'm not sure what CERN has to do with anything. Are you saying conservatives oppose the LHC? I haven't really heard anyone in particular opposing it, other than small groups of scientists who are too unqualified to actually explain why they oppose it. This has nothing to do with our discussion; I'm not really sure why you brought it up.
AGW? Yeah, that's sort of what this argument is about :P
And you think we can't be the ones causing the problem? I'd love to see your logical thought process on that one.
I already mentioned why, but apparently you missed it. The earth has a natural temperature cycle, and we are in the natural warming-up phase of that cycle. Can you prove to me that the earth would not be warming up just as much without us?
You pretty much just said you agree with everything AGW folks want to do to prevent global warming, but you're not doing so because of global warming. If it came down to it, you'd see the world destroyed just so you wouldn't have to admit global warming exists.
Don't be silly. I'm not the one currently
Well right, but I'm talking specifically about having to purchase access to the source code, or rather, not having to purchase access to the source code (because it's open source).
depending on which definition [of homosexuality] you use
And therein lies a substantial portion of the confusion around this issue. Conservative Christian types (of the sort that oppose gay marriage) generally only refer to a person as "homosexual" if they participate in same-gender sexual activity; on the other hand, the pro-gay-marriage supporters refer to "homosexuality" as some ingrained, unchangeable genetic trait.
I'm going to get yelled at by half a dozen people for this, but here it is anyway: Let's assume there is some genetic predisposition to homosexuality in some people. The way conservative Christians look at it, it's like alcoholism - a person may be genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but they're not alcoholic unless they're drinking alcohol. Similarly, a person may be predisposed to homosexuality, but they're not homosexual unless they participate in such behavior. (Again, I'm not attempting to say "This is how it is", I'm merely trying to explain how conservative Christians look at the issue.)
I think you can see where the problem arises - we're saying "it's a choice", because a person predisposed to alcoholism can choose not to be alcoholic, and we view homosexuality in the same light - as something a person can choose not to participate in.
Of course, every time I try to explain this fundamental difference in definitions, people get sidetracked by my "predisposition to alcoholism" comparison, and they start yelling at me for calling gays alcoholics or somesuch nonsense. Please don't do that ;) In any case, if you understand the fundamental difference in definitions of each side of the debate, then you can start having a rational discussion on the subject.
Umm, what? No boy or girl wants to move into "homosexual society," whatever that is.
That's exactly OSC's point. Read his sentence again - society will seize any hint of homosexuality in our children and nurture it, in the name of tolerance, and it will encourage our children to accept a desire they don't actually have (that is, to be homosexual).
Now before you go shouting "that's nonsense", just think about it for a minute. If homosexuality is viewed by society as normal and natural, then teachers in schools will be socially obliged to encourage such traits in students when they see them - just as they encourage creativity, athleticism, or any other natural trait - even romance. (School-organized dances, anyone?)
Futhermore, how can anyone possibly say that society encourages homosexuality?
Have you watched TV lately? Virtually every new TV show has a gay character, and they all go to great lengths to have every other character on the show be as accepting as possible of that gay person's lifestyle - and they go to great lengths to make the viewers accept the person's lifestyle as well. It's a very short jump from implicit acceptance to encouragement.
Now, that's only the media I'm talking about; there are a lot of people who have a strange compulsion to abuse homosexuals in a number of ways (physically, emotionally, etc). Homosexuals are not the only group targeted like this. (Mormons come to mind.) I certainly don't approve of such behavior. But don't be too quick to judge the majority based on a vocal minority.
However, there is plenty of evidence for a strong genetic component to homosexuality such as, oh I don't know, just about every mammalian species studied in any depth.
I'll simply refer you to my earlier comments regarding the difference in definitions in answer to this comment. We generally concede the possibility of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, but we don't agree that such a predisposition gives the person no choice in the matter.
He is so rabid in his hatred of homosexuality that he sees any concession towards the "gay society" as an attempt to pervent these wayward so
There is a balance between "maintain old versions forever" and "Firefox attitude of forcing you into changes you don't want to make."
Yeah - I think they struck that balance fairly. They only issue critical security fixes for Firefox 2. They don't force the upgrade through code. They don't pop up warnings saying "OMG UR FOXFIRE IS TEH OLD".
My point was, if there was sufficient demand out there for Firefox 2, someone would fork the codebase and continue developing it under some other name. That's how the open source community works.
It's not obnoxious to point out that it's silly to refuse to let the developers take their project in the direction they want to take it. You don't have to like it - use some other browser, if it's that important to you.
You can maintain only one version AND give everybody the UI they love, just make it an option.
... unless the two UIs have sufficiently different code, in which case you are asking them to maintain two essentially distinct versions, and of course maintaining two separate UIs can make UI-related bugs much more difficult to fix.
I'm not disagreeing with you that a lot of people like the old toolbar. But while it may be arrogant of the Firefox team to arbitrarily choose a new direction for their UI (though it is, you know, their project, so if anyone has a right to determine its course, it's them), it's at least equally arrogant of you to expect them to maintain two separate UIs just because some users happen to like the old one.
There is more than one way people could get the old behavior back. Maybe a plugin. Maybe a fork. But guess what - that's the beauty of the open source world. If you don't like the direction a project is taking, you have other options - nobody forces Firefox 2 users to use Firefox 3 (ceasing security updates is not "forcing people to upgrade", no matter which way you paint it). Nobody forces you to stay with Firefox at all.
If you don't like Firefox 3's awesomebar, there's nothing wrong with that. Switch to Opera, or Chrome, or Safari, or (shudder) IE, or any of the other dozen web browsers out there. It's not like there's a lack of choices when it comes to browsers.
I'll be honest - I didn't notice any significant UI changes between FF2 and FF3. I can't think of any behavior of the old toolbar which the new toolbar doesn't do. For my usage patterns, at least, the new toolbar works exactly like the old toolbar, but more... awesome. Maybe I'm atypical, but isn't it possible that the Firefox 3 devs think I'm typical? Isn't it possible that the Firefox 3 devs are catering to people with my usage patterns? Maybe they have some usage pattern data that they're basing their decisions on. I highly doubt it's just arbitrary.
... except the two dozen "surrender" jokes above your parent post suggest otherwise.
That is, unfortunately, not a strong argument for Free Software as governments (and other large organizations) often can and do purchase access to proprietary source code.
The key word there is "purchase" - with open source software the source code is (by definition) free. If $ORGANIZATION mentions "we can purchase access to Office 2003's source code", the simple response is "why purchase something you can get for free?" (Obviously that won't always work, but it's a counter-argument, at least.)
You can't expect them to maintain old versions forever. Besides, you're always free to backport FF3's applicable security fixes to FF2 on your own, if you really want to keep using FF2 that much.
(I don't usually like "do it yourself" as a response to "it's missing a bugfix/feature/whatever", but in the case of no-longer-supported open source software I think it's acceptable.)
You deny it, but of course you have no more evidence for your position than OSC has for his.
All of what you quoted is unsubstantiated, and half of it consists of weasel words. Any idiot can write shit like that.
... and your post is no different. Any idiot, indeed.